Debunking Wim Winters

[pianoman53]

This is my first video on the ridiculousness that is Wim Winters - the whole beat guy.
I hope you appreciate it!

[medtnerfan]

Nice

[the_ts]

A for effort 

[keypeg]

nm.  deleted. The tone bothered me. moving on.

[lostinidlewonder]

I don't see how there can be any confusion at all with metronome markings. They are a mathematical representation of how many beats occur in a minute. I guess some people are poor at maths lol.

[keypeg]

It would probably be good to go see what Mr. Winters has to say, study his material, and listen to him play, rather than just go by a representation given by someone else.  I'm puzzled why a teacher would talk of a colleague in this manner, to students, or what we are meant to learn from this thread.  ("a youtuber", "the whole beat guy").  I have the impression of someone who had an argument, got blocked, is still angry and got even by posting in the student forum (of all places).

[perfect_pitch]

I'm puzzled why a teacher would talk of a colleague in this manner, to students, or what we are meant to learn from this thread.

Same reason we make fun of people who believe in aliens... because for every idiot who believes something stupid, is another ten who hang on his every word. I mean, look at how many idiots believe that music in A=432hz is better than the original. It's NOT!!!

It's how religion started... and no offence, but his recordings are absolutely awful, dull, boring and without any gravitas or bravura... and we all know that Beethoven wasn't some pansy who played nicely on the fortepiano.

[dogperson]

It would probably be good to go see what Mr. Winters has to say, study his material, and listen to him play, rather than just go by a representation given by someone else.  I'm puzzled why a teacher would talk of a colleague in this manner, to students, or what we are meant to learn from this thread.  ("a youtuber", "the whole beat guy").  I have the impression of someone who had an argument, got blocked, is still angry and got even by posting in the student forum (of all places).

Before you defend William Winters, perhaps you should listen to his treatise and his playing of the classics.  No one is being mean or dismissive in saying his theories are invalid and the playing is poor.

[ronde_des_sylphes]

It would probably be good to go see what Mr. Winters has to say, study his material, and listen to him play, rather than just go by a representation given by someone else.  I'm puzzled why a teacher would talk of a colleague in this manner, to students, or what we are meant to learn from this thread.  ("a youtuber", "the whole beat guy").  I have the impression of someone who had an argument, got blocked, is still angry and got even by posting in the student forum (of all places).

The OP plays a LOT better than Wim Winters. I've heard them both.

[klavieronin]

Here is my argument against Wim Winter's thesis;

In Chopin's time the "Revolutionary Etude" was considered a great virtuosic work. Here is Wim Winter's interpretation in what he claims is the "Real Historical Tempo".

At this tempo it is barely an intermediate piece. I not convinced.

[ronde_des_sylphes]

At Wim's tempo, Dreyschock's celebrated feat, unreplicated until very recently, of playing the lh in octaves would just fall under standard lh octave technique.

[brogers70]

Ouch, that's awful. It loses a lot by the very slow tempo, but it loses even more by not having a convincing line in either hand. Not that I think the original metronome markings for anything are sacrosanct, but cutting the tempo in half obviously does not work here.

[keypeg]

Before you defend William Winters, perhaps you should listen to his treatise and his playing of the classics.  No one is being mean or dismissive in saying his theories are invalid and the playing is poor.

To make it clear: I did not "defend" Mr. W.  I do not like how this was presented, especially if by someone saying he is a teacher, addressing students.  There perhaps two items at most mentioned, and the tone itself was personally dismissive, "whole beat guy" and "the Youtuber".  It also came across as personal resentment being dumped into a forum; not an attempt to teach students.  When I taught, we did not refer to colleagues in that way, to students, regardless of how much we might disagree.

No one is being mean or dismissive

When someone is referred to as "whole beat guy", that is dismissive and disrespectful.

in saying his theories are invalid

His theories have been paraphrased and reduced.  I would not know his ideas from what was on that video.

... you should listen to his treatise and his playing of the classics.

