Da WIM MAX ZPEED inveztigazheeyat cummah!


It’s common with editions - Czerny’s marking is probably the 72, while the 101-132 in parenthesis is the editor’s suggestion.

Unless the file has been edited from a Belgian IP address in recent months :lib:


Da DOC is not amused by da WIM!



The editor is borderline agreeing with Wim, in effect… 108= half speed tempo.


It sounds like that’s exactly what he is :wink:

I used to be, but this rant has overstayed its welcome by now - especially the way he now advertises it as an established fact.


I strongly suspect the only obstacle to playing it in octaves at this tempo is fatigue.


It sort of does redefine the genre. Wim’s way all the difficulties are transferred to the listener instead. :yum:


In the comments, he promises, I mean threatens, to “perform” all the chopetz at the “authentic tempo”.


“if you are excited for the next etude…”



The 10/1 tempo makes da :pimp: sightreading it a rather banal non-achievement.


I think the best thing, if such an aspect exists, is that the slow tempo lays completely bare how profoundly unmusical his “playing” is. It’s devoid of phrasing, dynamic variety and anything which might be interesting, apart from the odd completely unintentional pseudo-agogic accent.


Incidentally, I don’t know what the consistency were with 18th and 19th C metronomes (I do think both Schumann’s and LvB’s were off, not least since Liszt said so), but I really think tempos in piano music were faster back then because of the instruments. I keep both an upright and a grand at home, and the lighter action of the upright really does invite you to play faster - especially in virtuosic works. Add to that the lighter sound of instruments from the time as well and da x-mofo’s speedy gonzales theory of early romanticism is complete.


I’ve been thinking about this from my own rather niche viewpoint of paraphrases…

And actually, if the performances of operas are, for the sake of argument, still in similar tempi to what they were in 1840, then we have an absolutely cast-iron indication of what speed the likes of Liszt and Thalberg were capable in various types of figuration! We can reasonably infer that they wrote stuff like the three hand effect to wrap as many notes around the melody as feasible, and with the melody tempo being defined by the very nature of them reconstituting the original material, we have enough data to evaluate all this nps stuff.


Yeah I made the exact point to my self yesterday. He will probably say that also vocal music has been affected by this


Yeah, and the Ring cycle used to take 24 hours :wink: :clock1:



Remainin tru to da cauze



This is another idea actually. Since it’s a factor of two we’re talking about you should be able to get an indication of the veracity of da wim mofo’s theory even by eye witness reports from concerts. A normal, standard looking recital program from mid-1800s or so. Did it take 3 hours or 6?


No, he just thought it through fully and realised that 90 min D960s would be part of the equasheeyat :smiley:


Well, indeed. Hence a comment I made earlier about von Bulow programming op 101, 106, 109-111. Marathon even given today’s tempi. By wimtempi, hell on earth.


Though we don’t know if they retained the speed of the melodies in their paraphrases. Some might very well have been played slower just to make time for all the filigree, and others might very well have been played faster since they often are on piano. This is randomly something I wish more 88 mofos would take in to account. There is a lot to be learned from listening to singers, and in operatic or rhetorical passages you almost can’t play too slowly - just as when speaking in public.


I doubt the melodies would be mutated to 50% speed, because then they’re almost unrecognisable. Plus or minus 20, yes, I’m fine with that: it falls within the bounds of reasonable interpretative choice.