Wim Winters needs to watch RIGHT NOW

[@sumsummers3033]

Wim Winters needs to see this, share until he watches, please. For the sake of his insanity.

[@tejasnair3399]

Sum Summers is a funnier name. People will still get it

[@sumsummers3033]

@@tejasnair3399 ok

[@Alix777.]

he doesn't car about rachmaninov tho, only 18th century music

[@laowei7279]

I'm going to watch now what Spring Springers has to say about this...

[@tejasnair3399]

Yeah, let alone Sum Summers!

[@xunyl87]

Personally I agree with Aut Autumns’ theory

[@estevansantiagopiano]

as said by a friend: wim winters is the flat earther of classical music

[@thelostgenius1212]

The Earth is flat.

[@The_Guy_Who_Asked_06]

​@@thelostgenius1212 Bruh

[@JimiHendrix-es4lv]

More like the Graham Hancock of music.

[@rhfactor2106]

😂😂😂

[@mgdwcb1]

Transmission is the biggest blow to WW's theories. For example, the first recording of a Beethoven symphony dates back to 1913, when the Berlin Philharmonic Orchestra, conducted by Arthur Nikisch, recorded Symphony No. 5 in C minor, Op. 67, for the German Grammophon label. (its on KZbin) We can hear the so-called "modern tempo" (correct tempo). The conductor, Arthur Nikisch made his conducting debut in 1878. The pianist, composer, conductor and music director Ferdinand Hiller (1811-1885) heard Beethoven's pieces during the composer's lifetime and throughout the 19th century organised concerts with Beethoven's symphonies on the program. So there is a clear overlap here - just TWO generations of musicians between Beethoven's lifetime and the 1913 recording. Many people alive at the time of Beethoven lived on through the mid-19th century and even longer (like Hiller); attending regular concerts for decades. Even when Beethoven's music went through a less popular phase, his music never disappeared from concert halls. If during Beethoven's time, his works were performed much slower then all these musicians and concert-goers could hardly fail to notice such a huge change in tempo.

[@riggedgame1189]

Let's be real though-- he'd probably come up with some silly explanation like how the limited time on early records forced pianists to play too fast or something. Or maybe he'd claim that the piano roll was artificially sped up or something. It's practically impossible to convince people so deep into theories like this that they're wrong, despite extremely clear evidence otherwise.

[@Pravdaband]

Recording at that time was primitive at best. Much like silent films. Their speed is way off too. Are all the key centers correct? Is it in standard tuning for that time? Analysis is needed. Putting trust in manually turned cranks to record accurately the speed (tempo) and playback is a false premise and conclusion.

[@riggedgame1189]

@@Pravdaband lmao yeah that’s exactly what he’d say.

[@pianofogel1]

I used to be really into the double beat theory, but yeah unfortunately recordings and piano rolls provide the hardest evidence as to how music sounded, and there just isn’t sound evidence to support Winters. And yes while styles change with each generation, We have piano rolls made by pianists born as far back as in 1824. THERE IS HOWEVER a huge amount of evidence that supports annotated arpeggiation, desynchronisation of notes, and wild rubato and tempo modification were all common practice during the era of these recordings and long before- practices Winters seems to ignore or is oblivious of? For a channel called authentic sound I wonder why he only explores one aspect of music (tempo). They did all sorts of crazy shit back in the day.

[@minirausch]

What a sad thing to brush off our best connection to 19th-century performance practice in these early recordings as a bunch of charlatan virtuosos who didn’t care about the music.

[@sumsummers3033]

That's the exact problem I have... Wim thinks he is god. well, he is god to all 5 of his fans

[@Ezekiel_Pianist]

@@sumsummers3033 you literally have 2 subscribers??

[@tejasnair3399]

@@Ezekiel_Pianist yeah but they are 2 giga chads

[@NN-rn1oz]

So far Wim has convinced one pianist to play at his tempi, and it is his young partner on his channel.

[@gerry30]

More than that. There are at least two younger guys making recordings with Wim. You can also find videos by Bartosz Bieganowski. There are performances by Wolfgang Weller as well. And independently of Wim, Bernard Ruchti is experimenting with different tempo including Whole Beat and making some excellent recordings as well as providing some very interesting sources.

[@bigt082]

@@gerry30 Who is the other one making recordings with Wim?

[@gerry30]

@@bigt082 Laurens de Man playing Berger etudes. kzbin.info/www/bejne/n4DQqKV9npagZ8U

[@minirausch]

@@bigt082 Well, there’s also the very unfortunate complete set of Chopin etudes, from the ham-handed Portuguese fellow…

[@geiryvindeskeland7208]

NN, unfortunately, however, pianist Tiago Mileu has also been duped by Wim Winters. Tiago plays Chopin’s opus 10 and 25 a whole beat pace. Another pianist who thinks it is important to reduce the old masters to average pianists.

[@Pravdaband]

I’ve seen his channel. BUT are these recording accurate for standard concert pitch of the time? Are all the pieces in the correct keys? Recording then was primitive much like early film with distorted speeds. Recording and playback speeds (tempo) varied greatly from machine to machine and person to person depending on the operator, method of recording and use of springs, hand cranks and electricity. Analysis is needed to verify piece key to recording to standard pitch of that time. Using old recordings as proof is a false validation. Even recording from 1960-70s had pitch issues from actual played tonal centers. And LP length adds another speed issue to the debate.

