Authentic Sound Podcast

00:05 Introduction22:13 I. Allegro con brio1:01:06 II. Marcia funebre. Adagio assai1:41:55 III. Scherzo. Allegro vivace – Trio1:42:59 IV. Finale. Allegro moltoIn this fourth episode of our Beethoven Listening Guide, Alberto Sanna and I turn to Beethoven’s Third Symphony, a work that feels less like the next step after the Second than like the opening of an entirely new world. We discuss why this symphony became such a decisive moment in our own recording journey, how its level of complexity pushed us to set a new standard for the whole cycle, and why the result convinced us that several earlier symphonies had to be recorded again.The conversation moves through the symphony movement by movement. We begin with the first movement’s aristocratic breadth, its rhythmic architecture, and Beethoven’s astonishing ability to build overwhelming tension from the simplest material. From there we enter the Marcia funebre, one of the most profound movements in the cycle, where questions of pulse, grief, solemnity, fugue, and emotional pacing become central. We then touch on the scherzo as a necessary release after such devastation, before arriving at the finale, where Beethoven turns variation, fugue, dance rhythms, and theatrical contrast into a conclusion of inexhaustible invention.Again and again, this episode returns to the same core question: what becomes audible when Beethoven’s metronome world is taken seriously? In the Eroica, the answer is not merely a different speed, but a different Beethoven: noble rather than aggressive, structurally lucid rather than merely forceful, and emotionally overwhelming without ever losing control. This is one of the richest and most revealing episodes in the series. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit wimwinters.substack.com/subscribe

In this third and final episode of our Carl Czerny trilogy, we return to Op. 299, the School of Velocity, and listen to selections from the final ten etudes, comparing my upcoming recording with modern performances by Vivian Harvey Slater and Leslie Howard.But this episode goes beyond finger technique. We look at Czerny’s strange historical position: Beethoven’s student, Liszt’s teacher, a hugely successful musician, yet today remembered almost exclusively for his studies. Behind that narrow image lies a much richer figure, shaped by Metternich’s Vienna, by musical conservatism, and by a large body of serious works that remained unpublished during his lifetime.As always, the question of tempo is central. These etudes are not merely technical exercises. They are a revealing test case for the difference between Single Beat theory and Whole Beat practice, and for the limits of what the human hand can actually do at the keyboard.A closing episode about velocity, forgotten music, historical reality, and the hidden Carl Czerny. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit wimwinters.substack.com/subscribe

Navigate through this episodes with these time codes:00:06 Introduction14:13 I. Adagio molto – Allegro con brio1:11:02 II. Larghetto1:33:55 III. Scherzo. Allegro – Trio1:41:45 IV. Allegro moltoIn this third episode of our Beethoven Listening Guide, Alberto Sanna and I turn to Beethoven’s Second Symphony, a work that is often treated as a lighter companion to the First, yet proves on closer listening to be one of the most astonishingly constructed symphonies of the entire cycle. We discuss its immense introduction, the precision of Czerny’s four hand transcription, the role of trills, articulation, pedal, and tempo stability, and the way Beethoven builds entire movements from the smallest rhythmic and melodic cells. The discussion moves movement by movement, from the extraordinary breadth of the first movement to the noble tenderness and rhythmic refinement of the Larghetto, the character shift of the scherzo, and a finale whose tiny motifs generate an almost inexhaustible musical logic. The episode also reflects on our own recording process, including the fact that this symphony was one of the last to be re-recorded and that the close of the Larghetto marked the end of the entire four year Beethoven symphony project. The episode explicitly presents this as podcast number three of the series, devoted to Beethoven’s Second Symphony, and describes the work as one that became far more compelling once approached at these tempos. It also stresses the unusually large introduction of the first movement, the sense that it already points toward later Beethoven, and the need to listen differently to long notes, punctuation, and trills. The later discussion highlights the finale’s Figaro-like energy and the way Beethoven builds the movement from a minimal two-note idea, while the Larghetto is linked to the final moments of the whole recording project. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit wimwinters.substack.com/subscribe

In this episode of the Authentic Sound Podcast, Wim and Stefan take up one of the most revealing cases in the metronome debate: Max Reger and Karl Straube. Drawing on Marcel Punt’s study The Straube Code, they examine parallel editions of Reger’s organ works and ask how two radically different metronome notations could coexist, with Straube’s version explicitly approved by the composer.The discussion goes beyond a simple comparison of numbers. It explores Reger’s meticulous approach to tempo, Straube’s central role as performer and interpreter, and the larger historical question of what happened when Whole Beat gradually gave way to Single Beat in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Rather than treating Straube as someone who distorted Reger’s intentions, the episode considers whether his editions may actually clarify a notational problem that later musicians and scholars misunderstood.Along the way, Wim and Stefan listen to contrasting performances, discuss why organ type matters so much in Reger’s music, and end with the remarkable story of a historical recording connected to the Britannic. The result is not just an episode about Reger, but a sharp case study in how a forgotten metronome logic can remain hidden in plain sight. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit wimwinters.substack.com/subscribe

