# Which is worse?



## Couchie (Dec 9, 2010)

Which is worse?


----------



## Red Terror (Dec 10, 2018)

Couchie said:


> Which is worse?


Extremes are never good.


----------



## Couchie (Dec 9, 2010)

Red Terror said:


> Extremes are never good.


False! Moderation is for boring people.


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

A performance taken too seriously :lol:


----------



## Couchie (Dec 9, 2010)

Poll inspired by Celibidache's Meistersinger Prelude. He's really milking it and destroying its joyful nature.

I've also become accustomed to Bach's concertos at a rather brisk pace. And now I can't go back to slower performances without dying inside a little.


----------



## BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist (Jan 13, 2019)

Too slow is worse. Reason: you suffer for longer. :devil:


----------



## Couchie (Dec 9, 2010)

BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist said:


> Too slow is worse. Reason: you suffer for longer. :devil:


Very good reasoning.


----------



## elgar's ghost (Aug 8, 2010)

Are you bored again, old boy? Good to see you back, though.


----------



## Couchie (Dec 9, 2010)

elgars ghost said:


> Are you bored again, old boy? Good to see you back, though.


I'm bound to this site by an ancient curse and can never fully leave.


----------



## elgar's ghost (Aug 8, 2010)

God bless you, son - your infrequent visits always seem to make more sense. Less is more etc... see you in another six months! :lol:


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Couchie said:


> Poll inspired by Celibidache's Meistersinger Prelude. He's really milking it and destroying its joyful nature.


He's the conductor version of Wim Winters


----------



## arpeggio (Oct 4, 2012)

Both....................


----------



## ORigel (May 7, 2020)

The third movement of Beethoven's Fifth lasts for 18 minutes and 53 seconds under Maximianno Cobra's bato-- oops. I forgot that he was reduced to "conducting" string samples since no orchestra wants him:


----------



## ORigel (May 7, 2020)

Couchie said:


> Poll inspired by Celibidache's Meistersinger Prelude. He's really milking it and destroying its joyful nature.
> 
> I've also become accustomed to Bach's concertos at a rather brisk pace. And now I can't go back to slower performances without dying inside a little.


I like some of Celi's performances. I considered his EMI Bruckner Ninth the best interpretation until I discovered Knappertbusch's 1950 recording. I also like the first movement of Celi's performance of the New World Symphony-- with Celi's slower tempo, the first theme sounds somber.

Also, Klemperer is one of my favorite conductors. I love his Brandenburg Concertos, B Minor Mass, and St. Matthew Passion.


----------



## Couchie (Dec 9, 2010)

ORigel said:


> I like some of Celi's performances. I considered his EMI Bruckner Ninth the best interpretation until I discovered Knappertbusch's 1950 recording. I also like the first movement of Celi's performance of the New World Symphony-- with Celi's slower tempo, the first theme sounds somber.
> 
> Also, Klemperer is one of my favorite conductors. I love his Brandenburg Concertos, B Minor Mass, and St. Matthew Passion.


I do like Celi's Siegfried's Funeral March, being a _funeral march_, and all.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)




----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

ArtMusic said:


> A performance taken too seriously :lol:


Here's something you might like:


----------



## joen_cph (Jan 17, 2010)

Hearing parts of Kegel's 'Parsifal' recently, unusually fast, and Barenboim being for example a fine contrast, made me want to buy that recording. But it's because there's also a sense of dramatic ebb and flow there, not expressive monotony. Same quality applies to say Celibidache's extremely slow DG 'Nocturnes'. 

So monotony or a lack of tension or nuances tend to be a problem, rather.


----------



## Merl (Jul 28, 2016)

BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist said:


> Too slow is worse. Reason: you suffer for longer. :devil:


Unless you turn it off! A slow live concert is worst. The only way to escape is to walk out.


----------



## BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist (Jan 13, 2019)

Merl said:


> Unless you turn it off! A slow live concert is worst. The only way to escape is to walk out.


This is kind of a tangent, but there's a lot of music I just can't even fathom listening to in a concert hall setting these days. Beethoven's 7th, for example. How someone can listen to that sitting down without getting an irresistible urge to get up and dance is beyond me.


