# Writing tempo indications rather than metronome marks nowadays.



## Zeus (Jan 6, 2018)

Do you guys believe old tempo indications (Allegro, Adagio, Presto, etc.) have become obsolete? Nowadays metronome marks are much more accurate. Thoughts?


----------



## pokeefe0001 (Jan 15, 2017)

Metronome marks have always been more "accurate" than tempo indications for some definition of "accurate". They are certainly more specific and are probably preferred ... by computers. Any performer or conductor worth his or her salt is going to take a metronome mark as a general guidance rather than an absolute indication. And that the metronome marks can be unrealistically specific. I recently had a clarinetist mention that an accelerando from 104 to 112 over 8 measures cannot really be done by performers and would not be noticed by listeners.

But looking up tempo indications on the web shows great variation in their meanings. I found the wonderful statement on the website http://www.goodwinshighend.com/music/classical/tempo_glossary.htm :
_84-144 bpm (some sources suggest 120-168bpm). _ 
(I'm not sure anybody alive would feel 84 bpm as allegro.)

A composer very well may give a metronome mark as a general indication of tempo just because it will be understood by all musicians, not because because he or she demands that that be the exact tempo.


----------



## Vasks (Dec 9, 2013)

As a composer, I almost always use a metronome marking to indicate my "ideal" tempo; knowing that the rest of the world may not perform it at that exact tempo. 

But there's still a place for word markings like "Allegro" or "Adagio". For example, I just finished a piece for a middle school string orchestra where I thought an exact MM might not be doable by some, perhaps intimidating potential ensembles and directors, so I used words like "Andante" or "Fast" to allow for greater freedom from one orchestra/school to another.


----------



## Jacred (Jan 14, 2017)

Metronome markings are a good way to quantify tempi but they don't make the traditional indications obsolete. Good interpretation should not be sacrificed for the sake of nailing the tempo on the dot.


----------



## Zeus (Jan 6, 2018)

pokeefe0001 said:


> Metronome marks have always been more "accurate" than tempo indications for some definition of "accurate". They are certainly more specific and are probably preferred ... by computers. Any performer or conductor worth his or her salt is going to take a metronome mark as a general guidance rather than an absolute indication. And that the metronome marks can be unrealistically specific. I recently had a clarinetist mention that an accelerando from 104 to 112 over 8 measures cannot really be done by performers and would not be noticed by listeners.
> 
> But looking up tempo indications on the web shows great variation in their meanings. I found the wonderful statement on the website http://www.goodwinshighend.com/music/classical/tempo_glossary.htm :
> _84-144 bpm (some sources suggest 120-168bpm). _
> ...


Of course, metronome marks are just for guidance, I just was thinking, if you look at a 19th century "Adagio", it really could be in many cases something from 50 bpm to 85 bpm. And nowadays you can just specify "well I want 73 bpm more or less, that's how it sounds in my head" and now your idea is slightly more clear than if you write "Adagio". Of course, there are always people who are going to see the score in a different way, and might play it much faster or much slower, but as for clarity, I don't see how any of the old tempo markings (Allegro Andante etc.) could have in any way an advantage to a metronome mark.


----------



## Zeus (Jan 6, 2018)

Vasks said:


> As a composer, I almost always use a metronome marking to indicate my "ideal" tempo; knowing that the rest of the world may not perform it at that exact tempo.
> 
> But there's still a place for word markings like "Allegro" or "Adagio". For example, I just finished a piece for a middle school string orchestra where I thought an exact MM might not be doable by some, perhaps intimidating potential ensembles and directors, so I used words like "Andante" or "Fast" to allow for greater freedom from one orchestra/school to another.


That is a fair point, I feel, and it makes a very compelling argument. I just don't see how it's not just resolved with common sense. If I'm writing for a middle school string orchestra I will just limit myself to their technical capacities, and any competent school conductor will bend the tempo (if it doesn't hurt the music too much) to adjust to student's limits.


----------



## Zeus (Jan 6, 2018)

Jacred said:


> Metronome markings are a good way to quantify tempi but they don't make the traditional indications obsolete. Good interpretation should not be sacrificed for the sake of nailing the tempo on the dot.


