Mozart A minor Sonata K 310 - Why does everyone play the 2nd movement so slowly?

[firepanda]

I'm admittedly not the biggest Mozart fan — I don't have much of an ear for anything before Mendelssohn really — but I've been listening to more of him and this sonata is one of my favourites.  It's dramatic, it's striking, it's terse.  Mozart is at his best in the minor keys.

But... dear lord, the second movement, what a downer.  In Sokolov's performance on Youtube, the second movement takes 10 minutes.  Pires takes 9 minutes.  Baremboim, who plays everything quickly, zips through it in 8 minutes. Everyone* seems to agree the tempo should 30-35 bpm, with a performance lasting 8+ minutes, usually about half the total runtime.

However... Mozart himself gave the tempo indication Andante cantabile con espressione.  Andante should be at *least* 70 bpm (and even faster with espresso).  That means that the typical performance, at 35 bpm, is less than half the speed that Mozart indicated!  Not even my grandmother walks that slowly.

My question is: why?  Why do all the top pianists play this movement so damn slowly?  Where did the tradition of ignoring *Andante* and playing *Gravissimo* originate?  I've tried playing passages at 70 bpm and it sounds much better.  A bit crowded in places admittedly, but the melody is so much nicer when it's not being stretched out to a snail's place.

* notable exception, Glenn Gould, who has a very interesting recording.  He absolutely rushes through every movement, the second clocks in at 48 bpm (still slow!).

[bwl_13]

It's a fairly frequent problem in many classical slow movements, and this isn't even a slow movement. However, it's important to realize the different note values and how quick they are. The movement is in 3/4, but I think that's more of an indicator of the phrase length. The movement seems to be fairly consistently in eighth note motion. I'm not sure how "con espressione" is interpreted in Mozart, but in Beethoven it often means slightly slower. So, if we double the speeds written (using eighth note motion), we get to ~60-70 bpm. This is the way I hear most slow performances of this piece, as being about a few metronome notches slow rather than half the intended speed. I'll link you to my favourite tempo for this movement, Andras Schiff's perforamnce:

[youngpianist]

Honestly when people play slow movements so slooooooowly it's terribly boring. At least to me. I don't understand why people do it. To be soooo profound?

[perfect_pitch]

Okay - first of all, they way Sokolov plays it, is perfectly fine. Given the fact it involves semiquavers, and demisemiquavers... You may play it if you want at that speed, but it will sound DISASTROUS!!! It doesn't sound better in anyway... ever.

Maybe Andante 'meaning walking speed' is maybe not the most accurate tempo choice. I would definitely pick Adagio, but that's just me... but we can't question Mozart - he genuinely was a genius.

WHAT WE CAN DO however is experiment with the piece and decide which tempo we think brings about the beauty of this piece... and both Pires and Sokolov play it quite beautifully and elegantly... ELEGANTLY - something you can't get playing at 70bpm.

Maybe you're young - I don't know... but what I do know is you seem to have a habit of starting threads, and then buggering off for weeks, months and even years at a time without every following up... so I suspect that this is one of those said threads again where you've put forth your opinion and then probably won't stick around to discuss it.

[bwl_13]

Maybe Andante 'meaning walking speed' is maybe not the most accurate tempo choice. I would definitely pick Adagio, but that's just me... but we can't question Mozart - he genuinely was a genius. 

I've been thinking about this, and I think the tempi many of these respected pianists play it at IS andante. Let's consider the exact marking: "Andante cantabile con espressione". A singable/singing andante with feeling (more of less). A singer would not be able to sing at the speed of 70 bpm, not very convincingly at least. If we consider this, we are looking for an andante that works vocally, and I think we end up with an andante. The metronome was after Mozart's time, so I don't think he had a standard bpm in mind when he notated andante. He knew the performer could interpret the tempo marking, and play it with the expression he asked for. These pianists did that, and captured the spirit of Mozart's tempo.

There's plenty of other Mozart slow movements, or better yet, Beethoven slow movements, that are played painfully slowly. This is a weak example to pick for to demonstrate this legitimate point.

[firepanda]

So I've been experimenting with this some more, playing through the RH at different bpms.

I think 50-60 is the sweet spot.  Any faster and the demisemiquaver passages get too crowded and rushed — though I'm sure a better pianist could pull it off.  But at slower tempos some key sections are ruined:

* The sextuplet section in the development, at 30 bpm it sounds quite ploddy to me, but speed it up to 50 and it sounds like Beethoven!

* Also some of the delicate semiquaver passages (e.g. bar 61-64 and similar) sound great at 50+, all light and Mozartian, but this effect gets lost at slower tempi.