[@joaoc7801]

This will not change anything. According to him performers sped up in the second half of the 19th century; since these recordings are of the (early) 20th century you already hear the fast/modern versions there

[@bigt082]

According to Wim, ALL these performers were NOT interested in how to perform according to the composers intentions, they all were a product of their time who wanted to impress their audience. They ALL started at the same time to just randomly double the speed of famous works from their teachers, some living performer-composers did the same only when a recording button was pressed. For Wim, ALL these guys were shallow "industrial" performers who trampled the works of Beethoven and Chopin with their maniacal speeds. It is truly insulting to the memory of these legendary performers and indeed to all of music. And this is the guy who is now every week behind a microphone, besides himself, shouting, panting, on the verge of crying, when someone mentions the word "metronome" and doesn't interpret it als double beat? When someone talks about Beethoven but sees no way to play it in the braindead manner Wim does it? A toddler is more reasonable than Wim Winters is, with his immature ridiculing of opponents, scholars, other musicians, you name it.

[@petertyrrell3391]

It is you who are ridiculing an opponent like a toddler, and pretending that evidence for DB doesn't exist.

[@bigt082]

@@petertyrrell3391 It doesn't. To you it is evidence only because you want it to be evidence for DB. Confirmation bias is the backbone of the silly double beat theory.

[@petertyrrell3391]

@@bigt082 You are simply stating evidence is not evidence = confirmation bias.

[@perfectoodio2]

Without defending any of the sides, but there really are pieces that the performers play much faster than the music asks for and causes the music to lose the beauty. All this to show virtuosity and to suit the anxious and rushing world we live in. Not talking about Rach's interpretation, which are wonderful, btw

[@petertyrrell3391]

Anyway, the evidence is for increased performance speeds from Baroque to the 20th C.

[@Shost7]

Tempo accelerated around 1890 because of audiences. Chopin and Liszt were already dead, and their students had to adapt to this new taste of the people.

[@kakoou3362]

simply not true and i hope you stop spreading misinformation

[@kakoou3362]

never heard of Roll of liszt's secretery "played as how liszt played?" anton rubinstein's recording and his reputation and comparison with liszt? Carl Reinecke's haydn recording? "People had to adapt this new style 🤡" for what??

[@Shost7]

@@kakoou3362 they had to play fast to be famous AND make money (nowadays is the same)

[@kakoou3362]

@@Shost7 give me an evidence of tempo acceleration around 1890 or this is nonsense speculation. Which testimony claimed Which pupil exactly were playing faster than chopin and liszt around that time?

[@kakoou3362]

the only pianist I can think of that had reputation of having equal technique to liszt is carl tausig

[@lindy7985]

I knew something was quite wrong with the hypotheses when Wim complained about Yunchan Lim's Liszt, "Feux follets" as an example of twice too fast.

[@Samuri_Jack_Enjoyer]

he does play it twice as fast. listen to claudio arrau's version for the original tempo. (he was the top pupil of the top pupil of Liszt so there is no question of its authenticity).

[@Reichthoff]

The written tempo of Feux Follets is something like 120 BPM, if I'm not mistaken. So most virtuosos today play it faster than intended.

[@jorislejeune]

​@@Reichthoff there is no MM for any of the TE by Liszt himself, I have checked all the first prints and manuscripts. The 120-126 for the eight note was presumable added by Busoni.

[@TheGloryofMusic]

Someone remarked that the bird calls in Beethoven's Pastoral Symphony don't sound like the actual thing, given Winter's tempo kzbin.info/www/bejne/p4eQf2aCqstso6csi=HOLggZCPY3ndw3K7 Thomas Huxley referred to "the slaying of a beautiful theory by an ugly fact".

[@thekeyoflifepiano]

Best channel name ever!

[@GianBLima]

I believe Winters’s claims refer to metronome markings and their inconsistencies, not that all pieces of piano repertoire are currently faster compared to the past. The video is not challenging any of his claims so far. Poor counter argument, if an argument at all.

[@TheGloryofMusic]

Even supposing for a moment that the textual evidence is equivocal on the double-beat theory, there is a problem. It is not a coincidence that a 'moderato' tempo corresponds to about 60 beats per minute, which is also about the rate of the human heartbeat, and theorists have recognized this in relation to the notion of the 'tactus'. 'Allegro' sounds fast, not because it is “absolutely” fast, but because it is fast in relation to a moderate, or comfortable, tempo. And the same consideration applies to 'adagio'. Which is to say that these tempo qualities are not arbitrary or a matter of convention, but of human physiology. Winters' tempos sound absurdly slow because they really are too slow. That is, unless Winters wants to argue that people in the nineteenth-century were biologically different from us.

[@vladislavstezhko1864]

Also Arturo Toscanini's conducting and Mattia Barttistini's singing, who were born at 1867 and 1856

[@tobiedavis8841]

Wim winters is so dedicated to his cult out of fear of having to actually practice. Lol. He is an utter mediocre pianist and sticks to this whole conspiracy theory dispite undeniable evidence, its almost wholesome, he simply cannot grasp that people can play fast because he can't.

[@Boccaccio1811]

Wim better never mess with my boy Rossini... if he ruins Rossini overtures and operas for me... well let's just say he better pray I never find him

[@lotrekdesign8677]

I want to listen to that music flat earther, playing Chopin's Funeral March or Prelude in C min or Nocturne in G min. It will be very funny watching him struggling to stay awake while still at the 5th bar...

[@teodorlontos3294]

Why do you think that? Wim's performance of those two pieces would probably not be much slower than the current average. In fact, the modern interpretations are most likely played well below the single-beat area of tempi, like many famous slow pieces are (Schumann's Träumerei comes to mind...)

[@pokerandphilosophy8328]

I think an even better mirroring of Wim Winters' name might have been "Sun Summers", but that's alright. Compelling video!

[@Reichthoff]

Great idea for a nemesis character/doppleganger for Wim. Maybe he plays twice as fast as intended instead of twice as slow.

[@charityshopguitar8790]

I used to love Wim Winters channel when it first started. And I like what he does on the clavichord. But let's face it, these guys from the past were playing faster than nowadays if anything. I haven't come across a shred of evidence either in recordings or in literary sources that they were playing significantly slower.