In this second episode of our Beethoven Listening Guide, Alberto Sanna and I turn to Beethoven’s First Symphony. What may seem at first like a relatively classical work already reveals Beethoven’s unmistakable hand: the breaking of expectation, the control of tension, the use of silence, the power of rhythmic stability, and the constant play between humour, grandeur, and surprise. As in the rest of this series, we approach the symphony from a whole beat perspective and reflect on how this changes both performance and listening. The discussion moves movement by movement, with musical examples and reflections drawn from our own four-year recording journey. The episode also touches on our personal history with the work, why we eventually re-recorded it, and how details of articulation, balance, pedal, and tempo shape the result. The episode explicitly presents itself as a listening guide to Symphony No. 1, following the introductory podcast, and frames the whole series as a new way of listening to Beethoven’s symphonies. It also treats the symphony as an early but already fully mastered work, discussing Beethoven’s surprising opening, the centrality of strict tempo as a framework rather than a mechanical goal, and the character of each movement from the unusual first movement introduction to the finale’s teasing build-up.Timecodes00:05 Introduction19:18 I. Adagio molto – Allegro con brio49:27 II. Andante cantabile con moto1:14:55 III. Minuet. Allegro molto e vivace – Trio1:22:25 IV. Finale. Adagio – Allegro molto e vivace This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit wimwinters.substack.com/subscribe

In the second episode of our three-part series on Carl Czerny’s Op. 299, we move into etudes 21 to 30, where the School of Velocity becomes far more than a technical drill book. These pieces reveal drama, cantabile writing, repeated-note challenges, and a level of pianistic difficulty that raises serious questions about how Czerny’s metronome marks should be understood. Together, we compare Wim Winters’ new fortepiano recording with the celebrated recording by Vivian Harvey Slater, and ask what happens when modern single-beat assumptions collide with the physical reality of the music. The result is not only a fresh hearing of Czerny, but also a sharper look at why Op. 299 remains so important for the broader tempo debate. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit wimwinters.substack.com/subscribe

In this opening episode of our new eleven-part Beethoven series, Alberto Sanna and I lay the foundation for the journey ahead. We discuss how this project began, why Czerny’s four-hand transcriptions of the symphonies are so extraordinary, and what we discovered while recording them on fortepiano.This is not just an introduction to the series. It is also an introduction to a way of listening. We talk about tempo, structure, harmonic tension, articulation, accompaniment, and the whole beat perspective that shaped our understanding of these works. Along the way, we reflect on why Beethoven’s symphonies remain so overwhelming, and why hearing them in this way can change the listener’s experience completely.Over the coming episodes, we will explore each symphony in detail. This first installment opens the door. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit wimwinters.substack.com/subscribe

In this episode, we revisit one of the most revealing texts in nineteenth-century music history: Gottfried Wilhelm Fink’s 1839 article on Mozart performance. Fink does not complain about minor nuances. He describes contemporary Mozart performances as wildly distorted, rushed, and destructive to the music itself. To show how far performance practice had drifted, he turned to Tomášek and had Don Giovanni metronomized according to what Mozart’s own tempi were thought to have been.The implications are enormous. If Tomášek’s metronome marks are read in the modern single-beat sense, then the performances Fink condemns in 1839 would have to have been even faster than those already extreme numbers. That does not merely stretch credibility. It collapses into absurdity. The episode argues that this source only makes coherent sense from a whole-beat perspective, and that Fink’s article is therefore devastating evidence against the modern single-beat reading of nineteenth-century metronome marks.We also discuss Fink’s striking claim that listeners had already become accustomed to distorted speed, and how relevant that feels today. The episode ends with concrete listening examples from Don Giovanni and Beethoven, showing just how quickly the single-beat universe becomes musically and physically implausible. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit wimwinters.substack.com/subscribe

For this episode, we recorded an extended interview in our own studio with Werner Trio, one of the best-known voices of classical music radio in Flanders.The conversation marks the release of our recording of Beethoven’s complete symphonies performed according to Whole Beat metronome practice, and explores the ideas behind this controversial approach to Beethoven’s tempo indications.Together with pianist Alberto Sanna, I discuss how our collaboration began and why the traditional interpretation of Beethoven’s metronome markings increasingly appears difficult to reconcile with both historical sources and practical musicianship.The discussion ranges from the Hammerklavier Sonata to the physical limits of pianistic technique, and from 19th-century tempo traditions to the modern assumption that Beethoven’s metronome marks must be taken in Single Beat.Rather than presenting a technical argument alone, the interview tells the story behind the project itself: how two musicians from different backgrounds arrived at the same conclusion that something in the modern understanding of Beethoven’s tempos may be fundamentally wrong.The episode also opens a new listening journey: a series of discussions that revisit Beethoven’s symphonies from the perspective of Whole Beat metronome practice. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit wimwinters.substack.com/subscribe

