The LEGENDARY 1808 Beethoven Concert: How FAST did the composer actually play?

[@TheVoitel]

You’re missing some things in your calculations. First of all, number of bars divided by metronome mark is *not* a reasonable way of measuring the time, considering Beethoven’s approach to metronome marks and things like fermatas, ritardandos and of course cadenzas. This should not make a huge difference, but it is still only an approximation. What’s much more important: You’re calculating only the time of the piece itself, as it would be on a CD. But in the concert you’d not only get longer pauses between pieces, you also have to remember that with the old instruments and gut strings you’d have to regularely tune the instruments. (If you have ever been to a recital of baroque music you know what I mean, that can take quite a lot of time). The performers have to move, the orchestra has to enter and exit the stage, the singers have to enter and exit, you get applause, of course you enter the concert *before* it actually begins. Then, maybe the audience does not immediately leave after the performance ends, maybe they talk and discuss a bit. So basically the time you give is not an approximation, but a strict lower bound for the duration. These things can very easily add 30 minutes or more to the duration. Take alone applause. If the audience applauses for only 1 minute after each piece, that is 8 minutes more. And 1 minute of applause is not a lot, so this is surely not drastically overestimated. You might get a longer applause at the end, extra applause for soloists, so the applause itself might just add 15-30 minutes to the duration. Even if not, you’d probably need 1-2 minutes in between anyway for tuning, and sometimes even more for movement. Does this amount to 70 minutes? Counting everything, it could very well be. At least, the SBT value is thus much closer to 4 hours than the WBT value, which would probably approach 5-6 hours, depending on if you take repeats or if you didn’t. (That by the way is another strong argument for SBT. Repeats are traditionally omitted because due to the slow tempo they add too much to the length. But with the tempo in SBT, the repeats suddenly feel much better. People argue that the repeats are not meant to be taken, and were just written for reasons of form (which wasn’t even clearly defined in those days), but it does not really make sense. Why should a composer value form so much that he write a repeat he does not want to be played? I can understand that argument in particular cases like variations, where taking every single repeat might be too much, but on a symphony I think the repeats are supposed to be taken.)

[@TheVoitel]

And of course one point I forgot to write down: In a concert you do not always take the same tempo. In the times of Beethoven it would very likely be so that everyone took the tempo to their taste, and even one musician might not always take the same tempo. Considering that Beethoven provided the markings only years after this performance we cannot even be certain if Beethoven had the same idea of the tempo here and there. Of course we cannot calculate with that, and we might expect the tempo to be somewhat in the margin of what Beethoven intended. The point is just, what you have calculated is basically: In SBT the concert cannot be done in less than 2'30, and in WBT it cannot be done in less than 4'51. (And as I said, it must have taken significantly longer). Considering that we have an approximation of the duration of 4 hours, the WBT value *cannot* work, while the SBT one *can.*

[@colinmurphy2214]

Good points!

[@TheVoitel]

@@gensoustudio6270 Resting or playing? Anyway, the problem with gut string is not really when you have it your room exposed to temperature changes. The problem is that gut strings heavily influenced by humidity. If you have a concert with a considerable audience the air will usually not only get warmer but also more humid. The problem gets even bigger as strings tend to go down in tune, but wind instruments go up when temperature rises. I agree with you that probably musicians at that time were very accustomed to retuning their instruments, it still would take time. The point is that Wim expects a concert to have the same duration as a CD would have, with the movements and pieces cued together without any gaps.

[@HowardTse]

@@TheVoitel that's what I'm thinking too! Nice idea!

[@ComposedBySam]

So the orchestra didn’t take any time to set up or tune? There wasn’t any applause breaks between works? There wasn’t a roaring applause at the end of the concert? The piano need not have to be brought to the stage for piano concerto? No time was spent in rearranging the orchestra for works with differing instrumentation? Also do you think the orchestra would be capable of playing all the given works in Beethoven’s indicated fast tempos given that they only had the day before for rehearsal? Think about it Wim… Think! Seeing your passion regarding this topic makes me really hope that you were right but your reasoning is plagued with confirmation biases.

[@poetryoftone]

Reichardt's discussion of the Fifth Symphony is misrepresented in this video: he not only refers to the symphony as being "too long" (zu lange), but he also reports on the cello part being "busy" and 34 pages in length alone ("die Violoncellpartie allein, die sehr beschäftigt war, vier und dreißig Bogen betrüge)! Undoubtedly the entire symphony was performed. There's no question. The parts for the Fifth's 1808 performance are now housed in the Lobkowitz Library and consist fully of 318 folios (link below). A cello part of 34 folios makes perfect sense in light of this. musickatalog.lobkowicz.cz/vademecum/permalink?xid=609A3C100CFF11EABBD4005056C00008

[@Renshen1957]

"There we sat, in the most bitter cold, from half past six until half past ten, and confirmed for ourselves the maxim that one may easily have too much of a good thing, still more of a powerful one," the composer Johann Friedrich Reichardt, who was visiting Vienna. which he later wrote in his Personal Letters Written on a Trip to Vienna, 1810, so there was a bit of a lapse between the concert and his recollection of it much later. A full score does not mean one plays the full score. As to "zu lange," any piece of music you do not aesthetically find pleasing and enjoy is too long. Upon a performance of the Beethoven 5th, critics of the day complained the first movement was too short. Johnathan Del Mar in referenced the III movement of the 5th Symphony "as originally composed" in reference to the repeats as being played ABABA, could as easily be played as ABA do to the constraints of time and a freezing theater with all do respects to Del Mar attempt to prove a point and citing Haydn and Mozart examples of Five Part works as antecedents to the practice. GroB transates as Grand or Great as well as large or big, as in Frederick der Grosse aka Frederick the Great or Grossvater as Grandfather which have nothing to do with volume or stature of the individual. The latter translation would raise the question as at that time the 5th Symphony had not attained any stature from popularity. However, I find it this being called the "Large" Symphony a bit confusing as the Eroica is longer, while the First, Second, and Fourth depending on the condutor, about the same lenght (depending on the conductor) although Bernard Haitink, clocks in at 25 minutes, but then he recorded with the LSO, something hereditary for the English playing and listening to Beethoven at a fast clip. Possibly the GroBe Symphony was Beethoven's title for a Great Sympony. Beethoven published a Grande Sonata pour le Clavecin ou Piano Forte in 1797. Would not that translate as Gross(e) Sonata fur Clavecin oder Pianoforte?

[@poetryoftone]

@@Renshen1957 Und ich finde hier alles zu lang und nichts Großes.

[@Renshen1957]

@@poetryoftone Mein Fehler, ich entschuldige mich für den Fehler

[@poetryoftone]

@@Renshen1957 Keine Sorge!

[@Renshen1957]

@@poetryoftone Viele Dank. Das letzte Mal, als ich meine zweite Sprache benutzte, war ich als medizinischer Forscher und Begleiter mit einer sehr seltenen Knochenmarkerkrankung. Das war 2004. Ich spreche jetzt häufiger auf Mandarin. Ich bin also mehr als ein bisschen außer Übung.

[@MegaMech]

It's a great point that people didn't necessarily play entire works. In the Baroque era, they would construct a suite from lots of composers they wouldn't do all seven or nine movements from the same composer.

[@andre.vaz.pereira]

Great video! You can also mention that the orchestral intruduction of the 4th piano concerto was played twice as the violinist Luis Spohr mentions: "Beethoven was playing a new Pianoforte-Concerto of his, but forgot at the first tutti that he was a solo player, and springing up, began to direct in his usual way. At the first sforzando he threw out his arms so wide asunder that he knocked both the lights off the piano upon the ground. The audience laughed, and Beethoven was so incensed at this disturbance, that he made the orchestra cease playing, and begin anew. Seyfried, fearing that a repetition of the accident would occur at the same passage, bade two boys of the chorus place themselves on either side of Beethoven, and hold the lights in their hands. One of the boys innocently approached nearer, and was reading also the notes of the piano-part. When therefore the fatal sforzando came, he received from Beethoven’s outthrown right hand so smart a blow on the mouth, that the poor boy let fall the light from terror. The other boy, more cautious, had followed with anxious eyes every motion of Beethoven, and by stooping suddenly at the eventful moment he avoided the slap on the mouth. If the public were unable to restrain their laughter before, they could now much less, and broke out into a regular bacchanalian roar. Beethoven got into such a rage that at the first chords of the solo, half a dozen strings broke. Every endeavor of the real lovers of music to restore calm and attention were for the moment fruitless. The first Allegro of the Concerto was therefore lost to the public". Beethoven´s performance and deafness were also mentioned: J.F. Reichardt wrote, “He truly sang on his instrument with a profound feeling of melancholy that pervaded me, too.” The composer and violinist Ludwig Spohr, however, commented, “It was by no means an enjoyment [to hear him], for, in the first place, the piano was [woefully] out of tune, which, however, troubled Beethoven little for he could hear nothing of it; and, secondly, of the former so-much-admired excellence of the virtuoso scarcely anything was left, in consequence of his total deafness.... I felt moved with the deepest sorrow at so hard a destiny.” Greetings and good job!

