Post by Charles Z.Although the bricks have been flying plentifully, I cannot see where
anyone tried to answer the main point of the original question, and I
quote myself: "What research or scholarship has informed these tempi
choices?" Except Sybrand, who replied that written descriptions exist,
and mechanical devices from Haydn's time. I don't see the specific
relevance of devices from Haydn's time, 50 or more years, give or take
a few, after Bach's Cothen and early Leipzig periods. As for written
descriptions, how can they possibly indicate tempi?
You must be a very careless reader, since this has already been explained
to you.
Post by Charles Z.Unless they are broken down into minutes on the clock somehow.
Yes, Charles. People in the 18th century had clocks, and knew how long a
minute and a second were.
Post by Charles Z.I don't know whether or
not seconds were easily measurable in the early 18th C.
If that's true, maybe instead of palavering about it, you should try to
catch up on some basic education. The pendulum clock was invented by the
Dutch mathematician (and somewhat unorthodox musical theorist) Christiaan
Huygens in 1656. By the early 18th century, there weren't just plenty of
extremably reliable clocks around, there were also reliable pocket watches.
More than reliable enough for determining musical tempi, anyway -- you
don't need split-second accuracy for that, even an average personal
heartbeat which you've first checked against a clock will do just fine if
you don't have a clock around.
Post by Charles Z.In any case,
I'm just speculating, as these written descriptions have not been
described or analyzed for us here.
By that, I take it you mean "nobody has taken the time and effort to try
and summarise a large volume of musicological and historical research into
one short, easily digestible newsgroup post, because I can't be bothered to
read the actual texts myself, and want other people to do my homework for
me."
Post by Charles Z.My question as quoted above is not meant as sarcastic or rhetroical,
but as a simple fact-seeking question. Can anyone answer it plausibly?
You seem to have missed the fact that people already have: DYOH.
Post by Charles Z.If not, all we are giving here is opinions, not facts.
All your posts so far do indeed seem curiously devoid of facts.
Post by Charles Z.Except for one fact which I wrote elsewhere in the thread and will
repeat here: when the Cum Sancto Spiritu from the B Minor Mass is
played at current day accepted speeds
Since you're so adamant about "facts", please specify what these "current
day accepted speeds" are, and who "accepted" them (what does that mean,
anyway?). Have you done some kind of comparative study of all existing
recordings of BWV 232, and determined the MM numbers for movement I-12 for
each of them? I'd love to see those numbers, and for each of them, a list
of the people who "accepted" them. I happen to like facts.
Post by Charles Z.the pair of triplets by the trumpet in the final phrase is blurred
and lost to the ear, and the climax of the movement is thus very much
weakened, its musical meaning really lost.
*That* is a statement of "fact", not of "opinion"???
Post by Charles Z.This is something else nobody on the "HIP side" of the thread
has addressed, and is invited to address now.
Are you very, very new to Usenet, or just a troll? Where on earth do you
think you got the power from to determine what issues other people should
"address" or not? If people think you're asking stupid questions, or
non-stupid questions that have already been answered a thousand times over
and can easily be answered with a bit of research (online or, perhaps,
*shudder*, in a real library), they're unlikely to feel any need to respond
to you. Making *really* stupid statements, like doubting whether people in
the 18th century had clocks, doesn't help things.