Single Beat Test (Ep.2) V. Lisitsa's and M.Pollini's Chopin Etude opus 10 n°12
Vložit
- čas přidán 7. 09. 2024
- 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/SingleBe...
--
🙋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-maili...
--
📱 Website: ▶www.authenticso...
![Лента Мёбиуса - кому вообще нужна топология? [3Blue1Brown]](/img/n.gif)
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.
You could only fit so much on early wax cylinder recordings…
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?
Why would Chopin dedicate his entire opus to Liszt if it was meant to be played slowly?
they think liszt had bad technique
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 CZcams 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.
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).
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 ? =)
Please, play ballade # 1 in your tempo.
Yes puhleeze
@@rrg6625 puhlezee
German pianist Wolfgang Weller did.
czcams.com/video/KB0RhJgs4FU/video.html
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.
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?
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.
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"
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.
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.
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!
playing this etude with strict attention to accents must be impossible.
So hard.
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!
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
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 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.
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.
Hey ! Lisitsa and pollini is playing at the rang of quarter note = 150
The Etudes are often played to display brilliance and technical skills. This may explain why they are played FAST.
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.
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: czcams.com/video/6EgMPh_l1BI/video.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.
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. :-)
'Comparing it to Chopin's own metronome markings'. Well, Chopin's M.M is Crotchet = 160. You can't say they're playing too fast when they're playing about 25% slower. It seems you cannot use a metronome. Czerny explicitly says how to use one in his School of Pianoforte (He says that the beat should be counted at every audible tick).
Yes, and by beat he simply means the obvious: a full-swing. And if you don't agree...show me at the piano with a metronome ticking and we'll see who can use a metronome or not .
@@AuthenticSound 1- he says at very audible tick
2- what about in 3/8 or 3/4 time?
@@AuthenticSound well, I think your the one who can't use metronome.
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.
With this étude is not all about the speed but the accents and bel canto. But your version is to slow, you argue it improves it, I argue it deviate from Chopin intention. Arts are too subjective.
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.
Your performance is too slow for my taste, and Valentina's performance is too fast for my taste. In fact, I've never been fond of Valentina's playing of Chopin (my favorite composer).
I watched your video about the Presto Agitato from the Moonlight Sonata as well, and again I found your performance too slow. It definitely sounds better at a faster tempo.
Agreed. Lisitsa is made for Liszt though
It maybe has to do with the fact that you grew up with the faster version. One tends to like the first version one listens to, not only in the musical context
Thank you for this. Very interesting! I doubt I will ever have the problem of playing this piece too fast though haha :)
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!
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.
czcams.com/video/8hOKcdZJJFU/video.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
I think it would be played at the tempo of Lisitsa`s - the note structures alone indicate tempo -the release of the dotted quarter note to sixteenth followed by a whole note forte chord with left hand legato run being virtuoso in nature, also it being a Etude (study) I think metronome markings would have been very conservative in nature with students in mind..would love to see Chopin`s autograph manuscript. the real problem with modern pianist is hammering the piano keys too hard.
Yes, of course we are free to do whatever we like! But in fact, those metronome numbers were exact representation of their own performances, nothing more or nothing less.
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?
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.
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
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 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
You have done much to support your ‘double-beat’ interpretation of metronome markings, but I am more interested in, and less convinced by, your more fundamental belief that a piece must be played either under a single- or double-beat interpretation. My own investigations (and indeed, your recordings!) suggest that neither of these approaches is adequate to make sense of many metronome markings.
First, there is the fact that in all of your recordings, you speed up. That is usual for any music-making, to speed up or to slow down. But it goes to show that you have not figured out how to make much of this music coherent at either the single- or double-beat speeds - just like the modern performers you cite.
