# Question for professional or semi-pro musicians regarding tempo.



## PierceH (Aug 3, 2012)

Hi!

I'm hoping to get some feedback from musicians on a subject.

Upon seeing this tempo marking, what is your impression, if any?









I'll explain after a few responses. I appreciate your time, thank you very much!


----------



## Petwhac (Jun 9, 2010)

190 crotchets or 1/4 notes per minute.


----------



## Krisena (Jul 21, 2012)

Nobody's gonna count 190 BPM (it's pretty fast, and the conductor will wear himself out), so I'd rather have it notated cut-common time. Even if you don't though, the conductor will make the change for you.

Go for 2/2 at 95 BPM. 

Edit: Actually, it depends on the piece. I've conducted some pieces with a BPM over 200 that would be strange conducting in cut time.


----------



## Ramako (Apr 28, 2012)

PierceH said:


> Upon seeing this tempo marking, what is your impression, if any?
> 
> View attachment 6695


My reaction: Uh oh (prepares for modern piece which is impossible to count, or find the notes for, or to just play 1-5 in the bass when in trouble)

Is this some kind of bizarre psychological experiment?


----------



## PierceH (Aug 3, 2012)

Thanks for your responses! It seems the main concern is over the speed, but that's not what this is about.

I was berated by someone for writing a tempo marking that isn't found on a mechanical metronome. I was told I would look unprofessional unless I changed the tempo to 188 or 192 beats per minute, specifically, "a conductor will either conduct at 188 or 192, never at 190." It seems to me ridiculous since conductors are rarely following an exact count.

I simply wanted to get opinions and impressions from strangers. But now that my intentions are revealed, do people notice it more?



Krisena said:


> Nobody's gonna count 190 BPM (it's pretty fast, and the conductor will wear himself out), so I'd rather have it notated cut-common time. Even if you don't though, the conductor will make the change for you.
> 
> Go for 2/2 at 95 BPM.
> 
> Edit: Actually, it depends on the piece. I've conducted some pieces with a BPM over 200 that would be strange conducting in cut time.


Krisena, I understand what you mean, however the signature changes to 5/4, 3/4, 5/8 and others throughout the piece. (EDIT: I could do it, and introduce new tempo markings at every one of those changes. Which do you think a conductor would prefer doing?)


----------



## Guest (Aug 3, 2012)

PierceH said:


> I was berated by someone for writing a tempo marking that isn't found on a mechanical metronome.


My Mechanical metronome (Wittner) which I still wind up now and again goes up to 208.


----------



## PierceH (Aug 3, 2012)

Andante said:


> My Mechanical metronome (Wittner) which I still wind up now and again goes up to 208.


That's good. Does it have 190 indicated on it, though? ; P

Edit: I'm sorry, I didn't mean that 190 is too high. I meant that the metronome goes 184, 188, 192, 200. It seems that only numbers that are physically on mechanical metronomes are used in scores. Id est: 40, 42, 44, 46, 48, 50, 52, 56, 58, 60, 63, 66, 69, 72, 76, 80, 84, 88, 92, 96, 100, 104, 108, 112, 116, 120, 126, 132, 138, 144, 152, 160, 168, 176, 184, 188, 192, 200, 208.

Of the scores I own, I have not seen a number that is between any of those listed.


----------



## Petwhac (Jun 9, 2010)

PierceH said:


> Thanks for your responses! It seems the main concern is over the speed, but that's not what this is about.
> 
> I was berated by someone for writing a tempo marking that isn't found on a mechanical metronome. I was told I would look unprofessional unless I changed the tempo to 188 or 192 beats per minute, specifically, "a conductor will either conduct at 188 or 192, never at 190." It seems to me ridiculous since conductors are rarely following an exact count.
> 
> ...


Well since conductors are human and not sequencers you might as well put crotchet = 188-192 and be done with it.


----------



## Ramako (Apr 28, 2012)

Petwhac said:


> Well since conductors are human and not sequencers you might as well put crotchet = 188-192 and be done with it.


I second that!