[@andre.vaz.pereira]

@Chlorinda Thank you. Yes it was just another cotation about Beethoven's playing that i added from the same part of the biography of Beethoven and it can be from that other concert. Not really sure of that but i think you are wright.

[@clavessin12]

Did you include all the stage movements and audience reaction in your 20 minutes extra time? Unless you assume that the piano was in the middle of the stage all the time (even during the symphonies and arias), that the choir stayed on stage for the whole concert, that the audience was very calm and restrained (no clapping including between movements or during, no bowing) and that the musicians moved extremely fast between the pieces, your 20 minutes strike me as short. Given your timings, SBT has clearly a lot of explaining to do, but it seems to me WBT is not completely out of the woods either. Isn't it possible that there was something in the middle that we have not understood yet?

[@petertyrrell3391]

Up to a certain point the keyboard was part of the orchestra. When did this stop?

[@mikolajkrakowiak4956]

It's because Beethoven wasn't actually WBT or SBT he was Quadruple beat. Why are people so uninformed these days, geez.

[@luigiconsol7359]

God kkjkk

[@Renshen1957]

@@petertyrrell3391 If Beethoven was to improvise, it would be on stage, likewise the conductor at the keyboard was still a practice.

[@Renshen1957]

@@mikolajkrakowiak4956 LOL

[@mikolajkrakowiak4956]

I did some calculations of my own based on average time's of SBT performances on KZbin.(some are rounded to the nearest 5 or 0) Symphony n. 6 - 45min Ah! Perfido - 15min Gloria (C major Mass) - 10min Piano Concerto N. 4 - 35min Symphony N. 5 - 35min Sanctus (C major Mass) - 10min Improvisation (Going of Wim's number) - 10min Choral Fantasia - 20min Now all of these added up gives us 180min or 3 hours (not 2 and a half). So it now becomes closer to the intended time (4 hours) But then in WBT this number goes to 6 hours. Now this is the best case scenario for WBT of course because we don't and may never know how long the intermission (if there was one) or the improvisation were. So we see with my calculations (which I am not at all stating are 100% correct) we are nearer to the 4 hour mark with single (1 hour away) rather than WBT (2 hours away).Take from it what you will. (I am by no means hating on your video just stating that some of your calculations were a little too rounded down) One more thing the fifth and the sixth symphonies were both premiered that day, and since competitions for the theater during Advent and Lent were fierce I doubt that he wouldn't premier his entire symphony that day, plus symphony finales would at the time be played at the end of a concert and not at the beginning of the second part.

[@teodorlontos3294]

As Jeremy correctly pointed out, very few performances on youtube are in SB. Most often they are a bit slower than SB

[@luigiconsol7359]

@@JérémyPresle the duration presented here corresponds very well with single beat, as well as the pastoral which also corresponds with historical timings The Pastoral Symphony (no.6): - “the andante alone is upwards of a quarter of an hour” (1823) 97 - “lasts nearly three quarters of an hour” (1824) 98 - “spun out to upwards of three-quarters of an hour” (1826) 99 - "forty minutes"; “A slow movement a quarter of an hour long” (1828) 100

[@luigiconsol7359]

@@JérémyPresle I simply played the themes at the time indicated in single beat and compared it with the performances currently played, and it fits very well, sometimes a little slow and sometimes a little faster, but always close to the indicated I know that you probably don't care what I present to you, prefer to believe in Wim Winter who doesn't even show the whole research, as in the Maelzel's instructions of the metronome (it is written Literally '' but not two beats from one side to the other ''), Liszt plays like a CHARLATAN (in the same book Liszt said that was wrong and he stopped), what kind of theory hides evidences

[@Diego-vs6uv]

@@JérémyPresle Wait !!!!, Wim hides the true and Luigi who is the dishonest The Very fast MM: The musicologist Gripenkerl thought Czerny's tempi for Bach was far too fast, and they were contemporary. Wim has brought the first inversion as a proof for the double beat theory, yet, Gripenkerl thought Czerny played it too fast. Is it reasonable that they it was too fast, if it was double beat? Beethoven also complained about Czerny's shallow virtuosity. Kullak and von Bülow both pointed out that Czerny couldn't find the correct character with his extremes tempi. All of these people knew Czerny, and knew how he played. They wouldn't complain that it was too fast, and that it sounded like a music box, if he was a double beat composer. What seems more logical to you? That these comments are true, and that Czerny simply had a crazy idea about speed, or that a happening that should have revolutionized the music world happened without any major publication or book noticed it? also Hammerklavier sonata: Czerny claimed that Beethoven didn't consider the piano anymore, but only what he had in mind. Liszt played it in "less that an hour", which Berlioz seemed to have approved ... which is a lot less than Alberto Sanna's 86 minute long performance.

[@Diego-vs6uv]

@@JérémyPresle Wim did what he did, he was very irresponsible, and he didn’t do it just once, but in any case I’ve already explained the MM extremely fast, and just because some accents and fingering are difficult to perform doesn’t mean you should play more slow but that you should play better, the metric Second (m.kzbin.info/www/bejne/mnOom6ppapJ_qZo) with the explanation given in this video by Simon at the 5th Symphony by Beethoven, Liszt did not agree to play faster than it should and we have historical times of Franz Liszt playing and guess ... the same duration as Today, the speed change from Bach to Mozart is not uncommon, for example my Allegro must be very different from yours, Mälzel writes that each number on the metronome equals one "tick", and Marx calls it a vibration. There is also yet another description of Mälzel where he refers to time, that one tick equals one second, which again makes it clear that he's talking about single beat. The problem is of course that Mälzel knew Beethoven, and worked with Beethoven. If Beethoven would use the metronome differently, we would surely have many angry letters about how Mälzel was wrong. If Beethoven wasn't, Czerny wouldn't be. If Czerny wasn't, Liszt also wasn't ... So while my delivery is a bit crap, the evidence isn't. Whole beat is a made up theory that isn't holding up.

[@stefanstern-ip8tk]

Thank god your stuff only flies on KZbin (among other conspiracy theories)

[@marcelolima887]

Great job, Wim. Thank you!!!

[@NN-rn1oz]

It seems most likely that they played everything at tempi between SBT and WBMP. Probably slower than nowadays performances because they were not familiar with the pieces, but not at WBMP either.

[@charlesmartel7502]

Well reasoned. How could anyone come up with 7 hours based on WBM? On the other hand, you have made it clear that using SBM, the 1808 concert, even with a break, would've fallen more than an hour short of the reported 4 hours. Thanks for what you do.

[@classicgameplay10]

Because people think the performances they see in youtube are "single beat". So they double them and think they get the time for whole beat. Its a common misunderstanding. You have to count measures on the score to get each result, and it will be different from the performance. EVEN IF(and this is VERY VERY important) the total tempo is the same, that does not fully indicate this or that practice, because musicians tend to slow down or accelerate in certain points. For example, if you look here in the magic flute present here in youtuve, sometimes the conductor rushes some movements, and ultra slow others. Also, some players accelerate or slow a performance in certain points due to taste or technical reasons. Also some play slow movemnts too fast, like adagios played faster than single beat, and also slow fast movements.

[@roberacevedo8232]

@@classicgameplay10 that's exactly what happens.

[@charlesmartel7502]

@@classicgameplay10 Ahh! I see. Man, that is thoughtless.

[@Renshen1957]

@@classicgameplay10 Frankly no one plays faster pieces in single beat, rather somewhere in between.

[@sirsamfay99]

I attended the Royal Festival Hall 1808 reconstructed concert with the Philharmonia Orchestra conducted by Esa - Pekka Salonen just before lock down on Sunday the 15th March 2020. It was 4 hours 15 minutes with 1 interval this also included narration between the pieces reciting contemporary reviews of the concert. Even with the breakdowns in the original 1808 performance I cannot possibly see how this concert could last over 7 hours !.

[@lewisjones2666]

Well, the duration in hours might depend on the length of the minutes of which they were constituted. It has been posited that they might have been 'metrical' minutes.

[@Anyideas14]

Lewis Jones yeah, it seems impossible that wims theory can be true due to the duration of this concert. But I’m sure he’ll come up with some convoluted explanation to show how it was.

