However, you are applying contemporary practice of reading the metronome even though it causes musical nonsense. How can anyone then or now play 15, 20 or 25+ notes per second?
This is a good, recommendable performance. I'm amazed that there are still people in 2020 arguing about Beethoven's metronome marks being too fast. (Worth comparing the Allegro of Op. 106, at minim = 138, to the Presto of Op. 59 no. 2, at minim = 176; or the Allegro molto of Op. 59 no. 3, at minim = 168. I never hear string quartets complain.)
@@teodorlontos3294 To whom is the counterpoint lost? You? Me? Maybe not to others like, possibly, Beethoven who was stone deaf at the time so had to hear it in his head. Maybe Beethoven would have chosen different MM numbers if he could actually hear it. That said, the human brain, especially when trained, is remarkably adept at sorting out complex input.
Just wanted to point out that the first movement is taken much below Beethoven's metronome mark in this recording (nothing wrong with that). Many pianists have said that no person on earth can play the first movement in half = 138. So the first one is marked too fast.
@@ddgyt50 Just listen to 30:10. A passage very alike a Bach invention. Imagine playing a Bach invention at this speed. You can argue all day how the human brain can train to hear 3 lines of counterpoint that are not clearly delineated (not the fault of the performer, it is impossible at this speed) but the fact of the matter is that no one can. Beethoven wrote his late-period fugues looking back at his time with Haydn and Albrecthsberger so they are rooted in tradition.
@@teodorlontos3294 as I wrote above, please do not take your own incompetence as a yardstick for the universe. And Beethoven wrote his late fugues to look back on tradition? Did he write this somewhere? Or do you have a direct connection to his spirit?
Sr.Minkyu Kim, muchas gracias por ese trabajo maravilloso de ejecución de acuerdo con las indicaciones de metrónomo de Beethoven; se aprecia la grandiosa energía de la obra. Lo felicito; ojalá siga publicando sus ejecuciones de las sonatas de Beethoven. De nuevo, muchas gracias.
Perahia’s Hammerklavier is 3-4 minutes longer than this one. I’m not trying to say which is better. But where do you draw the line on whether someone is “obeying” Beethoven’s tempo indication?
Thank you, this was awesome! I was literally holding my breath. Loved loved the tempo. Beethoven wrote it in 1818. He said that for at least next 50 years nobody would be able to play it so difficult it was. He also composed it with new developments in pianoforte in mind which he was an expert on as well. Liszt performed it in 1836. Reading about the way HE usually performed, i would imagine he would play it the same way. As Andra Schiff (whose version I like too) said in his lecture about this sonata, pianists should play it as it was indicated and not try to be smarter than the composer. In any case it’s a matter of personal preference. Will definitely listen to other performances of this pianist!
Es ist erfreulich, dass hier endlich einmal jemand auch den langsamen Satz im richtigen Tempo (demjenigen von Beethoven) spielt. Tut man dies nicht, so bleibt die Musik immer irgendwie stehen, abgesehen davon, dass die Musik dann nicht fließt. Abgesehen davon findet der Satz dann auch "nie" ein Ende!
I have no wish to get into the single beat vs double beat argument but I just would like to say that I really love this sonata in this tempo !!! The first movement, in particular, has a kind of underlying nervous energy that really comes through at this tempo. I love performances of the romantic repertoire where the underlying feeling transcends the individual notes i.e. when the notes and harmony are not the focus but are the servants of the underlying conception and emotion rather like the words and rhythm in 19th century poetry serve to evoke the intended image in the mind and heart rather than being a focus unto themselves. I probably said that very badly but ... great and enlightening performance, sir ! Bravo ! :-) Subscribed.
I don't know whether you realise it, but you just gave the perfect summary of what Czerny describes in his piano school as 'the impassioned style', to which 'nearly all works of Beethoven' belong.
@@benjaminachron1493 I had no idea. I was merely referring to my own musical preferences based on nothing scholastic . I'm not a musicologist or anything, But thank you ! I will do some googling on the impassioned style and Czerny out of interest :-)
Beethoven - Hamerklavier Sonata, Op. 106It is a very good day. It is wonderful thank you in the future.Thank you for your good video today. Thank you in the future.
Bravo Minkyu Kim for playing the 1th fugue of the Hammerklaviersonate op. 106 with 4'46 minutes. 28:49 So you are equal with HJ Lim. Also your speed in the 1th movement is how Beethoven would have liked it. I' m very keen of more musical material of you.
Why are there so many lunatics here bitching about tempo?!? Artists can interpret and present their music however they want, and don't owe anyone an explanation. This is a solid presentation. The musical ideas are communicated in a clear and convincing manner.
@@spamcan9208 It is said that only Liszt made it playing in that tempo. Also, there are people in the 20th century that thought Beethoven wanted it to be unplayable. But actually, old pianos keys such as Beethoven's are way lighter, and it should be easier. it's the same thing with Chopin Étude in C Minor Op. 10 No. 12. There's no one who played it in tempo and with the accents if you look at the sheets.
I just noticed that you requested the text of an article of mine quite a few years ago. It's the one on Czerny and Moscheles. Did you end up finding it?
Great to hear that! Actually, the lecture, which I gave in Cologne last year, has now resulted in a book chapter. If you would like to read it (many of the arguments made in the lecture have been substantially improved…) do let me know, and I will send you a copy.
A very interesting question was brought up below. If this was marked prestissimo, how would you play it? Half = 152? = 164? If we have no room to speed up an allegro, we are clearly playing too fast. Same thing with the fugue. Allegro risoluto q = 144. What if it was a prestissimo? Is it possible to play it any faster? There is also the problem with not being able to percieve any of the beautiful conterpoint in the fugue in this tempo. I much prefer when I can hear it, that is the point of a fugue after all.