In this episode, we take a close look at Mozart’s early Piano Sonata in C major and ask a deceptively simple question: what happens when tempo is wrong? Using performances by Ronald Brautigam and Wim Winters side by side, the discussion moves far beyond taste or personal preference. At stake is whether Mozart’s rhetoric, phrasing, rests, articulations, and musical narrative can still be heard at modern speeds.The episode also addresses a common objection: why should later metronome marks by Czerny and Moscheles matter at all for Mozart, who never knew the metronome? The answer opens onto a broader historical question. These sources do not give us Mozart directly, but they may be the closest surviving window onto how his music was still understood within an earlier tradition. From there, the conversation leads into tempo ordinario, Whole Beat versus Single Beat, the role of nineteenth century editorial practice, and the way tempo changes the character of an entire piece.This is not a discussion about speed for its own sake. It is about whether Mozart’s music should impress us with brilliance, or speak to us as a story. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit wimwinters.substack.com/subscribe

In this episode, we confront a subject pianists rarely question: the damper pedal.We begin with a simple premise: what if Beethoven and Chopin were not vague about pedaling — but precise? What if the widespread modern habit of “continuous” pedal use is not an innocent evolution, but a structural shift that alters articulation, phrasing, and even tempo?Drawing on sources such as Carl Czerny’s Pianoforte School and eyewitness accounts collected by Jean-Jacques Eigeldinger, we examine:* Why Beethoven’s late sonatas contain strikingly sparse pedal indications* What Chopin’s pupils actually report about his strictness regarding misuse* How pedaling functions as a technical shortcut — liberating the fingers and enabling higher speeds* Why Whole Beat performance becomes almost inevitable once pedaling is restricted to what is writtenThe central claim is not aesthetic but mechanical: the pedal is a speed tool. It shortens release time, masks articulation compromises, and permits tempi that become structurally unstable without it.Remove habitual pedaling — especially on historical instruments — and the architecture of the music changes. Suddenly, articulation, release, accentuation, and timing regain structural importance. And with that shift, tempo itself recalibrates.This episode is not about nostalgia or anti-modern rhetoric. It is about asking a disciplined question:If the score is our primary source, why do we override it so quickly?For performers interested in historically coherent interpretation — and for listeners curious about what might fundamentally change when we stop “upgrading” the music — this discussion opens a crucial door. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit wimwinters.substack.com/subscribe

In this episode of The Authentic Sound Podcast, we return to a figure who has been systematically misunderstood: Carl Czerny.Most pianists know him as the composer of technical exercises. Few realise that he was:* Beethoven’s most important pupil* Franz Liszt’s teacher* The most influential piano pedagogue in 19th-century Europe* A composer of nearly 1000 opus numbers* A key transmitter of tempo traditionAt the centre of this episode stands Opus 299 (Schule der Geläufigkeit).Whole Beat and PlayabilityCzerny’s metronome marks are often dismissed as absurdly fast.Yet when read coherently within a Whole Beat framework, they remain extremely demanding — often reaching up to eight notes per second — but they stay within the realm of musical playability.For many pianists, even this speed will feel uncomfortable or “too fast.”But that discomfort is not proof of impossibility. It may simply reveal how far modern training has drifted from 19th-century expectations.This episode explores:* Why “lighter actions” do not automatically solve the tempo problem* Why pedal use radically alters technical feasibility* Why repeated notes on Viennese actions expose structural limits* How 19th-century pedagogical sources classified these etudes* Why virtuosity narratives distort historical interpretationWe also compare modern recordings — including those of Vivian Harvey Slater — to examine how tempo ceilings are approached in practice.A New Recording ProjectThis episode is not only analytical. It forms part of a new recording project: the complete Op. 299 will be released on CD in a special edition.Recorded on Viennese-action fortepiano and performed in Whole Beat, this edition aims to restore:* The musical integrity of the etudes* Their pedagogical function* Their historical tempo frameworkCzerny was not a trivial composer of finger drills.He was a central link between Beethoven and Liszt — between Classical structure and Romantic virtuosity.To misunderstand him is to misunderstand the 19th century. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit wimwinters.substack.com/subscribe

