Beethoven's metronome markings
mar...@gabriel.ctron.com
years, but was unaware until now the issue of Beethoven's
metronome markings and certain conductors following/not
following them.
I was wondering why conductors normally take such liberty with
the markings...why wouldn't you want to play the piece
at the tempo the composer intended? On the other
hand, I can see why this might be the case, the time I
heard Norrington's 9th, the last movement sounded
incredibly awkward, and from what I understand he
used Beethoven's markings. Maybe I'm just used
to more conventional approaches (Karajan's 1977
is my current favorite).
But why does it seem more conventional to NOT
follow the markings? Do some conductors think Beethoven
had a bad sense for tempo or something?
Just wondering.
Rob
--
Rob Martino
James C Liu
>I was wondering why conductors normally take such liberty with
>the markings...why wouldn't you want to play the piece
>at the tempo the composer intended? On the other
>hand, I can see why this might be the case, the time I
>heard Norrington's 9th, the last movement sounded
>incredibly awkward, and from what I understand he
>used Beethoven's markings. Maybe I'm just used
>to more conventional approaches (Karajan's 1977
>is my current favorite).
>But why does it seem more conventional to NOT
>follow the markings? Do some conductors think Beethoven
>had a bad sense for tempo or something?
The metronome was invented by Johann Maelzel, a friend and contemporary
of Beethoven's, somewhere around the turn of the 19th century. (Beethoven
spoofs the metronome's monotonous beat in the 2nd movement to the 8th
symphony, which is based on a canon called, "Ta, ta, ta, ... lieber Maelzel.")
However, Beethoven didn't write specific metronome markings for his
symphonies until late in his career (I believe after he had already written
eight of his nine), and at a time when he had become largely deaf.
By this time, he would occasionally beat time at rehearsals, but the players
knew better than to try and follow him. (Whether Beethoven was actually
beating the time that he really wanted is not as clear.) The markings have
frequently been ignored because they were an afterthought, not conceived
during the actual compositional process by a man who was deaf by the time
he came up with these markings.
Technical difficulties with respect to smooth orchestral execution may
have had something to do with the lack of respect for the markings, too,
though several conductors (Toscanini and the authenticists) have shown
that many of the faster markings can actually be achieved. As I
understand it, the issue of whether to follow Beethoven's tempo markings
remains controversial, though.
--
/James C.S. Liu, MD "The lion and the calf shall lie down
jl...@world.std.com together, but the calf won't get much
Department of Medicine sleep."
New England Med Ctr, Boston MA -- Woody Allen, Laws and Proverbs
Kevin Hamner
In article <D204L...@world.std.com>, <jl...@world.std.com> writes:
> However, Beethoven didn't write specific metronome markings for his
> symphonies until late in his career (I believe after he had already written
> eight of his nine), and at a time when he had become largely deaf.
> By this time, he would occasionally beat time at rehearsals, but the players
> knew better than to try and follow him. (Whether Beethoven was actually
> beating the time that he really wanted is not as clear.) The markings have
> frequently been ignored because they were an afterthought, not conceived
> during the actual compositional process by a man who was deaf by the time
> he came up with these markings.
If we can't trust Beethoven's metronome markings because of his deafness, why
should we trust the pitches -- or the dynamics? It seems to me that hearing is
just as critical for these items.
In my experience, the afterthoughts or most people are usually more reliable
than their forethoughts: hindsight being more reliable than foresight.
I can, however, understand your comment about Beethoven beating time at a
rehearsal: conductors without hearing would have a hard time noticing that the
orchestra has made a mistake and is now a beat behind....
--Kevin
Maestro EK
Ninth, saying that it sounds awkward. This is certainly true in the fugal
middle episode, and this is because Norrington misinterprets Beethoven's
marking. In the score, this humorous march is marked dotted quarter at
84. This is almost certainly a misprint, and should read as a dotted half
note at 84 (twice as fast!) Thus, when the chorus finally ushers in the
movement's recap, they would then be singing in the theme's original
tempo, first stated by the cellos and basses. The fugue then should
really move as quick as lightning, much faster than it normally is played.
It works though, as I've performed it this way myself.
Eric Kujawsky
Music Director,
Redwood Symphony
Deryk Barker
: In article <D204L...@world.std.com>, <jl...@world.std.com> writes:
: > However, Beethoven didn't write specific metronome markings for his
: > symphonies until late in his career (I believe after he had already written
: > eight of his nine), and at a time when he had become largely deaf.
: > By this time, he would occasionally beat time at rehearsals, but the players
: > knew better than to try and follow him. (Whether Beethoven was actually
: > beating the time that he really wanted is not as clear.) The markings have
: > frequently been ignored because they were an afterthought, not conceived
: > during the actual compositional process by a man who was deaf by the time
: > he came up with these markings.
: If we can't trust Beethoven's metronome markings because of his deafness, why
: should we trust the pitches -- or the dynamics? It seems to me that hearing is
: just as critical for these items.
Read the interview with Harnoncourt contained in his Beethoven
cycle. In that he says that when he is listening to music in his head
he takes it faster than when playing (for example) in a small chamber
group, which again is slower than with a full orchestra. Given that
Beethoven could only hear the music in his head by the time the
metronome was around I find his argument fairly persuasive.
Also: we now have recordings of composers performing or conducting
their own music, and they themselves frequently do not follow their
own metronome or even tempo markings consistently. Bartok, for
instance, attached timings down to the second on some works, yet his
own performances do not conform. Or listen to Elgar's two recordings
of the Enigma variations. Both were made within the 3-4 minute
limitation of the 78 side, but he does not adopt identical tempi.
