Single Beat Test (Ep.2) V. Lisitsa's and M.Pollini's Chopin Etude opus 10 n°12
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 14 ส.ค. 2018
- In this episode we compare Valentina Lisitsa's AND M. Pollini's version of Chopin's Etude Opus 10 N°12 with Chopin's own Metronome Marks for this work.
Check out the entire series: bit.ly/SingleBeatTest
--
🙋We need YOU to continue on (full) speed! THANK YOU for even considering becoming a patreon!▶ / authenticsound
Series Disclaimer:
It is easy to say or write that historical metronome marks point to super fast, oftentimes impossible tempi. It is much hard - impossible often - to really show it. In this series we take performances of well and lesser known musicians and simply compare their tempi with the authentic, original metronome marks. Not to criticize the tempo decisions those musicians made, simply to see if those claims hold any water.
Often, original metronome numbers are taken as to "proof" a performance that follows the historical metrical reading of those numbers - like mine - is too "slow". But surprisingly, those same metronome numbers are never taken as to showcase the too slowness of "mainstream" performances of similar pieces...
In this video, we'll compare my version of Chopin's Revolutionary etude with two brilliant performances of the same piece, given by Valentina Lisitsa and Maurizio Pollini. Not to criticize by any means, just to showcase the differences with my personal view.
0:00 Introduction and background
6.08 Start Comparison
--
📩One weekly mail in your mailbox? 👉bit.ly/as-mailinglist
--
📱 Website: ▶www.authenticsound.org - เพลง
Listening to recordings by students of Chopin's students I think it is safe to say the metronome markings are indeed correct and not meant to be played at half speed.
Why would Chopin dedicate his entire opus to Liszt if it was meant to be played slowly?
I got my metronome out to see the tempi which Lisitsa and Pollini are playing. You claim that they are playing at quarter note = 120-126 but Lisitsa is playing pretty much right on the nail at 180 and Pollini around 170-174... in other words, actually even faster than the indicated tempo markings. I don't have the Mikuli edition, but Henle and the copy which you showed have half note = 76 (quarter note 152). They aren't playing 25% faster than you, they are both playing closer to 125% your tempo. You don't even need a metronome to prove that, just tap your foot along when you are playing and compare with Lisitsa and Pollini. Sorry.
Richter plays this at more or less modern day 160 and it sounds closer to what I think Chopin intended than either the half speed version or Lisitsa or Pollini versions. Where is the evidence that the metronome markings were meant at half of modern day speed?
An old friend of mine from Vienna, born pre 1900, told me they used to refer to this etude as the "Shipwreck" etude. I think the title fits better, especially given the tonal structure of the piece which moves unrelentingly downward and hits the bottom with a rather loud thud at the end.
I agree with your tempo interpretation. You simply can't hear anything at the faster speeds, and the slower speed gives a visceral feeling of waves engulfing the ship.
The nautical analogies would be more appropriate to Opus 25 #12... :-p
emilgilels: 1) It's not a case of either or. 2) I am reporting a historical fact in terms of its naming. 3) the emphasis on minor plagal cadences, the fonte in the middle section, the descending stepwise modulations, and the final cadence all contribute to the image of a sinking ship.
The musical images in op. 25#12 are of a different order, less nautical and more oceanic as is characterized by its traditional name.
Wasn't the touch on Chopin's Pleyel piano significantly lighter than our modern pianos? If so, then it is highly possible that a metronome setting of 160 bpm for the quarter note could have been possible.
Not only lighter but also about half the depth of the key stroke. So yes, it was much easier to play faster although harder for repeats of the same note. The action was much lighter and the sound blossomed much quicker making accents easier also. Further, the keys were narrower and the octave was closer to our seventh - making etudes like Op.10 number 1 much more playable and possible for smaller hands. It was also played at one beat speed by students of their students. The legacy of playing was passed down and it is strange to think that the tempi would be so quickly changed to twice what they should be. This is however and interesting question. Pagarelich made a scandal at Carnegie Hall when he played the double thirds etude at two beats per quarter speed. Almost nobody understood the point he was trying to make. I have presented the question of the old piano rolls at very fast speeds by the luminary pianists of these days like D'Albert. His Beethoven Concerto #4 used to be available online.
On a weightless keyboard it isn't difficult to reach a tempo of 184 for Czerny's excersices. Thats what I ll say
An interesting corroboration of your hypothesis is the story of Alexander Dreyschock (1818-1869) reported in Harold Schoenberg's _The Great Pianists_, pp. 194-96. Dreyschock's show-stopper was playing this etude with the left hand entirely in octaves in the correct tempo of the day. As you prove, that would be impossible if the tempo were one-quarter=160, which even Lisitsa and Pollini don't attain in the straight version, without octaves. At one-quarter=80, the Dreyschock story suddenly becomes credible.
Thank you for sharing this story, I'll make a note since it could serve for a video topic!
@@geiryvindeskeland7208: You can start by looking in Schoenberg's book (cited above).
How tragic that recording didn’t exist back then. Would have been awesome to hear all the great composers
@Gary Allen very true
Rachmaninoff made piano rolls
Gary Allen excellent point. These days we’re all so paranoid about getting every piece note-perfect.
Discovered your channel yesterday! I absolutely love your interpretations. You give listeners a new prospective on the classics. Thank you!
Welcome!