In this new episode, we return to a concept that is constantly invoked in 19th-century music — and just as constantly misunderstood today: tempo rubato.The word itself suggests freedom, flexibility, even licence. But when we look closely at historical sources, a very different picture emerges. Together, we ask a simple but uncomfortable question: what if much of what we now call rubato is not expressive freedom at all, but a way of compensating for tempos that were set too fast to begin with?Our point of departure is a striking passage by William Mason, who describes hearing Chopin played with such exaggerated rubato that entire measures were effectively added to the music — a practice that audiences praised, but that Mason dismissed as being “mathematically out of time.” For Mason, true rubato was not about slowing everything down, but about losing and regaining time within a stable temporal framework.From there, we trace two fundamentally different meanings of tempo rubato:* the older practice, rooted in bel canto and common throughout the 18th and early 19th centuries, in which the accompaniment remains strictly in time while the melody breathes freely;* and the later, modern notion of rubato, where the basic tempo itself expands and contracts, often without compensation.We place these ideas in a broader historical context, drawing on Czerny, Schindler, Schumann, and — crucially — Chopin’s own pupils, whose testimonies leave little doubt about how rubato was understood and practiced in his circle. Again and again, the same principle returns: the left hand is the clock.What emerges is not a romantic myth of unrestricted freedom, but a demanding discipline — one that only works when the underlying tempo is solid, playable, and proportionate. In that light, rubato stops being an excuse, and becomes something far more precise and powerful.This episode is part of our ongoing attempt to reconnect tempo, technique, and expression — and to show that many of the “solutions” of modern performance practice may in fact be symptoms of a deeper misunderstanding.If you’d like to support the podcast and go deeper into these discussions, you can subscribe to Authentic Sound on Substack. For €5/month, subscribers get access to the video version of the podcast. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit wimwinters.substack.com/subscribe

In this episode of the Authentic Sound Podcast, we turn to one of Beethoven’s most iconic piano sonatas: the Waldstein.Together, we explore a deceptively simple but far-reaching question:what actually happens to Beethoven’s music when tempo is “halved” by a modern reading of the metronome?Using detailed listening comparisons, we place Alberto Sanna’s whole-beat performance of the Waldstein alongside a modern reference recording by Daniel Barenboim. The goal is not to judge performers, but to understand how radically tempo alone reshapes character, articulation, structure, and even the basic narrative of the music.Along the way, we discuss:* single-beat versus whole-beat metronome interpretation* Czerny’s tempo indications and their historical context* why “Allegro con brio” does not automatically mean extreme speed* how rhythmic intensification works in Beethoven — and why it depends on having room to grow* the famous “dawn” character (L’Aurora) of the Waldstein, and what happens to it when the tempo ceiling is reached too earlyWhat emerges is a striking contrast:when the metronome is read historically, the Waldstein gains space, weight, and long-range tension; when read in the modern single-beat sense, performers are forced into constant tempo compromises just to keep the music playable.Beethoven’s Keyboard Works — Volume 2 (Kickstarter now live)This episode also marks the launch of the Kickstarter campaign for Beethoven’s Keyboard Works – Volume 2, the second part of our three-volume project presenting Beethoven’s complete piano music in historically grounded tempos.📅 The campaign runs for 30 days🔗 Kickstarter page: http://kck.st/3ZYStWyVolume 2 is an 8-CD box and includes, among many other works, the Waldstein Sonata discussed in this episode. It follows last year’s highly successful launch of Volume 1 and continues the project with the same care for sources, sound, and musical coherence.If you’d like to support the project — or simply want to explore Beethoven’s piano music in a radically different tempo world — this is the moment.As always, thank you for listening, for your support, and for being part of this ongoing conversation.—Wim & StefanAuthentic Sound This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit wimwinters.substack.com/subscribe

In this episode, we dive into one of the most striking and unsettling 19th-century testimonies on tempo, tradition, and modernity: William Mason’s recollections of Chopin, Liszt, and their musical world.Mason — an American pianist who studied with Moscheles, Liszt, and others shortly after Chopin’s death — stands at a unique historical crossroads. He had heard Chopin’s music played by people who had known the composer personally, yet he also lived long enough to witness how radically performance speeds changed by the turn of the 20th century.What makes this source extraordinary is a single, unforgettable question Mason asks:Should Chopin’s music be electrified — or electrocuted?By this he means:should Chopin be adapted to the accelerating pace of modern life, or does that acceleration destroy something essential in the music?Together, we read and unpack key passages from Memoirs of a Musical Life (1901), where Mason reflects on:* the steady increase of tempo during the 19th century* the loss of a shared, embodied sense of musical time* the growing gap between what was known in the studio and what was demanded on stage* and the uncomfortable realization that “tradition” may already have been broken long before the first recordings were madeCrucially, Mason does not argue for a simple return to the past. Instead, he exposes a paradox that lies at the heart of modern performance practice:we often defend extreme tempos in the name of authenticity, while the very musicians closest to the composers were already warning that speed was becoming destructive.For listeners new to this discussion, the episode also clarifies why Mason’s testimony fits so precisely within Whole Beat metronome practice — and why it leaves no room for the idea that Chopin’s original tempos were “insanely fast” in the modern sense.This is not a nostalgic episode.It is a confrontation with a source that forces us to rethink tempo, progress, virtuosity, and what we really mean when we speak of tradition. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit wimwinters.substack.com/subscribe

