Choosing a Performance Tempo

[j_menz]

There's been some discussion over time regarding tempo choices for particular pieces, and from time to time in the audition rom.  I want to take it away from the context of any given performance or any particular piece, and open up a more general discussion.

It seems to me there are a number of categories of pieces or (passages):

1. Bits where the composer has given a metronome mark. Some get quite obsessive about it, and I have pieces where the composer has given a new mm mark every few bars 110, 105, 108, 112 etc. Annoys the hell out of me and I ignore them in principle. Please excuse the rant.


2. Bits where the composer has used a (reasonably standard) tempo marking - Allegro, Grave, Adagio, Presto etc.

3. Bits where the composer has used a mood marking - tempo guisto, lively, enthusiastically, miserably, ploddingly etc.

4. Bits based on dance movements, where the general tempo of the actual dance may or may not indicate the basic tempo (and thus override or at least modify any other indication), and where an indicated tempo may or may not be read subject to the standard - eg: a Waltz marked vivace, or be omitted entirely since one is supposed to know what a gavotte, sarabande or minuet means.

5. Bits with no composer indication and nothing that the form of the piece suggests - a prelude for example with no tempo indication at all.

[add others if you believe important or relevant]

I know some of you choose a tempo by picking a metronome speed and sticking to it ( ) and some of you use less precise methods (feels right). Some of you believe that one piece has one, and only one, right tempo and some of you believe in quite a range of acceptable ones.

Whatever the basis, though, a performance will have a tempo (or series of tempi). So: How do you choose?

[pts1]

This is a question that can have far reaching answers and implications.

Ultimately, IMHO, for a pianist who has gone through the effort to master the technical requirements of a piece, experimented with various tempi based on the markings (both mood and tempo) in the piece, listened to recordings, etc., it comes down to what the individual pianist wishes to say... tempo being only one element of this.

I am not one of these people who feel the score is sacrosanct, but rather an imperfect text that attempts to convey what the composer wants.

Nor do I think "what the composer wants" is sacrosanct either.... perhaps, as in Rachmaninoff's case... there are pianists who play his compositions better than he, according to Rachmaninoff... i.e. Horowitz.

So whatever one decides on as the tempo... it should be based, IMHO, on ones convictions, abilities and the ability to "make it work".

Complex question with complex answers, of which mine only scrapes the surface

[brogers70]

I certainly do not have a general answer for this question. I do think that many pianists play Bach too fast. By which I mean that they play it faster than I can hear all the details. Not that there are not pieces of Bach that deserve a quick tempo, but sometimes I get the feeling that the tempo chosen is simply the fastest the pianist can play and still reliably hit the notes. But there's so much going on in any piece of Bach that I like it at a pace that allows me to hear the details.

[pianoguy711]

I have read some of those tempo "discussions" on audition room posts.  And I agree that this a tough question to answer.  I am in the camp where tempo markings are not 100% sacred.  However, the performance has to be convincing.  For me, a convincing performance answers one thing "does the performer do this piece justice?"

For example, here is a Scriabin etude played at two polar opposite tempi.

Some would say the second is much too slow.  However, I feel like it does the piece as much justice as the first; it even illuminates elements that are brushed over in the 1st.  On the other hand, the speed of the first creates a different aural effect--it creates a new sound world.

[j_menz]

For example, here is a Scriabin etude played at two polar opposite tempi.

Excellent example - well found!  I agree that both are valid choices, though the end result is two quite different works.

[Bob]

What composer said.  / What the composer meant.

What everyone else is doing.

What I think.

[faulty_damper]

Some would say the second is much too slow.

The second is indeed too slow.  I could tell within the the first 5 notes.  How?  Because I'm a musician.

Seriously, that's the reason why.  Just like a native English speaker knows immediately that another person is non-native with only a couple of words.  If you've ever experienced this, then you know exactly what I mean.  I'm not listening to notes, but meaning. If I can anticipate the meaning, it's too slow.  Similarly, if it's so fast as to be incomprehensible, then it's too fast.  I can do this with music I've never even heard before so it's unnecessary to make comparisons.

However, I feel like it does the piece as much justice as the first; it even illuminates elements that are brushed over in the 1st.  On the other hand, the speed of the first creates a different aural effect--it creates a new sound world.