[@danielwaitzman2118]

“It is over, but they will not let it be over”-Stephen Vincent Benét. This wonderful compendium disproves Wim’s maniacal claptrap completely; but those who stand to benefit from it the most will not listen.

[@carlcurtis]

Winters deals primarily with pre- and early-Romantics. Almost every example here is mid- to late-Romantic. I'm not saying an argument against Winters can't be made, but I don't find this all that persuasive.

[@danielwaitzman2118]

@@carlcurtis Really? Most of the examples deal with Chopin, to whom there exists a direct, living performance tradition. Chopin is hardly a “late romantic”. Neither Wim nor anyone else can produce a single 19th-century document attesting to a “whole-beat” reading of the metronome. But, above all, there is the utter musical absurdity of “whole-beat” performance. If you cannot hear this, then I am obliged to criticize your lack of musical sensibility. Do yourself a favor-do not allow Wim Winters’ attractive stage presence to override your musical judgement.

[@gerry30]

@@danielwaitzman2118 Raoul Pugno's recording of the Chopin Nocturne in F sharp. Pugno stated that he was taught how to play it according to Chopin's method by his teacher Georges Matthias. He also stated that it should be played about half the speed indicated by the time signature. kzbin.info/www/bejne/sGTRomWNiN2XirM

[@danielwaitzman2118]

@@gerry30 This is interesting--the performance certainly exhibits the fluidity of tempo which one associates with performances of that era. But I don't really see what it has to do with Wim Winters' ideas. Matthias and Pugno are talking about a particular piece. They tell us that Chopin recommended a halving of the assumed tempo for that piece. But none of these artists espouses "double-beat" metronome usage; and in fact Pugno speeds up the tempo quite a bit midway through the piece. It is not outlandish for a composer to recommend a tempo that deviates markedly from his presumably original metronome indication, or even to change his mind about a time signature.. What Wim is saying is something quite different, namely that ALL early 19th-century metronome marks should be interpreted to give us tempi that are more or less twice as slow as those to which e are accustomed--and that the metronome should be used in.a very different way.

[@gerry30]

@@danielwaitzman2118 Pugno and Matthias are describing the way Chopin wanted a particular piece played. When Pugno plays another Chopin piece in the modern tempos there is no reference to it being associated with the way Chopin played it. Wim Winters is saying that IF you want to play in the modern speeds, you can do that. But you are probably deviating from the composer's intentions far more than one might guess. This is especially resisted in the "Urtext" era of performance practice. If you are interested in playing the piece closer to the original intentions of the composer. Wim is stating that "double beat" may be closer to the true tempo. ( as an aside, I personally would also add that you should probably check your tuning as well. I'm not great at playing in all keys like Earl Wild was, but if I'm at a digital piano and playing Beethoven, I'll drop the tuning a whole step to match the tuning beleived to be accurate in Beethoven's time. Play the first movement of "moonlight" in B minor and see if there's a dramatic difference. ) Bernard Ruchti has been doing "experiments" with "slowness" by taking a stab at whole beat as well as adjusting tempos according to written records. His Hammerklavier is performed more in line with LIszt's estimations of how long the piece will take and while slightly shorter than a WBMP performance, it is strikingly and I think positively more comprehensible and in line with what Beethoven intended and what Berlioz described Liszt's performance as accomplishing . His Chopin etudes opus 10 in whole beat provides a whole new perspective to explore these pieces and a reasoned argument can be made that these are the correct tempi compared to the unsettled tempi of many of the pieces. The common problem is that for a series of major composers, despite their own insistence on their importance, the metronome marks are "irrational". Lorenz Gadient and Wim Winters and their associates have provided a workable and reasonable solution that continually makes sense without simply discarding the composers' wishes or striving for irrational tempi.

[@RozarSmacco]

Dim Dumpster is just making excuses for his surfeit of talent, massive ego, and neolithic incompetence.

[@buskman3286]

I'm very impressed by the work/research/effort Mr Winters has done and he seems to totally believe in his conclusion but to me it doesn't make sense. One of my primary objections concerns Beethoven piano sonatas. Beethoven was best known early in his professional life as an amazing pianist. If B's sonatas are played at Winter's tempos, that reputation as a great pianist fades away. So, if they WERE played at Mr. Winter's tempos, there is an implied conclusion that pianists back then were not as technically capable as a pianist today - and therefore couldn't play as fast as is now common. But the historical record does not agree with that based on existing early recordings (as per this video) AND reports of concert elapsed times for various pieces in that era. So, are pianists today "better?" Well, absent a time machine, no one can say for sure but Beethoven had the same 10 fingers that current pianists do. Why would we assume that Beethoven - and let's not even mention Liszt - couldn't move his 10 fingers just as quickly as a pianist can today? And, if tempos have been continually increasing to highlight piano-playing skill, why are most Beethoven sonata performances of today performed at SLOWER tempos than the mid 1930's recordings of Artur Schnabel? This indicates to me that there is not a calculated effort by pianists/the music world to play a piece faster than the last person to prove they are more capable. Again, I give Mr. Winters high scores for an interesting view and the amount of effort he has made to develop his position. But I do not believe he is correct. His conclusions seem to me to indicate that somehow no one knew how to use a metronome OR that their metronomes were broken OR that on some date in history the music world decided to change the method by which the metronome was used. None of these seem feasible...

[@jacobf9169]

The speed of one's fingers is not what makes a pianist great.