I agree. I didn't say otherwise, maybe my words could be mistaken, I just believe it's much more practical to use a metronome mark. Then the performer (conductor, instrumentist or otherwise) will do as he pleases with that tempo marking, but at least it's not as ambiguous as one or two poor words.


----------



## pokeefe0001 (Jan 15, 2017)

Zeus said:


> ... I don't see how any of the old tempo markings (Allegro Andante etc.) could have in any way an advantage to a metronome mark.


I had to go back and see if I've ever used the Italian tempo specifications and I found a few, but I included a metronome mark in parentheses just to be safe. But that said, there are implications in the tempo terms that are missing in metronome marks - especially when modifying phrases are present. "Allegro ma non troppo" could, I suppose, be "q=120 ma non troppo" or "q=120 but not really". you really are saying something like "Fast, but don't rush it" - something that a metronome mark just does not imply.

Another related topic: some performers expect or require something indicating style/mood/feeling to be specified along with a tempo indication and there is no shortcut like the metronome mark for that so words are required. I don't naturally think that way and often have to repeatedly listen to things I've written "Quietly, dreamily - as if slowly awakening", "Playfully", "Jovial", etc. I have trouble coming up with the phrases or terms but I don't say "No" to a pianist who is going to play something of mine in public. If she wants "Allegro energico" or "Sprightly", I'm going to put it in.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

If I were a composer, I’d likely prefer to use the more general tempo indications. Being too exact leaves the performers at a disadvantage if they need to adjust the tempi for hall acoustics or even their own musical abilities. Also critics can more easily pound them for using “wrong” tempi, perhaps discouraging them from performing the works at all. Finally, I would have no issue (if they were my works) of letting the performers find their own interpretations and their own speeds, within the tempi ranges indicated.


----------



## mbhaub (Dec 2, 2016)

Tempo indications also express the mood or feeling that no number can. Largo implies something that mm=40 does not. Presto means more than 220. Metronome marks are a good, as long as it's understood that unless you're doing a soundtrack or playing with a click-track that music must have an ebb and flow and maintaining a rigid tempo is anti-music. And something else too often ignored or not well-understood: what a composer hears in his head, the ideal performance, often is at odds to a real performance. I've written music and mark a tempo, say quarter = 120. But when it comes to real musicians playing it, that's too fast - it seems rushed and jerky and 108 is better. 
Gunther Schuller wrote a terrific book, The Compleat Conductor, where he analyzes tempos of conductors doing great music. He gives solid reasons why the composer's intent should be respected but some allowance for variation must be accepted.


----------



## pkoi (Jun 10, 2017)

As mbhaub said, I think traditional tempo indications bear a lot of historical weight and they also describe more than just the actual tempo of the music. If you're going to listen a song with the tempo marking "Adagio", you're most likely going to get, besides the slow tempo, the characteristics of an Adagio: melancholic, long lines, big wight on expressivity, slow phrase rhythm etc. 

"Allegro" in many cases refers to a fast first-movement of a cycle and in classical tradition that usually also brings in the sonata form. Also, as in the case of an adagio, The fast tempo comes not only from the speed of music but from the way harmony proceeds and how textures contrast etc. For example, I guess even, say, Steve Reich's Music for 18 musicians has a rapid rhythmic texture and would fall in within the bpm of an average allegro-movement, one could hardly call the music fast paced or allegro-like because of the utter staticness of the harmony.

When composing, I tend to use metronome markings that give freedom for the performers. For example, I want the players to play something slowly, I might use a tempo marking "c. 60-65" etc. That gives the players enough freedom toe expressthe music the way they want and at the same time maintain the general tempo I had in mind when composing it. However, if I write something that a traditional tempo marking expresses well, naturally I would use that.


----------



## 20centrfuge (Apr 13, 2007)

Vague tempo markings are better to me because they make interpretation more flexible. Sometimes a composers own music will be interpreted to exceed their own music imaginings.


----------



## brianvds (May 1, 2013)

It depends, I suppose, how desperate the composer is to have his music performed at a very precise tempo. Me, one of the things I have come to like about old music is the wide range of interpretations you get in modern performance. As I understand it, in Baroque times composers used very few performance indicators, because in many cases they would perform the music themselves, or personally direct the performance. And thus, in many cases they didn't even add an Allegro or Adagio, let alone a number for a tempo indicator that didn't exist yet. This leaves a lot to the performer.