That treatise, and the playing, consists of numerous presentations.  Some time ago my teacher and I looked at it.  Rather than a quick reduction and derision, we actually studied the ideas, considered the music, took it apart, saw merit, lack of merit, dubiousness or not, possibilities, looked at historical vs. modern.  THIS is what I would expect when a teacher presents things of this nature to students.   Never was the person whose ideas we looked at called names.

I would not ascribe to slowing the time of work down to double slow, across the board.  Otoh, playing has tended to get faster and faster as in "look how impressively fast I can go", with nuances disappearing and so on.  That is a general theme coming from my teacher over and over as we look at this and that as a whole at other times.  We look at historical performances, how time was treated by master pianists when recordings first came to be - how standards and what is considered good taste changes over time - how the nature of the instrument as it evolved influenced things, etc.  Our look at Mr. W's ideas was also in that context.  Personally this is how I prefer things presented as a student, by a teacher.

I don't know if I made my sentiment more clear.  Were this presented in the same elsewhere I probably would have felt differently.  It was also late, I should have been in bed, and feeling particularly grumpy.

[keypeg]

At this tempo it is barely an intermediate piece. I not convinced.

I am not arguing for that slower tempo.  Rather, this sentence struck me - sort of a feel to it that being able to play fast, or fst, is advanced.  Certainly some skills are needed to be able to play fast, and beginners need to play slowly in order to get the notes.  But also - this has often been pointed out to me - it is harder to play a piece more slowly, because lack of nuance sticks out; you can hide things in your "fastness" and it can become impressive to others merely through its fastness.   We have looked at pieces, incl. Chopin etudes, where gems written into the music are usually hidden by the fast playing.  It would take more skill to play more slowly, than to rattle off a piece fast.  At the end of the day, what you do with a piece, and why, is what matters.

[cuberdrift]

If anything, pianists in the 19th century likely played faster on average.

Apart from the obvious fact that the keys were lighter, recordings from early pianists (Cortot, Schnabel, Rachmaninoff, etc.) seem to verge on the "faster" side. Rach for instance played through the Rach 3 itself in only 30 minutes. And Scriabin's recording of his own Op. 8 no. 12 is breathtakingly fast. Schnabel recorded the Hammerklavier at tempo, which is rarely done.

We can only imagine what power houses Liszt, Anton Rubinstein, Thalberg, and the likes were. They probably lacked the nostalgic sentimentality and depth of tone prevalent in today's playing. Music was likely more youthful and impulsive and not clinically clean, precise, and perfectionistic.

That is how I imagine the 19th century virtuosi to have played.

Heck, modern Joplin recordings are often draggingly slow, compared to the rather brisk tempo indications on the ragtime scores. Supposedly because they're "not to be fast". "Not fast" means not like a race car, but not slow, either. Dance music will be dance music. And this is in comparison to the players of Joplin's time who often weren't even classically trained.

[keypeg]

If anything, pianists in the 19th century likely played faster on average.

Yes.  One reason also was that the pianos were different, notes did not sustain for as long, and this by itself led to a different kind of playing.

What interests me are ideas and observations like this.  I see things such the ideas of WW as a springboard.

[samwitdangol]

What do you all think about his tempo for the last movement of Beethoven's Moonlight Sonata? His reasoning makes sense to me, though I am an expert on that and I prefer a faster tempo. Perhaps one could play the thirty-second notes without slowing down.

[samwitdangol]

Same reason we make fun of people who believe in aliens... because for every idiot who believes something stupid, is another ten who hang on his every word.

How can you not believe that extraterrestrial life exists? Considering how large the universe is, it's not a stupid belief at all.

[pianoman53]

A few weeks ago, I made a comment that this site had gone too passive to be really interesting.. I guess it just needed some drama 😅

If  Wim was a person who just liked playing in a slow manner, and simply argued for more beauty and care for details, I'd be on his side arguing for him. Now, however, he has been dismissive against other professionals, misrepresented the litterature abd called the rest of us idiots.
Especially as a teacher, I should argue against this, since it can harm young, talented musicians (who might just have had a disagreement with their teacher). A person in his position, who's knowingly mislead so many people doesn't deserve politeness, in my opinion.