[@katrinabryce]

@@lewisjones2666 The metre was first proposed as the length of a pendulum that swings once per second (single beat), or once every two seconds (whole beat) (0.5Hz) in 1660. You can construct such a pendulum today. Its exact speed will depend on where you operate it, but it is within about 1% or so of a second in single beat. The earth's rotation has slowed down very slightly since then, so a year will be about 2 seconds longer now than in 1808. But all of this is well within the manufacturing tolerances of a metronome. So, apart from those very minor variances, we do know that a second is the same now as it was 200+ years ago.

[@lewisjones2666]

@@katrinabryce Thank you. With this I agree completely, of course. My allusion above was to a phenomenon proposed by Lorenz Gadient in his monograph TAKT UND PENDELSCHLAG', a work to which Wim Winters has referred extensively. If I understand correctly, the metrical second and minute exist in the realm of hypothetical speculation; in case of doubt, it was not my intention seriously to propose that they might have obtained in Vienna in 1808...

[@MatEnAlks]

And I cannot possibly see how would that be impossible. You know, nowadays concerts, dj sets, jam sessions, they're everyday thing. If you watch streams and new videos uploaded everyday you can be on 100 gigs in less than an hour, we're living in luxury, a true excess of any media we could ever want. In those days an event like that would be something huge, so if you were going there, you must be really interested in it, dedicated, you wouldn't go there if you had something else to do. I might be wrong, but operas, dramas, concerts, anything artistic event would be treated rather as a celebration of art, a big cultural thing that only happens once in a long, long while and that would be something that stayed in your memory for years and years, unlike nowadays, when we're so overstimulated that an average person addicted to the dopamine rush that internet gives them, would probably not be able to even listen to the first part of The Right of Spring without getting lost in thoughts or doing something to distract themselves instead of paying full attention to the music. Not everyone listens to prog rock tracks that have more than 8, 10, 15, 20 minutes nowadays either, and usually people are hardwired to listen to songs that are max. 5 minutes long, while going above 3.40-4 min is already a risk for a popular music producer. Listenning to music, playing music, composing, watching films, writing scripts, directing, reading books, analysing them, writing, those are all skills that you develop and that's what seperates a consumer and a conscious listener, viewer, reader. You can consume art, or you can embrace it with all your senses. You can unhinge your jaw and let spit flow down your chin with a stupid smile while you munch crisps or drink beer or you can lose yourself in a meditative state where every single frequency you perceive from an instrument fills you with joy and delicately tickles some parts of your brain that activate certain memories, emotional states, making this one performance unusual and unforgetable, something you will tell stories about to your friends or maybe even children. But you need to be focused, you need to be able to perform that instant meditation that'll make your brain shut up for a while. And as you know, nowadays people are overly stimulated, anxious, they have distractions everywhere, the amount of things we can do in our spare time today is greater by hundreds or even thousands of percent compared to 100 years ago and even more than 200 years ago and so on. Imagine a graph that looks like the right half of a parabola going up, where x axis is years and y axis is number of activities we can perform at any given moment. And don't forget, we have musical festivals, they're a big thing and every year there's more than one musical festival that lasts for days, where people go and have fun until they fall asleep because they can't physically keep up anymore, celebrating until the last second they are able to move and keep their eyes open. They go to different scenes, for different genres, but generally they are listenning to music non-stop from dusk till dawn and the other way as well. And even on smaller scale, when there is a gig in the club, there's more than one band that plays, isn't it? And while some people walk out to grab a beer, smoke a cigarette outside or wait somewhere else and talk to their friends, there are still people who are there all the time and actually listen to everything that's being played, for many hours straight. And it's even more insane today, when sound systems are so loud they can make your ears ring for more than one day after the concert, while then the sound was more dynamic, there was more silence, so you actually had time to rest your ears and not get hearing fatigue, that makes you practically deaf, not because of hearing loss but because of you not even wanting to listen anymore. And the last example. You fancy some Korean cinematography? Or Japanese, or Chinese, for that matter? It's not unusual there that movies are longer than 3 hours. 3 hours is a lot in Western movie industry, this is a long film. Most films are somewhere in the range of 80 to 120 minutes. But in Korea? Hell naw, they go for 4, 5 even 6 hour long movies, and people do actually watch them! There's no pressure to make shorter movies to appeal to masses, so auteurs are boundless and can do whatever they want, because their fandom will find them, not the other way around. And movie marathon in cinemas? Ain't that a thing? LoTR trilogy, director's cut for the entire night? Do people do that? Of course they do! Because they want it, so when they see a possibility, they use the possibility. So in conclusion, if somebody in the 19th, 18th century went to a 7 hours long concert, it was because they wanted to do it, not because that's what you were supposed to do because of a certain trend or peer pressure. It's entirely possible for reasons listed above, time-consuming events are not unusual nor unpopular. It's not like there isn't an audience for this. If people can drop 10 tabs of acid and see SunnO))) or Sleep doing 2+ hour concerts in one day and then go back home and put on some vinyls and do the same thing again, then would then a concert like this be considered ridiculous? After all, art is a celebration, and you don't celebrate something you don't enjoy, and if you enjoy something, love it, you can do all the time and every day.

[@untl01]

As discussed in the chat: we can apply the same 'hammering' techniques to fit the SBT performance to 4 hours. You compute the SBT length to be 150.5 minutes. Stretch that by 15%, as you indicate it would still fall within the same performance practice. You get 173 minutes. Then about 30 minutes recess between part 1 and 2, and 30 minutes socializing after and/or before the concert, commenting it with your friends perhaps. Then you get 3.9 hours. I am not advocating either single beat or double beat, I'm only saying that this 1808 concert will not make the argument in any direction. Cheers

[@AuthenticSound]

no you can't 😎

[@AuthenticSound]

Reichardt doesn't even mention a break at all, and you create a 30 min break based on what? facts are facts...

[@AuthenticSound]

the socializing wasn't part of the 4 hours. Again this is you phantasizing, not you honoring facts!

[@untl01]

@@AuthenticSound hm you created a 20 minute break in your model, so I don't see a big difference. Is it explicitly mentioned in the document that no socializing took place before nor after the concert? If not it's again left as room for speculation. Which strengthens my point that you cannot use this concert's duration to support either SBT or WBMP.

[@katrinabryce]

@@AuthenticSound What were the practices regarding applause / announcements / introducing the work back then, in Vienna? In my lifetime, attending lots of different types of concert, I've seen it vary from - go straight from one work to the next with no gap (Scottish bagpipe music), to spending more time talking about the work than actually performing it (some popular music concerts).

[@ralphkeating7564]

Wow!!!! You found a wealth of information!!! Nice surprises!!!!

[@lefeman8141]

According to the entries by the conductor Sir George Smart, the first British performance of Beethoven’s 9th Symphony lasted '1h 04 m.' - London, Argyle Rooms, March 21, 1825 Royal Philharmonic Society

[@AuthenticSound]

And...??? This symphony wasn't even conceived at the time of this concert, so what's your point? All movements were played or you just believe they were. The LSO only in the 1880s got to the habit of playing entire symphonies....(not me saying this). It's getting tiresome... each time single beat has been proven to be just a theory, there is another deflection: o but look over there, no explanation for that one , right? Gotcha! Smart will come, no worries, in fact I already mentioned him. Listen it depends of what you want, if people believe all metronome marks are simply ok, there is absolutely no problem to solve, and if that is fine with you, just turn the page and move on. But well, I do respect the composer's intentions a little bit too much to turn the page on their tempo choice.

[@theironbuilder7973]

@@AuthenticSound Do you have any research on whether or not the LSO skipped over movements in their premiere?

[@composerjalen]

@@AuthenticSound the ninth symphony was premiered in 1824, so it was well past its conception by the time of the UK premiere, why would you even try to lie about something so easily disprovable? And the LSO didn't even exist until 1904, so where are you getting your information?

[@edwardp.gannon9320]

@@theironbuilder7973 At least one review of the performance mentioned that it had four movements, and that it included repetitions. The work was commissioned by the RPS, so it seems improbable that any movements were omitted. Another review mentioned it lasted 1 hour 20 mins, which is a slightly longer than the various existing tempo markings would suggest, but to be expected for a new and complex work. There's no reason to dispute the information on the Wikipedia article devoted to the event.

[@mtolympus-worstplayerever7924]

Here are some issues I don't understand... First, how does one reconcile tempi that are in fact reasonable? Do you propose Chopin, op. 10 no. 3 be 16th note = 100? It's perfectly playable at the marked tempo as is commonly understood. Second, how does this apply to 3/4 time? What does dotted half = 92 mean, for example? Third, does this all mean our very understandings of 'allegro,' 'presto,' 'lento,' and other tempo indicators are completely misunderstood? I would appreciate a response to these queries, though I don't expect one.

[@jules78003]

I haven't seen yet a single reply to the 3/4 problem. Maybe Wim has replied at some point, so if someone has seen it please share a link

[@danielfryer9693]

@@jules78003 You won't get a reply. Wim's thesis does not stand up to scrutiny but he will not engage in proper debate. A shame, as these could be interesting discussions ....

