Well, let's see: Schnabel played the 1st movement in 8 mn 49 , Solomon in 10, Pollini in 10 mn 40, Levit in 9 mn 46, and Backhaus, Brendel and Schiff in about 11: 30...So all these pianists don't know how the metronome marks should be read??? I doubt it!
Hans von Bülow said Czerny was responsible for the metronome markings in the Hammerklavier, that those markings might be suitable for Viennese pianos of the 1820s but not for later pianos, and recommended metronome marks of minim = 112 in an edition endorsed by Liszt who taught from it. A speed similar to this is played by pianists as diverse as Wilhelm Backhaus and Yuja Wang, resulting in performances lasting 40 to 45 minutes. I think the mainstream has spoken. Slower than this and the Hammerklavier appears to drag its feet.
That's not quite right. The hammerklavier sonata is the one piano sonata that beethoven personally wrote these metronome marks for (with the exception on czerny filling in a gap)
What do you think it was being timed with in those days? A digital Seiko that was accurate to a hundredth of a second? To get a sense of scale look at the approximate timings for Mozart operas, which make a mockery of this theory. 45 minutes would easily be rounded up to an hour in such old records. The historically recorded times of Mozart operas however, could not feasibly have been approximations from a double length performance.
He conveniently ignores those records. The idea that Don Giovanni lasted up to 6 hours in Mozart's time is simply ridiculous. People would have booed the singers off the stage. Also, large parts of the music wouldn't make sense at these tempos (you lose the sense of structure which is kind of the most important element in the classical period) and the singers would have trouble singing the slow parts in a decent manner, not to mention the exhaustion after 5+ hours of performing. But as you see in this comment section, he has a large following of people who take everything he says as the absolute truth without questioning it. The allure of feeling special for having supposedly discovered a big conspiracy that has been going on for more than a century is just too strong for some people, it seems.
This inaccuracy is exactly one of the things that makes whole beat more likely than the modern half beat counting. Irregular pendulum movement of the metronome is averaged out a bit by doubling the sample size from one to two beats.
@@QoraxAudio the fact it might have been a superior system isn't a sign that it's true. Evidence is what determines what is true, not a hypothetical idea about what might have been the best way of compensating for uneven pulse.
@@cziffra1980 Yes indeed, it's no evidence, but it makes sense to accept the most likely explanation of things if there's no possible way to firmly prove something.
Excellent because it's so clear and it is so well documented by such an unimpeachable source, someone who met Beethoven, who heard him, who played for him and who studied with his student. I have gone back to studying the Beethoven Sonatas with this motivation, I am finding it so refreshing and interesting to experience music I thought I knew - I've taught many of the sonatas many times - and only wish I'd known this when I was first playing them.
Don't we all, Anthony. I am so happy to have discovered Wim. All of my Mozart now seems sublime, no longer a "scaley sprint" ... I have picked up the K331/300i, which I did not like, and now I am happily enjoying it at 10 measures per minute (first theme, of course). The adagio is especially priceless when the tempo is correct ... all of the ornaments fits beautifully.
@@thomashughes4859 I've tried it with Mozart and it leads me to understand how some people of his day talked about how he was a "romantic" composer, the whole-beat style tempo leads to a depth that the fast tempo sprints don't have. It's been a revelation that makes me wonder what has been lost in the later 19th century virtuosic playing of this music is. Maybe a generation in the future will rediscover that as their understanding of these composers.
@@anthonymccarthy4164 I, along with a lot of my "artsie fartsie" friends, have seen this "return" to the ancient days and ways. I was already looking for some traditional interpretations of music when I found Wim. And then serendipitously, not only was I re-smitten with the old music, but I found lots of other "old" thing that we should have never got rid of. Great to chat with you, Anthony. Wim is ironically "the future" having returned to the past.
Some counter-evidence: Hans von Bülow in his edition, which is dedicated to Liszt as "the fruits of his teaching", the metronome marks are slowed down somewhat, with an explanation given that the original marks are bewilderingly quick, unsuitable for the character of the piece (for first mvt). The tempos given are not far off a "normal" modern performance, which as you have yourself stated run approx. 50 mins, which is certainly within the realm of "about an hour" as the Liszt letter describes. In this line we have the editions and recordings of Frederic Lamond, who studied with Liszt and knew Bülow, who in his editions copies Bülow's markings, and in his recordings plays clearly in normal metronome speeds, although sadly he didn't record Op 106. See also Emil Sauer's recording of Liszt consolation 3, and compare with the metronome marking taken by August Stradal from Liszt's own performance as produced in the Liszt Paedagogium Tilly Fleischmann (a pupil of two Liszt pupils Stavenhagen and Kellerman) in her treatise "Tradition and Craft in Piano Playing" writes about how it was commonly understood within the Liszt circle that some metronome markings were to be considered generally unreliable-nobody in the Liszt circle really followed them literally, good taste was the important thing. Further evidence of this can be found in Friedheim's edition of Chopin etudes (based heavily on Liszt's teaching according to his extensive preface), he changes just about every single metronome mark. Liszt pupil Eugen d'Albert in his edition of Liszt's e flat concerto states that he is "opposed tj all metronome marks", and hence he does not give them despite the fact that people get the tempo wrong very frequently by playing it too fast. Bülow's Cramer edition has more direct evidence of this, as I've mentioned in previous comments on your videos. Liszt's pupil Felix Weingartner recorded an orchestral arrangement of the Op.106, it is absolutely no where near half tempo. Finally while Liszt himself notably carries forward the metronome marks of Beethoven symphonies literally in his arrangements, we know absolutely that his taste and opinion in general is that the right tempo and sense is not something that can be captured on paper, it is a question that relates to the performance itself. If the metronome marks were too fast he would quite simply ignore them and play it at the "right tempo"-the letter killeth the spirit, as he says in the preface to his Symphonic poems.
counter-evidence? it's just more support for the original whole beat reading. Liszt students were already fully in the transition from double-beat reading to single-beat - they couldn't indeed play at original tempo of the written MM, so they thought it worthless, simply ignored the composers intent and gave their own based on "taste". Before the metronome, they used a pendulum, this was not in vogue anymore and the whole-beat reading tradition associated with it faded away in the memories of old men. Kids only had the metronome ticks to work with.
I just read the first paragraph. So basically you are saying that a modern performance of almost 50 minutes was the way that Liszt could have played? That means that Liszt was aroubd 20 minutes too slow. Then why did Berlioz said that he was playing on tempo? He could have said at least that he was playing a little slower. That's being generous because he would have been 20 minutes too slow. And if you are going to say that it is faster and is less than 50, then remember that he said an hour. You add and Berlioz was wrong while having the sheet music with him. You subtract and Liszt doesn't know what an hour is. You interpret it in double beat and magically they are both right. The duration did take an hour and he was doing what Beethoven wanted.
About Lamond, since Lists death do you know how many years passed before he recorded it? It wasn't 10 or 20. Yeah... And now that I remember, wasn't there a recording of him literally saying that Liszt was criticising on his students for playing Chopin too fast?
@@donanobispacem3110 If you saw the video, Berlioz said that he followed the given tempo. Did he played exactly the tempo, no one knows however something that we could say is that he did not gave a modern performance, because it wasn't in the middle. He did not say that it was fast or slow. So we have 2 options. Either he played fast and liszt did not know what an hour is. Or played slower and on tempo. That's not even saying that the given tempo is close to impossible.
Excellent documentation and evidence as always. 👍 "... Hammerklavier, is typically performed in 40-45 minutes, but the length can vary depending on the performer's interpretation." I'm constantly amazed by how consistently my personal preferences for performances of pieces like this is about 20-30% faster than Whole Beat interpretation, and the pieces are often recorded at those faster tempos. I am a musician with a Performance Degree, and it's not just a matter of familiarity with the music that has shaped my preferences. Perhaps it's related to the difference in hearing a live performance versus a recorded one. 🤔
I enjoy this sort of reasoning cos it's exactly like the single beaters arguing from concert timings except it has one crucial factor they lack. Explcit description of intention. Both berlioz and liszt both imply that this is how it should be play according to the metronome marks in a way that clearly illustrates intention. However, not wishing to be too much of a negative Nancy, but as a hypothetical counter argument to this i would suggest that this doesn't necessarily tell us how beethoven understood the metronome marks. Personally i think it only illustrates what liszt and berlioz think its use is. But that then proves that whole beat definitely exists since that is what they imply.
it's exactly that - same with Czerny's MMs for Bach, people often say they don't care about Czerny's marks for Bach, but that is a whole other discussion - we study the meaning of the MMs he gave. As in this case indeed
I feel like now days pianists are focusing more on the technical difficulty of this sonata rathet than it's beauty. I guess this has to do with the fact that musicians focus more on achiving impossible speeds rather than enjoy what they are playing.
Another commenter mentioned the context in which the letter was written, in which Liszt writes about having played the Sonata at age 10. The "durent presque une heure" ("lasts almost an hour", not "will take you about an hour") being a continuation on talking about his time playing it at age 10. Beethoven is said to have thought his fast movements as not being "ast enough, and his slow movement as not slow enough. Validity? Unsure. Nonetheless I imagine many pieces of Beethoven are not to be romanticized and played "beautifully", rather with brute force, vigor, and bravery. I listened to a full-tempi version of the first movement (not one of the 39/40 minute performances, but one that as actually at its supposed speed), and it just made sense. The performance evoked a whole different meaning than other, slower performances (including the still-fast 39/40min performances), yet the music was still entirely comprehensible. Intuitively, everything seems to line up with the fact that Beethoven did indeed intend for this "impossible" speed, from the commenter's post mentioning the context of the letter, to simply feeling Beethoven's intense vigor felt when hearing Hammerklavier at "full-speed". It is called Hammerklavier, after all, and the full-speed recording I heard seemed to be a testament to such a name better than any other tempi could. On a subjective note, I can't imagine Beethoven would call this piece Hammerklavier if he intended it to be played at half-tempi. Not to dismiss the difficulty or the fire that still exists at half-tempi, but it isn't quite... the same. Full-tempi is where the feeling of "Hammerklavier" really shines, and given Beethoven, it's really not unreasonable to believe his intentions with Hammerklavier were as monstrous and fiery as full-tempi would suggest.
I’m not taking Wim’s side here, but wasn’t the name “Hammerklavier” actually given to all of Beethoven’s last five piano sonatas but only the 29th became colloquially known with that name?
@@ZuduOoT the name Hammerklavier definitely does fit that sonata more than it does the four other late sonatas though, since it's the longest, the most technically demanding and the most musically complex
"Any measurement that you make without any knowledge of its uncertainty is meaningless". - Dr. Lewin One of two of my favourite physics professors said this. We need to know that we make errors, and these errors can be minimised by the length of the measurement. We know that Berlioz stated that Liszt played Beethoven's sonata having followed all of the tempo indications. Those are written by Beethoven himself. We furthermore know that Liszt said that the sonata took him about an hour to play. Now, if the sonata were a mere 30 seconds long, an error of 15 seconds is half, but it's only 15 seconds. If the piece were 10 minutes long, and it were played in 5 minutes, we are going to notice five minutes much more than we'd notice 15 seconds. Liszt states that he played the piece in about an hour. Fifteen seconds, and even five minutes would scarcely be critical; however, 30 minutes is definitely a problem. By virtue of the length of this performance, our error rate between whole beat and half beat is impossible to overlook. I know arguments have been presented that a seconds pendulum is either one second or two seconds of time. This is such a - literally - "minute" (pun intended: pronouced "my-NEWT") difference that it is meaningless; however, 30 of those primarum pars minuta (genetive-plural of prima pars minuta) "minutes" are not meaningless; on the contrary, they are complete proof in this case of a whole beat rendering of the sonata. Arguing over words and such doesn't change the fact that the sonata took about an hour, not half of an hour. QED So, Wim has established that an error rate of 50% in this case can only lead to one conclusion: In Liszt's interpretation of this sonata, he played it close enough to the whole beat interpretation to go ahead and call it so. NB: the other logical arguments I saw in the comment boxes demonstrating that whole beat was interpreted here were excellent. Great to read them!
Dr. Lewin denies Kirchhoff's law and Faraday's law. For me, it's impossible to take him seriously because of that. He's very intelligent, but a total crackpot.
There was a professor where I studied who used to plan his class concerts in the same way that you calculate the duration of the Hammerklavier Sonata: he'd take the tempo at which the students played and multiplied it by the number of bars/beats. The concerts always took at least half an hour longer than he'd anticipated, even though he'd included time for tuning, going on/off stage during his preparation. You'd be surprised by how much a rubato here, a fermata there, a longer pause in between movements there, how much all that adds to a piece's duration. And therein lies the problem of your calculation: you assume that this Sonata is played without time in between movements, without fermatas, without rallentandi or accelerandi. In your calculation, the pianist starts and goes on in exactly whichever tempo is required at a certain time, without any musical taking or giving of time whatsoever, doesn't even stop in between movements to take his or her breath, change the mood, build tension, instead plays on without interruption until the last note of the piece (which, mind you, he or she plays without fermata). This would be a performance I would loath to hear, regardless of whether it's played at half speed or not.
To GILGERMESCH:I totally agree with you-figures can mislead you all the way. No matter how close we get to hear from these comosers's technical ability,we will never know how they played in real-this makes the beauty of the classical music. Another thing:we know how Debussy,Fauré,grirg ...played....does it mean other interpretations are to be put aside??? I will keep listening to Beethoven's OP 106 by S.Richter and enjoy it the way he plays it-full stop.
Another thing to consider is that audiences in Liszt's time probably clapped between every movement, so that could have added an extra 10-15 minutes to the total performance time.
I think we have to keep in mind that you need to distinguish between Liszt himself playing in 1836 and writing a letter 40 years later. He might have used Beethoven's original tempi in 1836, but 40 years later, people were accustomed to faster speeds, and you might be speeding a bit more, not sticking to the original tempi. Personally, I would assume that the WBM is right here, but that performance practice had changed already towards faster tempi by the 1870s.
@@ericrakestraw664 Yes, I agree! But he is writing not about how much time it takes to perform it in concert, but when you just play for yourself, isn't he?
Wim, you say in one post that Berlioz was conducting in double beat , but In double beat the duration of the "damnation of faust" would be more than 4h which doesn't match with the historical concerts of Berlioz directed by himself , which are around 2 hours . Also talking about opera , do you have a view on Wagner famous opera Die Meistersinger von Nürnberg ? Duration in double beat would be more than 10h :) so it seems clear that Berlioz and Wagner were single beat, and we know they were very close to Liszt. Also Busoni admired Liszt, Liszt was impressed by his playing, and we have available piano rolls in single beat of Busoni playing Liszt, available on you tube.
