Beethoven's metronome markings

General
1

An interesting article here:

They spend a lot of time on data showing that conductors take the symphonies about 20% slower than Beethoven’ s marks would indicate, which is kind of common knowledge anyway. That part isn’t interesting.

Then they discuss the mechanics of Beethoven’s metronome and can’t come up with any way that the thing could run consistently slow. That’s pretty interesting, since it rules out a common explanation.

Then they come up with the elegant idea that Beethoven might have been reading his metronome wrong. If he was reading the tempo marking at the bottom of the weight rather than the top, that would give about the required differential.

The clincher - at least until someone comes up with a better explanation - is Beethoven’s marking on the first page of the 9th symphony: 108 oder 120 Maelzel

If you put the weight so that it reads 108 at the top, it reads 120 at the bottom, which seems to indicate that Beethoven was unsure how to read the thing. That tempo marking doesn’t make any sense otherwise.

I can’t believe that nobody thought of this before. It’s extremely elegant.

2

That’s a most interesting article Stuart! The Maelzel device obviously did not come with a PDF user manual in 6 languages or a warranty card.

3

In fact, all joking aside, the authors make the same point:

“The most probable hypothesis is that Beethoven or his assistant misread the device, which should not be taken as a foolish mistake, but as a symptom of a design that had yet to be perfected, and that still lacked the cultural context to support its new users.”

4

Regarding the ‘108 oder 120 Maelzel’ mark, all of Beethoven’s other documented metronome makings (principally those recorded in 1826) are single values, not alternatives or ranges.
How likely is it that Beethoven, several years after having been introduced to the metronome by Maelzel himself, was still in doubt as to how to read the calibrated rod (at the upper or lower edge of the weight) or, if he actually referred to the instrument in this instance, was momentarily discombobulated by it?

The circumstances of his making this annotation – unlike those of the performance information eventually sent to the Philharmonic Society in London in 1827 – are unknown, but is it not more likely that, at the moment of making it, he was simply undecided about the preferred pulse?

With best wishes for 2022,
Lewis.

5

In modern times, virtually all conductors regarded Beethoven’s metronome markings for the 9th as ridiculous, especially for the Adagio molto e cantabile, so it was customarily played very slow, to the desperation of wind instrument players who found quite a challenge with those long sways without a breath. Then Norrington decades ago decided to record the Adagio (in one of the earliest recordings with period instruments) following exactly Beethoven’s metronome. It many not be “molto”, but I have the recording and since the very first time I heard it I thought how remarkably this fast tempo sounds very natural indeed. Norrington’s CD booklet notes are worth reading.

6

There is apparently an alternative view: that Beethoven intended his music to be played at half the speed we are used to. See here

The same person, Wim Winters, is advertising a recording on clavichord of Pachelbel’s Hexachodrum

All nice and controversial from many perspectives to warm us up on a winter’s day in the northern hemisphere!

David

7

A propos Beethoven’s 9th
This is extremely refreshing ! (sorry, in wintertime):

By the way, happy new year !
with dearest Scarlatti (no metronome markings…

Martin G

8

Hi Martin,
Thanks for your pastoral Scarlatti & images- 5 minutes of delight on a rainy and grey (in Galway) January day.
Michael S

9

Thank you so much, Michael.
I’ve read this today.
Pleasure !
M

10

Greetings … Well, this preliminary marking on the 9th symphony could also indicate that Beethoven thought other people might be unsure of how to operate the thing. Musical notation is intended for communication, which implies two (at least) people. If the potential for confusion exists, it does not imply Beethoven himself was confused, let alone systematically mistaken.

Indeed the Maelzel marking is potentially misreadable by non-experts - though my piano teacher never had a moment of doubt that it should be taken from the top of the weight - and the original machines were definitely easier to read from the top, see Johann Nepomuk Maelzel - Wikipedia).

It seems a stretch to assume that Beethoven, being alive at the same time as Maelzel, meeting him in Vienna and having had a large degree of communication with him, and becoming as a consequence a quite strong advocate of the metronome, would have made this basic mistake throughout nearly a whole decade without there being some tangible record that he had made a mistake.

For example, there might be an entry in his conversation books saying ‘Damn that Maelzel, I have been taking his tempo from the bottom of the weight all this time when it should have been the top! Now I will have to get Steiner to re-engrave all the pages with those stupid numbers. But at least I can get it right for my 9th symphony!’.

But, there is no such evidence of Beethoven being aware of making a mistake.

The ‘clincher’ in this context is … that 108, as a tempo for the 9th symphony first movement, is also a lot faster than almost all 20th century conductors take it. Even ‘period’ experts. Probably even more than 20% faster.

So the theory utterly fails to explain the case it ought to explain perfectly : the discrepancy between Beethoven’s marked tempo (108bpm) and the ‘usual’ tempo for the very movement where this marking appears (70-80-ish). Norrington’s first movement at only quarter=82 already sounds fast enough to elicit objections. Even the posthumous consensus marking quarter=88 is ‘too fast’ relative to almost all recordings.

The ‘from the top’ tempo 108 is, though, consistent with his other ‘too fast’ tempos in being … well, too fast. Just like the Hammerklavier first movement. Whatever one may think of the ‘108 or 120’ marking it doesn’t do anything to reconcile Beethoven’s numbers with 20th century performance.

Beethoven somehow - despite knowing Maelzel personally - screwing up how to read the metronome is a ‘clever’ proposal that has been made several times, but it turns out to be superficial, illusory, and not a solution to anything. There are still possible psychological explanations for ‘too fast’ markings - eg the difference in perception between playing a piece ‘in one’s head’ or on the piano, vs. it being performed by a full orchestra in a hall - and we will have to be satisfied with suchlike for the time being.
(Much the same could be said for Schumann’s markings.)

Some of the same points are made in a nice article here - metronome marks for Beethoven’s Ninth Symphony in context | Early Music | Oxford Academic

11

Here is a rather bittersweet view on this topic - Peter Stadlen - Wikipedia

" Stadlen spent many years trying to track down Beethoven’s metronome, an invention which Beethoven had commissioned. It was believed that the weight on his metronome was faulty as some of the speeds written on his pieces seemed incorrect. He wished to ascertain the make-up of this weight and to see the correct speeds which Beethoven himself had intended. He finally tracked it down to a small antiques shop only to discover that, although the metronome itself was intact, the weight itself was missing."