Hey, your channel is awesome. Thanks so much for all the work
I'm glad that you have explained this to us. What you said makes much better sense in what Chopin wanted for the speed of this work, and for the accents in the beginning of the piece. After hearing the other performances in the faster tempos, one gets lost to where in its progression runs to its ending points. Keep up the wonderful work you are doing.
Chopin's expression "Allegro con fuoco" (with fire, fiery) seems musically more compatible with quarter note = 160 (as in 160 quarter notes per minute). There is a well known caricature of the XIX century showing Liszt (to whom Chopin dedicated his Études) at the piano that is very suggestive - the impression is of astounishing speed and power, or, let's say... playing "con fuoco". Just a comic strip, but from that time, and very visual; surely means something. Well, it's just my opinion, but, as a pianist whose technique is way, way, way below Chopin's or Liszt's, a crotchet = 80 worked for me as a good tempo for practicing, not performing the "Revolutionary", and definitely not for a "fiery", "con fuoco" performance. Of course it´s not just about the speed, but speed also matters. A quarter note = 160 means about 10-11 notes (16ths or semiquavers) per second, achievable for any serious pianist, and coincidentally (or not? Remember those accent marks) just at the psychological perceptual limit of human hearing - perceiving the difference between several individual or articulated sounds, and a continuous yet variable flow of sound (so those accent marks actually make sense with the quarter note at 160, right "on the edge"). Nevertheless I think that Lisitsa goes over 160, what really makes her performance a bit confusing, and perhaps a little less musical, though technically amazing.
In TH-cam there are some "Selections Of The Earliest Recordings" of some études performed by pianists that were born before Chopin's death or in the next 15 or 20 years. Those pianists were very close to Chopin's generation, and still very inside the Romantic stylistic paradigms. The tempi in some (just some) of those early recordings might not be as fast as we are used to, nowadays, but they are fast indeed, and they do not favour your interpretation of metronome marks. I respect your research and ideas, even more since I realize we have some common background (the organ, an instrument that really needs time to "speak", imposing some limit to eager virtuosi), but now I am not talking theoretically or about musicologic and cultural analysis, I'm just pointing out the fact that pianists just one generation after Chopin actually played his music with much faster tempi than the "double beat" theory advocates, and it is on record. I'm aware that in the middle of the 19th century many concert pianists (and most of the public) began to prefer faster tempi, but I think it's pretty clear that "faster", at that time, didn't mean *_twice the speed_* at once! So the "original" tempi (as Chopin's or Liszt's own tempi) for études like the Op. 10 n. 12 must have been already reasonably fast, even for our standards, in the sense that the "double beat" interpretation of metronome marks does not seem to apply.
@@carlosazambujayt However the converse, if single beat is what is intended why don't the pianists play in single beat 100% of the time for Chopin's music? Rubato? "“In keeping time Chopin was inflexible, and many will be surprised to learn that the metronome never left his piano. Even in his oft-decried Tempo Rubato one hand - that having the accompaniment- always played on in strict time.” Chopin's student, Carl Mikuli. From those who heard Liszt play in private, his tempi was slower than in public. www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/music/classicalmusic/8650474/Why-Franz-Liszt-is-infuriating...-and-irresistible.html “Now here is the way I would play it for the public - to astonish, as a charlatan.” (Liszt on conductors who choose too fast a tempi. "I find little in the works of Beethoven, Berlioz, Wagner and others when they are led by a conductor who functions like a windmill.)
@@carlosazambujaytI agree. I, too, respect Wim’s research and ideas. They are intriguing and worthy of consideration, for sure. Aside from your point, which as you say is on the record, I also find it just plain weird that the indication clearly states quarter note equals the given metronome mark. It is a simple equation. I get the double beat theory. I get it! But no. I am not convinced.
So a 16th note would be 320 beats per minute and a 32nd note would be 640 beats per minute?
@@dorette-hi4j It's just a matter of speed.
I enjoyed this engaging analysis. Thank you for this treat!
Thank you
One of your best videos! Makes many things about this etude much clearer.
Thanks Stuart!
I enjoyed listening to you presentation and your playing. Well done! I look forward to learning more from you. Many thanks.
thank you
Great video! Have you made one on op. 10 no. 6? Would love to hear your opinion on that..
we have plans on introducing other musicians to the platform to keep a broad range of music possible
Nice video Wim! You have been interesting me in this situation about playing in the right tempo... is there a previously video where you explain how did you get to know that the indications means the eight note and not the quarter note?
this might be a good playlist for you to start: th-cam.com/video/2yd7LWi4wus/w-d-xo.html
Many thanks Wim!
What do you do then in case of dotted quarter notes ? For example in the Variations Brillantes op.12, the first and last variations are indicated at 92 and 88 for the dotted quarter. You divide it by three ? If so, then why Chopin would have written "Scherzo vivace" for the last variation ? At that speed it doesn't make any sens
I have loved every second of this video!
great to read Mauro!
Please, play ballade # 1 in your tempo.
Yes puhleeze
@@rrg6625 puhlezee
German pianist Wolfgang Weller did.
th-cam.com/video/KB0RhJgs4FU/w-d-xo.html
i subscribed to your chanell, i am wondering how to find chopin's pieces tempo by yourself...?
Hi Orvan, you start by studying the notation principles. I'll make some videos on those topics. Made one recently on tempo ordinario: th-cam.com/video/lbDyzTHOb4Y/w-d-xo.html
"Accents disapper..." Very good point.
