Metronome indications, yea or nay?

[hautbois baryton]

Hi folks, I was cleaning up final versions of three of my works for printing, and I began to question the value of presenting metronome markings (q=120, etc.) on player parts.

On one hand, it gives information for practice that some might find useful, and shows immediately what tempo changes should be aimed for.
On the other hand, it "locks" an interpretation (if followed...) that some might slavishly follow, even if the ensemble cannot play at that tempo effectively.

I decided to remove the metronome marks from a majority of one of the works (a quartet ensemble work), leaving them only for a particularly tricky movement where the beat changes from (slow) eighths and (faster) dotted quarters. I felt that, as a chamber ensemble work, the musicians should have the liberty of establishing a tempo that is comfortable for their ensemble.

Contrary-wise, on another work (for soloist and orchestra), I have left the metronome markings in so that the ensemble knows what tempo the soloist will be playing at. This should reduce rehearsal confusion and save time.

So obviously I am torn between using/not using metronome marks. What are your opinions?

[David Ward]

I have copious metronome markings added to nearly all I've written, sometimes with almost bar by bar changes indicated by metronome mark alone, without verbal instruction (see scanned example). In my opinion, if they are in the score, they should also be in the parts.

However, no-one should feel obliged to take them too literally: they are (and can only be) a guide. Apart from all else, the acoustic for each performance will be different; and when it comes to voices… On that understanding, I think you should probably keep them, and maybe even add them if absent.

(Apologies for the rather grim words of the example: context &c.)

[Vogel]

I don't like metronome marks, but they're standard now. In fact, many leading composers use metronome marks without any text at all. Despite my dislike for them, I will probably include them in my own future works.

[Magister Tekton]

I'm not a fan of metronome markings, except perhaps in the conductors master score. I'm old-fashioned and prefer the Italian tempo markings in the parts.

[David Ward]

… … … In fact, many leading composers use metronome marks without any text at all… … …

FWIW I usually include a text (most often in English but sometimes in Italian) for primary tempo directions, but sometimes I use just a metronome marking for momentary changes.

[Magister Tekton]

As a non-violinist, looking at all those 32ths and 64th notes is intimidating. I realize the beaten tempo is actually slow by comparison, but....

[John Ruggero]

I think that metronome indications have all the benefits and dangers described above and their use depends entirely on the situation. The use of "circa" or "approx." might overcome one of the drawbacks mentioned.

[JJP]

I find this can be different depending on the situation. Numerical metronome marks can be particularly helpful on scores, especially at the beginning. However, on parts, they can be less useful after the beginning, even if performing with a click, especially when parts are to be sight read as in a recording situation or when rehearsal or practice time is limited.

While sight reading, when a performer reaches a new tempo, their main concerns are
- is it faster or slower?
- how much faster or slower?

When a player merely sees a metronome mark, they must recall the tempo at which they are performing to determine whether the new tempo is faster or slower. (They must recall it exactly if the change is small.) Determining the amount of change can still be difficult because knowing that it changes by 10 bpm may not tell you the amount of change. A difference of 10 bpm at 50 bpm is 20% faster or slower — a significant change. A difference of 10 bpm at 200 bpm is only 5% — a much less significant change.

An indication like “presto” or “poco accel.” or “molto ritard.” quickly gives more relevant information to a sight reading performer. It also adheres to my personal rule, “Never ask a performer to do math while performing.”

However, this only regards practicality when music is to be sight read. If the music will have ample rehearsal time and the performer will have time to review and practice the part, then the discussion in previous posts about the benefits and drawbacks are all valid. It would appear to be a composer’s preference about how specific they wish to be regarding tempi.

[MichelRE]

I always use numerical indications along with the Italian (or French) text indications, with very rare exceptions.
Thus far, it hasn't caused any problems with performances, musicians use the numbers as an indicator of a general desired speed.

I find that putting only a text indication leaves it far too vague. Andante... but is it a slow andante? or a fast one? or somewhere in between?
Beethoven's 5th symphony can last anywhere between 30 and 40 minutes.
My 2nd symphony lasts 30. Period. There's no doubt about the tempi. There might be a minute or two difference between two interpretations, but never a 10 minute difference.

[JJP]

I always use numerical indications along with the Italian (or French) text indications, with very rare exceptions.
Thus far, it hasn't caused any problems with performances, musicians use the numbers as an indicator of a general desired speed.

I think this is often the best of both worlds.