[@geiryvindeskeland7208]

@buskman3286. You’re right, something must be wrong with Wim Winters’ Beethoven tempi. He confirm it himself with his playing. I have gone through WW’s 2-part inventions of Bach. Here, Wim Winters follows the old practice, tempo ordinario. Several of the inventions with time signature C have 60-80 heartbeats per minute. As you well know, the music has no tempo marks. If we familiarize ourselves with WW’s performances of Beethoven’s piano sonatas, a number of movements, marked «allegro» or «allegro con brio» have fewer beats per minute than the inventions! It turns out wrong, and so Wim Winters confirms that he has no control over the pace between the eras. Beethoven’s opus 14/2 is seriously outside a credible choice of tempo. Here he plays just under 50 beats per minute with the headline «Historical Tempo Reconstruction». But as I said, the inventions have a tempi between 60-80. There is no logical connection between era and choice of pace. Beethoven’s allegro movements in WW’s fingers are therefore far too slow and therefore not historical.

[@maravillaromerojoseadolfo164]

Hum... in the Chopin, specially the first I am sure a fortepiano of Chopin's time couldn't play that fast

[@kakoou3362]

are you saying that after hearing kocsalski playing impromptu on chopin's playel? you shouldn't say you are sure of something if you arent sure 🤡

[@s.d.d.6063]

Why bother about him? Let him live in his pseudo historic dream. I, as probably 99,9% of people on their mind, just ignore him 😊

[@matheuspeixoto8689]

As a renaissance enjoyer, i dont understand your problem with clavichords

[@bertvandenbosch8746]

Sometimes I do think we are all just silly monkies with our stupid music, but I have played many classics during my life, and I also think it has some beauty in it, but what Wim Winters is just narcissism. I hear a recording of one of his Liszt pieces, even thought it sounded nice(most of the other slow stuff sounds quite dull), he even says music is there to be enjoyed, well those are are some very good things, why care about one person being better than another, he could stop there and just enjoy playing and listening... but as we all know he doesnt.

[@audeo1634]

Però è difficile che Karl Czerny pretendesse che uno studente del secondo anno suonasse i sedicesimi a 108 per quarto. E i suoi studenti, come pure gli studenti di Chopin o Liszt, a parte delle luminose eccezioni, erano persone normali.

[@pavaomrazek]

Also, if you listen to Debussy play his own works, he plays them up to 30% faster than any of today's mainstream performances, so, (referring to Wim always saying that music became faster in the 19th century) music actually became slower after all.

[@danielwaitzman2118]

Very apropos!

[@geiryvindeskeland7208]

The «fight» between WBMP and single beaters lives just like that. Some of us on the single beat side argue that the music sounds terrible in WBMP-tempi. I agree with that. But it is not a good argument in the debate, because a lot of people say they like WBMP-tempi much better. So how to convince WW’s followers? I believe more in arguing with logic. Personally, I think that the many videos here onKZbin of children playing the well-known classical pieces much faster than WBMP, are a good argument against the WBMP theory. What about Chopin’s etudes? Listen to Haochen Zhanz, 11 years old, performing the entire opus 10! Listen to his version of no 2. (2:50) Afterwards, we compare it with WW’s version. Chopin was 19-20 years old when he composed opus 10. It is illogical for a child (multiple children) to play Chopin’s etudes much faster than WBMP, when we know that Chopin himself had 8-10 more years to reach a virtuoso level. It is completely illogical!

[@motoroladefy2740]

And what about Schumann getting injured to play ultra slow motion? And the bell, added by Maelzel himself that rings every 2, 3, 4 and 6 ticks... (for 2/2, 3/4; 4/4 and 6/8). How in earth virtuosos wouldn't have tried to write faster music?

[@danielwaitzman2118]

Talk, talk, talk; jabber-jabber-jabber. Like it or not, the facts are: that “whole-beat metronome practice” sounds terrible and has no historical foundation whatsoever; and most of the commenters and argumentators lack the talent and knowledge necessary to hold valid opinions on this matter. Wim Winters et al exemplify a kind of mass hysteria; and participation in this febrile dispute offers the unschooled an opportunity to play the intellectual. My advice to Wim Winters acolytes is to shut up and find some other way of amusing yourselves.

[@geiryvindeskeland7208]

Hi danielwaitzman. I understand your strong frustration with Wim Winters’ music-historical falsification. But the argument «..that «whole-beat metronome practice» sounds terrible…» don’t work well, for WW’s disciples say exactly the same thing about the historically correct tempi. Have more faith in arguing with logic. gerry30 isn’t dumber than me, but because he lacks knowledge, he’s also being manipulated by Wim Winters. «Liquensrollant» puts it well this eay: «Wim has the advantage that most people(like me)don’t know enough to prove him wrong». gerry30, quote: «Cory Hall came (Bachscholar) out swinging against Wim Winters and after calming down did his own research and came to the conclusion that Double Beat was a real thing». That doesn’t mean Wim Winters is right, it just shows that Cory Hall was also manipulated by Wim Winters. If WW is right, why does he sometimes have to manipulate and censor his listeners and viewers? Neither censorship nor manipulation is acceptable on a scientific level. When the metronome was introduced, according to wikipedia, there were at least 216 composers, who were either 20 years old in 1816, or lived for 20 years after the metronome’s intro. In addition, there were hundreds of music students, many teachers, and professors. In addition, a number of music critics and a music-loving audience in the number of several thousand. Wim Winters claims that double and single beat worked simultaneously without frustration. No! - it would be impossible for two different tempo systems to work simultaneously among many musicians without causing problems and frustration on a daily basis. They had to, as we do now, debate the problem in the various music journals. But according to the musicologists, they find no such debate.

