# Beethoven's Metronome Markings



## vtpoet (Jan 17, 2019)

So, Hurwitz's latest video is a rant about how HIP is "killing the classics". I'm putting my response here because I'm fairly certain he's going to delete it. It's not a particular brilliant response but at least I have the satisfaction of putting it where he can't erase it:

"_Given that you've deleted other comments of mine, for simply writing that I like period instrument performances that you don't, I won't spend too much time on this. I find it interested that when you quote a generalized criticism of "pre" period performances as too slow and heavy (around 22:10), you dismiss that out of hand, then turn around and indulge in the same generalized and question-begging criticism of period performances. The bottom line is this: Beethoven left us Metronome markings. This is a problem for criticism like yours. One approach, as you do, is to dismiss the markings as "silly" and, as with your other criticism, to treat that as objective fact. And move one. Another approach I've read is that the greatest composer who ever lived couldn't keep time. Another approach is to quibble over Beethoven's metronome and to suggest his didn't work or was somehow different than every other metronome created in the period. It's that kind of thing that's silly. If conductors want to perform what Beethoven wrote, then the metronome markings are part of that-I mean, that's not even historically informed. That's just performing what the composer put on the page. In most cases you revile performances that ignore the manuscript, but in this case what Beethoven wrote is silly. Go figure. Bottom line? Sure. Let's see more "old school" performances, but spare me all the posturing over how HIP has/is destroying classical music. Give me a break_."

And that, to me, is the 800 Pound Gorilla-Beethoven's Metronome markings. I think they offend a great many listeners, like Horowitz, whose musical aesthetics were shaped by the generation of performances before HIP (like many listeners). So, they find ways to discount them or don't even bother, like Hurwitz, simply dismissing them as "silly". So, to me, he simply "changes the notes" because he doesn't like them, all while posturing as an interpretive savior. I just find this posturing utterly hypocritical and disingenuous.  But, be that as it may, I'm curious to know what other listeners think of Beethoven's metronome markings. Do you think they accurately reflect Beethoven's intentions? or were they mistakes? or was his metronome broken?


----------



## mbhaub (Dec 2, 2016)

Those markings should be taken as a guide, not a law. They're just too fast and don't make musical sense. Here's what's going on that Hurwitz doesn't mention or maybe understand, and that's how a composer - or even conductor -hears music in their heads. "Composer Time" goes a lot faster. You play the music in your mind and then with a metronome or other tool assign a number which seems good. But then when the music is played live it seems too fast. The same phenomenon happens with recordings. You play a piece at what you think is a good tempo but then are often shocked on hearing the playback that it now seems so much quicker. There's got to be a psychological explanation but I don't know what it is. That's what I think happened to Beethoven - and others - what seemed good in his head just didn't translate well into real sound. Now I like quicker tempos in almost everything. I like Beethoven served up by Leibowitz, Leinsdorf, Mackerras, Jarvi and others who move the music along. The Klemperers and other slo-pokes bore me. But the attempts to play Beethoven at the marked tempos just doesn't make musical sense.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

I believe they were accurate to Beethoven's intentions. Berlioz said when Liszt played the Hammeredklavier (at the indicated speed) it was the first time it made sense to him or something like that. I feel the same, that it feels right. Here is a performance at the right speed.


----------



## pianozach (May 21, 2018)

Personally, I think Beethoven's metronome markings may have been unduly influenced by a miscallibrated metronome.

I've heard works played at Beethoven's indicated speeds, and they sound incredibly rushed, even the works with whick I'm unfamiliar.

Conductors/musicians take liberties with tempos (and dynamics) all the time.


----------



## vtpoet (Jan 17, 2019)

mbhaub said:


> Those markings should be taken as a guide, not a law.


I would agree with that, and to the same degree that dynamics are a guide and not a law.



mbhaub said:


> They're just too fast and don't make musical sense.