[ronde_des_sylphes]

What do you all think about his tempo for the last movement of Beethoven's Moonlight Sonata? His reasoning makes sense to me, though I am an expert on that and I prefer a faster tempo. Perhaps one could play the thirty-second notes without slowing down.

Probably this has arisen through tradition, something like viewing it as a free cadenza type passage? In any case it isn't really that difficult to play it with the tempo constant throughout, so at very best all he is really drawing our attention to is a misreading.

[keypeg]

A few weeks ago, I made a comment that this site had gone too passive to be really interesting.. I guess it just needed some drama 😅

I see. 

I suppose one effect this thread will have, is to get a lot of students to wander over to Wim's site and study what he's on about. 

[pianoman53]

Oh, so we should avoid everything that's bad to make sure no one finds out about it? Cause that'll totally work.

I also like how you took this part of my message, not the actual answer.

And if thosd students saw my video first (sinceit'smy thread, so to say), they would see that Wim is wrong  😊

[dogperson]

Oh, so we should avoid everything that's bad to make sure no one finds out about it? Cause that'll totally work.

I also like how you took this part of my message, not the actual answer.

And if thosd students saw my video first (sinceit'smy thread, so to say), they would see that Wim is wrong  😊

William is equivalent to a flat-earth proponent —- a Lot of bullhorn theories but no substance.  Unfortunately, he creates a stir and followers who want to believe they can play advanced repertoire very soon

[ranjit]

When I taught, we did not refer to colleagues in that way, to students, regardless of how much we might disagree.

The medium of communication matters, as well as personal preference. I don't see much wrong with the guy's tone of voice provided the recipient of his diatribe has got his arguments egregiously wrong. A stronger tone of voice can dissuade someone more emphatically from a more polite tone of voice. One way to look at them is like different tools or modes of expression. Disliking a confrontational tone is fine, but that doesn't make it 'wrong', because it may be justified as at least in the guy's estimation, Wim Winters is doing people (and especially impressionable students) a great disservice by propagating his theories and cherry-picking facts.

THIS is what I would expect when a teacher presents things of this nature to students.   Never was the person whose ideas we looked at called names.

This honestly sounds like a personal bias against harsh criticism. Also, this isn't really a teacher presenting something to students, it's more of debunking a particular theory. If you look at videos on Youtube debunking the 432 Hz, theory, they tend to be similar.   I don't see it as an objective analysis. It's a warning for newcomers to be careful of this theory. I don't see it as wrong, I wouldn't have known what he mentions in his video regarding the earlier part of the treatise if I hadn't watched the video, so in that way he's done me a favor. Also, I wouldn't necessarily agree that standards of "professionalism" apply on Youtube as much as they do in the real world.

Otoh, playing has tended to get faster and faster as in "look how impressively fast I can go", with nuances disappearing and so on.  That is a general theme coming from my teacher over and over as we look at this and that as a whole at other times. 

Indeed, this "half time" theory seems to be capitalizing on people going the other extreme once they have been ticked off from the modern impressive fast playing.

As an interesting aside, tempo has some reasonably objective components. There is a relation between the perception of tempo and heart rate. 120 bpm is "normal". Around 130 bpm is commonly used for dance music, as it's slightly above the "base" tempo. Given this, the double beat theory looks even less likely. Try dancing to a waltz at 65 bpm.

A few weeks ago, I made a comment that this site had gone too passive to be really interesting.. I guess it just needed some drama 😅

Haha well... looks like you've succeeded. Since you're making a series about it, you might look into the point about heart rate and tempo, and see if it leads you somewhere. Maybe compare tempos across cultures or look up some studies idk. Oh, and there's a very well-known theory that Beethoven had arrhythmia, and that affected his compositions.

