From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Classical music
WikiProject icon Tempo is within the scope of WikiProject Classical music, which aims to improve, expand, copy edit, and maintain all articles related to classical music, that are not covered by other classical music related projects. Please read the guidelines for writing and maintaining articles. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.
Wikipedia Version 1.0 Editorial Team / v0.7 (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality scale.
Checklist icon
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
Note icon
This article is within of subsequent release version of Arts.
Taskforce icon
This article has been selected for Version 0.7 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.

Old talk[edit]

I believe that the statement "this period was when tempo indications were used extensively for the first time" needs to be cited. If someone can find a source for this, please add it. B McLean 16:16, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Isn't adagio go after largo?

I'm going to link and integrate all the tempo marking stubs (allegro, largo, etc.) to here, as Camembert suggested on Talk:List of musical topics. They're all basically the same and probably won't get bigger. I'll redirect the ones without any other info on them, but leave allegro, presto, and any others that have unrelated info. -- Merphant 10:56 Nov 25, 2002 (UTC)

good idea. Unlink the names on this page though, since they're now self-links -- Tarquin

Done. Now I'm going to redirect ritardando and accelerando here as well. -- Merphant 10:14 Nov 28, 2002 (UTC)

I have added redirects for terms such as Allegro which need links that can be used in musical articles that do not go to a disambig page. I am going around and making all links to musical tempo words look the same (ie, "[[Allegro (music)|]]" and not "[[Tempo|Allegro]]") though it is not clear why it matters to me... - Marvin01 | talk 16:43, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

  • These are forms for redirection that I am using. Most of these are pre-existing:
Largo Adagio Lento Andante Moderato Allegretto Allegro Presto Andantino Larghetto Adagietto Larghissimo Prestissimo Accelerando Rallentando Ritardando Ritenuto Langsam Mäßig Lebhaft Rasch Schnell
    • Lento links to the French commune. Can we get the Lento (music) redirect back? I find these to be helpful in music articles. And really they should deep-link to this page's section on Italian terms. Even better would be a page (not a stub) for each term, using a template that lists its bpm and where it lies in this sequence. Those pages wouldn't be real big or deep, but they'd more useful in discussions of specific musical pieces. -- Jeff Worthington 16:53, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

What about the "mood markings" Vivace and Maestoso? They also have microscopic articles which add nothing to what is stated in this article. Unless anyone has any brilliant new insights to add to the articles, we should probably redirect those. Foxmulder 16:38, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

How did composers define these terms in beats per minute?[edit]

The previous editor sensibly asks for examples of how the various terms pan out as actual metronome markings in compositions. I started trying to implement this, using the case of Beethoven, but quickly got into trouble! Here is the wastebasket material I decided not to put in:

===Using the metronome: the case of Beethoven===
Ludwig van Beethoven was an enthusiast for the early metronome, and placed metronome markings on a number of his later works. Here are some examples:
  • The first movement of the "Hammerklavier" piano sonata is in cut time, with a half note (minim) taking the beat. Beethoven labels the movement Allegro and specifies 138 BPM.
  • The "military march" portion of the last movement of the Ninth Symphony is marked by Beethoven as allegro assai vivace "fast and very lively", with a metronome mark specifying 84 quarter notes (crotchets) per minute.
Alas, neither of these examples is particularly illuminating, since neither has been popular with musicians. Most pianists would consider the Hammerklavier at this tempo to sound frantically rushed, making it impossible to give appropriate weight to this imposing work. The Ninth Symphony mark is widely felt to be slow and plodding--by including the metronome mark as well as "assai vivace", Beethoven is felt to have created an impossibility, since the movement simply will not sound very lively at this tempo. One possibility often considered is that the deaf and aging Beethoven, despite his stupendous compositional talents, was simply not an effective metronome user.

By the time I reached this point, it seemed clear that I was writing about Beethoven and not about adagio, allegro, etc.

Could someone else perhaps give this a try, using a composer who doesn't give rise to such vexed problems? Or is Beethoven par for the course? Opus33 18:37, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Anton Webern described his pieces as being two to three times longer than his meticulous metronome markings would indicate. Hyacinth 23:10, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Speaking as a composer, I advise that you never, ever take meticulously precise expressive markings in a piece at face value. Interpretation is simply too slippery. I will carefully notate tempo and dynamic markings in a piece, only to find myself endlessly re-notating them as I learn it -- and then hearing in the recording that I am playing yet something else different. These subjective indications like "Allegro" are intetionally ambiguous; their ambiguity is a virtue, not a flaw. The article is right not to nail them down. !melquiades 06:58, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

@opus33: I think Beethoven did not use the expression 'BPM' but he meant: 'M.M.' (i.e. Mälzel's Metronome mark). Greetz, DTB (talk) 22:45, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Re: "Anton Webern described his pieces as being two to three times longer than his meticulous metronome markings would indicate.":