You have two points: the first one is simply wrong. The Italian words speak about the character and the tempo. Even in an adagio one can have passages that go to the limit of what is technically possible. See for instance Beethoven op 31-1 adagio. Or the slow movement of 30 nr 1. According to your theory, if we would have to be able to speed these passages up (a couple of times, since we should go to andante, moderato, allegro, vivace, presto, prestissimo)... even double-beat would be too fast. Second: you may consider this 'the point of a fugue', but maybe Beethoven didn't? Maybe the energy counted more than the clarity? And beautiful counterpoint? I have played the piece, and I would never have got my final exam in counterpoint with 10% of the clashes, false relations, etc... that Herr Beethoven allows himself. If you prefer Sanna, feel free, but this is not a historical argument.
@@benjaminachron1493 I Secondly, why did Beethoven write all those clashes when they are not heard? He could as easily have written simple scales or arpeggios. You can't claim those clashes to be important while also championing a tempo that obscures all of them.
@@teodorlontos3294 I'm not sure you got my point, I was merely replying to your statement of 'beautiful counterpoint'. Well, try writing that in your conservatory and see what happens ;). Beethoven clearly was not aiming for 'beautiful counterpoint' in this piece, or in the Grosse Fuge. I never wrote that 'these clashes are important' or words of the kind, please re-read my statements. It is not there. And second: I don't know what is wrong with your ears, but I can perfectly follow the music in my head in Minkyu's astonishing version. I don't play the piece myself this fast (nor could I...) but I'm sure Beethoven wasn't waiting for the approval of Theodor Lontos when he put his MM. His MM are simply historical facts, you use them in your playing or not, fine with me. My own favourite version is quite a bit slower than this, and is definitely unhistorical (probably even anti-historical). So be it. A performance is a performance, not a lecture. What is obnoxious however, is making up fake historical theories to compensate for your own incompetence, as some people like to do.
@@benjaminachron1493 You really seem to think a lot of people are incompetent. Great job at showing the internet what a nice and tolerable guy you are :) "Beautiful" is subjective. I find all those clashes to be very beautiful and in fact what makes this entire fugal movement great. What conservatories allow in their contrapuntal classes says nothing about whether or not dissonances are beautiful or not. For the record, I think the Grosse Fuge has beautiful counterpoint too. I agree that is MM's are historical facts and that's why I apply them in my playing and listening. Glad we could agree on something! Beethoven did not ask me for my approval, I'll check my email again to be sure... Please be honest with yourself, there's no way to nuance or hear the 16th note lines within this fugue (Again, no fault of the performer. This is a great performance!). I believe is historically inaccurate.
@@teodorlontos3294 as you certainly found out by now, I don't give a flying saucer what 'people on the internet' think of me. I have discussed these matters at length with collegues (just to clarify: people with conservatory and-or university degrees, not people who are at the beginning of their musical education who already believe they know better than 99,9% of professionals). They were always friendly and entertaining, but... they have actually studied the sources and have a methodological training. Quite recently I was even asked tot proofread a series of articles that speak about (possible) double-beat because that is what professional researchers do: they ask people who do NOT agree with them to proofread, because that strengthens their final publication. They do not avoid counter-arguments but embrace them. So yes, my bullshit tolerance is quite low, but I'm actually proud of that. And if you cannot hear the 16ths at this tempo, keep working. One day you will get there. And if you 'believe' this is historically inaccurate: of course: Steinway was founded in 1853 :). Best.
Still no one has answered the question why Beethoven marked it Allegro rather than Prestissimo. Perhaps he didn't know what Allegro meant as well as not knowing how to use a metronome?
@@minkyukim0204 There is not much evidence for your point of view. It is more likely that composers and musicians in one time period used the speed terms similarly.
@@minkyukim0204 Maelzel was complaining that some people, as in England, were using the metronome in SB rather than in DB as a pendulum should be used. He says "60 half notes (= 120 quarter notes) in 1 minute border on what I call moderato or andante". This is the tempo ordinario or thereabouts. We know that another source from this time said that tempo ordinario was about the speed of allegro moderato or allegretto.
@@petertyrrell3391 I'm sorry, but you are simply making things up. Maelzel DOES complain (as Minkyu Kim pointed out) that composers used the Italian terms to indicate complete different tempi, and he wanted his universal MM to put an end to this. His whole Anzeige from 1821 is full of examples, do deny this is just pitiful. Also, Maelzel did NOT complain about a 'double-beat use', that is just nonsense. He says people were not using his device in an effective way, without specifying what he meant. Were they using his precious machine to kill flies? Who will tell? He also makes very clear that he intended the metronome to be used in single-beat, any ten year old can repeat his examples and calculate for himself. Beethoven's halve=138 for the Allegro Assai (so: very fast) is a bit faster than Maelzel's halve=120 for a theoretical very fast tempo. However, don't forget that Maelzel clearly wrote that he was using round numbers and was not discussing any particular piece. "Der Bequemlichkeit halber habe ich den ersten Tabelle in Decimalzahlen eingeteilt.", so he only uses multiples of ten to make his point. In short: if you don't understand it by now, you just don't want to understand.
@@jorislejeune It is not me who doesn't understand - you are not capable of understanding what I actually wrote. I said it was likely that Maelzel was complaining about SB use - SB was used in England at this time, and the numbers come out at about half of those given by musicians and composers in Germany and Austria. You still have the problem of the unplayability of faster movement on both modern and old instruments (30 notes/sec!) as well as the musical gobbledygook, which most contributors to this site pretend doesn't happen. Czerny's value for tempo ordinario can also be worked out as about 1/4 = 120 in DB.