[perfect_pitch]

But also - this has often been pointed out to me - it is harder to play a piece more slowly, because lack of nuance sticks out; you can hide things in your "fastness" and it can become impressive to others merely through its fastness.   

No... if you have really good trained ears, you can't hide anything - it just easier to identify when it's slower.

Also, you realise this jack-arse gets paid $6K from other patreon users to advertise his idiotic theory.

You know what... I'm going to make a YouTube channel where all I declare all pianists are wrong and are interpreting the music incorrectly... the composers really read the music upside down.   

[samwitdangol]

In Chopin's time the "Revolutionary Etude" was considered a great virtuosic work. Here is Wim Winter's interpretation in what he claims is the "Real Historical Tempo".
At this tempo it is barely an intermediate piece. I not convinced.

I prefer a faster tempo and I am not defending that tempo choice, but perhaps what is considered virtuosic today is not the same as what was considered virtuosic in the past.

[pianoannieq]

I prefer a faster tempo and I am not defending that tempo choice, but perhaps what is considered virtuosic today is not the same as what was considered virtuosic in the past.

If anything, the virtuosos of the past played even faster than today's concert pianists. I believe part of this was due to the different structure of the piano, but they still would've played fast nonetheless.

[klavieronin]

I am not arguing for that slower tempo.  Rather, this sentence struck me - sort of a feel to it that being able to play fast, or fst, is advanced.  Certainly some skills are needed to be able to play fast, and beginners need to play slowly in order to get the notes.  But also - this has often been pointed out to me - it is harder to play a piece more slowly, because lack of nuance sticks out; you can hide things in your "fastness" and it can become impressive to others merely through its fastness.   We have looked at pieces, incl. Chopin etudes, where gems written into the music are usually hidden by the fast playing.  It would take more skill to play more slowly, than to rattle off a piece fast.  At the end of the day, what you do with a piece, and why, is what matters.

The point I was trying to make is that if this piece was meant to be played at Wim Winter's tempo would anybody have considered it a virtuoso work? Mozart's Sonata Facile has to be one of the most difficult pieces in the standard repertoire to play really well but who describes it as virtuosic?

[keypeg]

I'm still assuming that since this was posted in the piano forum by someone stating at the start that he is a teacher, that it is meant for education.  If you want students to explore an idea, then that idea has to be there for students to look at.  So here is the information that seems to have been forgotten.

https:// www.youtube.com/channel/ UC8vR6VP-3o_SpdnEBrpYGiQ

(I had to break up the link to stop it from trying to become an embedded Youtube video and crash.)

The summary in the first video was not at all complete enough for me to get an idea.

[keypeg]

The point I was trying to make is that if this piece was meant to be played at Wim Winter's tempo would anybody have considered it a virtuoso work?

Can you define "virtuoso"?  If 'virtuoso' means  something like athletics, is that a desired thing?  You had originally talked about levels, I think. 

[klavieronin]

Can you define "virtuoso"?  If 'virtuoso' means  something like athletics, is that a desired thing?  You had originally talked about levels, I think.

My mistake, I meant virtuosic (adjective) not virtuoso (noun). In that case a virtuosic work is one that requires great technical skill to perform.

[lostinidlewonder]

I'm still assuming that since this was posted in the piano forum by someone stating at the start that he is a teacher, that it is meant for education.  If you want students to explore an idea, then that idea has to be there for students to look at.  So here is the information that seems to have been forgotten.

The problem is that we don't all live forever and some ideas will lead you astray and waste valuable time. Well... at least in this case it might produce more lazy musicians who are satisfied with practice tempo and consider it mastery at a performance level, oh and not to forget the delusional elitist type attitude that needs to be applied to that since as it is slower it is of course closer to what the composer actually intended and everyone else who plays faster is mistaken. Why don't people just use their ears?? The dragging nature of the slower tempo doesn't improve anything at all. To put question to this and making students distrust their ears does this even help at all?