What if one of the most beloved piano pieces ever written has been fundamentally misunderstood?In this episode of the Authentic Sound podcast, Stefan and Wim dive deep into the tempo problem surrounding Robert Schumann’s Kinderszenen — and especially its most famous movement, Träumerei. Schumann was unusually precise in giving metronome markings for these “easy pieces for children,” yet performers have been ignoring them for over a century.Why?We begin with early-20th-century reactions, including the astonishing verdict of Leopold Godowsky, who dismissed Schumann’s tempos as the result of “incomprehensible lack of judgment.” We then turn to Alfred Brendel, one of the most influential Schumann interpreters of the late 20th century, and examine how even he openly struggles with Schumann’s metronome marks — correcting them while simultaneously insisting on their authority.Along the way, we confront familiar escape routes: broken metronomes, confused note values, tempo rubato, expressive freedom. One by one, they fail to account for the evidence.For listeners new to the discussion: this episode also explains Whole Beat metronome practice, the historically grounded idea that 19th-century metronome marks were read as pendulum cycles (back-and-forth) rather than single ticks. When applied consistently, this reading resolves many of the “impossible” tempos not only in Schumann, but also in Beethoven and Chopin — without resorting to special pleading.In the second half of the episode, we listen and compare: modern performances versus a Whole Beat interpretation. The result is striking. What emerges is not a nightmare, but a radically different — and musically coherent — understanding of Schumann’s tempo world.This episode is not about attacking performers or scholars. It is about asking a simple but uncomfortable question:What if Schumann meant exactly what he wrote? This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit wimwinters.substack.com/subscribe

In this episode, Stefan and I return to one of the most persistent misunderstandings in Chopin performance: tempo in dance-based music, and the consequences of treating it as something abstract rather than physical.Starting from Chopin’s ballroom—especially the waltz—we ask a simple but often ignored question: are we supposed to dance here, or are we supposed to fly?The distinction matters more than it may seem.Using historical dance practice, Czerny’s tempo indications, and the logic of bodily movement, we examine how 19th-century musicians understood tempo as something grounded in motion, weight, and periodicity—not as a race against the clock. This leads directly into the broader issue of Whole Beat thinking: the idea that metronome marks originally referred to a complete oscillation (back and forth), rather than a single tick as understood today.We discuss why doubling tempos—whether consciously or unconsciously—breaks the connection between music and movement, and why this affects not only Chopin’s waltzes but much of the Romantic repertoire. Along the way, we look at conducting practice, metronome terminology, and the subtle ways in which modern assumptions override historical logic.This episode is not about nostalgia or dogma. It is about restoring coherence between notation, tempo, movement, and musical meaning—and about what happens when that coherence is lost. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit wimwinters.substack.com/subscribe

In this episode of the Authentic Sound Podcast, Wim Winters and Stefan Pospiech take a deep dive into one of Chopin’s most iconic études: Op. 10 No. 9 in F minor, the famous left-hand étude — and into what happens when it is played at radically different tempos.Using Maurizio Pollini’s legendary recording as a reference point, Wim places it side by side with his own Whole Beat–based interpretation. The goal is not to “prove” one pianist right and the other wrong, but to ask a more fundamental question: what does Chopin’s score actually imply about tempo, character, and musical meaning?Listeners are introduced to the central idea behind the Authentic Sound project:Whole Beat metronome practice, the 19th-century convention in which the metronome measures the full swing of the pendulum rather than individual ticks — resulting in substantially slower and more coherent tempos than the modern single-beat reading.As the episode unfolds, Stefan and Wim explore how extreme modern speeds force performers into constant tempo manipulation, how expressive moments repeatedly drift back toward Whole Beat in even the greatest modern recordings, and why Chopin’s meticulously notated accelerandos, rallentandos, and atempo markings tell a very different story from today’s performance tradition.At stake is more than just tempo: it is the character, rhetoric, and emotional architecture of the music itself. As Wim puts it, changing tempo changes everything. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit wimwinters.substack.com/subscribe