I have posed this question in one of your other presentations which I enjoy. Some of the historic musicians who were connected within the legacy of playing from Liszt and Chopin have left piano rolls for posterity. Their playing is not in the double beat theory. Would you say that these rolls are played back incorrectly? As the deviations mechanically are possible there is still the musical question of the overall range of rubato that would become too slow at a slower tempi. What of the very old recordings? When did this change take place? Once more, having studied with a student of D'Albert and Ferruccio Busoni - nothing was ever mentioned about the historic changes in the tempi. Why, do you think?
What an interesting lecture! I love Pollini's playing, but hearing this wonderful piece played a little slower is an eye opener. At the high speed, it always seemed hysterical to me, but the slower tempo definitely gives a much more interesting character to it. Thank you for putting this video up.
thanks for watching!
lol @ "hysterical"
Out of interest, what is the tempo marking for Chopin's 'Military' Polonaise Op. 40, No. 1 ?
If there is none of Chopin, check out Kullak on imslp he's very good and whole beat as well
Thank you for the great content.
Thank you for this. Very interesting! I doubt I will ever have the problem of playing this piece too fast though haha :)
I love your channel very much
You sir are doing a great job sharing this info. Ive started playing etudes slower and I feel much more confident playing them quicker anyway. but oddly I dont like the speed that much and it becomes harder to play each note equally too.
Maybe I did not understood something because of my bad english, but you are not playing quarter=160 as Chopin writed. You played completely another tempo that your metronome gived to you,much slower. Sorry, maybe I did not understood something.
I have been following your channel for some time now and have discovered that there is a lot of merit in your research about tempos. I have been avoiding to attempt playing this etude for years mainly because of the apparently ridiculously fast tempo required to perform it. I neither had the time or the technique for that matter to achieve these speeds. However, when I did try out the tempo as you proposed, I suddenly discovered that the etude was quite playable and all the marked articulations could be indeed accomplished. In fact the edition which I was using (not naming whose edition) had a metronome mark of 144 CBPM. When I stared looking at this video I hurriedly got out my score and noticed that I had indeed scribbled in a preferred marking of 160 CBPM counted in double time as per your proposal. ,Interesting!
Music that becomes playable after all, Dennis, is one of the great side-effects of this tempo research. Go for it!
I listened to Pollinis version while tapping the tempo into a digital metronome. You're wrong. He is hovering around 150-160 bpm.
no he's not.
@@AuthenticSound yes, he almost does.. its much closer to 150 than your 126.
@@AuthenticSound he is 100% closer to 150 bpm
I also got 150 bpm on both versions.
Interesting! Indeed, playing it with the double beat theory brings out a different perspective on the piece. What do you think about pieces that are already slow to begin with though, say Chopin's Prelude in E minor?
well, for the works we have MM for, as the etudes, (and most music early 19th century), the metrical approach applies and tells you much on relationship between notation and tempo; You might want to study that and apply it to other works like the pr in Em
Very informative!
Richter played the Etude in 2:10. In my opinion perfectly.
Please hear Kissin play it, it's beautiful
Exactly. Now which sounds better, Richter's version or Wim's? It's not even close. Richter is surely capturing the anguish that Chopin meant to express. Wim's version sounds like he is practicing at half speed, and it is boring.
Wim; do you think that the emergence of Paganini upon the stages of Europe influenced performance speed by pianists as well as others? Did an increase in tempo cause Liszt to retreat from the stage only to return as the king of the keys? Your thoughts?
It was not only Liszt who withdraw from stage at around 1840. The mechanization was influenced by the better education in conservatories, programs, industrialization, and the focus on technical development was applied to 'literature', for the first time played by players who weren't in the first place composers. paganini must have been impressive but to a degree I believe Liszt was. We tend to connect reputation today always with speed of fingers and thanks God there are way more important factors that decide whether a musician is impressive or not!
Did you consider playing not only tempo but tunning from these days?
I find your argument convincing and interesting. The oldest recording I heard was Beethoven 2nd Romanze for Violin. It was recorded in 1888 I think. There, the tempo is the same as it is performed today. So in other words, we seem to play that piece according to tradition. So I wonder when was the moment we started to read the metronome numbers differently. I has to be before 1888, or I would assume that recording would have the Romanze in a much slower tempo.
Can you talk about tempo of Liszt’s Paganini Etude no 4 1838 version?
Very interesting video!
There should be historical written record of how long performance last?
Thank you for your interesting and thought provoking videos. I have seen a few of them and being a pianist myself they have led me to think about the question of what really matters (to me) in an interpretation of a music piece. Many of us performing musicians want to be as close to the composers intentions as possible. This of course raises the question of what are the composers intentions in the first place when he/she writes down a piece of music. This Chopin study for example is indicated “Allegro con fuoco”. I think it is important that the listeners experience the sensation of “Allegro con fuoco”. If it is possible to express that in such a slow tempo, then that would do the trick, however, in all respect towards your playing and research (which I follow with great interest) I don’t feel anything of that in your interpretation, to be honest. So, what is more important: reproducing a music piece using what we think is exactly the same language as the great composers might have “spoken”, or trying to express what we think are the composers intentions in the language of our time (including of course our contemporary instruments and tunings). I think comparing music with language is useful because language also changes over time without losing it’s core meaning.
thank you for sharing your thoughts!
Great analysis!
thank you!
You are absolutely right. The rapid tempi are not music more of sport execution.
Great analysis
can upload the op10 no5? it so fast i also mistake black to white
Try this metrical approach and play it a few days like that, a world will open to you -also feel what technically happens in your hand, and brain-hand coordination, you'll be amazed how you gain control again
From a composer's perspective (contrary to popular belief among many performers), we actually appreciate when the music is performed at a tempo where the audience can hear all the subtleties that went into it.