@@minkyukim0204 Yes. Possibly even you couldn't play it any faster (?). At this speed it sounds prestissimo or il piu prestissimo possibile. To me this shows a concept of the term Allegro right for Rachmaninov. How would it sound using just the pedalling B. indicated? It probably wouldn't work.
@@minkyukim0204 I would say this is a prestissimo version, but well-done for being able to play so fast. It is true Beethoven was very concerned about the look of his music on the page ("Beethoven's Sketches" by Paul Mies), but a barred C doesn't need to be super super fast. I feel you need to savour the chromaticism in bars 5-7 and in similar places more, which can only be done at a slower tempo. I really think you should take on some of the ideas of "Authentic Sound" and ignore the trolls which simply denigrate competent research.
@@minkyukim0204 Wim does not "denigrate" opposition or insult them personally, whereas his opposition do and in addition attack his family. One has to be wary of timings - I think the Berlioz timing of Liszt's performance of the Hammerklavier is ABOUT 1 hour. The timing for the Eroica is also that sort of time. You should also look at the evidence Sonnleitner produces in one of Ruchti's videos. Amongst other things, he mentions the first English edition of the Hammerklavier has 1/4=138 as do some other 19th C editions. Also why were MMs in the English-speaking world on average half the speed of those in Germany and Austria? Was it that we were less dynamic - I think not. Taking timings of operas literally throws up the problem of the human voice only being able to articulate a certain number of syllables per second, akin to the inability of early pianos to play repeated notes, or loud and fast for a long time. Physical impossibility has to be considered.
@@minkyukim0204 You make some interesting points. It is the same problem with Mendelssohn's MMs In Elijah and the organ sonatas - they look like double beat, but the slow movements sometimes seem too slow. I don't know the exact history of the Ries English MM and it may be that B didn't even know much about it, so couldn't have agreed or disagreed. If the Hammerklavier MM was really double-beat, then Moscheles might have been saying that 1/4 = 138 (or 1/2 = 69) was still too fast, especially for a work with contrapuntal complexities. The music publisher and musician, who knew Moscheles and other composers, and whose correspondence I have read, Vincent Novello gives MMs in general single beat and doable, except for his Mendelssohn editions. Then there is the Cushing metronome calibrated in both systems and other published 19th C works with indications suggesting 2 systems. The Neukomm annotated Haydn's Creation MMs I understand are twice the MMs on average of Novello's. Two works, which seem to pay homage to the Hammerklavier are not that fast - the Wanderer Fantasie and Brahms' C major sonata are not that fast, I would suggest.
@@minkyukim0204 Actually in one of the very early videos either Gadient or Wim said that some of these timings were a problem for double-beat. Another problem is we don't know how often repeats were played. For example in early sonata form movements often both sections are marked with repeats to be played, later just the first section and in one I know of, Beethoven's Op 90, 1st movement, no repeats are marked. Someone in comments elsewhere said that Beethoven showed annoyance if repeats were not observed. Later, Brahms recommended that repeats in his symphonies be played till audiences got to know the works better. It may be that the tendency was to cut down on repeats, but I don't really know. It may be quite likely that Viennese Classical works were already being played faster by the 1830s or 1840s (cf Finck).
... the "electric chair version" absolutely meaningless . there are countless implications in the harmony and melody with sharp intervals that are not understood.... great technique, but what else...?
Putting aside the silly argument between double beat and single beat, this performance though technically very impressive lacks musicality and that special magic and drama of this piece. I mean, the music demands more from the musician. I don't feel the anxiety of the first movement or the heartbreak of the second movement. Thats where this metronome nonsense falls short. You need to follow your musical instinct and not the dictates of a supposed metronome indication.
The fact that there are people who sincerely believe that when Beethoven composed his Hammerklavier Sonata, he had in mind what this poor man "plays" on the piano makes me think that something is seriously wrong on this planet. That some "musicians," whose technical achievements cannot be denied, give more importance to a number at the beginning of the score than to all the other musical indications in the score itself is quite disheartening. That if this number results in something nearly impossible to play (probably due to confusion or different metronome practices), or in any case musically ridiculous, some still prioritize that darned number over everything else, and it's essential to remember that everything else here means the music itself, highlights how wrong we are and, above all, how deficient music education is. That some obstinately attempt, without taking a moment to think, to reach an extremely fast tempo indication that Beethoven has specified (extremely fast if one misunderstands the indication, which is probably the case), and do not primarily aim to make music, is depressing. I wonder if anyone would have set as their goal to play the Hammerklavier Sonata at this ridiculous speed if that number wasn´t indicated. If it simply said "Allegro," at what speed would we play it? And if someone wanted to play an Allegro at the speed at which Mr. Minkyu Kim plays it (and many other great virtuosos athletes who also attempt it, although they don't reach 138 whole notes in a minute), at what speed would that person want to play a Presto or a Prestissimo? The only one who didn't have that as a goal was Gould.😀 I'll send you links to recordings in which some musicians have made music by playing the score that Beethoven has left us. Greetings to all! th-cam.com/video/hbZ_lJNN26s/w-d-xo.html th-cam.com/video/D22UOoJqDmY/w-d-xo.html
There's something wrong on this planet indeed, that there are people who are blindly believing people in 19th century and even some early 20th century used metronome differently. Usually they are more obsessed with the number indicated than others!