If you listen to the second long enough, and understand it, then you will eventually come to the conclusion that it is indeed too slow.  You can hear the individual lines very clearly at this slow tempo and follow along, but that's not the point of those lines.  It's there for textural reasons, not meaning, though it helps intensify the meaning.  Repeated listenings will help make it obvious that you are anticipating everything.

[faulty_damper]

Whatever the basis, though, a performance will have a tempo (or series of tempi). So: How do you choose?

When a composer indicates a tempo marking, it's there to aide performance so that it's performed as close to the intended idea as possible.  It's there because the composer knows that most people who try to play it are not musicians and will inevitably get the tempo (and other issues) wrong without it.  The tempo markings are there to limit errors.

Before the turn of the 19th century, it wasn't necessary for tempo to be indicated because the music was performed by musicians.  They could immediately read and understand the music without even playing a single note.  It was only during the 19th century when swarms of amateurs flocked to learning to play instruments that composers started including more and more performance markings.  If the composer didn't include them, the editor did because it helped increase sales dramatically.  The easier you make it to use, the more you are able to sell.

I play by feel.  I am not purposefully thinking about choosing a tempo but about how to best express the idea that is written.  The actual performance tempo is incidental.  Most of the time, this is very easy to do.  However, sometimes, I have no idea what is meant.  This is mainly due to poor writing on the composer's part.  As an example, some people write in ways that are confusing, don't make sense, verbose, or the ideas are not clear.  Good writers are clear, concise, and elegant.  The same applies to composers.  Not everything a popular composer writes is great art, either, so that's just a warning.

Because I perform as a result understanding, I can pretty much ignore performance markings, including tempo, since it's unnecessary.  It sometimes gets in the way because different composers have different ways of notating expression even when they mean the same things.  Often, a vague indication (e.g. dolce) is more helpful than a specific indication (mm=54) because this emphasizes the idea, which is what's important.

[pianoman53]

Chosing a tempo has to do with so much more than the tempo itself; the hall, the piano, your mood, and, to some extent, even the audience.
Also, a live performance and a CD performance is not always the same tempo, due to the way of listening.. I guess.

I usually play a piece, and a tempo somewhat gradually grows onto me, and eventually I have one that I feel fit. It a little bit depends on how much you want to show, to put it simple.
Chelibidache, points out very many aspect on tempo:

Faulty: I don't agree with you, and here is why:
You keep comparing to speaking (I assume you mean telling, as in story telling). "Once upon a time, there was a beautiful princess" is just one sentence, but can be told in very many ways. Depending on what you want to say with it, and depending on who is listening.
Or if you are a politician, and you declare a budget. You'd talk completely differently, because the meaning is different. Even friends talking face-to-face will be different from talking on the phone. All of these would have different tempo, and phrasing.
I would very much like to know how you can bulk up all ways of speaking into one, and have the idea that music is the same as this.

[pianoman53]

When a composer indicates a tempo marking, it's there to aide performance so that it's performed as close to the intended idea as possible.  It's there because the composer knows that most people who try to play it are not musicians and will inevitably get the tempo (and other issues) wrong without it.  The tempo markings are there to limit errors.

Before the turn of the 19th century, it wasn't necessary for tempo to be indicated because the music was performed by musicians.  They could immediately read and understand the music without even playing a single note.  It was only during the 19th century when swarms of amateurs flocked to learning to play instruments that composers started including more and more performance markings.  If the composer didn't include them, the editor did because it helped increase sales dramatically.  The easier you make it to use, the more you are able to sell.

I play by feel.  I am not purposefully thinking about choosing a tempo but about how to best express the idea that is written.  The actual performance tempo is incidental.  Most of the time, this is very easy to do.  However, sometimes, I have no idea what is meant.  This is mainly due to poor writing on the composer's part.  As an example, some people write in ways that are confusing, don't make sense, verbose, or the ideas are not clear.  Good writers are clear, concise, and elegant.  The same applies to composers.  Not everything a popular composer writes is great art, either, so that's just a warning.