----------



## Amadea (Apr 15, 2021)

hammeredklavier said:


> He's the conductor version of Wim Winters


Let's not give this clown more attention than he deserves.


----------



## Guest (May 19, 2021)

ArtMusic's polls are worse than yours.


----------



## Heck148 (Oct 27, 2016)

Neither one is desirable...both poor, for different reasons...


----------



## RockyIII (Jan 21, 2019)

C. Either

xxxxxx


----------



## mbhaub (Dec 2, 2016)

A great conductor can take slower than normal tempos yet somehow keep the tension there. But going too fast there's no way to redeem it. The appropriate tempo is of course ideal. But....if the conductor is asleep at the wheel or not all that talented, a slow tempo is deathly dull. Two of the worst recordings I've ever heard: Klemperer's Mahler 7th and Farberman's Gliere 3rd. Both so miserably slow they're impossible to listen to, despite the marvelous playing and recorded sound.


----------



## Xisten267 (Sep 2, 2018)

Both are undesirable, but a faster pace may at least have some rhythmic energy that may help to still maintain my interest. This said, sometimes I edit the tempi of certain performances to what I like with Audacity, be that for more or for less speed (this decreases sound quality though, so I try to avoid it).


----------



## premont (May 7, 2015)

This poll about too fast and too slow tempo makes an impression that an ideal tempo exists. But this is not the case. Sometimes you may find a faster tempo right, sometimes a slower tempo. And different listeners (and musicians) may want different tempi for the same music. So what is the point of the poll?


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

I couldn't vote in this one. Speed is just one aspect of a performance and it is how well the speed fits with (is used by?) other aspects of the interpretation. Take Celibidache - many in this thread have - who in his later years (and only then) was given to using extremely slow speeds. And yet the pulse is always there and is often urgent so that, I find, he often draws me in so that my concentration doesn't lapse. And with the space he creates he is often able to construct moments of extraordinary power. It is worth waiting for. All in all the best of Celibidache's Munich recordings are exciting partly because they are so slow! 

Klemperer was also given to slow speeds in his later life but the result often (not always) seemed to me to be dull and perverse in ways that Celibidache rarely is. There is less sense of a pulse. Or take Giulini, also given to slow speeds. With him the speeds seem to be about savouring beauty. It often works well and a good Giulini performance can be quite special. But he rarely achieves the moments of devastating power that Celibidache did during his Munich years. 

But slow can often mislead if your memory of the piece is for faster speeds. You might not give it the time it might need. You could easily reject it as "slow-equals-boring" and fail to find a way to give it a chance. 

Fast can often seem perverse, too, and can trivialise the music. But as a stimulating change it can be worthwhile. Menuhin's Schubert 9 is shocking for being so fast (and Dausgaard, also, can also shock in this work for the same reason). It works but I would not want to always hear the work that way. Or consider the many fast HIP performances of Beethoven. They are fast - but so was Toscanini - but they also often suffer from ignoring the beauty in the slower music (something that Toscanini doesn't do) thereby belittling and unbalancing the music. 

On the other hand, most HIP performances of Baroque music are far faster than we were used to and it can be hard to go back to hearing our older performing styles in this music now. I find that only the exceptional of the older style performances are still tolerable. But the HIP performances of Baroque music also need more than just speed and clipped phrasing. Their penchant for speed can become tedious and unremitting. It is interesting that the arch-pioneer of HIP, Harnoncourt, rarely relied on fast speeds - indeed he can sometimes be unusually slow in Baroque music - and has produced HIP performances that are quite distinct and tell us far more about the music than most of the usual HIP suspects. 

I find it frustrating that many listeners feel that a familiar speed is so important to their enjoyment when there are qualities that I feel are far more key to how satisfying a performance can be,


----------



## Ingélou (Feb 10, 2013)

Too fast is annoying because it blurs the melody and harmonies - if you already know the music, it's maddening to hear it spoiled, and if you don't, you aren't hearing it as it should be played so you may not find it to your taste when normally you would. 

Too slow is a torture of impatience. The musicians might be bringing out new beauties you've never noticed before, but you can't do that justice because of your mood. 

I voted that 'too slow' is worse.

PS - Good poll!


