Tempo: descriptive vs bpm

iternabe · 2025-08-02T23:35:26+00:00

I am surprised the two Seiko metronomes have such different interpretation of descriptive tempo in bpm.

iternabe

BartK

FWIW, my Wittner pyramid metronome has these:

Although I don't think you should be putting exact numerical values to these terms. Tempo terms are more about how the music feels than a specific objective tempo. For example, presto feels more agitated than allegro even though objectively the two might overlap somewhat and some pianist's allegro might even be faster than another's presto.

iternabe

BartK Thank you! The labeled tempo marking values on your Wittner seems to be in line with the convention I found on Wikipedia. My Nikko and larger Seiko (SQ70) agrees with that, too. Only the little Seiko (SQ60) is odd, for example Moderato being too slow (76-92, as opposed to 108-120). I begin to wonder SQ60 did it only for aesthetic reason (to fit full words around that circle) - an unfortunate design mistake as it is my favorite for both form and function.

Another thing I learned, and as you pointed out, is the meaning of those tempo marking words and how they intend to convey certain feeling more than actual beats per minute. This is really helpful.

BartK

And another thing to keep in mind is which note you apply it to. One of my editions of the Beethoven op. 2 no. 1 sonata has a tempo marking of Prestissimo (half note = 88-96) for the last movement. You might be wondering how that's prestissimo but try playing it at that tempo and you will understand.

thepianoplayer416

Used to have a metronome from Yamaha that looks like a round disk. Has a dial at the back with some markings from Largo to Prestissimo. Gave it to the neighbor. Now have a Korg with just numbers.

pianoloverus

iternabe Another thing I learned, and as you pointed out, is the meaning of those tempo marking words and how they intend to convey certain feeling more than actual beats per minute.

While tempo markings don't convey a precise number of beats per minute and there is no universally agreed upon range for a given tempo marking, my best understanding is that tempo markings do primarily relate to the speed and that is their most important aspect. That's why there's little disagreement about, when comparing two tempo markings, which would imply faster tempo. For example, if a particular piece was marked andante vs. allegro, no one would dispute which implied a faster speed.

Of course speed will imply a certain mood, but I think speed is the main idea behind tempo markings. Sometimes additional adjectives are included. For example, andante cantabile or allegro giocoso or presto agitato. These additional adjectives apply more to the mood.

From the BBC website: "Tempo means the speed at which a piece of music should be played."

The Wikipedia definition includes the idea of mood but clearly in a secondary fashion: "In musical terminology, tempo (Italian for 'time'; plural 'tempos', or tempi from the Italian plural), measured in beats per minute, is the speed or pace of a given composition, and is often also an indication of the composition's character or atmosphere. In classical music, tempo is typically indicated with an instruction at the start of a piece (often using conventional Italian terms) and, if a specific metrical pace is desired, is usually measured in beats per minute (bpm or BPM)."

BartK

I don't know. 108 feels more like a running pace than a walking pace to me. The way I feel about it (and this is just my subjective opinion so take it with a big grain of salt) is that andante should be much narrower, like 60-80, and moderato much wider. What's a "moderate" tempo? That depends on a lot of things don't you think? And so IMHO it should be reflected in the range of acceptable tempos. On the other hand walking tempo is more specific.

Also, adagio should be slower. The traditional "tempo ordinario" when there is no tempo indication is usually about 60 because that's the normal resting heart rate of a healthy person. So, again IMHO, the line between adagio and andante should be at 60 because anything slower feels slow because of this natural heartbeat rhythm and anything faster feels like you're starting to move your body.

MRC

BartK andante should be much narrower, like 60-80,

Andante is used very differently by different composers at different epochs. I don't know what the actual range might be, but it's certainly much wider than that.

BartK

MRC
Like I said, IMHO.

iternabe

FWIW, here is what Wikipedia said:

Approximately from the slowest to the fastest:
Larghissimo – extremely slow, slowest type of tempo (24 bpm and under)
Adagissimo and Grave – very slow and solemn (24–40 bpm)
Largo – slow and broad (40–66 bpm)
Larghetto – rather slow and broad (44–66 bpm)
Adagio – slow with great expression[12] (44–66 bpm)
Adagietto – slower than andante or slightly faster than adagio (46–80 bpm)
Lento – slow (52–108 bpm)
Andante – at a walking pace, moderately slow (56–108 bpm)
Andantino – slightly faster than andante, but slower than moderato (80–108 bpm) (although, in some cases, it can be taken to mean slightly slower than andante)
Marcia moderato – moderately, in the manner of a march[13] (66–80 bpm)
Andante moderato – between andante and moderato (at a moderate walking speed) (80–108 bpm)
Moderato – at a moderate speed (108–120 bpm)
Allegretto – by the mid-19th century, moderately fast (112–120 bpm); see paragraph above for earlier usage
Allegro moderato – close to, but not quite allegro (116–120 bpm)
Allegro – fast and bright (120–156 bpm)
Molto Allegro or Allegro vivace – at least slightly faster and livelier than allegro, but always at its range (and no faster than vivace) (124–156 bpm)
Vivace – lively and fast (156–176 bpm)
Vivacissimo and Allegrissimo – very fast, lively and bright (172–176 bpm)
Presto – very fast (168–200 bpm)
Prestissimo – extremely fast (200 bpm and over)

MRC

It's perfectly true that the purpose of tempo markings is to help the performer find the correct speed. However, in order to find this speed, if you concentrate on creating the mood described by the tempo markings, it will be more helpful than looking at a table of beats per minute.