Exactly, Kostas - our Greek composer- told me the same thing
@@geiryvindeskeland7208 Good point. Contemporary pianists are out of control with their sustain pedals, as well as their bending of tempos (Chopin warned about that too when he told Mikuli his perspective on tempo rubato). And your English was excellent!
The Etude at half speed sounds terrible to me. Solely based on a comparison of the "mainstream" rendition and half speed (sorry, "double beat"), the mainstream rendition makes sense musically. Keep in mind that Chopin composed the piece in response to the Russian attack on Warsaw in 1831. It expresses his extreme pain and anger at the incident. That's why it has a marking "con fuoco." Wim's rendition sounds like an intermediate piano student's weekly assignment. Wim's version is tepid and pointless. The piece as composed expresses Chopin losing his mind with grief and is properly played with abandon as if he can't keep up with his sorrow and madness following the Russian attack. There is simply no way that Chopin intended it to be played as Wim played it. Wim may be a good pianist but his choice to play at half tempo produces an unmusical result. I am 100% sure based solely on comparing the two renditions that Chopin would have found Wim's version to be detestable, apart from any historical context. Chopin was incredibly musical, which is why his works are still played. If he composed a "double beat" version of this etude, and all of his other works were similarly unmusical, I doubt we would even know who he is today.
@@sergilicus Wim's rendition might be appropriate because perhaps Chopin would be losing his mind with grief if he heard this version! You are correct. My comment was a bit misplaced. It is true that performers often perform pieces faster than they should because they can BUT that doesn't apply in this context. So I shouldn't have even made the comment. Thank you for insight.
@@PaulJoseph No worries, you are entitled to your opinion, as is Wim. I think you're right: if Chopin were resurrected, he would pen a "Wim Etude," expressing his grief at a half speed rendition. And I agree that virtuosi often want to show off so much that they can lose the musicality of a piece. I don't think that applies to the Revolutionary Etude, which is testing the limits of human capability with respect to speed.
It is an old video but I want to comment a few of your points.
1. The speed didn't take hours to set. As a musician myself I can tell that defining a speed takes 5 minutes the longest.
2. I'm persuaded based on correspondences of musicians and people around them as well, that musicians at the time weren't playing pieces twice the same way. They were a lot more free that we are today. The sheets of Chopin studies for example, are a view of the moment of Chopin at a certain period of time.
Now, I totally agree that the speed indicated by Chopin for example is by far unplayable with "single tick" as you call it.
So maybe your theory is very interesting and actually accurate. I dont think that romantic musicians were obsessed with speed but more with performance and show. Even if Chopin used to hate it.
Or, it was a way to show off a bit and maintaining a legend.
After all, the people seeing Chopin playing were very limited. We didn't had any recording, the only way to hear Chopin studies for most people was to buy the book and learn them.
playing this etude with strict attention to accents must be impossible.
So hard.
I learned that one beat on the metronom is the duration of an aplitude. Is this not right?
The comfort of tempo changes depending on the speed of heartbeat. And Allegro's original meanings are "cheerful, lively". Sensitivity to that Tmpo depends on the person.
I thought that 60 heartbeats per minute was quite the norm, but I am not a cardiologist, and I have presumed that it is our brains that have sped up in keeping with the pace of travel and life in general since the Industrial Revolution took off in American in the first quarter of the 19th Century, then surged again with the invention of the steam engine that enabled factories to be placed in urban centers and production and travel to be accelerated.
So, how do you explain the tempi of Planté, who heard Chopin playing?
Hi Daniele, you'll find lot's of info in other videos on this, must make a separate one since it is often asked. Those pianists, even if they were students of students of... represented the fashion of the late 19th c. There might still have been some awareness of old practice, but it was something of the past, music, as with buildings, instruments, ... evolved with 'progress'.
Well, this is your opinion... Plantè was born in 1839, and was a child prodigy, so his style was more or less the same as Chopin and Liszt. In his recording he was 89 years old, so it's not unlikely that he slowed down (a lot) with the age.
But there are more authoritative "proofs" that you are wrong about Chopin metronome marks. Here what Schumann says about Chopin playing (heard almost all the Studies from Chopin himself "who played them very much à la Chopin") of etude op. 25 n. 1: "Imagine an aeolian harp having all the scales of the sounds, and the hand of an artist throwing these sounds confusedly in all sort of fantastical arabesques, though in such a way as to be always able to perceive a fundamental sound and a continous, delicate high note [...] You will thus have an approximate idea of Chopin's playing [...] It would be a mistake to think that he brought out each small note clearly. They were, rather undulations of the Ab Major chord, carried to the high register by the pedal; through the harmonies, in prolonged sounds, one could hear the marvellous melody. Towards the middle, together with this melody, a tenor voice rose from the flow of chords. When the piece ended you seemed to see it dissolve, like the radiant image seen in a dream, which you would cling to, even after you have awakened". Now, try to give this impression of the etude op. 25 n. 1 with half of the speed indicated. You can't. The speed is correct (crotchet = 104) If the speed in this study is correct, it's probably correct in the other studies (maybe an oversight may happened time to time).
About Czerny tempi: why if they are cleary correct in Beethoven sonatas, they should be wrong in his composition?
I think that your slowing down every composition makes a lot of pianists happy (maybe you too): "you can't play it at proper speed? The speed is actually the half! You can play anything, you are not a bad pianist, the metronome was wrong!"