Okay. Could you play for us on your TH-cam channel Czerny's Study No. 22 from Opus 299 at half note = 96? But not at half note = 88, please, as that would be too slow. Or any other study by Czerny from the many where the tempo indication, as we commonly understand it, seems incomprehensible given the speed at which they would have to be played. If you choose Study No. 23 from Op. 365, for example, you don't need to play each repetition 12 times, as Czerny indicates, but it would be good if you did it at least 8 times. And do it as Allegro, as Presto, and then as Prestissimo. I think that Gould, Weingartner, or many other great musicians who play the Hammerklavier, and other works that are normally played too fast, at a slower tempo than indicated, don't take the number at the beginning of the score so seriously. And they are musicians of the 20th century. I'm not saying that we should play the works at half the tempo, just that there's no need to strive for those inhuman tempos just because there's a number indicating it, especially when there could be a confusion there. I don't know. I have no doubt about your musical ability, and your technical level is undoubtedly impressive. I would recommend that you consider performing the Hammerklavier (or any other work by a great composer that requires inhuman speed) at half the indicated tempo, or even slower. Why not? It's not a sin to interpret them more slowly. I have no doubt that you would demonstrate your musical depth and your level of understanding of these masterpieces of music without having to show us how fast you can play on the keys. In some cases, you would still be performing technical feats, as in the case of Beethoven's Hammerklavier Sonata, which at half note = 69, as we commonly read the metronome, is already quite challenging (obviously not for you, but for the rest of us mortals). If you were told in a competition that you are playing it too slowly, tell them it's okay, that other great pianists like Pollini, Brendel, Schiff, even Levit or Lang Lang also play it slower than indicated by Beethoven. Tell them to listen to all the other things you're doing when playing the pieces more slowly, and that they wouldn't be heard, or wouldn't be perceived with the same intensity, if you played them at double the speed. Tell them that you can play them faster, without a doubt, but that it's not necessary. And some listeners would appreciate it if you did that, and we would talk about your musical greatness, which is what matters, and not whether you're the fastest in the Wild West or not. Greetings!
@@germanmoreno9609 i’m not against slow performances! Play at your tempo, perhaps half speed if you prefer, but without insisting that’s the historical tempo!
I'm glad you have nothing against slower tempos. And I assume you also have no objection to playing the Hammerklavier Sonata, or any other Beethoven Sonata that is usually played extremely fast, at a slower tempo compared to how it's commonly performed. I'm not saying that the historically correct way to interpret tempo markings is by counting two beats instead of one. I haven't mentioned that in any comment here. What I'm saying is that, given that some tempos result in inhumanly fast or simply ridiculous speeds, there might be some confusion in how we understand the use of the metronome. I don't know how Beethoven, Czerny, or Brahms used the metronome. One can imagine many things, even the somewhat ridiculous theory that Beethoven's metronome didn't work well, but when trying to make music, anyone can sense that something doesn't quite fit in those tempo indications. And what I'm saying is: please pay more attention to the indication of Allegro or Lebhaft und mit innigster Empfindung, or those kinds of descriptions, than to a number, and keep in mind that first and foremost, we are making music. And I don't want to imply that, for instance, a Klavierstück by Stockhausen or a piano piece by Ferneyhough is not music; rather, they indeed doesn't belong to the same musical conception as Beethoven's compositions or, in general, to the compositions that prevailed until the 20th century. I'm glad you have nothing against playing slowly, but the problem is that many pianists, good pianists, are hesitant to play Beethoven's fast-tempo works because they are not as technically athletic as you (those who try to reach those indicated tempos even if they are extremely fast) and can't play them as fast. And it's a shame that this happens. And it happens because there is indeed pressure to play them at those frenetic speeds. Although IT MAY not be true that Beethoven intended his works to be played at those speeds. And even if he did, there would be no problem in playing them slower, even at half the tempo or even much slower. That's why I'm glad you don't object to that. And only one more thing: I never intended to insult you at any point. When I said "poor man," I said it because I thought about how much you must have suffered to achieve that technical perfection. You are actually super cool.
@@germanmoreno9609 The thing is every composers has different meaning of Allegro! Beethoven's tempo markings (and metronome markings) are very consistent, even though we have to adjust them for modern instruments! I agree music is more important than tempi, but I don't think Beethoven wanted it to be played veeeeery slow. PS if you say "different metronome practices", especially here, where double beaters are easily found, one may assume you are talking about double beat!
I am bawling my eyes out in happiness that someone is taking seriously Beethoven's tempi on this piece. Thank you, thank you, thank you!
However, you are applying contemporary practice of reading the metronome even though it causes musical nonsense. How can anyone then or now play 15, 20 or 25+ notes per second?
@@petertyrrell3391 by using your fingers
Jesus Christ those double beaters... Came here from Simon Danell. Your playing is amazing and flawless!
@glass of juice I'm not. I just got curious with his channel
@glass of juice Me neither. Anyway, I use Seemusic and After Effects for the falling notes. For the keyboard, any will do as long as they record MIDI.
society: "Beethovens tempo marking is immpossible!!!"
Minkyu Kim: Hold my beer.
This performance. It’s unbelievably quick and uncomfortable. Thats what makes it so beautiful.
Impressive performance. Transcends the 'race horse' mentality of so many people who attempt to play it this fast.
This is a good, recommendable performance. I'm amazed that there are still people in 2020 arguing about Beethoven's metronome marks being too fast. (Worth comparing the Allegro of Op. 106, at minim = 138, to the Presto of Op. 59 no. 2, at minim = 176; or the Allegro molto of Op. 59 no. 3, at minim = 168. I never hear string quartets complain.)
Just because the metronome markings are playable doesn't mean they are recommendable. The fugue's exquisite counterpoint is lost in this tempo.
@@teodorlontos3294 To whom is the counterpoint lost? You? Me? Maybe not to others like, possibly, Beethoven who was stone deaf at the time so had to hear it in his head. Maybe Beethoven would have chosen different MM numbers if he could actually hear it. That said, the human brain, especially when trained, is remarkably adept at sorting out complex input.