----------



## fbjim (Mar 8, 2021)

As someone who prefers fast tempo, interesting to see Klemperer listed as a "bad slow" conductor- he's actually one of the guys where I tend to like his slow performances, though I'm not sure I've listened to his late, late stuff where he apparently became extremely exaggerated in his aesthetic.


----------



## Itullian (Aug 27, 2011)

I voted fast.
I love slow tempi
Klempy, Walter, Celi, Furty,


----------



## progmatist (Apr 3, 2021)

Neme Jarvi is notorious for conducting pieces way too fast. He trims down a 90 minute Bruckner symphony to about an hour.


----------



## joen_cph (Jan 17, 2010)

progmatist said:


> Neme Jarvi is notorious for conducting pieces way too fast. He trims down a 90 minute Bruckner symphony to about an hour.


His Langgaard symphonies on Chandos and complete N W Gade ditto on BIS were definitely too rushed for my taste. He is not always like that, however. Also, Bruckner's 8th reaching 90 minutes is a rarity, and fast Bruckner, such as that of Roegner, can be very refreshing, authentically romantic, and interesting.


----------



## annaw (May 4, 2019)

I voted for too slow being worse. I would pick a rushed performance anytime over a sluggish one.


----------



## Heck148 (Oct 27, 2016)

Both are bad...
A tempo that is too fast will sound hectic, sloppy...without shape or phrasing, just an incoherent mess...funny thing is - if the tempo is taken just a click or two slower, the execution can be clean, precise, well-phrased, and most listenable- it will actually sound faster than the sloppy mess.
Too slow has its own problems - I remember a Beethoven scherzo (Klemperer) it was simply too slow, and did not work....most scherzi have a bouncy, vigorous affect, separation of notes helps this effect....when taken too slow, there is simply too much space between notes, and we get a weird "popcorn" effect - a silly, disconnected result that has no flow or connection...the remedy is to lengthen the note values to lessen the excessive separation, but this lengthening then destroys the vigorous bouncy effect that is needed....I 
The point is, there is no exact "right" tempo, there is a range, and of course, execution is crucial...I don't know which is worse - a slow, dragging tempo, or a rushed, hectic mess...

A few years back, I heard the BSO perform Bach B-burg #1, and Beethoven Sym #4 - this guy (forgot his name -intentionally??) took everything ultrafast- off to the races - the horns could barely crowd their notes in fast enough...it was a mad rush...same with the Beethoven -push, push, push...it was shapeless, lacking in phrasing, punctuation, breathing space ....
OTOH, I listened to a YouTube performance of Schubert "Great" C Major- Sawallisch/VPO - gawd, awful!! Slow, deadly, no accents - just blubbed along interminably, no drive, no momentum....it lasted forever....the sort of performance that gives the piece a bad name...


----------



## Azol (Jan 25, 2015)

"A BAD performance taken too slow" is much worse, because the hurried one is soon over


----------



## Aries (Nov 29, 2012)

If its too slow at least the understanding of the works isn't hurt as much. It may even help to understand the polyphonic structure. So too fast is worse.

But more important than the tempo are the right tempo changes, the right accentuation and the separation of the polyphonic lines. There isn't even a right tempo. It depends on many things.


----------



## Aries (Nov 29, 2012)

Really bad is to just keep one tempo all the time. I think Günther Wand for example did it bad.

Its important to choose the right tempi for each part. A good example is this:


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

Hard to answer this one. A little too fast is better than a lot too slow and a little too slow is better than a lot too fast. If we assume that the too fast and too slow in the poll questions is 10% either way, I would go for the faster performance, but if it is 50%, I'll skip them both.

Also, some works tolerate fast better than others, and vice versa.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

It depends on which hand is clapping.


----------



## Red Terror (Dec 10, 2018)

Couchie said:


> False! Moderation is for boring people.


In that case, the 21st century must be quite an exciting time for you.


----------



## Azol (Jan 25, 2015)

Aries said:


> If its too slow at least the understanding of the works isn't hurt as much


Or it might fall apart completely.