--
Deryk.
=================================================================
|Deryk Barker, Computer Science Dept. | Without music, life |
|Camosun College, Victoria, BC, Canada | would be a mistake |
|email: dba...@camosun.bc.ca | |
|phone: +1 604 370 4452 | (Friedrich Nietzsche).|
=================================================================
Fred Goldrich
Deryk Barker <dba...@camosun.bc.ca> wrote:
>Read the interview with Harnoncourt contained in his Beethoven
>cycle. In that he says that when he is listening to music in his head
>he takes it faster than when playing (for example) in a small chamber
>group, which again is slower than with a full orchestra. Given that
>Beethoven could only hear the music in his head by the time the
>metronome was around I find his argument fairly persuasive.
I'm afraid I don't. If this were so, we should expect to
find all of Beethoven's tempi to be in some sense systematically off
the mark, whereas in fact about a third of them are regularly observed
rather closely. The unfortunately fact is that only some of them are
controversial, which does not support a systematic theory, including
that of a faulty metronome.
>Also: we now have recordings of composers performing or conducting
>their own music, and they themselves frequently do not follow their
>own metronome or even tempo markings consistently. Bartok, for
>instance, attached timings down to the second on some works, yet his
>own performances do not conform.
I find this similarly not persuasive -- in fact, for just
the reverse of one the reasons related by James Liu, namely that
the markings are an 'afterthought.' IMO, one of the reasons that
composers end up not observing their own metronome marks is that
the marks are often entered during composition, before there is any
(or any significant) performance experience. Beethoven had con-
ducted his own works many times before supplying tempo marks, so he
should have had the tempi pretty well set in his mind by that time.
> Or listen to Elgar's two recordings
>of the Enigma variations. Both were made within the 3-4 minute
>limitation of the 78 side, but he does not adopt identical tempi.
Certainly, and Beethoven may well have been the same. Still,
the metronome marks should have been *within his range of performing
tempi*, rather than impractically fast as some are claimed to be.
(Let me add that I am still not convinced that all of them
are correct; it's just that none of the above reasons for *not*
taking them seriously strike me as very convincing.)
-- Fred Goldrich
--
Fred Goldrich
gold...@panix.com
Bill Rea
: In article <3emiks$9...@news.camosun.bc.ca>,
: Deryk Barker <dba...@camosun.bc.ca> wrote:
: > Or listen to Elgar's two recordings
: >of the Enigma variations. Both were made within the 3-4 minute
: >limitation of the 78 side, but he does not adopt identical tempi.
: Certainly, and Beethoven may well have been the same. Still,
: the metronome marks should have been *within his range of performing
: tempi*, rather than impractically fast as some are claimed to be.
Beethoven didn't even keep to a single tempo within a given section.
We have some first hand accounts from people like Karl Czerny of
Beethoven performing his own works. He was pretty free with the tempo.
He had a tendency to slow down in the loud passages, then speed up again.
He was also free with the score often ignoring his own dynamic markings
if he felt like it. Some say that Chopin was much the same and used to
criticize his students for trying to copy him rather than develop their
own interpretations of the music. This is quite different to today's
training where strict adherence to the score is expected.
--
Bill Rea, Computer Services Centre, | E-Mail b....@csc.canterbury.ac.nz
Private Bag 4800 | or cct...@csc.canterbury.ac.nz
University of Canterbury, | Phone 64-3-364-2331
Christchurch, New Zealand | Fax 64-3-364-2332
Friends are the flowers in the garden of life. - Unknown
Arnold M Cohen
According to an interview with Mr. Norrington, (Gramophone or Fanfare), the
speed of the march was selected as it was to represent a "march to the pub".
I think the relatively slow speed Norrington chose, accurately reflects that.
Perhaps it is even a "march from the pub". Anyways, I am rather partial to it.
Arnie Cohen
James C Liu
>If a deaf man can write the 9th symphony, I say we take he probably could
>figure out the metronome markings as well.
Really? Doesn't it strike you at times that the density of the composition,
the incredibly thick textures and multiple-voiced counterpoint of the 9th
is sometimes too thick to be heard in actual performance? An old music
history teacher of mine argued that late Beethoven is written too well
to be performed (she was more specific than Schnabel, I suppose); the
late quartets have a similarly novel approach to sound that doesn't
necessarily *sound* well.
Richard Carnes
>lst...@cais.com (Lewis Stead) writes:
>
>>If a deaf man can write the 9th symphony, I say we take he probably could
>>figure out the metronome markings as well.
>
> Really? Doesn't it strike you at times that the density of the composition,
>the incredibly thick textures and multiple-voiced counterpoint of the 9th
>is sometimes too thick to be heard in actual performance?
Beethoven may have miscalculated some textures, but in any case his
metronome numbers must be taken seriously as giving the general
ballpark for the tempi, even if one does not want to adhere to them
precisely. No one plays the first movement of Op. 106 at the
indicated half note = 138, but the number shows that Beethoven wanted
a fast and energetic tempo, not a Maestoso or Allegro ma non troppo.
He knew how his works would sound with a fair degree of accuracy: the
consistently beautiful colors and textures in his late works cannot be
accidental (e.g., the Missa Solemnis passim).