It's telling that he didn't answer your questions. He takes these cases where, if you don't look at them too closely, you might be convinced by his arguments (and his manipulations, as in this case his translation of 'almost an hour' as 'about an hour') but then he ignores all the other cases that clearly show that he's wrong. If his theory was true, most operas would have been excruciatingly long back in the 18th and 19th centuries. Don Giovanni would have lasted up to 6 hours. That's not just hard to imagine, it's also demonstrably false because we have records of certain performances and their times and they match up perfectly with ordinary single-beat tempo. He also performs all these fast pieces at half the speed but he curiously never performs pieces that are already slow because he knows that they would fall apart in double beat.
@@inotmark No but there are programs from Mozart's time that specify the duration of his operas and they were about as long as they are today. There are similar programs for Beethoven concerts that disprove Wim's theory. Also, isn't it strange how there's no historical source mentioning this sudden change in tempo? Must have been weird for people back then. And why did so many people talk about the monumental length of Wagner operas when they should have been used to performances of Don Giovanni that lasted 6 hours? Or were Wagner's operas also longer back then? 8 to 10 hours? Yeah, totally reasonable, not at all impossible for singers. Vocal music in general is where Wim's theory becomes ludicrous. If you take an aria that's already slow and perform it with Wim's ridiculous tempos, it becomes impossible to sing. The musical phrases are too long, singers have to breathe you know. Really, you people are the flat-earthers of the music world.
@@inotmark No the discussion is about Wim's double beat theory. He thinks that pieces were twice as long back in the old days. There's evidence that disproves this, which means that it also disproves Wim's idea about the way metronomes were used. Also, the fact that you're talking about metronome markings in the context of Mozart operas shows your ignorance since the metronome was invented two decades after Mozart's death.
@@KerimWirthSuperLps of course, in single beat you can choose, but in double beat, glissando is impossible. However, i was told that beethoven meant to play glissando but wim says another thing and i don't know who is right.
An epic recital would be:1.half Hummel´s f-sharp minor sonata,2.half Beethoven´s Hammerklavier.That would be a crowning achievment in classcal piano playing.
We have to assume that Liszt played the 1st. movement with QUARTER note =138 and the scherzo also QUARTER note =80? It becomes all terribly slow....how can we believe that? The scherzo becomes a Menuet... Or did I misunderstand the question of whole beat and single beat? Great job anyway bravo and thanks
'It becomes all terribly slow....how can we believe that?' We can't because it's not true. Otherwise we'd also have to assume for example that Mozart's Don Giovanni took up to 6 hours to perform which is neither realistic nor supported by evidence. This theory is not taken seriously by musicologists and professional performers, i.e. people who know what they're talking about. Wim's ideas have been debunked again and again but he just ignores it and keeps going.
Liszt played the first movement of the hammerklavier at about minim = 100. We have this as the first hand testament of his student William Mason (in his memoir, 'Memories of a Musical Life').
Nope. 1) calculating time in that way is incorrect. The first movement is full of fermatas, crescendo (which imply a little bit of rallentando), sforzandi (which again require to slow down a little bit); the third movement has many ‘espressivo’, ritardando (also a 6 bars long ritardando), the Largo again is full of fermatas... all these things are not calculated with your logic; from 32 mins it would easily arrive to 39, but considering the pauses between the movements and all other variables, it easily goes over 40 mins; 2) the time of the first piece is Ç, so there are two beats every bar, and the metronome clearly refers to those beats. It’s not a C time, not a 4/4, it’s a 2/2! 3) *at the beginning of the “Largo” Beethoven writes to count 4 semiquavers, and indicates metronome at 76 every semiquaver, it is evident what it means.. according to your theory you should play the triplets of demisemiquavers on two beats of the metronome, so you should play in polyrithm with the metronome!?* 4) “presque une heure”, considering that he was talking about other sonatas which last around 20 minutes (and generally all classical sonatas last from 15 to 25 minutes), fits perfectly for a 40minutes + performance 5) it is not impossible at original tempo, just extremely difficult 6) I think the problem is how you consider playing with metronome; you shouldn’t intend it as playing strictly on the stiff rhythm of the machine! It is a broad indication for the pulse, but making music is more than following a stiff pulse. 7) if you used half the energy you are putting in this nonsensical theories, in studying the Hammerklavier Sonata, I am sure you would be able to play it in tempo
but the whole thing is that the tempo is commonly read in the wrong way, because the way that he teaches of being the right way makes more sense, if you think about the proper way to appreciate (because in that way you can hear the notes more clearly)
Very interesting analysis and quite convincing ! One thing nags at me though … the word "Presque'" ("almost" or "nearly" in English). This is not a precise measurement term but it does imply that Liszt's performance of the piece was close to, but under, an hour. If a straight calculation based on notes per minute yields over 65 minutes and if one adds in the pauses and applause between movements (common 19th century practice) a performance of this piece in whole beat would take well over an hour, not "almost" or "nearly" an hour so this is still problematic unless he left out repetition (which Berlioz seems to say he did not). Of course, by the same token, the calculation yields 32 minutes for single beat performance so the problem goes the other way - even allowing for the pauses it would still not take a performance up to "nearly" an hour so it would seem to me that neither single beat nor double beat tempo interpretations really fit Liszt's duration statement. Modern performances mostly take around 45-50 minutes which appear to jive, more or less, with Liszt's "almost an hour" so it would seem that Liszt played at a tempo somewhere in between double and single beat interpretations of Beethoven's markings, but perhaps closer to whole beat, if his statement is taken at face value. A pity that they did not have recording equipment in the 19th century :-)
Then why did Berlioz mentioned how he played on tempo? Because if it took 10-20 minutes longer to perform then at least Berlioz could have said something about it. He had the work with him. And I assume that anybody can notice if you are playing so slow that the piece takes almost twenty minutes more to perform. Wouldn't you agree?
@@fogonpr Quoting from Mr. Winters who translated the French text (at 2:25 of the video) Berlioz wrote "not one alteration was made in the tempo that was not indicated in the text ...". It is not clear to me whether this means that Berlioz meant that Liszt followed Beethoven's metronome marks as Mr. Winters suggests (at 3:05 in the video) . Indeed, how could Berlioz have known if this was the case unless he was watching the performance with the score in one hand and checking the tempi to a metronome he had brought to the concert hall for such a purpose with the other (very unlikely). More likely is that Berlioz meant that Liszt followed the tempo CHANGE instructions (accelerandos, ritardandos and the like) as indicated in the textual instructions in the score in the same way as he followed the exact notes of the score. In other words, Liszt treated the score with respect and did not insert "extra" expressive details via unspecified tempo changes or changes to notes as he was sometimes wont to do. Indeed Liszt purportedly said "‘a metronomical performance is certainly tiresome and nonsensical’, whilst Berlioz said that overuse of the metronome gives a performance ‘an icy frigidity" , implying that both musicians thought that strict adherence to metronome markings and a rigid beat (as opposed to a certain fluidity in the rhythmic structure) was not a goal for musicians to adopt. With respect to your comment about people surely noticing that a performance took 20 minutes longer, I don't think so. Especially not back in the days ion question of Liszt's performance since most audience members would not have performed Mr. Winters' calculations, nor would they have heard the Hammerklavier sonata so often as we can, given that they would only have heard it in a concert hall (no recordlngs like now) so many would not have had a pre-conceived notion of the tempi. Indeed, even now there is at least a 10 minute variance in the length of performances to hear (Schnabel took 40 minutes, Barenboim 50). Sometimes our ears are conditioned to hear a piece at a certain tempo simply because that is what we are used to hearing. If you hear a single performance of a piece you have never heard before, you have no idea of what the tempo is "supposed" to be … you just know whether you like it or not :-)
Well, keep in mind Liszt did not wrote his letter as a paper for a publication on the hammerklavier. 'Presque une heure" is at the bare minimum close, if not very close to an hour. It is not a scientific calculation, but since the MM give such a clear separation here, it is obvious to me as where his performance was close to.
@@AuthenticSoundI agree that Liszt's tempo was likely closer to whole beat based on the metronome numbers and your calculation of duration (I even stated so). My point was just that, based on the quote about duration, Liszt's tempo appears to have been in between single beat and double beat somewhere vis a vis the metronome numbers - but where in between those 2 tempi is hazy :-) Perhaps Liszt took the basic tempo in whole beat from the metronome number but then played somewhat faster than that rather in the spirit of when Beethoven said "100 according to Maelzel, but this must be held applicable to only the first measures, for feeling also has its tempo and this cannot entirely be expressed in this figure" ? we need a time machine :-)
@@AuthenticSound I'm not 100% sure if this is true, but I've heard that the 1st movements metronome marking is only for the first bar or so? Which would leave the majority of that movement open to the players interpretation of 'allegro'? I can absolutely agree with you that there's no way the whole movement is at the single beat written tempo, that would not be allegro but more of a prestissimo. The 3rd movement would typically contain a lot of rubato. I've certainly never heard it played in under 15 minutes, although most of the recordings I've heard are probably around 10 beats slower than written (going off whole beat.) Also, are there not pauses written in after most of the chords in the largo section? And lastly, I believe the start of the fugue section has written words to the effect of 'fugue with some freedoms', so again the tempo could vary at different points, or it could imply that the metronome mark is a sort of guide but it could be taken slightly slower? I think what I'm suggesting is that if you were to play the piece sticking rigidly to whole beat tempo, while also following things like pauses and rubato, you'd surely end up taking significantly longer than the 65 minutes. But in fairness, it's hard to see the single beat tempo taking anywhere near even 50 minutes, unless there were very long breaks between movements which seems unlikely, so I was wondering if you had any thoughts?
The fact that it is written "presque une heure" shows that the duration of the sonata is below an hour (otherwise it would be written "plus d'une heure"). To me as a french speaker, the word "presque" is too vague to be a proof. Even a performance of for example 45 min, which could correspond with a simple beat performance, last "almost an hour", especially if you add some tempo inflexions and breaks between the movements which can easily make the piece last 5 min longer.
Who on earth would say 45 minutes is almost an hour in the context of a musical performance? 50 minutes would be pushing it, even. It was probably 60 minutes +/- 5 minutes. Also, 45 minutes does not "correspond with a single beat performance". An actual single beat performance would be around half an hour. This shows pianists take liberties with the tempo since it would be absolutely unplayable if they tried to stick strictly to their idea of the correct tempo. By the way, I'm pretty sure Wim is a fluent French speaker as well.
@@sebastian-benedictflore as far as I'm aware thr first movement tempo is only for the first bar or so, so that movement tends to take nearer 12 or so minutes. I've heard pianists stick to the tempo for the 2nd movement and still take nearer 2.15-2.20 because it's not a rigid, un varying tempo, and this is true for all 4 movements. The 3rd movement contains a lot of rubato and would never take under 15 minutes, usually nearer 16-17 at the fastest. And the largo section contains pauses after most of the chords, and contains sections with no bar lines, and seems open to the pianists interpretation to a degree. And lastly the fugue section has written words to the effect of 'fugue with some freedoms', so sections like the augmentation are usually taken slower, as well as the section with all the large trills, and the freedom part suggests that the player can take the tempo down a few beats if they wish. If you then account for breaks between movements, thats typically another minute, so youre really looking at nearer 45 minutes. Now apply all this to the whole beat tempo, and you'll end up at nearer an hour and 20, miles off the 'just under an hour', and you'll have an Adagio movement taking 27 odd minutes, which, even at 24 minutes is going to put the whole audience to sleep
Funnily enough, after watching your video about tempo for Chopin Op 10 no. 12, I was thinking that reading the metronome marks of Beethoven Op 106 in this way would result in the tempos used by many great pianists of the last century , such as Richter, Serkin and Brendel. I recall Alfred Brendel saying that nobody could play Op 106 at Beethoven’s indicated tempo, be he the devil incarnate, whereas Arrau said he thought it was possible, just. It would appear from some of the comments here that nowadays there are pianists who can do this. I remember the mess that Schnabel made of the first movement on his recording! I think the first movement at the fast tempo loses it’s beauty: yes, it should sound “energico”, but not rushed. I would like to quote a saying that I like: “The truth is a dancer in love with paradox.”
Great video! It also raises the question (for me at least) wether Berlioz wrote also in whole beat. I have worked as repetiteur for some of his works (Faust, for example) and started to have this suspicion when looking at the metronome marks.
I really don't think so...considering his own music at least. Berlioz was known to ask a lot from his orchestra and used really fast tempi. In this edition of Les Troyens (ks4.imslp.info/files/imglnks/usimg/d/d8/IMSLP98121-PMLP27866-Berlioz_-_Les_Troyens_CompleteVS.pdf ) on page five, we can read Berlioz's note about his tempi, saying that the representation of the whole opera, with 1 hour dedicated to 4 entr'actes, should last about 4 hours anf 26 minutes if we respect his metronom indications. When we compare with the interpretations we have now (Colin Davis's version lasts 3 hours and 59 minutes (without ent'actes) and John Nelson's version (3 hours and 58 minutes)), we can only conclude that we are still not playing it fast enough. However, on the music of other composers, this could be true (Berlioz about the fisrt movment of the Beethoven's 3rd symphony : " The first movement is in triple time and in a tempo which is almost that of a waltz, yet nothing could be more serious and more dramatic than this allegro. " (source: www.hberlioz.com/Predecessors/beethsym.htm ) )
@@AuthenticSound No Wim, there is plenty of doubt. The manuscript for la Symphonie Fantastique is available on IMSLP; Berlioz supplies metronome marks. They are more or less in line with recordings over the last century. Half the pace would be hopeless. I do not think this spoils your argument however.
The fastest Hammerklavier I've heard was by a Chinese student (I think) who played the whole piece in around 37.25: th-cam.com/video/0WEebNfvVlQ/w-d-xo.html And the slowest recording I've heard was by Grigory Sokolov, lasting just over 52 minutes: th-cam.com/video/qADrX_idjmg/w-d-xo.html Frederich Gulda played it in around 36.50, but he excludes the repeat so had he played it he would've taken nearer 39 minutes, which would still be the 2nd shortest recording I've heard
I did an informal survey of Hammerklavier performaces on TH-cam by famous and not too famous pianists. Nearly all the ones I looked at ran between 40 and 50 minutes--about half way between the parameters mentioned on this video
I have a question. Czerny detailed in the third book of his “Complete Theoretical and Practical Piano School” that if the metronome marking was 112 to the eighth note, each quaver had the same duration. Am I missing something? Source: imslp.simssa.ca/files/imglnks/usimg/e/e7/IMSLP356509-PMLP513421-Czerny__-500_Complete_Theoretical_and_Practical_School_op_500-__Book_3.pdf (page 66)
The key word is "presque" in Listz's quotation. I reckon we should all agree that it means "almost" and not "about". As you very rightly indicated, most modern performances clock at around 48-50 minutes, which fits adequately in the description of "almost one hour". I do not see a confirmation of the double beat theory there. I do respect your tempo choices as a purely aesthetic posture though. A performer has the right to be free and deliberate about music, see Gould's last Gilbert Variations, for instance.