* This is more subjective, but I think it's a more melodic when played faster.  At slower speeds it's easier to lose the thread.

One thing is for sure though, at 60+ bpm some passages get really tricky!  The right hand sextuplets (bar 43) made my hand cramp.

Okay - first of all, they way Sokolov plays it, is perfectly fine. Given the fact it involves semiquavers, and demisemiquavers... You may play it if you want at that speed, but it will sound DISASTROUS!!! It doesn't sound better in anyway... ever.

Yeah I'm conscious I'm disagreeing with all the top Mozart pianists in the world here, it's not a good place to be. xD  But I really do think it sounds better and I've explained some of the reasons why.

Have you actually tried listening to it at different speeds?  Try listening to Sokolov's recording at 1.75x speed, some passages sound a bit distorted (it is a sped up recording after all) but other passages have a lot of new life.

[lelle]

So I've been experimenting with this some more, playing through the RH at different bpms.

I think 50-60 is the sweet spot.  Any faster and the demisemiquaver passages get too crowded and rushed — though I'm sure a better pianist could pull it off.  But at slower tempos some key sections are ruined:

* The sextuplet section in the development, at 30 bpm it sounds quite ploddy to me, but speed it up to 50 and it sounds like Beethoven!

* Also some of the delicate semiquaver passages (e.g. bar 61-64 and similar) sound great at 50+, all light and Mozartian, but this effect gets lost at slower tempi.

* This is more subjective, but I think it's a more melodic when played faster.  At slower speeds it's easier to lose the thread.

One thing is for sure though, at 60+ bpm some passages get really tricky!  The right hand sextuplets (bar 43) made my hand cramp.

Yeah I'm conscious I'm disagreeing with all the top Mozart pianists in the world here, it's not a good place to be. xD  But I really do think it sounds better and I've explained some of the reasons why.

Have you actually tried listening to it at different speeds?  Try listening to Sokolov's recording at 1.75x speed, some passages sound a bit distorted (it is a sped up recording after all) but other passages have a lot of new life.

What did you think of the Schiff recording posted earlier in the thread? I thought that one hit a pretty good spot in terms of tempo.

[firepanda]

I've been thinking about this, and I think the tempi many of these respected pianists play it at IS andante. Let's consider the exact marking: "Andante cantabile con espressione". A singable/singing andante with feeling (more of less). A singer would not be able to sing at the speed of 70 bpm, not very convincingly at least. If we consider this, we are looking for an andante that works vocally, and I think we end up with an andante. The metronome was after Mozart's time, so I don't think he had a standard bpm in mind when he notated andante. He knew the performer could interpret the tempo marking, and play it with the expression he asked for. These pianists did that, and captured the spirit of Mozart's tempo.

There's plenty of other Mozart slow movements, or better yet, Beethoven slow movements, that are played painfully slowly. This is a weak example to pick for to demonstrate this legitimate point.

This is a great point, a looser translation of Andante might be "easy going".  I definitely agree a literal 70 bpm is just too intense and cramped, not Andante at all (as least when I try to play it).  But I would also argue that 30 bpm isn't Andante either, it's feels Adagio or Largo.

I strongly disagree with your interpretation of cantabile.  Singers are capable of super agile stuff — Mozart certainly had little regard for their limits.  This 'cantabile' is bel canto, full of articulation, flourishes and portamento.  Think of Diana Damrau as "Queen of the Night", she sings semiquaver arpeggios at 70 bpm in the famous aria.

What did you think of the Schiff recording posted earlier in the thread? I thought that one hit a pretty good spot in terms of tempo.

In terms of tempo, was pretty similar to Barenboim/Pires right?

Perhaps experimenting with faster tempi has ruined my sense of the music and I need to cool off for a bit.  But my feeling is that the exposition/recapitulation (esp the ornamented sections) are quite balanced at 40 bpm.  But then the development really wants a bit more drive.

[lelle]

This is a great point, a looser translation of Andante might be "easy going".  I definitely agree a literal 70 bpm is just too intense and cramped, not Andante at all (as least when I try to play it).  But I would also argue that 30 bpm isn't Andante either, it's feels Adagio or Largo.

I strongly disagree with your interpretation of cantabile.  Singers are capable of super agile stuff — Mozart certainly had little regard for their limits.  This 'cantabile' is bel canto, full of articulation, flourishes and portamento.  Think of Diana Damrau as "Queen of the Night", she sings semiquaver arpeggios at 70 bpm in the famous aria.

In terms of tempo, was pretty similar to Barenboim/Pires right?

Perhaps experimenting with faster tempi has ruined my sense of the music and I need to cool off for a bit.  But my feeling is that the exposition/recapitulation (esp the ornamented sections) are quite balanced at 40 bpm.  But then the development really wants a bit more drive.