For instance, when Beethoven writes "Maestoso" near the end of the
Ninth, this term (indicating a mood, not a tempo) in itself doesn't
pin the tempo down very closely, so his indication here of quarter =
60 is of value to the conductor who notices it instead of merely
assuming that Maestoso means Adagio. The questions about the
metronome markings of the Trio of the Scherzo and the Alla Marcia
sections have been laid to rest (IMHO) by Clive Brown in an article a
few years ago (I can look up the reference if anyone wants it). The
upshot is that Norrington plays both of these sections half as fast as
Beethoven wanted. (The Trio, after all, is marked "Presto", not
Andante commodo a la Norrington, and it should bear some resemblance
to Beethoven's other Presto movements.) Despite these defects,
however, I think Norrington's is a great performance.
Richard Carnes
Furue Ryo
| Some insight as to why Beethoven's tempo markings seem rather
| fast or unplayable--the pianoforte. The pianoforte of that
| period had a much lighter action than the piano of today, so
| Beethoven probably played through all works, while composing, at
| "break-neck speeds" because he was able to. That is why,
| especially in all the piano sonati, all the metronome markings
| are pretty much unplayable on today's piano. I heard this idea
| from Saul Braverman, who was my graduate theory instructor at
| Manhattan School Of Music (now deceased). I also had the
| opportunity to play around on a pianoforte, and the touch was
| _noticeably_ lighter.
I read another story: his metronome was broken. I don't have the source
handy, but I remember the author (Hiroyuki Iwaki, a conductor) said, as
supporting evidence, that many parts of the symphonies are unplayable
under the Beethoven's metronome markings.
Ryo
Fred Goldrich
Furue Ryo <furu...@ccsr.u-tokyo.ac.jp> wrote:
>
>I read another story: his metronome was broken. I don't have the source
>handy, but I remember the author (Hiroyuki Iwaki, a conductor) said, as
>supporting evidence, that many parts of the symphonies are unplayable
>under the Beethoven's metronome markings.
Can you track down the source and elaborate on this point?
From what I know, I don't find it very likely -- Beethoven is known
to have been aware of the pitfalls of using a faulty metronome, and
brought his in for repairs when he suspected it was not working
properly. Also, the theory of the broken metronome fails to explain
why only some of his symphonic tempos are considered [by some!] to
be "unplayable", while others seem to be just right.
Jon Conrad
>I read another story: his metronome was broken. I don't have the source
>handy,
I'd love to know it if you ever find it. I keep hearing people say (in
the music department where I work) that "of course everybody knows" that
B's metronome was broken, but it always turns out to be somebody told
somebody this sometime, details unknown. If there's some hard evidence,
I want to know it.
>but I remember the author (Hiroyuki Iwaki, a conductor) said, as
>supporting evidence, that many parts of the symphonies are unplayable
>under the Beethoven's metronome markings.
Isn't this circular reasoning? He finds the symphonies unplayable at
the marked tempos (which not all conductors do, by the way), so the
metronome was broken, so the markings must be wrong. I would need more
evidence than that! Besides, an experienced musician and conductor will
tend to have certain speeds ingrained (60, for instance -- 1 beat a
second) and be unlikely to get them wrong with or without a metronome at
hand.
I tend to agree with those who are deciding that Beethoven's markings
are more practical than has been traditionally assumed. But when they
do exceed practicality, one contributing factor may well be that he was
running through the pieces mentally, rather than trying them out
practically. It's always easier to make a piece go fast when you think
through it and tap your pencil on the arm of your chair, than it is to
actually make an orchestra play at that pace.
Jon Alan Conrad
Richard Carnes
Jon Conrad <con...@brahms.udel.edu> wrote:
>Furue Ryo <furu...@ccsr.u-tokyo.ac.jp> wrote:
>
>>I read another story: his metronome was broken. I don't have the source
>>handy,
>
>I'd love to know it if you ever find it. I keep hearing people say (in
>the music department where I work) that "of course everybody knows" that
>B's metronome was broken, but it always turns out to be somebody told
>somebody this sometime, details unknown. If there's some hard evidence,
>I want to know it.
I've never heard of any evidence, either, that B's metronome was
broken (although it would have been quite in character for him to
break it).
Required reading on this topic:
Clive Brown, "Historical performance, metronome marks and
tempo in Beethoven's symphonies," _Early Music_ 19, May
1991, pp. 247-258.
Brown argues, convincingly IMHO, that the metronome marks for the Trio
and the Alla marcia section of the Ninth have been handed down at half
Beethoven's intended speed. Brown also asserts that "the metronome
marks of Schubert, Rossini, Spontini, Spohr, Mendelssohn and others
confirm that Beethoven's liking for extremely rapid tempos in certain
types of movement was shared by others at that time." He promises a
more detailed study of early 19th-century metronome marks in a
forthcoming book _Classical and Romantic Performing Practice_. I
don't know if it has appeared yet.
>I tend to agree with those who are deciding that Beethoven's markings
>are more practical than has been traditionally assumed. But when they
>do exceed practicality, one contributing factor may well be that he was
>running through the pieces mentally, rather than trying them out
>practically. It's always easier to make a piece go fast when you think
>through it and tap your pencil on the arm of your chair, than it is to
>actually make an orchestra play at that pace.
True, and in any case Beethoven was not overly concerned with making
life easy for instrumentalists and singers. Some of his music is
"unsafe at any speed".
RC
Tom Wood
> >I read another story: his metronome was broken. I don't have the source
> >handy,
> I'd love to know it if you ever find it. I keep hearing people say (in
> the music department where I work) that "of course everybody knows" that
> B's metronome was broken, but it always turns out to be somebody told
> somebody this sometime, details unknown. If there's some hard evidence,
> I want to know it.
Whenever someone says "of course, everybody knows...." I get very
suspicious.
> >but I remember the author (Hiroyuki Iwaki, a conductor) said, as
> >supporting evidence, that many parts of the symphonies are unplayable
> >under the Beethoven's metronome markings.