[@VRnamek]

this shall be epic. Bringing my popcorn for the chilly long concert and the hotheaded single-beaters

[@VRnamek]

oh, man. single-beaters so completely destroyed that turned into dust (or blurred single beat cadenzas) when I first began hearing classical music, the multi-movement stroke me as odd. But as a teen I was used to LP albums - and that's how I thought of symphonies and concerts, as albums. You could play a single piece out of it, just fine. I really think it's a natural way of thinking about it. Besides, symphony comes from sinfonia, which was used interchangeably with overture for the opening movement of an Opera. so yes, makes perfect sense that 2 whole symphonies along with concerts would be too much. That remarkable first movement of the 5th could suffice just fine...

[@Leandrewz0r]

I think that the point brought in this video makes sense and has a nice historical backup, but it has some stretches that can be made to the other side as well. First of all, there is only 1 documentation of the evening. We must, and I repeat, must, be aware of the innacuracy of 1 single source of information of this fashion, at this time period. Also, you took those 4 hours quite literally, and that that would be the duration of the music and music alone, and that there were no breaks. That alone is quite a bit of a stretch, isn't it? You assumed that the coral fantasia would sound different, and how different it would. That could be as well the same for the other side, right? You assumed exactly how the improvisation went as well. This was a nice point and an informative video, but straight out telling that this is the only possible solution makes me question the whole study and how many sources were ignored to fit this. I'd have to study it myself to say if I agree or not, but the imperative tone of the explanation makes it less credible.

[@Leandrewz0r]

@@JérémyPresle Yeah I have no problem with that, but at the same time that he says that there is speculation, he says that this is undeniable proof that whole beat is the only possible explanation and single beat is completely out of the question, which is kind of odd and contradictory in itself. He doesnt say that whole beat is more likely, he says that is the only possibility, but here and there he throws "of course there are speculations" as a way of not sounding too conceited.

[@johnstaf]

@@Leandrewz0r Indeed.

[@sebastian-benedictflore]

The point of this video was replying to a single beat argument. This one, singular recount of the concert is referred to in order to counter the WBMP argument and as clear, objective proof of single beat metronome practice. What Wim showed is that this one source which singlebeaters purport to be proof of the status quo is only a complete detriment to single beat theory and is totally compatible with WBMP. Wim was not using this as proof of WBMP. There is plenty of other strong evidence for it. It was a response to this source being used as proof of SBMP (incorrectly).

[@sebastian-benedictflore]

I feel like you missed some of the points he made. There were some steps in this video. The first step was taking the raw numbers of the metronome markings and the published editions we used today. He used those to convert them into timings. Right from the start, single beat is completely miles away from the timings given by the source, even in the most charitable cases so that's off the table. It came up at least 70 minutes short. Have you ever heard of a 70 minute interval? The next step is seeing if WBMP could possibly fit into the described timing. As you said, this is a single source. It might not be totally reliable. He could have been 30 minutes off. That would actually make a good case for WBMP which was, at least, 38 minutes over the approximate 4 hours described. If you grant half an hour here or there, WBMP is only 8 minutes over. Let us not be charitable and say that the concert lasted 4 hours. Wim then showed reasons that a WBMP concert might be shorter. By observing various sources, both the recount of the 1808 concert, the programme notes and others, you can see that the performance practice was different. People rarely played all the movements, so on. You watched the video, I don't have to repeat it. "You assumed that the coral fantasia would sound different, and how different it would." He did not. He suggested that it might have. In actual fact, every reason he gave, he gave the other side and said that 'this could be unreliable' or 'this could work both ways' or 'this could be unsatisfactory' so proceded to make a new point or suggestion as to why the concert might have been shorter than the 4'38" of WBMP. "straight out telling that this is the only possible solution makes me question the whole study" When did he do this? He very clearly said that this is not a reliable source numerous times. He said that this concert is not a good example for either side of the argument. I think you misunderstoof him here. There was no "imperative tone" as you described other than the clear proof that this source is in no way compatible with SBMP.

[@Wrecker326]

Dear Wim! I personally describe myself as neutral, when it comes to whole beat vs single beat. I find the topic itself interesting, I have been following the channel for a while. I just simply don't have enough information to form a strong opinion. I think that in some cases, a given metronome reading makes more sense, while in other cases, the other one, and when it comes to performances, the same applies. There are pieces, that I would prefer at the WBMP reading, while that cannot be said for all of them (which is more of a personal opinion, than anything based on facts). I found the video interesting, as it actively responds to a comment / common question in the comment section. With all due respect, it seems to me, that a lot of questions are unanswered, or answered in an unsatisfying way, this is mainly why I think this video is a really huge milestone for the channel, and I think this should be capitalized on. I understand that time is a precious resource, but I think investing time into answering frequently asked questions in the comment section in video form (maybe in form of a Q&A, or if required, a question might even fill out an entire video) would be an effective way to make the conversation about the topic more fluent, and maybe convince more people. I also think, that open discussion, and debates are the only way the topic can ever get more attention, with arguments and counter-arguments "battling" each other, and the above described format would be a good step towards that. Anyway, if you have read the comment, thanks for spending time on it, keep up the good work! No matter the result, the topic itself is interesting. It deserves attention and further research should be done by both sides.

[@pentirah5282]

I think I get some idea of your attitude here. We should not just mimic the interpretation of other performers like a herd of sheep, but each of us should research back to the first creation of the piece and then develop our own unique conception and interpretation of it - including tempo.. The composer's original metronome marks give us the starting point; not the tempo chosen by another performer who plays quickly just because he can. Every one of my teachers impressed upon me that the intention of the composer should come first - not my ego. I am amazed how little thought I gave to that advice. when I was young. Your work, Wim, is most valuable. Please continue with it. Thank you.

[@AlexVideoPlayer]

"The composer's original metronome marks give us the starting point;" - I think the problem with the Whole Beat theory is right there. Metronome marks have ALWAYS been regarded as the least important, and least reliable piece of information. It's not even available in so many cases. Surely there's a reason for this? I doubt it's some sort of conspiracy theory against Whole Beat. The tempo is not chosen by mimicking other performers, it is chosen by the indications in Italian (mostly), i.e. Allegro etc. and I find the musical results satisfying and fully in line with the music. Can't say the same about Whole Beat. Playing as fast as possible is bad musicianship but that's an entirely different issue. Playing as slow as possible (so to speak) in not that much different. I wouldn't reduce music at half-speed (or more) just because of careless acrobatic virtuosos, or worse: base an entire theory around a dubious and musically unimportant piece of information such as metronome markings. All this talk about duration, minutes, seconds, hours is disappointingly unmusical.

[@pentirah5282]

@@AlexVideoPlayer Everything you say is worthy of real consideration. Sometimes I wonder if all the composers were in possession of incorrectly regulated metronomes!! There must be an answer to this enigma.

[@AlexVideoPlayer]

@@pentirah5282 I'm afraid there isn't, simply because we cannot realistically know EXACTLY how these devices were used 200 years ago. It's not much unlike trying to figure out EXACTLY what was going on 500, or 1000 years ago. We only have one thing: the actual music. I'd concentrate on that. And I have to say, I'm surprised that Wim's undoubted musical & musicological skills are spent (dare I say, wasted) on something than can never be "proved" - not without a time machine. It's no surprise this is starting to take a football/religion-like turn amongst "fans" of the "theories". On a much smaller scale, thankfully.

[@pentirah5282]

@@AlexVideoPlayer First of all V.P. it was supposed to be a light hearted quip! - but it clearly went right over your head as you take every subject most seriously. Secondly. you may not approve of his work, but I am most interested in following his channel, and I shall continue to do so. You are entitled to your opinioni, of course - but that is all it is - an opinion. Other people are entitled to be 'fans' of Wim as they please. We do not require your approval. My respects to you.

[@AlexVideoPlayer]

@@pentirah5282 I'm afraid you misunderstood. I wasn't commenting your comment, but Wim's theories which are certainly not a light-hearted quip. Not taking ALL matters seriously. There's only ONE matter here. Finally, "approval request" was never asked for so I'm hardly the one taking things too seriously.

[@sorim1967]

How do you explain that ALL criticism on the 3rd symphony in the 1810s refer to almost an hour length? And you are telling us that the 5th was butchered on its premiere to fit your theory? Disgraceful!