Because I perform as a result understanding, I can pretty much ignore performance markings, including tempo, since it's unnecessary.  It sometimes gets in the way because different composers have different ways of notating expression even when they mean the same things.  Often, a vague indication (e.g. dolce) is more helpful than a specific indication (mm=54) because this emphasizes the idea, which is what's important.

I find flaws in your arguments. I will explain:

Do you have any source to your claims? You can't find this offensive, because it is a rather bold statement, that, before 19th century, everyone was a musician.
And that argument is not convincing because, it's simply not true. After the Barock period, the so called "conneseures" would start spreading. They were people who had a bit deeper understanding in music. The amateurs were the other side; the ones who enjoyed music one could easily follow. The fantasies of C.P.E Bach are good examples of conneseur music, and were seldom listened, nor played, by amateurs. However, they have a rather detailed writing: Dynamics, tempi, touch... Why would he have done that, if the people playing his music clearly weren't amateurs? Have in mind, that Mozart wrote the first three pieces in Don Giovanni in sonata form, so that the conneseures would appreciate it (and obviously many other reasons too).

[j_menz]

Because I'm a musician.

That, I'm afraid is something you use more as an excuse than an explanation.

"It is because I believe it" is as much the dominion of lunatics as genii. You have yet to give any evidence to lean us towards the latter in your case.

[faulty_damper]

Do you have any source to your claims? You can't find this offensive, because it is a rather bold statement, that, before 19th century, everyone was a musician.

History books clearly explain the difference.  Musicians prior to the 19th century were not the same as those during and after the 19th century.  Prior, musicians were servants, afforded by the very wealthy.  After, with the increase of economic prosperity and rise of cities, did music reach the masses.  The difference between the two are folk musicians today and people who learn classical music.

And that argument is not convincing because, it's simply not true. After the Barock period, the so called "conneseures" would start spreading. They were people who had a bit deeper understanding in music. The amateurs were the other side; the ones who enjoyed music one could easily follow. The fantasies of C.P.E Bach are good examples of conneseur music, and were seldom listened, nor played, by amateurs. However, they have a rather detailed writing: Dynamics, tempi, touch... Why would he have done that, if the people playing his music clearly weren't amateurs? Have in mind, that Mozart wrote the first three pieces in Don Giovanni in sonata form, so that the conneseures would appreciate it (and obviously many other reasons too).

You do realize you just restated exactly what I said earlier.  I mentioned the 19th century as the era of the rise of the amateur simply because it was during this time that it exploded, but in actual date, the rise of the amateur started well before.

[faulty_damper]

That, I'm afraid is something you use more as an excuse than an explanation.

"It is because I believe it" is as much the dominion of lunatics as genii. You have yet to give any evidence to lean us towards the latter in your case.

I don't expect you to understand nor can I explain it in a way that you will.  It's not until you understand music that you'll understand what I mean.  How can I possibly explain English to you unless you already understand it?  Likewise, how can I explain Spanish to you unless you already understand it?  And likewise, how can I explain music to you unless you already understand it?  Just because you don't like the explanation doesn't mean it's incorrect.  If you can explain it better, I'm all ears because I would like to know how.  Talking about tempo is a fruitless endeavor because it's incidental.  Just like talking isn't about inducing tempo, you don't purposefully induce tempo when you play music.  It's an incidental quality.

[pianoman53]

History books clearly explain the difference.  Musicians prior to the 19th century were not the same as those during and after the 19th century.  Prior, musicians were servants, afforded by the very wealthy.  After, with the increase of economic prosperity and rise of cities, did music reach the masses.  The difference between the two are folk musicians today and people who learn classical music.
You do realize you just restated exactly what I said earlier.  I mentioned the 19th century as the era of the rise of the amateur simply because it was during this time that it exploded, but in actual date, the rise of the amateur started well before.

Musicians prior to that were usually not always musicians. In the Renaissances, they usually held a well paid profession, while being musicians. In the barock period, I can't say I know. The pre-classical I just stated, and you somehow read it as the exact opposite. I said "He wrote very detailed music, for people who clearly weren't amateurs" and you replied "Yes see, plenty of amateurs!" Also, instruments were still far too expensive for the common man, which is clearly not very good for a raise of amateurism. In the classical period, the instruments were still too expensive for most people.
Then they became cheaper. But Beethoven was still before the time of the raise of amateurs. And you can't really claim that he was not detailed. Your argument is just not very accurate.