Just wanted to point out that the first movement is taken much below Beethoven's metronome mark in this recording (nothing wrong with that). Many pianists have said that no person on earth can play the first movement in half = 138. So the first one is marked too fast.
@@ddgyt50 Just listen to 30:10. A passage very alike a Bach invention. Imagine playing a Bach invention at this speed. You can argue all day how the human brain can train to hear 3 lines of counterpoint that are not clearly delineated (not the fault of the performer, it is impossible at this speed) but the fact of the matter is that no one can. Beethoven wrote his late-period fugues looking back at his time with Haydn and Albrecthsberger so they are rooted in tradition.
@@teodorlontos3294 as I wrote above, please do not take your own incompetence as a yardstick for the universe.
And Beethoven wrote his late fugues to look back on tradition? Did he write this somewhere? Or do you have a direct connection to his spirit?
Sr.Minkyu Kim, muchas gracias por ese trabajo maravilloso de ejecución de acuerdo con las indicaciones de metrónomo de Beethoven; se aprecia la grandiosa energía de la obra. Lo felicito; ojalá siga publicando sus ejecuciones de las sonatas de Beethoven. De nuevo, muchas gracias.
Bravissimo! Levit, Perahia, Wang and this young maestro obey Beethoven tempo. Great 👍 👏👏👏
Perahia’s Hammerklavier is 3-4 minutes longer than this one. I’m not trying to say which is better. But where do you draw the line on whether someone is “obeying” Beethoven’s tempo indication?
superb technique! one of the best interpretations of this piece❤️
Absolutely stunning performance!!
귀호강 제대로 합니다
수준높은 연주 높이 평가합니다
감사합니다
Thank you, this was awesome! I was literally holding my breath. Loved loved the tempo. Beethoven wrote it in 1818. He said that for at least next 50 years nobody would be able to play it so difficult it was. He also composed it with new developments in pianoforte in mind which he was an expert on as well. Liszt performed it in 1836. Reading about the way HE usually performed, i would imagine he would play it the same way. As Andra Schiff (whose version I like too) said in his lecture about this sonata, pianists should play it as it was indicated and not try to be smarter than the composer. In any case it’s a matter of personal preference. Will definitely listen to other performances of this pianist!
Then why is Schiff’s performance 9 minutes longer than this one?
Es ist erfreulich, dass hier endlich einmal jemand auch den langsamen Satz im richtigen Tempo (demjenigen von Beethoven) spielt. Tut man dies nicht, so bleibt die Musik immer irgendwie stehen, abgesehen davon, dass die Musik dann nicht fließt. Abgesehen davon findet der Satz dann auch "nie" ein Ende!
I have no wish to get into the single beat vs double beat argument but I just would like to say that I really love this sonata in this tempo !!! The first movement, in particular, has a kind of underlying nervous energy that really comes through at this tempo. I love performances of the romantic repertoire where the underlying feeling transcends the individual notes i.e. when the notes and harmony are not the focus but are the servants of the underlying conception and emotion rather like the words and rhythm in 19th century poetry serve to evoke the intended image in the mind and heart rather than being a focus unto themselves. I probably said that very badly but ... great and enlightening performance, sir ! Bravo ! :-) Subscribed.
I don't know whether you realise it, but you just gave the perfect summary of what Czerny describes in his piano school as 'the impassioned style', to which 'nearly all works of Beethoven' belong.
@@benjaminachron1493 I had no idea. I was merely referring to my own musical preferences based on nothing scholastic . I'm not a musicologist or anything, But thank you ! I will do some googling on the impassioned style and Czerny out of interest :-)
오늘도 듣고 싶어서 또 왔습니다~^^
Beethoven - Hamerklavier Sonata, Op. 106It is a very good day. It is wonderful thank you in the future.Thank you for your good video today. Thank you in the future.
다시 들어도 감동적인 연주~
감동입니다
너무 훌륭한 연주 감사합니다..
Bravo Minkyu Kim for playing the 1th fugue of the Hammerklaviersonate op. 106 with 4'46 minutes. 28:49 So you are equal with HJ Lim. Also your speed
in the 1th movement is how Beethoven would have liked it. I' m very keen of more musical material of you.
역시 최고로 잘 치시는 민규님~^^실연으로 듣고싶어요
Why are there so many lunatics here bitching about tempo?!? Artists can interpret and present their music however they want, and don't owe anyone an explanation. This is a solid presentation. The musical ideas are communicated in a clear and convincing manner.
Because Beethoven wanted to be played at 138 which is an impossible tempo.
@@thelittlegamer6209 Why did he write it so fast then? I'm assuming that only a computer program can play at that speed?
@@spamcan9208 It is said that only Liszt made it playing in that tempo. Also, there are people in the 20th century that thought Beethoven wanted it to be unplayable. But actually, old pianos keys such as Beethoven's are way lighter, and it should be easier. it's the same thing with Chopin Étude in C Minor Op. 10 No. 12. There's no one who played it in tempo and with the accents if you look at the sheets.
@@spamcan9208 the most reasonable reason is that his metronome was miscalibrated
@@thelittlegamer6209 if it’s impossible, how did he play it?
im jealous. Great work!
군대에서 오랜만에 귀 정화하고 갑니다 고맙습니다 ( _ _ )
진짜 미쵸따
즐청하겠습니다
놀라운 실력
최고입니다
Awesome!
무대에서 뵐 날을 고대하겠습니다~^^
Well done! How long did it take you to learn it?
@@minkyukim0204 That's really impressive.
I just noticed that you requested the text of an article of mine quite a few years ago. It's the one on Czerny and Moscheles. Did you end up finding it?