Recently I have been looking over Scott Joplin’s opera, ‘Treemonisha’. Joplin, an early 20th century composer, was OBSESSIVE about tempo and tried to be meticulous in his markings. Yet some of his metronome markings are so slow that it would be impossible to get through a single word in one breath. What do we make of this? I am a composer as well, and I have had the same thing happen to me when I tried to set metronome marks to my compositions.
I don’t have a complete solution to this “problem”, or even a partial one, but I do think I have a more compelling DESCRIPTION of the problem than you do. You describe the problem as, which do we choose: single- or double-beat?
I describe the problem as: for an overwhelming majority of pieces with metronome markings from the 19th century through our own time, to literally play at the given metronome speed (in either interpretation) usually sounds impossibly fast or slow. The beginnings of my “solution” would be along the lines of: perhaps this is not a relevant use of the metronome.
When I set my metronome to 160, and I imagine Chopin’s Op. 10, No. 12 (in the single-beat interpretation, 160 quarter notes per minute), it makes perfect sense to my mind. Similarly with Beethoven’s markings in the quartets and symphonies. In real life, however, it is often impossible to attain those speeds - but it is quite possible to attain the idea of that sound and energy!
Did Chopin determine his metronome markings by turning on the metronome and adjusting until he could play along with the metronome for the whole piece? If so, then I agree the single-beat interpretation of metronome markings must be wrong. And, of course, the double-beat interpretation MIGHT be right (because it is possible to execute the whole piece at that speed, as you point out).
But I would challenge you on the notion that this is how metronome marks are determined. Neither interpretation of the metronome markings can satisfactorily explain why so many markings even in our own day are impossibly slow or fast. Mikuli’s remarks aside, I am sure that Chopin did not determine quarter note = 160 for the revolutionary etude by playing the entire piece along with the metronome at that speed. In the single-beat interpretation, this would be impossible.
But it would have been similarly impossible in the double-beat interpretation. No sooner than Chopin would have started, he surely would find himself moving the music a bit faster. Why would he not have revised it to 168 or 176?
No good performer ever stays boxed in one tempo for the entire piece. Not even you, and you are an excellent, sensitive performer. Therefore I think we need to re-examine our assumptions about how metronome marks were (and are!) set, and only then consider how they should influence our performances - just as is true of dynamics, articulation, or even the notes themselves.
Jeremy Weissmann I think al he is saying is that the composer must have known the objective meaning of the particular marking written down. His thesis is that this tempo has been misunderstood in modern times. I believe your observations have more to do with interpretation than his claims, which (correct me if I am wrong) address the objective truth of the particular way in which that composer would have read a metronom marking (even if he was flexible about how strictly one should follow it). There indeed there is little room for fuzzyness: it is either single or double-beat.
I'm not sure how far I'm willing to agree in the idea of 'objective meaning' behind notation signs. Dynamics and articulation don't have objective meaning. Even rhythm doesn't: I can play a dotted rhythm ten different ways, and once you move out of the realm of the classical style into jazz or blues, there's probably 100 ways.
I agree with you and Wim on a number of points. First, our metronomes are the same as those used in the 19th century, in terms of accuracy. Second, in Chopin's mind, the torrent of 16th notes in the Revolutionary Etude tripped along at some hazy rate, a rate which more or less conforms to a certain number of pulses per minute. Third, the rates suggested by the single-beat and the double-beat interpretation of quarter = 160 are not compatible in that they correspond to different ideas of the music, and Chopin only likely had one 'family' of ideas in mind.
Your suggestion to take interpretation out of the discussion is not something I can agree with, however: Wim’s very claim is that the double-beat interpretation is correct, because only at that tempo can the performer both (i) meet the metronome marking, and (ii) do justice to the musical content of the piece. Wim’s argument relies on both (i) and (ii), because -as I pointed out- any performance can meet a metronome marking, but no performance does so (not Wim’s, not Pollini’s), at least not anywhere close to 100% of the time.
