Composers' ideas about how their music should sound. (philosophy)

[Pat B]

Why not?

There are a number of differences, but a big one is:

Suppose ff means "as loud as you can play." The concertmaster can play somewhat louder than the 8th chair. Fine.

But if "prestissimo" means "as fast as you can play," and the concertmaster can play faster than the 8th chair, then you have a big problem.

What's the meaning of Prestissimo for you? And how is your Allegro moderato different from your Allegro ma non troppo, if they are different at all? And if they aren't different, then why two different markings for the same thing?

Right, the tempo markings (absent metronome markings) can be less clear. As another example, I read somewhere that in Beethoven's time, Adagio was slower than Largo. Whereas for dynamic markings, pp has always meant quieter than p.

EDIT: And if you find in the score forte fortissimo (fff) or piano pianissimo (ppp) ? Does it mean "louder than as loud as you can play", or "quieter than as quiet as you can play"? How do you play it then?

I have always seen that as a bit of a gimmick (same with Schumann's "even louder"), but in those cases I would just adjust accordingly for that piece. If I'm playing Beethoven, I'm not going to hold back in a section that's marked ff just because Tchaikovsky marked something fff. And if I'm playing Tchaikovsky, I'm not going to hold back in a section that's marked fff just because Holst marked something ffff.

[amw]

Doesn't Schumann say at one point "play as loud as you can" and then after says "play louder"? Maybe in the toccata.

I'm not sure, but in the 2nd Sonata the 1st movement is marked "So schnell aus möglich", and subsequently "Schneller" and "Noch schneller". And there's a passage in the Fantasy that contains six ritardandi and two markings of Adagio (presumably intended to be cumulative).

(The Toccata actually has almost no dynamic markings apart from ff - pp in a passage that juxtaposes the two and a p at the end; in a footnote to the original edition Schumann wrote "Dem Spieler möglichste Freiheit des Vortrags zu lassen, sind nur Stellen, die etwa vergriffen werden könnten, genauer bezeichnet.")

Then again Schumann also puts an accent in the middle of a sustained note in the Abegg Variations, and writes down a melody that the performer is supposed not to play in the Humoreske, etc—so his directions are usually more philosophical than literal in meaning.

[jochanaan]

...The notation that Beethoven and Bach and Mozart used more or less indicates  relative pitches and  rhythms, some tempos and some phrasing and articulation. All the rest -- absolute dynamics, relative dynamics, contrapuntal balances, rhythmic nuances, tone colours -- are hardly specified at all as far as I know...

You might be amazed at just how many indications are in those original scores.  Handel in particular was very specific in his dynamics.  For example, in The Messiah, the beginning of number 17 "Glory to God in the Highest" is marked da lontano e un poco piano "as from a distance and rather softly."  And Beethoven gets even more specific.  (But Beethoven's metronome markings are controversial.  One wonders if orchestras of his time could even play some of his music at the metronome markings he gave, which challenge even today's orchestras! )

[Mandryka]

You might be amazed at just how many indications are in those original scores.  Handel in particular was very specific in his dynamics.  For example, in The Messiah, the beginning of number 17 "Glory to God in the Highest" is marked da lontano e un poco piano "as from a distance and rather softly."  And Beethoven gets even more specific.  (But Beethoven's metronome markings are controversial.  One wonders if orchestras of his time could even play some of his music at the metronome markings he gave, which challenge even today's orchestras! )

This phrase, "But Beethoven's metronome markings are controversial." is something you hear a lot.

Is there a good summary somewhere of the controversy? Is it about whether it's an option to follow them, or whether he just made a slip of the pen when he wrote them? Noone says "But Beethoven's pitch  markings are controversial. " or "But Ferneyhough's  rhythm markings are controversial. "

The point you make about dynamics is true. But my point was that dynamics are not completely specified like relative pitch.