Most performances clock in about 39-43 minutes Massimiliano, that's still a way to go to one hour. Moreover as we will see soon, Liszt did not always play as to the composer's intention, but a little faster because of the newer instruments. According to Beethoven's MMs the sonata should only last 33 minutes, that's to say if you stick to the idea for reading them in single beat. That's the main point. When you take whole beat as a default instead of - as many still keep doing- think of single beat as the standard (which is weird because we cannot demonstrate that) than it becomes clear in an instance
@@AuthenticSound fair enough, let us see what else we can learn from a double beat approach. In any case I do favour deliberate tempos to allow the music to breathe, harmonies to develop and the inner structure of a piece to become apparent. Klemperer, f.e. had a perfect knack for that. Sometimes composers get their metronome numbers wrong to only later acknowledge that. After hearing the first performance of his 7th symphony, Bruckner wrote to a famed conductor acknowledging he had chosen to fast a tempo in the finale and rushed to add several deep ritardandos for the first printed score. Then some musiclogists, invested with the fervor of a religious reformer, decided that the first manuscripts were the only source for an urtext. Hence a contradictory and arguably unmusical new style made its way to our ears with a false stigma of fast purity. The ritardandos are needed, and would be so even if they were not mentioned by the composer. To a certain extent, music itself dictates it's tempo. Remember Vivaldi's famous remark in his violin concerto RV 340? .... "per i coglioni". We do not want to be one of them, do we?
Are there any recordings available that feature the sonata played at the correct (whole beat) tempo? Everything that I find is about halfway between the two tempi.
here is the adagio in perfect whole beat: th-cam.com/video/A4YNpZTDfTw/w-d-xo.html, and an older recording by Wolfgang Weller: th-cam.com/video/6YJ8pfh0lIU/w-d-xo.html
@@AuthenticSound Thank you Wim, I listened to both: the first, Michael Korstick's rendition of the adagio sostenuto is very concentrated and convincing, rivaling Barenboim in the same vein; Wolfgang Weller, by comparison seems to get bogged down. I will be fascinated how you realise the Hammerklavier, Wim, when you eventually get there, I do hope you will be able to find a better sense of a lyrical flow. Your new fortepiano is fantastic, it has a rich sonority but a lightness that could serve you well in a whole beat based rendition.
I have just read the article by Marten Noorduin and find very interesting the controversy in "The Musical World" over Ignaz Moscheles's change of the metronome mark for the first movement from half note (minim) = 138 to quarter note (crotchet) = 138. Did Moscheles really change the tempo at all or could he have been an early single beater? The letter writer, R.A.M., complains that Moscheles's tempo is too slow. It appears that he had interpreted the original marking of half note = 138 as a single beater would.
That's something Noorduin might want to change, since Moscheles distanced himself from that edition and especially that MM. (English translation Schindler Beethoven, annotated by Moscheles). Many interpret this q=138 as a single beat interpretation of the original h=138. I believe though it is much simpler. Moscheles finds the h=138 too fast (in whole beat) and q=138 too slow (in whole beat as well). He suggest a tempo of h=138, but respects the MM by beethoven too much to change it.
I am a bit confused. Did Liszt write this in French, or was his letter translated into the French language, to be published in that book? The word "presque (une heure)" means "almost (an hour)" and the word "about (one hour)" should be written in French as "environ (une heure)". And if we wanted to say "just over an hour" in French we would say "un peu plus d'une heure". I wonder if Liszt actually wrote the letter in German and if some accuracy was lost in translation. I also wonder how anyone could say that Liszt played at the correct tempo. I understand the part about looking at the score, to follow the notes, but what reference could one have used to conform that the tempo was in fact correct?
Also Andras Schiff says that Hammerklavier Sonata is impossible to be played at 138. But he also is very critical with those "great" pianists that play it "Maestoso too slow" that changes the authentic spirit of that monumental Master Piece.
Proof of Whole Beat setting of the Metronome (“MM”): Sorry, but a conundrum exists. Maybe you can help … :D Say I have a piece in 2/2 time, and it’s 30 measures long. The piece takes exactly one minute to complete. Questions: 1) How many measures per minute is the piece? 2) That was easy; so how many seconds per measure? 3) That was also easy; so how many seconds is each half note (minim)? 4) What must I set my Metronome so that I can give the proper time to the half note? Answers: 1) 30; 2) 2 seconds; 3) 1 second; 4). ???
Another evidence i just found . Source : Early Performances of Beethoven’s ‘Hammerklavier’ Sonata op. 106 in France and England The article talks about Liszt performance and Moscheles change of tempo its says "Although the reviewer is certainly not as dismissive of op. 106 as the author of the article in Le Pianiste mentioned above, the enthusiasm that characterized Berlioz’s writing on Liszt’s performance is not present, the reviewer’s praise for Moscheles’s technical abilities notwithstanding. Instead, the reviewer points out that there ‘is much to be developed by a full and perfect acquaintance with this work’, indicating that the piece was not as well understood. Perhaps indicative of this are the alterations that Moscheles made to the sonata in the Cramer edition, which he edited, apparently unbeknownst to this reviewer. One of the more noticeable and presumably impactful ones was changing the metronome mark for the first movement from =138 to ♩=138, since the former seemed unreasonably fast to him. Most recent scholarship, however, and many performers too have come down on the side of =138 as the intended speed. The unusually slow metronome mark in Moscheles´s edition of op. 106 did attract skepticism, especially from pianists. In 1857, one correspondent, a certain R.A.M, wrote the following passionate letter to the editor of the Musical World, pointing out a particular problem with taking a speed of ♩=138 in performance:" So now , take a reasonably fast playing of the Hammerklavier ( Lisitsa or Stefan Moller ). If we take Moscheles suggestion and assume Moscheles plays in double beat , the we have to divide the speed of Lisitsa or Moller by x 4 times. Try it on youtube and you realise how crazy and insane that would be. It means without virtually any doubt that Moscheles was single beat and he wanted to divide the speed of the Hammerklavier by x2 ( and not x4) So when you know that most of the time Moscheles and Czerny tempi are very close if not identical for Beethoven sonatas, it is like a domino effect, it also proves that Czerny was also single beat and so was the greatest of all ,Beethoven.
Franz Liszt was a student of Czerny, Czerny a student of Beethoven. First Movement: 1/2 note=138 original publication. First edition Publisher Info. Vienna: Artaria, n.d.[1819]. Hans Von Buelow was six years old when Liszt played the Hammerclavier in performance, and by age 7 Hans was a student of Clara Schumann's father, Wieck. Von Buelow's father didn't want his son to be a musician and sent him to study law in Leipzig as an adult, where he met Liszt and Wagner around the age of 20. Von Buelow in his edition has the 1/2 note=112 in 1875. Slower than Beetoven, but faster than the Moscheles. More from the source you quote and I shall re-quote with comments, "Although the reviewer is certainly not as dismissive of op. 106 as the author of the article in Le Pianiste mentioned above, ( ‘Notices: Luigi Van Beethoven, considéré comme pianist …’, Le Pianiste, Journal Spécial Pour le Piano, les Théâtres lyriques et les Concerts, 2e année, no. 5 (5 Janvier 1835), 33-34.) Translation into English "Op. 106, 109, 110. In these three works, -106 in particular,-the musical sense is almost as clear as in a philosophical treatise of Kent, or a chapter of M. Cousin. There is no doubt that Beethoven-who was more deaf than ever at this time-did not understand himself what he wrote; but his infirmity, so fatal to a musician, had perhaps rendered his intuitive sense more delicate, and enabled him to see nebulae which we cannot distinguish. In general, his last works are imbued with a sort of mysticism that is impenetrable to the common people.") the enthusiasm that characterized Berlioz’s writing on Liszt’s performance is not present, the reviewer’s praise for Moscheles’s technical abilities notwithstanding. Instead, the reviewer points out that there ‘is much to be developed by a full and perfect acquaintance with this work’, indicating that the piece was not as well understood. Perhaps indicative of this are the alterations that Moscheles made to the sonata in the Cramer edition,, apparently unbeknownst to this reviewer. One of the more noticeable and presumably impactful ones was changing the metronome mark for the first movement from half note=138 to ♩=138, since the former seemed unreasonably fast to him. Most recent scholarship, however, and many performers too have come down on the side of half note=138 as the intended speed (although they presume single beat). "The unusually slow metronome mark in Moscheles´s edition of op. 106 did attract skepticism, especially from pianists. In 1857, one correspondent, a certain R.A.M, wrote the following passionate letter to the editor of the Musical World, pointing out a particular problem with taking a speed of ♩=138 in performance. (R. A. M., ‘The Metronome. To the Editor of the Musical World’, The Musical World, Vol. 35 - No. 34 (August 22, 1857): 532.), (the following you have omitted) "I have never heard it played, but I have always played it myself under the idea that it required much fire and animation. I find, however, on setting the metronome to Moscheles time (RAM states he plays midway between the indicated MM speed and the Cramer/Moscheles edition speed)... just half as fast again. As you have had many opportunities of hearing Miss Goddard play this sonata, I shall fell much obliged if you will inform me, in your next number the the time she takes the first four bars. I cannot understand how the proper effect can be given to it at 1/4 note=138. After the first double bar, where it goes into G major it seems extremely stupid to poke along so slowly. There are, doubtless, innumerable difficulties shirked by taking the time so slow. I remain, sir, yours very truly, R. A. M." The above well have the single beat saying, "Aha' it must be played faster, ergo single beat," but if one use whole beat (double beat) then the comment of 1/4=138 being very slow (or 1/4=69 in single beat) becomes equally plausible, and some one would write very plausible proof. "This is further complicated as Miss Goddard didn't use Moscheles MM, as the article continues, ""Miss Goddard, who both the editor and R.A.M refer to, was a young pianist who had recently given several performances of op. 106 in England, and with great success. Provided that the editor did not misrepresent her interpretation, she seemed to have played the piece at a speed of around of half note=100. Despite this alteration-or perhaps because of it!-her performances appear to have constituted the emancipation of this work in the United Kingdom, as several reviews of the time show:" (My comment, as I pointed out above, Von Buelow indicates 1/2 note=112) "It is of course unlikely that we can get a much clearer picture of how Liszt or Goddard played the sonata beyond these descriptions, considering the absence of recording technology and the scarceness of the evidence. Even the degree to which they followed the metronome mark of the first movement is difficult to assess, although it appears that both Goddard and Moscheles simply played the movement slower than indicated." The article concludes with "Stephan Möller shows that the indicated speed is at least within the realm of possibilities, even on a modern piano:..." A performance that comes in at just under 40 minutes. But what is the fault in Marten Noorduin's conclusion? The modern piano has a much faster action than the Fortepianos Beethoven knew of in the second decade of the 19th Century, not quicker, and this was true before the invention of the double escape action, by Erard. The Erard double escape action in its earliest form doesn't appear until circa the time of the patent Érard's applied for the grand piano action (English patent no 4,631, 1821), 2 years after Beethoven's Op 106 was published and 3+years after the composition. Beethoven would become acquainted with Erard pianos in last years of his life, but his Piano Sonatas were composed before this time, except the last of his Sonatas and The Diabeli Variations written around the time of the patent, and unlikely to have any influence. Has anyone in the HIP on a period instrument (one of Beethoven's Pianos) or on an instrument built as a replica of the Fortepianos of that time of composition (all single escape mechanisms), and attempted the Hammerclavier Sonata in single beat? The first measures consist of two repeated chord , both with repetitions of two consecutive 1/8 notes. The original score, conquest.imslp.info/files/imglnks/usimg/8/89/IMSLP51318-PMLP01486-Op.106.pdf I will leave that question for Wim to answer the possibility/impossibility of playing with the instruments of the day in single beat. (Above referenced from Early Performances of Beethoven’s ‘Hammerklavier’ Sonata op. 106 in France and England, Marten Noorduin, www.ripm.org/cnc/?p=592)
@@Renshen1957 There are many issues and unresolved questions about this piece. No wonder why Beethoven mentionned it would create issues for pianists for the next 50 years ! ( this was an understatement given it is still open for debate today) Here is my humble opinion on the subject : 1) I really think its basically impossible to play at speed , note for note, and trying to use the Hammerklavier to prove or refute a tempo theory won't work if one doesn't consider the conditions in which this piece was written. Beethoven as you say ,was completely deaf at that time, and would not play anymore. We also know that Beethoven , since he started to write orchestrally for the piano, had a tendency to write for an imaginary instrument that he had in his head; A good illustration of that is the use of crescendos on one note that Baremboim once said, the only way to render is to believe in it ;) So to cut a long story short , he wrote the Hammerklavier with the music in his head, and didn't care whether one could it or not, hence his famous comment. This is by far the most plausible I have found in all documents, analysis that i came across 2) action on forte piano vs modern grand. my own experience on the subject is that you can play faster scales/arpeggios on a piano forte than a modern grand because the action is lighter . but obviously repetitions are faster on a grand because of the escape mechanism 3) Most modern performances vary between 39 and 45 mn and are considered to reflect the spirit of the Hammerklavier, so if we consider that Liszt played an intro in addition, we get indeed close to the hour.
@@ChristianJoannes I agree the actions are lighter on contemporary fortepianos, (heavier on the English Action that Broadwood gave to Beethoven, after he was stone deaf), I dislike playing Mozart Sonatas on "modern" pianos) for this reason, but his first movement isn't exactly slow and constains some repeated 1/8th notes. However, Beethoven could and would feel some vibration (if not hear it). Beethoven would write for his memory of contemporary pianos. "Beethoven sawed the legs off his piano, and used the floor as a sounding board. Lying with his ear to the wooden floor, and hitting the piano notes at various volumes to gauge if the volume fitted with the music he could hear in his head." On autopsy, Beethoven's Eustachian tube was narrowed and the auditory nerves were atrophied. The latter finding confirms that he had nerve deafness, but does not indicate what cause such. Beethoven was completely deaf, but he attempted to compensate for this as best he could. On the other hand, did Berlioz mention an introduction by Franz Liszt in his review? Isn't that contrary to "The riddle of the Sphinx (in reference to the Hammerclavier Sonata). A new Oedipus, Liszt, has solved it, solved it in such a way that had the composer himself returned from the grave, a paroxysm of joy and pride would have swept over him. Not a note was left out, not one added . . . no inflection was effaced, no change of tempo permitted. Liszt, in thus making comprehensible a work not yet comprehended, has proved that he is the pianist of the future." I did not see in the original French review, "After a brief introduction by Franz Liszt, (spelled Listz in the original French)..." but rather "...Not a note was left out, not one added (I followed the performance with the sheet music), not one alteration was made in the tempo that was not indicated in the text." Please enlighten me as to proof of an introduction as mentioned by Berlioz. All I can find that begins this quote, (my translation) The Riddle (enigma) of The Sphinx. The New Oedipus, Liszt has explained..." French however is not my strong suit, but the above English translation (I would have translated "auteur" as author rather than composer) suffices. Did you assume that there was an introduction? Is this merely supposition on your part. Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence, but absence of mention in a contemporary and laudatory review is evidence of absence, as to the time. What happens in those 11 to 15 missing minutes. And Liszt was known to negatively comment on the new generation of speed demons. As to the spirit of the Hammerklavier, you confuse a modern tradition (or ingrained bad habit that becomes beatified) with the spirit based on critics from 150 to 183 years after Liszt's performance.
