Chopin Etude Op. 10 No. 1 according to original handwritten score

[utterlysneaky]

What do you think of this? Certainly raises questions and discussion about modern-day showoff performance. Personally, I find this way of playing much more pleasing to the ear.

[krystellle]

I loved it.  Utterly captivating!

[nyiregyhazi]

I loved it.  Utterly captivating!

I do like the playing, but I'm very skeptical of her self-righteous attitude and some of the claims. To say that there's "no evidence" for forte is outright dishonesty. The three editions published separately in Chopin's lifetime all feature a forte marking. This is most certainly "evidence", to put it mildly. I said as much in a comment on the video before (in a willfully polite and civil tone) and she censored my comments.

[utterlysneaky]

She censored that? daamn.. well really, I'm not saying that this is how Chopin intended it, only that according to the very first original manuscript, this way of playing makes more sense to me. And there is of course Chopin's own quote, where he says he intended it to be played slowly.
For another interesting rendition :

Wim Winters claims that beat versa tempo has been misunderstood for centuries in this etude. He plays it slowly but forte, giving it a sense of grand structure..
Still, my favorite is this one :

[nyiregyhazi]

Wim Winters claims that beat versa tempo has been misunderstood for centuries in this etude. He plays it slowly but forte, giving it a sense of grand structure.

I'm simply bemused. I thought he was going to make some kind of interesting argument. Instead he said the metronome mark was correct, but then proceeded to play it at half tempo regardless?After a load of background waffle he didn't even provide any argument, to speak of.

What is the quote from Chopin about playing it slow?

[krystellle]

But I liked it.  It was convincing.  Even if it went against all the dynamics and metronomic indications that Chopin put down, I don't think he's going to be rolling over in his grave because of it.  If I hadn't been familiar with the piece and heard it like this the first time, I would be completely convinced of it's beauty.  Sure, it's not the usual stormy rendition (which I probably prefer, anyway), but sort of a spring shower, instead.  And it didn't sound like she was playing it this way just to be different.  It sounded like it came from a deep conviction, and so, to me, it was convincing.

[pianowolfi]

Cortot already played it much lighter than others. And Marik, here on the forum: https://www.pianostreet.com/smf/index.php?topic=34393.msg402073#msg402073, said that this etude needs a smart approach, as it is not possible to play forte all the time, and he said that the main forte power comes from the left hand. And my experience tells me again and again that the forceful powering approach doesn't really work (though I tried it numerous times). One more argument for this approach: Chopin doesn't indicate more than one f! And he used up to three f in other pieces, like in the first Scherzo.
But I find this particular recording not really convincing, I'd rather recommend to listen to Cortot.

[utterlysneaky]

That is true, that's why I like Mei Ting Sun's(chopin competition 2010) rendition best also, you can clearly hear that the main body of volume comes from the left hand octave sonority, the right hand plays mf,mp or p(at some rare spots) and more leggiero throughout the piece..  These combine together to produce a forte, which is not an indication for the right hand only in the score, but for the combined effect of both hands..That is why he manages to nuance beautifully at high tempi and also the accents sound poetic and melodious..

I guess what Winters is trying to say is that the alla breve marking of today does not have the same meaning as it had 200 years ago? But I dunno..

I do like the poetics of Angie Lear's interpretation though, she makes it sound like a beautiful tone poem, and I don't think there is anything wrong with that. But claiming : this is how Chopin intended it and everybody else is wrong, is simply stupid, for the lack of a better word..

[bachbrahmsschubert]

I would like to know why everyone feels they must follow every marking to the letter.

I have not seen the original manuscript for this etude, but if there is no dynamic marking, why is it wrong to play it forte? Why do we assume Chopin meant for this to be played p or mp? He dedicated this etude to Franz Liszt, and all historical evidence indicates that Liszt was a showy, "forte-playing" pianist.

Simply because one finds it more attractive played slower and with less dynamics is irrelevant to the argument "Chopin wants it like this." If one wants to take Chopin so seriously, stop talking about him so much; respect the privacy that he so desired and don't perform his music.