[Jo498]

There is an essay by Rudolf Kolisch from the forties that analyzed the metronome markings and suggests tempi for the movements without M.M. "Tempo and Character in Beethoven's Music" will give you some google hits, I do not know whether the whole text is available online.
There were two volumes of the German Journal "Musik-Konzepte" dedicated to the issue, one is from the late '70ties and one from the 80ties or 90ties. The latter has the complete essay in German, but this will not help you, I guess, and it's certainly not online.
There is certainly also scholarly literature in English on this topic, but I cannot point you to anything particular.

Kolisch is in favor of obeying the markings, but many people think that they are often way too fast, bordering on the unplayable or at least unmusical. However, since Scherchen and Leibowitz most symphonic movements have received interpretations close to Beethoven's markings (There are also some movements that were "traditionally" played as fast or even faster, e.g. the finale of the 5th and most scherzo movements.)

Similarly op.106, the only piano sonata with original markings (tempo suggestions for the other sonatas are from Czerny and other contemporaries/pupils of Beethoven). Schnabel and Korstick are close to the markings in the outer movements, Gulda and some others in the slow movement. (The scherzo is, again, not a problem.)

The fair point of the ones skeptical of the metronome markings is that most of them were added retrospectively (the metronome was invented around 1812) and Beethoven was (nearly) deaf at least at the time of op. 106 and the 9th symphony. The latter also contains some apparently wrong (not just slightly fast) markings, a confusion between dotted quarter and dotted half in the alla marcia (Froh wie seine Sonnen fliegen) and probably similarly between half bars and whole bars in the Trio section of the 2nd movement.

There are also conflicting statements from Beethoven reporting both that he considered the proper tempi of vital importance and that he despised "mechanical tempi" and supposedly claimed that a prescribed tempo was only valid for the beginning of a piece. A tempo would have to change "a thousand times" within a piece, but usually only recognizable for attentive listeners. So one could argue for all kinds of attitudes towards tempo and rubato and find some appropriate Beethoven quote...

And there seem to be experiments or at least anecdotal evidence, that one "hears in one's head" often faster/too fast. (There are anecdotes from musician who played some music in presence of a (20th) century composer and when the composer complained that they were playing too fast, it had been already 20% slower than his own metronome suggestion.

[amw]

As a composer myself I can attest that I usually seem to mark things 15-20% faster than actually produces the most satisfactory performances. But some composers are worse than others in this regard (Shostakovich's markings tend to be uniformly 25-30% too fast with some suspected typos, e.g. half note = 176 for the scherzo of the 10th symphony should probably be quarter note = 176; Nikos Skalkottas regularly exceeds remotely playable tempi by 50%. On the other side of things we have Elgar whose metronome markings are often considered too slow.)

Also, even when I take this into account and revise a metronome marking downwards, the duration of the composition in performance is likely to be at least a minute longer than any computer rendering. Minute fluctuations in tempo are the way musicians typically articulate a phrase structure—no one plays in strict metronomic time—and regardless of the initial tempo that the musician sets, they will eventually fall into a "natural" tempo following the ebb and flow of the music that does not vary significantly from one performance to the next. This tempo (in my experience) tends to be slightly slower than the initial one.

It is perfectly feasible to play the opening of the Hammerklavier at a reasonably quick tempo (say, half note = 126)—particularly if one "cheats" by playing the first Bb with the right hand—and many pianists do. However very few are still playing in this tempo range by the time they reach the exposition repeat, slowed down not only by the fermatas and ritardandi but also by the relentless and often painfully awkward difficulties (there are some passages I'm pretty sure I'll never be able to play unless I can get my hands surgically enlarged, the first one being the chord Bb-D-C just 16 bars in... though I'm in good company, Schnabel and Gieseking fucked that one up too)

[Jo498]

As for your 2nd and third paragraph, I guess that these are the aspects we can take Beethoven's remarks that the marking should only apply "to the beginning" of a piece and on the subtle shifts in tempo or even considerably slower tempi for "espressivo" passages to refer to.