I'd argue that cantabile even does indicate that you don't play too slow, since a singer would run out of breath. Many pianists today forget about the goal of imitating a singer and play their phrases in such a way that you no longer feel them in "one breath", the way a singer would sing them. A good marker for tempo for any melody, in my opinion, is whatever tempo it feels natural to sing.

[lelle]

Perhaps experimenting with faster tempi has ruined my sense of the music and I need to cool off for a bit.  But my feeling is that the exposition/recapitulation (esp the ornamented sections) are quite balanced at 40 bpm.  But then the development really wants a bit more drive.

Nothing wrong with playing the development slightly faster than the outer sections. Only modern pianists who have forgotten how to make music a living, breathing thing insist that a piece has to have a metronomically exact tempo throughout

[bwl_13]

I strongly disagree with your interpretation of cantabile.  Singers are capable of super agile stuff — Mozart certainly had little regard for their limits.  This 'cantabile' is bel canto, full of articulation, flourishes and portamento.  Think of Diana Damrau as "Queen of the Night", she sings semiquaver arpeggios at 70 bpm in the famous aria.

Indeed singers are capable of some agile stuff and I'm not a singer, but I would think some of the sections wouldn't allow for breathing at 70 bpm specifically which is what I was getting at. It would be rushed and would be fighting the character of the piece (at least how I hear it).

I'd argue that cantabile even does indicate that you don't play too slow, since a singer would run out of breath. Many pianists today forget about the goal of imitating a singer and play their phrases in such a way that you no longer feel them in "one breath", the way a singer would sing them. A good marker for tempo for any melody, in my opinion, is whatever tempo it feels natural to sing.

I definitely agree. However eventually you can compress phrases so much that they become compressed and don't give room for breathing. That's what I was getting at moreso than cantabile meaning to play something slower. The "con espressione" is a more telling reason to play *slightly* slower than a typical andante.

Schubert Gb Impromptu is another piece that is andante and played far too slowly most of the time. Regardless, even at a flowing singable tempo, the bpm counting comes in far slower than what we normally associate with an andante (if counted in 2), and I don't think that's because of performers disregarding Schubert's instructions...

[perfect_pitch]

Have you actually tried listening to it at different speeds? 

I had a go of playing it at 70bpm yesterday afternoon and it sounded so RUSHED and untamed. You need to breathe after the first movement, and a second movement in a sonata (in a 3-movement Sonata) is generally slow and relaxed. Even when listening to the Sokolov at 1.75x (as you suggested), it almost sounds like a Haydn first movement.

This movement gives a piano player a moment to slow down, pace themselves and really try to play something melodic (and yes, I know most music is melodic), but usually the primary goal of a second movement is to have the most delicate, beautiful theme presented to the audience to slow them down and listen - while the third and first movements usually focus more on technical prowess while presenting a melodic theme.

Yeah I'm conscious I'm disagreeing with all the top Mozart pianists in the world here, it's not a good place to be. xD  But I really do think it sounds better and I've explained some of the reasons why.

Yes, I know you've explained some of the reasons why... and I think they're wrong... especially THIS remark:

* The sextuplet section in the development, at 30 bpm it sounds quite ploddy to me, but speed it up to 50 and it sounds like Beethoven!

...and right there is your problem. It isn't Beethoven. This is one of Mozarts mid-life Sonatas (written when he was 22), and Beethoven was 8. This ISN'T SUPPOSED to sound like Beethoven.

It's like pianists out there who try to Rachmaninoff-ionise Baroque pieces by playing them with fury and pedal galore etc... Mozart is not Beethoven.

There's plenty of other Mozart slow movements, or better yet, Beethoven slow movements, that are played painfully slowly. This is a weak example to pick for to demonstrate this legitimate point.

Any you think make more of a point than this one??? I'll admit, I do have a few favourite composers when it comes to particular sets of Sonatas, and I don't often listen to too many others - but that's only because who really has the time to listen to 10 lots of Beethoven Sonatas from differing pianists.

[firepanda]

I had a go of playing it at 70bpm yesterday afternoon and it sounded so RUSHED and untamed. You need to breathe after the first movement, and a second movement in a sonata (in a 3-movement Sonata) is generally slow and relaxed. Even when listening to the Sokolov at 1.75x (as you suggested), it almost sounds like a Haydn first movement.

This movement gives a piano player a moment to slow down, pace themselves and really try to play something melodic (and yes, I know most music is melodic), but usually the primary goal of a second movement is to have the most delicate, beautiful theme presented to the audience to slow them down and listen - while the third and first movements usually focus more on technical prowess while presenting a melodic theme.

