Correspondence
2022; Oxford University Press; Volume: 50; Issue: 2 Linguagem: Inglês
10.1093/em/caac026
ISSN1741-7260
Autores Tópico(s)Bach Studies and Logistics Development
ResumoI am writing in response to Marten Noorduin’s article ‘The metronome marks for Beethoven’s Ninth Symphony in context’, Early Music, xlix (2021), pp.129–45. Regarding the Trio of the second movement, Noorduin gives arguments in favour of the minim = 116 found in some early sources, as well as of the alternative interpretations minim = 160 (according to Noorduin, the likely tempo at the first Viennese performance) and semibreve = 116 (in accordance with the Prestissimo pencil marking on the autograph) and leaves it to the performer which option to choose. Since I was dealing with this issue already three decades ago (‘Zur (doch nicht richtigen!) Metronomangabe des Presto im 2. Satz von Beethovens IX. Sinfonie’, Das Orchester (1991), pp.406–7), I should like to add two examples that give more evidence for semibreve = 116. The fourth movement of the String Quartet op.18 no.5 (Allegro) has minim = 76, thus semibreve = 152. While the passage from bar 44 onwards shows an almost identical structure with the Presto Trio under discussion (slurred crotchets in scales), there are also many places with quavers, which are very scarce in the Presto. Since it is just an Allegro, the almost identical solution of minim = 160 for the Presto would be still too slow, let alone the even slower tempo of minim = 116.
Referência(s)