Apparently, some of Beethoven's metronome indications strike many modern listeners as a bit weird, and given how mathematically illiterate he was, one has to wonder whether he didn't at times simply get it wrong...


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

brianvds said:


> ...Apparently, some of Beethoven's metronome indications strike many modern listeners as a bit weird, and given how mathematically illiterate he was, one has to wonder whether he didn't at times simply get it wrong...


Could be, though Ludwig's math illiteracy disappeared when he was negotiating terms with his publishers. :lol: For his very first opus, the three Opus 1 trios:

"Subscriptions were invited at a price of one ducat per copy, in a newspaper advertisement of 9 May, reprinted on the 13th and 16th, and the contract with Artaria was signed on the 19th. Beethoven handed over the trios and agreed to pay Artaria 212 fl. for making the plates... Artaria was to print at least fifty copies within six weeks, and to sell Beethoven up to 400 copies altogether, at 1 fl. each. …the subscribers' copies were available for collection from Beethoven from late August, when an announcement was made to this effect on the 29th. In the end there were 123 subscribers, who between them ordered 245 copies altogether. The agreement also provided that Artaria would buy back the plates for 90 ﬂ. and could begin selling copies abroad as soon as Beethoven received the ﬁrst batch; Anaria could also sell copies in Vienna from two months after that date. Since he began doing so on 21 October, we may conclude that Beethoven received the first batch around 21 August. Beethoven's net costs were therefore 122 fl. for the making of the plates, and 245 fl. for the copies he required. These he sold at one ducat each to make 1,102 fl. 30 kr., giving a total proﬁt of 735 fl. 30 kr. -- enough to cover basic living expenses for nearly a year." (Cooper)

Not bad for a math illiterate! It also shows how highly valued Beethoven was in Vienna even before he had published his for official opus number.


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

Zeus said:


> Do you guys believe old tempo indications (Allegro, Adagio, Presto, etc.) have become obsolete? Nowadays metronome marks are much more accurate. Thoughts?


I question whether it's a matter of the old markings becoming obsolete. I'd say the question about the old markings is whether the metronome used to determine them was accurate or not, and in some of Beethoven's markings, some of his tempos have been considered unusually fast, perhaps because his was not well-regulated.

It would have been interesting to hear the tempos that Beethoven used and measure them by the accurate metronomes of today. I wouldn't be surprised if some of his tempos might be slower than what he measured with the one he used. In any event, there's more to a tempo marking than adhering to them rigidly, and the weight from Beethoven's metronome has been lost and its accuracy can no longer be tested.

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/was-beethovens-metronome-wrong-9140958/


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

I use exact tempo markings to suit what I feel is right and sometimes have changes in tempo which I also mark exactly to convey my intention, but am open to a different interpretation, no Glenn Gould shannigans though.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Phil loves classical said:


> I use exact tempo markings to suit what I feel is right and sometimes have changes in tempo which I also mark exactly to convey my intention, but am open to a different interpretation, no Glenn Gould shannigans though.


I'm curious: Did Gould ever violate Bach's tempo indications (where those existed), or did he simply violate received custom? I don't know the answer to this...


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

KenOC said:


> I'm curious: Did Gould ever violate Bach's tempo indications (where those existed), or did he simply violate received custom? I don't know the answer to this...


I think he violated received custom mainly. He appears to have had no custom in that he would play the works through at different tempi then choose the recording he liked, even sometimes splicing two together.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

I think the modern trend of obsession with the metronome is a bad one. It just gives an indication. Colin Davis once talked to Stravinksy who commended him on a performance of one of his works but said that the tempo was too fast. When Davis said that it was the tempo indicated by Stravinsky's own metronome, the composer simply said, "The metronome is just the beginning!" 
The fact is that some musicians can hold a different tempo and make it utterly convincing. Richter was one such. His tempo for the first movement of the Rach 2 is way below the composer's own but Richter makes it utterly convincing by his magic. Unfortunately some critics and lesser musicians are more concerned with musical dogma than magic


----------

