Beethoven's Pathétique Movement

It's a shame that nobody is answering this question and I am certainly the least suitable person to do so.

Anyway, my advice is that you get "Beethoven's Piano Sonatas" by Charles Rosen where you will find, I think, the - or a - answer.

I say I think because, beyond the very technical analysis that Rosen performs on all of Beethoven's Sonatas - and thus also on the Pathetique - there is a more general discussion regarding tempo in Beethoven and thus also the Adagio which seems to me capable of satisfying your question satisfactorily, albeit indirectly.

The issue of metronome markings is one of the most debated in Beethoven; one must filter the interpretations you have heard through the contributions of philology, which is a relatively young discipline. Certainly, Beethoven indicated speeds that can be followed literally or recontextualized by taking into account factors that have now irreversibly changed since the time the works were composed. The dimension and power of the instruments' sound, the size of the hall, and no less important, the historical memory we have built up through Beethovenian listening experiences, which can go beyond the parameters described above.

Besides, in music, and especially in a certain specific repertoire, what matters most is the fact that the tension-driven discourse is respected, which cannot depend solely on the "metronome" parameter.

danielescarpetti wrote:

Anyway, my advice is that you get "Beethoven's Piano Sonatas" by Charles Rosen where you will find, I think, the - or a - answer.

Great text that one must possess and study

.... without forgetting Charles Rosen: "Sonata Forms"

I have them all Frank, but I started from "the classical style"

@Frank
"interpretations that you have listened to must be filtered through the contributions of philology, which is a relatively young discipline."
-> My considerations and the subsequent creation of the post developed after observing the score of this movement and then listening to (or before) the following numerous performers specifically to gain more information about it: Kovacevich, Barenboim, Jussen, Yundi, Brendel, Kempff (who tends to play it faster among these), Gould, Pollini, Ashkenazy, Gieseking, Arrau...

"Dimension and power of the sound of the instruments, size of the hall, and no less the historical memory that we have now built up during Beethovenian listening sessions, which can go beyond the parameters described above."
-> I realize that indications, for example regarding tempo/movement, have their limits in their nature; they are "simple" indications and performers themselves can, without distorting their meaning, interpret, precisely... This in general terms...
Returning to my post, as a student, I pose the problem and try to understand and interpret and play according to the models created and/or adopted by the composer; I myself have difficulty in "respecting" all this, but I consider it part of the game, hoping to improve my technique over time and with experience.
A debate on interpretation I believe approaches infinity and that is not the subject; I thank @danielescarpetti for the text he indicated to me, but following the post and relating it to what is read or studied, I struggle to.........It's like when you make a cake; it's as if the recipe indicates, I don't know, 50g of sugar and we put in 100g; probably the cake will be "better," improved, sweeter, fluffier etc., but it is not what is indicated by the recipe... Roughly speaking, this is how I see it today.

@Frank
"Besides, in music and especially in a certain specific repertoire, what matters most is the fact that the tension-driven discourse is respected, which cannot depend solely on the "metronome" parameter"
-> I agree, but then at this point why should a composer insert them? Why should they be respected? At this point they would seem almost useless, wouldn't they? I don't want to dwell or appear "harsh" in what I write; the more I play, the more I study and the more I "try" to understand, but believe me, the doubts remain: listening to interpretations and reading what can be written about them means that probably "everything is interpretable," which may be right, but I believe that respecting what a composer has written is an obligation (and I say this as someone who sometimes doesn't do it at all); otherwise (and I'll conclude) rather than interpreting at the piano, one should compose at the piano (and that is what I aspire to); only in this way will interpretations (I believe) be "unique" and unambiguous (so that people like me will have nothing to criticize, as in this case).

I am in a huge rush but I will respond quickly at least to this point:

campanella700 wrote:

so at this point why should a composer insert them?

I am a composer and I indicate the metronomes

How can you play one of my pieces without these indications? Now, in your opinion, when I decide on a tempo, based on which sonic context am I referring? That which exists or that which I can imagine

In 300 years, how will they play my RachTime?