If we somehow came across a recording of Chopin playing the piano, would that change anything? Has anyone played on a playel? It's far from grand. Chopin was also sick for the last decade of his life, why do we assume he could physically manage a forte presence at the keyboard? Would one recording really change our entire outlook on his music? How many times has anyone sat down and played a piece exactly the same way every time? Let alone a piece that you have written.

I don't respect a musician whose outlook on music is proving everyone wrong. To me, this pianist is "out to set things straight." Nonsense.

Best wishes,

[ramseytheii]

I would like to know why everyone feels they must follow every marking to the letter.

I have not seen the original manuscript for this etude, but if there is no dynamic marking, why is it wrong to play it forte? Why do we assume Chopin meant for this to be played p or mp? He dedicated this etude to Franz Liszt, and all historical evidence indicates that Liszt was a showy, "forte-playing" pianist.

Simply because one finds it more attractive played slower and with less dynamics is irrelevant to the argument "Chopin wants it like this." If one wants to take Chopin so seriously, stop talking about him so much; respect the privacy that he so desired and don't perform his music.

If we somehow came across a recording of Chopin playing the piano, would that change anything? Has anyone played on a playel? It's far from grand. Chopin was also sick for the last decade of his life, why do we assume he could physically manage a forte presence at the keyboard? Would one recording really change our entire outlook on his music? How many times has anyone sat down and played a piece exactly the same way every time? Let alone a piece that you have written.

I don't respect a musician whose outlook on music is proving everyone wrong. To me, this pianist is "out to set things straight." Nonsense.

Best wishes,

I think that's a very strong post.  It is always hard to take someone seriously when their video focusses so much on how much you and everybody else have been wrong since 1850 and they are the only right ones.

I am also inherently suspicious of those who think there is some grand secret out there, that nobody understands relatively simple music like Chopin's op.10 no.1, and they have unlocked this grand secret that only Chopin knew, and therefore they understand him and his music better than anyone else.

After listening to her rendition of Chopin etude and suffering through the self-righteous comments, I can honestly say I don't know the piece any better.  I understood it the first time I heard it; I have heard it performed many, many different ways, and never came away thinking I have been mistaken.

Her question: "What if we heard Chopin himself play this etude?" also strikes me as superfluous. For one, Liszt told de Pachmann that he (d.P.) played Chopin's music better than Chopin.  Thalberg was irritated at Chopin's reserved performance style.  Chopin did not like playing in public.  Furthermore, we have recordings of Rachmaninoff playing his own works, but we still play them differently.  It doesn't really matter that much.  We are not incapable of understanding Chopin's music: sorry.

Walter Ramsey

[ramseytheii]

You know what else irritates me?  I don't find this interpretation offensive in the slightest.  I wouldn't even call it "wrong," and frankly, I don't find it that novel as I have heard this done before in a similar vein.  What irritates me is that a pianist can't feel comfortable to play in a way they feel, which is counter to what most people do, without telling everyone else they are wrong.  If you believe what you are doing, do it and don't try and tell everyone else they are idiots.

This approach must appeal to a certain mind, because if you read the comments on the video, people say things like, "everybody else bangs out the left-hand octaves."  Well actually no.  I have plenty of recordings where this is played forte, and the left-hand octaves are played in a very cantabile, but powerful, way.  All of a sudden, everyone else bangs.  All of a sudden, there is only one person out there who plays this in a "beautiful" way.  Ridiculous! 

I'm all for the Landowska approach.  Landowska said that if Rameau himself were to rise from the grave and tell her she was playing his music wrong, she wouldn't care.  I love that approach and always will.  But I've never agreed with "The Secret" approach, where we are all in the dark, and somebody else knows the truth.  Please!  Spare us!

Walter Ramsey

[pianowolfi]

Indeed Walter, that's an attitude I hate as well. I call it the "sectarian" approach and it doesn't do good to the discussion about tempi and interpretation. I have read a lot about tempi and I have read quite a bit from those "Tempo Giusto" people (Which Wim Winters is obviously a member of; I have at some point even read that infamous book by Willem Reetse Talsma) and it always scares me away how much they think that they own the one and only truth. And their playing usually doesn't convince me at all, it often sounds like the playing of people who don't like to practice a lot

@utterlysneaky: Yes I also love Mei Ting Sun's Chopets!