Great to hear that! Actually, the lecture, which I gave in Cologne last year, has now resulted in a book chapter. If you would like to read it (many of the arguments made in the lecture have been substantially improved…) do let me know, and I will send you a copy.
Thank you Marten for your work on Beethoven's tempi. I've been reading. And thank you Minkyu for this amazing performance!
@@josephsimone99 My pleasure. Just curious: which text of mine are you reading?
청각정화 👍
1:43 i like the use of trill
aswomebro, yeah, listen to the trill(1:49)it is a real technical challenge! And now compare this to Alberto Sanna’s version at 3:43……… :)
그래서 귀국독주회는 언제쯤하시죠
You my sir, are insane. Too bad classical piano is quite a niche, you would be famous if the world was fair.
A very interesting question was brought up below. If this was marked prestissimo, how would you play it? Half = 152? = 164? If we have no room to speed up an allegro, we are clearly playing too fast.
Same thing with the fugue. Allegro risoluto q = 144. What if it was a prestissimo? Is it possible to play it any faster? There is also the problem with not being able to percieve any of the beautiful conterpoint in the fugue in this tempo. I much prefer when I can hear it, that is the point of a fugue after all.
You have two points: the first one is simply wrong. The Italian words speak about the character and the tempo. Even in an adagio one can have passages that go to the limit of what is technically possible. See for instance Beethoven op 31-1 adagio. Or the slow movement of 30 nr 1.
According to your theory, if we would have to be able to speed these passages up (a couple of times, since we should go to andante, moderato, allegro, vivace, presto, prestissimo)... even double-beat would be too fast.
Second: you may consider this 'the point of a fugue', but maybe Beethoven didn't? Maybe the energy counted more than the clarity? And beautiful counterpoint? I have played the piece, and I would never have got my final exam in counterpoint with 10% of the clashes, false relations, etc... that Herr Beethoven allows himself.
If you prefer Sanna, feel free, but this is not a historical argument.
@@benjaminachron1493 I
Secondly, why did Beethoven write all those clashes when they are not heard? He could as easily have written simple scales or arpeggios. You can't claim those clashes to be important while also championing a tempo that obscures all of them.
@@teodorlontos3294 I'm not sure you got my point, I was merely replying to your statement of 'beautiful counterpoint'. Well, try writing that in your conservatory and see what happens ;). Beethoven clearly was not aiming for 'beautiful counterpoint' in this piece, or in the Grosse Fuge.
I never wrote that 'these clashes are important' or words of the kind, please re-read my statements. It is not there.
And second: I don't know what is wrong with your ears, but I can perfectly follow the music in my head in Minkyu's astonishing version. I don't play the piece myself this fast (nor could I...) but I'm sure Beethoven wasn't waiting for the approval of Theodor Lontos when he put his MM.
His MM are simply historical facts, you use them in your playing or not, fine with me. My own favourite version is quite a bit slower than this, and is definitely unhistorical (probably even anti-historical). So be it. A performance is a performance, not a lecture.
What is obnoxious however, is making up fake historical theories to compensate for your own incompetence, as some people like to do.
@@benjaminachron1493 You really seem to think a lot of people are incompetent. Great job at showing the internet what a nice and tolerable guy you are :)
"Beautiful" is subjective. I find all those clashes to be very beautiful and in fact what makes this entire fugal movement great. What conservatories allow in their contrapuntal classes says nothing about whether or not dissonances are beautiful or not. For the record, I think the Grosse Fuge has beautiful counterpoint too.
I agree that is MM's are historical facts and that's why I apply them in my playing and listening. Glad we could agree on something! Beethoven did not ask me for my approval, I'll check my email again to be sure...
Please be honest with yourself, there's no way to nuance or hear the 16th note lines within this fugue (Again, no fault of the performer. This is a great performance!). I believe is historically inaccurate.
@@teodorlontos3294 as you certainly found out by now, I don't give a flying saucer what 'people on the internet' think of me.
I have discussed these matters at length with collegues (just to clarify: people with conservatory and-or university degrees, not people who are at the beginning of their musical education who already believe they know better than 99,9% of professionals). They were always friendly and entertaining, but... they have actually studied the sources and have a methodological training.
Quite recently I was even asked tot proofread a series of articles that speak about (possible) double-beat because that is what professional researchers do: they ask people who do NOT agree with them to proofread, because that strengthens their final publication. They do not avoid counter-arguments but embrace them.
So yes, my bullshit tolerance is quite low, but I'm actually proud of that.
And if you cannot hear the 16ths at this tempo, keep working. One day you will get there.
And if you 'believe' this is historically inaccurate: of course: Steinway was founded in 1853 :). Best.
Has this been done? Is this in tempo with the MM of beethoven, if so my mouth is open and i will say good job with this.
yes indeed.
good job
❤ 🎉 ❤ ~~~
Nice performance but personally i think the whole beat tempo for this is both correct, and sounds much better
Still no one has answered the question why Beethoven marked it Allegro rather than Prestissimo. Perhaps he didn't know what Allegro meant as well as not knowing how to use a metronome?
@@minkyukim0204 There is not much evidence for your point of view. It is more likely that composers and musicians in one time period used the speed terms similarly.
@@minkyukim0204 Obviously you didn't read Maelzel properly. He also described tempo ordinario as 1/4=120, which we all know to be 1/4=60.
@@minkyukim0204 Maelzel was complaining that some people, as in England, were using the metronome in SB rather than in DB as a pendulum should be used. He says "60 half notes (= 120 quarter notes) in 1 minute border on what I call moderato or andante". This is the tempo ordinario or thereabouts. We know that another source from this time said that tempo ordinario was about the speed of allegro moderato or allegretto.
