I have the Schnabel edition (from a long time ago). In measure 21 of the first movement, he notates that the moving eighth notes should be played not as triplets but as a triplet crochet on the half beat, with a slight accent on each half beat. My teacher found this unusual, and interesting. It changes the feel of the tremolo effect markedly although it's difficult to maintain when playing quarter notes in the treble. I can do it at a slow tempo, but when I speed up those quarter note measures venture into the "triplet on the beat" sensation. I like the difference in Schnabe's edition but question: is it worth the effort at full speed? And of course, the same type of passage repeats itself after the repeat sign. Has anyone else questioned this? Thanx!

I'm American, and the only thing that we do with crochets is make sweaters.

In m. 21 I show RH plays triplets 8ths (is that the same thing?). This is correct. As for accents on each half beat, I don't think this is really going to be audible once it is up to tempo. Have you listened to recordings of this, and if so, do they do that? I have Brendel and he does not. The LH does have some accents, but in my Schenker edition there are no accents for the triplets in the RH.

I won't address your question but comment on a performance I heard in the car today of the Tempest. It was playing when I reentered the car and I was out before the last movement finished. What I heard of the first movement was a distorted version and some parts so fast that it was merely a jumble of notes rather than a musical idea being projected. I don't know who was playing as I didn't listen to the end but the pianist definitely has a mania for speed and not musicality. Really, an awful performance on GPR.

Sorry-- I don't understand the terminology, and I don't have my Schnabel with me to clarify. I do know the triplets you're talking about. But what does it mean to play them "as a triplet crochet on the half beat"?

(I got to know Beethoven through Schnabel in high school, following all his tempo marking, sometimes changing every few lines.... It was somewhat of a revelation when, years later, I saw pure urtext, and realized how much interpretation he was adding in!)

'Crochet' is a quarter note. British term. So three eighths instead of two--triplet.

And spelled crotchet so nothing to do with sweaters

In other words, Schnabel is asking the performer to play the six notes per beat (we're in cut time, here) not as two groups of three notes, but as three groups of two notes.

Regards,

I see. So, jtattoo, is the issue whether there should be a slight accent every 3 notes or every 2 notes? (The former would correspond to viewing the half-beat as 2 groups of 3, as written; the latter viewing the half-beat as 3 groups of 2.)

If I understand this right, Mr. Schnabel has a great idea. When I think of the excitement and musical tension of this passage in the recordings I've heard, I'm realizing now that the performers were doing exactly what he suggested. Accent every two notes, and the music becomes charged, like a coin spinning on a table. Accent every three notes, and the music becomes a bit more square, tame and dull.

My vote is that it's worth the effort!

Actually my teacher said the same thing. She thought it added an aura to tension to the passage that was a good idea. The trouble is the execution at performance tempo. SO...........lots of slow work to do. (I also took a lot of Schnabel's instructions and markings out of the score)

My error--my apology! Left out the 't' Crochet is the FRENCH.

Here's the recording that I really enjoyed of it by Brendel:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JMHE80H-a78

As you can hear, he does not do any accenting, and there's nothing really lacking in the intensity of that passage. My question to you still stands: do you have a recording where someone does this? If you listen to a bunch of recordings of something and don't hear that done, then at the very least you can assume that is not something commonly accepted. It doesn't mean you can't do it, but it may not be possible at tempo.

That is not, however, how Schnabel writes out the example. His example shows six groups of two eighth-notes each, with an accent on the first group and an accent on the fourth group. This would coincide with the two beats per measure. The difficulty executing this at performance tempo, if you are thinking in six pairs of left hand eighth-notes rather than in four sets of triplets, is that it's going to be much more difficult to place the right-hand quarter-notes. They will come on the left hand's "off-beat" - for lack of a better term. It's much easier to co-ordinate the two hands when thinking constantly in triplets - the way Beethoven wrote it.

Regards,

Right; the accents are every six notes. When I said "accent every second note", I should have said "slightly emphasize every second note", or "put phrasing around every two notes", or however you want to articulate the difference between conceptualizing the notes in groups of 2 rather than groups of 3.