[utterlysneaky]

Interesting discussion! I find that I agree about most of what is said here, but I think this has veered a bit off-topic. I certainly dislike an approach that claims to have everybody else misunderstanding, and yourself only understanding. But if we forget about the public explanations, stated motives and so forth, and listen only to her interpretations(disregard the words), I find this interpretation to be refreshing, coloristic, supple and pleasing to the ear. I'll give her points for that, if nothing else.

[ramseytheii]

Indeed Walter, that's an attitude I hate as well. I call it the "sectarian" approach and it doesn't do good to the discussion about tempi and interpretation. I have read a lot about tempi and I have read quite a bit from those "Tempo Giusto" people (Which Wim Winters is obviously a member of; I have at some point even read that infamous book by Willem Reetse Talsma) and it always scares me away how much they think that they own the one and only truth. And their playing usually doesn't convince me at all, it often sounds like the playing of people who don't like to practice a lot

@utterlysneaky: Yes I also love Mei Ting Sun's Chopets!

Are the Tempo Giusto people you refer to the Baroque musicians who think there is a prescribed tempo for every specific time signature/note division pairing?  I haven't heard of the books you are referring to but I think I have seen references to tempo giusto in some Baroque essays, particularly concerning the Goldberg Variations.

Walter Ramsey

[pianowolfi]

Are the Tempo Giusto people you refer to the Baroque musicians who think there is a prescribed tempo for every specific time signature/note division pairing?  I haven't heard of the books you are referring to but I think I have seen references to tempo giusto in some Baroque essays, particularly concerning the Goldberg Variations.

Walter Ramsey

In Germany (and Holland, and others) there is a particular movement called "tempo giusto"

https://www.tempogiusto.de/

https://www.wellermusik.de/Tempo_Giusto/tempo_giusto.html

Their main argument is that the tempi have sped up during the last two centuries, and that most of the fast movements of the baroque, classical, and even many of the romantic era should be played much slower. They claim to have discovered that there were two different kinds of understanding metronome marks in the 19th century, first the one that we all are familiar with: one tick counts as one beat. But there has obviously been a different use of the metronome as well, which they call the "metric" use, where two ticks actually counted as one beat. A Chopin etude like op 10,1 should therefore be played at eighth note=176 and not at quarter note= 176

 I believe that there might in some cases actually be something to that, and I believe that certainly there must be more research done on this. But I don't believe that things are really as radical as these "tempo guisto" people claim, and the interpretive results of their theories seem often more than poor to me. Plus, as I mentioned above, they often have a sort of sectarian attitude, in that they suggest to be in possession of the one and only truth and everybody else is just plain wrong.

  

[nyiregyhazi]

But there has obviously been a different use of the metronome as well, which they call the "metric" use, where two ticks actually counted as one beat. A Chopin etude like op 10,1 should therefore be played at eighth note=176 and not at quarter note= 176
  

Do you know of any evidence for this- or for why it would be used? Why not simply write 88? How would anyone know when it applies and why would they leave it so unclear? I'm not dismissing the possibility outright, but I'd want to see a hell of a lot evidence before I'd even consider trusting it.

[ramseytheii]

I'd be interested in hearing that too.  Unfortunately my German is not good enough to read the webpages in detail.

Interestingly, people in the church world believe that the Germans from Bach's time and before sang hymns at a much faster tempo than they do today.  Everybody has an opinion I guess.

Walter Ramsey

[pianowolfi]

Do you know of any evidence for this- or for why it would be used? Why not simply write 88? How would anyone know when it applies and why would they leave it so unclear? I'm not dismissing the possibility outright, but I'd want to see a hell of a lot evidence before I'd even consider trusting it.

Yes same here.
Why not simply write 88? Because one count consisted obviously of a downbeat and an upbeat, and it might actually have been just self evident to musicians back then.

But, as I already mentioned, to me the interpretive outcome so far doesn't sound convincing.