The music might be more notated with the raise of amateurs, but the music also became much more advanced.
It began with the gregorian chant - melodies that most semi advanced students can sing after just a few minutes studying, if even that. Once they started notating it, they started doing more advanced things. Still only for monks. You think that the monks suddenly became worse musicians, or do you think that the music was too advanced to not notate?
The same with music from the 19th century. Eventually it's simply too complex, for anyone (not only amateurs, to play it without notation. Or do you know anyone who can play the Liszt sonata, or Gaspard de la nuit, without notation?

[anamnesis]

I don't expect you to understand nor can I explain it in a way that you will.  It's not until you understand music that you'll understand what I mean.  How can I possibly explain English to you unless you already understand it?  Likewise, how can I explain Spanish to you unless you already understand it?  And likewise, how can I explain music to you unless you already understand it?  Just because you don't like the explanation doesn't mean it's incorrect.  If you can explain it better, I'm all ears because I would like to know how.  Talking about tempo is a fruitless endeavor because it's incidental.  Just like talking isn't about inducing tempo, you don't purposefully induce tempo when you play music.  It's an incidental quality.

I wouldn't say it's completely fruitless.

Peter Westergaard's theory of Tonal Rhythm comes pretty darn close to articulating the ideas some performers understand intuitively. It's a Schenkerian inspired textbook that explains the tonal structure of Western music.  

The key innovation is his unification of Schenkerian-derived pitch operations with the rhythmic operations of segmentation, anticipation, and delay to form his theory of tonal rhythm, with the primacy of the listener rather than some idealized structure as the heuristic.  

I've attached the last three chapters of his book.  

Notable immediately relevant sections:

The overview in section 7.0
Page 273 on Tempo
Section 8.0 talking about time scales larger than a measure.  
Section 9.4 on Rubato.  (The entirety of Chapter 9 on performance is illuminating, and worth reading.)

[j_menz]

how can I explain Spanish to you unless you already understand it? 

You can explain Spanish to me because I understand English.

you don't purposefully induce tempo when you play music.  It's an incidental quality.

Incidental to what?

And with a new unheard piece, I find I do indeed "induce" tempo - at least at the beginning while I try and understand the range of options a piece presents.

[Bob]

It's possible "correct" has more than one tempo.  Different listeners, different ideas of what the tempo should be.  And all might be correct, even if it's not what the composer meant.  The composer only wrote the piece.  Once they've "given birth to it," the piece is on its own. 

[pianoguy711]

That, I'm afraid is something you use more as an excuse than an explanation.

"It is because I believe it" is as much the dominion of lunatics as genii. You have yet to give any evidence to lean us towards the latter in your case.

+1.  "Because I'm a musician", is not a counterpoint.  That's like writing a thesis with no references.

You can hear the individual lines very clearly at this slow tempo and follow along, but that's not the point of those lines.  It's there for textural reasons, not meaning, though it helps intensify the meaning.

  Make up your mind: is there or is there not "meaning" in those musical "lines" or is it entirely textural?

[faulty_damper]

Musicians prior to that were usually not always musicians. In the Renaissances, they usually held a well paid profession, while being musicians. In the barock period, I can't say I know. The pre-classical I just stated, and you somehow read it as the exact opposite. I said "He wrote very detailed music, for people who clearly weren't amateurs" and you replied "Yes see, plenty of amateurs!" Also, instruments were still far too expensive for the common man, which is clearly not very good for a raise of amateurism. In the classical period, the instruments were still too expensive for most people.
Then they became cheaper. But Beethoven was still before the time of the raise of amateurs. And you can't really claim that he was not detailed. Your argument is just not very accurate.

You're looking at trees when I'm describing the forest.  So obviously, it will seem like I'm describing something else. 

Or do you know anyone who can play the Liszt sonata, or Gaspard de la nuit, without notation?

I refer to a beautiful piece of music written in the 19th century that included no expressive or performing markings at all.  Just noteheads and bar lines:

Charles-Valentin Alkan: Trois Morceaux dan le genre pathetique, Op.15

[faulty_damper]

You can explain Spanish to me because I understand English.