[@danielwaitzman2118]

@@geiryvindeskeland7208 Dear Mr. Eskeland: Elsewhere, I have argued that professionalism in any advanced discipline entails adherence to a set of axioms, which are not to be questioned by those who practice their discipline. This is particularly true of Music, the most abstract of the arts. I cannot demonstrate by logic, except in the broadest terms, the precepts of good musicianship. After many years of diligent application, combined with extraordinary ability, a good musician knows what it is good or bad. He feels it to be so. Of course, there are as many disagreements over minutiae as there are good musicians; but this statement is true, nonetheless. The facts regarding the lack of historical justification for "whole-beat" are simple: there is none. This should be enough to disprove Wim's obsession as an historical truth. Nonetheless, one must ask whether or not his method of musical interpretation deepens our emotional perception of the music, even though it lacks historical foundation. We both agree that it does not. Now I do not consider it necessary to try to prove this logically, even though it can be done to some extent--as it has by Patrick Hemmerlé, Vlad Vexler, myself, and others. The argument that it sounds like Hell is sufficient.. Can I prove this logically?--not really. My statement relies on the fact that the multi-cultural approach to aesthetics is a dirty lie, invented by mediocrities out of misunderstanding and hatred. There is an inevitable hierarchical ranking of ideas and methodologies, in the absence of which everything falls apart and humanity becomes a walking cauliflower. Thus, when some idiot tells me that Michael Jackson deserves as much attention as J.S. Bach, my attitude is one of contempt. And so it is with Wim Winters. I have attempted to argue rationally with these people, as my KZbin comments and videos will testify; but ultimately, I, as a professional musician of some stature in the musical world, must refuse to play by their rules. There is ample evidence of the calibre of my work on KZbin and elsewhere: and I invite anyone to compare my contributions to Music with those of Wim Winters, Fr. Gadient, and Alberto Sanna. Let that suffice. The same goes for Patrick Hemmerlé and others: Patrick’s musicianship is above reproach; and his discussion of Wim Winters’ mania is unimpeachable. Vlad Vexler is not a professional musician; but his philosophical understanding of the Wim Winters affair marks him as another authority on the matter. Read the comments on KZbin anent Wim's mania: observe the lack of musical understanding, the paranoia, the hysteria, and the inability to write, spell, think, and reason. All this should be enough to dispose of the Wim Winters affair. More important, listen to Wim's and Alberto's performances, and compare them to Patrick's and my own, for starters. Consider the lack of credentials of Wim and his followers; consider their inability to test their drivel on the proving grounds of the concert stage. Consider the lack of their adherents amongst reputable performers and musicologists--Cory Hall does not qualify; no one should care whether or not he agrees or disagrees with Wim; he is remarkable only for his short-sleeved shirts. I have publicly invited Wim to present ONE authentic 19th-century document attesting to "whole-beat" as the correct use of the metronome for tempo indication. I have invited him and Alberto to perform in New York and London, and to present us with rave reviews. I have been met only with silence. Thus, I say, let us stop considering this mass hysteria as a serious topic, of interest to musicians, rather than to psychologists; leave them to their own private Hell. Wim strives to enshrine mediocrity as the new musical standard; I say, to Hell with him; he is a force for cultural evil and a symptom of the decline of the West. With best wishes, Dan.

[@geuros]

Pieces so famous that it would be impossible to be passed through history incorrectly - cannot agree, especially with famous baroque pieces butchered for years by romantic interpretations. But obviously, Rachmaninov playing Chopin is a very different thing. I don't think I have ever heard a better recording of Chopin's B flat minor sonata than that of Rachmaninov

[@martingauthier7377]

I have no strong opinion about M. Winters theory, still I don't think for instance the Czerny's 40 Daily Exercices can be played at the indicated speed with all the repetitions. One might argue that it's possible but no pianist is interested to prove it. Well it's convenient... In other words, these exercices are not made for students but only for the rare pianists who can reach the tempi, but never will because it's a waste of time...?

[@abbethoven6076]

Of course...

[@Cubeinthesky]

it would be even more exciting ; convincing to include brahms's renowned hungarian dance recording : kzbin.info/www/bejne/r4PGfoOul8Z3d7s (his own playing) just as the modern standards...

[@gerry30]

Wim has stated that Brahms was probably a single beat composer.

[@gerry30]

@@minkyukim0204 There was obviously at one point two forms in practice of timebeating. Originally, the double beat method and then after the death of Beethoven and the use of single beat gradually became dominant. You just have to look at someone like Moscheles or Von Bulow to see that they were straddling the method. Moscheles obviously wrote his works in double beat but was trying to update his technique and tastes and found composers like Chopin frustrating. He literally kept Beethoven's MM time but changed the value from a half note to a quarter and then said, Beethoven's speed is way too fast but thought the quarter note timing made things too slow and opted for a midway path. This is during the period when accelaration was in vogue. Liszt must've seen this development and abandoned giving metronome marks altogether since they were being read incorrectly and ultimately ignored. Listen to Bernard Ruchti's recording of the Hammerklavier sonata which is based on Liszt's timing and compare it with the disjointed and schizophrenic tempo alterations of Schnabel's performance. Ruchti's performance has 1) historical precedence, 2) logical tempo use whether you believe in double beat or not, in other words within the "rules" of double beat, the Hammerklavier makes sense 3) physical practicality, 4) interpretive and artistic coherence. (which you can argue for or against, but it puts forth and expressive and intelligible effort)

[@bigt082]

Wim argues that Brahms is a double beat composer as well. Because Glenn Gould was (in secret!) a double beat performer. And Glenn Gould knows the Sacred Truth. According to Wim. Or something. This recording is obviously made under the pressures of being a charlatan performer as Liszt would put it. Or it is sped up to satisfy shallow industrialized speed loving audiences. In any case, it is no argument against double beat in the Wim Doctrine of the Sacred Double Beat!

[@gerry30]

@@minkyukim0204 I don't think Wim is arguing that Gould was double beat in his methodology. He was pointing out that Gould was experimenting and reacting against the tide of constant acceleration. He pointed out that Gould was treated as giving a revolutionary performance that could have been actually closer to Brahms' original conception than the standard tempos of the day.