You can listen to some "tryouts" here (as I posted above):

p/

But honestly these recordings rather make me run away as fast as I can.

There was a time in my life where I really had a hard time with it.

It seems like hell, you have two possibilities: either way too fast (like today often) or way too slow (like the tempo giusto preachers claim) and I am just out of this because I don't like both.
I shouldn't care about all that and I know I should just say freak it all and what the heck, but sometimes I get still a bit involved.

[krystellle]

This is very interesing!  I didn't know of this tempogiusto group!  First of all, the arguments are very persuasive - or I'm too easily convinced - and presented in coherent manner.  I listened to  first etude.  There was one contradiction.  He said the viennese pianos have a smaller key, lighter action, etc. and couldn't permit such a martellato sound.  But in his final performance, that's just  what it was. and THAT didn't sound right.  It sounded like the normal performance in a practise speed.  What he should have done is played it perhaps more legato, less loud, and with more flow.  But it's difficult to get flow at that speed.  I thought the clip at the beginning of this post was convincing.
the other clips didn't really sound strange or in wierd tempo.  In fact, the beginning of the 7th symphony sounded a little faster then it's usually played.  Probably because you can't sustain long notes like that on a piano.  But I like discussions like that!  I think that's why I like Pianostreet!

[pianowolfi]

 

I'll make a little list of videos from this context that I really like and that convince me:

This is an excerpt from a Liszt student playing op.10,7

Eine kleine Nachtmusik, conducted by Karl Böhm, excerpt, the first example in the video. Karl Böhm can't be relating to the "tempo giusto" movement because it didn't exist yet in that time.

Pachmann Chopin op. 10,1 and comparison with Argerich:

Arrau: Jeux d'eau à la Villa d'Este

La Campanella played by Emil von Sauer:

(Although he slows heavily down at some points)

Op 25,12, Emil von Sauer

I might add more later.

[nyiregyhazi]

"Yes same here.
Why not simply write 88? Because one count consisted obviously of a downbeat and an upbeat, and it might actually have been just self evident to musicians back then."

So why is it marked as crotchet= 176? And why is it not marked in 2/2? The only way this could be "self-evident" is if all metronome marks were intended to represent two beats. Otherwise you'd need a clear indication of when this bizarre way of reading applies.

[louis_james_alfred]

I see 3 great advantages to this 'half the speed'-movement.
1. since every piece becomes twice as long, you have to prepare half the normal amount of music for a recital.
2. those pieces become sight-readable, or almost.
3. if you manage to play a wrong note, even at these very slow tempi, nobody will notice, since everybody is sleeping.

I do not believe that every metronome figure by Chopin or his contemporaries is perfect (some are very fast indeed, even on a historical piano), but simply playing at half the speed is ridiculous.

After all, Chopin gave his etudes only to very advanced students, and he admitted that Liszt (who probably practiced more) played his etudes better than he could. That would be very strange at a sight-reading tempo, no?

[pianowolfi]

"Yes same here.
Why not simply write 88? Because one count consisted obviously of a downbeat and an upbeat, and it might actually have been just self evident to musicians back then."

So why is it marked as crotchet= 176? And why is it not marked in 2/2? The only way this could be "self-evident" is if all metronome marks were intended to represent two beats. Otherwise you'd need a clear indication of when this bizarre way of reading applies.

I re-emphasize that I am not really fond of this approach, nor do I have enough scientific (i.e.historical) background to backup such a theory or argue against it. I take it into account like many other theories, that's all. And I try to find my musical way far from from "sectarian" movements .
Unfortunately there's not really much English information about "Tempo Giusto"on the web. But one of the most serious books about the subject (in my opinion) seems to be this one:

https://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_7161/is_200810/ai_n32297203/

[nyiregyhazi]

I re-emphasize that I am not really fond of this approach, nor do I have enough scientific (i.e.historical) background to backup such a theory or argue against it. I take it into account like many other theories, that's all.

Well, same here- although I'm not sure about "taking it into account". Either it's right or it's not. Either you accept the idea of what they say the marking is supposed to mean or take it literally. There's no reasonable way it can be used to support a middle-ground approach. Either the tempo mark is what it says or it's half the speed of that. To go somewhere in the middle is just to go for a different approach altogether.