> I tend to agree with those who are deciding that Beethoven's markings
> are more practical than has been traditionally assumed. But when they
> do exceed practicality, one contributing factor may well be that he was
> running through the pieces mentally, rather than trying them out
> practically. It's always easier to make a piece go fast when you think
> through it and tap your pencil on the arm of your chair, than it is to
> actually make an orchestra play at that pace.
> Jon Alan Conrad
I also tend to think that Beethoven's metronome markings are generally
authoritative -- although subject to error, for several reasons, including
the one Conrad mentions. Didn't Beethoven's pupil Czerny prepare piano
transcriptions of the symphonies? And don't his metronome markings
generally confirm those of Beethoven? Or was his metronome broken too?
--
....Thomas Wood..............................
........Springfield, Illinois USA............
............wood@eagle.sangamon.edu..........
Matthias Wendt
his compositions, is it via rehearsels, is it in his working room at the
piano or just when writing down the notes? The metronome of Maelzel was
invented or perfected in 1818, see Beethoven's advertising of this
invention dated 14/2/1818. At this time Beethoven was nearly totaly deaf,
this means his metronome markings have nothing to do with life hearing,
real experience, because there was no more at all. The markings arise from
his "inner ear" and that bears no connections to real-life-restrictions of
musical productions. So I Think any discussion of Beethoven's metronome
markings is useless because they are not the result of actual rehearsals
but just imaginative.
Matthias Wendt
Jonathan Fox
: Jon Conrad (con...@brahms.udel.edu) wrote:
: > I tend to agree with those who are deciding that Beethoven's markings
: > are more practical than has been traditionally assumed. But when they
: > do exceed practicality, one contributing factor may well be that he was
: > running through the pieces mentally, rather than trying them out
: > practically. It's always easier to make a piece go fast when you think
: > through it and tap your pencil on the arm of your chair, than it is to
: > actually make an orchestra play at that pace.
: I also tend to think that Beethoven's metronome markings are generally
: authoritative -- although subject to error, for several reasons, including
: the one Conrad mentions. Didn't Beethoven's pupil Czerny prepare piano
: transcriptions of the symphonies? And don't his metronome markings
: generally confirm those of Beethoven? Or was his metronome broken too?
I'm glad you brought this up. I believe Czerny also wrote a book in which
he explains how he heard Beethoven play his sonatas. He included
metronome markings for sonatas that had no such markings, claiming that
this was the speed Beethoven performed them at. One particular example
is the first movement of the Waldstein (Op. 53), which he marks at 88
beats for the half note! (This is quite speedy, IMHO.)
However, not all the tempos are blazingly fast. He marks the third
movement of the same sonata as 88 beats for the quarter note, which is a
lot slower than most people play. (Add to that the problem of the
original pedal markings to that movement, and we can debate for decades
on how Beethoven "really" played it.)
--
Jonathan R. Fox School of Medicine
jr...@ucdavis.edu University of California, Davis
Owen Mathews
should be allowed conductors? I have heard of a recent attempt by John
Eliot Gardiner to conduct all nine symphonies following the original tempo
markings as faithfully as possible. I believe that he also used an
orchestra with the correct balance for the era in which the piece was
composed, and used instruments as close to Beethoven's era as possible.
Supposedly all these factors made for quite a new way of looking at
Beethoven...
(BTW, I think this is the correct group for this post -- not r.m.c.r --
because I'm not discussing the recording so much as the aspects of
performance regarding Beethoven's tempo markings.)
--
Owen Mathews mat...@s9000.furman.edu
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
Furman University, Computer Science Dept
Fred Goldrich
Owen Mathews <mat...@ns9000.furman.edu> wrote:
>In regards to Beethoven's tempo markings, how much latitude do you think
>should be allowed conductors? I have heard of a recent attempt by John
>Eliot Gardiner to conduct all nine symphonies following the original tempo
>markings as faithfully as possible.
First of all, I think you'll agree that 'allowed' is not the
right word here. Performing musicians do what they want, and those who
listen make their own judgements; there is no way to 'allow' some tempos
and not others. Furthermore, tempo modifications are only one class of
departure from composers' written intentions -- for example, as has been
discussed here recently, Mahler undertook some significant reorchestration
of Beethoven's symphonies. Opinions on this sort of thing range all the
way from criminal tampering to commendable artistic license.
In the case of Beethoven's metronome marks, the issue is parti-
cularly problematic. The late nineteenth century tradition, the influ-
ence of which carried over into our own century, favored slower tempos,
and as we 'recover' from that influence and tempos are moving closer to
Beethoven's indications, many questions arise, concerning the condition
of his metronome, his ability to assign metronome marks in his deafness,
and so on. While the issue has by no means been definitively settled,
it is complicated by the fact that 'common opinion' seems to hold that
many of the markings seem just right, while others are much too fast.
This phenomenon is not particularly in accord with theories involving
deafness and faulty metronomes.
> I believe that he also used an
>orchestra with the correct balance for the era in which the piece was
>composed, and used instruments as close to Beethoven's era as possible.
>Supposedly all these factors made for quite a new way of looking at
>Beethoven...
I'll leave it to someone else to pick up on the whole original
instrument / 'authenticity' controversies.
>(BTW, I think this is the correct group for this post -- not r.m.c.r --
>because I'm not discussing the recording so much as the aspects of
>performance regarding Beethoven's tempo markings.)
FWIW, I agree completely.