Therefore the substantive bulk of the claim is that the slower pulse of the double-beat interpretation is what Chopin had in mind, BECAUSE such a tempo allows for a more robust interpretation of the musical content. Clearly many of Wim’s followers agree, because I don’t see anyone writing, “Congrats, Wim! You definitely stuck to that tempo!”; rather, they write, “I have never heard the music speak so powerfully before.”.
What I said in my post, and I stand by, is that I do not believe Chopin set his metronome mark by seeing if he could play the whole piece along with the metronome perfectly - whether in the single- or double-beat interpretation of quarter = 160. I do not believe anyone has ever done this or ever could do it. These metronome markings more likely come from playing parts of the music, from singing or speaking or imagining the gestures and the flow - and as I said in my post, when composers do this (even in our age), they often come up with a marking which sounds absurd if the music is played from start to finish at that tempo.
None of this is to say that Chopin imagined a torrent of closer to 640 sixteenth notes per minute, or a tumult of closer to 320 sixteenth notes per minute. What I am saying is that I disagree with Wim and you in the objectivity of the marks. What Chopin imagined was an idea, not a number, and notation serves the communication and the INTERPRETATION of musical ideas.
* * *
Separate from the above, I can give my opinion of Wim’s efforts and ideas. I love playing at slower tempos because it allows one to infuse music with more nuance and detail than is possible at a faster tempo. Music, of course, is not only about detail, it is also about line and story-telling, about larger gestures. For this a faster tempo is indispensible, to bind the music together and make it more coherent. (There are rare exceptions: Sviatoslav Richter playing Schubert, for example.)
When I learn a piece, I always keep two dimensions of the music in mind: one, free from tempo, is the content of the melody, harmony, rhythm, gestures, nuance; the other is the pulse, the sense of “how it goes”. Small picture; big picture. My goal in learning music is to fuse these dimensions so that both exist simultaneously.
I see the attraction of Wim’s videos: at these slower speeds, it is possible to find (and create) fascinating things in the music. And it is true that many people play at faster speeds while sacrificing richness. It is all a little disappointing. I want the detail but I also want the larger gestures, the IDEA behind the notes. And many people agree that Wim’s interpretations are lacking in this regard.
I personally love Wim's playing and thinking and speaking. And if he would like to more fully explore his interpretations at these tempi, I'd be happy to lend him my ear. But I think at present these performances feel half-baked.
Mr. Weissman: There is a large extent to which this entire discussion is moot. We have recordings of people who knew Chopin (Plante, for example) of many students of Liszt, of many great composers (Brahms, Saint Saens, Mahler, Debussy) etc. And many great performers of that generation. The one thing that is abundantly clear from all of these people is that the score has nothing at all to do with the performance. The delusion that the score actually contained the music is (as far as I have been able to determine) a post WW II phenomenon.
Nothing should ever sound like it looks, not even Bach. His quote that "I just play the right note at the right time and God makes the music is rather wryly comic in that the 'right' time is not at all determined by rhythms on the page, but anyone not disciplined to enter into the abyss and solve the problems would think they had actually heard an answer.
The use of rubato by the above mentioned list of performers is constant, elegant and highly refined. It is not a matter of momentary nuance, of instantaneous emotion, but rather always reflects and draws attention to some specific musical action. This level of sensitivity and musical (as opposed to technical) virtuosity is absolutely unknown in the modern world. Certainly the trained circus acts we hear flooding the market and drowning out all traces of sensitivity not only do not approach that standard, they actively deny it.
Since those recordings are available, there is nothing more for me to say on the matter except for a quote of Mahler's: "If your audience is getting bored, don't speed up, slow down."
I have no idea what the relevance is of your comment (to my post).
But on the other hand, I can't resist disagreeing with you: "the score has nothing to do with the performance"... what are you talking about? Maybe you mean to say a mechanized execution of the score according to some MIDI presets has nothing to do with the performance? Sure.
