MARTEN NOORDUIN Czerny's 'impossible' metronome marks / would like to thank my supervisor Barry Cooperfor his help m the preparation of this article. 1. Linde Grossmann: 'Czerny in der zeitgenössischen Klavierpädagogik', in Dominik Sackmann, ed.: Carl Cferny: Komponist, Pianist, Pädagoge (Mainz, 2009), pp.97-129. 2. See Carl Czerny: On the proper performance of Beethoven's works for the piano, ed. Paul Badura-Skoda (Vienna, 1970). 3. For a more detailed discussion of Czerny's non-pedagogical works, see Randall Keith Sheets: 'The piano sonatas of Carl Czerny', PhD diss., University of Maryland, 1987; and David Gramit, ed.: Beyond the art of finger dexterity: reassessing Carl C^erny (New York, 2008). 4. Anon.: 'Joh. Sebastian Bach's Klavierwerke', in Allgemeine Musikalische Zeitung vol.48 no.i8 (6 May 5. Johann Sebastian Bach: The well tempered clavichord, ed. Carl Czerny (London, 6. Johann Sonnleitner: 'Czernys rätselhafte Bach- Tempi oder: Versuch über die variable Art das Metronom zu gebrauchen', in Bach-Interpretationen, edd. W HILE Carl Czerny was one of the most fashionable composers of his time, he is mostly remembered for his etudes and exercises, many of which are still used in piano lessons today.' In addition, Czerny's comments on Beethoven's compositions, most notably for the works for piano,^ are also still used by performers and teachers. Since these instructions supposedly represent Beethoven's opinion, however, they do not provide us with clear information on Czerny's musical style. Only recently has there been an effort to rediscover his sonatas, concertos and other compositions, many of which require a great deal of technical ability.' Czerny's editions of Johann Sebastian Bach's works for keyboard were the most complete and important at the time of publication.'' They were claimed to be at least partly based on Beethoven's playing, but the editor's opinions also had a lot of influence in the editing process.' Czerny's metronome marks for both his own works and for Bach's have been criticised in modern times for being almost impossible to play due to their high speed,*^ an instance of which can be seen in ex.i. While bar 24, with demisemiquavers in the right hand at a speed of 552 notes per minute, seems to be realistically performable, the next bar is much less so. During the first three beats of bar 25, the demisemiquaver sextuplets are supposed to be played at a speed of 828 notes per minute. During the last beat, with ten notes in the right hand for every quaver in the left hand, the speed increases to an improbably fast 1380 notes per minute. While the smoriando indication at the second half of the last beat may provide the pianist with some relief, the difficulty is again increased by Czerny's indication that this passage should be repeated ten times. Because of these technical demands, and perhaps also because of the sometimes poor musical content in these works, Czerny's etudes have not often been recorded. In the few recordings that have been made the suggested speeds are at best approached, and only attained, in a few pieces.'^ The extreme velocities demanded in ex.i are not an exception, and similar Hans-Joachim Hinrichsen & Dominik Sackmann (Bern, 2003), pp.i46-7- 7. [Balázs Szokolay:] 'Carl Czerny piano works', Youtube, accessed 14 May 2012, www.youtube.com/play listHist=PLCD22oc)yoDc,i63 4zy&feature —plcp (Youtube playlist on the artist's own channel with videos containing the tracks of his Czerny CD from 2000 — the CD is no longer available). Szokolay's recording of a selection of Czerny's etudes often stays far below Czerny's indicated speed: no.39 from the School of velocity for example is played at a speed of around 80 crotchets per minute, while Czerny indicates 104. THE MUSICAL TIMES Winter 2013 19