That, of course, is subjective. I find that playing the pieces at Beethoven's tempo markings largely depends on the skill of the performer or conductor, not the tempo.



mbhaub said:


> Here's what's going on that Hurwitz doesn't mention or maybe understand, and that's how a composer - or even conductor -hears music in their heads. "Composer Time" goes a lot faster. You play the music in your mind and then with a metronome or other tool assign a number which seems good. But then when the music is played live it seems too fast. The same phenomenon happens with recordings. You play a piece at what you think is a good tempo but then are often shocked on hearing the playback that it now seems so much quicker. There's got to be a psychological explanation but I don't know what it is. That's what I think happened to Beethoven - and others - what seemed good in his head just didn't translate well into real sound. Now I like quicker tempos in almost everything. I like Beethoven served up by Leibowitz, Leinsdorf, Mackerras, Jarvi and others who move the music along. The Klemperers and other slo-pokes bore me. But the attempts to play Beethoven at the marked tempos just doesn't make musical sense.


I've read this observation before, and there's truth to it, but in the case of composers like Czerny, Beethoven and Clementi (among others) this explanation presupposes that none of these composers actually heard their pieces performed at tempo. The explanation insinuates that if they _had_, they would have corrected or emended their tempo markings. I find all that _extremely_ unlikely.

Here's an interesting link discussing Beethoven's Metronome markings"

https://www.markuseriksen.com/interpreting-beethoven/interpreting-beethoven-single-vs-double-beat

From which the following anecdote comes:

"_For the next example indicating the Double Beat Theory, I would like to introduce the French musician Charles Marie Widor. He was a highly respected organist, composer, teacher and musicologist in the late 1800s, and is mostly known today for his ten organ symphonies. He is a interesting man to read about, but I am especially fascinated with what he said in an interview in 1899

«A few years ago I heard a Haydn Symphony conducted by an old man, who claimed to hold on to the real tradition of Haydn, as taught to him by his father. His tempi was about half of ours.»

It would be easy to say this conductor was just a crazy old man and shouldn't be taken seriously, but when it comes from the highly respected Widor and he goes on to explain why he thinks musicians are playing so much faster, he obviously agree with this man. After all, this old conductors father would have been active around the same time as Haydn, so I think we should take this seriously and recognise that we have a source dating back to a musician working at the same time as Haydn, claiming we had doubled the tempi already in the late 1800s. _"


----------



## vtpoet (Jan 17, 2019)

pianozach said:


> Personally, I think Beethoven's metronome markings may have been unduly influenced by a miscallibrated metronome.


The problem with _this_ theory is that it presupposes that no other composer or pianist, like Czerny, bothered to point out to Beethoven that his metronome was miscallibrated. To wit: If the miscallibration is obvious to you, then surely it would have been obvious to Beethoven's friends.


----------



## joen_cph (Jan 17, 2010)

Some previous threads on the subject:

Beethoven's "Broken" Metronome

Did Beethoven give his pieces the wrong tempo?


----------



## vtpoet (Jan 17, 2019)

Phil loves classical said:


> I believe they were accurate to Beethoven's intentions. Berlioz said when Liszt played the Hammeredklavier (at the indicated speed) it was the first time it made sense to him or something like that. I feel the same, that it feels right. Here is a performance at the right speed.


Thanks for this. If memory serves, Andras Schiff also performs this at Beethoven's metronome markings.

Listen to Schiff discuss this starting at 2:10:






The discussion about the markings lasts until about the 10 minute mark. Listen to it all if you have the time. It's quite good and Schiff is humorous throughout.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

^ Good video, hadn't seen it before. Schiff is hilarious. I also feel the opening of the Hammerklavier (wrong spelling in my first post) is explosive, as Schiff says, sort of like the Appassionata, rather than stately like most pianists play it. Personally never felt it worked as a stately movement.


----------



## Kreisler jr (Apr 21, 2021)

vtpoet said:


> The problem with _this_ theory is that it presupposes that no other composer or pianist, like Czerny, bothered to point out to Beethoven that his metronome was miscallibrated. To wit: If the miscallibration is obvious to you, then surely it would have been obvious to Beethoven's friends.


There are also lots of MM markings for works where Beethoven did not provide any by Czerny and others, as well as suggestions for some late Mozart and Haydn symphonies by Czerny, Hummel (sometimes for chamber or piano reductions), almost all of which fit quite well (if not exactly) with Beethoven's "impossibly fast" markings.