The score is an amazing thing. It is the way masters of sound and the heart chose to cry out to us, to communicate and share what they heard, felt, experienced. Like any communication, it is imperfect and suggestive, not a computer program, but a letter reaching out from one human being to another. Music is all about empathy with our fellow human beings, but it is entirely mediated by the score.
My point is that we don't need to speculate. We have the performances of people who were there. The facts of those performances override all theories. The message of those performances is that we seek in vain to determine something about an essentially dead language from it's black and white two dimensional projection. Reinvigoration will not proceed from arguments about the page. If we don't take into account the living tradition that is directly transmitted to us, we got nothing. Arguing about numbers is pointless.
I think this piece loses impact when played too slowly, it’s still wonderful either way just has less life to it.
But like he sais in another video, the context in our time and in XIX century is completely different. The perception of time is different and the sense of tempo in music possible was different
These tempo arguments are interesting but when I listen to his playing the phrasing and the lack of dynamic becomes a bigger problem to me than the tempo.
@@djembesoloshorts even if the dynamics are there, they cannot be expressed fully at a slower tempo. To put it better, proper dynamics at a slower tempo don't seem right because the tempo is slower, therefore forte fades out quickly and piano is just too quiet.
@@danielmigueis6544 you think they really played this slowly? Chopin or Listz?
@@djembesoloshorts I am with you on this - at least in part. He is obviously trying to make a point with the tempo but he loses some musicality in the process. Sometimes he appears to speed up slightly then has to perform a reset and bring it back down again and it becomes disjointed.
To me, the Lisitsa and Pollini performances are just to fast. They are more of a show than music but they do, by and large, fit together. His performance feels artificially slowed in a "lumpy" way and the music is lost.
What would be nice is if he could get Lisitsa to play it at his suggested speed for a proper comparison.
Each musical piece (without exception) should be played (have a recorded version) at a slow, moderate and fast tempo - Music should develop the imagination and not be closed to the rigid framework of the score.
One of your best videos! Makes many things about this etude much clearer.
Thanks Stuart!
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
But Richter goes above 1/4=160 and it sound wonderful, while performances at 1/2=160 will always make audiences yawn and walk out. QED
when is the last time you've seen an audience walk out?
@@AuthenticSound Virtually walk out. That is, disengage.
If you are interested in hearing a version that gets somewhat closer to MM=160 single beat, try this (from 1:05). czcams.com/video/oRGsL51RdbE/video.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.
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 ...?
Discovered your channel yesterday! I absolutely love your interpretations. You give listeners a new prospective on the classics. Thank you!
Welcome!
I learned that one beat on the metronom is the duration of an aplitude. Is this not right?
Thank you. I am practising this piece and almost gave up. My Chopin Institute version edited by Paderewski, states crotchet =160 which is not possible to play. In the commentary page it states: Bar 1. MS indicates alla breve and gives M.M. Minim = 76. As you play it the piece makes sense to continue. Thank you.
You should play at the tempo you are comfortable with. I personally can play through the piece at 110 BMP per quarter note. Don't ever look at the suggested tempo markings. Only top class pianists can achieve them. The rest of us play as we enjoy
It's quite possible to play it at 160. Frankly, compared to some of the other etudes like op 10. 1 and 2, the tempo is actually easily manageable. 10-2 is nearly unplayable at the full tempo
@@laurencelevine3955 Exactly. There's also a Richter preference of 10-4 clocking in at well over 200 bpm. I wonder how Chopin viewed these tempos as he often rewrote passages to be easier to suit a students abilities. Maybe he has no problem playing them at full tempo.
@@8beef4u I played the Opus 10 No 12 appallingly at almost full speed, before relearning it at a more disciplined tempo (which is now beyond me too). In my opinion, playing the 10-2, with any fingering that works for you, at ANY speed. is a triumph of epic proportions!
Pollini and Lisitsa were playing around 160 to the quarter. Not 120.
They were playing at around 145- 155. But still, that's closer to 160 than 120.
