Well, I feel this is the right tempo for it for 2 reasons:1) Schubert writes TWICE "alla breve" or "doppio movimento" (I dont know the english term! I mean the 2 big "C"s split by the vertical line in the begining of the score - LITERARLY it means one beat per measure, however Andante it may be).
2) This is a song without words in the truest sence - in Horowitz's or Brendel's tempo, no singer could "sing" some hypothetical lyrics of a lied that was never written but I feel was intented by Schubert.
Literally speaking, cut time only means a doubling of the beat. In this case, there are four beats (here half-notes) per bar: cut time means a whole note receives one beat, not an entire bar! God help us all.
Second, one's tempo should be determined on what sounds good, not based on literalism about time signatures.
For one, it sounds very agitato and tempestuoso.
PS This is not a waltz, it is in 2.
STILL twice "cut time" means one beat every whole note. I play at 78 per half note. Schubert continues and states "Andante" but this Andante is about a whole note because he wants us to count in whole notes.. poor him.... Then the equasion turns to Andante= mm 39. Even that doesnt sound too Andante to me - it sounds more like largo. God help me on that!
Then comes old Liszt and edits Schubert's impromptus. He writes mm=82 (or was it 88?- I dont really rember) per half note for this piece! He could be wrong, he could be too literal he could be right! The two actually never met but I trust Liszt, and I trust his suggestion not because he is Liszt but because he seems to try and come as close to Schubert's indications as possible.
God help you on that!
Composer:"play this at the tempo I ask because I wrote it that way!" Interpeter:"No, I play the way it sounds good TO ME"C.: "But I tell you, I waste my good ink to tell everyone for centuries to come "Andante in TWICE cut time" - I never ever wrote twice cut time in another piece (well maybe he did I'm sure it's not too common )I.: " It sounds too agitato this way you want it - cant I have some freedom?"C." "Then dont play it how I want (Andante per whole note) but try and stay as close as possible to what I specifically write please"I.: " No, to me this piece sounds much more like a simple pastoral "C.: "How do you know this? I write what I want you to play"I.: "Stop being too literal silly"
Look, for instance, at Impromptu op.142 no.3 in B-flat major. This is also in cut time, and marked andante. Your metronome tempo fluctuates between 38-50 in your performance of the theme. According to your literal definition of Andante (which comes from Bartok's philosophy, not Schubert's), you are playing this too slow. You are not playing andante, but largo. Yet it feels andante.. because we don't determine the tempo because of the placement of beats, but how the whole music moves.
For me, the problem arises of applying a modern sensibility to a perhaps Romantic music.
performance aesthetic
I think it is bad for the sound of music.
"If Rameau himself were to rise from the grave to demand of me some changes in my interpretation of his Dauphine, I would answer, 'You gave birth to it; it is beautiful. But now leave me alone with it.'"
First, you presume to know how Schubert wanted the music to sound according to a literal feeling of a beat. You are ignoring acoustic evidence
If you start agitated and tempestuous, you cannot interpret the middle part in a contrasting way; and that is clearly an element of the spiritual quality - that he wanted a contrast.
Nice points. Well....1) op 142. no.3 is written and actually IS (the left hand accompaniament suggests so) a landler - a dance type typical back then. The difference is ONCE cut time - it makes sence...At my tempo it can be danced so it's ok by me - please note that I play it faster than averange as well - it's a Schubert curse to oversentimentalize his pieces because he is a "Romantic". 2) About m.m. ... it's my point also you cant be toooooo literal about everything but some things just cry out to take them into account. TWICE cut time is an oddity in itself! It cannot be incidental - it cannot be a carefree pastoral sorry.... Why, I ask why,did he write twice cut time? It's like he feared that people would play it too slow. He never did something like that again as far as I know... in fact I have never seen this marking in ANY piece by ANY composer..... have you?
3) About m.m. in general. I have a sefety rule as well. If you play it more than eg.+/- 10-12-14..... "metronome cuts" (I dont know the word- I speak about mechanical metronomes and the metal thing that goes up and down on them ) then either you or the composer is wrong! The composer is usually right .... Genarally the farther you get from the averange mm from what the composer writes the worse for you...
It's not a modern baroque-clasical-romantic-modern or whatever music/sensibility. I think these terms are just irelevant to a simple ink marking - as simple as it can be... I dont understand how the fact that this is written in what we call the Romantic period can affects the ink.
Irelevant as well. It's not a metter of aesthetic.Irelevant as well. Our opinios dont mater I think when we are talking about Schubert's ink marking
Now I cant help myself again...Shakespeare rises from his grave and watches one of his plays. After the applause he speaks to the performer....S: Very nice thank you for you time. It was perfect, but in act... scene... I have written eg. "smiling" as a dictation. You didnt smile.P: I know I wasnt trying to smileS: Why? P: It doent work for the play. Is not good.S: But I write so..P: But it deosnt work for me.S: But....P: And there is this book by famous mr.... about you and your age and it says you did not mean what you wrote...S: I havent read it I was dead P: You see, you didnt mean it it was just incidentalS: Please can you smile the next time you say that line?P: No you are not right about itS: My playP: You wrote it but play it my way. Now go back to you grave silly!!!!
Acoustic evidence based on other people interpratations on this piece. And you ignore Schubert!!!!!
Last thing. I dont claim to know Schubert but when I was practising at slower tempi it sounded not good to me. I started speeding up and finally got to a tempo where it made sence to me. I noticed then that I was too fast when compared to most other interpretations. But I felt right. I asked myself can everyone be wrong and only I correct? Then I noticed the TWICE cut time and asked has noone else noticed it before? Luckily youtube has a verison by Pires that sound like what I had in mind. My is indeed faulty but try and listen to hers, I think she is right on the piece. To prevent any comments I really listened to Pires after deciding how I imagine it played.Does it sound agitato to you?
Just because you have never seen a double cut time, doesn't mean it's strange. It's an old Classical convention. If he had written op.90 no.3 in quarter notes, with triplet sixteenth accompaniments, he would have written one cut time, meaning the half note gets the beat. However, since he wrote it in half notes, he wrote two cut times, meaning the whole note gets the beat.
You are overthinking, and making too much of nothing.
I am afraid that your rule cannot apply here.
Because composers have different ideas of words, even language, throughout the years. A Rachmaninoff allegro, is significantly faster than a Mozart allegro. A Brahms Andante, is probably slower than a Schubert andante. It all depends on the material you are playing. You are, in my opinion, bringing a modern idea of fixed tempi to this piece. There can be no definition of Andante in metronomic terms, that will serve all composers.
If you are being objective, in saying that how fast the whole note is the only consideration that counts, you are clearly contradicting yourself in playing a half note in the B_flat which is far from your definition of Andante. If I use your terms, your B_flat impromptu is largo. But the tempo sounds right to me - because you are not insisting on measuring it by how fast the half note goes. If you did measure by how fast the half note goes, you would have to play significantly faster in order to reach Andante, and the last variation would be impossible.
There are some things Shakespeare notated, and many that he did not. Anyone who pretends intepretation doesn't exist doesn't know what they are talking about. No marking is objective. Even in your fecitious example: did Shakespeare say to smile for how long? Did he say to smile, then start talking? Or to talk, then smile? To fake smile? To bare your teeth?What is piano? What is forte? Do those indicate decibel levels?
Playing the piece slower does not cancel out the Andante. If so, then you ignore Schubert in your B-flat impromptu, which by your standard is at least largo.
It actually does, and it seems that was her intent... she plays with the tempo quite a bit, surging ahead to a much faster tempo around measure 12. I personally don't like it, and would probably make similar comments about the tempo were I to leave a comment.