@@petertyrrell3391 I'm sorry, but you are simply making things up. Maelzel DOES complain (as Minkyu Kim pointed out) that composers used the Italian terms to indicate complete different tempi, and he wanted his universal MM to put an end to this. His whole Anzeige from 1821 is full of examples, do deny this is just pitiful.
Also, Maelzel did NOT complain about a 'double-beat use', that is just nonsense. He says people were not using his device in an effective way, without specifying what he meant. Were they using his precious machine to kill flies? Who will tell?
He also makes very clear that he intended the metronome to be used in single-beat, any ten year old can repeat his examples and calculate for himself.
Beethoven's halve=138 for the Allegro Assai (so: very fast) is a bit faster than Maelzel's halve=120 for a theoretical very fast tempo. However, don't forget that Maelzel clearly wrote that he was using round numbers and was not discussing any particular piece. "Der Bequemlichkeit halber habe ich den ersten Tabelle in Decimalzahlen eingeteilt.", so he only uses multiples of ten to make his point.
In short: if you don't understand it by now, you just don't want to understand.
@@jorislejeune It is not me who doesn't understand - you are not capable of understanding what I actually wrote. I said it was likely that Maelzel was complaining about SB use - SB was used in England at this time, and the numbers come out at about half of those given by musicians and composers in Germany and Austria. You still have the problem of the unplayability of faster movement on both modern and old instruments (30 notes/sec!) as well as the musical gobbledygook, which most contributors to this site pretend doesn't happen. Czerny's value for tempo ordinario can also be worked out as about 1/4 = 120 in DB.
Why is the first movement marked Allegro not Prestissimo?
@@minkyukim0204 Yes. Possibly even you couldn't play it any faster (?). At this speed it sounds prestissimo or il piu prestissimo possibile. To me this shows a concept of the term Allegro right for Rachmaninov. How would it sound using just the pedalling B. indicated? It probably wouldn't work.
@@minkyukim0204 I would say this is a prestissimo version, but well-done for being able to play so fast. It is true Beethoven was very concerned about the look of his music on the page ("Beethoven's Sketches" by Paul Mies), but a barred C doesn't need to be super super fast. I feel you need to savour the chromaticism in bars 5-7 and in similar places more, which can only be done at a slower tempo. I really think you should take on some of the ideas of "Authentic Sound" and ignore the trolls which simply denigrate competent research.
@@minkyukim0204 Wim does not "denigrate" opposition or insult them personally, whereas his opposition do and in addition attack his family. One has to be wary of timings - I think the Berlioz timing of Liszt's performance of the Hammerklavier is ABOUT 1 hour. The timing for the Eroica is also that sort of time. You should also look at the evidence Sonnleitner produces in one of Ruchti's videos. Amongst other things, he mentions the first English edition of the Hammerklavier has 1/4=138 as do some other 19th C editions. Also why were MMs in the English-speaking world on average half the speed of those in Germany and Austria? Was it that we were less dynamic - I think not. Taking timings of operas literally throws up the problem of the human voice only being able to articulate a certain number of syllables per second, akin to the inability of early pianos to play repeated notes, or loud and fast for a long time. Physical impossibility has to be considered.
@@minkyukim0204 You make some interesting points. It is the same problem with Mendelssohn's MMs In Elijah and the organ sonatas - they look like double beat, but the slow movements sometimes seem too slow. I don't know the exact history of the Ries English MM and it may be that B didn't even know much about it, so couldn't have agreed or disagreed. If the Hammerklavier MM was really double-beat, then Moscheles might have been saying that 1/4 = 138 (or 1/2 = 69) was still too fast, especially for a work with contrapuntal complexities. The music publisher and musician, who knew Moscheles and other composers, and whose correspondence I have read, Vincent Novello gives MMs in general single beat and doable, except for his Mendelssohn editions. Then there is the Cushing metronome calibrated in both systems and other published 19th C works with indications suggesting 2 systems. The Neukomm annotated Haydn's Creation MMs I understand are twice the MMs on average of Novello's. Two works, which seem to pay homage to the Hammerklavier are not that fast - the Wanderer Fantasie and Brahms' C major sonata are not that fast, I would suggest.
@@minkyukim0204 Actually in one of the very early videos either Gadient or Wim said that some of these timings were a problem for double-beat. Another problem is we don't know how often repeats were played. For example in early sonata form movements often both sections are marked with repeats to be played, later just the first section and in one I know of, Beethoven's Op 90, 1st movement, no repeats are marked. Someone in comments elsewhere said that Beethoven showed annoyance if repeats were not observed. Later, Brahms recommended that repeats in his symphonies be played till audiences got to know the works better. It may be that the tendency was to cut down on repeats, but I don't really know. It may be quite likely that Viennese Classical works were already being played faster by the 1830s or 1840s (cf Finck).
28:36
... the "electric chair version" absolutely meaningless . there are countless implications in the harmony and melody with sharp intervals that are not understood.... great technique, but what else...?
Putting aside the silly argument between double beat and single beat, this performance though technically very impressive lacks musicality and that special magic and drama of this piece. I mean, the music demands more from the musician. I don't feel the anxiety of the first movement or the heartbreak of the second movement. Thats where this metronome nonsense falls short. You need to follow your musical instinct and not the dictates of a supposed metronome indication.
The fact that there are people who sincerely believe that when Beethoven composed his Hammerklavier Sonata, he had in mind what this poor man "plays" on the piano makes me think that something is seriously wrong on this planet. That some "musicians," whose technical achievements cannot be denied, give more importance to a number at the beginning of the score than to all the other musical indications in the score itself is quite disheartening. That if this number results in something nearly impossible to play (probably due to confusion or different metronome practices), or in any case musically ridiculous, some still prioritize that darned number over everything else, and it's essential to remember that everything else here means the music itself, highlights how wrong we are and, above all, how deficient music education is.