I love when climax leading to recapitulation of the Mahler's Totenfeier is taken at a brisk pace, as if gradually sliding into the abyss (Klemperer, Solti, Ozawa) versus long, painfully drawn out gasps (Bernstein, Rattle, Dudamel) when you just plain forget if it moves anywhere at all. The problem with the slow tempo here is that when you start slow, you then arrive to the _ritardando_ in the score and have to slow down even more, by which point it becomes downright comical, not terrifying. (In fact, I was attending a live performance of M2 where they applied _accelerando_ instead, purely contradicting Mahler's intentions and it was a heart-stopping moment, quite an experience I would never forget. Mahler himself would have approved this, I am sure.)


----------



## HenryPenfold (Apr 29, 2018)

Quite surprised as to how out of sync I am. I voted 'too fast', but the consensus is very strongly for too slow. My reason for the way I voted is simple. Both are bad and wrong by definition. But with too slow, at least you get the detail and the focus on some things that are no so obvious at a sensible speed. With too fast, I don't see any redeemers.


----------



## fbjim (Mar 8, 2021)

A thread on excellent slower-than-usual performances might actually be an interesting one. I'm a big fan of the Quartetto Italiano's version of the Grosse Fuge, for instance.


----------



## Aries (Nov 29, 2012)

Azol said:


> Or it might fall apart completely.
> 
> I love when climax leading to recapitulation of the Mahler's Totenfeier is taken at a brisk pace, as if gradually sliding into the abyss (Klemperer, Solti, Ozawa) versus long, painfully drawn out gasps (Bernstein, Rattle, Dudamel) when you just plain forget if it moves anywhere at all. The problem with the slow tempo here is that when you start slow, you then arrive to the _ritardando_ in the score and have to slow down even more, by which point it becomes downright comical, not terrifying.


Ok, I have listened now to this part with all these six conductors. I think Rattle does it overall too slow, but the ritardando is ok. Dudamel still a bit too slow but good ritardando. Bernstein good tempo and good ritardando. Solti a bit too fast and not enough ritardando. Klemperer too fast and not enough ritardando. Ozawa too fast and not enough ritardando.

So what I notice is that I don't like the ritardando in the case of the fast performances. I think its loveless to the details. I think a faster tempo than Bernsteins can work if the tempo is slowed down more at the end. Maybe an accelerando could work too. That would be different effect but it would fit the smashing by the cymbal at the end. But I don't like to just go fast over it. Makes the work appear little.


----------



## Heck148 (Oct 27, 2016)

fbjim said:


> A thread on excellent slower-than-usual performances might actually be an interesting one. I'm a big fan of the Quartetto Italiano's version of the Grosse Fuge, for instance.


Reiner was one conductor who could lead slow performances most effectively , because there is always forward momentum, pulse..rhythmic energy...2 examples spring to mind -
Prelude/Meistersinger I CSO- this is really Maestoso(majestic)...grand, but with wonderful forward momentum....these Meistersingers are the bigshots, and they are not in a hurry...but they are certainly grand and imposing and move forward with great, stately and glorious purpose.
[email protected] Exhibition- Bydlo (the Ox-cart) CSO - This hefty cart moves forward, slow and steady, moving inexorably forward with stolid, if deliberate purpose...doesn't rush, doesn't plod...just keeps grinding out the miles with determined forward momentum...the superb tuba solo (played on baritone horn by Bob Lambert trbneI) certainly enhances the special rendition...
Of course, Reiner could also take some blistering fast tempi as well...like Toscanini, his tempo "spectrum" was very wide...


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

The following performances of the Beethoven Piano Sonata #1 Adagio illustrate how a perception of a work can be changed by (among other things) how fast or slow it is played. The first by Ashenkazy 4:22 is IMO too fast and this otherwise beautiful adagio comes across as perfunctory. The second at 5:40 by Barenboim is just right. He plays this as an adagio should be played. The third by Gould played at 7:03 is for that reason and others eccentric bordering on bizarre (you can almost imagine a metronome ticking off the tempo in his head ).


----------



## Clairvoyance Enough (Jul 25, 2014)

It's case by case, but I will say that when I am sampling new recordings, I am far, far more often disappointed by too-slow tempos than too-fast ones. And in cases where my appreciation for a work rises by hearing it at a different tempo, that tempo is almost always faster than what I'm used to. Maybe it's because I'm primarily a fan of the baroque era and really hate all the pre-HIP stuff. I've noticed a lot of it is just sluggish and boring.


