Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Pianist Corner The Greatest Piece of All Time

And you'll see conductors trying to take the "Eroica" at the MM markings that Beethoven worked out a decade after writing it, crashing it out on his piano to get an idea. Respecting Beethoven's intent is not the same thing as obeying his numbers. There are a lot of fine details in the first movement of Op. 106 that will never come out at high speed.

I would say, respecting Beethoven's intent is obeying his numbers. You can't obey someone by disobeying them. That doesn't make any sense.

Jeffrey, is absolutely correct here. Much of what Beethoven originally marked with the metronome is "out of range" and he knew it. His frustration WITH the metronome, in fact, lead him to not bother with marking metronomic indications after a certain point. He never really understood exactly how to use it and I'm sure this was related to his terrible mathematical skills. I may be the most staunch member here in regard to respecting composer intent and Beethoven is truly one of my heroes, but the metronomic numbers he left us are to be taken with much caution.

Pure conjecture. Sorry if I sound rude (it's not my intent), but this really seems like pianists are making excuses not to play it at the proper tempo. Schnabel clearly felt it was important, and he lived and breathed nothing but Beethoven. It was his one consuming musical obsession (or so I am told). Also, I really don't think people who make the argument that Stores is putting forth are giving Beethoven enough credit. To say the man who composed some of the most important musical works of all time simply did not understand the workings of tempo is just absurd. Even if it was the case that he did not understand how to work the metronome, he still would have had a basic understanding of tempo. For instance, are you telling me that the same man who wrote the 9th symphony could not grasp the concept that a clock ticks 60 times a minute, and if you double that you get 120. He knew perfectly well how fast half notes at 132bpm were.

Do you mean to say that " ... if a clock ticks 60 times a minute"?

I have three antique clocks, all of which keep near-perfect time and none of them beats at 60 bpm. They range from 48 bpm to 72 bpm. I certainly wouldn't assume that any mechanical clock necessarily beats at 60 bpm.

Regards,

It's not that you sound rude so much as unnecessarily rigid. It's important to honor a composer's intentions, but it's also important to have some freedom of interpretation. That's why most pianists don't honor metronome markings with the same rigidity that they do, say, the notated pitches of the piece. After all, if the only way to honor the composer's intentions was to play at the exact metronome marking specified, then everyone would be playing at the exact same tempo! That's pretty absurd to me.

If this seems inconsistent to you, I think you're grasping at consistency too feverishly, at the cost of musicality!

-Jason

Which part is pure conjecture? Did I say that Beethoven didn't understand tempo? No. I said he didn't understand correctly the usage of the metronome. His frustrations with it are well documented as are his mathematical shortcomings. You might want to do a little homework.

Let my try and get this clear:
You are trying to convince me that his tempo marking of half notes=132 is wrong. Why? You claim it is because he could not work a metronome on account of his bad math skills.
-I find it hard to beleive that Beethoven was so bad at math that he could not work this Maelzel metronome.


This is same type of metronome Beethoven would have used.

Nevertheless, if you still want to persist in this myth that his math was so bad that he could not grasp the basic working of a metronome, and that "he knew" his tempo indications were out of range, then I would be more than willing to "do my homework" as you say. Tell me what biography or scholarly article makes this assertion and I would be more than willing to seek it out, and report back here what I find. I have no problem admitting I am wrong, but you have not given me sufficient reason to think so. The burden of proof belongs to you.

I don't necessarily doubt that Beethoven was bad at math, perhaps he was. But so bad that he could not work a simple metronome. Surely you can understand why this is such a hard pill for me to swallow.

Read the chapter called "Tempo", especially the subsection "'Tempi Ordinarii' and the Metronome", from pianist and scholar Charles Rosen's book Beethoven's Piano Sonatas for a better perspective. He also talks specifically about op.106's metronome markings later on, when he discusses that sonata.

But anyway, as I indicated above, I think the specifics of Beethoven's relationship with his metronome are beside the point. Many composers since Beethoven have given metronome markings. It's not the case that we have to follow them exactly; otherwise, everyone would play a given piece at exactly the same speed.

-J

I am on it, thanks. Give me about a week, and I will report back my findings here.



To be quite I honest I perfectly agree with this statement. My problem is only with those pianists who argue for the most literally accurate interpretation and then contradict themselves by ignoring what (to me at any rate) seems to be the composer's obvious intention.

I have loads of favorite works, but right now I will say Rach 3.