Edit: the pun may not come out on first reading, but given that we are talking about metronomes and minutes and stuff... Oh, I really should find an intelligent sense of humour.


----------



## PierceH (Aug 3, 2012)

Petwhac said:


> Well since conductors are human and not sequencers you might as well put crotchet = 188-192 and be done with it.


Yes, and they are likely to deviate from 190. But judging from my work at the piano with an electronic metronome, 190 is exactly what I want. I figure it's better to be precise than keep with tradition?

Does 1/4=190 seem weird to anybody here?


----------



## PierceH (Aug 3, 2012)

Ramako said:


> I second that!
> 
> Edit: the pun may not come out on first reading, but given that we are talking about metronomes and minutes and stuff... Oh, I really should find an intelligent sense of humour.


Don't waste your time on it! Your humor's fine. ; )


----------



## Petwhac (Jun 9, 2010)

PierceH said:


> Yes, and they are likely to deviate from 190. But judging from my work at the piano with an electronic metronome, 190 is exactly what I want. I figure it's best to be precise than keep with tradition?


Well quite right. A score is to a large degree just a guide as to the composers _intentions _or even _ideals_. However, I wouldn't get too attached to a precise tempo unless you want the conductor to wear headphones with a click track which is fine for studio work. Not so good for a concert. it all depends what kind of music you are writing and for what.


----------



## PierceH (Aug 3, 2012)

Thanks for the advice, Petwhac. The thing is that a conductor will find a way to make it work, whether slower or faster. I just wonder if "1/4=190" looks strange or is a reason for criticism to/from musicians.


----------



## Petwhac (Jun 9, 2010)

PierceH said:


> Thanks for the advice, Petwhac. The thing is that a conductor will find a way to make it work, whether slower or faster. I just wonder if "1/4=190" looks strange or is a reason for criticism to/from musicians.


I wouldn't worry about it. If anyone moans at you for such a small thing tell them to go get a life!
Remember, the conductors and musicians are there to serve _you_!:lol:

I always think of what Beethoven said when a fiddle player was moaning about the unplayability of a passage.
" I'm not thinking of your wretched instrument when the spirit speaks to me!"


----------



## Guest (Aug 4, 2012)

PierceH said:


> That's good. Does it have 190 indicated on it, though? ; P
> 
> Edit: I'm sorry, I didn't mean that 190 is too high. I meant that the metronome goes 184, 188, 192, 200. It seems that only numbers that are physically on mechanical metronomes are used in scores. Id est: 40, 42, 44, 46, 48, 50, 52, 56, 58, 60, 63, 66, 69, 72, 76, 80, 84, 88, 92, 96, 100, 104, 108, 112, 116, 120, 126, 132, 138, 144, 152, 160, 168, 176, 184, 188, 192, 200, 208.
> 
> Of the scores I own, I have not seen a number that is between any of those listed.


And who would be able to tell if it was '190 or 192' or '188 or 190' sounds to me like a failed mathematician decided to take up music without any practical experience!


----------



## Klavierspieler (Jul 16, 2011)

PierceH said:


> Of the scores I own, I have not seen a number that is between any of those listed.


I have. Don't worry about it.


----------



## PierceH (Aug 3, 2012)

Thanks, Klavierspieler. : )


----------



## Jeremy Marchant (Mar 11, 2010)

PierceH said:


> Of the scores I own, I have not seen a number that is between any of those listed.


Your library must be made up of rather old scores! Stockhausen's _Gruppen _has many tempi not on your list, including 75.5.

The idea that one must only write in those tempi to be found on a mechanical metronome is an example of the classic syndrome whereby someone has a personal belief which they seek to give some credibility by insisting that it is a "rule" which they are merely kindly informing you of. You get lots of this in grammar. For example, people will tell you it is _incorrect _to write "to boldly go". Inelegant, maybe, but not wrong.


----------



## Guest (Aug 6, 2012)

*Jeremy *that is exactly why I said the original comment was must have been from a failed mathematician who had taken up music but had no practical experience. Even on a mech metro you can put the weight wherever you want and who could tell the difference between 190 and 192.


----------