Sean Osborn
furu...@ccsr.u-tokyo.ac.jp (Furue Ryo) wrote:
>I read another story: his metronome was broken. I don't
>have the source handy, but I remember the author
>(Hiroyuki Iwaki, a conductor) said, as supporting
>evidence, that many parts of the symphonies are
>unplayable under the Beethoven's metronome markings.
>
>Ryo
I think that story doesn't hold water. Most people now play his
symphonies at the tempos indicated. I have played all nine,
each more than once, and usually at the markings. One great
argument against his metronome not working is the fact that
most people do the Scherzo to the 2nd symph. too FAST. I think
that Beethoven Symphonies work best when you don't mess with
what he wrote (tempos, dynamics, etc.).
Sean
"Those who say, don't know, and those who know, don't say."
Stephen Birkett
Beethoven's piano sonatas. Czerny's and other m.m. are reviewed in an
excellent book by Sandra Rosenblum (Indiana), Performing Practices in
Classic Piano Music. From my own experience two facts seem to be clear:
1) ALL indicated m.m. marks are meant to be somewhat flexible, and must
necessarily vary according to the performing context, the size of the
room, acoustics, size of the audience in the room etc.
2) Beethoven's markings are generally reasonable, as can be demonstrated
now with well-made period instruments. Playing this music on modern
instruments is a factor that must be considered as per first comment
above.
Stephen Birkett
University of Guelph
Guelph, Ontario, Canada
Christopher Spring
markings: that since he couldn't hear the music (at least very well) he
did not have a chance to revise them downward after hearing the music.
Most composers will tell you that they hear things in their head faster
than they are musically and technically feasable. (A good example is the
marking for the second movement of Shostakovich's 10th Symphony.)
Composers more often than not will change some tempi and dynamic markings
during rehearsals and even after performances.
Christopher Spring "I could not bear to always take the same tempo"
-Gustav Mahler
J. Patrick Murphy
<Pine.A32.3.91c.95020...@homer21.u.washington.edu>
Christopher Spring, mah...@u.washington.edu writes:
In article
<Pine.A32.3.91c.95020...@homer21.u.washington.edu>
Christopher Spring, mah...@u.washington.edu writes:
>Why hasn't anyone mentioned this explanation for Beethoven's metronomic
>markings: that since he couldn't hear the music (at least very well) he
>did not have a chance to revise them downward after hearing the music.
>Most composers will tell you that they hear things in their head faster
>than they are musically and technically feasable. (A good example is
the
>marking for the second movement of Shostakovich's 10th Symphony.)
>Composers more often than not will change some tempi and dynamic
markings
>during rehearsals and even after performances.
There was a very interesting article in the BBC Music Magazine regarding
this question. It seems that old Ludwig's hearing was slightly better
than we had thought, after all. Let me see if I remember this correctly:
he had his piano modified to concentrate sound at one point on the
soundboard, and used a rather prodigious ear trumpet, the result being
that he could at least vaguely hear his own piano. His hearing in other
walks of life was unenhanced, of course, but it is appparently false to
argue that he never heard what he composed, for he did receive a pretty
decent aural impression of the piano scores.
The article was in either the November or December issue, I believe, but
I didn't bring my copy to school with me.
Russ Schnall
Orchestra presentation of Beethoven's Fifth Symphony. In his introduction, the
director indicated that this rendition might be somewhat different from what we're
used to -- he believes it was played at the speed intended by Beethoven. It was
noticeably faster than what I was used to hearing.
--
Russ Schnall sch...@oclc.org
Deryk Barker
: Why hasn't anyone mentioned this explanation for Beethoven's metronomic
: markings: that since he couldn't hear the music (at least very well) he
: did not have a chance to revise them downward after hearing the music.
: Most composers will tell you that they hear things in their head faster
: than they are musically and technically feasable. (A good example is the
: marking for the second movement of Shostakovich's 10th Symphony.)
: Composers more often than not will change some tempi and dynamic markings
: during rehearsals and even after performances.
I have mentioned this at least twice - and I got it from the interview
in Harnoncourt's set. My claim was, however, dismissed by others.
I don't know of anybody, though, who claims that *all* the metronome
markings can be made to 'work' - so I must perforce ask: why not, and
if we accept that some of them are 'wrong', why should we pay any
attention to any of them?
--
Deryk.
===========================================================================
|Deryk Barker, Computer Science Dept. | Across the pale parabola of Joy |
|Camosun College, Victoria, BC, Canada | |
|email: dba...@camosun.bc.ca | Ralston McTodd |
|phone: +1 604 370 4452 | (Songs of Squalor). |
===========================================================================
Fred Goldrich
Deryk Barker <dba...@camosun.bc.ca> wrote:
>
>I don't know of anybody, though, who claims that *all* the metronome
>markings can be made to 'work' - so I must perforce ask: why not, and
>if we accept that some of them are 'wrong', why should we pay any
>attention to any of them?
I think your first point is correct, notwithstanding a recent
post to the contrary.
Why should we pay attention to any of them? Because of the
good historical evidence that they represent, in some uncertain sense,
the composer's intentions. Unfortunately, we are left with the prob-
lem of making interpretive sense out of this confusing evidence.
Jan Swafford
wrong about tempi. I've been amazed at how different performances of my
stuff are from the tempi on the score--including when I'm conducting. My
own theory about it is that even experienced composers don't hear the
effect of room acoustics in their heads, and acoustics always do (and
should) influence the tempi. When you aren't perceiving acoustics you
tend to go faster, just as you do in a dry hall. I've learned to wait for
a performance to finalize metronome markings, and even then they don't
always stay final.