Chopin’s music was written for human hands — but increasingly, technology is stepping in to “help.” From robotic practice exoskeletons to AI-generated performance systems, the promise is always the same: more speed, more precision, fewer limitations.In this episode, we examine what that promise really means.Drawing on the broader Whole Beat discussion, we look at how modern performance culture turned technique into a race, and how devices designed to “upgrade” musicians are a logical consequence of that mindset. We ask uncomfortable questions:* What happens when musical excellence becomes defined by speed alone?* Can a machine train your hands while your brain is switched off?* If AI can execute Chopin flawlessly at impossible tempos… what becomes of the pianist?Rather than moral panic, we explore the structural pressures behind these innovations and why they appeal to conservatories, researchers, and industry alike. And we also consider the artistic future: is there still room for interpretation, risk, and human timing — or are we heading toward a world where “perfect” AI performances make musicians optional?This conversation sits at the crossroads of technology, performance practice, and musical meaning. If you’re curious about where the art form is going — and what we might lose along the way — this episode is for you. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit wimwinters.substack.com/subscribe

In this episode, Stefan and I take a close look at one of the most frequently cited — and perhaps most misunderstood — documents in the modern tempo debate: the anonymous “Fafner 1988” paper.The paper is often used in conservatories and academic discussions as evidence against Whole Beat thinking, because it collects historical concert durations and applies statistical reasoning to suggest how fast Beethoven must have been performed.For new listeners: Whole Beat is the idea that 19th-century metronome marks in general refer not to individual notes, but that each of those notes refer to the back and forth — which often implies slower, broader tempos than the modern single-beat reading. Supporters argue that this solves many practical contradictions in the repertoire; critics appeal to other types of historical “evidence,” including documents like the Fafner paper.With Stefan’s background in mathematics, we examine two key questions:* What do these duration numbers actually measure?* Can concert lengths ever become decisive proof for a specific metronome interpretation?We talk about probability, bell curves, bias in study design, and why “garbage in, garbage out” is more than a cliché when dealing with historical sources.In the end, we arrive at a nuanced conclusion: the Fafner paper is genuinely useful as a collection of material, but methodologically it cannot settle the tempo question — because durations and tempo are not the same kind of evidence.This episode brings statistics, performance practice, and historical context into conversation — and asks what should really count as proof in music. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit wimwinters.substack.com/subscribe

In this episode of the Authentic Sound Podcast, Stefan and I turn to an early-20th-century source that raises deeply uncomfortable questions about modern Chopin performance: Gottfried Galston’s Studienbuch.Galston was no marginal figure. Born in 1879, trained by major representatives of the Leipzig tradition, and active well into the 20th century, he stood at a crucial crossroads between 19th-century pianism and modern virtuosity. What he writes about Chopin’s Études is therefore not speculative—it is grounded in lived practice.We focus especially on Chopin’s Études Op. 10 Nos. 2 and 3, where Galston casually proposes tempos that today are regarded as either extreme or outright impossible. Even more striking: he describes some of Chopin’s slow pieces at speeds that modern performers would never associate with terms like lento or nocturne-like.Along the way, we discuss:* why Galston’s proposed tempos do not fit modern performance reality* how today’s Chopin tradition normalizes drastic slowing and extreme tempo fluctuation* why “lighter instruments” do not solve the problem* how pedagogy, competition culture, and recording aesthetics reshaped tempo norms* and whether we lost technical ability—or lost the original understanding of the metronome itselfThis episode is not about proving a single number right or wrong. It is about confronting a broader historical gap: a century in which Chopin’s tempo world slowly slipped out of reach, even as pianistic virtuosity expanded. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit wimwinters.substack.com/subscribe

In this episode of the Authentic Sound Podcast, Stefan and I tackle one of the most persistent arguments used against historical metronome marks: concert duration. Can the length of a performance really tell us how fast Beethoven played?We focus on the most famous and best-documented case of all: Beethoven’s academy concert of 22 December 1808, where the Fifth and Sixth Symphonies were premiered. This concert is often cited as proof that Beethoven must have played far slower than his later metronome marks suggest. But does that claim survive closer scrutiny?We examine why duration data is far more fragile than it appears, and why it is repeatedly misused to preserve modern tempo assumptions. Along the way, we discuss:* what was actually played in 1808—and what almost certainly was not* why programs, cuts, repeats, improvisations, pauses, and audience behaviour matter* how modern concert logic is mistakenly projected onto early 19th-century practice* why metronome marks are fundamentally more precise than reported durations* and why durations are so often invoked only when metronome marks become uncomfortableBy reconstructing the 1808 concert using Beethoven’s and Czerny’s metronome marks, we show just how misleading duration-based arguments can be—and why they fail to undermine Whole Beat Metronome Practice.This episode marks the beginning of a broader series on historical concert durations, and why they cannot replace the one source that actually fixes tempo: the metronome itself. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit wimwinters.substack.com/subscribe