----------



## schigolch (Jun 26, 2011)

The good, if brief, is twice as good.

The bad, if brief, is not that bad.

Is it even possible to conduct a performance, any performance, too fast?.


----------



## SONNET CLV (May 31, 2014)

Which is worse?

O A performance taken too fast
O A performance taken too slow



Red Terror said:


> Extremes are never good.





Couchie said:


> False! Moderation is for boring people.


I would have no problem being extremely rich, but if I could have health issues in moderation that would suit me fine at my age.

As for performances being too fast or two slow, as has been observed, especially if the performance is bad, that the faster it is over the better.

I frequently wish that Celibidache performances would go on even longer. I would much prefer that Karajan had subscribed to the "rush it" school of conductors.


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

I've been listening to a lot of different versions of one of my favourite works (Mahler's 4th) lately - and it astonished me that even relatively small deviations, like 10% slower, were noticeable without looking at the detailed information - and they annoyed me. Looking in particular at Karajan and Maazel.


----------



## Open Book (Aug 14, 2018)

Performances that are too fast are often the most vacuous. They are taken fast because the musicians have nothing much else to offer and hope the speed at least makes it exciting.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

hammeredklavier said:


>






*Mozart K.477*
Maximianno Cobra - 9:07
Sir Roger Norrington - 3:36

By this ratio, Norrington is supposed perform Beethoven's 9th under 45 minutes.


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

Mussorgsky's Pictures at an exhibition usually clocks in at around half an hour, whether it is the original piano version, the most famous orchestration (Ravel) or one of the countless other orchestrations or transcriptions (of which I have about 30). Just now I listened to a version for organ and percussion by Cittadin and Tarr on a Raumklang CD. It's almost 50 minutes - and it really outstays its welcome at that lethargic pace.


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

Either way, the music is destroyed, more so than by playing out of tune.


----------



## mparta (Sep 29, 2020)

BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist said:


> This is kind of a tangent, but there's a lot of music I just can't even fathom listening to in a concert hall setting these days. Beethoven's 7th, for example. How someone can listen to that sitting down without getting an irresistible urge to get up and dance is beyond me.


 Yes!! But then we go our separate ways, since one of the miraculous performances I've ever heard was the Berlin Phil with Rattle in a Beethoven 7th where i had the sense that the players were dancing with each other as they went-- it's one of the most salient characteristics of a great orchestra, not just being able to do it but doing it together, hearing each other. In the Berlin performance I could see and hear them looking and listening to each other and wow it was hard not to stand up and sway to the music :lol:


----------



## mparta (Sep 29, 2020)

Enthusiast said:


> I couldn't vote in this one. Speed is just one aspect of a performance and it is how well the speed fits with (is used by?) other aspects of the interpretation. Take Celibidache - many in this thread have - who in his later years (and only then) was given to using extremely slow speeds. And yet the pulse is always there and is often urgent so that, I find, he often draws me in so that my concentration doesn't lapse. And with the space he creates he is often able to construct moments of extraordinary power. It is worth waiting for. All in all the best of Celibidache's Munich recordings are exciting partly because they are so slow!
> 
> Klemperer was also given to slow speeds in his later life but the result often (not always) seemed to me to be dull and perverse in ways that Celibidache rarely is. There is less sense of a pulse. Or take Giulini, also given to slow speeds. With him the speeds seem to be about savouring beauty. It often works well and a good Giulini performance can be quite special. But he rarely achieves the moments of devastating power that Celibidache did during his Munich years.
> 
> ...


Sorry, but I find those Celi Muenchen performances remarkable only for a painful demonstration that the orchestra can't keep it together at those tempi, sound desperate and strained. I suspect the conflation of slow with profound.


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

schigolch said:


> The good, if brief, is twice as good.
> 
> The bad, if brief, is not that bad.
> 
> Is it even possible to conduct a performance, any performance, too fast?.