It's not an opinion, it is a fact, backed by pianists exactly of that time
Oh, God... You are wrong about Plantè, but ok, it's not important. What Schumann wrote is still there, and what Czerny wrote about metronome in Beethoven sonata is still there, and does not fit your WRONG theory.
I have another FACT (not like yours, that are not facts, but just your speculations): Chopin in the etude op. 10 n. 2 changed the tempo. First he wrote a minim = 69, then, it became crotchet = 144. He knew the difference.
And he would not be considered one of the greatest pianist of his time, if his tempi were so slow...
You are like the flat earth society of music, impossible to reason with.
Hey ! Lisitsa and pollini is playing at the rang of quarter note = 150
Thanks for your very reasonable and well-reasoned approach to presenting your assertions and arguments. It is certainly very thought-provoking, though at this point I am not yet convinced. :-)
One CRITICAL factor that you are not incorporating in to your discussion is the many very substantive differences between the pianos of Chopin's time and the modern piano. Specifically, in terms of depth of keystroke, firmness of keystroke, velocity of keystroke, key width, volume of sound, resonance of the instrument, sound decay-time, etc. Given your background as a collector of historical instruments, I'm sure that you're already extremely well aware of these factors (as many of the viewers of this channel certainly also are).
These differences would have a significant impact on a performer's - or composer's - overall decision-making process with regard to tempo, as well as on their technical ability to play at certain tempos. Not considering these as part of the discussion/argument is a critical limitation. In fact it's possible that we might even reach a (practical) conclusion that the differences between historical and modern pianos are so great that we shouldn't use the same tempo for performances of the same piece on the two difference types of instrument.
Regardless, I do look forward to your continuing exploration of these important and fascinating musical topics! :-)
The modern Steinway allows faster speeds than the historical ones, certainly a Pleyel. It's an argument in favor of reducing tempi to metrical readings, not against it. A Vienese piano would even not be capable of taking even Pollini's version. Talk to pianobuilders what happens!
Yup. I have heard in real life what happens when playing too fast on an earlier piano. ca. 1840. The hammers end up blocking against the strings because they never have a chance to return back to their home position, and in part due to the hammers flexing after the blow against the strings. This is also the reason why the sound dies quickly when played too strongly.
I have found playing on the earlier instruments requires a lot more "control" than it does on a modern piano, and that arm weight along with relaxed arms play a bigger part in the performance. This is where the clavichord comes in here. As has been said by CPE Bach. If you can play the clavichord, you can play the pianoforte or other instruments well, paraphrased here, because the clavichord requires this to produce a "good sound". So Wim all that "hard work" you did on your clavichord pays off when you play your new pianoforte. :-)
Very well made video
I loved your lecture. Much sense and logic to your explanations. Hearing the etude at your tempo is quite revealing. I like Pollini and Lisitsa very much, but in reality, the falling down scales on the opening of the etude sound blurred to my ears, not too clear, just fast. In reality this is the way most of us do it in the conservatory. Rhythmically not too exact. They both use the descending scale as a typically sweeping Romantic gesture, more than a rhythm driven to battle. I have heard Pollini play this etude many times in Carnegie Hall, and I always come out thinking the same thing: he plays it too fast, the music is lost. All I have left are gestures which my ear has to make up the rest of what I actually could not hear in reality. Again, great lecture, vey informative.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts here Rafael
Bravo Wim! Well done!
Thanks Marius
Too slow!
Frèdèric Chopin welp, there it is. Chopin himself chimed in! 😬
Tom Bombadil maybe, im 200 years old!
Tom Bombadil That's what his autograph says.
Too weak, too slow.
- Magnus Carlson
Well, you are not Chopin, you are just a thumbnail of him.
I recently bought the sheet music for Chopin's Andante Spianato and Grande Polonaise Brillante (Op 22), thinking I would try to learn it. I noticed that at the start the metronome should be set to dotted crochet = 69. I tried it at this speed and felt like I was racing. Then I looked at the notes at the back of the music and it said in the original manuscript it was crochet (undotted) = 69. This is strange since it's in 6/8 time not 3/4 but this piece is always played much slower and the undotted 69 seems to be the speed most pianists use. I think dotted crotchet = 46 is the correct speed. (2/3 of 69).
Would you come to America and give a recital?? Also, is the piano you’re currently building a type of fortepiano? It looks like a fortepiano In one of the videos I watched.
I'd love to. Well, pianoforte or fortepiano, at least as I understand here in Europe is not a big of a difference (but I certainly could be wrong), in any case, it is a copy of a Vienese 1816 'piano' :-)
In the US "pianoforte" means the modern piano, and "fortepiano" means the circa 1816 type instrument.
And we would certainly love for you to do a tour of the US!
Both Pollini and Lisitsa play the etude MUCH faster than 120-126 MM in this video. I can't imagine how you could suppose that they are playing it that slowly. Their tempi are not even close to 120.
??
@@AuthenticSound I think he's referring to the fact that, you mentionned in your video Pollini/Lisitsa are playing at 120bpm.
But, (and I was also surprised when I plugged the notes into Sibelius and clicked play button with q=120), it played back way slower than Pollini/Lisitsa's performance on their videos.
Actually, when you plug q=160 in sibelius : the software then plays almost exactly as fast as Pollini/Lisistas's performance.
That's what @MusicLover is referring to when saying "their tempi are not close to 120" because, they seem to play at 160 according to Sibelius.