[@gerry30]

@@minkyukim0204 I was referring to Wim's previous statement in an interview where he stated he thought Brahms was single beat. His more recent videos that Brahms may indeed have been writing in double beat markings made a good argument and i found his research persuasive. So I'm open to revising my position as new arguments are made. It's worth exploring. One thing that would make me question whole beat would be some actual proof that all of these major composers indeed did have broken metronomes and read them wrong. Somebody quotes Clara Schumann stating that she said Robert was wrong in his tempos in Scenes from Childhood and adjusted them as Godowsky did his edition. But as far as I know, she was reacting as a pianist who tested them in public at public performances and treated them as concert material and was interested in promoting her late husband's work. Jorge Bolet used to say essentially the same thing, that since he spends more time with the music, he has the right to change what the composer wrote. I'm not arguing for or against it, I see merits to it. But Schumann didn't write Scenes from Childhood as a concert piece. After that somebody would have to prove that 70 percent of metronome marks in single beat is musically "correct" moreso than the same piece in double beat.

[@hadcrio6845]

This is awesome.

[@spaik689]

Leo mucho hate pero ningún argumento. La teoría de Wim es consistente con estos ejemplos, en cambio: 1 las marcas metronomicas son ridículas o imposibles; 2 hay muchas pruebas documentales de que se tocaba mucho más lento de lo que hoy se toca; 3 En ningún momento Wim desprestigia a estos músicos, solo habla de que lo popular era tocar rápido (como cuando hoy las orquestas tocan Queen); 4 Los que defienden estás prácticas les importan más sus egos que la música, odian la música porque los estudios de Chopin a la velocidad a la que los tocan suenan horrible, no se entiende nada

[@paulvandenberg9588]

Nothing is understood? I disagree

[@MikeTroy74]

This proves nothing against Wim's extensive and exhaustive research really. Even in Liszt's own time, Liszt said that pianists were playing his own pieces faster than he could ever have imagined them being played.

[@thekeyoflifepiano]

Search for the video called " Wim Winters and historical timings, do they agree?". It has evidence of performance times from playbills that Wim can't debunk.

[@petertyrrell3391]

A pupil of Liszt's in the 20th c said he played faster than his master.

[@petertyrrell3391]

@@minkyukim0204 Moritz Rosenthal, 1924.

[@petertyrrell3391]

@@minkyukim0204 Yes, but I haven't read it all yet.

[@pianisthenics]

His research is full of biased BS.

[@gerry30]

Charles Rosen stated that Moriz Rosenthal claimed that he would be laughed at by the audience if he played certain virtuosic pieces as he thought they ought to be played. Rachmaninoff told Horowitz not to play so fast and Horowitz told him had to because he needed to make a sensation so he didn't want to have to go back to Russia. Alexander Siloti's daughter related that Rachmaninoff played much slower in private and it was much preferred by all present including Rachmaninoff. Harold Schonberg claimed that in his opinion some of the "quick playing" on early records was because the new technology made the pianists feel they needed to "put as many notes" on the recording as possible. No. Wim Winters is more than onto something. Cory Hall came (Bachscholar) out swinging against Wim Winters and after calming down did his own research and came to the conclusion that Double Beat was a real thing. He concluded that Liszt used double beat in his earliest compositions. Wim does not claim that people like Rachmaninoff or Brahms were utliizing the older method. But Chopin, Moscheles, Weber, Beethoven only make sense as music when you abandon the absurd tempos. Slower Beethoven players like Arrau and Kempff are far closer to the mark on Beethoven than the rushed nonsensical and nonmusical recordings that Schnabel produced. Listen to Paderewski's Revolutionary Etude recording. Slower than most recordings but infinitely more impressive. The people that are attacking Straw Man arguments and claiming they are disproving the Double Beat counting practice are simply engaging in the Sunk Cost Fallacy. People still need virtuoso techniques and high speeds if you want to play Rachmaninoff, Scriabin, Debussy, Liszt, Brahms. But people don't have to continually butcher Chopin or Beethoven by trying to "de-classicalize" it and make it in competition with Liszt.

[@gerry30]

@@minkyukim0204 I don't know anything about that. The closest thing I heard was him saying that Brahms was single beat because the length of the notes in his works became too apparent that he was a single beat composer. Please share if you have anything.

[@gerry30]

@@minkyukim0204 Interesting. Wim is open to looking into it and his points on Rachmaninoff are interesting. The only thing I had heard previously was from Siloti's daughter who said that Rachmaninoff played more slowly in private settings than in public and she and her father preferred his private playing. Thanks for that reference. We'll have to see where he comes out on that subject.

[@bigt082]

@@gerry30 Judging by Wims latest endeavors in making Glenn Gould a closeted double-beater, Brahms is now officially a double beat composer as well.

[@gerry30]

@@bigt082 Can you directly quote him on that and provide a link? With the Concerto, Wim said Gould played the slow movment too slow. But I'm convinced of single beat for everyone, always, everywhere. I do wish Wim would stop and accept that either players and composers in the past played perfectly speeds in many places that the pianos of the day or even today can't support, or they were all idiots with broken metronomes. So far, Beethoven, Czerny, Chopin and Schumann all had broken metronomes and screwed up their music. Unless that is, you buy into the idea that they were also "gods" who actually did play at those speeds..

[@MicheleAngeliniTenor]

Wim is most definitely NOT onto anything of worth. His absurd theory has been consistently disproven time and again. His and his pupils' performances are glorified practice tempos. His theory even defies the original patents of the metronome. And furthermore, he continually ignores vocal music. He touched on Don Giovanni tempos, but if one used the ascribed metronome markings as Wim sees them, the opera would last 5-6 hours long. Simply put, all pre-20th Century vocal music would be completely unsingable. The words would be unintelligible and no singer would have the breath capacity necessary to be able to execute either slow or fast music. It's simply just wrong. Stop trying to be his apologist and to make excuses. Your first paragraph has NOTHING to do with the tripe he is selling. It may very well be that Rachmaninoff played more relaxed in private versus showing off his virtuosity in public performances. The doesn't mean he played in either setting with tempi so contrasted and drastically different. Tempo is and always will be relative. Wim has also argued that it was "physically impossible" for people to play as fast as they obviously did (on early recordings) and do today. So it's a completely false and unsupported argument he makes. Just stop. Double Beat does not and never existed in that actual music-making world.