Good point! As long as a human orchestra is playing, it would be hard to go way too fast, but easy to go way too slow. There was/is a You Tube out there of a Beethoven Ninth that was about two hours long, which illustrates the too slow possibility/atrocity.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

mparta said:


> Sorry, but I find those Celi Muenchen performances remarkable only for a painful demonstration that the orchestra can't keep it together at those tempi, sound desperate and strained. I suspect the conflation of slow with profound.


And you are probably in the majority, here! But it is a perception that I simply cannot understand. I am sure you have tried hard to hear what his fans hear - you wouldn't have posted if you hadn't - but I am at a loss to explain to myself how you missed so much, so many qualities that are of prime importance in music making! Nor can I ever relate to your suspicion concerning his motives - and I don't think we have any business making suggestions as to the motives behind a musician's interpretive choices without better evidence than simple suspicion. But, for what it is worth, I don't think Celibidache is any more concerned with profundity than any other major conductor but I am regularly astounded by his ability to produce exciting and involving results (his successful performances never drag and never ever seemed pulled apart to me - the music is always going somewhere and is always subject to a vivid pulse) with a wide variety of music despite his late liking for slow speeds. He can even produce lighter and more delightful performances of works that require a delicate touch - try his Nutcracker Suite for an example.

BTW, how about Richter and his unusually slow speeds in many Schubert piano sonatas? The results, to me, are sublime.


----------



## Aries (Nov 29, 2012)

fluteman said:


> Either way, the music is destroyed, more so than by playing out of tune.


In my opinion there are much more important factors than the tempo. And often some aspect benefits from faster tempo and some other benefits from slower tempo. So its just a question how to illuminate a work. There is probably no tempo that is right in every regard.


----------



## pianozach (May 21, 2018)

I voted that too slow is worse.

But I also found this a while back . . . .


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

SixFootScowl said:


> Good point! As long as a human orchestra is playing, it would be hard to go way too fast, but easy to go way too slow. There was/is a You Tube out there of a Beethoven Ninth that was about two hours long, which illustrates the too slow possibility/atrocity.


They took bathroom breaks between movements.


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

DaveM said:


> They took bathroom breaks between movements.


And had constipation?


----------



## joen_cph (Jan 17, 2010)

pianozach said:


> I voted that too slow is worse.
> 
> But I also found this a while back . . . .


"_Beethoven Symphony No. 9 / 1st movement in Beethoven's metronome mark (quarter note = 88) The conductor Yoon Kuk Lee is trying out Beethoven's metronome mark with his St. Gellert Academy Orchestra in a rehearsal.
What comes out at this tempo is dramatic creation of the world with furious winds, thunders, lightenings, hails, earthquakes and so on!_"

The strange cathedral sound here is really frustrating, a lot of the orchestra seems to be gone in space.

Scherchen/RTSI is 14:24, not 14:14, and more listenable. Precision in the orchestra wasn't always the best with him, but this is also a provincial one.





Gardiner, HIP, and more well-organized, is even 13:00


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

Aries said:


> In my opinion there are much more important factors than the tempo. And often some aspect benefits from faster tempo and some other benefits from slower tempo. So its just a question how to illuminate a work. There is probably no tempo that is right in every regard.


It's a generalization, but overall, I know of no factor more important than rhythm, of which tempo is an important component. Faster or slower than conventional tempi can be made to work -- the Heifetz / Munch Beethoven violin concerto is fast, Richter's Schubert B-flat sonata is slow, but they make it work.


----------



## Krummhorn (Feb 18, 2007)

Too fast when a performing organist in a very live acoustic takes a piece at break neck speed not taking into consideration the total blur of the entire sound for the listeners. Imho, Ton Koopman does this all too often. 

On the other hand, and I am being satirical, the Bach B minor Mass doesn't move along fast enough ... I love JS Bach, but have never taken a liking to the B minor Mass - too many repeats. :lol:


----------



## Heck148 (Oct 27, 2016)

Krummhorn said:


> Too fast when a performing organist in a very live acoustic takes a piece at break neck speed not taking into consideration the total blur of the entire sound for the listeners. Imho, Ton Koopman does this all too often.


Yes, the acoustics of the hall are a major consideration. In a very live hall, with long reverb time, a fast tempo will produce a messy blur of sound, the previous notes still sounding when the succeeding notes are produced...
In a very dry hall, a quicker tempo may work better, along with holding notes out to full value...otherwise, glaring noticeable "holes" will appear in the sound produced..