Anyway, my point is that without a satisfactory answer to those questions, I couldn't even begin to take the idea seriously. Without explanation and evidence it scarcely even qualifies for consideration.

[pianowolfi]

Well perhaps reading a book like the one I linked about Reger may open new perspectives
If something is half or double speed, this naked and brutal "either or", isn't really a musical way of thinking anyway, it's rather a path that leads away from music. I have been there and done that, and I don't think that it makes sense, after all.

Where would music end up at, if we trusted some more or less convincing "theories" more than our musical hearts and ears?

[nyiregyhazi]

Well perhaps reading a book like the one I linked about Reger may open new perspectives
If something is half or double speed, this naked and brutal "either or", isn't really a musical way of thinking anyway, it's rather a path that leads away from music.

That's not how it works though. If we say that Chopin either meant his marking at face value or intended half that speed, it's a matter of which point of departure we decide upon. It does not mean thinking whichever exact tempo becomes the lone correct speed to within a single bpm. To come up with a "balance" between the two possibilities would be absurd. You might as well ignore the metronome mark altogether- as it would in no way reflect on either possible meaning- seeing as only one can be what he intended. Either you decide that you couldn't give a damn about his metronome mark anyway, or you have to decide whether Chopin meant a very fast tempo or a rather slow one- and use that as general point of departure. That's zero to do with small-minded thinking about interpretation. It's evaluation of what the instruction  actually is. To understand an instruction does not preclude interpretation.

[pianowolfi]

That's not how it works though. If we say that Chopin either meant his marking at face value or intended half that speed, it's a matter of which point of departure we decide upon. It does not mean thinking whichever exact tempo becomes the lone correct speed to within a single bpm. To come up with a "balance" between the two possibilities would be absurd. You might as well ignore the metronome mark altogether- as it would in no way reflect on either possible meaning- seeing as only one can be what he intended. Either you decide that you couldn't give a damn about his metronome mark anyway, or you have to decide whether Chopin meant a very fast tempo or a rather slow one- and use that as general point of departure. That's zero to do with small-minded thinking about interpretation. It's evaluation of what the instruction  actually is. To understand an instruction does not preclude interpretation.

Well I think that either you didn't read my posts above, or you're just into argueing for argueing's sake or both. I have no time and energy for theoretical discussions, arguments for argueings sake, "either or" arguments and so on, I think I have made my point clear. If you don't (want to) see that it's for sure not my responsibility, but rather your...decision.

[nyiregyhazi]

Well I think that either you didn't read my posts above, or you're just into argueing for argueing's sake or both. I have no time and energy for theoretical discussions, arguments for argueings sake, "either or" arguments and so on, I think I have made my point clear. If you don't see it it's for sure not my responsibility, but rather your...decision.

Of course I read your posts. Which is why I pointed out that realising that Chopin was indeed prescribing EITHER one speed OR half of that speed does not mean a person's performance ethic is based on simplistic "either/or" thinking. Wishing to understand whether Chopin's marking means an absolute of 88 or 176 does not mean the same person feels whichever figure must be followed pedantically. Realising that only one of those readings can possible be what Chopin meant (and wanting to know for sure) does not in any way imply either/or thinking extends to performance. It signifies interest in accurately understanding that suggested point of departure with accuracy. You failed to make an extremely important distinction and in doing so misrepresented my stance. My most sarcastic apologies for being so argumentative as to wish to clarify that...

[pianowolfi]

No need to get sarcastic, nor to apologize. I just don't want to be put in a place where I definitely am not, i.e. needing to suddenly argue for or against an approach which I explicitely didn't mean to represent or speak for in the first place.

[nyiregyhazi]

No need of being sarcastic, nor to apologize. I just don't want to be put in a place where I definitely am not, i.e. needing to suddenly argue for or against an approach which I didn't mean to represent or speak for in the first place.

I made a clarification due to this comment.

"If something is half or double speed, this naked and brutal "either or", isn't really a musical way of thinking anyway, it's rather a path that leads away from music."