@@Renshen1957 Well , in a way you right , it is a bit speculative given , there was no official program, we only know it waes performed in the Salle Erard, in Paris for 2 consecutive Evenings. Harold Schonberg in his book “Great Pianists” talk about Liszt playing several pieces during these 2 evenings. Now let’s us look at this testimony from Berlioz. Berlioz wrote indeed in the Gazette Musicale that Liszt played ‘at tempo’ . In a way Berlioz acts as our metronome, as our referential clock in this anecdote .Right , you still with me ? Now, if we prove that Berlioz was single beat then we can logically deduct from this anecdote that Liszt was single beat as well . Still in agreement with me ? So let’s prove it. It is actually very easy to prove. Why ? because Berlioz wrote operas . It’s relatively rare when we indicate absolute duration for sonatas . We usually talk about speed of movement, cadenza, but the absolute duration is rarely given as a primary metric. That doesn’t apply to Opera, because , Operas are a long sequence of acts, necessitate a strong logistic therefore you will always find duration of the entire Opera One of the most famous one written by Berlioz is ‘Les Troyens’ typical duration is 4h with 5 acts and 9 scenes. Change of decor between the scene has always been problematic and can take a long time. sometimes about an hour . most of the time the event was produced in 2 consecutive evenings to cope with the logistic. A reduced version of 3 hours + change of decor has been produced so it could have played in one evening . If Berlioz was composing in double beat , the opera would have taken 8 hours , making it practically impossible to be played. Moreover ,assuming the impossible ie if it had been 8 hours in the first instance, i can tell you that first time it would have been played at double speed would have generated a tons of article, reviews and critics on the subject given opera afficionados are not shy to express themselves as soon as you change anything to these kind of masterpieces So cut a long story short, Berlioz was single beat. I let you derive the conclusions from that and i am looking forward to your comments .Apologies for the long post
You mention Marten Noorduin. I guess you have seen this then: www.academia.edu/14517974/Czernys_Impossible_Metronome_Marks (I sent you an email a few days ago). Your reactions to what it has about Cramer would be interesting (claims that single and double beat were used interchangeably!) The American pianist and Liszt student William Mason describes an incident in 'Memories of a Musical Life' quoted in Alan Walker's book 'Franz Liszt: the Weimar Years' in which a young Hungarian arrived claiming to be able to play the Hammerklavier, but according to Mason played it at half speed. Liszt eventually stopped the player saying it made no sense to continue. However William Mason does not explain how slowly the sonata was played. Perhaps it was minim = 35. Incidentally Mason also records hearing Wieniawski and Liszt play the Kreutzer Sonata together - if only that performance could have been preserved!
Fruit juice mix, vitamins & supplements.... I notice that Wim did not read the entire review by Berlioz, as the section at the top of the last page about the Sphinx & Oedipus was omitted in the translation. I’d like to read the whole review myself.... I’ll write to Wim for a link
Not to be nitpicking, but "presqu'une heure" means more *almost* an hour than *about* an hour. This is what you would say to describe 50 or 55 minutes, not 65 minutes. It doesn't take away anything from your argument as it is still far from 30 minutes and maybe it also shows that Liszt had started to speed up things by then (1876).
At the beginning of the video I already thought: how about twice the length, in other words, half speed? To me, it's strange that there's so little correspondence between people left that mentions the duration of Beethoven's pieces (like when writing a letter to someone and telling about some great new piece of Beethoven that someone has been to).
@@AuthenticSound Ah yes, but I meant it in a informal way, like correspondence to a friend, doing some small talk like: "the piece took almost an hour! I didn't expect that, so my poor coachman had to wait in the carriage all that time!"
I thought I'd comment on a thread I saw below. What caught my eye was this phrase, "... he'd take the tempo at which the students played and multiplied it by the number of bars/beats. The concerts always took at least half an hour longer than he'd anticipated, even though he'd included time for tuning, going on/off stage during his preparation. You'd be surprised by how much a rubato here, a fermata there, a longer pause in between movements there, how much all that adds to a piece's duration. And therein lies the problem of your calculation ...", and the quote goes on. Here's what I know: I have been certified in the State of Arizona as a music teacher. I have adapted musicals (I rewrote the plays for content and time constraints), conducted choirs, and managed my time perfectly by using the means Wim did with the HK. Wim got it right, and I got it right. Wim is the consummate professional, and so am I. We don't miss our deadlines. When I told the parents that the show would end at a specific time, it simply did. Period. I am the conductor; I am the boss. I don't think much has changed in the modern practise, and I would think Liszt knew what "about an hour" was. From maths, (Calculus), we have "The Mean Value Theorem", which states that given the ups and downs of any journey through time, a line called a secant can be drawn connecting the beginning to the end. At at least one point along that journey we can fine a tangent line (the absolute average) that is parallel to that secant. Hence, we can prove that when Liszt said that the concert lasted "about an hour", we can take into account all of his retardandos, fermatas, space between movements, sneezes, coughs, and any other kitchen sinks and find that along that "about an hour", we can find an absolute point where that average existed. Conclusion: We cannot compare the poor skills of the conductor or professor who doesn't have control over his time and scheduling to Wim's completely accurate and data-driven conclusions on this specific point in time dealing with specific people, viz, Liszt and Berlioz. That professor probably needed some time-management training. As one who designed and implemented time-management training, all I can offer him at this point is that he "begin with the end in mind" - Capablanca, Second World Chess Champion, and work his way back; that will provide him a very good accuracy record in the future.
In the same topic I strongly recomend the Yuja Wang interpretation here in TH-cam. It is really worthy. My opinion is that of a "dilettanti" not of s pianist.
She was under (unreasonable) criticism because she also demonstrated her magnificent right leg. She did NOT rush the Sonata and I give her enormous credit for that. She thought about the architecture of the work and did not play it to "impress" us with her technique or speed. Sanjosemike (no longer in CA)
@@sanjosemike3137 Those silly criticism because of her way to dress can only come from hipocrit "puritani". Kathia Buniashtivilli shows even much more in Schumann piano concerto with Metha conducting. The video had been retired, but finally minds opened, as it shoud be, and it is again available. Puritani Ye are dismissed!!
Alvaro García I had the pleasure of seeing and hearing Khatia live in San Jose, California. She is immensely powerful at the keyboard. However she speeds up her codas to a breakneck speed. I found the last two pages of the Prokofiev Sonata #7 (Wartime) so fast as to be indistinguishable from pounded tone clusters. I have never heard it so fast. I think this is unnecessary. Worse, I think this will eventually damage her hands and wrists. If that happens, her great talent will never recover, Sanjosemike (no longer in CA)
Yeah, the following is long, but I enjoyed writing it. Enjoy! I was was right to have grabbed my popcorn, wasn't I? Alas, I am down to the unpopped kernels although I do like the ones that kinda "half-popped" ... hm ... pun? I really must applaud the halfers on their purchase of their new home on Authentic Sound (a private publisher, by the way). I know they had to have bought a new home because I am staring in extreme wonderment at their brand spanking new kitchen sink ... WOW! I am blinded by the blazing radiance of that kitchen sink! That's a nice kitchen sink. How much must you have paid for that kitchen sink? The problem with kitchen sinks is they get all wet. The halfers might want to waterproof their kitchen sink ... just sayin' for a friend. This specific video is about a specific piece of evidence that specifically speaks of a specific concert that a specific Berlioz specifically wrote about one specific Liszt having specifically played a specific tempo, which this same specific Liszt specifically writes about as being specifically "about an hour", specifically. The halfers mission, "should [they] choose to accept it" - Mission Impossible (a "nuther" pun) is to demonstrate that Berlioz did not write this about Liszt, and that Liszt did not write his "about an hour" quip. I am really good at maths, and I understand that not everyone will be able to divide by "1/2" (yet another pun ... this is fun ... and a rhyme ... it's about time); however, if I have evidence that states that our fair Liszt played "in accordance with Beethoven's tempi", and Liszt states that that performance was "about an hour" ... um ... you lose your argument, period. This is why our fine halfer friends need to resort to brandishing their new kitchen sink (you didn't think I could get back, did you? HAHA!!!) They speak of all kinds of "other than what is presented here" reasons why whole beat cannae possibly be true, yet ... there it is, in black and white. Wim has shewn that in this specific case, we find that Liszt in this performance certainly did arrive within acceptable error limits at the whole beat interpretation of the Metronome by deduction. QED As I eat my last kernel today, I fancied the thought that Wim's audience is "wholier than thou" ... and that's not a bad pun to swallow. Great work, Wim! Those of us who know what we know and have yet to know what we don't, know that you have succeeded in demonstrating without a reasonable doubt that Liszt played this piece in whole beat. Hip Hip Huzzah!!!
Mr. Winters, I follow your channel and am interested in your research, despite its (and yours) conclusions. I saw now Alberto Sanna's beautiful performance under your musical supervision (despite the tempo choice and desicion. Yes. I can separate it), and actually it stands in contrary to your theory in this video. Sanna's performance takes not an hour, but an hour and 23 minutes in whole beat!!!!!! That means once more that what Liszt played and lasted about an hour according to his own report that you quote here, isn't in fact Whole beat, but again, another artistic solution to the problematic metronome marking.
yes, it is too slow, therefore he made another recording (not published) and will record a 3d version for the Beethoven keyboard project. We all have to learn, right. It shows how ridiculously easy it is to play in whole beat!
In fact, the more I listen to your research and read your comments to me and to others, I understand the flaw in your system- according to you there’s only single beat speed or whole beat speed as the only solution to the impossible speeds that one finds in the single beat reading. The reality of your research shows that apparently there were other solutions which are based on flexibility and fluctuations of tempo which happen either in a single or a whole beat reading. The 19th century was full of exaggeration. Musicologists found documentation of different time measurements of pieces by the members of same orchestra (who wrote timings on their parts). The « whole beat » remains a theory which cannot be considered the only answer to those problems.
so if "flexibility" is the answer to the SB metronomic solution, you have to understand with flexibility that you won't start the majority of the pieces in the tempo that is set for them. And on top of that, flexibility only means playing considerably slower only. Never faster. Flexibility in the sense of tempo rubato - something that only came into play in the modern way 2d half of the 19th century doesn't fall under your definition since it requires a) you at least start in the given tempo (which is often not even possible, b) you make changes in the tempo up and down (up not possible) and c) overall your average remains close to the given tempo (not possible either). And finally, whole beat is not a theory, it is directly applicable, whereas SB is not (and never will be) and therefore is a theory that becomes a kind of dogma when people want to stick to it regardless of its impossibilities.
Voor mij toch veel te moeilijk hoor Wim... Met alle begrip, maar dit is echt een cursus voor ECHTE musici... Beethoven vond ik mooi en rustig gespeeld..
Fifty-Third!!! This almost makes up for the weak refutation that Wim have to a detractor/disputer online over a month ago! I will never have time to recover which discussion and presentation that was!!
Beethoven was notorious for not truly understanding the new toy beat-keeper by Maelzel. B's own metronome indications for The Ninth are similarly contrraversial if not historically mocked. If you play op. 106 at the tempi you feel does justice to how you understand the work, and conveys that to an audience, then the tempi are justified. This ongoing mental masturbation over B's metronome indications is tiresome.
excuse me...? If he was notorious for not understanding how to use the metronome... where are the contemporarie sources describing that? (spoiler: there are not). And the bottom line of a comment like this - we talk about the same guy? The one that composed the 9th symphony? The same idiot that could not figure out how to use a simple tiktok machine?
Liszt says that he “played the sonata, strong bad without doubt, but with passion.without anybody having it taught to me.” After reading that, I just went to bed in a depressed mood... 10 years!
Do you have a source for that quotation? I cannot find it. It looks as though it has been translated (not very well). Edit: Looking at the video again, it seems that it might be a 'google translate' from Liszt's account in French.
Go to 6:45 when he shows the letter written by Liszt to Caroline von Wittenstein. It’s written there. Sorry for my poor translation. Mid 19th century French written by an Hungarian may be a bit different than nowadays French. But I guess you got the meaning. I do speak English, Italian, Spanish, French and Japanese. Not a google translate.
![[#2024MAMA] G-DRAGON - 무제(Untitled, 2014)+POWER+HOME SWEET HOME+뱅뱅뱅+FANTASTIC BABY | Mnet 241123 방송](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Ox29z5Nf1Uk/mqdefault.jpg)
This is one of those mind-blowing witnesses that are clear and easy to grasp and check. Thank you!
Well, let's see: Schnabel played the 1st movement in 8 mn 49 , Solomon in 10, Pollini in 10 mn 40, Levit in 9 mn 46, and Backhaus, Brendel and Schiff in about 11: 30...So all these pianists don't know how the metronome marks should be read??? I doubt it!
Thank you, Wim! A very clear and informative presentation... and (as regards this - very important - source document) totally convincing to my mind.
This is very illuminating! Thank you for all your wonderful research
Very important proof and support of “whole beat” (full cycle per dwr). Merci mille-fois, Louis-Hector et Franz!!! And thank you, Wim & Anja!!
Very interesting. Thank you for sharing the old letters and quotes.
This seems definitive proof! Congratulations and thank you. Keep up the great work and advocacy.
Very interesting. I do so enjoy these 'discussion' videos.
Congratulations on 20K subscribers!
I'm now fully convinced, well done.
Hans von Bülow said Czerny was responsible for the metronome markings in the Hammerklavier, that those markings might be suitable for Viennese pianos of the 1820s but not for later pianos, and recommended metronome marks of minim = 112 in an edition endorsed by Liszt who taught from it. A speed similar to this is played by pianists as diverse as Wilhelm Backhaus and Yuja Wang, resulting in performances lasting 40 to 45 minutes. I think the mainstream has spoken. Slower than this and the Hammerklavier appears to drag its feet.
That's not quite right. The hammerklavier sonata is the one piano sonata that beethoven personally wrote these metronome marks for (with the exception on czerny filling in a gap)
What do you think it was being timed with in those days? A digital Seiko that was accurate to a hundredth of a second? To get a sense of scale look at the approximate timings for Mozart operas, which make a mockery of this theory. 45 minutes would easily be rounded up to an hour in such old records. The historically recorded times of Mozart operas however, could not feasibly have been approximations from a double length performance.
He conveniently ignores those records. The idea that Don Giovanni lasted up to 6 hours in Mozart's time is simply ridiculous. People would have booed the singers off the stage. Also, large parts of the music wouldn't make sense at these tempos (you lose the sense of structure which is kind of the most important element in the classical period) and the singers would have trouble singing the slow parts in a decent manner, not to mention the exhaustion after 5+ hours of performing.