----------



## Aries (Nov 29, 2012)

fluteman said:


> It's a generalization, but overall, I know of no factor more important than rhythm, of which tempo is an important component.


Rhythm is very important, but the tempo isn't the first thing that comes to my mind in order to make a rhythm work. Rather accentuation, relative length of notes and slight relative changes in tempo and dynamic. I think you can make a rhythm work in different tempi, but with a weak accentuation no tempo can make it work.

I think +-15% tempo is no big deal for many music. But it depends on the music. Beethovens 3rd movement of his 5th symphony comes to my mind. The scherzo can tolerate many different tempi (I prefer it rather slow), but the Trio can't imo (needs to be fast but too fast wouldn't work I guess).


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

With solo piano adagios, I prefer slow over fast. As an average amateur pianist, I have preferred to play adagios with a slower, though not extreme, tempo. The thing is that I have found out that there is an direct relationship between skill and the ability to play an adagio slower than an average tempo. A fine touch, tone and avoiding overuse of the sustain pedal (which is a temptation) are important. Suffice it to say that my skill isn’t always up to the challenge especially the older I get.

All of which is to say that I have the highest regard for professional pianists who can play a slower solo piano tempo well. Some of them are John Lill, Emil Gilels, Daniel Barenboim, Claudio Arrau, Grigory Sokolov and Pogorelich, among others.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Krummhorn said:


> I love JS Bach, but have never taken a liking to the B minor Mass


In some parts, I think Zelenka is just as good:


----------



## pianozach (May 21, 2018)

Fast. Slow.

Here's a perspective from me:

1. Many Broadway Cast album are taken a bit FASTER than they are performed on the stage. This is because on stage there are a visual and spatial aspects to the performance. Without that, the music (performance) is actually MISSING a component. Another issue, at least in the past, was the limitations of the medium, that is, vinyl. Often, songs would be cut so that the show would fit on one LP.

2. As a long time Musical Director, especially for amateur productions of broadway shows and operettas, I tend to take slow tempi SLOWER, and fast tempi FASTER (unless the director has their own ideas of tempi, or there is some other reason)


----------



## larold (Jul 20, 2017)

I once sat through an 88-minute performance of Mahler's "Resurrection" symphony. It was like being trapped in a cave with a thunderstorm for an hour and a half.

I think overly fast can ruin music but nothing dulls the live experience for me like going half-speed.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

larold said:


> I once sat through an 88-minute performance of Mahler's "Resurrection" symphony. It was like being trapped in a cave with a thunderstorm for an hour and a half.


Try:


----------



## Azol (Jan 25, 2015)

larold said:


> I once sat through an 88-minute performance of Mahler's "Resurrection" symphony. It was like being trapped in a cave with a thunderstorm for an hour and a half.


This is not too slow, Bernstein takes it at ~90 minutes (DGG) and it's marvellous (well, except for the 1st movement that drags a bit here and there). I also happen to love Ozawa and Solti more ferocious accounts (a tad over 80 minutes), so both extremes work great if played right.

P.S. By the way, I was thinking to myself: is there any good lightning-fast Bruckner 1st Scherzo available? It should work amazingly good at that speed - and _voila_, Paavo Jarvi comes to the rescue (Scherzo begins at 24:30):






Probably one of the fastest runs in existence (not counting any weird editions and transcriptions).


----------



## joen_cph (Jan 17, 2010)

I think some Mahler 2nds are done around 72 mins, such as Klemperer/Sydney 1950, Klemperer/Concertgebouw 1951, and Suitner (69 minutes). They are very good, btw.


----------



## Azol (Jan 25, 2015)

These are some quite extreme examples. "Normal" runs are usually at around 82-85 minutes. So if you got used to that 1951 Klemperer live recording, most modern performances would sound like a standstill to your ears!


----------



## adriesba (Dec 30, 2019)

Too slow is much worse for me. Rarely do I hear something that seems too fast, but quite often I hear something too slow. Especially if it's an energetic piece or section, taking it too slow makes me feel like the conductor wants to disappoint.


----------