And who knows

Forgive me if I get pragmatic, but I think Beethoven had the same needs

It is not by chance that they are called metronomic INDICATIONS and not metronomic OBLIGATIONS.

It is clear that the tempo of a piece must be indicated, because while it is true that music suggests the tempo, it is not always so, and it is normal for it to be susceptible to changes depending on many things.

Let us also remember that today's pianos are not like those Beethoven used. Today, a note on a modern piano can last up to a minute and a half. In that era, 20 seconds were perhaps even too many.

Everything must be reviewed by the performer and, as such, "interpreted" with taste but also with as much rigor as possible regarding the composer's intentions.

campanella700 wrote:

-> I agree, but then at this point why should a composer include them? Why should they be respected? At this point they would seem almost useless, wouldn't they? I don't want to dwell or sound "harsh" in what I write; the more I play, the more I study and the more I "try" to understand, but believe me, the doubts remain: listening to interpretations and reading what can be written about it means that probably "everything is interpretable," which may be true, but I believe that respecting what a composer has written is an obligation (and I say this even though sometimes I don't do it at all); otherwise (and I'll conclude) rather than interpreting at the piano, one should compose at the piano (which is what I aspire to); only in this way will interpretations (I believe) be "unique" and univocal (so that people like me will have nothing to criticize, as in this case)

Frank wrote:

I am in a huge rush but I will answer quickly at least to this point:

I am a composer and I indicate the metronome markings

How can you play one of my pieces without these indications? Now, in your opinion, when I decide a tempo, based on which sonic context am I referring? The one that exists or the one I can imagine

In 300 years, how will they play my RachTime?

And who knows

Forgive me if I get pragmatic, but I think Beethoven had the same needs

I think the point of the matter lies precisely in Frank's answer and it is also what Rosen essentially highlights in his book: two centuries have passed since Beethoven composed his Sonatas, instruments—and in particular the piano—have completely changed, and the context in which we listen to music and our perception of it has also changed.

Beethoven conceived those sonatas on an instrument completely different from the one used today, for concerts of 20 or 30 people in often small halls. Today, the same Sonatas are performed in venues that can hold thousands of people with a musical sensibility that is no longer that of that time.

As Rosen states: <Playing a piece of music at the wrong tempo is not a crime... it is erroneous to believe that a tempo we feel comfortable with today must be the correct one.> and this is for the reasons I listed before.

Vow, however, let it be clear that this does not mean what many think—or have thought in the past—that when a tempo is not congenial to us, Beethoven himself was wrong in assigning the metronome markings—which can also happen, as it happened to all composers—but simply that we must think about those decisions by contextualizing them within their historical period.

In general, Beethoven's Adagios in our time are performed more slowly than in his era, but there are reasons for this which are, I repeat, to be sought not only in those already expressed by me but also in a change in the cultural character of the classical music listener who has higher cultural demands. This phenomenon began precisely at the end of the 1700s, when listening to the music of great composers was no longer a restricted audience of nobles or clergy, but an audience that increasingly drew from the emerging bourgeoisie and which then developed further in the following centuries, leading up to today where classical music is a heritage available to everyone—if one so wishes, naturally.

But even pianos today encourage a slower tempo because, to the listener's ears, it makes it far more fascinating compared to those of Beethoven's time, which were certainly not suitable for a hall with very large receptive capacity.

From all this and from other things as well, an interpreter today has very good reasons to opt for tempos that Beethoven could not have imagined in his time and that, back then, he would not have justly approved.

Asking whether he would do it today or not is of no importance and is a useless question because what is truly important is to see how music from the past, through ever-new interpreters, can, from generation to generation, remain always current and immortal.

And thus, we come to what is the central role of the interpreter, which is and will remain essential so that the music of the past never becomes a museum piece but remains living music.

@Frank

As you yourself wrote, you are a composer and obviously, always following what you have written, through the staff and all the indications you insert, you want your music to be played following practically everything that you yourself have put in black and white, right? At least, you are simply trying to indicate, I believe I understand, how the music you composed was thought out, created, etc...

Metronome or not, I believe that historically the first composer to use this instrument was Beethoven, but I have read that in his time some imperfections could occur, for example by reading the metronome "while sitting" or "standing up," so even if the relative interpretation was also written there, it must still, unfortunately, be taken into account...

