NOTATIO

Another point, as devil's advocate: the idea of performing an entire movement in one tempo is a relatively modern concept, and certainly not one which existed in the time of Beethoven. (I can imagine its not even existing before the 1950's.) Why should the opening 'exordium' at the beginning of the first movement, which is theatrical and gestural, be in the 'maximum' tempo? As much as I admire Schabel, his rendition of the first few bars at only about half = 120 misses the point of an exordium. The passages after that work actually quite well at 138.

I too am an admirer of Schnabel's playing, but I'm not sure that I followed you there. Do you think that he played the 'exordium' too fast or too slow?

Sorry, I was indeed unclear. I think Schnabel tried to play those first few bars as close to Beethoven's MM as he could and it just didn't seem to work, not necessarily because he was unable to play it at that speed but because such a theatrical initial gesture ('Friends, Romans, Countrymen, lend me your ears.') loses impact when it's too fast. I'm not against the tempo fluctuating considerably during the movement, though. Perhaps Beethoven's MM was more of an admonition not to play the passage starting at b. 4 too slowly. I also think that there can be a big difference between an 'imaginary' tempo and an 'actual' tempo.

Thanks for your input, Vaughan. I think that's a really good point. One might use much less pedal when playing this section on an instrument of Beethoven's time. For me, the syncopated repeated note accompaniment in the right hand also cries out for the sustaining pedal when played on a modern instrument. That might not be the case on a Beethoven era piano. It is clear, however, that Beethoven was not in love with the pianos of his time since he was constantly trying to find a better one.

(On a personal note, my favorite piano is the Steinway concert grand. I like it because it sings with soul and I can make it do whatever I want it to do in terms of balance and registration; it doesn't fight me. Instruments that have big distinctions in register impose their will on a player. I don't like that.)

The mental v.s. actual tempo phenomenon, coupled with Beethoven's deafness has long been used as an argument against some of the tempos in op. 106. However, it fails to account for the fact that only a few of Beethoven's metronome markings are so controversial (he did generally mark brisk tempos in his Symphonies, for example, but nothing really unusual) and some have even been considered too slow. It also assumes that Beethoven assigned these markings mentally. I find it far more likely that he did what most do: sit down and play while testing with the metronome. But my conclusions about the markings in op. 106 were based on internal evidence, i.e. passages that fall flat at slower tempos, rather than the metronome controversy, which will never end. So it is just personal opinion bolstered by some of the reasoning that went into it.

Of course, as I mentioned previously, "...the tempos should be modified as needed for expression, as with any piece by Beethoven." According to contemporary reports (Schindler), Beethoven played quite freely, modifying the tempo to capture character and mood. Schindler's report is supported by the fact that Beethoven's piano music thrives on this kind of approach. Applied to some other composers, Mozart, for example, it is disastrous.

David Ward wrote: ↑20 Oct 2019, 07:22 Has anybody here heard Igor Levit's recording of Op 106? I expect he has the mechanical technique to play all movements at metronome speed: but does he?

David, I finally was able to listen to Levit's performance (the live incomplete one on Youtube) and found it close to my own conception of the piece, although I prefer the third movement at Beethoven's metronome marking. The others were at Beethoven's prescribed tempos. Also, I view the character of the first and last movements as joyous, positive and even a little humorous, along with the heroics. Forbidding, not at all. I would have liked to have heard more of that in his performance.

One additional point of internal evidence for the original metronome indication of the first movement: the long opening pedal mark. The abrupt, "powerful" "silence" that follows the main two- measure motive is an integral part of its character. Beethoven cements the opening two statements of the motive together with a long pedal mark. At a slow tempo this can kill any sense of a cut-off in measure 2. (This is particularly true on a modern instrument, and I think Beethoven was counting on less sustaining power as with several of his other pedal indications.) Only at a fast tempo is the character of the first statement preserved. This can be heard in Levit's live performance at
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6JhWhxR7eyI