Alberto, I would like to tell you that how you handle this piano now improved incredibly compared to how you handled it in the beginning. You not only recalibrated your touch, phrasing, rubato, dynamics, and pedaling from what is effectice on a modern piano to what is effective on this particular instrument, but you have started to make the piano and these pieces sing in such a wonderful way which makes both the sound of the instrument and the playing style beautiful, awe inspiring and distinctive from earlier and later periods. This piano is a real beauty but it is also extremely unforgiving when you attempt to play on it in an authentic and distinctive way without practice, especially with a modern piano backround. Now your accumulated practice hours come across as day and night. I belive when it comes to early music interpretation, it is important to demonstrate why one should bother to use an instrument from exactly the right period, in this case not a Mozartian or a Brahmsian instrument, choose the right tempo and then use these devices to show the beautiful moments in the piece which work really well with this combination only. You start to do this extremely convincingly. You start to find your own voice, and with it, you give the piano his own voice. This piece is a real showpiece for that and the WBMP. Keep on the research and practice Guys, you are on a very promising path.
Wow! I suppose I'm glad that many of the Beethoven sonatas I have not listened to very much, so that, when I simply decide to sightread them the way I feel they should be, it comes out like this....natural! Nothing rushed. Just living in the moment, and enjoying every harmony as they should be.
Listening to this ‘many times’ one thinks of the inner turmoil which perhaps Beethoven went through, it must be nice to express this turmoil in this work.
It occurs to me that during the period when industrial speed came into play that it was the same period that playing from memory without the score came into vogue, as I recall it was Clara Schumann under the direction of her father who give a big boost to that. I wonder if it played a role in the distortion of the music. I always prefer to use the score because if it is a choice between my less than perfect memory and what the composer instructed, I'd rather have what the composer instructed in front of my eyes.
wim are you aware that we have on record concert times of beethovens ninth from the 1820s which place it at around one hour and 15 minutes. which means that your claims are not historically accurate
It is not. There you find answers not only to 1808 concert, but to all durations in general. Question is if you actually watched carefully the entire video, before being taken by your bias and come here to say that Wim's claims (as if he is your lifetime friend) are not correct. First of all, have you asked yourself if recontructing the music according to a metronome indication given by a composer/editor, is the same of reconstructing music according to performance practice of a certain time? Even the early music movement was born with the intention of reconstructing the composer's intentions and therefore they have always pointed to those metronome numbers to justify their fast playing, without mentioning the impossibility of many of those. But now, that somebody comes with a solution, everyone suddenly takes the durations, without even wondering first if those actually matched the composer's intentions and assuming that concert practice of that time was exactly the same as today. Second, if your interest is to reconstruct music according to performance practice, you actually have to do your homework and research what was the concert practice of that time and how musicians's playing was often reviewed. Let's start from concert practice, in the video of the 1808, there are presented several sources that clearly show how it was a common practice not to perform entire symphonies but only some movements till deep in the late 19th century. Moreover, sometimes sections could be cut inside the movements. The question now is: how can you reconstruct the real tempo of a performance if you don't know the context around it? That's why also the HIPP has looked into durations but in the raw data to match their performances. But let's give you granted that we might have durations where entire pieces were performed. Now a professional researcher, should dive into the reviews of how musicians played back in those days. And guess what, there are many sources that all say the same thing. Performers were embedded in the new vogue of playing faster, an evolution that was already started and mentioned by Turk in 1802 when he says that contemporary tempi were faster than 50 years before him. They called this trend "Tempomania", rage for rapidity, progress of arts. Even Liszt could not escape in front of his audience, where he had to play "to astonish, like a charlatan", which was a completely different playing from how the composers meant their music to be played. And what happened in that time where musicians started playing works not composed by them? The reviewers sounded the alarm bell for composers and called for metronome numbers in order to show that tradition of slower tempi that they knew it was going to be lost. But did the musicians followed those? Not at all. If you indeed convert those metronome numbers in durations (both in whole and single beat) and compare them with the concert durations, you exactly see how the entire context matches the facts. Concert durations are very often in the middle between whole and single beat. Faster than whole beat, slower than single beat, exactly like today performance practice. And so, if reviewers were reporting speed faster than the composer's intention, which were represented by the metronome numbers, which one do you think is the right reading of those mms? So now we have a real problem: if those metronome numbers were intended to be in single beat, we would have to assume that musicians back in the days, were capable of playing speeds that are even beyond those MMs that are impossible for us today. So namely playing at speeds beyond 20 notes a second? While today our world record is 15? Really? Last but not least, most of people who bring durations on the table to prove whole beat wrong, seem somehow to constantly forget that there are also a part of those durations that actually match with the whole beat of the metronome. I wonder why those are never brought up in the discussion.
@@albertosanna4539 what, so the discussion went from historical accuracy to reconstruction of composers intentions, with anecdotes and unsourced claims?
Alberto, I would like to tell you that how you handle this piano now improved incredibly compared to how you handled it in the beginning. You not only recalibrated your touch, phrasing, rubato, dynamics, and pedaling from what is effectice on a modern piano to what is effective on this particular instrument, but you have started to make the piano and these pieces sing in such a wonderful way which makes both the sound of the instrument and the playing style beautiful, awe inspiring and distinctive from earlier and later periods.
This piano is a real beauty but it is also extremely unforgiving when you attempt to play on it in an authentic and distinctive way without practice, especially with a modern piano backround. Now your accumulated practice hours come across as day and night.