Very interesting indeed. It seems we have a discrepancy with the original tempo: my edition, Urtext, has minum=76. Now I bring up something no-one seems to have touched upon yet (or maybe yes) is that there is the psychological effect of different tempi to people living in different eras (apart form the obvious problem of having different instruments). By that I mean that what might be perceived today as being fast, may not be perceived so tomorrow, or by different cultures and people. That, for me as a performer, is an important point to add to the equation and to all that is being discussed. As a pianist, I think that we should learn to play these etudes at the incredible tempi that are being played by professionals today (and why not, even faster!). But then, as a performer, I will be the judge of how best I may bring out the beauty and magic of the composition in question. I do notice that I still have not seen Op.10 Nr.6 played at the tempo marked as dotted crotchet=69. The same goes for the other two slow etudes. And as far as Chopin's other pieces (some nocturnes), I do find it impossible to play at the indicated tempi (neither have I heard anyone play them that way either). Which brings us back to the question: "What's up with these tempi markings?" Thank you for all your work and research.
Sure, a relation to tempi and perceived speed is something cultural. First trains were described as we describe a space shuttle, yet they ran at 27 km/h. And there is absolutely nothing wrong in enjoying music as played, whatever style. My fascination is just that we deny the tempo indications we have from those generations, and reconstructing those from within the context of their time, makes you feel as walking in Allice in Wonderland suddenly :)
Yes, @@AuthenticSound it is indeed incredible to reconstruct the past, and I am happy that there are people questioning these topics. Thank for all your work.
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.
The best tempo is Richter's, because he infuses the con fuoco; I think this is what matters, not so much the metric.
I think that's true. You just don't start to play from scratch at 160. You try to reach it. Con fuoco is "with fire", and I would tell "like lightning", despite this expert's opinion. There's no debate when you study Czerny and the spirit of those times.
8:16 you are wrong. Quarter note=120 would be 50% above your quarter note=80, not 25%!
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.
dear mister winters, your channel is pure gold.
When I listen to the gramophone recordings of Louis-Joseph Diémer, born in 1843, it is obvious to me that he has been trained to play at presto and prestissimo speeds. His teacher Marmontel was a contemporary of Chopin, Alkan and Liszt. St. Saens also recorded and demonstrated the same abilities. Why would it be necessary to develop such a skill set if your metronome claims were true?
Saint-Saens is a great example, he wrote in a Mozart edition (post 1900) that tempi had gone up so much that what for Mozart was a presto for the late 19th c. player only felt as an allegro. Why? Because tradition was not something to keep. And the bottom line here is not how fast musicians played around 1900, the question is: can you play 23 notes a second? If not, the modern reading of the metronome has a problem, since there are countless example of this. In fact you safely can say, there is not such thing as single or half beat metronome practice historically. (please don't spam the channel with copy/paste comments)
@@AuthenticSound Well, I'm not sure the Isidore Philippe is the way to go here. We know how fast pianists educated in the mid 19th century played because they recorded. It is documented and incontrovertible. If you know Diemer's tempo preferences and capabilities then you have a fair indicator of Marmontel's and Alkan's; hence Thalberg, Liszt and Chopin as well. Whereas St. Saens was born a half century after Mozart's death. He would have had no reliable objective source for knowing what Mozart thought a 'presto' tempo was. Just word of mouth.
This is an occasion where I think I actually prefer Wim's interpretation.
I enjoyed this engaging analysis. Thank you for this treat!
Thank you
Your point is correct. BUT:
Contemporary example: check out Bob Dylan original composition of “Knock on Heaven’s Door” them Guns and Rose’s version. They never intended to play original’s. And they version is much better for certain people (me included).
There should be historical written record of how long performance last?
Pfff, I'll never be able to listen to modern pianists again without thinking about this...
Excellent reflection, thank you! Nevertheless Pollini's playing is clear and most impressive, I believe Chopin would have probably approved.