Any idea of where's the issue ? =)
Sir, if I understand correctly, you are saying that an MM indication of quarter note = 160 actually means quarter note = 80. So why did composers of Chopin's time not simply mark quarter note = 80? Why did they double it? Is there any historical, contemporary documentation for this practice?
scroll a bit through the channel I'd say!
@@AuthenticSound I will, and I'm sure I'll enjoy it. I only just found your channel and haven't yet had a chance. Thanks for the reply.
dear mister winters, your channel is pure gold.
Could you post a video about Beethoven's concert of 22 December 1808 at Theater an der Wien. The schedule is well known but an explanation of the progamme and tempi might explain a few things. as it lasted 4.5 hrs (with an interval) and consisted of
Symphony No. 6 "Pastoral", Op. 68
Symphony No. 5, Op. 67
Ah! perfido, concert aria for soprano solo and orchestra, Op. 65
Sanctus, from the Mass in C major, Op. 86
Gloria, from the Mass in C major for vocal soloists, chorus, and orchestra, Op. 86 Extemporised fantasia for solo piano
Piano Concerto No. 4, Op. 58
Choral Fantasy for piano soloist, vocal soloists, chorus, and orchestra, Op. 80
will do that and it will show that that concert has nothing to say about tempi...
The Etudes are often played to display brilliance and technical skills. This may explain why they are played FAST.
I must leave performance practices to those who, like you, can actually play this dramatic piece, a bel canto-era opera aria for the piano. As a listener, I want to know what Chopin meant it to mean according to how he composed and scored it, which requires a less fervent but still dramatic tempo. It's a matter for scholarly debate to determine the meaning or purpose of the word "revolutionary." Seeing your hands from above helps explain that. Thank you for allowing slow listeners like me to hear Chopin's thoughts above and beyond virtuosity. You offer, Herr Professor Winters, a precious listening and viewing experience which transcends the fleeting performance-hall performance. And thank you for your obvious passion here.
Thank you Robert
Such a nice video
Now that you brought up the subject, I'd love to have a chance to listen to Lizt playing Chopin! That would be awsome!
Do we have any notes about concerts and duration of pieces ?
If so, those might be great start for answering tempi questions for good!
I don't know, critics at that time saying "oh Chopin played this piece for about 15 minutes ! so cool" / "Oh what a great 4h concert !" / "Erk this concert lasted 2h so long !" and then comparing the program to actual recording ?
It might be something !
What really makes me rethink about your arguments is Franz Liszt's 1838 version of Paganini's 1st caprice. First of all, I think "your" theory is very right, but consider that: Tempo is the same (in modern tempo understanding) as if you would riccochet on the violin. Taking it almost half as fast is very very difficult to acomplish on the violin, if even feasable. So what do you think?
Metrono al primo posto ma poi esecuzione piena di passione,con una larga declamazione per la melodia principale di ottave.Complimenti maestro per la lezione.
The obsession with metronomic accuracy is very much an artifact of the 20th century. Old tempi indications and metronome markings are subordinate to the choice of note value (by far the best hint), the playability and the harmonic sustain the ear can cope with. The plentiful use of demisemiquavers in this piece hints at a tempo that cannot possibly be either the one you're suggesting, nor "160". "No man's land" is likelier to be the sweet spot.
Hi Phil, thanks for sharing your thoughts here. In fact, it is a 20th century way of thinking that the MM indications of the 19th c., certainly the early 19th c, were not a true representation of their tempi. It is not hard to find out the opposite was true, they were really serious about them, Beethoven, Czerny, Moscheles, Chopin, Mendelssohn. Of course, there always is a frame around. But still.
I ask: wich versions is more dramatic and powerful?
There you go
This discussion honestly renews my interest in Chopin's music. Although not Chopin's fault, from listening to performances, I always held the characterization of his music as something meant to be played with confusing amounts of both-hands rubato. It's supposed to be expressive, but in listening, I often find it just melodically disjointed and jerky (and then I retreat back to Bach). This actually makes me excited to try playing Chopin at "double time" and left-hand non-rubato. As you said, tempo determines a lot of the playing style, especially on piano where you can't control volume decay of each note. I bet there is a lot of expressive power to discover in those slower tempos.
Thanks for sharing
Chopin should not be played with excessive rubato, or excessive anything.
As to both-hands rubato, often that appears to be what's needed, and it's certainly what we usually hear, but we're told that he used a Mozartian type of rubato, where the LH stays steady and the RH is freer. Personally I haven't really been able to do that, but some people can, or at least they intend to.
Yeah, I guess I have it in my head that pieces were supposed to sound a certain way, mainly because I studied piano when I was younger, before I had developed the maturity to explore alternate interpretations. Hearing Chopin without (or with very little) rubato sounds sort of "wrong," but I suspect it's a matter of having some other way of channeling that often-melodramatic expression so it doesn't feel simply lacking in something when played steady.
If you are interested in hearing a version that gets somewhat closer to MM=160 single beat, try this (from 1:05). th-cam.com/video/oRGsL51RdbE/w-d-xo.html Interestingly, in some of his videos, this guy seems to go in the opposite direction to you, and claims that we should try to play op10 strictly at the single beat MMs (even e.g. op10 no6). He is an incredible pianist and does a good job, but the results are still, well... questionable.
Does this argument apply to all the etudes?
yes!
AuthenticSound hilariously, I’ve spent the last 3 years attempting to improve the speed of the waterfall, revolutionary, bees (25 2), ocean and op 10 2.