But as you see in this comment section, he has a large following of people who take everything he says as the absolute truth without questioning it. The allure of feeling special for having supposedly discovered a big conspiracy that has been going on for more than a century is just too strong for some people, it seems.
This inaccuracy is exactly one of the things that makes whole beat more likely than the modern half beat counting.
Irregular pendulum movement of the metronome is averaged out a bit by doubling the sample size from one to two beats.
@@QoraxAudio the fact it might have been a superior system isn't a sign that it's true. Evidence is what determines what is true, not a hypothetical idea about what might have been the best way of compensating for uneven pulse.
@@cziffra1980 Yes indeed, it's no evidence, but it makes sense to accept the most likely explanation of things if there's no possible way to firmly prove something.
@@QoraxAudio not if in involves a vast speculative leap and is contradicted by huge amounts of actual evidence.
Excellent because it's so clear and it is so well documented by such an unimpeachable source, someone who met Beethoven, who heard him, who played for him and who studied with his student. I have gone back to studying the Beethoven Sonatas with this motivation, I am finding it so refreshing and interesting to experience music I thought I knew - I've taught many of the sonatas many times - and only wish I'd known this when I was first playing them.
Don't we all, Anthony. I am so happy to have discovered Wim. All of my Mozart now seems sublime, no longer a "scaley sprint" ... I have picked up the K331/300i, which I did not like, and now I am happily enjoying it at 10 measures per minute (first theme, of course). The adagio is especially priceless when the tempo is correct ... all of the ornaments fits beautifully.
@@thomashughes4859 I've tried it with Mozart and it leads me to understand how some people of his day talked about how he was a "romantic" composer, the whole-beat style tempo leads to a depth that the fast tempo sprints don't have. It's been a revelation that makes me wonder what has been lost in the later 19th century virtuosic playing of this music is. Maybe a generation in the future will rediscover that as their understanding of these composers.
@@anthonymccarthy4164 I, along with a lot of my "artsie fartsie" friends, have seen this "return" to the ancient days and ways. I was already looking for some traditional interpretations of music when I found Wim. And then serendipitously, not only was I re-smitten with the old music, but I found lots of other "old" thing that we should have never got rid of. Great to chat with you, Anthony. Wim is ironically "the future" having returned to the past.
You are a cute fraud
Some counter-evidence:
Hans von Bülow in his edition, which is dedicated to Liszt as "the fruits of his teaching", the metronome marks are slowed down somewhat, with an explanation given that the original marks are bewilderingly quick, unsuitable for the character of the piece (for first mvt). The tempos given are not far off a "normal" modern performance, which as you have yourself stated run approx. 50 mins, which is certainly within the realm of "about an hour" as the Liszt letter describes.
In this line we have the editions and recordings of Frederic Lamond, who studied with Liszt and knew Bülow, who in his editions copies Bülow's markings, and in his recordings plays clearly in normal metronome speeds, although sadly he didn't record Op 106. See also Emil Sauer's recording of Liszt consolation 3, and compare with the metronome marking taken by August Stradal from Liszt's own performance as produced in the Liszt Paedagogium
Tilly Fleischmann (a pupil of two Liszt pupils Stavenhagen and Kellerman) in her treatise "Tradition and Craft in Piano Playing" writes about how it was commonly understood within the Liszt circle that some metronome markings were to be considered generally unreliable-nobody in the Liszt circle really followed them literally, good taste was the important thing. Further evidence of this can be found in Friedheim's edition of Chopin etudes (based heavily on Liszt's teaching according to his extensive preface), he changes just about every single metronome mark. Liszt pupil Eugen d'Albert in his edition of Liszt's e flat concerto states that he is "opposed tj all metronome marks", and hence he does not give them despite the fact that people get the tempo wrong very frequently by playing it too fast. Bülow's Cramer edition has more direct evidence of this, as I've mentioned in previous comments on your videos.
Liszt's pupil Felix Weingartner recorded an orchestral arrangement of the Op.106, it is absolutely no where near half tempo.
Finally while Liszt himself notably carries forward the metronome marks of Beethoven symphonies literally in his arrangements, we know absolutely that his taste and opinion in general is that the right tempo and sense is not something that can be captured on paper, it is a question that relates to the performance itself. If the metronome marks were too fast he would quite simply ignore them and play it at the "right tempo"-the letter killeth the spirit, as he says in the preface to his Symphonic poems.
counter-evidence? it's just more support for the original whole beat reading. Liszt students were already fully in the transition from double-beat reading to single-beat - they couldn't indeed play at original tempo of the written MM, so they thought it worthless, simply ignored the composers intent and gave their own based on "taste". Before the metronome, they used a pendulum, this was not in vogue anymore and the whole-beat reading tradition associated with it faded away in the memories of old men. Kids only had the metronome ticks to work with.
I just read the first paragraph. So basically you are saying that a modern performance of almost 50 minutes was the way that Liszt could have played?
That means that Liszt was aroubd 20 minutes too slow. Then why did Berlioz said that he was playing on tempo? He could have said at least that he was playing a little slower. That's being generous because he would have been 20 minutes too slow.
And if you are going to say that it is faster and is less than 50, then remember that he said an hour. You add and Berlioz was wrong while having the sheet music with him. You subtract and Liszt doesn't know what an hour is. You interpret it in double beat and magically they are both right. The duration did take an hour and he was doing what Beethoven wanted.
About Lamond, since Lists death do you know how many years passed before he recorded it? It wasn't 10 or 20. Yeah...
And now that I remember, wasn't there a recording of him literally saying that Liszt was criticising on his students for playing Chopin too fast?
@@donanobispacem3110 If you saw the video, Berlioz said that he followed the given tempo. Did he played exactly the tempo, no one knows however something that we could say is that he did not gave a modern performance, because it wasn't in the middle. He did not say that it was fast or slow. So we have 2 options. Either he played fast and liszt did not know what an hour is. Or played slower and on tempo.
That's not even saying that the given tempo is close to impossible.
@@donanobispacem3110 And are you telling me that without a metronome at hand you do not know the speed at which a piece is to be played? I hope not.
Excellent documentation and evidence as always. 👍
"... Hammerklavier, is typically performed in 40-45 minutes, but the length can vary depending on the performer's interpretation." I'm constantly amazed by how consistently my personal preferences for performances of pieces like this is about 20-30% faster than Whole Beat interpretation, and the pieces are often recorded at those faster tempos. I am a musician with a Performance Degree, and it's not just a matter of familiarity with the music that has shaped my preferences.
Perhaps it's related to the difference in hearing a live performance versus a recorded one. 🤔
I join Paulo Lopes' comment here: it is indeed illuminating! Thanks Wim for another very strong proof for your theory.
I enjoy this sort of reasoning cos it's exactly like the single beaters arguing from concert timings except it has one crucial factor they lack. Explcit description of intention.
Both berlioz and liszt both imply that this is how it should be play according to the metronome marks in a way that clearly illustrates intention.
However, not wishing to be too much of a negative Nancy, but as a hypothetical counter argument to this i would suggest that this doesn't necessarily tell us how beethoven understood the metronome marks. Personally i think it only illustrates what liszt and berlioz think its use is. But that then proves that whole beat definitely exists since that is what they imply.
it's exactly that - same with Czerny's MMs for Bach, people often say they don't care about Czerny's marks for Bach, but that is a whole other discussion - we study the meaning of the MMs he gave. As in this case indeed
I feel like now days pianists are focusing more on the technical difficulty of this sonata rathet than it's beauty. I guess this has to do with the fact that musicians focus more on achiving impossible speeds rather than enjoy what they are playing.
Spot on, Morgan!
Jup, all for the show. If that's what the audience wants!
There is a two and a half hours podcast on the complete analysis of this sonata on youtube.Very well presented
Another commenter mentioned the context in which the letter was written, in which Liszt writes about having played the Sonata at age 10. The "durent presque une heure" ("lasts almost an hour", not "will take you about an hour") being a continuation on talking about his time playing it at age 10.
Beethoven is said to have thought his fast movements as not being "ast enough, and his slow movement as not slow enough. Validity? Unsure. Nonetheless I imagine many pieces of Beethoven are not to be romanticized and played "beautifully", rather with brute force, vigor, and bravery. I listened to a full-tempi version of the first movement (not one of the 39/40 minute performances, but one that as actually at its supposed speed), and it just made sense. The performance evoked a whole different meaning than other, slower performances (including the still-fast 39/40min performances), yet the music was still entirely comprehensible.
Intuitively, everything seems to line up with the fact that Beethoven did indeed intend for this "impossible" speed, from the commenter's post mentioning the context of the letter, to simply feeling Beethoven's intense vigor felt when hearing Hammerklavier at "full-speed". It is called Hammerklavier, after all, and the full-speed recording I heard seemed to be a testament to such a name better than any other tempi could. On a subjective note, I can't imagine Beethoven would call this piece Hammerklavier if he intended it to be played at half-tempi. Not to dismiss the difficulty or the fire that still exists at half-tempi, but it isn't quite... the same. Full-tempi is where the feeling of "Hammerklavier" really shines, and given Beethoven, it's really not unreasonable to believe his intentions with Hammerklavier were as monstrous and fiery as full-tempi would suggest.
I’m not taking Wim’s side here, but wasn’t the name “Hammerklavier” actually given to all of Beethoven’s last five piano sonatas but only the 29th became colloquially known with that name?
@@dukeofcurls3183 Ah interesting! If true I had no clue. Drives my last point moot but still very interesting
@@ZuduOoT the name Hammerklavier definitely does fit that sonata more than it does the four other late sonatas though, since it's the longest, the most technically demanding and the most musically complex
"Any measurement that you make without any knowledge of its uncertainty is meaningless". - Dr. Lewin
One of two of my favourite physics professors said this. We need to know that we make errors, and these errors can be minimised by the length of the measurement. We know that Berlioz stated that Liszt played Beethoven's sonata having followed all of the tempo indications. Those are written by Beethoven himself. We furthermore know that Liszt said that the sonata took him about an hour to play.
Now, if the sonata were a mere 30 seconds long, an error of 15 seconds is half, but it's only 15 seconds. If the piece were 10 minutes long, and it were played in 5 minutes, we are going to notice five minutes much more than we'd notice 15 seconds. Liszt states that he played the piece in about an hour. Fifteen seconds, and even five minutes would scarcely be critical; however, 30 minutes is definitely a problem. By virtue of the length of this performance, our error rate between whole beat and half beat is impossible to overlook.
I know arguments have been presented that a seconds pendulum is either one second or two seconds of time. This is such a - literally - "minute" (pun intended: pronouced "my-NEWT") difference that it is meaningless; however, 30 of those primarum pars minuta (genetive-plural of prima pars minuta) "minutes" are not meaningless; on the contrary, they are complete proof in this case of a whole beat rendering of the sonata.
Arguing over words and such doesn't change the fact that the sonata took about an hour, not half of an hour. QED
So, Wim has established that an error rate of 50% in this case can only lead to one conclusion: In Liszt's interpretation of this sonata, he played it close enough to the whole beat interpretation to go ahead and call it so.
NB: the other logical arguments I saw in the comment boxes demonstrating that whole beat was interpreted here were excellent. Great to read them!
Dr. Lewin denies Kirchhoff's law and Faraday's law. For me, it's impossible to take him seriously because of that.
He's very intelligent, but a total crackpot.
There was a professor where I studied who used to plan his class concerts in the same way that you calculate the duration of the Hammerklavier Sonata: he'd take the tempo at which the students played and multiplied it by the number of bars/beats. The concerts always took at least half an hour longer than he'd anticipated, even though he'd included time for tuning, going on/off stage during his preparation. You'd be surprised by how much a rubato here, a fermata there, a longer pause in between movements there, how much all that adds to a piece's duration. And therein lies the problem of your calculation: you assume that this Sonata is played without time in between movements, without fermatas, without rallentandi or accelerandi. In your calculation, the pianist starts and goes on in exactly whichever tempo is required at a certain time, without any musical taking or giving of time whatsoever, doesn't even stop in between movements to take his or her breath, change the mood, build tension, instead plays on without interruption until the last note of the piece (which, mind you, he or she plays without fermata). This would be a performance I would loath to hear, regardless of whether it's played at half speed or not.
To GILGERMESCH:I totally agree with you-figures can mislead you all the way.
No matter how close we get to hear from these comosers's technical ability,we will never know how they played in real-this makes the beauty of the classical music.
Another thing:we know how Debussy,Fauré,grirg ...played....does it mean other interpretations are to be put aside???
I will keep listening to Beethoven's OP 106 by S.Richter and enjoy it the way he plays it-full stop.
Another thing to consider is that audiences in Liszt's time probably clapped between every movement, so that could have added an extra 10-15 minutes to the total performance time.
I think we have to keep in mind that you need to distinguish between Liszt himself playing in 1836 and writing a letter 40 years later. He might have used Beethoven's original tempi in 1836, but 40 years later, people were accustomed to faster speeds, and you might be speeding a bit more, not sticking to the original tempi. Personally, I would assume that the WBM is right here, but that performance practice had changed already towards faster tempi by the 1870s.
@@ericrakestraw664 Yes, I agree! But he is writing not about how much time it takes to perform it in concert, but when you just play for yourself, isn't he?
you are correct, this is madness, the correct french translation and not Wim's is absolutely clear here
Wim, you say in one post that Berlioz was conducting in double beat , but In double beat the duration of the "damnation of faust" would be more than 4h which doesn't match with the historical concerts of Berlioz directed by himself , which are around 2 hours . Also talking about opera , do you have a view on Wagner famous opera Die Meistersinger von Nürnberg ? Duration in double beat would be more than 10h :) so it seems clear that Berlioz and Wagner were single beat, and we know they were very close to Liszt. Also Busoni admired Liszt, Liszt was impressed by his playing, and we have available piano rolls in single beat of Busoni playing Liszt, available on you tube.
It's telling that he didn't answer your questions. He takes these cases where, if you don't look at them too closely, you might be convinced by his arguments (and his manipulations, as in this case his translation of 'almost an hour' as 'about an hour') but then he ignores all the other cases that clearly show that he's wrong. If his theory was true, most operas would have been excruciatingly long back in the 18th and 19th centuries. Don Giovanni would have lasted up to 6 hours. That's not just hard to imagine, it's also demonstrably false because we have records of certain performances and their times and they match up perfectly with ordinary single-beat tempo. He also performs all these fast pieces at half the speed but he curiously never performs pieces that are already slow because he knows that they would fall apart in double beat.
@@hansmahr8627 Do you have a score of Don Giovanni with Mozart's metronome markings? Of course not. Your case is null.
@@inotmark No but there are programs from Mozart's time that specify the duration of his operas and they were about as long as they are today. There are similar programs for Beethoven concerts that disprove Wim's theory. Also, isn't it strange how there's no historical source mentioning this sudden change in tempo? Must have been weird for people back then. And why did so many people talk about the monumental length of Wagner operas when they should have been used to performances of Don Giovanni that lasted 6 hours? Or were Wagner's operas also longer back then? 8 to 10 hours? Yeah, totally reasonable, not at all impossible for singers. Vocal music in general is where Wim's theory becomes ludicrous. If you take an aria that's already slow and perform it with Wim's ridiculous tempos, it becomes impossible to sing. The musical phrases are too long, singers have to breathe you know. Really, you people are the flat-earthers of the music world.