[achoo42]

Thank you for your contributions.

Wim's theories are like the Flat Earth theories—one would think that they are far too nonsensical to gain ground but somehow both have thousands of followers.

[achoo42]

If anything, the virtuosos of the past played even faster than today's concert pianists. I believe part of this was due to the different structure of the piano, but they still would've played fast nonetheless.

When you look at the recordings from early 20th century masters like Barere, Hoffmann, and Cortot, this would seem to be the case. It seems that tempi used to be far faster and then gradually became slower to accompany the heavier and sonorific nature of modern pianos. To hypothesize the opposite seems completely disingenuous.

[lettersquash]

This is all new to me, and very interesting! But I don't see much in the way of debunking, and nobody seems to be discussing the actual hypothesis. So I went to check out a couple of introductory videos of his. I'm not educated enough in music and its history to judge carefully, so I'd like some of you to watch and actually "debunk" if you can.

There is a problem I'd like to point out with some of the arguments put forward so far against the hypothesis.

First, that we should listen and know that these are being played too slowly, "dragging", etc. We ought to be careful, because we have become accustomed to particular tempi, and we live in a very different world and auditory culture than existed 200 or 300 years ago. At first, anything will seem wrong if it's not how we expect it to be, faster, slower, whatever.

Second, I don't think we can conclude that keyboardists played faster in the past because "keys were lighter" or the instruments didn't have the resonance of a modern piano. Keyboards like the harpsichord or clavichord had no dampers, so their notes rang as long as the string could vibrate, and those instruments were heard in small rooms, not enormous concert halls, so listeners would hear the notes ringing. Dissonances created by a change of chord will be more obvious if time is not allowed for the notes to die.

Anyway, all I'm doing there is debunking the hand-waving, which isn't enough. Here's the couple of introductory videos I've watched, one on the basic hypothesis, the other looking at descriptions of maximum number of notes per second from earlier centuries. The second one is clearer (although neither I find particularly easy to digest, and his scrawling on the whiteboard I'd have to study a lot more to have a chance of understanding).

If (a) early music has many ridiculously fast metronome indications that people just don't take seriously, and (b) the maximum notes per second of 10-12 is a reasonably fixed physiological condition (or even near it), he seems to have a couple of very persuasive arguments.

[ranjit]

I think the true speed limit is closer to 14-15 notes per second. Also, I am pretty convinced by the argument that rhythm is closely tied to heartbeat, and so there is a"universal rhythm". I have heard that this is the reason why 120 BPM is the 'standard' tempo, dance music is usually around 132 BPM, etc. I believe that Strauss waltzes are around 132, and so is EDM. It would be weird if everything was played at half tempo at some point in the past.

That, and the fact that it just sounds atrocious.

[ronde_des_sylphes]

(if)

the maximum notes per second of 10-12 is a reasonably fixed physiological condition (or even near it), he seems to have a couple of very persuasive arguments.

But here is the point. It isn't, and there is a vast amount of empirical data pointing to this within the virtuoso repertoire. Firstly, it is quite possible to play 20 notes a second in the right figurations, and secondly when he presents this "fixed maximum" he tends to argue things like "it can only be attained in short bursts" and other such cherry-picking which ignores material such as Alkan's Comme le vent.

He's a crank with subpar technique, I'm afraid.

[ranjit]

Firstly, it is quite possible to play 20 notes a second in the right figurations

Right, I had forgot about that. About 14-15 notes per second is about the limit for scales with one hand. You can go faster with arpeggios and other kinds of passages. The fastest are probably five-finger patterns spanning the keyboard.

[lettersquash]

But here is the point. It isn't, and there is a vast amount of empirical data pointing to this within the virtuoso repertoire. Firstly, it is quite possible to play 20 notes a second in the right figurations, and secondly when he presents this "fixed maximum" he tends to argue things like "it can only be attained in short bursts" and other such cherry-picking which ignores material such as Alkan's Comme le vent.