I think we can agree to disagree on this, since we've considered and rejected each others' perspective.

We seem to have wider disagreements about performance as well. I love it when Bach can be played like Rachmaninoff! Chromatic Fantasia is the classic example — when the piece and the instrument allow for it we should try to get everything we can out of the music.  So for me the fact that Mozart can sound like Beethoven, or a second movement like an aria, is super cool, I want to double down on that.

Your point about the movement in the context of the sonata is an interesting one. Yes the second movement should provide emotional contrast, that's very important.  But in my opinion, Andante already provides sufficient contrast (plus major key, different time signature, different texture etc).  If anything, making the second movement stretch for too long imbalances the whole sonata — the first and third movements are very short after all.  9 minutes between a 5 minute run and 3 minute sprint isn't a 'breather', it's simply self-indulgent.

[perfect_pitch]

Yes the second movement should provide emotional contrast, that's very important.  But in my opinion, Andante already provides sufficient contrast (plus major key, different time signature, different texture etc).  If anything, making the second movement stretch for too long imbalances the whole sonata — it's simply self-indulgent.

This is Mozart we're talking about - not some 2-bit composer trying to break out of his shell. You don't think Mozart is allowed a little self-indulgence???

This is MOZART for goodness sake. He was rather self-indulgent in his works, in his belief about his genius... what's wrong with that? He has a long, rather breathable middle movement which is topped off by a dazzlingly fast, menacing (albeit short) but very bold and formidable last movement... what's wrong with that?

What are your thoughts on Beethovens Sonata No. 16, Op 31. The middle movements almost twice as long as the first... is there a problem there?

[lelle]

What are your thoughts on Beethovens Sonata No. 16, Op 31. The middle movements almost twice as long as the first... is there a problem there?

I know it's not me you asked but personally I think that sonata kind of sucks haha. The second movement is so damn long and not particularly interesting, I don't know what he was thinking with that one.

[bwl_13]

I know it's not me you asked but personally I think that sonata kind of sucks haha. The second movement is so damn long and not particularly interesting, I don't know what he was thinking with that one.

I love this sonata and I think that movement is intentionally overindulgent and long as a sort of parody of what Beethoven is not (though he can't resist to be daring in some places). The entire sonata is one long joke, there's more obvious and even subtle consistent attempts at humour throughout this sonata than in any of the other 31. If you look at any other Beethoven slow movement, he almost never uses the filigree decorative runs and long ornamental passages the way he does in the G Major.

[brogers70]

I love this sonata and I think that movement is intentionally overindulgent and long as a sort of parody of what Beethoven is not (though he can't resist to be daring in some places). The entire sonata is one long joke, there's more obvious and even subtle consistent attempts at humour throughout this sonata than in any of the other 31. If you look at any other Beethoven slow movement, he almost never uses the filigree decorative runs and long ornamental passages the way he does in the G Major.

One of my favorite Beethoven stories (as reported by Czerny) is that one evening he was improvising for a group of people and played such a long, Romantic, filigreed bit, like the slow movement you are referring to, that most of the audience was moved to tears, unaware that it was a parody. At which point he stood up and berated them for being stupidly sentimental.

[bwl_13]

One of my favorite Beethoven stories (as reported by Czerny) is that one evening he was improvising for a group of people and played such a long, Romantic, filigreed bit, like the slow movement you are referring to, that most of the audience was moved to tears, unaware that it was a parody. At which point he stood up and berated them for being stupidly sentimental.

Even if that story isn't true, it's quite hilarious and in character of what Beethoven seemed to be. Thank you for this fun anecdote.

[lostinidlewonder]

Tempo ranges overlap a lot look it up on google, they are not so fixed values. Also go ahead and speed up the recordings, 25% is pretty much max until it sounds stupid and no longer has the andante character. Think of tempo markings as a character rather than a mathematical speed. I think if you think it's too slow you are far to rushed in your own life, slow down

[anniex]

Wow, I’ve just joined piano street after searching for some guidance on the speed of this movement, and being pointed to this thread from Google. It has always seemed to be played too slow to me, and perhaps more importantly, often inconsistently. It was great to read this thread. I have set my metronome to 50 while I explore what ‘strict time placement’ would sound like - and it’s very different from the more liberal extremes often heard. The metronome is a PITA, but useful for getting a sense of tempo and placement whilst deciding on how to shape things yourself. Even 50 feels pretty fast in places .. but I wonder if that has more to do with what we are used to 🤔.I shall persevere for a while, then set it aside and see where I end up. Thanks for your thoughts everyone, very useful and insightful. 😊