Foro Flamenco


Posts Since Last Visit | Advanced Search | Home | Register | Login

Today's Posts | Inbox | Profile | Our Rules | Contact Admin | Log Out



Welcome to one of the most active flamenco sites on the Internet. Guests can read most posts but if you want to participate click here to register.

This site is dedicated to the memory of Paco de Lucía, Ron Mitchell, Guy Williams, Linda Elvira, Philip John Lee, Craig Eros, Ben Woods, David Serva and Tom Blackshear who went ahead of us.

We receive 12,200 visitors a month from 200 countries and 1.7 million page impressions a year. To advertise on this site please contact us.





Beethoven metronome broken?   You are logged in as Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >>Discussions >>General >> Page: [1]
Login
Message<< Newer Topic  Older Topic >>
 
Ricardo

Posts: 14822
Joined: Dec. 14 2004
From: Washington DC

Beethoven metronome broken? 
So I had no idea that there is this crazy argument about metronome markings in the 19th century. This relates to flamenco I guess, and in particular could have relevance if proven true for the Ocon score Soledad that is marked at 184 bpm (close to buleria).

In case people are confused at what his guy is saying (I was), he believes, based on the fact modern pianists struggle with certain pieces outside of their tempo ability, that back in the 1800s the tempo indications such as quarter note equals 120bpm, that what that refers to was TWO swings of a pendulum metronome each = 120, so that actual feeling of the quarter note is half that, or 60 bpm. In other words, most or ALL the classical music from the birth of the metronome to audio recording technology, was performed at HALF the speed we think of it today. He argues that most of those pieces are played too fast, but IN THE MIDDLE of the indicated speed and its subdivisions, due to the “impossible technique” required to execute the real speed. (Something like quarter=120bpm I described, people play in the 90s, however, he believes they are playing too fast, it should be 60bpm). I am not so sure I buy the argument, but find it interesting people are so concerned about it:

https://youtu.be/vBFmJVG0wak

This guy has tons of videos and examples on the subject, but none of the others really convince me, and here we have written evidence he presents, that might have interpretation issues (16ths and 32nds are in the score with ta’s under).

_____________________________

CD's and transcriptions available here:
www.ricardomarlow.com
  REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |  Date Dec. 2 2022 14:09:06
 
Ricardo

Posts: 14822
Joined: Dec. 14 2004
From: Washington DC

RE: Beethoven metronome broken? (in reply to Ricardo) 
Actually found this I have not read yet but I was thinking something like this was going on (or calibration issue).

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/41b1/8069fc5ef323fe7b6a21bb660ff529e9b23c.pdf?_ga=2.6464241.296102379.1669991017-1345996735.1669991017

Ok, just read it. Calibration not the likely issue. It is likely that Beethoven or his assistant misread the slider weight which is shaped like a Trapezoid such that it resembles a downward pointing arrow. His earlier works would indicate the tempo underneath the slider thing, rather than above it where it was supposed to. They noticed in the case of the tempo mark 108 above the slider weight, underneath is 120 (120bpm difference) and the 9th symphony has a hand written indication of “108 or 120 Maezel”, proving the exact error was in whoever’s mind that wrote the numbers on the score (Beethoven or assistant). They corroborate that modern orchestras choose approx 12bpm slower ballpark tempos in general. And I did check that if you move the slider the number 12bpm remains always the spread between lower or faster tempo positions of the sliding weight.

Two problems I have are that:

1. Does history show that he in fact starts using the metronome reading correctly later, ie, no anomalous errors toward the end vs the beginning?
2. Why did he or whoever noticed, based on the indication of the 9th symphony, go BACK and fix the earlier wrong tempos??? That is a big problem for me personally.

_____________________________

CD's and transcriptions available here:
www.ricardomarlow.com
  REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |  Date Dec. 2 2022 14:25:27
 
kitarist

Posts: 1715
Joined: Dec. 4 2012
 

RE: Beethoven metronome broken? (in reply to Ricardo) 
quote:


1. Does history show that he in fact starts using the metronome reading correctly later, ie, no anomalous errors toward the end vs the beginning?
2. Why did he or whoever noticed, based on the indication of the 9th symphony, go BACK and fix the earlier wrong tempos??? That is a big problem for me personally.


Regarding 1, the Maelzel metronome (stolen from Winkel who actually invented it in 1814 (*)) came out only in 1816, so Beethoven would have been able to use it for just the last 10-11 years of his life, i.e. his late period - some subset of his opus numbers from 100 on (since some of the opuses with numbers larger than 100 are from before 1816).

Regarding 2, the actual metronome-produced tempos were correct for him using his metronome reading the bottom number; he just did not notice the actual tempo coming out of the metronome was 12 bpm slower than the apparent mark he was reading. So from his point of view there wasn't anything to correct - the tempos produced by the metronome were the exact ones he wanted..

I think that "108 or 120" points to a hesitation (by an assistant?) of which marking to read (for the same chosen actual tempo produced by the metronome); it is not by itself proof that someone also realized they've been reading it wrong all this time.

(*)



Images are resized automatically to a maximum width of 800px

Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Konstantin
  REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |  Date Dec. 2 2022 20:56:15
 
Ricardo

Posts: 14822
Joined: Dec. 14 2004
From: Washington DC

RE: Beethoven metronome broken? (in reply to kitarist) 
quote:

Regarding 2, the actual metronome-produced tempos were correct for him using his metronome reading the bottom number; he just did not notice the actual tempo coming out of the metronome was 12 bpm slower than the apparent mark he was reading. So from his point of view there wasn't anything to correct - the tempos produced by the metronome were the exact ones he wanted..


First of all, I need the word NOT in my sentence, why did he NOT go back and fix the previous incorrect indications. But I think you understood the issue. The problem is, we need to see the exact timeline with highlighted correct and erroneous tempo markings laid out to decide if there is a mistake like the one put forward. The evidence was the “either or”, TWO tempos given on the sheet of music of the 9th symphony. Point being, if the symphonies are written in temporal sequence, whoever realized there was an issue with reading the thing at the 9th, should have gone back and fixed the 5th by adding the same 12bpm margin of error. This did not happen, it is believed the 5th is too fast, but what we DO know is that there are Beethoven works that in fact do have the correct tempo marking based on modern opinion. So hopefully you see the problem I have with not seeing the timeline first before making the claim that the reading error he noticed and “fixed”.

Otherwise we have to believe that known tempo markings are randomly distributed as under or over readings and we are back at applying our basic intuition about what is the intended tempo.

https://youtu.be/ue61NL-4xu8

Vs.

https://youtu.be/tX22Q2rTqIw

Opinions vary

_____________________________

CD's and transcriptions available here:
www.ricardomarlow.com
  REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |  Date Dec. 3 2022 18:37:01
Page:   [1]
All Forums >>Discussions >>General >> Page: [1]
Jump to:

New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software powered by ASP Playground Advanced Edition 2.0.5
Copyright © 2000 - 2003 ASPPlayground.NET

0.0546875 secs.