@TheSimon

Exactly, indications are defined and not obligations, but my reasoning is this:

1) Assuming we are all students

2) Assuming we study a subject (classical/ancient music) that is not possible to reproduce exactly and/or faithfully as it was conceived...

3) Assuming that tempo indications "allegro" "andante" etc. allow us to "understand" the "speed" of the piece but, being indications, these last ones can and/or must be interpreted

4) If all of us, in general terms, want to study and/or understand a subject, we need someone to teach it to us; this is always in general terms

5) If we study and are taught that these tempos must and can be respected, I have posed these questions :

1) In general terms, is it true that an "adagio" is faster than "lento"?

2) If the answer is yes, I say this: you are a boy playing an "adagio cantabile" for me in 2/4 with quarter notes at 30 BPM, I say "perfect, very good, I liked it, I appreciated your playing" etc. etc., but then I would ask "now play it 'lento' for me please": how "lento" can that piece be? The answer could be "it is lento following that boy's interpretation and therefore cannot be totally or completely contested," and on this I can agree, but in this way, don't you think too much space is left to, precisely, interpretation?

I do not want to impose my thoughts, but I am eager to manage to understand and clear the doubts from my head

@danielescarpetti

"But even pianos today encourage a slower tempo because to the listener's ears it makes it far more fascinating compared to those from Beethoven's time, which were certainly not suitable for a hall of very large receptive capacity."

Right, so does this mean that we "pianists" can adopt this reasoning?
"Okay, this piece was composed 'this way', but we have instruments that allow us to make a much slower tempo far more fascinating to the listener's ears; let's play it in this other way"

"Wondering whether he would do it today or not is of no importance and is a useless question"

I apologize for the question itself, if in some cases the latter may be of no importance and is useless

"To see how music from the past, through ever-new performers, can, from generation to generation, make itself always current and immortal."

I agree on this, but I wrote that I have listened to many performers—obviously each has their own nuances, characteristics, and details—but such is the case that timeliness or generational turnover, alas, were not found in the performances I listened to, since, as stated, interpretative details, which are absolutely natural given they are different pianists, but overall different eras did not overturn everything; on the contrary

(Connecting back to the initial question: many pianists who play, in my opinion, an adagio cantabile that is too slow, and I expressed this perplexity specifically by creating this post)

"And thus, here we come to what is the central role of the performer, which is and will remain essential so that the music of the past never becomes a museum piece but remains living music"

Exactly, send me some links to some interpretation that in this case can truly revive this music; send me an interpretation faithful to the score that truly makes a difference; Gould in Bach excluded

campanella700 wrote:

@danielescarpetti

"But even pianos today encourage a slower tempo because to the listener's ears it makes it far more fascinating compared to those from Beethoven's time, which were certainly not suitable for a hall of very large receptive capacity."

Right, so does this mean that we "pianists" can adopt this reasoning?

"Okay, this piece was composed 'in this way', but we have instruments that allow us to make a slow tempo far more fascinating to the listener's ears; let's play it in this other way"

"Wondering whether one would do so today or not is of no importance and is a useless question"

I apologize for the question itself, if in some cases the latter may be of no importance and is useless

"To see how music that comes from the past, through ever new performers, can, from generation to generation, make itself always current and immortal."

I agree on this, but I wrote that I have listened to many performers—obviously each has their own nuances, characteristics, details—but such is the case that relevance or generational turnover, alas, were not found in the performances I listened to, since, as stated, interpretation details are absolutely natural given they involve different pianists, but overall, different eras did not overturn everything; on the contrary

(Connecting back to the initial question: many pianists who play, in my opinion, an adagio cantabile too slowly, and I expressed this perplexity precisely by creating this post)

And thus, here we come to what is the central role of the performer, which is and will remain essential so that the music of the past never becomes a museum piece but remains living music"

Exactly, send me some links to some interpretation that in this case can truly revive this music; send me an interpretation faithful to the score that truly makes a difference; Gould in Bach excluded

I am sorry if I gave you the impression that your question was useless; that was certainly not my intention.