[@thomashughes4859]

HAHA! It's music ; relaaaaaax... 🤪😜

[@luigiconsol7359]

hahahah he simply destroyed the concert to give hope to Doublebeat's pseudo theory conspiracy

[@thomashughes4859]

@@luigiconsol7359 I will agree with you when you prove this formula wrong : T=2(Pi) (L/g) ^0.5. After this, you and me are in lockstep, brother! HBT-er all the way! 💯

[@luigiconsol7359]

many have already proved that Wim is wrong, he even said that the theory is weak when the pianopath questioned him for not showing the entire research, we have evidence from composers themselves and people close to them who confirm that we still use the metronome in the right way, in singlebeat, as described by Maelzel in his instructions, the same that Wim used to make a video and he didn't even show that part, because against facts there are no arguments

[@thomashughes4859]

@@luigiconsol7359 The time in seconds is equal to two times Pi times the square root of the quantity of the length in meters divided by the acceleration due to gravity, viz., nine point eight metres per second squared. Go! ⏳

[@philipphanslovsky5101]

I don't understand how the 30 minute concert limit would rule out the SBT 6th symphony when it is longer than 30 minutes. Or did I misunderstand you there?

[@stefanstern-ip8tk]

Haha. You are confronted with a serious issue to your theory and your response is full on bullshit. It’s fascinating

[@andreajoybelle]

Thanks Wim, for delving into history and shining a light into those dark corners. There is so much of interest in what you have uncovered. I really enjoyed the journey and all the information you presented. It’s so fascinating to glimpse a world of which most of us (even trained musicians) have little knowledge. I really appreciate what you do. Reading the comments is also of such interest- your research has certainly made some people squirm! I think it is very healthy to engage people of different backgrounds and opinions - it can only lead to more discovery and more truth.

[@wolkowy1]

"Magic" (towards the end of this upload) which is based on logical arguments - I love it! - especially because I was always bad at mathematics but, strangely enough, was good in drawing conclusions from given assumptions. Thanks a lot Wim for this smashing upload. You contributes not only for the music-world but also for forcing your viewers and listeners to really view and listen! Your attitude joins the philosophical approach of your countryman the author George Simenon, embodied in the fictional figure of the French police detective Commissaire Maigret: he observes and listens. In a way - your work is like a detective work. Bravo!

[@marcodecrescenzo2443]

From this video we can get only a certain conclusion: only the SBT tempos are compatibile with the 4-hours duration reported by Reichardt. In fact, if the 4-hour is the sum of music + pauses between different pieces + breaks (at least the one in the middle of the concert, because remember that the program talks about First Part and Second Part) music must have lasted less than 4 hours. So 2'30 is a perfectly compatible duration for music. Consider also that you don't explain why you say "10 minutes" for Improvisation: how did you get this number? So maybe music could have been even longer. On the contrary, 4 hours and 15 minutes, as you say for WBT tempos, is NOT compatible with 4hours...for the simple and evident reason that it is MORE than 4hours, only regarding the music, and then you have to add pauses and break and you are WAY over 4 hours. This is the only certain thing you can get from this video. The other things are just theories that, in your own words, are not proved ("what if...they played only the last movement?" "What if...they played faster..." and so on. In conclusion: the one falling in the water in your very funny video is certainly WBT, not SBT P.s. Please don't delete this comment. Show that you like different opinions and free talking.

[@SiteReader]

So a 4 hour concert with only 2.5 hours of music? I would ask for my money back.

[@marcodecrescenzo2443]

@@SiteReader You can do it, of course, it's possible. But i don't know if they would give you money back, because that's what commonly happens in concerts: music + pause, often very long. But i can tell you what is impossible: playing a musical programme which lasts 4hours and 30 minutes (without any pauses, just one piece straight after the other)...in 4 hours. A concert can last MORE than music played in it, not LESS!

[@sergeisavitski7339]

@@SiteReader Plenty of concerts nowadays lasting close to 2.25 hours with only 1.5 hours of music. Perfectly normal and expected by the audience. No one asks for money back. Besides, the 1808 concert was not 2.5 hours as Wims claims. There was a restart of one of the pieces, so the runtime of music itself was more or less 3 hours. With the number of pieces performed it is completely conceivable to have a 4-hour-long concert at SBMP.

[@SiteReader]

@@sergeisavitski7339 Indeed, we can never know for certain . . . .

[@SiteReader]

@@sergeisavitski7339 I listened to the June 28 recital of some of your talented young students. My favorites were Anna Parker's performance of the “First Sorrow” from Schumann's 'Album for the Young,' and Avery Mc Williams' “Pathetique.” I judge principally on their ability to convey the emotional content of the pieces. . . . I wish you the best of luck in your teaching efforts. But I do also wish you would try out for yourself the whole beat metronome practice.

[@carlpetersson3657]

There are so many what ifs. In those times there were applause between each movement. Let us say there was approx 4 minutes between each movement. There will be closer to 20 min of applause. Let us say Beethoven improvised approx 6 minutes at the choral fantasy. Let us say - because it surely did - take time to get the choir up on stage, soloist, introduction speech to the concert. Plus a small intermission of 15 minutes. Applause might have been longer as it was cold. We are heading towards 40 minutes of no music. And the concert probably didn’t start on time either. I am confident that pieces were played a bit slower back then than today. But the intention of the composer might have been faster. It was performed slower due to technical limitations of musicians. Beethoven himself addressed his later string quartets to the future. Let us say the fast metronome marks were the dream and goal of each piece but was impossible back then. They played with the limitations they had. I am against playing fast for the sake of it, with no time to breathe you are killing music, but to say everything should be half tempo is probably just as much against the composers intention like many tempos of today. No one put a metronome on stage to follow it.

[@harrisnaturist]

Thanks, Wim, for burying, hopefully forever, the notion that composers' works in the 19th c. were performed in full and in the reverential, museum-like atmosphere in which we hear them today; it's enough to read the memoirs of Berlioz to get an idea of how empresarios often butchered composers' works to please the public. This notion is closely bound to the "classical composer as god" view that we have of Mozart, Haydn, Beethoven and others today. It's enough to read some contemporary accounts and criticisms of these composers and their works to see that they were not only not viewed as gods during their active years, but quite to the contrary were often excoriated as allies of the devil or even as the devil incarnate.

[@sergioxavier7805]

Considering that Mozart was buried in a common grave, and his wife led a life of poverty, they cretainly didn't care about them, and didnt think of them as gods.

[@Renshen1957]

@@sergioxavier7805 Mozart was burial is quite well documented. It wasn't in a potter's field. Large graveside gatherings and grand funerals were discouraged in Vienna during this period, hence Mozart's simple burial, but a church service was certainly held in his honor. He was buried as a man of his social standing would have been at the time. Records show that he was sealed in a wooden coffin (his illness created quite a stench before his death) and buried in a plot along with 4-5 other people; a wooden marker was used to identify the grave. Although this is the kind of burial modern readers may associate with poverty, it was actually the standard practice for middle-income families of the time. The burial of groups of people in one grave was organized and dignified, differing greatly from the images of large open pits now synonymous with the term "mass grave." At this point, Mozart had a grave; however, at some stage during the next 5-15 years, "his" plot was dug up to make room for more burials. The bones were re-interred, possibly having been crushed to reduce their size (similar to a charnel house); consequently, the position of Mozart's grave was lost. Again, modern readers may associate this activity with the treatment of pauper's graves Mozart may not have died rich, but friends and admirers came to his widow's aid, helping her pay debts and funeral costs, include van Swieten. One of Mozart's admirers, a Danish diplomat and writer married the widow in 1809 together they wrote a biography, and she was then widowed again.

[@ChipsAplentyBand]

Wim, I recently posted a comment to another of your videos suggesting this very 'historic concert duration to extrapolate which version of tempi was probably used' idea. My idea was obviously not original, but only conceived of separately, and you had already carried out this example of it very thoroughly and wonderfully. Sorry for my needless duplication of existing effort taking up any of your time! --Don

[@MaurizioMGavioli]

Very well argumented. But, if you are going to repeat this talk in other occasions, please accent "Ah pèrfido" (on the 'e'), not "Ah perfìdo" (on the 'i')! ;)

[@kefka34]

Maybe the improvisation Beethoven played in this concert 1808 was similar to the Fantasie op.77 he published 1809.Maybe people asked him if he could write down what he had played in that concert.

[@Fryderyk_Franciszek]

Well, according to the scholars, the 1808 concert (Dec 22, 1808), lasted almost five hours. The theatre was freezing but the program was utterly worth it: premieres of Fifth and Sixth Symphonies, the Fourth Piano Concerto, and the Choral Fantasy (and the composer was featured as a soloist at the piano). Can you even imagine it? The cold weather inside the Theater an der Wien in Vienna was close to +/- 6 Celsius Degrees so, unfortunately, lots of attendants left the session prior to its end.

[@MegaMech]

If this is the concert I studied for a music paper, that concert was ridiculous. So much music was played I can't believe it.

[@Fryderyk_Franciszek]

@@MegaMech I'm afraid you should ask Beethoven because it was his idea. It was his way to show to the world he was unique (and he was, indeed). He will continue playing piano publicly six years more, btw.

