Talk:Metronome

Whole Beat Metronome Practice
I've been watching videos and reading some documents provided by an advocate of Whole Beat Metronome Practice. The theory is that in its original use, two swings of the metronome (left and right) were considered to represent a single whole beat. Current common practice assigns every swing to a beat. This would suggest that many pre-20th century compositions (by Beethoven, Chopin, Schubert, Schumann and many others) are today played far faster than originally intended. He presents many pieces of documentary evidence, including some that seem very strong (see, for example, this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0oh5v8hhs3Y). He also points to the absurdity or impossibility of playing many pieces (such as Beethoven's sonatas) at the prescribed metronome setting, according to the current prevailing metronome practice. And he interviews other musical researchers who have arrived at similar conclusions and published their own findings. His website is here: https://www.authenticsound.org/blog/ — I'm not sure if his blog contains all the evidence presented in his videos.

There also appear to be other sites online describing the same theory using the term "double beat metronome notation", or similar terms. And there are articles in scholarly sources that appear to reference this same theory. e.g.
 * http://search.proquest.com/openview/c5b620631a019e96/1.pdf
 * https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/nineteenth-century-music-review/article/max-reger/FDE5FA32FB9B0F873D89239EC1492DFD
 * https://www.jstor.org/stable/24762080
 * https://www.jstor.org/stable/25162336
 * https://www.quart.at/bibliothek/alle_ausgaben/nr_8_06/doppelt_so_schnell_halb_so_gut – about Willem Retze Talsma, an early double-beat theorist.

This seems a valuable subject to have a section on in the Metronome article. It seems there is both a body of modern scholarship and a rich collection of historical sources to draw from. If someone feels like making a start on describing the theory here, with the key arguments of its proponents and detractors, it would be a great addition. I may get around to it myself, but probably not for a while... Fuzzypeg★ 23:51, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

I've suggested the same thing at Talk:Historically informed performance. Fuzzypeg★ 01:06, 1 July 2020 (UTC)


 * There were surely some instances where metronome marks were misprinted as half notes instead of quarter notes, but I don't know if a wholesale doubling of tempo is considered a mainstream academic question or a WP:Fringe theory. Plenty of musicians heard the composers' own performances in the 1800s, so it's hard to understand how such an enormous mistake could have persisted for generations. Great if an uninvolved musicologist could enlighten us on the question, at some point. —173.56.111.206 (talk) 09:47, 7 March 2024 (UTC)


 * All seven external links that Fuzzypeg provided above are self-published, pay-walled, and/or German-language. It would be easier to consider this a mainstream theory to include in the Metronome article if we had some verifiable sources that English-speaking editors could review. —173.56.111.206 (talk) 18:47, 7 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Some years ago, this topic was discussed extensively on the Facebook page Historical Performance Research (see here https://www.facebook.com/groups/performancepractice/, you can join an search for threads from February 2017), where it was extensively debunked. Some of this also came up during an AMA on the Reddit page AskHistorians. Here is a link to the relevant question: https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/bhx8vj/comment/elwtgho/
 * Long story short: yes, this is indeed a fringe theory, the name of which was invented very recently to justify the artistic tastes of a handful of people. It has met with very little sustained academic support, and therefore has no place in an article on Wikipedia. Mfbxjmn2 (talk) 19:33, 8 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Good info, thanks. Mainstream research by Reddit's visiting historian (Marten Noorduin, PhD) is cited in our article, and we'll continue to omit the Dutch/German fringe theory that the experts overwhelmingly reject. —173.56.111.206 (talk) 05:12, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Possible subject for investigation: Early phonographs
The phonograph in its original iteration by Edison had no speed governor. The statement that the swing of a pendulum was used to time the turning of a crank on the original phonograph may lead on to suspect that a metronome was used. I have heard the clack of a metronome in some of the first Edison recordings. As the original phonograph of Edison had no speed governor but instead relied upon an external timer, and the metronome would have been an obvious device at hand to serve the purpose, perhaps a more industrious researcher could find some reference verifying the metronome as a device instrumental in the original development of the phonograph.74.132.40.122 (talk) 07:13, 2 May 2022 (UTC)


 * This paragraph (from a test prep service, not a reliable source) claims that Edison's original phonograph was meant to be hand-cranked at 60 rpm, once per second. If true, then the earliest users could've been guided by any convenient clock that marked the seconds. We would need an expert on early phonographs to tell us for sure. —173.56.111.206 (talk) 09:47, 7 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Pretty safe to say there weren't many clocks back then whose second hand moved in 1-second jumps, the way modern electronic ones do. The few clocks which had second hands moved continuously. &mdash;Wahoofive (talk) 17:46, 9 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Thanks. A sweep second hand would still allow viewers to get the tempo, as would any grandfather clock with a seconds pendulum. —173.56.111.206 (talk) 05:12, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Misrepresentation and neglect of historic performance practice
The article currently lacks the existing research showing that today performers and pedagogues often misrepresent (and misunderstand) historic tempo as having been metrically regular or benefiting from metronome usage.

Please help get that in the article. Here's a first suggestion.

Under the heading Stricter rhythm in modern performance practice we need a new section entitled Misrepresentation and neglect of historic performance practice, while the following content:

Not only is today's modern performance practice different from historic ones, a modern metronomic performance practice is today often used for performing historic repertoire (while being propagated as being historically correct or informed), with anachronistic results. Musicians and educators often misrepresent (and misunderstand) historic tempo as having been metrically regular or benefiting from metronome usage.


 * "[...]one of the most stubborn modern misconceptions concerning baroque music is that a metronomic regularity was intended." (ref1)


 * "Primary source evidence uncovers that historical attitudes toward metronomes were unlike those of modern-age pedagogues and performers." (ref2)


 * "the discord between Maelzel’s age and ours regarding the values of musical time and performance practices: those metronomic qualities largely rejected by Maelzel’s musical contemporaries are often vehemently endorsed today by many professional musicians and educators who apply mechanically precise tempos and rhythms to all musical repertoires." (ref3)


 * "Under a metronome-centric methodology of historical tempo research, modern scholars often arrived at anachronistic and pseudoscientific laws for musical pulse and meter." (ref2)


 * "When an entire musical culture treats one technological system as the best (or only) way to achieve the “the right tempo and rhythm,” then a mechanical hegemony over that culture has surely arisen and past epistemologies and practices have become neglected or forgotten." (ref2)

References:

ref1: Robert Donington, "Baroque Interpretation", in Grove 5th edition (1954); quoted in Dorottya Fabian, Bach Performance Practice, Chapter 1)

ref2: Bonus, Alexander E., 'Metronome', The Oxford Handbook Topics in Music (2012; online edn, Oxford Academic, 1 Apr. 2014), https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199935321.013.001, accessed 2 Apr. 2024.

ref3: Bonus, Alexander E., 'Maelzel, the Metronome, and the Modern Mechanics of Musical Time', in Mark Doffman, Emily Payne, and Toby Young (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Time in Music (2022; online edn, Oxford Academic, 8 Dec. 2021), https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190947279.013.16, accessed 2 Apr. 2024.

ref2 really is quite good, having been written for "The Oxford Handbook Topics in Music" and is fully available online. I recommend it should appear in the external links, since it is really a great reference.

JovialJediH (talk) 20:08, 2 April 2024 (UTC)