@@hansmahr8627 Since the discussion concerns metronome marks, you got nothing.
@@inotmark No the discussion is about Wim's double beat theory. He thinks that pieces were twice as long back in the old days. There's evidence that disproves this, which means that it also disproves Wim's idea about the way metronomes were used. Also, the fact that you're talking about metronome markings in the context of Mozart operas shows your ignorance since the metronome was invented two decades after Mozart's death.
Ok, now a video about the waldstein glissando ;)
You don't need to play glissando in the Waldstein.
@@KerimWirthSuperLps of course, in single beat you can choose, but in double beat, glissando is impossible. However, i was told that beethoven meant to play glissando but wim says another thing and i don't know who is right.
Thanks for the Explenation , greetings from Israel.
An epic recital would be:1.half Hummel´s f-sharp minor sonata,2.half Beethoven´s Hammerklavier.That would be a crowning achievment in classcal piano playing.
And a HELL of a lot of work, for both performer and listeners.
Sanjosemike (no longer in CA)
We have to assume that Liszt played the 1st. movement with QUARTER note =138 and the scherzo also QUARTER note =80? It becomes all terribly slow....how can we believe that? The scherzo becomes a Menuet... Or did I misunderstand the question of whole beat and single beat? Great job anyway bravo and thanks
this might help: th-cam.com/video/6EgMPh_l1BI/w-d-xo.html
'It becomes all terribly slow....how can we believe that?'
We can't because it's not true. Otherwise we'd also have to assume for example that Mozart's Don Giovanni took up to 6 hours to perform which is neither realistic nor supported by evidence. This theory is not taken seriously by musicologists and professional performers, i.e. people who know what they're talking about. Wim's ideas have been debunked again and again but he just ignores it and keeps going.
Liszt played the first movement of the hammerklavier at about minim = 100. We have this as the first hand testament of his student William Mason (in his memoir, 'Memories of a Musical Life').
Excellent research!
Nope.
1) calculating time in that way is incorrect. The first movement is full of fermatas, crescendo (which imply a little bit of rallentando), sforzandi (which again require to slow down a little bit); the third movement has many ‘espressivo’, ritardando (also a 6 bars long ritardando), the Largo again is full of fermatas... all these things are not calculated with your logic; from 32 mins it would easily arrive to 39, but considering the pauses between the movements and all other variables, it easily goes over 40 mins;
2) the time of the first piece is Ç, so there are two beats every bar, and the metronome clearly refers to those beats. It’s not a C time, not a 4/4, it’s a 2/2!
3) *at the beginning of the “Largo” Beethoven writes to count 4 semiquavers, and indicates metronome at 76 every semiquaver, it is evident what it means.. according to your theory you should play the triplets of demisemiquavers on two beats of the metronome, so you should play in polyrithm with the metronome!?*
4) “presque une heure”, considering that he was talking about other sonatas which last around 20 minutes (and generally all classical sonatas last from 15 to 25 minutes), fits perfectly for a 40minutes + performance
5) it is not impossible at original tempo, just extremely difficult
6) I think the problem is how you consider playing with metronome; you shouldn’t intend it as playing strictly on the stiff rhythm of the machine! It is a broad indication for the pulse, but making music is more than following a stiff pulse.
7) if you used half the energy you are putting in this nonsensical theories, in studying the Hammerklavier Sonata, I am sure you would be able to play it in tempo
Who taught you that crescendo implies rallentando? You lost my confidence right there.
@@Sshooter444 Czerny himself said that in his op 500. Part 3, "On the employment of ritardando and accelerando" at instance H.
but the whole thing is that the tempo is commonly read in the wrong way, because the way that he teaches of being the right way makes more sense, if you think about the proper way to appreciate (because in that way you can hear the notes more clearly)
Interesting research.
Great video Wim, great find! I was wondering are you still planning on making a video on Hotterre?
yes!
Very interesting analysis and quite convincing ! One thing nags at me though … the word "Presque'" ("almost" or "nearly" in English). This is not a precise measurement term but it does imply that Liszt's performance of the piece was close to, but under, an hour. If a straight calculation based on notes per minute yields over 65 minutes and if one adds in the pauses and applause between movements (common 19th century practice) a performance of this piece in whole beat would take well over an hour, not "almost" or "nearly" an hour so this is still problematic unless he left out repetition (which Berlioz seems to say he did not). Of course, by the same token, the calculation yields 32 minutes for single beat performance so the problem goes the other way - even allowing for the pauses it would still not take a performance up to "nearly" an hour so it would seem to me that neither single beat nor double beat tempo interpretations really fit Liszt's duration statement. Modern performances mostly take around 45-50 minutes which appear to jive, more or less, with Liszt's "almost an hour" so it would seem that Liszt played at a tempo somewhere in between double and single beat interpretations of Beethoven's markings, but perhaps closer to whole beat, if his statement is taken at face value. A pity that they did not have recording equipment in the 19th century :-)
Then why did Berlioz mentioned how he played on tempo?
Because if it took 10-20 minutes longer to perform then at least Berlioz could have said something about it. He had the work with him. And I assume that anybody can notice if you are playing so slow that the piece takes almost twenty minutes more to perform. Wouldn't you agree?
@@fogonpr Quoting from Mr. Winters who translated the French text (at 2:25 of the video) Berlioz wrote "not one alteration was made in the tempo that was not indicated in the text ...". It is not clear to me whether this means that Berlioz meant that Liszt followed Beethoven's metronome marks as Mr. Winters suggests (at 3:05 in the video) . Indeed, how could Berlioz have known if this was the case unless he was watching the performance with the score in one hand and checking the tempi to a metronome he had brought to the concert hall for such a purpose with the other (very unlikely). More likely is that Berlioz meant that Liszt followed the tempo CHANGE instructions (accelerandos, ritardandos and the like) as indicated in the textual instructions in the score in the same way as he followed the exact notes of the score. In other words, Liszt treated the score with respect and did not insert "extra" expressive details via unspecified tempo changes or changes to notes as he was sometimes wont to do. Indeed Liszt purportedly said "‘a metronomical performance is certainly tiresome and nonsensical’, whilst Berlioz said that overuse of the metronome gives a performance ‘an icy frigidity" , implying that both musicians thought that strict adherence to metronome markings and a rigid beat (as opposed to a certain fluidity in the rhythmic structure) was not a goal for musicians to adopt. With respect to your comment about people surely noticing that a performance took 20 minutes longer, I don't think so. Especially not back in the days ion question of Liszt's performance since most audience members would not have performed Mr. Winters' calculations, nor would they have heard the Hammerklavier sonata so often as we can, given that they would only have heard it in a concert hall (no recordlngs like now) so many would not have had a pre-conceived notion of the tempi. Indeed, even now there is at least a 10 minute variance in the length of performances to hear (Schnabel took 40 minutes, Barenboim 50). Sometimes our ears are conditioned to hear a piece at a certain tempo simply because that is what we are used to hearing. If you hear a single performance of a piece you have never heard before, you have no idea of what the tempo is "supposed" to be … you just know whether you like it or not :-)
Well, keep in mind Liszt did not wrote his letter as a paper for a publication on the hammerklavier. 'Presque une heure" is at the bare minimum close, if not very close to an hour. It is not a scientific calculation, but since the MM give such a clear separation here, it is obvious to me as where his performance was close to.
@@AuthenticSoundI agree that Liszt's tempo was likely closer to whole beat based on the metronome numbers and your calculation of duration (I even stated so). My point was just that, based on the quote about duration, Liszt's tempo appears to have been in between single beat and double beat somewhere vis a vis the metronome numbers - but where in between those 2 tempi is hazy :-) Perhaps Liszt took the basic tempo in whole beat from the metronome number but then played somewhat faster than that rather in the spirit of when Beethoven said "100 according to Maelzel, but this must be held applicable to only the first measures, for feeling also has its tempo and this cannot entirely be expressed in this figure" ? we need a time machine :-)
@@AuthenticSound I'm not 100% sure if this is true, but I've heard that the 1st movements metronome marking is only for the first bar or so? Which would leave the majority of that movement open to the players interpretation of 'allegro'? I can absolutely agree with you that there's no way the whole movement is at the single beat written tempo, that would not be allegro but more of a prestissimo. The 3rd movement would typically contain a lot of rubato. I've certainly never heard it played in under 15 minutes, although most of the recordings I've heard are probably around 10 beats slower than written (going off whole beat.) Also, are there not pauses written in after most of the chords in the largo section? And lastly, I believe the start of the fugue section has written words to the effect of 'fugue with some freedoms', so again the tempo could vary at different points, or it could imply that the metronome mark is a sort of guide but it could be taken slightly slower?
I think what I'm suggesting is that if you were to play the piece sticking rigidly to whole beat tempo, while also following things like pauses and rubato, you'd surely end up taking significantly longer than the 65 minutes. But in fairness, it's hard to see the single beat tempo taking anywhere near even 50 minutes, unless there were very long breaks between movements which seems unlikely, so I was wondering if you had any thoughts?
The fact that it is written "presque une heure" shows that the duration of the sonata is below an hour (otherwise it would be written "plus d'une heure"). To me as a french speaker, the word "presque" is too vague to be a proof. Even a performance of for example 45 min, which could correspond with a simple beat performance, last "almost an hour", especially if you add some tempo inflexions and breaks between the movements
which can easily make the piece last 5 min longer.
you are absolutely correct, it is absolutely absurd to jump to his conclusion
Who on earth would say 45 minutes is almost an hour in the context of a musical performance? 50 minutes would be pushing it, even. It was probably 60 minutes +/- 5 minutes. Also, 45 minutes does not "correspond with a single beat performance". An actual single beat performance would be around half an hour. This shows pianists take liberties with the tempo since it would be absolutely unplayable if they tried to stick strictly to their idea of the correct tempo. By the way, I'm pretty sure Wim is a fluent French speaker as well.
@@sebastian-benedictflore as far as I'm aware thr first movement tempo is only for the first bar or so, so that movement tends to take nearer 12 or so minutes. I've heard pianists stick to the tempo for the 2nd movement and still take nearer 2.15-2.20 because it's not a rigid, un varying tempo, and this is true for all 4 movements. The 3rd movement contains a lot of rubato and would never take under 15 minutes, usually nearer 16-17 at the fastest. And the largo section contains pauses after most of the chords, and contains sections with no bar lines, and seems open to the pianists interpretation to a degree. And lastly the fugue section has written words to the effect of 'fugue with some freedoms', so sections like the augmentation are usually taken slower, as well as the section with all the large trills, and the freedom part suggests that the player can take the tempo down a few beats if they wish. If you then account for breaks between movements, thats typically another minute, so youre really looking at nearer 45 minutes. Now apply all this to the whole beat tempo, and you'll end up at nearer an hour and 20, miles off the 'just under an hour', and you'll have an Adagio movement taking 27 odd minutes, which, even at 24 minutes is going to put the whole audience to sleep
Tas menso carnal, 45 minutos de duración se queda 25% más lento de lo que "supuestamente" debería ser
Well Liszt can play anything.
Funnily enough, after watching your video about tempo for Chopin Op 10 no. 12, I was thinking that reading the metronome marks of Beethoven Op 106 in this way would result in the tempos used by many great pianists of the last century , such as Richter, Serkin and Brendel. I recall Alfred Brendel saying that nobody could play Op 106 at Beethoven’s indicated tempo, be he the devil incarnate, whereas Arrau said he thought it was possible, just. It would appear from some of the comments here that nowadays there are pianists who can do this. I remember the mess that Schnabel made of the first movement on his recording! I think the first movement at the fast tempo loses it’s beauty: yes, it should sound “energico”, but not rushed. I would like to quote a saying that I like: “The truth is a dancer in love with paradox.”
pianists promise a lot in....the comment boxes
Great video! It also raises the question (for me at least) wether Berlioz wrote also in whole beat. I have worked as repetiteur for some of his works (Faust, for example) and started to have this suspicion when looking at the metronome marks.
Without doubt (to me) Berlioz was whole beat
I really don't think so...considering his own music at least. Berlioz was known to ask a lot from his orchestra and used really fast tempi.
In this edition of Les Troyens (ks4.imslp.info/files/imglnks/usimg/d/d8/IMSLP98121-PMLP27866-Berlioz_-_Les_Troyens_CompleteVS.pdf )
on page five, we can read Berlioz's note about his tempi, saying that the representation of the whole opera, with 1 hour dedicated to 4 entr'actes, should last about 4 hours anf 26 minutes if we respect his metronom indications. When we compare with the interpretations we have now (Colin Davis's version lasts 3 hours and 59 minutes (without ent'actes) and John Nelson's version (3 hours and 58 minutes)), we can only conclude that we are still not playing it fast enough.
However, on the music of other composers, this could be true (Berlioz about the fisrt movment of the Beethoven's 3rd symphony : " The first movement is in triple time and in a tempo which is almost that of a waltz, yet nothing could be more serious and more dramatic than this allegro. " (source: www.hberlioz.com/Predecessors/beethsym.htm ) )
@@AuthenticSound No Wim, there is plenty of doubt. The manuscript for la Symphonie Fantastique is available on IMSLP; Berlioz supplies metronome marks. They are more or less in line with recordings over the last century. Half the pace would be hopeless. I do not think this spoils your argument however.
The fastest Hammerklavier I've heard was by a Chinese student (I think) who played the whole piece in around 37.25: th-cam.com/video/0WEebNfvVlQ/w-d-xo.html
And the slowest recording I've heard was by Grigory Sokolov, lasting just over 52 minutes: th-cam.com/video/qADrX_idjmg/w-d-xo.html
Frederich Gulda played it in around 36.50, but he excludes the repeat so had he played it he would've taken nearer 39 minutes, which would still be the 2nd shortest recording I've heard
I did an informal survey of Hammerklavier performaces on TH-cam by famous and not too famous pianists. Nearly all the ones I looked at ran between 40 and 50 minutes--about half way between the parameters mentioned on this video
th-cam.com/video/sVpuWbmVxCs/w-d-xo.html
I have a question. Czerny detailed in the third book of his “Complete Theoretical and Practical Piano School” that if the metronome marking was 112 to the eighth note, each quaver had the same duration. Am I missing something?
Source:
imslp.simssa.ca/files/imglnks/usimg/e/e7/IMSLP356509-PMLP513421-Czerny__-500_Complete_Theoretical_and_Practical_School_op_500-__Book_3.pdf
(page 66)
evidence most marvelous!