It has also less to do with HIP than might be expected. Of the first HIP Beethoven recordings, Norrington is close the metronome markings (so literal that obvious errors in the 9th symphony are taken at face value) but Hogwood and Brüggen are not. Whereas at least in many movements Toscanini, Scherchen, Leibowitz and other 1940s-60s conductors were close to Beethoven's tempi.

Another curious fact is that there are a few movements of Beethoven's where the "traditional" tempo is rather faster than the MM marking. E.g. most of the scherzo movements are taken faster and the finales of the 5th and 7th sometimes as well.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

mbhaub said:


> Those markings should be taken as a guide, not a law. They're just too fast and don't make musical sense. Here's what's going on that Hurwitz doesn't mention or maybe understand, and that's how a composer - or even conductor -hears music in their heads. *"Composer Time" goes a lot faster. You play the music in your mind and then with a metronome or other tool assign a number which seems good. But then when the music is played live it seems too fast. *The same phenomenon happens with recordings. You play a piece at what you think is a good tempo but then are often shocked on hearing the playback that it now seems so much quicker. There's got to be a psychological explanation but I don't know what it is. That's what I think happened to Beethoven - and others - what seemed good in his head just didn't translate well into real sound. Now I like quicker tempos in almost everything. I like Beethoven served up by Leibowitz, Leinsdorf, Mackerras, Jarvi and others who move the music along. The Klemperers and other slo-pokes bore me. But the attempts to play Beethoven at the marked tempos just doesn't make musical sense.


Yes, I've noticed this myself and heard it from other composers as well. It seems to be a well known phenomenon that Beethoven wouldn't have been wary of, since using a metronome to set tempi was new at the time.


----------



## Merl (Jul 28, 2016)

I have commented on this several times over the years on TC, the last time being 3 years ago on the thread linked below. According to Czerny who helped Beethoven write many metronome markings (he was Beethoven's student and personal friend) and Liszt (Czerny's pupil) the metronome marks are what Beethoven set and they should know, they knew him! Czerny is the most reliable guide as a) he wasn't a bullsh*tter B) he was a very intelligent man C) he was an utterly brilliant pianist (child prodigy) d) he was highly proficient at using the metronome e) he set very quick markings for his own piano exercises. The 'broken' metronome theory has been debunked and there are extensive papers supporting the metronome markings so I'm not gonna go on about it again on here. Whether you like them and recordings roughly in line with them is up to you. As far as Hurwitz is concerned his ridiculous stubborn biases (hates HIP, hates Norrington, loves all Mackerras, Wand and Ormandy recordings regardless, persists in his ridiculous Paris Conservatoire example to 'prove' his theories on performance practice, hates British Quartets, hates any British artist that Gramophone or Penguin championed, hates Britain, loves all American orchestras, etc) means I rarely take heed of much he says (I do find some of his reviews entertaining though).
As for Wim Winster - the man's ridiculous half speed theory has been proved to be utterly preposterous. Played at his speeds the symphonoes would sound like Maximmiano Cobra (hahaha). Just an Internet shyster trying to make a name for himself. Next he'll claim Beethoven is still alive and working in a chippy in Halifax.

Beethoven's "Broken" Metronome


----------



## KevinW (Nov 21, 2021)

vtpoet said:


> So, Hurwitz's latest video is a rant about how HIP is "killing the classics". I'm putting my response here because I'm fairly certain he's going to delete it. It's not a particular brilliant response but at least I have the satisfaction of putting it where he can't erase it:
> 
> "_Given that you've deleted other comments of mine, for simply writing that I like period instrument performances that you don't, I won't spend too much time on this. I find it interested that when you quote a generalized criticism of "pre" period performances as too slow and heavy (around 22:10), you dismiss that out of hand, then turn around and indulge in the same generalized and question-begging criticism of period performances. The bottom line is this: Beethoven left us Metronome markings. This is a problem for criticism like yours. One approach, as you do, is to dismiss the markings as "silly" and, as with your other criticism, to treat that as objective fact. And move one. Another approach I've read is that the greatest composer who ever lived couldn't keep time. Another approach is to quibble over Beethoven's metronome and to suggest his didn't work or was somehow different than every other metronome created in the period. It's that kind of thing that's silly. If conductors want to perform what Beethoven wrote, then the metronome markings are part of that-I mean, that's not even historically informed. That's just performing what the composer put on the page. In most cases you revile performances that ignore the manuscript, but in this case what Beethoven wrote is silly. Go figure. Bottom line? Sure. Let's see more "old school" performances, but spare me all the posturing over how HIP has/is destroying classical music. Give me a break_."
> 
> And that, to me, is the 800 Pound Gorilla-Beethoven's Metronome markings. I think they offend a great many listeners, like Horowitz, whose musical aesthetics were shaped by the generation of performances before HIP (like many listeners). So, they find ways to discount them or don't even bother, like Hurwitz, simply dismissing them as "silly". So, to me, he simply "changes the notes" because he doesn't like them, all while posturing as an interpretive savior. I just find this posturing utterly hypocritical and disingenuous.  But, be that as it may, I'm curious to know what other listeners think of Beethoven's metronome markings. Do you think they accurately reflect Beethoven's intentions? or were they mistakes? or was his metronome broken?


I am gonna try to download this video and keep the evidence of proving abnormal is fine but stupid is not.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

IMO, Hurwitz is irrelevant, but the importance of metronome, or tempo, markings in general can lead to an interesting discussion

I think a composer's marking in the score, other than the pitches themselves, are all to be interpreted as suggestions of a range of values. The indication of "Allegro" can have different meanings to different performers but in all cases is relative to what came before. A performer, including conductor, has the freedom to take note of the composer's markings and apply their own aesthetic intelligence to how they interpret these markings. 

The only thing for certain is that there is no one "correct" way to play any work.

Music results from a dynamic process between the composer, the performer, and the audience, each plays in important role in the creation and experience of the work. Beethoven's metronome markings are not definitive since we don't have access to the specific metronome he used, and even if we did, there is nothing binding performers to adhere to them exactly, in any event.


----------



## vtpoet (Jan 17, 2019)

KevinW said:


> I am gonna try to download this video and keep the evidence of proving abnormal is fine but stupid is not.


Just noticed all my typos. That's what I get for eating waffles and typing at the same time.


----------



## Heck148 (Oct 27, 2016)

mbhaub said:


> Those markings should be taken as a guide, not a law. They're just too fast and don't make musical sense. Here's what's going on .....that's how a composer - or even conductor -hears music in their heads. "Composer Time" goes a lot faster. You play the music in your mind and then with a metronome or other tool assign a number which seems good. But then when the music is played live it seems too fast....... The same phenomenon happens with recordings. You play a piece at what you think is a good tempo but then are often shocked on hearing the playback that it now seems so much quicker. There's got to be a psychological explanation but I don't know what it is.


I believe there is truth in this....I've observed it on numerous occasions - I've worked many times with composers on new works, premieres....several times the indicated metronome markings were just too fast...they don't work...I wonder if composing at the piano somehow "speeds up" the process or the concept....so that the tempo the composer hears in his/her head, and plays on the keyboard is somehow accelerated over what will actually happen with orchestra or chamber group??...

A few years back, I heard BostonSO play a concert featuring Brandenburg #1 and Beethoven Sym #4...I forgot this conductor's name [largely by intent]. but I remember his "reputation" was as an HIP specialist....He took everything super fast, really fast, unmusically fast.... 
The B'burg was a total rush-job.....the horns just scrambled madly to play the notes in time...same with the oboes, same with the strings...a mad rush, no phrasing, no "breathing" spaces [ie no "punctuation"] just jam the notes in a fast as possible...the horns, amazingly did not clam or clobber, but the effect was soft, frantic - it was really rather painful to hear....not much music was happening...

the Beethoven was just as stressed - in the finale, this guy wanted to go at least 160/min for the 1/4 note ...another mad rush - the BSO played it, they were on it, but there was, again, no phrasing, no lines, no musical shape to the phrases - the strings were on it, they can play, for sure, the bassoon player [R. Ranti, assoc I] nailed the fast staccato bassoon solos in stellar fashion....but, so what?? it was a total rush job....
the first and third movements were very similar - rush, rush, push, push...