Still, there is the somewhat puzzling fact that while many slow movements may sound too hectic at "Beethoven's tempo" and much better 20% slower, a few of Beethoven's tempo markings would seem far too slow if slowed down by 20 or 30%: most of the scherzi (where one finds easily interpretations faster than Beethoven's suggestion) and the finali of the 5th and 7th symphony and maybe others.

In any case, while I would not argue for slavishly following those metronome markings, I do think that some movements work better at faster and steady tempi and that some of Kolisch's ideas on the connection of tempo and "character" are quite interesting. The first movement of op.106 may also work well at a "majestic" tempo (e.g. like played by Gilels), but it does change its character compared to the fast tempo Beethoven apparently intended.

[Mandryka]

It's interesting to watch this discussion because you see working  the convention of ignoring the tempo indication if you feel it's wrong. Interpreters deciding what's right on the basis of their own taste I suppose ("sound too hectic at "Beethoven's tempo" and much better 20% slower", that sort of thing)

What about rhythms -- the sforzandi for example. Would you decide to just ignor them because they "sound wrong"?


Now -- my contention is that composers are fully aware that this sort of thing happens and don't see themselves as producing directions about what their composition should sound like. That's not what writing music is, any more than writing a play is about telling the actors who to phrase the words, how long to pause for, indeed where to pause (Pinter apart)

Composers -- please contribute to this discussion.

[Mandryka]

As a composer myself I can attest that I usually seem to mark things 15-20% faster than actually produces the most satisfactory performances. But some composers are worse than others in this regard (Shostakovich's markings tend to be uniformly 25-30% too fast with some suspected typos, e.g. half note = 176 for the scherzo of the 10th symphony should probably be quarter note = 176; Nikos Skalkottas regularly exceeds remotely playable tempi by 50%. On the other side of things we have Elgar whose metronome markings are often considered too slow.)

Why does this happen - is it just hard to imagine? And what happens in performance?  Do you try the composer's speed and (eventually? rapidly?) decide it's too fast, or can performers tell straight away.

[amw]

It's interesting to watch this discussion because you see working  the convention of ignoring the tempo indication if you feel it's wrong. Interpreters deciding what's right on the basis of their own taste I suppose ("sound too hectic at "Beethoven's tempo" and much better 20% slower", that sort of thing)

What about rhythms -- the sforzandi for example. Would you decide to just ignor them because they "sound wrong"?

Well, performers often do, changing certain rhythms routinely (I've heard many a performance of the last piece of the Kreisleriana in 2/4) and others occasionally (the "boogie-woogie" variation in Op. 111), taking great liberties with dynamic indications, and in some cases even choosing alternate pitches from the ones the composer (probably) intended. For instance, later in the Hammerklavier there's a once-contested passage where the original edition omitted to print a series of natural signs, but it's now known that Beethoven meant for those signs to be there. Nonetheless, numerous pianists, starting with Hans von Bülow, still play(ed) the notes as sharps because they feel it suits the sound of the movement better.

Why does this happen - is it just hard to imagine? And what happens in performance?  Do you try the composer's speed and (eventually? rapidly?) decide it's too fast, or can performers tell straight away.

With new music performers usually start slower and work their way up towards the indicated speed as they become more familiar with the music. (It is worth noting that I tend to write really difficult music. Maybe the Arditti Quartet could dive right in at the deep end of the tempo spectrum, but I mostly get college students to work with. heh.) Both they and I usually find the music works best at about 15% slower than I marked it. I think it's partly that live performance has a significantly different kind of energy to the "performances" one hears in one's head, making it seem faster and more effortful, even when it's not. Like, the work people are putting in is sufficient to account for some of the sensation of tempo.

As well, some composers are right on the nose with their metronome indications (Schumann for instance) so I don't think it's a universal thing. A personality thing, maybe. (It's also worth noting that Shostakovich's own performances of his pieces tend to be much faster than anyone else's... so perhaps my 25-30% was a significant overestimate)

[Florestan]

It is worth noting that I tend to write really difficult music. Maybe the Arditti Quartet could dive right in at the deep end of the tempo spectrum, but I mostly get college students to work with. heh. Both they and I usually find the music works best at about 15% slower than I marked it.