[@qwerty20000000003]

Wow! And just like that, 25 notes a second becomes possible!

[@petertyrrell3391]

This sounds as if you are being ironic!

[@qwerty20000000003]

@@petertyrrell3391 I am. 25 notes a second is not possible. Yet, several classical composers indicated that that's what they wanted (if you believe single beat)

[@johnericsson749]

Which composers indicated that and in what pieces?

[@petertyrrell3391]

@@johnericsson749 You need do some basic maths - take some MMs for various allegros and calculate the speed of the fastest notes. You might then observe that such speeds can neither be played on modern nor period instruments. They may well also be too fast for the brain to hear the individual notes.

[@johnericsson749]

I’ve already done some basic maths and know that the amount of pieces with speeds of 25 notes a second is next to nothing. Very few pieces demand speeds higher than 14 notes a second, 14 notes a second being perfectly playable. With regards to pieces that actually are excessively fast, the double beat theory is not a reasonable solution, namely because the evidence against it is absolutely overwhelming.

[@jovankabanjac2310]

It is the right of every single musician to represent his opinion about the proper tempo especially for the music for period instruments. I consider some of here presented interpretations far to fast. Music is not only tempo, and the best interpretation need not be the fastest one. I esteem Wim Winters very highly as a musician. He plays very convinsing and expressive in his way.

[@danielwaitzman2118]

Wim Winters is one of the most anti-musical persons I have ever heard.

[@geiryvindeskeland7208]

jovankabanjac. Can Wim Winters play? Yes. Can WW play fast? Yes. Can WW express himself musically? I’ve heard some examples of that, yes. But what then is the problem? The problem with Wim Winters is that once he gets a metronome in his hands, things go completely wrong. With a metronome in his hands, he changes the history of music, and no one should do that. We’re just going to recreate music history. It is disrespectful to the virtuoso musicians from the past to reduce the virtuosos to average musicians. The virtuoso was a natural part of our western music history, and should of course not be removed just because someone does not like the phenomenon of virtuosity. When we are lucky enough to have the composers own MM-numbers, they should of course be respected! The «impossible» MM numbers must be given a logical explanation, because the smaller number of «impossible» MM numbers should not falsify music history when most MM numbers are playable. Wim Winters is not qualified to tell us what’s impossible to play. Only the very best can answer that question. jovankabanjac, sometimes Wim Winters manipulates you guys in his videos, and other times he sencors comments. You have to understand that when he has to manipulate and senor it means that something is not right with Gadient/Winters theory.

[@XPKpianist]

You need to check your ears if you think Wim plays convincingly and expressively.

[@XPKpianist]

⁠​⁠@@geiryvindeskeland7208can Wim Winters play? Yes, maybe he could enter some low level conservatories for a bachelor degree in piano performance but not anything more advance than that. Can he play fast? Everyone can play fast, but can you play clean and fast with everything under controls? We would never know until he produces anything at a proper tempo. Can he express himself? Yes, he can express his bullshit theory all he wants, but it’s never a fact and will never turn into one.

[@pianisthenics]

He can’t even play anything properly how could you say he plays very convincingly? How??!

[@petertyrrell3391]

Piano rolls, I understand, are very easy to speed up.

[@classicsound7146]

All piano rolls are available online. Have you asked yourself why would have they been accelerated in the first instance? To serve which purpose? There was nothing to prove as double beat is an invention from the 1980's which got debunked quickly anyway. And by the way, true recordings and live performance of composers like Rachaminoff were avail and even faster than the piano rolls that you think have been accelerated. There was nothing to prove as double beat is an invention from the 1980's which got debunked quickly anyway.

[@petertyrrell3391]

@@classicsound7146 Accelerated piano rolls would give the impression that the performer could play faster than he did in reality, and fast playing was and still is considered the mark of a musician's ability even if the music doesn't demand it. You need to understand the difference between denying and debunking before you assert that DB has been debunked. You may wish that DB had been debunked, but that is wishful thinking on your part, and ignoring evidence.

[@classicsound7146]

@@petertyrrell3391 It is usually quite entertaining to discuss with double beat believers as their logic defies gravity 🤣 Obviously, piano rolls couldn't have been accelerated when these famous pianists were alive as these pianists were actually all performing live artists and were for the majority very famous. So they had to be accelerated long after their death . More importantly , you seem to forget that a piano roll is a physical asset , not a digital one You can accelerate whatever you want on youtube but you cannot accelerate the original roll . You can reproduce a fake copy , but unfortunately for you , these rolls are actually very much valued and kept for their vast majority in musical conservatories or museums. You are confused regarding acceleration , as these rolls don't have the stability of a vinyl record , so you may have variation of 2, 3 max , but nowhere near 100% speed acceleration ( which would be needed , to transform a double beat record into a single beat one) I suggest you document yourself on the subject. Secondly regarding my wishful thinking , I have no interest in this theory and I am sorry to be the bearer of bad news but Talsma has been officially debunked by scholars. It is publicly available on the internet. But the term 'debunk' is not appropriate You cannot debunk double beat and prove it never existed . If I tell you there was an UFO on top your house last night , you will never be able to prove the contrary either. So you don't debunk a theory of this kind , using a mathematical formula, you just have to look at the impressive official documents, ( books, methods, annotations) in the 19th century to establish it is a fake theory. I actually return your formula to you. You absolutely want double beat theory to be true. For which reason , I don't know and moreover I don't care but maybe you could refrain to use logical arguments as it makes you look s….y.