I can now relax 😂
Really interesting the comparatively wide tempo range that pianists take when playing this Chopin etude. Mr. Winter's moderate tempo is unique, of course, in that it is tied to a particular understanding of historical metronome usage. Pollini and Lisitsa are sort of "middle of the road". Others, like Ignaz Friedman (my favourite), Andre Watts and Yundi Li are at the fast end, approaching or meeting Chopin's (single beat) tempo marking. Richter has recordings at middle of the road through frantic tempi. Failing a séance to conjure up the spirit of Chopin I suppose we will never know for sure what tempo he intended, but it is a testament to his composition that it can sound well at such a wide range given the interpretation by talented pianists.
The "middle of the road" is in fact close to 144 for a crotchet.
Mr Win is not precise, or worse, distorts the facts trying to be more convincing.
You make a very good point on the tempo, especially backed by scholarly works. I do disagree with our tempo however, primarily as i come from the perspective of a composer. I have played this piece at almost every tempo, and I find pollini's speed the closest, though it is still a tad bit slow.
During the time, Chopin was very angry about the wars of his time, and his inability to join the cause. As a composer, i have sat and played for hours nonstop, channelling my emotions, of which anger is the dominant emotion. When i compose and improvise when angry, i am sweating and heated, and as such i play along the lines of Pollini's speed of this piece.
At the slower speed you play, much of the phrasing falls apart in a musical sense. You make really good points, but you are coming from a more historical and scholarly perspective than an artistic and emotional perspective.
I never trust tempo markings on classical music. As a composer, i never write exact tempos; it robs the performer of creativity and artistic expression. If i were to write this piece, I would have written Allegro or Allegrissimo at that faster speed. Your speed doesn't sound Allegro; it sounds Allegretto or Allegro Moderato.
Sometimes you can't exactly put down on paper what your musical idea is; you just get close enough to convey the basic meaning.
All that being said, you make many good points, most of which cannot be rebutted; however, as a composer and pianist, I feep your tempo is too slow to stay musically interesting. You can play Bach a bit slower than usual and it still sounds good, but there is always a range where you can hear its intended musical meaning being conveyed.
What is it you are doing again? Are you a pianist or an orchestrator ...?
Why does he play so slowly. I am confused. I watched a video where he place it is a the historical tempo, which is slower than usually heard, but here he says pianist play it 25 percent slower than normal. So confused.
you have my dream instrument set up. period instruments to play period pieces. That erard piano is gorgeous
You are wrong. Carl Czerny explained it in his Klavierschule op. 500 "Vom Gebrauch des Mälzel'schen Metronoms (Taktmessers):
"you have to play each quarter note exactly with every audible beat (!) of the metronome."
You might want to learn to read carefully...! Czerny writes "exactly with the audible beats (plural) / schlägen. More important: a) he clearly states to play exactly according to the MM, so that should (y)our starting point for every discussion and b) the term Schlag is the most important one of his description. It is a 100% pure description of the metrical use of the metronome, not a single doubt about it.
The evidence presented here is simply overwhelming, no doubt that the "slow" tempo is the right tempo. I remember at the conservatory if you played rubato in order to facilitate a difficult passage, your teacher would comment on it in a not so kindly way, but the two super pianists here are doing exactly that, - and why? Simply because those passages are physically impossible to play in time. If certain passages can't be played in time, the tempo is obviously too fast, that would be common sense.
This youtube channel brought back my joy of playing since I discovered that I actually can play at least 4 chopin etudes. I always wondered how come the etudes brought musical pleasure even when played in practicing tempo. Now I understand, the practicing tempo was in fact performance tempo. Thank you for exposing this "tempo-conspiracy"!
Thank you so much and... welcome here!
Lisitsa and pollini play the runs at about 145-150 bpm(crochet beats).
they both are gifted with incredible posisbilities indeed. But the point is not that they not can play fast, it is still too slow compared to the MM people claim Chopin had in mind. And so womes the whole beat practice in picture: th-cam.com/video/6EgMPh_l1BI/w-d-xo.html
I don't know. Even I can play the étude at 165(although not very well, because the hardest piece that I can play 'well' is the ballade no 3). And the mm that chopin had given was 152, which they actually surpass if not for some dramatic pauses that they do. There are even people who play faster than the tempo marking(by a lot) is op 10 no 2 and op 25 no 6, which are widely considered to be the hardest études.
Still, your theory is quite fascinating.
The first version of this etude was marked "presto con fuoco" by Chopin.
correct; It is interesting to understand a) why he changed and b) what's the difference?
Dank Wim!
Hello, I have a question. Should we then adopt the historical tempo in all of his works, if we agree this tempo is better, more revealing or accurate?
These passionate pieces remind me of the effect of playing our metal songs (in rehearsals) in different tempos. Fast versions sounded very aggressive, almost violent, while half tempo sounded like "doom metal", gloomy, even tragic.
Keeping the due distances, this etude produces the same emotions, epic/violent when fast, melancholic when slow.
I didn’t get nothing! You are playing eight note 160bpm not quater. The score shows quater 160bpm. What do you mean with “too slow”? Are you too slow or Pollini and Lisitsa? I think they play in right tempo, maybe they don’t are playing the accent every four sixteen notes, you are right
So, do You consider Lisitza at the same level of artistry than Pollini?
