Piano Forum

There is no reason to believe that the metronome marking was to the double tick. Some people adhere to this notion because they cannot fathom how to execute at the speeds earlier performers called for. The heaviness of many modern piano actions contributes to the illusion of impossibility. Yet the truth is that none of the controversial metronome markings are actually impossibly fast, even on a modern instrument.

Accepting the metronome markings implies believing an astonishing lack of musicality amongst the leading musicians or that all their metronomes were faulty.

Yep. Pretty much, you said it. I regularly speed up videos on Youtube to 1.5x or even 2x, especially of Bach, and sometimes of Chopin. Many modern recordings are senselessly slow.

Take Nocturne Op. 27 #2 for example, which has a notably controversial original metronome marking. Chopin wrote Lento Sostenuto, 50 BPM to the dotted quarter. Most people think, "In what world is 50 BPM to the dotted quarter Lento Sostenuto?"

In reality, 50 BPM is very much Lento Sostenuto in comparison to other waltzes, which run easily 80 BPM to the triple step. Note also that at 50 BPM to the dotted quarter, the run in measure 52 reaches 1200 BPM, which is one note every 50 ms, and is in fact nearly as fast as the human ear can possibly distinguish. (Notes register as simultaneous when struck 25-30 ms apart.) This is very intentional; I believe it to be the fastest passage Chopin ever wrote! So the intended tempo of this Nocturne is actually quite well constrained; it can't go any faster because the fastest run would blur, and it can't go any slower because the base dance rhythm would be lost. Chopin very helpfully wrote 50 BPM to the dotted quarter to tell us exactly where the sweet spot was.

And yet what do modern recording artists do? They conclude that 50 BPM is "senselessly fast" and then they play this Nocturne so slow as to destroy the underlying waltz of the piece. "An astonishing lack of musicality", indeed. Valentina Lisitsa also noticed the general slowness of peoples' performances of this Nocturne - she accordingly called her own performance of it "far under tempo" even though it's faster than most others.

Modern performers also ignore a lot of contemporaneous evidence from spectators of Bach & Beethoven describing them as playing "very fast" (no specific piece), "as fast as was possible on the instrument" (premiere of Piano Concerto #4) respectively. Moreover, because concert halls were smaller, instruments were built lighter and faster, so "as fast as possible" was likely even faster than we may think. martinrdb, the previous poster, doesn't believe this, and would likely claim that I've never played such an instrument. I have. And I stand by the usual assertions.

If you've ever played a clavichord, you know that the speed boundary for a run is aural, not instrumental. It's much easier to play a run so fast that it just turns into a glissando. It's actually harder to do so on a modern hammer-action piano, because the hammers take time to travel to the string. Piano builders have worked for centuries now to get the hammer action up to the speeds once enjoyed by the clavichord. Yamaha is basically there. Steinway has long lagged in the quality of its actions, but I think even a Steinway can do it now.

The conceit is that we all get used to what we have heard, and think it sublime merely because it is what we are accustomed to and know, irrespective of the actual challenges posed.