The key word is "presque" in Listz's quotation. I reckon we should all agree that it means "almost" and not "about". As you very rightly indicated, most modern performances clock at around 48-50 minutes, which fits adequately in the description of "almost one hour". I do not see a confirmation of the double beat theory there. I do respect your tempo choices as a purely aesthetic posture though. A performer has the right to be free and deliberate about music, see Gould's last Gilbert Variations, for instance.
Most performances clock in about 39-43 minutes Massimiliano, that's still a way to go to one hour. Moreover as we will see soon, Liszt did not always play as to the composer's intention, but a little faster because of the newer instruments.
According to Beethoven's MMs the sonata should only last 33 minutes, that's to say if you stick to the idea for reading them in single beat. That's the main point. When you take whole beat as a default instead of - as many still keep doing- think of single beat as the standard (which is weird because we cannot demonstrate that) than it becomes clear in an instance
@@AuthenticSound fair enough, let us see what else we can learn from a double beat approach. In any case I do favour deliberate tempos to allow the music to breathe, harmonies to develop and the inner structure of a piece to become apparent. Klemperer, f.e. had a perfect knack for that. Sometimes composers get their metronome numbers wrong to only later acknowledge that. After hearing the first performance of his 7th symphony, Bruckner wrote to a famed conductor acknowledging he had chosen to fast a tempo in the finale and rushed to add several deep ritardandos for the first printed score. Then some musiclogists, invested with the fervor of a religious reformer, decided that the first manuscripts were the only source for an urtext. Hence a contradictory and arguably unmusical new style made its way to our ears with a false stigma of fast purity. The ritardandos are needed, and would be so even if they were not mentioned by the composer. To a certain extent, music itself dictates it's tempo. Remember Vivaldi's famous remark in his violin concerto RV 340? .... "per i coglioni". We do not want to be one of them, do we?
it sounds like it was closer to 45 minutes ...
Dear sir, what about violin? Do you you have colleagues who play in authentic tempo?
Are there any recordings available that feature the sonata played at the correct (whole beat) tempo? Everything that I find is about halfway between the two tempi.
here is the adagio in perfect whole beat: th-cam.com/video/A4YNpZTDfTw/w-d-xo.html, and an older recording by Wolfgang Weller: th-cam.com/video/6YJ8pfh0lIU/w-d-xo.html
@@AuthenticSound Thank you Wim, I listened to both: the first, Michael Korstick's rendition of the adagio sostenuto is very concentrated and convincing, rivaling Barenboim in the same vein; Wolfgang Weller, by comparison seems to get bogged down. I will be fascinated how you realise the Hammerklavier, Wim, when you eventually get there, I do hope you will be able to find a better sense of a lyrical flow. Your new fortepiano is fantastic, it has a rich sonority but a lightness that could serve you well in a whole beat based rendition.
You found your cherry!
This video is by far the most convincing. Yet not enough to prove your wacky double beat theory.
I have just read the article by Marten Noorduin and find very interesting the controversy in "The Musical World" over Ignaz Moscheles's change of the metronome mark for the first movement from half note (minim) = 138 to quarter note (crotchet) = 138. Did Moscheles really change the tempo at all or could he have been an early single beater? The letter writer, R.A.M., complains that Moscheles's tempo is too slow. It appears that he had interpreted the original marking of half note = 138 as a single beater would.
That's something Noorduin might want to change, since Moscheles distanced himself from that edition and especially that MM. (English translation Schindler Beethoven, annotated by Moscheles). Many interpret this q=138 as a single beat interpretation of the original h=138. I believe though it is much simpler. Moscheles finds the h=138 too fast (in whole beat) and q=138 too slow (in whole beat as well). He suggest a tempo of h=138, but respects the MM by beethoven too much to change it.
I am a bit confused. Did Liszt write this in French, or was his letter translated into the French language, to be published in that book? The word "presque (une heure)" means "almost (an hour)" and the word "about (one hour)" should be written in French as "environ (une heure)". And if we wanted to say "just over an hour" in French we would say "un peu plus d'une heure". I wonder if Liszt actually wrote the letter in German and if some accuracy was lost in translation.
I also wonder how anyone could say that Liszt played at the correct tempo. I understand the part about looking at the score, to follow the notes, but what reference could one have used to conform that the tempo was in fact correct?
Nice! But how about the symphonies?
th-cam.com/video/CadOkPwyw-g/w-d-xo.html
Also Andras Schiff says that Hammerklavier Sonata is impossible to be played at 138. But he also is very critical with those "great" pianists that play it "Maestoso too slow" that changes the authentic spirit of that monumental Master Piece.
What about Schnabel?
He invented Beethoven.
Beethoven thanks you for not being an idiot.
Proof of Whole Beat setting of the Metronome (“MM”):
Sorry, but a conundrum exists. Maybe you can help … :D Say I have a piece in 2/2 time, and it’s 30 measures long. The piece takes exactly one minute to complete.
Questions:
1) How many measures per minute is the piece?
2) That was easy; so how many seconds per measure?
3) That was also easy; so how many seconds is each half note (minim)?
4) What must I set my Metronome so that I can give the proper time to the half note?
Answers: 1) 30; 2) 2 seconds; 3) 1 second; 4). ???
Can you upload videos talking about Appassionata 3rd movement and opus 111 last movement?
will do, step by step!
Another evidence i just found .
Source :
Early Performances of Beethoven’s ‘Hammerklavier’ Sonata op. 106 in France and England
The article talks about Liszt performance and Moscheles change of tempo
its says
"Although the reviewer is certainly not as dismissive of op. 106 as the author of the article in Le Pianiste mentioned above, the enthusiasm that characterized Berlioz’s writing on Liszt’s performance is not present, the reviewer’s praise for Moscheles’s technical abilities notwithstanding. Instead, the reviewer points out that there ‘is much to be developed by a full and perfect acquaintance with this work’, indicating that the piece was not as well understood. Perhaps indicative of this are the alterations that Moscheles made to the sonata in the Cramer edition, which he edited, apparently unbeknownst to this reviewer. One of the more noticeable and presumably impactful ones was changing the metronome mark for the first movement from =138 to ♩=138, since the former seemed unreasonably fast to him. Most recent scholarship, however, and many performers too have come down on the side of =138 as the intended speed.
The unusually slow metronome mark in Moscheles´s edition of op. 106 did attract skepticism, especially from pianists. In 1857, one correspondent, a certain R.A.M, wrote the following passionate letter to the editor of the Musical World, pointing out a particular problem with taking a speed of ♩=138 in performance:"
So now , take a reasonably fast playing of the Hammerklavier ( Lisitsa or Stefan Moller ). If we take Moscheles suggestion and assume Moscheles plays in double beat , the we have to divide the speed of Lisitsa or Moller by x 4 times. Try it on youtube and you realise how crazy and insane that would be. It means without virtually any doubt that Moscheles was single beat and he wanted to divide the speed of the Hammerklavier by x2 ( and not x4) So when you know that most of the time Moscheles and Czerny tempi are very close if not identical for Beethoven sonatas, it is like a domino effect, it also proves that Czerny was also single beat and so was the greatest of all ,Beethoven.
Franz Liszt was a student of Czerny, Czerny a student of Beethoven. First Movement: 1/2 note=138 original publication. First edition Publisher Info. Vienna: Artaria, n.d.[1819].
Hans Von Buelow was six years old when Liszt played the Hammerclavier in performance, and by age 7 Hans was a student of Clara Schumann's father, Wieck. Von Buelow's father didn't want his son to be a musician and sent him to study law in Leipzig as an adult, where he met Liszt and Wagner around the age of 20.
Von Buelow in his edition has the 1/2 note=112 in 1875. Slower than Beetoven, but faster than the Moscheles.
More from the source you quote and I shall re-quote with comments, "Although the reviewer is certainly not as dismissive of op. 106 as the author of the article in Le Pianiste mentioned above,
(
‘Notices: Luigi Van Beethoven, considéré comme pianist …’, Le Pianiste, Journal Spécial Pour le Piano, les Théâtres lyriques et les Concerts, 2e année, no. 5 (5 Janvier 1835), 33-34.) Translation into English
"Op. 106, 109, 110. In these three works, -106 in particular,-the musical sense is almost as clear as in a philosophical treatise of Kent, or a chapter of M. Cousin. There is no doubt that Beethoven-who was more deaf than ever at this time-did not understand himself what he wrote; but his infirmity, so fatal to a musician, had perhaps rendered his intuitive sense more delicate, and enabled him to see nebulae which we cannot distinguish. In general, his last works are imbued with a sort of mysticism that is impenetrable to the common people.")
the enthusiasm that characterized Berlioz’s writing on Liszt’s performance is not present, the reviewer’s praise for Moscheles’s technical abilities notwithstanding. Instead, the reviewer points out that there ‘is much to be developed by a full and perfect acquaintance with this work’, indicating that the piece was not as well understood. Perhaps indicative of this are the alterations that Moscheles made to the sonata in the Cramer edition,, apparently unbeknownst to this reviewer. One of the more noticeable and presumably impactful ones was changing the metronome mark for the first movement from half note=138 to ♩=138, since the former seemed unreasonably fast to him. Most recent scholarship, however, and many performers too have come down on the side of half note=138 as the intended speed (although they presume single beat).
"The unusually slow metronome mark in Moscheles´s edition of op. 106 did attract skepticism, especially from pianists. In 1857, one correspondent, a certain R.A.M, wrote the following passionate letter to the editor of the Musical World, pointing out a particular problem with taking a speed of ♩=138 in performance. (R. A. M., ‘The Metronome. To the Editor of the Musical World’, The Musical World, Vol. 35 - No. 34 (August 22, 1857): 532.), (the following you have omitted) "I have never heard it played, but I have always played it myself under the idea that it required much fire and animation. I find, however, on setting the metronome to Moscheles time (RAM states he plays midway between the indicated MM speed and the Cramer/Moscheles edition speed)... just half as fast again. As you have had many opportunities of hearing Miss Goddard play this sonata, I shall fell much obliged if you will inform me, in your next number the the time she takes the first four bars. I cannot understand how the proper effect can be given to it at 1/4 note=138. After the first double bar, where it goes into G major it seems extremely stupid to poke along so slowly. There are, doubtless, innumerable difficulties shirked by taking the time so slow. I remain, sir, yours very truly, R. A. M." The above well have the single beat saying, "Aha' it must be played faster, ergo single beat," but if one use whole beat (double beat) then the comment of 1/4=138 being very slow (or 1/4=69 in single beat) becomes equally plausible, and some one would write very plausible proof.
"This is further complicated as Miss Goddard didn't use Moscheles MM, as the article continues, ""Miss Goddard, who both the editor and R.A.M refer to, was a young pianist who had recently given several performances of op. 106 in England, and with great success. Provided that the editor did not misrepresent her interpretation, she seemed to have played the piece at a speed of around of half note=100. Despite this alteration-or perhaps because of it!-her performances appear to have constituted the emancipation of this work in the United Kingdom, as several reviews of the time show:" (My comment, as I pointed out above, Von Buelow indicates 1/2 note=112)
"It is of course unlikely that we can get a much clearer picture of how Liszt or Goddard played the sonata beyond these descriptions, considering the absence of recording technology and the scarceness of the evidence. Even the degree to which they followed the metronome mark of the first movement is difficult to assess, although it appears that both Goddard and Moscheles simply played the movement slower than indicated."
The article concludes with "Stephan Möller shows that the indicated speed is at least within the realm of possibilities, even on a modern piano:..." A performance that comes in at just under 40 minutes.
But what is the fault in Marten Noorduin's conclusion?
The modern piano has a much faster action than the Fortepianos Beethoven knew of in the second decade of the 19th Century, not quicker, and this was true before the invention of the double escape action, by Erard.
The Erard double escape action in its earliest form doesn't appear until circa the time of the patent Érard's applied for the grand piano action (English patent no 4,631, 1821), 2 years after Beethoven's Op 106 was published and 3+years after the composition. Beethoven would become acquainted with Erard pianos in last years of his life, but his Piano Sonatas were composed before this time, except the last of his Sonatas and The Diabeli Variations written around the time of the patent, and unlikely to have any influence.
Has anyone in the HIP on a period instrument (one of Beethoven's Pianos) or on an instrument built as a replica of the Fortepianos of that time of composition (all single escape mechanisms), and attempted the Hammerclavier Sonata in single beat? The first measures consist of two repeated chord , both with repetitions of two consecutive 1/8 notes. The original score, conquest.imslp.info/files/imglnks/usimg/8/89/IMSLP51318-PMLP01486-Op.106.pdf
I will leave that question for Wim to answer the possibility/impossibility of playing with the instruments of the day in single beat.
(Above referenced from Early Performances of Beethoven’s ‘Hammerklavier’ Sonata op. 106 in France and England, Marten Noorduin, www.ripm.org/cnc/?p=592)
@@Renshen1957 There are many issues and unresolved questions about this piece. No wonder why Beethoven mentionned it would create issues for pianists for the next 50 years ! ( this was an understatement given it is still open for debate today)
Here is my humble opinion on the subject :
1) I really think its basically impossible to play at speed , note for note, and trying to use the Hammerklavier to prove or refute a tempo theory won't work if one doesn't consider the conditions in which this piece was written. Beethoven as you say ,was completely deaf at that time, and would not play anymore. We also know that Beethoven , since he started to write orchestrally for the piano, had a tendency to write for an imaginary instrument that he had in his head; A good illustration of that is the use of crescendos on one note that Baremboim once said, the only way to render is to believe in it ;)
So to cut a long story short , he wrote the Hammerklavier with the music in his head, and didn't care whether one could it or not, hence his famous comment. This is by far the most plausible I have found in all documents, analysis that i came across
2) action on forte piano vs modern grand. my own experience on the subject is that you can play faster scales/arpeggios on a piano forte than a modern grand because the action is lighter . but obviously repetitions are faster on a grand because of the escape mechanism
3) Most modern performances vary between 39 and 45 mn and are considered to reflect the spirit of the Hammerklavier, so if we consider that Liszt played an intro in addition, we get indeed close to the hour.
@@ChristianJoannes I agree the actions are lighter on contemporary fortepianos, (heavier on the English Action that Broadwood gave to Beethoven, after he was stone deaf), I dislike playing Mozart Sonatas on "modern" pianos) for this reason, but his first movement isn't exactly slow and constains some repeated 1/8th notes. However, Beethoven could and would feel some vibration (if not hear it). Beethoven would write for his memory of contemporary pianos. "Beethoven sawed the legs off his piano, and used the floor as a sounding board. Lying with his ear to the wooden floor, and hitting the piano notes at various volumes to gauge if the volume fitted with the music he could hear in his head." On autopsy, Beethoven's Eustachian tube was narrowed and the auditory nerves were atrophied. The latter finding confirms that he had nerve deafness, but does not indicate what cause such. Beethoven was completely deaf, but he attempted to compensate for this as best he could.