Beethoven went deaf very slowly. The number that sticks in my head is
that 20 years after he first noticed the symptoms, he was finally stone
deaf--which was the last six or eight years of his life. That was plenty
of time to lose a sense of live performance, and thus to mark his older
pieces too fast when he got his hands on the newly-invented metronome.
That said, I've been very convinced by recent performances using tempi
closer to what Beethoven marked--among them a Leon Kirchner *Eroica* last
year that wnearly up to the rked dotted-half=60 in the first
movement. That tempo used to be considered absurd. I think the later
19th century tended to confuse ponderousness with seriousness, and we
inherited that. The early-music movement has helped performers to
lighten up and, in the process, speed up a bit.
Main moral: composer's metronome markings are dicey, but should be
respected unless there's a good reason not to.
Jan Swafford
James C Liu
>Beethoven went deaf very slowly. The number that sticks in my head is
>that 20 years after he first noticed the symptoms, he was finally stone
>deaf--which was the last six or eight years of his life. That was plenty
>of time to lose a sense of live performance, and thus to mark his older
>pieces too fast when he got his hands on the newly-invented metronome.
I don't have Solomon or Thayer at hand, but if I recall correctly, the
Heiligenstadt Testament was written around 1802, at about the same time
as the 2nd Symphony. He never did become stone, cold deaf -- he could
still hear some things if it was shouted loud enough into a trumpet, and
eyewitness accounts describe a man who was still capable of coaxing
unearthly sounds (on occasion) out of a beat-up Broadwood fortepiano even
in his last years. But there's no question that his ability to perform
effectively was gone by the 1820's -- his pubic career ended with the
disastrous premiere of the Archduke Trio, and the story involving the
premiere of the 9th Symphony involves the orchestra being long done before
Beethoven had any idea the performance was over.
Does this help us determine if his metronome markings have any merit?
I don't know. I do wonder if the recent advocacy for more careful attention
to composers' "wishes" doesn't reflect a certain anti-Romantic backlash
in favor of clear textures, brisk tempi, and less wallowing introspection.
(Richard Taruskin has written about this topic in a more lucid if somewhat
more inflammatory manner in various articles in the Sunday New York Times.)
I think I'm with Deryk on this one -- one's ideas of tempi do tend to change
with performance, something Beethoven would have been unable to experience,
and if we can't trust all of the tempo markings, how do we know which
ones to trust?
Keep in mind, of course, that these ravings are coming from an ardent
lover of the work of Furtwaengler, Klemperer, Walter, and all the other
guys that the period-instruments movement is reacting against.
--
/James C.S. Liu, MD "Studies have now shown that laboratory
jl...@world.std.com research causes cancer in rats."
Department of Medicine
New England Med Ctr, Boston MA -- from the After Dark screensaver
Carol McAlpine
jl...@world.std.com (James C Liu) writes:
[deletions]
> Does this help us determine if his metronome markings have any merit?
>I don't know. I do wonder if the recent advocacy for more careful attention
>to composers' "wishes" doesn't reflect a certain anti-Romantic backlash
>in favor of clear textures, brisk tempi, and less wallowing introspection.
>(Richard Taruskin has written about this topic in a more lucid if somewhat
>more inflammatory manner in various articles in the Sunday New York Times.)
>I think I'm with Deryk on this one -- one's ideas of tempi do tend to change
>with performance, something Beethoven would have been unable to experience,
>and if we can't trust all of the tempo markings, how do we know which
>ones to trust?
> Keep in mind, of course, that these ravings are coming from an ardent
>lover of the work of Furtwaengler, Klemperer, Walter, and all the other
>guys that the period-instruments movement is reacting against.
Have you read the book "Authenticity and Early Music," edited by Nicholas
Kenyon? The contributions are from Will Crutchfield (you can imagine what
*he* has to say in "Fashion, Conviction, and Performance Style in an Age
of Revivials"), Howard Mayer Brown ("Pedantry or Liberation? A Sketch of
the Historical Performance Movement"), Robert P. Morgan ("Tradition,
Anxiety, and the Current Musical Scene"), Philip Brett ("Text, Context,
and the Earlyu Music Editor"), Gary Tomlinson ("The Historian, the
Performer, and AAuthentic Meaning in Music", and oh yes, Richard
what-would-we-do-without-him Taruskin (I have fantasies of putting Richard
Taruskin and Charles Rosen in a room together and surreptitiously taping the
proceedings) with "The Pastness of the Present and the Presence of the
Past."
Do you mean passages like this one from Taruskin (P. 157 of the Kenyon
book) "So Furtwaengler's Bach is no smug or mindless adaptation of Bach
to the style of Wagner. It is a reafirmation of the presence of Bach *in*
Wagner andthe simultaneous, reciprocal presence of Wagner in Bach.
Without that perception, and its affirmation in performance, Bach would
fall out of the tradition, and so, deprived of their fount, would
Beethoven, Brahms, and Wagner. The centre would cease to hold."
Of course I've always held that if one were to insist on true
authenticity, then only women pianists eight months along would
be allowed to play the Schumann piano concerto.
Carol McAlpine
Richard Carnes
> Does this help us determine if his metronome markings have any
>merit? I don't know. I do wonder if the recent advocacy for more
>careful attention to composers' "wishes" doesn't reflect a certain
>anti-Romantic backlash in favor of clear textures, brisk tempi, and
>less wallowing introspection.
Interesting point.
>(Richard Taruskin has written about
>this topic in a more lucid if somewhat more inflammatory manner in
>various articles in the Sunday New York Times.) I think I'm with
>Deryk on this one -- one's ideas of tempi do tend to change with
>performance, something Beethoven would have been unable to experience,
>and if we can't trust all of the tempo markings, how do we know which
>ones to trust?