[@MegaMech]

@@Fryderyk_Franciszek I couldn't imagine sitting through a concert that long.

[@anthonymccarthy4164]

@@MegaMech I'd need an intermission. Especially considering what getting old does to your bladder.

[@sirsamfay99]

You forgot to mention excerpts from the Mass in C and Beethoven's extemporising slot too.

[@JairCrawford]

A very interesting analysis. However, I feel there is simply too much room for speculation to use this as a definitive argument for either WB or SB. We can hypothesize to the moon and back on whether pieces were incomplete, repeats were skipped, parts were cut, etc. to reach a conclusion for WB to squeeze into the time slot. Alternatively we can speculate to the moon and back on how much rubato Beethoven may or may not have used, assembly time, breaks, tuning, applause, etc. to make the SB time fit the described time given. At the end of the day, we cannot look at just one instance, this 1808 concert, but rather, multiple sources. My hunch (though I am no scholar by any means) is not a question of WB vs SB, but a question of... how seriously did composers take numerical tempo markings back then? I don’t know if we have enough information to definitively answer that question and I suspect, personally, that THAT might actually be a more accurate representation of the discrepancies in tempos. But then again, I could be completely wrong. I’m not a scholar.

[@MegaMech]

I believe this was the premiere of both those symphonies. As such, many musicians had never read that music before. Therefore it likely dragged a lot. It's very possible the music took longer to complete and in those days there could have been a lot of chatting and meandering before actually playing. Public concert was normally a social event and not a sit down and shutup and listen kind of event. Maybe everyone chatted for an hour despite the cold after the concert? Clocks were not accurate in those days either. Although, I would suspect the margin of error would likely be at most ten minutes, not two hours.

[@phpn99]

You construct your arguments by reverse logic : You are so opinionated about your theory that you seek every possible way to shoehorn it into reality.

[@AuthenticSound]

no, I apply the logic of a certain perspective to a given fact. I do that with both options et voilà, there you have it. It is the opposite of being opinionated: I let the facts speak instead of my biased opinion

[@jules78003]

@@AuthenticSoundWim, don't worry, it's perfectly human to find "evidences" that support our believes rather than searching for truth, we all do it. I trust you are happy with your convictions, and I hope you will be happy forever, but trying to deny the bias when declaring that there was not intermission because a critic didn't mention it is A FACT only shows how self denial is even more powerful than the biased search for "truth"

[@michaelpaulsmith4619]

I'm very impressed by the scholarship and the quality of research on this subject. I thought the first videos on the single beat metronome was produced this year when I watched my first. But not so! They go back two years or more. Have you thought, Wim, of writing a book, perhaps with a CD to give people an idea of the original tempi. Or, even better, write a PhD on the subject. Please continue with the same passion and earnestness that you display in all your videos. I am, after initial reservations and skepticism, a convert to the WBM notion. Good luck and warmest wishes from England.

[@teodorlontos3294]

He is writing a book right now together with Lorenz Gadient! Coming soon...

[@hongyuanli6807]

Isn’t the “improvisation” 03:05 now published as Opus 77?

[@jakegearhart]

Unrelated to this specific video, but I was wondering if anyone here knew where I could go to get information on the historical tempi of Bach's work. Specifically his Brandenburg Concertos. Thanks!

[@anthonymccarthy4164]

I'll be interested to hear your analysis of the description in terms of time. I've found your analyses of time to be a real eye-opener. It's also interesting in how many conventional lines of assertion are made without fact checking them in ways like that. It's astonishing how much conventional wisdom is never fact checked but cited, even by academics, without that.

[@willemkossen]

the logic feels very sound. the only thing i feel a bit unsure about is the selection of the sources. what about other sources, are there any? and what do they say? Is this a survey of all available sources, or a rather specific selection of sources that support the theory? Broadening the selection of sources will strengthen the theory. I'ld really be interested to find out if there actually are conflicting sources. if it can be proven those don't exist, the statement about wbmp would be so much stronger than it is allready. extra point here, the thing with scientific study is to try very hard to falsify the theory. the theory grows stronger as falsifying fails time and time again.

[@rastislavbodorik]

You are welcomed to provide them, it will broad understanding for all of us

[@manueljoseblancamolinos8582]

About Tchaikovsky first symphony original version performances (Tchaikovsky research site): The Scherzo was first performed separately in Moscow on 10/22 December 1866, at the fifth Russian Musical Society concert, conducted by Nikolay Rubinstein, but without success, according to Modest Tchaikovsky In Saint Petersburg on 11/23 February 1867, at the ninth Russian Musical Society concert, conducted by Anton Rubinstein, both the Adagio and the Scherzo were performed. The first complete performance of the symphony took place in Moscow on 3/15 February 1868 at the eighth Russian Musical Society concert, conducted by Nikolay Rubinstein, and met with an enthusiastic reception [16]. "My symphony had great success, particularly the Andante and Scherzo" [17]. That seems to have been the only complete performance of the original version of the Symphony, although the Adagio seems to have been played at a concert in the Bolshoi Theatre, Moscow, on 16/28 March 1870, conducted by Eduard Merten.

[@Magnet12]

This guy needs to CALM DOWN .

[@simonagonistes8844]

Wim. 'Worcester' is pronounce 'Wuster' British place names are a bit tricky. Near to where I live there is a town called 'Bicester' which is pronounced 'Bister!' Elgar was born in Worcester so it's quite a famous place in British music history. British orthography is rather weird!

[@gabithemagyar]

Musicians had it rough in those days !!! I can't imagine playing so much largely unrehearsed music, in such a cold concert hall !!!! I hope they were given some bathroom breaks (and perhaps some warm up breaks) due to the cold, at least in the intermission between parts 1 and 2 ! At my age I would never had made it through :-)

[@johnb6723]

People were made of tough stuff in those days.

[@bd4811]

This is similar to what book presentations are about: the author reads out one chapter of the book. Fair enough, i buy the analysis.

[@NN-rn1oz]

To add to my previous point, if we look at today's standard performances of those works (instead of SBT and WBMP performances which are both uncommon), it would be realistic to imagine that such a program could take up to 3 hours to play nowadays. Now if we suppose that the musicians at that 1808 concert took 25-30% longer to play those works because they were unfamiliar with the scores, which is quite conceivable, that brings us to ca. 3.9 hours of music, so not far from what was documented. I think that is what happened. I don't believe they played at SBT nor WBMP tempi.

[@roberacevedo8232]

But it was said that it was played on the highest speed imaginable. So if that's the case and the normal speed of today was the "normal" then it would have suggested that they kind of slowed down. But it says the exact opposite.

[@NN-rn1oz]

@@roberacevedo8232 That comment was made about his performance of one piece, the finale of the 4th concerto. Surely you know that concerto finales are often opportunities for soloists to showcase their virtuosity, no? Does this mean that EVERYTHING that night was played at the highest speed imaginable?? What kind of concert would that be? Besides, if that concerto finale was played "at the highest speed imaginable", then it would surely mean a MUCH faster tempo than WBMP, which is anything but fast.

[@roberacevedo8232]

@@NN-rn1oz I have a question, do you intentionally reason this way or you just don't realize that your reasoning is wrong? Ask yourself this: what's your point of reference when saying that something is played fast, and what would be theirs? When Moscheles wrote about the speed of the new train he said that everything passed at the speed of an arrow. And others believed that it was going so fast that they couldn't breathe. What's your point of reference and what's theirs? To give you a clue, the max speed of the trains they were in was 30 miles per hour. So no, you can't go around claiming that just because it isn't fast for you, it was also not fast for people 200 years ago. And one last thing, the idea that the concerto was for showcasing ones ability came was not always the norm.

[@NN-rn1oz]

@@roberacevedo8232 you're comparing trains with music now? The more you write, the more you show your ignorance. Keep writing. Cheers!

[@roberacevedo8232]

@@NN-rn1oz Now I'm 100% sure that you are doing this on purpose. Music has ALWAYS been attached to science and technology, and the current state of things. If it's true that you do not know how trains and steam engines impacted music, then you have all the right the leave.

[@alexandranicole5659]

I appreciated your video and there seems to be more than a few commenters who disagree with your contention however, I am entirely unsure of your contention. Is your contention that Beethoven’s 5th, indeed the entirety of his catalogue be played in the tempi ‘as marked’ ergo, his 5th at 108bpm, which is what I think you’re saying; or is it that your contention is it should be played slower because of the variables you mentioned? It was a bit confusing, given the craziness that has been applied to the tempi of Beethoven’s music in these days, coupled with your accent as I am American so that it was difficult in parts to follow your thread. My understanding is that none of this should be an issue as Beethoven clearly marked all of his symphonies with the proper intended tempi ! Why all this fuss and complication is my contention. As Beethoven would have said, “for the heavens! - just play the damn music as it is written’, of course !”