But these are historical quotes about the maximum at the time. We might play 100 notes a second. I thought he was relating their maximum to the notated metronome figures of the time. It would fit with the hypothesis that we can and do play a lot faster now.

He's a crank with subpar technique, I'm afraid.

Yeah, pretty subpar.

[klavieronin]

I'd be happy to accept that some composers in the past used the metronome the way Wim suggests but I think he attributes that metronome reading to too many composers. Chopin is a perfect example. The etude posted above when played in octaves by Dreyschock (a contemporary of Chopin) was supposed to be a feat of utmost virtuosity. However, at Wim's tempo, even I could play that etude in octaves. And believe me, I'm no virtuoso.

[ronde_des_sylphes]

But these are historical quotes about the maximum at the time... It would fit with the hypothesis that we can and do play a lot faster now.

Yeah, pretty subpar.

Yes, his playing IS truly mediocre. Actually, this following example is excruciatingly poor for a purportedly professional musician - unexpressive, bizarre rubati, etc

He also cherrypicks quotes about tempi of the time. We have actual recorded concert timings from the 19th century (George Smart et al) which do not support any argument that tempi have changed appreciably. He deletes and shadow bans people from his channel when such information is brought up. We also have historical recordings from the generation of Liszt pupils, and of Saint-Saens eg

What we don't have are any serious accounts which say "virtuoso x set a trend by playing Chopin / Liszt / Beethoven twice as fast as they themselves did"..

Nobody, I think, is arguing that he can't just play pieces slowly if he believes they sound better that way. What we are taking issue with is his dogma that this is how they were played.

[lostinidlewonder]

First, that we should listen and know that these are being played too slowly, "dragging", etc. We ought to be careful, because we have become accustomed to particular tempi, and we live in a very different world and auditory culture than existed 200 or 300 years ago. At first, anything will seem wrong if it's not how we expect it to be, faster, slower, whatever.

When I play something I have never heard before I also can notice a "dragging" tempo when I am practicing it slowly and am encouraged to increase the speed to match what it should sound like. To say we are totally commanded by being accustomed to hearing something means we have no musical sense and cannot understand the difference in tempo. We can do all sorts of tempo alterations to suit an interpretation but the amount suggested in the OP is just mindless and musically tasteless.

[j_tour]

When I play something I have never heard before I also can notice a "dragging" tempo when I am practicing it slowly and am encouraged to increase the speed to match what it should sound like. To say we are totally commanded by being accustomed to hearing something means we have no musical sense and cannot understand the difference in tempo. We can do all sorts of tempo alterations to suit an interpretation but the amount suggested in the OP is just mindless and musically tasteless.

That's very nicely said.

I admit I still struggle with what are undoubtedly "telegraphed" as slow, or at best, "stately," tempi in Bach's Suites, I don't think it's possible to generalize — not with any conviction, at any rate — about historical attitudes toward tempo.

Obviously, everyone knows that a "presto" for Haydn is not necessarily the same as for Scarlatti, much less for XIXth C composers.

That's not in dispute.

But is it really any question at all upon just reading a score at the keyboard that a certain tempo suggests itself?  Perhaps not to the exclusion of all variation:  certainly not.

However, one does have certain elaborations or eccentricities, like in the 1955 Gould Goldberg's, where even the simplest variations are taken at a rather brisk pace indeed. 

To my mind, maybe a bit excessive in the Aria (not by much, but a little bit), but within a reasonable band of lattitude. 

I don't know the majoritarian opinion of musicologists about that example, but it seems to me that some flexibility should be allowed.

Provided such a variation in tempo pass one simple test:  would the "average reasonable pianist" derive a similar tempo by reading the piece from cold, with no former knowledge of the piece.

I don't think there can be any question that people who are experienced at reading widely recognize certain cues, whether on the page or from the music represented thereon.  Just like nobody has to read every single staff to know if it's an Ab chord in first inversion, or whatever.

