Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Pianist Corner Chopin op.10 no.1 - metronome markings in different editions?

What metronome mark does your edition of the Chopin Études have for op. 10 no. 1?

I have a Peters edition which gives crotchet = 104 with a footnote saying that this is in accordance with "the great Polish interpreters of Chopin", whatever that might mean.

The edition on IMSLP.org gives 176!

Obviously these are hugely different interpretations of what constitutes an "Allegro". My current inclination is towards a speed of about 120-126 although I'm intending to work the speed up to about 144-152 so that I can play it at a range of different tempi and make sure that it's an informed decision and not just an excuse to avoid work .

But I'm very interested to know what metronome markings are given in other editions.

I got 176, my edition is Paderewski. Pages are falling out actually, maybe I should buy a new book.

I was looking at all the torn pages and remembered how my sister and I use to turn over the page "furiously"... Probably the only thing that was "fast" back those days were our page turning skills!

Stuart,

The viewable and scrollable scores at Chopin\'s First Editions Online confirm that the original M.M. really was 176, despite a rather contradictory indication of merely Allegro. (Of course, the usual explanation is that the pianos of the era had lighter and shallower actions.)

FWIW, the Schirmer edition of Friedheim gives 144 though Mikuli specifies 176; Alfred (ed. Esteban) proposes 160; Fischer (ed. Sternberg) says 176.

Though I don't have it, I knew from previous discussions here that the volume published by Peters had the slowest speed—yet 104 is so out of sync with the range of the others that I would wonder if it's a typo were it not for the footnote you mention.

Steven

[Edit: Mikuli's tempo is 176, not 144!]

That's interesting, thanks Steven.

I'd be interested to know what speed people are actually playing it at, too - as I said, I love the way it sounds at about 120-126, but if that's way off the mark for the composer's intention, then I shall have to re-evaluate...

[ - double post, sorry - ]

Well, the pros seem to play all of Chopin's fast etudes as fast as possible (even though only 10/4 and 25/2 are marked Presto), and that's what we've become conditioned to hear and expect.

As a self-taught amateur I reckoned that 124 was a reasonable goal for 10/1, and that's actually a tad faster than I can manage playing it coherently and accurately.

Steven

I play it in about 2 minutes.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uEhzTmTtEvc

But there are recordings of it at 1:45 minutes on youtube also.
It is really hard to play this etude fast and accurate and I make some mistakes too.
But with a flexible wrist and correct technique eventually you will find out that you will be able to play it faster than you think.

I think 176 is certainly do-able for many pianists aiming at a professional level performance. Here is a sampling of YouTube videos of pianists, both well-known and not, playing it pretty close to that speed:


Anastasia Gromoglasova

Freddy Kempf

Kristian Cvetkovic

Garrick Ohlsson

Gromoglasova has a rather awkward-looking drop to her left wrist while holding the LH octaves, but she certainly seems relaxed.

Kempff makes it look like hard work.

It would appear that the tape has been speeded up on the Ohlsson recording; it's half a tone higher than the other three recordings, but his articulation is the best of the four.

Regards,

Looks like she's imitating Horowitz; he did that quite a bit.

I couldn't stand watching Kempf.

No opinion

Definitely speeded up.

That's funny. Not having perfect pitch, I didn't notice it (and didn't read the comments that point it out). It would be interesting to know exactly how that happened. The obvious would be what you suggested, that the media was played at the wrong speed. I don't even know if the original was on film or video, and whether the pitch might shift without speeding the tape up, through some anomaly in the transfer process. Or even if the piano itself was tuned to that pitch!

I know there's at least one other piano video on YouTube where a similar thing happened, and also without explanation. It's one of Michelangeli playing Scarlatti. Now I'm probably going find myself wondering about the accuracy of all those old B&W videos every time I watch.

Which Peters edition are you looking at? My Peters edition (the one I've always used, and which I studied this etude from) gives 176.

Argerich certainly manages that tempo and more (though I didn't try to calculate it exactly- she varies it in a few places) and the pitch is correct, matching the recording I have on CD.

Folks, you will get sick of this but every time this topic comes up I will say WHERE ARE THE ACCENTS! There is a tune going up - C E E E, then down E E E E, up F F F F, down E E E D, up G D D D, down D D D D , up G D D D, down D D D D#, and so on. You never hear this. That's the technique studied. Everyone since and including Cortot has ignored this.

Are they possible at that speed on a modern piano? Perhaps Liszt somehow managed on his piano, yet the very apparent fact that none of the YT videos have those accents (and Pollini's in on YT also, though not linked in this thread) would indicate negative.

When I first commenced study of this etude I tried to follow those accents, but when I started to push the speed, the accents went south. If a pianist of the calibre of Pollini or Argerich cannot do them to your satisfaction, then what do you suggest?

They have to be done. It is after all a study about using the wrist to play a tune inbetween the arps. I think if that can only be done slower on a modern instrument then so be it.

Interesting...

In my Paderewski edition, only the first few bars got accent added, and then it became sporadic...

Did Chopin wanted accents all the way through?

It will be an interesting challenge to add accents especially the first accent will probably be f, second accent ff, third accent fff etc... and then back to f so you still get the cres. and dim. pattern all the way through.

I am curious as to what that will sound like, it is late at night so I think I will refrain from trying this out on my piano! My teacher actually never asked me to do those accents at faster speed when I learned the piece, but I distinctly remembered adding accents at different locations as a practising strategy, but all done at much slower speed of course.

My copy of the Peters Edition of the Chopin Etude 10-1 has an asterisk against the Allegro metronome "ca 104" marking, with a note at the bottom of the page
"The figures of metronome follow the tradition of the great Polish Chopin players" .

But what is the authentic tempo? ... Ashkenazy mops up the Etude in 1:50 secs...which is about the racy 176 mentioned by others ... whereas, at my Peters 104, the Etude (79m) would take 3 minutes.


But watching Ashkenazy on U-tube ... whose RH moves like a robotic laser over the keyboard ... allowing the nimble fingers to smoothly capture
the merry Manhattan outlines ... while the LH (with wrist held amazing low) booms out the chordal motif ... I’m at a loss to understand klutz’s beef about some chappies like Cortot missing out on the "tune".

Surely the LH carries the "tune" (some chune!!) while the RH provides the rhythmic pulse.

How so?

When 176 bpm is a simple, unqualified Allegro, where's the headroom? I wonder what the tempo might be had Chopin chosen Prestissimo instead (especially on his early pianos with their light and shallow actions).

It would be pretty fun to see that recreated by modern pianists aiming for a "professional level performance."

Steven

DP