[@anthonymccarthy4164]

Every bit as well reasoned out as I expected it would be. I take this as being free to play those pieces in a way that makes them deeper and more musically meaningful than feats of finger athletics.

[@anthonymccarthy4164]

@@alpinoalpini3849 I didn't say that it does though, assuming Beethoven, perhaps the greatest genius at developing motivic variation in the history of Western classical music must have intended the player to play and the listener to hear the differences he clearly intended when he notated those with such precision. I went back and listened to some of the best of the industrial speed players of this literature after listening to those performances in WB here and many of those notated differences are a. not performed as notated, b. not consistently performed as notated, c. not clearly audible to even an experienced musician looking at a good edition of the score. If "slow does not equal "deeper and more meaningful," fast certainly isn't easily compatible with that. Recent youtube speed-reading of it might thrill on a popular level but it is a musical atrocity.

[@rufescens]

I find this video so disrespectful. Scholarship aside (and I don't have a favored side in this interesting debate), is it necessary to belittle the opposing side?

[@felipebatista2458]

Flawless victory. Honestly, I didn't expect it to be THAT good.

[@Clem62]

You didn't include pee time.

[@odconstant]

I'm waiting for your reconstruction of the violin concerto, especially the second part.

[@paintandashes7351]

Thank you Wim, I loved the passion. It's great that you finally dusted off your copy of Excel to address this 😊 Yes, there are a lot of permutations but, on balance, it feels as if you have nailed it. However, I am still curious about the process that led to tempi becoming so much faster in only 50 years or less.

[@victorbense8472]

I'd say the obvious solution is that tge 'improvisation' part of the program is in fact what we now know as the written out improvisation at the start of op80.

[@Renshen1957]

One of the arguments against single beat interpretations I read was a comment on speed limitations of instruments (Flutes before Boehm), and that unlike the small number of musicians retained by Royalty, large orchestras (as they were getting larger) were not as technically proficient (lack of rehearsals, less competency of musicians). Here is the description of the "pick up concert".

[@sofiadahlen1187]

I can only speak about the flutes. But when it comes to music in the first half of the 19th century there's no difference in what can be done between the flutes they used and the Boehm flute. Also profesional orchestral musicians back then also had a lot of training. You see that when you read about the different flautist that had positions in the good orchestras. Most were trained specifically to play since a very young age and since they did not have all the same distractions and a much lighter version of school they could become very proficient at a young age. Amature flutists were of course a whole different beast! :)

[@steve29roses]

Was there not an Aria sung prior to the 6th symphony? As a musician, performing on stage there's always something going on that takes extra time. Regardless, it was a MASSIVE concert, the greatest in Western music history.

[@kevinsilveira885]

Excellent content! Love your in depth explanations and research!! And your whole channel!!

[@rlosangeleskings]

Valentina plays like she's late for her flight...

[@bryanbarajasBB]

Wim is RIGHT! C.P.E. Bach even says what Wim says in the last Five Minutes, that of making the music your own creation, as Wim Says, as if you were the Composer! C.P.E. Bach even says further that you can perform a piece BETTER than what that composer first created by playing it with even MORE MEANING!!!! Hooray for WIM, and for Creativity! Question for Wim: When did Single Beat Made Institutionalized? When did the Words Single Beat first, or as close, to being taught or used as a "language"?

[@dafyliz]

Thank you for sharing your opinions, and honestly after that argument between you and Lisitsa, I still love her as my favorite pianist.

The fact she is wrong on this does not in any way invalidate her greatness as a pianist, not the fact she has sacrificed so much to become as skilled as she is. But I wish she would keep an open mind to what Wim is saying.

[@davidgonzalez-herrera2980]

Krešimir I concur

[@raccoltavideo3355]

Krešimir No one’s opinion is wrong

[@BryanMatuskey]

"What did Beethoven have in mind?" is the only argument here, not preference or freedom of expression.

[@badiansietemil0314]

Maybe Beethoven decided to play it in four hours that day... Maybe he didn't want to pay a fine for running over the rental time of the location. A composer and even a musician can play (=interprete) a piece however he likes, and the chase for speed and "perfect interpretation" is naive, mechanistic and frustrating in my opinion.

[@AuthenticSound]

That's not the focus of our research. We want to understand what the metronome mark means. That's it, the rest is... up to you (but cannot be mixed with different aspects)

[@juliomaia]

Where to start? To understand your channel.

[@thomashughes4859]

You may begin here for your _understanding_ of this channel: kzbin.info/aero/PLackZ_5a6IWVP1Nb_Zxr-RfFHX62Nz9iQ

[@jonathangale7753]

The pieces, played by under-rehearsed human musicians, were likely played at tempos lower than marked (as they are commonly today!). There could have been false starts, encores, disturbances between movements. Improvisations, long cadenzas. It is only the "whole-beat" theory which presupposes that metronome marks are inflexible directions It seems to me that you are combing the evidence for scraps which confirm your theory and "fix" problems with it. I was open to your theory at first but this video has convinced me of its unlikelihood. It reminds me of political style fake news.

[@alexmantua]

Well said Wim! May the work go on.

[@teoleonov]

Exciting, maestro!

[@krishnadasnair8765]

I appreciate your efforts Wim. Just the time you put into research shows how passionate you are about Beethoven and his music. But seeing the sheer amount of hardwork valentina has put in her playing i'm convinced that Beethoven would happily allow her play his pieces at double the tempo(if WBMP is correct). And also please for heavens sake stop putting names for famous artists on the titles of your videos to gain attention.

[@thomashughes4859]

Should he remove the names of Bach, Mozart, & Beethoven to gain attention, too?

[@AuthenticSound]

I appreciate the nice words! But keep in mind she decided to come on my channel not particularly for the sake of only saying hi to a colleague. She 'asked' about this concert and there she and the rest of the world will get an answer. I personally don't see what the problem is. If I will upload my comment on Schiff's remarks on Beethoven's Hammerklavier, a video now in preparation, should I leave his name out from the title? I wouldn't know why. Hope this makes sense!

[@gcapeletti]

Your passive agressiveness can be felt miles away. "For heavens sake" just stop being a douche, for starters.

[@markdecker2112]

very compelling argument.

[@luserdroog]

I think public entertainment was traditionally much longer than we are accustomed to nowadays. Who in living memory has ever performed a 5-act Shakespeare play without substantial cuts?!

[@thomashughes4859]

I'd never gone to a Van Halen or Iron Maiden concert much longer than two hours ... folks ran out of the stuff they went in there for in the first place, in fact ... :D

[@henrygaida7048]

Absolutely. And not just entertainment. Everything tended to be longer prior to the Industrial Revolution. Have you ever seen the musical rubrics (liturgical directions) for the principle service at the Thomaskirche during Bach's tenure? On Festal Days (like Trinity Sunday), with 7 hymns/chorales between the choir and congregation, two organ preludes, the Kyrie & Gloria (like the Missa in F); the German creed 'Wir glauben all in einen Gott'; the Sanctus (like the Sanctus in C); and two Cantatas (one after the Gospel and one during the Communion); and a choir Motet: plus the sermon, and everything else, it easily could have taken several hours (two cantatas and a Missa Brevis and Sanctus alone take about an hour and a half). Now people get antsy if Mass goes longer than 50 minutes! (I'm a church organist/precentor, so service lengths are a pet peeve of mine---forgive my ranting!)

[@thomashughes4859]

@@henrygaida7048 I wish I wish that the Mass had the _Big_ _5_ again! And all the parishoners sang it in Latin! WOW! A nice Palestrina would be good. (Kyrie, Gloria, Credo, Sanctus, & Agnus Dei) ... :D

[@henrygaida7048]

@@thomashughes4859 It does occasionally happen (Palestrina: Missa Papae Marcelli): kzbin.info/www/bejne/bZPdk5J-gqxlpdU

[@MatEnAlks]

@@henrygaida7048 Paschal Vigil masses in the middle of the night are the best thing I've ever experienced. Especially with lections from Genesis and other books of Old Testament between prayers, you can literally feel seriousness and mysticism of the liturgy on you skin, especially when it's dark and candles are giving the light. You feel hundreds of years of history going right through you. A real spiritual experience.

[@dantrizz]

This is a great video because it demostrates exactly what i think about the 1808 concert. It's such a non argument for either side. It helps no side of the argument in anyway.

[@AlbertoSegovia.]

This is just amazing!

[@bryanbarajasBB]

By the Way that Magic is called Human Agape (Greek for Love!)! Remember God is Love, and Saint Paul is right in Corinthians that though you may have prophesy, and speak like an angle, but have not Charity (Love) than it is as tinkling Brass!