[lettersquash]

Yes, his playing IS truly mediocre. Actually, this following example is excruciatingly poor for a purportedly professional musician - unexpressive, bizarre rubati, etc

Er, yeh, granted. I was truly astonished to hear him play the Mozart on clavichord, which to me was deeply moving and timed to perfection, with stunning trills and sensitive rubato, but his piano playing seems pretty dire, I have to admit. Thanks.

He also cherrypicks quotes about tempi of the time. We have actual recorded concert timings from the 19th century (George Smart et al) which do not support any argument that tempi have changed appreciably.

Bearing in mind I'm just exploring the subject and know very little about the history of music, I was allowing vaguely in the back of my mind for the possibility that there was a relatively sudden shift in playing styles (increasing tempo generally) before such time as recording technologies came in, perhaps with the fairly sudden boom in the middle class urban population. In other words, I thought this might reasonably be true of baroque composers, then a shift with the Industrial Revolution to a more virtuosic competitive playing. But I accept this may be fanciful.

He deletes and shadow bans people from his channel when such information is brought up.

Well, while not a definitive argument against someone's hypothesis, that certainly doesn't look good.

We also have historical recordings from the generation of Liszt pupils, and of Saint-Saens <snip>

Yeah. And I was all ready to consider that early recordings might be speeded up - Charlie Chaplin walked damn fast - but it seems to be in key, which it would not be if speeded up. Again, this would require the "industrial" shift to a suddenly mad approach to new composition and a sort of accidental, projected shift in the playing of early music. It does look increasingly unlikely, and I imagine 15th Century lutenists' fingers were as agile, and their musical ear as discriminating, as five centuries later.

What we don't have are any serious accounts which say "virtuoso x set a trend by playing Chopin / Liszt / Beethoven twice as fast as they themselves did"..

Again, I think the hypothesis doesn't indicate that everything was played at half the speed, because it asserts that generally people don't/didn't approach the indicated tempo, because that was always double the intended tempo of the composer. He makes that quite clear, that when you slow down, you don't play at half the usual pace, because "nobody" (generally) plays it at the double speed anyway. I keep seeing this mistaken "debunking", like people saying that a concert billed at 4 hours would have taken 8.

Again, I can't judge these issues, since I don't know how often players/orchestras play at under the indicated tempo, nor by how much. However, he cites some evidence (I forget what) that this is often, or on average, between 30% and 70% of the indicated tempo (however, this undermines the "it's not half the speed" argument, since 50% is exactly that!).

Nobody, I think, is arguing that he can't just play pieces slowly if he believes they sound better that way. What we are taking issue with is his dogma that this is how they were played.

Sure. Thanks. And I have to say I was partly interested in this because I do very often like music played slower than it is normally performed. My own (possibly whacko) hypothesis is that as we learn pieces, there is a natural tendency to play them faster than "optimum" (by which I mean, taking all into account, musicality, which is obviously also subjective), and hence, as composers write pieces, I imagine there is often the same tendency, to write something slowly, enjoying the dissonances, working out the cadences, then gradually forget the expressive qualities they discover as the piece unfolds and they gradually speed up. Obviously, some composers will imagine a fast tempo in the first instance, when this wouldn't apply.

I have noticed this tendency a lot in my own composition, however (much of which is on guitar). I'll work out chord changes and fingering very slowly (just as I do when learning someone else's piece) and then, as I get "better" at playing it, I'll get a kick out of the pace of it and my apparent increase in musicianship, sometimes switching to a different instrument because that allows the faster tempo to work. Then, sometimes years later, when I've half forgotten it, I rediscover the tempo I intended, and all the richness of the original expression comes back to me too.

So my "theory" is that a lot of music, by the time it's published, is faster than optimal, and even the composer doesn't realise it. Often we forget that there is great musicianship required in playing something slowly; it seems obvious that it's going to be easier because it's slower.

But yeah, that's not about the dogma, it just added to my interest in the hypothesis.