Ignaz Friedman is considered the closest interpreter to Chopin's style. Listen to his interpretation of the revolutionary study. It is even faster than Valentina's or Pollini's! The tempo that you propose is simply clumsy and boring. It would be very badly received in a live concert. It would be - possibly - whistled.
Friedman represented his time and style, not that of Chopin's. Not so hard to reconstruct that...!
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?
Chopin etudes supposedly belonged to those pieces that pushed the limits of what's technically feasible on a piano. I don't believe 19th century pianists had such inferior motoric skills that this doule beat tempo would have sounded impressive...
It is has nothing to do with believe, but with facts
@@AuthenticSound Those 'facts' are incorrect. Chopin only gave this puece for his most advanced students. The way you've played it its an intermediate piece. 'Andante' means 'at a walking pace' so are you saying that people walked half as fast in the 19th century? Your theory doesn't make sense.
I ask: wich versions is more dramatic and powerful?
There you go
With these half speed performances, it would lead one to believe that virtuoso composers like Beethoven weren’t actually all that amazing of players
There exceptions lies in the expression, we lot a lot of that. The 'Virtuosendom' as it was described in German at the time wasn't appreciated by that generation at all.
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!
Did you consider playing not only tempo but tunning from these days?
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?
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 think you are right. To me, those 160 attempts lose 'definition' and sound like races to the finish.
My daughter Citlali was overhearing this video, and she said (During Lisitsa's interpretation) that is doesn't sound "EPIC" enough at that speed. "No one rushes a revolution!", said she.
She went on to say that the first blow in a revolution is the "surprise attack" - no one sees it coming. ... Maybe I'll let her reevaluate what I am doing in the remainder of my pieces ... only a few 100 ...
Great to read these little snapshots of life!
Thank you.
Rebecca?
Pollini is the best interpreter of Chopin's etudes, lisitsa isn't even in the discussion.....
I find it frustrating to listen to this person, who utters too many words for the amount of information conveyed.
solution: stop listening to him
Its "con fuoco" and Pollini plays "with fire".
Well, we for sure must be careful to project our perspective to that of Chopin!
Unless Chopin was the grandfather of Doom Metal, Doom Chopin if you will, playing his Nocturnes that way feels excruciatingly slow.
I tried Chopin’s Nocturne Op.9 #2 with an eighth = 132 according to this proposed system. It feels absurdly slow. I can’t fathom how it would make sense to Chopin.
Likewise with op 72 #1.
Would really like to hear your version of it!
06:38 The actual comparison starts here.
A lot of people commenting here seem to miss the point, well what I presume to be the point of this video: to determine what tempo Chopin intended the piece to be played at. Whether you like a faster tempo, is neither here nor there as far as that question is concerned. There's never been a law against playing a piece at a quicker tempo than intended by a composer and others often create something far more magical by not following composers' instructions to the letter.
Exactly
Thank you for the great content.
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.
Maybe we underestimate how great pianists of the 19th century were at playing fast and still accurate (at least at the level of Chopin). As Chopin said, play what’s written, or don’t play it at all! (Just kidding, play any interpretation you want, it’s more interesting to hear varieties)
I love your tempo wayyyy better than these modern racecar performance
Greeeeeeeat to read !!
Jo Stephenz I beg to differ
Lisitsa is NOT playing at quarter note 126...not even close.
Yes, her & Pollini are both circa 160. That's one spot Wim got it wrong (he was a little too Wimsical about that!). But that doesn't negate the premise of the video nor his thesis. And his performance brought out so many colors that are not audible at the rapid tempo.
@@PaulJoseph 82 compasses (not counting the last 2 compasses) x 16 notes = 1312. Pollini plays in 150 sec. 1312 / 150 = 8,75 notes per second.
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!