In this episode, Stefan and I step back from specific repertoire and dive into a much deeper question: what is the difference between opinion and fact—and why does this distinction matter so much for music today?We talk about how modern discourse is increasingly driven by vibes, personal impressions, and online persuasion rather than evidence and slow verification. From COVID debates to Chopin tempos, we reflect on how easily expertise is dismissed—and how dangerous that becomes when complex fields are reduced to surface-level certainty.From there, we return to our core topic: metronome marks, whole beat vs. single beat, and the real limits of historical instruments. Inspired by Dina Joffe’s remark that modern Chopin competition speeds are impossible on period pianos, we examine why this statement should have caused a much bigger shockwave than it did.We discuss:* why lighter key weight does not automatically mean faster playing* how double escapement changed both speed and touch* why modern grands absorb arm weight in ways historical instruments simply cannot* and why real proof in music must ultimately come from playing, not arguingAlong the way, the conversation moves through psychology, mathematics, instrument building, virtuosity, and the uncomfortable position of challenging a long-established tradition from the outside.This episode is less about winning arguments—and more about how truth, evidence, and humility should function in the world of music today. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit wimwinters.substack.com/subscribe

In this episode of the Authentic Sound Podcast, Stefan and I dive into the explosive opening of Beethoven’s Fifth Symphony — but through two radically different tempo worlds. We compare our Whole Beat version (performed in Czerny’s brilliant piano transcription) with John Eliot Gardiner’s modern single-beat interpretation. The contrast is shockingly wide. At times, it feels as if we are listening to two different compositions.We talk about why this symphony is perhaps the ultimate test case for Whole Beat thinking: a version full of weight, structure, and intensity versus a fast, tightly driven modern performance that almost turns the famous ta-ta-ta-TAA into a triplet.Along the way we explore:• why Beethoven’s 2/4 notation in eighth-note alla breve is almost always misunderstood today• how Allegro con brio becomes something entirely different at modern speeds• why early 19th-century critics were already complaining about musicians playing too fast• how tempo changes the emotional architecture of the entire symphony• and what this tells us about the lost performance world Beethoven actually knewAt the end of the episode, we play our full first minute of the Fifth — exactly as we believe Beethoven imagined it. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit wimwinters.substack.com/subscribe

In this episode, Stefan and I return to Adolf Bernhard Marx, one of the most influential musical thinkers of the 19th century. Marx wasn’t just a commentator on Beethoven—he stood close enough to the early Romantic world to watch performance culture change in real time. And what he recorded is astonishing.Marx describes pianists who played the finales of Beethoven sonatas twice as fast as they were meant to be played—sometimes even more. We explore what he actually meant, how this fits the broader trend of accelerating tempos in the 19th century, and what it tells us about the lost performance world Beethoven knew.Along the way we talk about:• whether Marx wrote from a single- or whole-beat worldview• the moment musicians began to outperform the music• how virtuosity and audience-pleasing warped Beethoven interpretation• why the metronome originally ended all confusion—and why it no longer does• how Marx, Czerny, and early witnesses heard Beethoven’s music change around themIt’s a surprising, sometimes shocking dive into a source that modern scholarship often misreads. And it leads to an uncomfortable but unavoidable question:If Beethoven’s own world already struggled with speed… what happened afterward? This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit wimwinters.substack.com/subscribe

In this episode, Stefan and I take on one of the greatest challenges of the Whole Beat approach — Beethoven’s Adagio Cantabile from the Pathétique Sonata.We compare Maurizio Pollini’s famous single-beat recording with Alberto Sanna’s whole-beat interpretation from Beethoven Keyboard Works Vol. 1. The contrast is shocking — almost like hearing two different worlds.Why does this slow movement, so lyrical and intimate, feel almost impossible to play (and even to listen to) in Beethoven’s own tempo? How do you listen when the melody seems to stand still?Along the way we talk about tempo perception, attention, the act of listening itself, and the hidden mastery behind playing “slowly.” What begins as a test of patience turns into an experience of deep musical concentration — and perhaps one of Beethoven’s most transcendent moments. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit wimwinters.substack.com/subscribe

In this episode of the Authentic Sound Podcast, Stefan and I ask a simple but unsettling question:Would Chopin himself stand a chance at winning the competitions that now bear his name?We look at what “authentic Chopin playing” has come to mean — and how far it may have drifted from what Chopin actually wrote, taught, and heard.We also talk about the modern cult of expressiveness, the misunderstanding of tempo rubato, and the curious irony that the composer most associated with freedom and individuality is now judged by rules that he would probably reject. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit wimwinters.substack.com/subscribe