The fact remains that Beethoven did not write it that way, and so one wonders why you would try to do it in such a manner?

Let me clarify somewhat. I don't mean accents in terms of emphasis, but more of a feeling of rhythm. In other words, the sensation you respond to is not the feeling of eighth note "triplets",(four to the measure) but the "duple" eighth notes. The triplets with the quarter notes meld very well and tightly. The duple eight notes (six in number to each beat in cut time) don't fit as well, causing the tension that is so interesting. I hope this makes some sense. As to whether Beethoven wrote it this way, I am not a literalist. I feel strongly that when one performs live, the artists' interpretation is extremely important to the subject matter. I think music of all types is an interaction between not two entities (composer and listener) but three, composer, artist and audience. I have always considered recordings an archives or history because it occurs in the past. When the performance is live, the element of humanism is interjected into the exchange. After performing a work many times, there are moments that are changed forever with the slightest change in interpretation. Something as simple as a pause that lasted a second longer than before, or a ritard that started a second earlier than planned. The audience perceives this. That's what makes some concerts electrifying. You walk of the stage with this incredible sensation of "where did that come from?". And it turns out to be your spirit or soul speaking. So, I play the Beethoven's notes, but part of me becomes ingrained. Sorry this is so long but wanted the clarify that what I am talking about is a sensation, not a change. And in closing, it's easier to do if you play the first section like the second, playing the moving eighth notes with the right hand and crossing over the melody with the left.

Well, that is all well and good, and I agree about the performance aspect. I mention recordings however so that you can hear what others who are considered "experts" have decided to do. You can often get good ideas from them. And as you know, spontaneity is only good if you can do it. What you are talking about is not something spontaneous, but something that would take lots of practice to get it right.

Without actually seeing your score, I still am unclear as to what exactly the editor wrote. Perhaps if you can scan that copy for us it would help clear that up.

Your original question was "was it worth it to try to do this up to speed?" and I think, unless I am mistaken about what your score says, it is too fussy at tempo.

I agree that for most pianists (myself included) it's a difficult passage to pull off. Schnabel probably didn't have any problem considering his formidable technique. Since I don't ever intend to play in public, I usually do the 85% of preparation, enjoy it and move on. I don't have the technique nor the time to practice that time consuming extra 15% for a performance level work. I do think it's an interesting concept though and if done correctly, would add an "edge" of tension to the passage. Thanx to all who responded.

One other comment I wanted to make:

This switching back and forth between thinking of 6 notes as 2 groups of 3 (as written) vs. 3 groups of 2 (as Schnabel suggests) is called hemiola and comes up a fair amount in Brahms. It's not as common in Beethoven, yet it shows up in the last movement of the Tempest too.

Assuming Beethoven did want the first movement's triplets in groups of 2, and that this has been passed down through tradition to Schnabel, the occurrence of hemiola in two movements might not be a coincidence. There are always fascinating affinities between movements in Beethoven.

As I understand the definition of hemiola from Groves it is, in a given context, a very temporary thing. " ... in the modern metrical system it denotes the articulation of two bars in triple metre as if they were notated as three bars in duple metre.[1]

I would argue against assuming - without some evidence - that Beethoven wanted the change suggested. Why would Beethoven distinctly notate these sections of the first movement as distinct groups of triplets (superscribed by a 3) if that was not what he wanted?

Moreover, Schnabel says (at measure 21) "From here onwards, the Editor suggests dividing the measures rhythmically as follows..." (Example, six groups of two eighth-notes each.) "From here onwards..." implies to the end of the movement, so there will be no sense of contrast with the four triplets rhythm because Schnabel never lets it get established. There would, in effect, be no hemiola.

It is important to remind those reading this who don't have the Schnabel edition that Schnabel is still accenting only two beats per bar, on the first beat and at the middle of the bar.

Regards,

I think Bruce is right. This is not Beethoven but Schnabel we are talking about. His interpretation is altering the sense of the rhythm. I wouldn't even call them accents. They are indications of underlying feeling of duple eight notes vs groups of three. It's a small point but again my teacher and I thought it brought a new definition to the first movement.