I cannot agree with your tempo at all. I have always taken the view that andante is the “baseline”: ie, a normal young person’s walking pace. Presto is a walking pace so fast that one cannot bend the knees. Allegro is about half way between the two. I think that tempo on the modern pianos needs to be slower than on old instruments which had less sonority. There is a very interesting recording of Wilhelm Backhaus playing the complete Chopin etudes, at very brisk tempos - and with astonishing ease!
But in historical reconstruction it doesn't matter too much what you and I think or believe, one must go back in time (or try at least)
I have loved every second of this video!
great to read Mauro!
Well, if you can play it fast, you can play it slowly. lol
Twosetviolin fan?
@@thedriftinglemur2986 Oui Oui
Here is the problem ...
Chopin's Etudes were meant to be a technical tour de force, and they were widely criticized as being unplayable upon their publishing. Also keep in mind that these were published in 1830s Paris, when many, many pianists jostled for pole position-- including but not limited to Chopin, Liszt, Hiller, Moscheles, and Thalberg, all of whom were virtousi of the highest order.
Further, Chopin played most frequently on Pleyels, which had a lighter action, thus allowing for brisk tempos and brilliant clarity, in contrast to the Erard, which favored a heavier action and bigger sounds (such as those produced by Liszt and Thalberg). This means that faster tempi were more doable then than they are on modern Steinways, which makes perfect sense in context of every description of Chopin's style--light and delicate, never harsh. It is also likely that Chopin did not necessarily intend for his Etudes to be performed by everyone at the breakneck speeds he prescribed ... indeed, I wonder if Chopin's radical metronome markings came from Liszt's playing of his Etudes, which Chopin highly admired.
I will admit that many of the markings are unrealistic on today's heavier-keyed pianos, but playing them in the way you suggest as the final tempo strips them of their virtuosic character, eliminates the technical growth necessary to play them well (they are still Etudes!!!), and obscures the unfolding harmonic progressions, melodies, and textures. I just listened to your take on Op. 10 No. 9, and I approve far more of that than of this recording (though it still lacks the 'Molto Agitato' Chopin asks for IMO).
See, I'm playing through some of the Chopin Etudes this summer (currently Op. 10 No. 1 and 9), and I typically practice them at half-tempo, just the way you present it here. But I would never perform them in concert with a level of preparation any lower than that necessary to play them in the spirit they demand!
Also note that Chopin eventually stopped adding metronome markings to his music, because he wanted pianists to choose their own tempi based on the music and performance indication itself (ie musical intelligence), not numbers. Have you listened to Fialkowska's recordings? I consider them far better than those of both Pollini and Lisitsa, who tend to play at superman speeds, simultaneously bringing out new features in the music, and obscuring others at the same time! Check this out: czcams.com/video/g0hoN6_HDVU/video.html
I rest my case.
citation needed...you wont find one hisy quote like that
@@AuthenticSound please elaborate. I can provide sources if you like. Most of this information comes from the extensive biographies of Liszt and Chopin by Alan Walker, which I've been reading over the last few years in beteeen music history classes. I can find you the letter where Chopin writes of Liszt "I should like to steal from him the way he plays my Etudes."
What does that quote say about the critic as you think there is about these etudes to be 'unplayable'? It reveals quite the opposite, if Liszt could sight read them, what's the problem with their playability? Same with the hammerklavier, so often even scholars say that musicians like Czerny and Moscheles considered that sonata to be unplayable. But they didn't, they just found the 138 too fast for the character. See, we like to read what we want to read it's a very normal an natural thing, only to overcome by setting the context straight at first and then see how the reading fits (or does not)
I enjoyed listening to you presentation and your playing. Well done! I look forward to learning more from you. Many thanks.
thank you
Let me weigh in on this one, I have played this Etude countless of times. When I play the piece its a moderate pace, meaning I go speed up in certain areas. I mostly play Chopin and I always play from the heart and I speed it up when I reach the climax and lower the tempo so its dramatic. But its up to the performers discretion. I've been playing piano for 3 years and taught myself, and this piece was a challenge.