[@raymundomorales3201]

@Wim - I would love to hear and possibly see the proverbial “mic-drop” in the video. Bravo!

[@wally3086]

very well explained thank you !

[@rogerjamesmusic]

History always leaves us it’s clues.

[@ashleythorpe7933]

'Worcester' is pronounced 'Wusster'

[@LuisJorgeMendoza]

Anyhow......Lisitsa and Richter are two of my favorite pianists, I prefer their style than listening Beethoven as if an intermediate piano student was just learning the score

[@thomashughes4859]

Luís, I would appreciate your striking all after the sentence fragment "I prefer their style". This is where your opinion ends and your _ad_ _hominem_ begins. Stating that playing slowly is indicative of an "intermediate piano student was [sic] just learning the score" is inappropriate.Thank you.

[@mashoy78]

Just one example. Take Chopin's Nocturne D flat major from op.27 . Play it in single beat. Confront it with italian tempo description which is Lento Sostenuto. Then analyse all the slurs, articulations, little pauses, and overall expression. Then play the long run just after the last time the thema comes, which is some 24 notes per second. If it all makes any musical sense to your ears...

[@thomashughes4859]

@@mashoy78 I don't know to whom you were answering, but I did look up some data on the piece found at IMSLP: On the first ed. score, I find the dotted crotchet = 50, which in WBMP is 25. Then since 25 can't be found on Maelzel's scale, we then multiply by 3 to get the quaver, and then by two to get the value of the semiquaver = 150. (near enough to 152 for discussion's sake). Now the measures per minute (MPM) at WBMP is 12.5. In Young's 1800 scale of MPM, lento is below "larghetto", and that is 10 MPM according to Quantz. Now from 1800 to this composition, we have about 37 years difference. It would be dubious at best that lento would have doubled from 10 to 20 MPM in 37 years (and that is the quaver as the fastest note value in "C" time). Chopin in WBMP uses 6/8, and then likes 12.5 MPM, but doubles the speed of the accompaniment using 12 semiquavers per measure. The melody is semiquavers as well with embellishments. The "little" 48-note run at WBMP is exactly 10 notes per second (nps) using the data I have. Single beat theory (SBT) would have the player use 20 nps (of course with ad lib. pro re nata); however, starting from 20 nps, and backing off too far is a no-no, so this would sound perfect at 10-ish with some accentuation otherwise impossible at 20 nps. So, a "Nocturne" any faster would be rushed if the definition of nocture is what I have read that it is. Interesting discussion.

[@mashoy78]

@@thomashughes4859 I am sorry Thomas, I wrote this as an answer to the post to which you had replied. About Richter and Lisitsa.

[@mashoy78]

@@thomashughes4859 Yes, it is absurdly fast if you play it in single beat. I really regrets I even didn't knew about this WBMP concept 20 years ago, when I was studying under professor Jan Ekier in Warsaw, who was a creator and chief editor in the National Chopin's Edition. We had never any discussion about the metronome markings. Many metronome markings are completely contradictory to italian tempo words in Chopin's music. Nocturnes are very obvious example. It is very nice to look at the music which I thought I knew inside out, in a completely new way.

[@TheDescendre]

Thank you so much....

[@he1ar1]

i am not going to voice an opinion this time but just listen

[@M.Camargo.Guarise]

Against the reason there is no argument.Great job guy. And thank You there much for his channel.

[@rq3tgunm]

Very convincing arguments! But there are three points which also should be mentioned: 1. even if the 6th symphony lasted longer than a court-concert in Berlin, it could be the SBT-version; for in your excell-list it lasts, as far as I can see, 35-39 minutes, which would also be longer than a 30minutes concert. This could be a point for SBT, at least it must not be a point aganist it. 2. Reichardts description of the concert includes a remark, that Beethoven "played very fast": "welches Beethoven ... in den allerschnellsten Tempis ausführte". However: this depends on what is "fast" in 1808; and I think that it is absolutely plausible to understand, that also a whole beat version can be "very fast" - at least if whole beat-tempi, which fit very good to everything people knew in their everyday living world, are what pople are used to. And I am sure that the speed of WB is at least much nearer to man and his life in the early 19th century than todays (and Mrs. Lisitsas) SB-rocket speed is. So this should be a point for the WBT. 3. Reichardt mentions, that in the 5th Symphony the Violoncelli have more than 34 sheets (not pages) to play. If a sheet is folded, then it includes at least(!) 2 or, more probable, 4 pages. That means that the Celli have at least more than 60 pages to play. I don't know if this is not a bit too much for a single part of the symphony. But: he tells us also, that the writers (copyists) just as copyists in chancelleries, use "to make their material very long", so we cannot decide how much this really was, without seeing the original copies used in the concert. So: no point for WB nor for SB In total I'd like to say once more: all what you do is really very good research work! Please hang on, your theory is so important and I am convinced that it is true. At least for me, it has changed a lot and I am sure it will prevail sooner or later.

[@johnr9876]

Well done, Wim. Every time you came up against a possible reason for a discrepancy with WBMP you took the simplest and most obvious route to explain it away. It was hard going at times, but you managed it! No doubt those pesky single-beaters will come up with some strange convoluted way to claim that SB is the more intellectually honest and straightforward way to explain the 4 hour concert length.

[@jules78003]

Sorry but he didn't take the easiest route. He concluded that WB is correct and tried to find as much evidence as possible to justify it even if you have to assume there was no intermission, no applause, no orchestra preparations, no delay of any kind, no complete symphonies play in the world premiere... You see how many non standard routes he had to take to justify his premade conclusion? This is not neutral investigation, it is biased and trying to justify something that we already think it's true. It's not unusual, we all do that all the time, it's part of the human condition.

[@thomashughes4859]

Play nicely in the sandbox, kiddos. It's all about the TRUTH! Demonstrate numbers, that corroborate your stop watches if you would be so kind. Merci beaucoup! :D

[@Rollinglenn]

I do hope someone invited Ms. Lisitsa to join us for this event! Although, I'm sure she will hear about it.

[@thomashughes4859]

She is a great lady. I have no issues 't'all with anyone. I hope she will later - at least privately - work it out like we have, Glenn. I can't argue against WBMP; therefore, I can't be a "denier".

[@thomashughes4859]

I have argued against SBT ... no workie!

[@Renshen1957]

@@thomashughes4859 In in this case, we won't let the Wookie Win (star wars reference).

[@thomashughes4859]

@@Renshen1957 HAHA!

[@roberacevedo8232]

For all the people that are going now to argue that's it is also compatible with Single Beat. We don't care about the concert that much. You can do all the mental gymnastics you want, but the point is this: It could have well been in Double beat. MM are what we are interested in, not a big concert that was given one time. This channel NEVER took this concert as a "prove" for Double beat. Single beaters used it to state how it just wasn't possible for Beethoven to use the WBMP. So you can now continue to defend how it could have also been in SB, but I'm guessing many of us are just going to move forward.

[@DanRad44]

Wim's arguments may sound very convincing, but they will remain in the realm of mere theory and guessing, because we do not have proof of either argument, which can be only recording. Oh wait, we do! Listen to the recordings of Carl Reinecke (1924-1910) he plays Mozart, Haydn, Beethoven, Schumann... At what speed did he play them?..single beat, or whole beat?..

[@sergioxavier7805]

Neither.

[@giovanniberetta8039]

No metronom in 1808 ...

[@thomashughes4859]

Hi Giovanni, They had pendulums since the end of the 17th century for _finding_ tempi left by composers. Yes, it took that long from Galileo's wondering about a chandelier to Étienne Loulié's 6-foot long pendulum machine labelled in inches. We have two documented sources of absolute timings from 1800 and 1812. Allegros were not faster than or 7 - 8 notes per second (rare). Most were in the 4 - 6 notes per second range. That might help with the anachronism (which is true in 1808 for the mechanised Metronome we are familiar with today). Thanks!

[@giovanniberetta8039]

​@@thomashughes4859 Thanks, the point is that Beethoven himself was not working whit Metronome at this time. That means that tempi at a specific performance are a question not arguable whit a machine used only 7 years later by the composer. I'm suggest that Beethoven was sometimes wrong with tempo perception. Thinking at a music is different to perform it. Exemple, Beethoven was claimed that her 9th simphony shoud not surpassed 45 minuts long at her first performance. The reality was different, of curse.

[@thomashughes4859]

@@giovanniberetta8039 True, Maelzel hadn't patented his scale (after _lifting_ the idea from Winkel) yet and supplied Bethoven with a _Blackforest_ _Clock_ (Maelzel's pet peeve - HAHA) wouldn't happen for another 8-ish years, but Beethoven would have had access to pendulums. Just sayin' ... as everyone is speculating. :D

[@wilh3lmmusic]

69th dislike