The interpretation of the Adagio from the Pathétique is now consolidated in this manner, and you yourself say that you like it this way, if I remember correctly. And so, I continue to wonder why pose excessive problems on this issue? I think one can betray a composer; it has been done abundantly with Bach, so why not do it also with Beethoven or with any other composer.

I am not a fanatic of philology, but I am not its detractor either, and so, let's do this: if you want an interpretation faithful to the score, you can play it yourself and send the link so we can see what effect it has!

This is where talent and musical sense come into play. If a musician is sufficiently sensitive and intelligent, after taking note of the metronomic indications and after studying the music with that imposed metronome, they must have the ability to listen to themselves. To immerse oneself in the music and make it alive. Within the musical "rendering" itself lies the right tempo for that instrument and that hall. It only takes experience, study, and talent to embark on the right path.

Some time ago, I recorded a Debussy that everyone said was too fast, but with that instrument, in that musical context, for me that was the right tempo. When I play Debussy's first arabesque, images of nature come to mind. A lake mirror, a waterfall, animals going to drink at this little pond, chasing each other, playing together. I perceive all of this in a dynamic way and, in my opinion, most interpretations of Debussy's Premiere Arabesque are slow, static. Nature is in continuous motion. The wind moving the blades of grass. This is an example of how it is possible to understand tempo, while always remaining within the musicality and the author's intentions.

I am posting it for you.

Open content (youtube)

@danielescarpetti
"if you want an interpretation faithful to the score, you can play it yourself and send the link so we can see what effect it makes!"

That is exactly my fear, "disconnecting" from what the music would or should convey...
Beyond everything (and to close), I will try to be even more blunt and obviously I ask for your opinion on the matter...

You have to solfeggio a piece...
The tempo is "adagio cantabile"; the time signature is 2/4...
In the first measures there are only two musical figures; 2 quarter notes per measure: at how many BPM do you "beat" these quarter notes etc?

I don't want to insist or be pedantic and thus become fossilized on the metronome, but I write this indication on one hand and ask it on the other in order to receive a "unique" judgment

Thanks again

I am only reading this now. It is difficult to answer these questions. The indication of tempo is as relative as the metronomic one. Let's start from there. One must learn, I believe, to understand the atmosphere of the piece and the correct tempo in relation to many factors.

A cantabile is always difficult. The "slow" tempo of Beethovenian sonatas frightens everyone. I remember that in the Conservatory many students chose op. 31 no. 3 and I wondered why? Answer: it is the only sonata that does not have a slow movement. Finding the right relationship between sound intensity and duration produces a good cantabile, the most difficult thing to achieve on our instrument!

Regarding the piece in question, achieving an adagio cantabile is difficult. Sustaining the sound is difficult, as is phrasing the first measures (it would be better to study it without pedal, trying to find the right division of parts between the right and left hands). The singing must "stand out" above everything else. The piece, which repeats the theme supported by sixteenth notes and even triplets, "challenges" the singing itself!!!! Let us remember that Casella himself says in his wonderful book "Il Pianoforte" (The Piano), that to play legato, there is nothing to be done but to play quite loudly. Naturally, not all parts. This piece, a staple for beginners, is actually very difficult precisely because it teaches how to "dualize" the weight of the right hand and how to properly balance the bass notes. Three well-distinct voices; this is what should be aimed for. The metronome marking, more or less, I believe is irrelevant.

Finally, I think that the metronome, as a work tool, should only be used as a reference; instead, one must develop "Our" metronome within ourselves, which is also made of much flexibility and good taste. This way, furthermore, one learns to master the alterations of the base tempo in different situations. For example, in concert performance, there is a tendency to accelerate tempos. Nothing more natural, due to the slight acceleration of the heartbeat and therefore to the alteration of the psychological minute-second. Try it to believe it, by recording yourself.

In short, many things.

The tempo indication is relative, as is the metronomic one.
Obviously they can be considered, as stated, indications; in fact, the question concerns the "union" of "execution speed" and "time indication," expressing my doubts between "execution & indications"

I will try to read the text by Casella that you indicated