The question isn't whether we should "trust" Beethoven's metronome
marks -- it's how shall we perform the music at hand. As I see it a
performer is not an archeologist or museum curator whose task it is to
unearth and present an historical artifact (such as what the composer
intended or heard) in pristine, "authentic" form, nor do concerts have
the same purpose as musicology seminars. Rather, the performer's task
is to collaborate with the composer in creating good music.
We should pay attention to Beethoven's metronome marks (those that
have been transmitted correctly) for the same reason that we should
pay attention to his markings on the score ("Adagio", slurs, dynamics,
etc.): namely, these are all valuable aids to the performer in
creating a musical performance that we find satisfying or inspiring.
(I have often wished that Bach, for example, had given the performer
more help.) So the metronome marks, like the marks on the score, are
no more and no less than a stimulus to the performer's imagination,
which he or she must use to create a satisfactory performce. If a
performer chooses a different tempo from Beethoven's marking, he or
she is not "incorrect"; but if performers simply disregard the
metronome marks, they have failed to avail themselves of a valuable
resource.
RC
Deryk Barker
: In article <3gtoh2$l...@news.camosun.bc.ca>,
Yes, maybe 'pay attention' was putting it too strongly.
What I meant was that some of them "don't work" it renders all of them
non-definitive. Moreover there are some conductors who can make work
tempi which others cannot. The first mvt of the Pastoral is a good
example: Harnoncourt, to me, sounds too tense here, whereas Mengelberg
and Scherchen (at similar speeds) do not.
Joseph B Stephenson
: > Jon Alan Conrad
: --
I am a pianist and I believe pianists who can not play well enough to
achieve Beethoven's very fast tempi use that "broken metronome" excuse. I
expect conductors use that same sort of lame excuse when their orchestras
or their lame conducting techniques can't get up to snuff either. (If you
wonder what correct tempi sound like, listen to Ashkenazy play the fugue
from Opus 106.
Regards,
J.S.
Jay Azneer
are most often brought into question have been shown to work
quite successfully by Ben Zander who has made a life's work of
it.
Jay AZneer
dba...@turing.camosun.bc.ca (Deryk Barker) wrote:
>=================== |Deryk Barker, Computer Science
Deryk Barker
[....]
: Keep in mind, of course, that these ravings are coming from an ardent
: lover of the work of Furtwaengler, Klemperer, Walter, and all the other
: guys that the period-instruments movement is reacting against.
Sorry James, I;m confused - are you talking about me or you here?
Jon Conrad
>Have you read the book "Authenticity and Early Music," edited by Nicholas
>Kenyon?
Terrific book, for all the reasons Carol cites.
And be it noted that (if I recall right) *every one* of the authors
disclaims the word "authenticity" even while expressing an interest in
informing oneself about past performance practice. I'd say that the
contributors constitute a pretty fair roundup of the most insightful
musical writers around.
>(I have fantasies of putting Richard
>Taruskin and Charles Rosen in a room together and surreptitiously taping the
>proceedings) with "The Pastness of the Present and the Presence of the
>Past."
I don't think Taruskin and Rosen would disagree all that much (perhaps
you weren't implying that they would). But the meeting of two such
well-informed opinionated minds would certainly be stimulating.
>Do you mean passages like this one from Taruskin (P. 157 of the Kenyon
>book) "So Furtwaengler's Bach is no smug or mindless adaptation of Bach
>to the style of Wagner. It is a reafirmation of the presence of Bach *in*
>Wagner andthe simultaneous, reciprocal presence of Wagner in Bach.
>Without that perception, and its affirmation in performance, Bach would
>fall out of the tradition, and so, deprived of their fount, would
>Beethoven, Brahms, and Wagner. The centre would cease to hold."
Taruskin has said so many good things of this sort. One of his most
valuable statements in the present context, one which I've stolen for my
own use many times, is that (even as he interests himself passionately
in historically-informed performance) efforts to re-create past
performance practice are not really achieving any kind of
"authenticity," nor could they -- rather, they are creating a new
performance practice for the 1980s and 1990s, just as Furtwangler et al
did in their own day. And further, that this is not a criticism of the
period-performance group, but praise: this is exactly what they should
be doing, and what such activity inevitably does.
Several other contributors to this book say much the same thing.
>Of course I've always held that if one were to insist on true
>authenticity, then only women pianists eight months along would
>be allowed to play the Schumann piano concerto.
>
And just think what kind of authenticity we'd get if we really tried to
copy the first performances of the great masterpieces of the past,
breakdowns and catastrophes and all.
Jon Alan Conrad
Fred Goldrich
Deryk Barker <dba...@camosun.bc.ca> wrote:
>Fred Goldrich (gold...@panix.com) wrote:
>: Why should we pay attention to any of them? Because of the
>: good historical evidence that they represent, in some uncertain sense,
>: the composer's intentions. Unfortunately, we are left with the prob-
>: lem of making interpretive sense out of this confusing evidence.
>
>Yes, maybe 'pay attention' was putting it too strongly.
>
>What I meant was that some of them "don't work" it renders all of them
>non-definitive. Moreover there are some conductors who can make work
>tempi which others cannot.
Yes. And I think that calling any metronome marks 'definitive'
(which you did not do) is the other extreme from not paying attention to
them. As we've seen in the often-discussed case of Stravinsky, he was
not deaf, we don't suspect a faulty metronome, yet there's still great
debate about how seriously to take his metronome marks. Because metro-
nome marks give the appearance of mathematical precision, there is a
temptation to take them as more absolute than other notations, like
'allegro' or 'forte,' which are well understood to be terms that need
to be understood in complex contexts. For this reason, some composers
have taken to giving their metronome marks as a range rather than as
a single number.