Considering either/or issues is not necessarily a path that leads away from music. For example, if an accent fails to appear in a place where it is expected by analogy with another passage "either" the composer meant it "or" he didn't. There's no halfway. There are many cases where we have to ask such questions. Is it unmusical to ask whether all the missing accidentals in Scriabin's scores should be included? Musical interpretation only begins after you decide which of the possibilities you believe was most likely to have be meant. Either/or thinking is very healthy. Getting pedantically absorbed in which option you choose is what distracts from music.

I clarified the distinction perfectly politely and have no idea why you felt the need to respond that way.

[pianowolfi]

Well tomorrow is another day. Perhaps you just have a different approach than me, and that's of course absolutely fine with me. For me "either-or" questions are not healthy, at least not at the time. I prefer a phenomenological approach, and a view from many different perspectives.
And I didn't mean to say that you were impolite or anything like that. The only point I am not comfortable with (which is perhaps one of my touchy points): I easily feel polarized, as I said. I did never in this thread mean to speak "for" the "half tempo" approach, I just meant to say that it's one of the approaches I take into consideration, and when you came up with some of your questions I just felt like you put me in the place of an admirer or representative, which, as I clearly stated, I am not.

[nyiregyhazi]

"Well tomorrow is another day. Perhaps you just have a different approach than me, and that's of course absolutely fine with me. For me "either-or" questions are not healthy, at least not at the time. I prefer a phenomenological approach, and a view from many different perspectives."

Don't you see my point? You state that as if you didn't even read it. Taking an either/or approach when logically pertinent does NOT by extension mean going against a view from many perspectives! Do you realise the irony here? You're simplifying it to an "either/or" scenario, when it is not one!!! And how would I view from many perspectives here? Play the Etude fast in one performance and approximately half of that speed in the next? It would be senseless. I have to decide whether he meant to express something fast or slow and play it in a way that corresponds to at least some basic degree.
 
The metronome marking itself means one of two possible absolutes. Whether you choose to abide rigidly by the meaning you go with, or take it as a pointer is a SEPARATE issue to how many notes Chopin meant per click. That figure is an absolute with two possible values. What we DO with that is what matters. That's why I gave the accent example. If the composer omits an expected accent on just one occasion, either he meant to or did not. Either it was omitted willfully or in error. Logic dictates the polarisation- not small-minded thinking. When there are only two possible outcomes, you have to go with one of them. Interpretation is a separate and vastly freer process, once you've decided what you believe the score is supposed to convey.

"I just meant to say that it's one of the approaches I take into consideration, and when you came up with some of your questions I just felt like you put me in the place of an admirer or representative, which, as I clearly stated, I am not."

Where specifically did I portray you that way? I made a follow-up to your point with an issue that was logically raised. I do not believe I said anything to even imply you are an advocate.

[pianowolfi]

Well, one approach that often came to my mind is:  I try to respect everything that the composer has clearly and explicitly written in the score. If this does after all fit with his metronome mark, fine. If not I'll just ignore the metronome mark.

After all, I tend to think in a musical sense and not in a technical sense. Of course a car motor needs something like 900 rpm to work, because it is designed to work like this. But music is not!
My best example for myself are my own works. Sometimes I play some of them really slowly, sometimes much faster. So, if I ever decide to publish them I'd probably set a metronome mark like for instance quarters= 70-120 or so. Time is relative. Maybe playing at very different speeds has, to some extent, it's values

[nyiregyhazi]

Well, one approach that often came to my mind is:  I try to respect everything that the composer has clearly and explicitly written in the score. If this does after all fit with his metronome mark, fine. If not I'll just ignore the metronome mark.

Same here. But my point was never about abiding by exact metronome marks. if his instruction accurately signifies one of two totally different speed (one twice as fast as the other), you'd want to know which one, wouldn't you? That doesn't stop you doing whatever the hell you like afterwards. The point is, if you didn't ask the question first, you wouldn't even be considering what he had asking for.