Have a look at these two examples:

same tempo marking, Allegro
same time signature, 2/4
same composer, Mozart
same year, 1774

Sonata KV 279, 3rd movement

Sonata KV 281, 1st movement

I chose to post the manuscripts instead of a printed edition so we're sure that what we're seeing is really what Mozart wrote. Printed editions are to be found on IMSLP.org.

A little game for anybody reading this thread: what tempi, in beats per minute, would you choose for these two examples?

pianoloverus

MRC It's perfectly true that the purpose of tempo markings is to help the performer find the correct speed. However, in order to find this speed, if you concentrate on creating the mood described by the tempo markings, it will be more helpful than looking at a table of beats per minute.

Your comment assumes that a tempo markings imply a certain mood which is debatable unless there are additional adjectives included. An example would be Presto Agitato vs. Presto. Of course, speed is related to mood, but I think the main thrust a basic tempo marking like Adagio, Andante, Moderato, Allegro, etc. is the speed(And I have not seen any any articles that say mood is the main idea of tempo markings).

None of the above means any tempo marking must be restricted to predetermined range. So when using tempo markings it's not a choice between mood and some metronomic range.

pianoloverus

MRC Assuming you think these two pieces should be played at different speeds, that just shows there's a range of appropriate speed for Allegro. And since the tempo markings are identical I think that shows that it's not tempo markings that indicate the mood. It's the music.

MRC

pianoloverus Assuming you think these two pieces should be played at different speeds, that just shows there's a range of appropriate speed for Allegro. And since the tempo markings are identical I think that shows that it's not tempo markings that indicate the mood. It's the music

I chose these two pieces because, although they are both marked "Allegro", one of them is usually played at least twice as fast as the other. You can check recordings by eminent pianists: a typical speed for the third movement of KV 279 might be quarter note somewhere between 120 and 140, whereas the first movement of KV 281 usually goes at around quarter note = 60-70. If "Allegro" can be anywhere between 60 and 140 (or more: you can certainly find allegro movements that are played faster than that), this information alone isn't going to be very helpful in deciding at what speed to play the piece.

Looking at these two examples, so much is clear: it's not the tempo marking that is more important in defining the basic speed, it's the music. The time signature, together with the type of figuration and the shortest note values to be found in the piece, give us a a very good idea of the correct tempo. This is what was known in the 17th and 18th centuries as "tempo giusto": there might be no tempo marking, but a competent musician would deduce the "tempo giusto" from the information contained in the music.

Even if there were no tempo marking for these two pieces, a musician with a good grasp of the style of the period would invariably choose a much faster speed for the first one than for the second. The indication "Allegro", which simply means "cheerful", shows us that the mood of both pieces should be bright and happy. It will probably inspire us to choose a somewhat faster speed for each one than if the marking was "Andante" (meaning no more than "going"), but the major difference between the speeds of the two pieces is due to the musical content.

pianoloverus

MRC I'm not sure if you are agreeing or disagreeing or just elaborating on my post. We do seem to agree that it's the actual music and not the tempo marking that determines the mood. I do think that the literal meanings of tempo markings like Allegro(cheerful) are only a small part of what they indicate and not the most important part.

MRC

pianoloverus We do seem to agree that it's the actual music and not the tempo marking that determines the mood.

The nuance is here: I'm saying that it is the actual music that determines not only the mood, but also the tempo. Words like Allegro or allegretto come as qualifiers which can certainly modify this tempo to some extent, but they are not the main definers of tempo. The main definer of tempo is the information contained in the music itself.

If somebody says to me: "I've got a piece of music in 2/4 time marked "Allegro", what should be the speed in bpm?", what can I answer? I might reply "It could be anything between 60 and 160: it depends on the music!", which wouldn't be very helpful.

If, however, somebody shows me the last movement of KV 279 without any tempo marking, I'll deduce, simply from the music itself, that a reasonable tempo for this piece would be somewhere between 110 and 140 bpm, and that I'd probably play it at around the middle of this range. That's much more helpful!

If the somebody then tells me that the piece is marked "Allegro", this will confirm my choice of playing it somewhere around 125 bpm: for me, played at this speed, the piece feels allegro. If it were marked "Presto", I'd go nearer the top of the range I defined, or if the marking was "Allegretto", I'd go to the slower end of the range (I couldn't imagine this piece marked something like "Adagio": the music is clearly not slow or contemplative). In all cases, it's the feeling evoked by the tempo word which helps me in deciding what the tempo should be.