Your second sentence, FWIW, points toward the approach I take
in my own work: When a metronome marking is given, I try to choose
the closest tempo to the one indicated that I feel I can make 'work.'
This can vary from orchestra to orchestra, hall to hall, and even
moment to moment.
Carol McAlpine
"Authenticity and early Music" edited by Nicholas Kenyon:
>Terrific book, for all the reasons Carol cites.
>And be it noted that (if I recall right) *every one* of the authors
>disclaims the word "authenticity" even while expressing an interest in
>informing oneself about past performance practice. I'd say that the
>contributors constitute a pretty fair roundup of the most insightful
>musical writers around.
>>(I have fantasies of putting Richard
>>Taruskin and Charles Rosen in a room together and surreptitiously taping the
>>proceedings) with "The Pastness of the Present and the Presence of the
>>Past."
>I don't think Taruskin and Rosen would disagree all that much (perhaps
>you weren't implying that they would). But the meeting of two such
>well-informed opinionated minds would certainly be stimulating.
I didn't think they would but, jut as you say, it would be interesting to
hear what they do say.
>>Do you mean passages like this one from Taruskin (P. 157 of the Kenyon
>>book) "So Furtwaengler's Bach is no smug or mindless adaptation of Bach
>>to the style of Wagner. It is a reafirmation of the presence of Bach *in*
>>Wagner andthe simultaneous, reciprocal presence of Wagner in Bach.
>>Without that perception, and its affirmation in performance, Bach would
>>fall out of the tradition, and so, deprived of their fount, would
>>Beethoven, Brahms, and Wagner. The centre would cease to hold."
>Taruskin has said so many good things of this sort. One of his most
>valuable statements in the present context, one which I've stolen for my
>own use many times, is that (even as he interests himself passionately
>in historically-informed performance) efforts to re-create past
>performance practice are not really achieving any kind of
>"authenticity," nor could they -- rather, they are creating a new
>performance practice for the 1980s and 1990s, just as Furtwangler et al
>did in their own day. And further, that this is not a criticism of the
>period-performance group, but praise: this is exactly what they should
>be doing, and what such activity inevitably does.
>Several other contributors to this book say much the same thing.
After I posted the previous article, I had a moment of second thoughts,
fearing it would be taken as just another HIP-hate message, when as you
and people in the Kenyon book pointed out, looking at music in a new way
is a Good Thing. The thing that is objectionable are the (now fading)
notions that somehow (a) authentic performance is possible and (b)
"authentic" performance is ipso facto superior or even the only
legitimate performance. As James Liu said, "authenticity" is more a
matter of a revolt against Romanticism than anything else. I am glad to
see more and more people abandon the untenable "authentic" stand and
simply say that they are re-examining the music we've always played and
looking at music that was ignored for awhile (As Jordi Savall has done to
very good effect.
Carol McAlpine
Carol McAlpine
Early Music" -
>What exactly does Taruskin's statement mean? Out of context, as presented
>above, it means that if we stop performing Bach like Wagner, Bach will
>fall out of the tradition. That makes no sense at all. Maybe I should
>grab the book and see for myself. What is "the tradition"? Is there
>only one? Why is Wagner seated in the middle of it and Bach has to
>hang on to Wagner to avoid falling overboard?
Go grab the book. It's in paperback, Oxford Univ. Press, ISBN
0-19-816153-0. Lots of things in it to mull over & agree or disagree with.
Carol McAlpine
Burkhard Stiller
There is a very good book on the "metronome question" called
"prestississimo"
in the rororo edition, unfortunately only in German as far as I know.
The author proves - she says she does, which I personally believe in a
certain way - that the metronome ticks are double speed today for movements
from Allegretto and faster than they have been played in earlier times.
Adagios and Andante are played correctly. She argues concerning the term
time in the general society and its use for composers etc.
If somebody is interested in the complete info on the book, just drop an
e-mail and I will reply.
Regards,
Burkhard
Francois Velde
>>Do you mean passages like this one from Taruskin (P. 157 of the Kenyon
>>book) "So Furtwaengler's Bach is no smug or mindless adaptation of Bach
>>to the style of Wagner. It is a reafirmation of the presence of Bach *in*
>>Wagner andthe simultaneous, reciprocal presence of Wagner in Bach.
>>Without that perception, and its affirmation in performance, Bach would
>>fall out of the tradition, and so, deprived of their fount, would
>>Beethoven, Brahms, and Wagner. The centre would cease to hold."
>
>Taruskin has said so many good things of this sort.
What exactly does Taruskin's statement mean? Out of context, as presented
above, it means that if we stop performing Bach like Wagner, Bach will
fall out of the tradition. That makes no sense at all. Maybe I should
grab the book and see for myself. What is "the tradition"? Is there
only one? Why is Wagner seated in the middle of it and Bach has to
hang on to Wagner to avoid falling overboard?
--
Francois Velde
Johns Hopkins University
ve...@jhu.edu
Glenn Spiegel
All cognition is reconstructive. The mind creates a cognitive structure from
the available materials based on what it hears. To hear an "authentic"
performance, we would have to have in our heads the same cognitive materials
that "authentic" listeners had (whoever they might have been). Personally, I
am sure I couldn't hear a piece as it "sounded" to Beethoven because I don't
have Beethoven's grasp of music.
To me, the function of original style performances is to bring out for current
listeners aspects of the music that have been obscured or deemphasized by
later performance practices.
Glenn