Wim's theory is ridiculous. Does he think every piece of music from the era is played at half the speed of what has been commonly accepted for at least 125 years? So the Nocturne No. 20 is supposed to be played at 37 bpm? A presto by Beethoven is 60 bpm? It's absurd, and it is gets even more absurd when you listen to the results.
Immediately after hearing your performance I listened to that same Lisitsa performance. Her runs (at 120 BPM) are smooth as silk, but where are the accents??? As you mentioned herein it is without rhythmical definition or shape. I can't imagine what it would sound like at a full 160!!! Your tempo allows for stronger articulations - I daresay physically impossible to do at 160. So glad you are bringing back true musicality.
listen to Sviatoslav Richter's performance.
I did. He does just about succeed in playing it at 160 per minute, but those individual accents that Chopin marks on the first page are absent. A virtuosic performance, indeed, but not one that evokes "revolution" in my mind.
th-cam.com/video/8hOKcdZJJFU/w-d-xo.html
Brendan Ward Richter‘s Fingers are amazingly fast. Unfortunately, to my ears, it has as much musical value as buzzing bees. I’m sorry if this offends anyone, my preferences are for clear articulation and the shape of a lyrical theme. I certainly admire this high level of technique, but think „musicality“ lies in the interplay of sound and silence - attack and release, not merely „AFAP“.
Chopin's accents are only tempo and rubato indications. They are not about changes in the dinamics. Like in the first etude, Chopin is only saying "keep the time dude". I have the proof that the correct interpretation of metronome indications is the "one beat" version, and not "double beat", from Czerny's op 500 chapter VII. Give it a look.
This isn't an historical interpretation, it's only a slow executions full of disturbing accents.
I have given it a look and I think it supports Wim. Example D is a waltz (Tempo di Valse) in 3/4 time and has a metronome mark dotted-minim = 88. In modern style, that's 88 bars per minute. I would love to see you dance a waltz at 88 bars a minute. In Wim's interpretation, the correct tempo has 44 bars per minute, which is, as Czerny remarks, "the true time of the waltz". I admit that the instructions he gives on how to use the metronome includes the remark: "we must play every crotchet exactly with the audible beats of the metronome", which seems to support your view, but that interpretation is contradicted by Example D.
archive.org/stream/completetheoreti03czer?ref=ol#page/67/mode/1up
What about the other etudes like 10-1? Clearly it can't be meant to be taken at half speed. Not exactly the "arpeggios like a stroke of a violin bow" Chopin had in mind.10-12 sounds so terrible at that slow tempo I can't imagine Chopin intended it that way
This is an occasion where I think I actually prefer Wim's interpretation.
You have to be a fool to believe Chopin's etudes are half the time of modern interpretation. Look at the etudes of other composers, notably Liszt. The transcendental and Paganini etudes are wicked fast and sound amazing.
Please consider what would happen if you sped up a slow song by two times. This is what would happen, the melody would sound weird as there would be too many notes. Please imagine Chopin's Mazurka Op. 24 No. 1 in two times speed. It sounds weird. This is not the case for the Chopin Etudes. The melody is spaced out so when its played at fast speeds the melody sounds normal. When you slow it down you rob piece of the melody as its too spaced out.
a fool indeed is he who repeat claims things from others without checking himself, people have to learn to think for themselves from scratch!
Is one explanation (didn't see it here or in the video) that maybe the 19th century metronome was quite inaccurate and possibly the measurements that Chopin was suggesting were off by about 25%?
I know but it is a weird explanation, perhaps this video is something for you th-cam.com/video/0sgkls8XEt8/w-d-xo.html
a brilliant argument
I am so grateful for you and your work.
thanks!
Actually I learned Revolutionary etude but for some reason many days I felt too difficult because I referred the wrong tutorials on youtube and after watching your video I just downloaded it and I played along with your playing and just within 1 week I quickly got my results but I make some minor mistakes I think I will correct soon please upload more because they are really useful because rushing will not help anyway I have learned after this channel seriously Thank you Wim :)
Great to read Charles!
Sir please upload more etudes in slow tempo it is really useful :)
I think if this is a etude (study), speed most increase every time. There's no way to attain virtuosity if you don't speed up your performance. It was a virtuoso era. The whole op. 10 etudes were dedicated to Liszt. In a famous letter, Chopin wished he'd play "as good" as Liszt his own etudes. An etude is didactic material. If you can't play it at 160, at least try to reach it. Chopin wasn't slow at all--those who witnessed his swiftness were well aware that no one around was faster. Wasn't he inspired by Paganini? Everybody was trying velocity. Btw, if you play that slow in the Chopin Competition, they'll ring the bell. There's a reason.
Listen to the recording of Moritz Rosenthal who studied with Mikuli to the Fantasie Impromptu. The fast part is played at the written metronome mark of half note= 84 in terms of single beat. Then, the 2nd theme - do you really believe that Chopin heard it 1/8 note= 88 like it would be in a double beat?
There is supposedly the legend of Liszt playing this étude in octaves with his left hand because it was supposedly just that easy for him. Whether there is any credibility to that story I don't know... But you certainly could not do it taking the tempo marking with a single tick performance...
The legend goes as follows:
When Alexander Dreyschock and Franz Liszt first met, Dreyschock tried to show off by playing the left hand of the Revolutionary Etude in octaves at normal speed. It is said that Liszt responded by sitting at the piano, hesitantly plucking out the first few bars of the right hand of the 14th etude in octaves once or twice, then launching into a complete performance of it with the right hand in octaves at proper speed! Needless to say, Dreyschock was left rather shocked and speechless!