In this episode of the Authentic Sound Podcast, Wim and Stefan revisit one of the most controversial figures in Beethoven scholarship: Anton Schindler (1795-1864). Long dismissed as the man who falsified documents and destroyed Beethoven’s legacy, Schindler has been blamed for decades — but what if that story need more nuance?If you’re curious about how one man’s reputation shaped Beethoven reception for generations, and how a small musical joke may point to the composer’s true tempo intentions, this episode is essential listening. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit wimwinters.substack.com/subscribe

In this episode, Stefan and Wim explore how the 19th century gradually lost touch with Beethoven’s original world — and how one man, Adolf Bernhard Marx, stood right at the turning point.Marx saw himself as a guardian of Beethoven’s legacy, yet his writings reveal how profoundly performance ideals had already shifted. When he claimed that tempo words were too vague and that Maelzel’s metronome had “solved the problem,” was he still speaking Beethoven’s language — or already his own?We look at Marx’s descriptions of Beethoven, his relationship with Liszt and the early Romantic generation, and how his theories helped redefine what it meant to “understand” music. What emerges is a fascinating portrait of a time when Beethoven’s clarity gave way to Romantic subjectivity — the moment when the modern cult of interpretation was born. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit wimwinters.substack.com/subscribe

In this fifth episode of the Authentic Sound Podcast, Wim and Stefan return to Beethoven’s Moonlight Sonata — this time exploring the explosive third movement.After their deep dive into the famous first movement, they now compare two radically different interpretations: Wim’s Whole Beat performance and Valentina Lisitsa’s modern version. What does Beethoven’s marking Presto agitato really mean? And what happens when we take Czerny’s metronome marks seriously?The discussion ranges from tempo and articulation to character and expression — from Czerny’s haunting description (‘a night scene in which the voice of a complaining spirit is heard at a distance’) to the energy and clarity that define Beethoven’s vision.This episode also opens a broader reflection: how small tempo differences can completely transform a piece’s character, and what that tells us about performance today. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit wimwinters.substack.com/subscribe

In this episode, Wim and Stefan dive deep into one of the most ambitious parts of the Authentic Sound project: the creation of a worldwide Metronome Mark Database. What started as a Patreon-only discussion has grown into a cornerstone for future research and performance.They talk about why such a database is essential — turning opinions into facts about playability and tempo — and how it could become the “IMSLP of metronome marks.” The conversation moves from logic and mathematics to musical philosophy, touching on topics like conditioning in classical music, early music’s current stagnation, and why following the score precisely may redefine authenticity for the 21st century.Along the way, they also discuss plans for a dedicated app, a modern “musical pendulum,” and how these tools could transform the way musicians understand tempo, interpretation, and even the physical act of practice.A passionate, wide-ranging conversation about art, data, and the rebirth of historical performance practice. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit wimwinters.substack.com/subscribe

In this third episode of the Authentic Sound Podcast, Wim and Stefan dive into one of the most famous piano pieces ever written — Beethoven’s Moonlight Sonata.Was this music really meant to sound nocturnal and mysterious, or is that an image we’ve projected onto it later? Using two radically different recordings of the first movement, they explore how Beethoven’s original tempo marking changes everything.You’ll hear how a single metronome number can turn this movement from dreamlike introspection into something vivid, structured, and full of light — perhaps closer to what Beethoven himself intended.Along the way, Wim and Stefan discuss how our modern idea of “expression” evolved, what the original listeners might have heard, and why the nickname “Moonlight” may be the biggest misunderstanding in classical music history. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit wimwinters.substack.com/subscribe

In this second episode of the Authentic Sound Podcast, Wim Winters takes the hot seat as co-host Stefan asks him a series of unscripted questions. None were prepared in advance, so what listeners hear are spontaneous and candid answers.Some of the questions include:* Why are Wim and Lorenz the only ones researching Whole Beat Metronome Practice?* Why does something so logical remain so controversial?* How does Wim deal with negativity, criticism, and backlash, and keep going?* What keeps him motivated to continue this work year after year?The conversation also touches on broader themes: the resistance of academia, the psychology of performance tradition, the balance between negativity and encouragement online, and the deeper meaning this project has for Wim personally.For listeners who know him mainly from YouTube or recordings, this episode offers a rare glimpse behind the curtain. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit wimwinters.substack.com/subscribe

Join Wim Winters and Stefan Pospiech as they explore music, history, and performance practice through fresh conversations and deep dives into sources. From Whole Beat metronome practice to Beethoven, Chopin, and beyond, we discuss recordings, ideas, and discoveries that challenge tradition and open new ways of hearing and playing classical music. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit wimwinters.substack.com/subscribe