On the other hand, did Berlioz mention an introduction by Franz Liszt in his review? Isn't that contrary to "The riddle of the Sphinx (in reference to the Hammerclavier Sonata). A new Oedipus, Liszt, has solved it, solved it in such a way that had the composer himself returned from the grave, a paroxysm of joy and pride would have swept over him. Not a note was left out, not one added . . . no inflection was effaced, no change of tempo permitted. Liszt, in thus making comprehensible a work not yet comprehended, has proved that he is the pianist of the future." I did not see in the original French review, "After a brief introduction by Franz Liszt, (spelled Listz in the original French)..." but rather "...Not a note was left out, not one added (I followed the performance with the sheet music), not one alteration was made in the tempo that was not indicated in the text." Please enlighten me as to proof of an introduction as mentioned by Berlioz. All I can find that begins this quote, (my translation) The Riddle (enigma) of The Sphinx. The New Oedipus, Liszt has explained..." French however is not my strong suit, but the above English translation (I would have translated "auteur" as author rather than composer) suffices.
Did you assume that there was an introduction? Is this merely supposition on your part. Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence, but absence of mention in a contemporary and laudatory review is evidence of absence, as to the time. What happens in those 11 to 15 missing minutes. And Liszt was known to negatively comment on the new generation of speed demons. As to the spirit of the Hammerklavier, you confuse a modern tradition (or ingrained bad habit that becomes beatified) with the spirit based on critics from 150 to 183 years after Liszt's performance.
@@Renshen1957 Well , in a way you right , it is a bit speculative given , there was no official program, we only know it waes performed in the Salle Erard, in Paris for 2 consecutive Evenings. Harold Schonberg in his book “Great Pianists” talk about Liszt playing several pieces during these 2 evenings.
Now let’s us look at this testimony from Berlioz. Berlioz wrote indeed in the Gazette Musicale that Liszt played ‘at tempo’ .
In a way Berlioz acts as our metronome, as our referential clock in this anecdote .Right , you still with me ?
Now, if we prove that Berlioz was single beat then we can logically deduct from this anecdote that Liszt was single beat as well . Still in agreement with me ?
So let’s prove it. It is actually very easy to prove. Why ? because Berlioz wrote operas . It’s relatively rare when we indicate absolute duration for sonatas . We usually talk about speed of movement, cadenza, but the absolute duration is rarely given as a primary metric.
That doesn’t apply to Opera, because , Operas are a long sequence of acts, necessitate a strong logistic therefore you will always find duration of the entire Opera
One of the most famous one written by Berlioz is ‘Les Troyens’ typical duration is 4h with 5 acts and 9 scenes. Change of decor between the scene has always been problematic and can take a long time. sometimes about an hour . most of the time the event was produced in 2 consecutive evenings to cope with the logistic. A reduced version of 3 hours + change of decor has been produced so it could have played in one evening . If Berlioz was composing in double beat , the opera would have taken 8 hours , making it practically impossible to be played. Moreover ,assuming the impossible ie if it had been 8 hours in the first instance, i can tell you that first time it would have been played at double speed would have generated a tons of article, reviews and critics on the subject given opera afficionados are not shy to express themselves as soon as you change anything to these kind of masterpieces
So cut a long story short, Berlioz was single beat. I let you derive the conclusions from that and i am looking forward to your comments .Apologies for the long post
You mention Marten Noorduin. I guess you have seen this then: www.academia.edu/14517974/Czernys_Impossible_Metronome_Marks (I sent you an email a few days ago). Your reactions to what it has about Cramer would be interesting (claims that single and double beat were used interchangeably!)
The American pianist and Liszt student William Mason describes an incident in 'Memories of a Musical Life' quoted in Alan Walker's book 'Franz Liszt: the Weimar Years' in which a young Hungarian arrived claiming to be able to play the Hammerklavier, but according to Mason played it at half speed. Liszt eventually stopped the player saying it made no sense to continue. However William Mason does not explain how slowly the sonata was played. Perhaps it was minim = 35.
Incidentally Mason also records hearing Wieniawski and Liszt play the Kreutzer Sonata together - if only that performance could have been preserved!
I'll be sitting here with my popcorn waiting for the "Comment Show" HAHAHA!!!
I have a beverage meself... What show is this... Cheers!
Fruit juice mix, vitamins & supplements.... I notice that Wim did not read the entire review by Berlioz, as the section at the top of the last page about the Sphinx & Oedipus was omitted in the translation. I’d like to read the whole review myself.... I’ll write to Wim for a link
Just sayin' ...
Not to be nitpicking, but "presqu'une heure" means more *almost* an hour than *about* an hour. This is what you would say to describe 50 or 55 minutes, not 65 minutes. It doesn't take away anything from your argument as it is still far from 30 minutes and maybe it also shows that Liszt had started to speed up things by then (1876).
That's correct
yes if Liszt was playing it like a robot without stopping for anything and plowing through it like a dump truck
At the beginning of the video I already thought: how about twice the length, in other words, half speed?
To me, it's strange that there's so little correspondence between people left that mentions the duration of Beethoven's pieces (like when writing a letter to someone and telling about some great new piece of Beethoven that someone has been to).
because they were not 'reconstructing' back in those days, they were taking part in 'evolution', 'progress of art' it oftentimes was called
@@AuthenticSound Ah yes, but I meant it in a informal way, like correspondence to a friend, doing some small talk like: "the piece took almost an hour! I didn't expect that, so my poor coachman had to wait in the carriage all that time!"
I thought I'd comment on a thread I saw below. What caught my eye was this phrase, "... he'd take the tempo at which the students played and multiplied it by the number of bars/beats. The concerts always took at least half an hour longer than he'd anticipated, even though he'd included time for tuning, going on/off stage during his preparation. You'd be surprised by how much a rubato here, a fermata there, a longer pause in between movements there, how much all that adds to a piece's duration. And therein lies the problem of your calculation ...", and the quote goes on.
Here's what I know: I have been certified in the State of Arizona as a music teacher. I have adapted musicals (I rewrote the plays for content and time constraints), conducted choirs, and managed my time perfectly by using the means Wim did with the HK. Wim got it right, and I got it right. Wim is the consummate professional, and so am I. We don't miss our deadlines. When I told the parents that the show would end at a specific time, it simply did. Period. I am the conductor; I am the boss. I don't think much has changed in the modern practise, and I would think Liszt knew what "about an hour" was.
From maths, (Calculus), we have "The Mean Value Theorem", which states that given the ups and downs of any journey through time, a line called a secant can be drawn connecting the beginning to the end. At at least one point along that journey we can fine a tangent line (the absolute average) that is parallel to that secant. Hence, we can prove that when Liszt said that the concert lasted "about an hour", we can take into account all of his retardandos, fermatas, space between movements, sneezes, coughs, and any other kitchen sinks and find that along that "about an hour", we can find an absolute point where that average existed.
Conclusion: We cannot compare the poor skills of the conductor or professor who doesn't have control over his time and scheduling to Wim's completely accurate and data-driven conclusions on this specific point in time dealing with specific people, viz, Liszt and Berlioz. That professor probably needed some time-management training. As one who designed and implemented time-management training, all I can offer him at this point is that he "begin with the end in mind" - Capablanca, Second World Chess Champion, and work his way back; that will provide him a very good accuracy record in the future.
Could we have the sources? Its hard blind trusting someone reading some letters. Tried searching for that Liszt letter didn't find
La Mara complete edition Liszt Letters, archive.org
@@AuthenticSound Couldn't find Volume 7, just 1, 2, 4 and 8. Do you have a direct link to it?
In the same topic I strongly recomend the Yuja Wang interpretation here in TH-cam. It is really worthy. My opinion is that of a "dilettanti" not of s pianist.
She was under (unreasonable) criticism because she also demonstrated her magnificent right leg. She did NOT rush the Sonata and I give her enormous credit for that. She thought about the architecture of the work and did not play it to "impress" us with her technique or speed.
Sanjosemike (no longer in CA)
@@sanjosemike3137 Those silly criticism because of her way to dress can only come from hipocrit "puritani". Kathia Buniashtivilli shows even much more in Schumann piano concerto with Metha conducting. The video had been retired, but finally minds opened, as it shoud be, and it is again available.
Puritani Ye are dismissed!!
Alvaro García I had the pleasure of seeing and hearing Khatia live in San Jose, California.
She is immensely powerful at the keyboard. However she speeds up her codas to a breakneck speed.
I found the last two pages of the Prokofiev Sonata #7 (Wartime) so fast as to be indistinguishable from pounded tone clusters. I have never heard it so fast.
I think this is unnecessary. Worse, I think this will eventually damage her hands and wrists. If that happens, her great talent will never recover,
Sanjosemike (no longer in CA)
checkmate!!!
wouldn't this should be taught in the composition classes of the time, and these can be looked up?
Impeccable grammar, sir.
Yeah, the following is long, but I enjoyed writing it. Enjoy!
I was was right to have grabbed my popcorn, wasn't I? Alas, I am down to the unpopped kernels although I do like the ones that kinda "half-popped" ... hm ... pun?
I really must applaud the halfers on their purchase of their new home on Authentic Sound (a private publisher, by the way). I know they had to have bought a new home because I am staring in extreme wonderment at their brand spanking new kitchen sink ... WOW! I am blinded by the blazing radiance of that kitchen sink! That's a nice kitchen sink. How much must you have paid for that kitchen sink?
The problem with kitchen sinks is they get all wet. The halfers might want to waterproof their kitchen sink ... just sayin' for a friend.
This specific video is about a specific piece of evidence that specifically speaks of a specific concert that a specific Berlioz specifically wrote about one specific Liszt having specifically played a specific tempo, which this same specific Liszt specifically writes about as being specifically "about an hour", specifically.
The halfers mission, "should [they] choose to accept it" - Mission Impossible (a "nuther" pun) is to demonstrate that Berlioz did not write this about Liszt, and that Liszt did not write his "about an hour" quip. I am really good at maths, and I understand that not everyone will be able to divide by "1/2" (yet another pun ... this is fun ... and a rhyme ... it's about time); however, if I have evidence that states that our fair Liszt played "in accordance with Beethoven's tempi", and Liszt states that that performance was "about an hour" ... um ... you lose your argument, period.
This is why our fine halfer friends need to resort to brandishing their new kitchen sink (you didn't think I could get back, did you? HAHA!!!) They speak of all kinds of "other than what is presented here" reasons why whole beat cannae possibly be true, yet ... there it is, in black and white.
Wim has shewn that in this specific case, we find that Liszt in this performance certainly did arrive within acceptable error limits at the whole beat interpretation of the Metronome by deduction. QED
As I eat my last kernel today, I fancied the thought that Wim's audience is "wholier than thou" ... and that's not a bad pun to swallow. Great work, Wim! Those of us who know what we know and have yet to know what we don't, know that you have succeeded in demonstrating without a reasonable doubt that Liszt played this piece in whole beat.
Hip Hip Huzzah!!!
"Presque une heure" means "almost one hour".
case closed. why are piano acrobats still into this half-beat madness?
@@pablov1973 But some of us don't want to go to a concert to hear the music gabbled...
Mr. Winters, I follow your channel and am interested in your research, despite its (and yours) conclusions. I saw now Alberto Sanna's beautiful performance under your musical supervision (despite the tempo choice and desicion. Yes. I can separate it), and actually it stands in contrary to your theory in this video. Sanna's performance takes not an hour, but an hour and 23 minutes in whole beat!!!!!! That means once more that what Liszt played and lasted about an hour according to his own report that you quote here, isn't in fact Whole beat, but again, another artistic solution to the problematic metronome marking.
yes, it is too slow, therefore he made another recording (not published) and will record a 3d version for the Beethoven keyboard project. We all have to learn, right. It shows how ridiculously easy it is to play in whole beat!
In fact, the more I listen to your research and read your comments to me and to others, I understand the flaw in your system- according to you there’s only single beat speed or whole beat speed as the only solution to the impossible speeds that one finds in the single beat reading. The reality of your research shows that apparently there were other solutions which are based on flexibility and fluctuations of tempo which happen either in a single or a whole beat reading. The 19th century was full of exaggeration. Musicologists found documentation of different time measurements of pieces by the members of same orchestra (who wrote timings on their parts). The « whole beat » remains a theory which cannot be considered the only answer to those problems.
so if "flexibility" is the answer to the SB metronomic solution, you have to understand with flexibility that you won't start the majority of the pieces in the tempo that is set for them. And on top of that, flexibility only means playing considerably slower only. Never faster. Flexibility in the sense of tempo rubato - something that only came into play in the modern way 2d half of the 19th century doesn't fall under your definition since it requires a) you at least start in the given tempo (which is often not even possible, b) you make changes in the tempo up and down (up not possible) and c) overall your average remains close to the given tempo (not possible either). And finally, whole beat is not a theory, it is directly applicable, whereas SB is not (and never will be) and therefore is a theory that becomes a kind of dogma when people want to stick to it regardless of its impossibilities.
Pretty conclusive
The evidence for whole beat metronome markings is overwhelming.
Voor mij toch veel te moeilijk hoor Wim... Met alle begrip, maar dit is echt een cursus voor ECHTE musici... Beethoven vond ik mooi en rustig gespeeld..
LOL it seems there are some people on youtube already trying to "prove" you are wrong in that.
First!!!
And making a stink about it!! ;). Congrats, Dr. Tom!!!
Fifty-Third!!! This almost makes up for the weak refutation that Wim have to a detractor/disputer online over a month ago! I will never have time to recover which discussion and presentation that was!!
@@dougr.2398 Thank y'all so much, buddy! :D
Your English is harder to analyse than than the Hammerclavier sonata
then you should follow a beginner's course for music analysis perhaps?
Beethoven was notorious for not truly understanding the new toy beat-keeper by Maelzel. B's own metronome indications for The Ninth are similarly contrraversial if not historically mocked. If you play op. 106 at the tempi you feel does justice to how you understand the work, and conveys that to an audience, then the tempi are justified. This ongoing mental masturbation over B's metronome indications is tiresome.
excuse me...? If he was notorious for not understanding how to use the metronome... where are the contemporarie sources describing that? (spoiler: there are not). And the bottom line of a comment like this - we talk about the same guy? The one that composed the 9th symphony? The same idiot that could not figure out how to use a simple tiktok machine?
Oh no, is he again ?! Please TH-cam Stop giving me this nonsense !
when you watch my videos TH-cam serves you 😁
@@AuthenticSound we don’t need Flat Earth conspiracy kind in music.
Liszt says that he “played the sonata, strong bad without doubt, but with passion.without anybody having it taught to me.”
After reading that, I just went to bed in a depressed mood... 10 years!
Do you have a source for that quotation? I cannot find it. It looks as though it has been translated (not very well). Edit: Looking at the video again, it seems that it might be a 'google translate' from Liszt's account in French.
Go to 6:45 when he shows the letter written by Liszt to Caroline von Wittenstein. It’s written there.
Sorry for my poor translation. Mid 19th century French written by an Hungarian may be a bit different than nowadays French. But I guess you got the meaning.
I do speak English, Italian, Spanish, French and Japanese. Not a google translate.