That's very interesting and raises the following question. Suppose you marked Allegro and then agreed on slowing it by 15 %. Then, next time, with this in mind, you mark Allegro moderato. Would you then agree to slow it also by 15 %, thus leading you, the next time, to mark Moderato?

[EigenUser]

I posted this on GMG a while ago. Zoom in, look at the instructions near the '1' I wrote and circled (toward the left) and then look at the instructions near the '2' on the right.

[Florestan]

I posted this on GMG a while ago. Zoom in, look at the instructions near the '1' I wrote and circled (toward the left) and then look at the instructions near the '2' on the right.

I see there a prestissimo possibile. That's as open to interpretation as it gets. 

[Florestan]

Actually, this is a very, very interesting discussion.

i am not a professional musician so my opinions carry no weight at all, but it seems to me that, the more the composers tried to be more specific in their notation, the more confusion arose. Bach or Mozart usually used very simple tempo markings, such as Allegro, Adagio, Andante. There's ample room for interpretation of these, of course, but IMO much less than with the markings to come along with Romanticism. For instance, I'm listening right now to Mendelssohn's 2nd SQ. The markings are:


    Adagio – Allegro vivace
    Adagio non lento
    Intermezzo: Allegretto con moto – Allegro di molto
    Presto – Adagio non lento

Now, what's the difference between Allegro vivace and Allegro di molto? And what is that beast called Adagio non lento, sort of "slow yet not slow"?

It is only too normal for any two performances of this piece not to sound alike.

All this thread reminded me of a true story about a conductor whose name I shall look up later in the book where I've read it. At a repetition, he asked : "First trumpet, play forte!". The trumpeter obliged, but the conductor stopped it. "Again, and this time play forte!" The trumpeter gave the best forte he could. "Once again, and please have it forte!" The poor man blew his lungs off his trumpet, his cheeks red and his forehead sweating. To which the conductor replied "I've asked you thrice to play forte, yet you keep playing fortissimo!"

[Florestan]

There are a number of differences, but a big one is:

Suppose ff means "as loud as you can play." The concertmaster can play somewhat louder than the 8th chair. Fine.

But if "prestissimo" means "as fast as you can play," and the concertmaster can play faster than the 8th chair, then you have a big problem.

Thanks for explaining it. Yes, this makes sense in an orchestra, and the man responsible for synchronizing them all is the conductor. But what about a violin sonata, when it is you an only you playing? What do you make of "prestissimo" then?
[/quote]

[Karl Henning]

I see there a prestissimo possibile. That's as open to interpretation as it gets. 

Dependence on both interpretation, and capacity

[Florestan]

Dependence on both interpretation, and capacity

Capacity first and foremost, I should say.

But then again, interpretation pops up immediately after it. Prestissimo possibile for Hans Knappertsbusch would be Andante for Friedrich Gulda. 

[Karl Henning]

I have read that Beethoven had strong opinions about how his music should be played, but also that his own performances of a particular piece were not necessarily consistent.

I don't read that as any contradiction (not saying that you do, you've left the question open).  There can be a range of the right way, without rigidity.  I am inclined to argue that rigidity is, in fact, inherently inartistic.

[Florestan]

Karl, please, explain me the difference between Allegro moderato and Allegro ma non troppo. I've always struggled with it. When do you use the first, if ever, and when the second, if ever? And which is faster?

[Karl Henning]

You might be amazed at just how many indications are in those original scores.  Handel in particular was very specific in his dynamics.  For example, in The Messiah, the beginning of number 17 "Glory to God in the Highest" is marked da lontano e un poco piano "as from a distance and rather softly."  And Beethoven gets even more specific.  (But Beethoven's metronome markings are controversial.  One wonders if orchestras of his time could even play some of his music at the metronome markings he gave, which challenge even today's orchestras! )

Well, and the metronome marking for the second movement of the Shostakovich Tenth almost seems more like a dare, than a suggestion