"My best example for myself are my own works. Sometimes I play some of them really slowly, sometimes much faster. So, if I ever decide to publish them I'd probably set a metronome mark like for instance quarters= 70-120 or so. Time is relative."

Well, you might feel that way. But if chopin felt that way, isn't it rather bizarre that he chose to notate a single precise value (even if some believe the true meaning is half the speed)? I'm not a believer in pedantry about metronome marks. But neither do I believe that if Chopin marked 120, he'd have been equally happy with 70.

[pianowolfi]

Same here. But my point was never about abiding by exact metronome marks. if his instruction accurately signifies one of two totally different speed (one twice as fast as the other), you'd want to know which one, wouldn't you? That doesn't stop you doing whatever the hell you like afterwards. The point is, if you didn't ask the question first, you wouldn't even be considering what he had asking for.


"My best example for myself are my own works. Sometimes I play some of them really slowly, sometimes much faster. So, if I ever decide to publish them I'd probably set a metronome mark like for instance quarters= 70-120 or so. Time is relative."

Well, you might feel that way. But if chopin felt that way, isn't it rather bizarre that he chose to notate a single precise value (even if some believe the true meaning is half the speed)? I'm not a believer in pedantry about metronome marks. But neither do I believe that if Chopin marked 120, he'd have been equally happy with 70.

Honestly, of course I'd like very much to know which one of the readings is historically "right", but at the moment I can't know this, according to the present stage of knowledge. There are a few "sectarians" who claim that half tempo thing and say everyone else is plain wrong. On the other hand there's a sort of race going on who is the fastest and most accurate Chopets player. I'm not okay with both of them, so my starting point needs to be the score and my musical feeling/musical background/education/inspiration etc.

But even if someday somebody would prove to 100% that the "half tempo" approach was historically correct, there would still be a severe gap. Because we are different people nowadays and we don't feel the same if we hear the same tempo as they probably did back then! We just can't, according to our time and our nature! We have trains that run at 150 mph and back then they ran at only 20 mph! If there were even trains already. And at 25 mph people felt already like being in a rollercoaster!
So we're just different, alltogether.

[nyiregyhazi]

"Honestly, of course I'd like very much to know which one of the readings is historically "right", but at the moment I honestly can't know this, according to the present stage of knowledge. There are a few "sectarians" who claim that half tempo thing and say everyone else is plain wrong. On the other hand there's a sort of race going on who is the fastest and most accurate Chopets player. I'm not okay with both of them, so my starting point needs to be the score and my musical feeling/musical background/education/inspiration etc. "

Yeah, that was my point. Only one of them can be the correctly intended reading so either we have to choose one as the yardstick or disregard it altogether. Personally, it makes much more sense to read the mark at face value than half that speed- although that does not mean I play it anywhere near as fast as the mark. I'm aiming for 140-160.

Also, the half-tempo people present a totally false dichotomy. Being a speed demon never prevented Rachmaninoff from playing with musical line and shape.

[pianowolfi]

Also, the half-tempo people present a totally false dichotomy. Being a speed demon never prevented Rachmaninoff from playing with musical line and shape.

Very true!  

[pianoplayjl]

personally i think it does not sound as majestic as it should.

[rmbarbosa]

It is known that Chopin played his own pieces with different versions, the same piece I mean. But it`s also known he didnt allow the others - even Liszt!- to play without a strict respect for his own indications...

[ocngypz]

Forte on a circa 1844 Pleyel and a modern concert grand are two completely different sounds.

After a chance to play Chopin on a Pleyel, I've been frustrated now for two+ decades trying to reproduce the same sound on a gp.  Can't do it.  The closest I've come is with a high end digital, set with a very light touch and custom settings. 

[ramseytheii]

Forte on a circa 1844 Pleyel and a modern concert grand are two completely different sounds.

After a chance to play Chopin on a Pleyel, I've been frustrated now for two+ decades trying to reproduce the same sound on a gp.  Can't do it.  The closest I've come is with a high end digital, set with a very light touch and custom settings. 

Forte on an 1810 Broadwood and a modern concert grand are also two completely different sounds, but we would never deign to diminish Beethoven's imagination.

Walter Ramsey