I belive when it comes to early music interpretation, it is important to demonstrate why one should bother to use an instrument from exactly the right period, in this case not a Mozartian or a Brahmsian instrument, choose the right tempo and then use these devices to show the beautiful moments in the piece which work really well with this combination only. You start to do this extremely convincingly.
You start to find your own voice, and with it, you give the piano his own voice. This piece is a real showpiece for that and the WBMP.
Keep on the research and practice Guys, you are on a very promising path.
Wow! I suppose I'm glad that many of the Beethoven sonatas I have not listened to very much, so that, when I simply decide to sightread them the way I feel they should be, it comes out like this....natural! Nothing rushed. Just living in the moment, and enjoying every harmony as they should be.
Even more moving than the first version. Thank you, Alberto!
Wow so romantic....
Even more than modern piano....
Arioso is so sublime and touching.
Thank you, Alberto. That was quite beautiful! One can feel the excitement this piece must have produced in an audience of that time--and even now!
Bravo Alberto! Emozionante, e bel suono.
Very fine. I hope in ten years there are scores if not hundreds of whole-beat interpretations to listen to.
Listening to this ‘many times’ one thinks of the inner turmoil which perhaps Beethoven went through, it must be nice to express this turmoil in this work.
Se vi piacciono questi tempi CZcams vi permette di farlo : velocita 0.75. Buona dormita.
It occurs to me that during the period when industrial speed came into play that it was the same period that playing from memory without the score came into vogue, as I recall it was Clara Schumann under the direction of her father who give a big boost to that. I wonder if it played a role in the distortion of the music. I always prefer to use the score because if it is a choice between my less than perfect memory and what the composer instructed, I'd rather have what the composer instructed in front of my eyes.
Quite right. If I remember Czerny correctly, in one of his books, he said to get the piece in one's hands, but never mentioned memorization.
Much better than the old version. The tempo develops in the right direction ;)
Bah! I missed this!
I was practicing and totally whiffed the time.
@Benjamin Price Not my birthday yet. 4th of May and it's a bit of a way off!
very good.
wim are you aware that we have on record concert times of beethovens ninth from the 1820s which place it at around one hour and 15 minutes. which means that your claims are not historically accurate
czcams.com/video/gsntpykv1jQ/video.html
@@AuthenticSound That is a completely different concert to the one I mentioned. www.bl.uk/eblj/2010articles/pdf/ebljarticle42010.pdf
It is not. There you find answers not only to 1808 concert, but to all durations in general. Question is if you actually watched carefully the entire video, before being taken by your bias and come here to say that Wim's claims (as if he is your lifetime friend) are not correct.
First of all, have you asked yourself if recontructing the music according to a metronome indication given by a composer/editor, is the same of reconstructing music according to performance practice of a certain time?
Even the early music movement was born with the intention of reconstructing the composer's intentions and therefore they have always pointed to those metronome numbers to justify their fast playing, without mentioning the impossibility of many of those. But now, that somebody comes with a solution, everyone suddenly takes the durations, without even wondering first if those actually matched the composer's intentions and assuming that concert practice of that time was exactly the same as today.
Second, if your interest is to reconstruct music according to performance practice, you actually have to do your homework and research what was the concert practice of that time and how musicians's playing was often reviewed.
Let's start from concert practice, in the video of the 1808, there are presented several sources that clearly show how it was a common practice not to perform entire symphonies but only some movements till deep in the late 19th century. Moreover, sometimes sections could be cut inside the movements.
The question now is: how can you reconstruct the real tempo of a performance if you don't know the context around it? That's why also the HIPP has looked into durations but in the raw data to match their performances.
But let's give you granted that we might have durations where entire pieces were performed. Now a professional researcher, should dive into the reviews of how musicians played back in those days.
And guess what, there are many sources that all say the same thing. Performers were embedded in the new vogue of playing faster, an evolution that was already started and mentioned by Turk in 1802 when he says that contemporary tempi were faster than 50 years before him.
They called this trend "Tempomania", rage for rapidity, progress of arts. Even Liszt could not escape in front of his audience, where he had to play "to astonish, like a charlatan", which was a completely different playing from how the composers meant their music to be played.
And what happened in that time where musicians started playing works not composed by them? The reviewers sounded the alarm bell for composers and called for metronome numbers in order to show that tradition of slower tempi that they knew it was going to be lost. But did the musicians followed those? Not at all.
If you indeed convert those metronome numbers in durations (both in whole and single beat) and compare them with the concert durations, you exactly see how the entire context matches the facts. Concert durations are very often in the middle between whole and single beat. Faster than whole beat, slower than single beat, exactly like today performance practice. And so, if reviewers were reporting speed faster than the composer's intention, which were represented by the metronome numbers, which one do you think is the right reading of those mms?
So now we have a real problem: if those metronome numbers were intended to be in single beat, we would have to assume that musicians back in the days, were capable of playing speeds that are even beyond those MMs that are impossible for us today. So namely playing at speeds beyond 20 notes a second? While today our world record is 15? Really?
Last but not least, most of people who bring durations on the table to prove whole beat wrong, seem somehow to constantly forget that there are also a part of those durations that actually match with the whole beat of the metronome. I wonder why those are never brought up in the discussion.
@@albertosanna4539 what, so the discussion went from historical accuracy to reconstruction of composers intentions, with anecdotes and unsourced claims?
I wasn't watching the screen the whole time, so who turned the pages?
alberto has quick hands
The post-edit guy! (it is the only way to cut the sound of page turns)
20:15 It's pretty fast for whole beat - and wouldn't make any sense twice as fast