That some obstinately attempt, without taking a moment to think, to reach an extremely fast tempo indication that Beethoven has specified (extremely fast if one misunderstands the indication, which is probably the case), and do not primarily aim to make music, is depressing.
I wonder if anyone would have set as their goal to play the Hammerklavier Sonata at this ridiculous speed if that number wasn´t indicated. If it simply said "Allegro," at what speed would we play it? And if someone wanted to play an Allegro at the speed at which Mr. Minkyu Kim plays it (and many other great virtuosos athletes who also attempt it, although they don't reach 138 whole notes in a minute), at what speed would that person want to play a Presto or a Prestissimo?
The only one who didn't have that as a goal was Gould.😀
I'll send you links to recordings in which some musicians have made music by playing the score that Beethoven has left us. Greetings to all!
th-cam.com/video/hbZ_lJNN26s/w-d-xo.html
th-cam.com/video/D22UOoJqDmY/w-d-xo.html
There's something wrong on this planet indeed, that there are people who are blindly believing people in 19th century and even some early 20th century used metronome differently. Usually they are more obsessed with the number indicated than others!
Okay. Could you play for us on your TH-cam channel Czerny's Study No. 22 from Opus 299 at half note = 96? But not at half note = 88, please, as that would be too slow. Or any other study by Czerny from the many where the tempo indication, as we commonly understand it, seems incomprehensible given the speed at which they would have to be played. If you choose Study No. 23 from Op. 365, for example, you don't need to play each repetition 12 times, as Czerny indicates, but it would be good if you did it at least 8 times. And do it as Allegro, as Presto, and then as Prestissimo.
I think that Gould, Weingartner, or many other great musicians who play the Hammerklavier, and other works that are normally played too fast, at a slower tempo than indicated, don't take the number at the beginning of the score so seriously. And they are musicians of the 20th century. I'm not saying that we should play the works at half the tempo, just that there's no need to strive for those inhuman tempos just because there's a number indicating it, especially when there could be a confusion there. I don't know.
I have no doubt about your musical ability, and your technical level is undoubtedly impressive. I would recommend that you consider performing the Hammerklavier (or any other work by a great composer that requires inhuman speed) at half the indicated tempo, or even slower. Why not? It's not a sin to interpret them more slowly. I have no doubt that you would demonstrate your musical depth and your level of understanding of these masterpieces of music without having to show us how fast you can play on the keys. In some cases, you would still be performing technical feats, as in the case of Beethoven's Hammerklavier Sonata, which at half note = 69, as we commonly read the metronome, is already quite challenging (obviously not for you, but for the rest of us mortals). If you were told in a competition that you are playing it too slowly, tell them it's okay, that other great pianists like Pollini, Brendel, Schiff, even Levit or Lang Lang also play it slower than indicated by Beethoven. Tell them to listen to all the other things you're doing when playing the pieces more slowly, and that they wouldn't be heard, or wouldn't be perceived with the same intensity, if you played them at double the speed. Tell them that you can play them faster, without a doubt, but that it's not necessary. And some listeners would appreciate it if you did that, and we would talk about your musical greatness, which is what matters, and not whether you're the fastest in the Wild West or not. Greetings!
@@germanmoreno9609 i’m not against slow performances! Play at your tempo, perhaps half speed if you prefer, but without insisting that’s the historical tempo!
I'm glad you have nothing against slower tempos. And I assume you also have no objection to playing the Hammerklavier Sonata, or any other Beethoven Sonata that is usually played extremely fast, at a slower tempo compared to how it's commonly performed. I'm not saying that the historically correct way to interpret tempo markings is by counting two beats instead of one. I haven't mentioned that in any comment here. What I'm saying is that, given that some tempos result in inhumanly fast or simply ridiculous speeds, there might be some confusion in how we understand the use of the metronome. I don't know how Beethoven, Czerny, or Brahms used the metronome. One can imagine many things, even the somewhat ridiculous theory that Beethoven's metronome didn't work well, but when trying to make music, anyone can sense that something doesn't quite fit in those tempo indications. And what I'm saying is: please pay more attention to the indication of Allegro or Lebhaft und mit innigster Empfindung, or those kinds of descriptions, than to a number, and keep in mind that first and foremost, we are making music. And I don't want to imply that, for instance, a Klavierstück by Stockhausen or a piano piece by Ferneyhough is not music; rather, they indeed doesn't belong to the same musical conception as Beethoven's compositions or, in general, to the compositions that prevailed until the 20th century.
I'm glad you have nothing against playing slowly, but the problem is that many pianists, good pianists, are hesitant to play Beethoven's fast-tempo works because they are not as technically athletic as you (those who try to reach those indicated tempos even if they are extremely fast) and can't play them as fast. And it's a shame that this happens. And it happens because there is indeed pressure to play them at those frenetic speeds. Although IT MAY not be true that Beethoven intended his works to be played at those speeds. And even if he did, there would be no problem in playing them slower, even at half the tempo or even much slower. That's why I'm glad you don't object to that.
And only one more thing: I never intended to insult you at any point. When I said "poor man," I said it because I thought about how much you must have suffered to achieve that technical perfection. You are actually super cool.
@@germanmoreno9609 The thing is every composers has different meaning of Allegro! Beethoven's tempo markings (and metronome markings) are very consistent, even though we have to adjust them for modern instruments! I agree music is more important than tempi, but I don't think Beethoven wanted it to be played veeeeery slow.
PS if you say "different metronome practices", especially here, where double beaters are easily found, one may assume you are talking about double beat!