Now, there are some fast LvB 4/IVs around - Monteux, Mravinsky, Reiner, Leibowitz[iirc] all move the finale along in pretty zippy fashion - but, the music breathes, there's phrases, there's lines, there's direction....
....otoh, just ripping along to satisfy the half note = 80/min metronome marking [LvB's metronome mark] seems of dubious musical value to my ears....


----------



## EvaBaron (Jan 3, 2022)

Does chailly use the metronome markings? I would say generally, I like fast performances in symphony no. 1, 3,4,7,8
I think symphony no. 2, 5, 6 and especially 9 should be taken slower


----------



## pianozach (May 21, 2018)

quarter note = 88bpm per Beethoven

Has a completely different vibe this way. Kinda loses its mystery and depth.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

pianozach said:


> quarter note = 88bpm per Beethoven
> 
> Has a completely different vibe this way. Kinda loses its mystery and depth.


Why did they play it in a cathedral with a cavernous echo? The combination of the faster tempo and the acoustic makes for a blurry result. Hardly what I would imagine Beethoven would prefer.


----------



## Heck148 (Oct 27, 2016)

SanAntone said:


> Why did they play it in a cathedral with a cavernous echo? The combination of the faster tempo and the acoustic makes for a blurry result. Hardly what I would imagine Beethoven would prefer.


The performance hall is important for tempo selection... a very live, resonant hall, like a big cathedral, has a long decay time.. a slower tempo is 
needed to prevent blurring and excessive meshing of the sounds...the opposite applies to a very dry hall, quicker tempo, to avoid "holes in the sound", excessive separation of the sounds..


----------



## Kreisler jr (Apr 21, 2021)

EvaBaron said:


> Does chailly use the metronome markings? I would say generally, I like fast performances in symphony no. 1, 3,4,7,8
> I think symphony no. 2, 5, 6 and especially 9 should be taken slower


Chailly is among the Beethoven symphony recordings closest to the metronome markings.

So is the Emerson quartet (and quite a few other recent recordings, NB we have Beethoven's markings only up to op.95). 
In the piano sonatas (NB only op.106 is original Beethoven but we have Czerny for the rest) the closest overall is probably Gulda/amadeo although he is not quite fast enough in the op.106,i (Webster, Schnabel, Korstick are all faster). Gulda seems to me the most consistent, though, especially with usually rather flowing "slow" movements (with again some exceptions, such as the first movement of the "Moonlight").

However, I think in piano and maybe also some chamber music most of the interpretations close to Beethoven's MM tempi might be too rigid. We will never exactly know but there are good reasons to assume that especially in solo music Beethoven would have expected "romantic" flexibility, even if not explicitly stated.


----------



## vtpoet (Jan 17, 2019)

And for today's interesting little tidbit. Here is an Historically Informed Performance of To be or not to be:






And how does this relate to the Beethoven thread you might ask? Well, fascinatingly, troupes have discovered that if they perform entire plays using historically informed pronunciation, a play can take ten to twenty minutes less to perform.






Starting around 7 minutes 30 seconds.

Likewise, if one removes "modern:" practices like vibrato, I wouldn't be surprised to learn that it encourages quicker tempi. Just speculating.


----------



## vtpoet (Jan 17, 2019)

SanAntone said:


> Why did they play it in a cathedral with a cavernous echo? The combination of the faster tempo and the acoustic makes for a blurry result. Hardly what I would imagine Beethoven would prefer.


It was probably a live performance?

To me, the faster tempi is much better. Makes Beethoven sound closer to Mozart and Haydn, ultimately, than Mahler, which he was. One gets the sense that he was born in the classical era, and not in the 1830s and 40s.


----------



## mbhaub (Dec 2, 2016)

The way they're dressed it looks more like a rehearsal, but then these days you never know.


----------