Incidental to what?

And with a new unheard piece, I find I do indeed "induce" tempo - at least at the beginning while I try and understand the range of options a piece presents.

Do you know what your problem is?  You're a pedant when it serves your agenda.

Explain the tempo of English?  If you succeed, I'll steal it and replace "English" with "music".  Then you'll have the answer to your question.

[faulty_damper]

Peter Westergaard's theory of Tonal Rhythm comes pretty darn close to articulating the ideas some performers understand intuitively. It's a Schenkerian inspired textbook that explains the tonal structure of Western music.  

The key innovation is his unification of Schenkerian-derived pitch operations with the rhythmic operations of segmentation, anticipation, and delay to form his theory of tonal rhythm, with the primacy of the listener rather than some idealized structure as the heuristic.  

I've attached the last three chapters of his book.  

Notable immediately relevant sections:

The overview in section 7.0
Page 273 on Tempo
Section 8.0 talking about time scales larger than a measure.  
Section 9.4 on Rubato.  (The entirety of Chapter 9 on performance is illuminating, and worth reading.)

According to his own words, "most of the performer's "choices" are intuitively arrived at.  Indeed he is often not even aware of the fact that he is making a choice: the "strategies" I have outlined are more accurately described as rationalizations of the habits of performers.  Even the fundamental distinction between "understanding what the structural sense of the passage is" and "deciding what to do to make that sense clear to his listener" is misleading if taken literally.  More often than not, both are compressed into a single intuitive process. The performer looks at the page and knows what those notes will sound like and proceeds to play them that way." p. 410. Italics mine.

I came to the same conclusion.  As such, it's not an intuitively valid explanation of expression or, specifically, of tempo.  Even reading and doing the exercises, one can't possibly compose a decently good work of music.  For that, it requires understanding the language of music.

[anamnesis]

According to his own words, "most of the performer's "choices" are intuitively arrived at.  Indeed he is often not even aware of the fact that he is making a choice: the "strategies" I have outlined are more accurately described as rationalizations of the habits of performers.  Even the fundamental distinction between "understanding what the structural sense of the passage is" and "deciding what to do to make that sense clear to his listener" is misleading if taken literally.  More often than not, both are compressed into a single intuitive process. The performer looks at the page and knows what those notes will sound like and proceeds to play them that way." p. 410. Italics mine.

I came to the same conclusion.  As such, it's not an intuitively valid explanation of expression or, specifically, of tempo.  Even reading and doing the exercises, one can't possibly compose a decently good work of music.  For that, it requires understanding the language of music.

It's a listener-oriented theory, so of course it's going to be intuitive to an insightful performer! The problem is, how do we express these ideas in writings with a consistent metalanguage? That is the essence of the book: being able to communicate these ideas.  There's no reason these ideas have to stick in the realm of intuition. 

The problem of tempo and beat is the ability of the performer to provide the temporal reference points that communicates his or  understanding of the tonal structure in music.  A certain tempo range will clarify, others will obscure.  And usually the point of contentions are due to the structural ambiguities. 

[richard black]

Interesting question, and one I often ponder. Most of my playing is with singers, and vocal music sometimes seems less vague, sometimes more vague, than purely instrumental as regards tempo. Of course, composers do vary enormously - Bach, for instance, frequently puts no indication whatsoever (neither tempo nor anything else) at the top of a piece, and Handel loves 'Tempo giusto' which translates as 'The right speed' - cheers, George Frederic, that's really helpful.

Some pieces seem to find their own speed, for instance the last movement of Beethoven's 7th symphony or Donna Anna's aria 'Non mi dir' from Don Giovanni (within quite close limits in most cases), while some vary wildly, like the Scriabin referred to above of the opening movement of the 'Hammerklavier'. Some pieces I have strong views about, some not...

[j_menz]

Do you know what your problem is?  You're a pedant when it serves your agenda.

Even when it doesn't.

Explain the tempo of English?  If you succeed, I'll steal it and replace "English" with "music".  Then you'll have the answer to your question.

"The" tempo of English? English has many tempos. Some are cultural, some are for dramatic effect, and some are subconsciously driven by mood.