[@petertyrrell3391]

@@classicsound7146 You produce no evidence that DB has been debunked. The doubtful thing about Talsma was his view on slow movements, but research has moved on since then. The supposedly debunking scholars produce bad work mutually validated by their friends. I know piano rolls are physical - this actually means they are easy to manipulate during their manufacture.

[@laowei7279]

...so amazing how Mary Garden sings on a piano roll with Debussy... 😉

[@thepianocornertpc]

THE INSANE METRONOME & DOUBLE BEAT THEORY: A JOURNEY IN UTTER LUNACY In the illustrious realm of music theory, where genius minds thrive, there exists a theory so ludicrous, so utterly preposterous that it defies the boundaries of rational thought: The Insane Metronome and Double-Beat Theory, presented by the illustrious Wim Winters. Hold on to your hats, folks, as we dive head-first into the depths of musical delusion peppered with a healthy dose of well-deserved insults. Prepare yourselves for a wild ride into the twisted world of Wim Winters and his extraordinary musical expertise. We'll discover that f.e., Caruso, Toscanini, Horowitz, Rubinstein, Michelangeli, and countless other phenomenal musicians were misguided fools who couldn't even grasp the concept of correct tempi. According to the great Winters, their performances of Beethoven Concertos, Schubert songs or Chopin or Liszt études were just sad, pitiful attempts at making music. I mean, come on! Who needs Caruso's angelic voice, Toscanini's impeccable conducting skills, or Von Karajan's legendary interpretations when we have only Wim Winters to enlighten us? Apparently, these virtuosos were simply unaware of the hidden secrets of tempo, as if they were completely oblivious to the concept of musical expression. But fear not, my friends, for Wim Winters has risen like a musical messiah to save us from the clutches of these so-called "phenomenal musicians." With his groundbreaking theories and delightful fantasies, Winters unveils a new world of musical understanding that the greats of the past couldn't even fathom. Imagine the audacity of Caruso, trying to touch our souls with his heavenly voice, only to be completely off-tempo, according to Winters. Or poor Horowitz, who spent a lifetime captivating audiences with his electrifying performances yet failing to hit those "correct" tempi as dictated by the almighty Wim. It's a wonder they were even able to gain any recognition at all! Oh, and let's not forget Arthur Rubinstein, Elizabeth Schwartzkopf, Otto Klemperer, Arturo Benedetti Michelangeli, Sviatoslav Richter, David Oistrakh, Sergiu Celibidache. How dare they think they knew what they were doing? It turns out they were all playing along, blissfully ignorant of the profound knowledge that Winters possesses. So, my fellow music enthusiasts, let us abandon the works of these revered musicians and turn to Wim Winters as our true guiding light. Let us discard the mastery and brilliance of the past in favour of Winters' theories and fantasies because he is the ultimate authority on all things tempo-related. In conclusion, dear readers, let us bid farewell to the greats of the past, for they were nothing more than bumbling fools regarding correct tempi. With his unparalleled wisdom and unmatched wit, Wim Winters has shown us the path to true musical enlightenment. May we all follow in his footsteps and embrace the sheer brilliance that he alone possesses. According to the unparalleled genius that is Winters, the humble metronome, that ticking mechanical contraption, possesses the ability to keep time and a hidden sentience that rivals that of a particularly dimwitted amoeba. Yes, my dear readers, we are meant to believe that this inanimate object has desires and aspirations. Truly, the world is a magical place! But wait, it gets even more ludicrous! Winters proposes that this metronome, in all its supposed wisdom, harbours a secret double beat. Oh, how delightful! Apparently, the metronome is not content with its mundane task of ticking away the seconds; it craves a life of complexity and mystery. I almost hear the metronome whispering, "I long to be more than a timekeeper, dear musician. Unleash my hidden double beat, and we shall conquer the musical universe together!" According to our esteemed theorist, this mysterious double beat can manipulate time. By tampering with the metronome's tempo, musicians can transcend the confines of the mortal plane and venture into a parallel dimension of musical transcendence. Move over, Einstein! We have a new genius in town, and his name is Wim Winters, the patron saint of musical lunacy. But let us not forget that the metronome is not the sole repository of this mystical double beat. Oh no, my friends, according to Winters, every object in the universe, from a paper clip to a cheese grater, has its own hidden double beat. Just imagine the symphony of chaos that surrounds us! Who needs a grand orchestra when you can have a rousing concerto of door hinges and squeaky chairs? To support his outlandish claims, Winters presents us with a dizzying array of incomprehensible equations and diagrams that make even the most obtuse mathematicians scratch their heads in bewilderment. It's as if he took a blender, threw in a few random symbols, and hit the "purée" button. Bravo, Winters! You have successfully transformed logic into a twisted carnival of confusion. Unsurprisingly, Winters has amassed a following of loyal followers who willingly succumb to his lunacy and spend their days desperately tinkering with metronomes, searching for the elusive double beat. It's a cult of musical madness, where reason goes to die and melodrama reigns supreme. I can't help but imagine them huddled in dimly lit rooms, chanting, "Oh mighty metronome, reveal to us your sacred double beat!" In conclusion, this Double-Beat Theory is a testament to the depths of human gullibility and the lengths some individuals will go to embrace utter absurdity. Wim Winters has solidified his position as the clown prince of musical charlatans with his whimsical claims and baffling equations. So, let us raise our imaginary metronomes in mock applause to Winters and his remarkable ability to transform the banal into the bewilderingly ludicrous.

[@GundulaRach]

This wonderful Musicians are not so wonderful you mean ... Wim Winters is nevertheless right !!!