As I understood this, Webern described his pieces as significantly longer in duration than they were even after hearing them. The conventional explanation has nothing to do with metronome markings. It's that Webern's music is pithy, knotty even, that his pieces had as much substance as works many times longer and Webern habitually and understandably confused substance with duration. (talk) 08:43, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Re: "Speaking as a composer, I advise that you never, ever take meticulously precise expressive markings in a piece at face value. Interpretation is simply too slippery. I will carefully notate tempo and dynamic markings in a piece, only to find myself endlessly re-notating them as I learn it -- and then hearing in the recording that I am playing yet something else different.":
This is your subjective problem. If you want us never, ever to take your metronome markings at face value, fine, but you are doing a grave disservice to other composers by asking performers to disregard what they may very well consider as significant and inviolable a part of their pieces as their notes.
The art of metronome marking needs to be mastered as much as any other art, and your failure to master it does not entitle you to disparage it. Composers who have no specific tempo in mind or for whom a specific tempo is a matter of indifference should not use metronome markings or else indicate clearly in some fashion that their metronome markings are only approximate. Where an unequivocal and precise metronome marking is supplied by the composer, performers should follow it to the best of their reasonable ability. (talk) 08:43, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
If you think that, try playing some of Beethoven's or Chopin's music (e.g., the Etude in Eb minor, Opus 10 no. 6) following their metronome markings. Kostaki mou (talk) 22:52, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Speaking of Webern[edit]

Less known than the Barber but possibly a better example, the Langsamer Satz (for quartet or orchestra,) since the Barber at least started as an adagio movement of a larger piece...
Some composers used one tempo for a movement heading and another for the tempo of the movement proper, which almost falls under the category of psychology and habit. (Hrm, this is a slow movement I'm writing, an adagio. But the tempo I'm going to give it is andante.* So Adagio centered on top in large font, andante above the score and parts to the left. Even odder, from a music history point of view, adding that andante's meaning has also generalized, since it's no longer applied only to movements with walking basses.)
* Anton Rubinstein, symphony no. 3 in A. Probably Bruckner etc. too, sometimes. Schissel 23:33, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Italian tempo markings[edit]


There are two incompatible definitions of Andantino. I disagree with the second one, which does not seem to make a lot of sense in terms of actually being able to perform it. Dick Kimball (talk) 15:32, 9 October 2009 (UTC)


Musical term for a slow tempo often described as 'dragging'. Dragging is usually an undiserable effect, since it tends to suck the energy from a performance. Because of its negative connotation, lento (nor its equivalents in other languages) isn't often used as tempo indications in scores, Mahler being a notable exception: as part of a tempo indication he used schleppend (being the German word for dragging) in the first movement of his 1st symphony ("Titan"), for example.

I've made Lento a redirect. The material (above) would need an overhaul (expecially with regard to grammar), but could it be fitted into the Tempo article? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:07, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

"Often described as" are weasel words. "Lento" means "slow," quite literally, and there's no reason to put any other connotation on it here, although of course performers do so often for individual pieces. "Schleppend" doesn't mean the same thing; Mahler chose that word deliberately, and "Lento" wouldn't have done, because it doesn't mean that. --Wahoofive 16:54, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)


In under which header would the term allargando be in? It means broadening, slowing down and becoming more louder at the same time.

allegro molto moderato[edit]

Currently the page is missing a discussion of allegro molto moderato. It's quite common, so I'd really like to see a definition here. It's very confusing to me, because it seems contradictory: allegro means fast and molto moderato means very moderate, which sounds rather slow. So, what is it? Slow or fast? --345Kai 01:23, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

By the way, molto moderato is not slow. It signifies a strict moderate tempo, instead of a general idea of moderate speed that moderato is. I do not see why this term would be used. It is much too confusing.

I don't really understand the confusion over the term. Although I can't immediately think of a piece with this tempo marking, I understand the term Allegro molto moderato as meaning something like "very moderate allegro", i.e. Not too much allegro but not too little either. --Todeswalzer|Talk 20:20, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

There's a page about it here: - seems original meaning of Allegro is "joyful, cheerful, lively" and it only gradually got the meaning of "fast" later on, with some use of the original meaning still surviving. So it seems Allegro molto moderato doesn't need to be played at an Allegro tempo in the modern sense. Does anyone know a good authoratitive reference for this - the author of that article doesn't give references, tried a Google Scholar search but hard to find it there. Here is the wikipedia article on the Doctrine of Affections: and here is an article about Beethoven's use of allegro, ranging from 69 to 216 bpm so well out of the normal Allegro range of 120 to 168 on the tempo dial Robert Walker (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:35, 25 March 2012 (UTC).


Can anyone give me an example of a piece of music noted as "prestissimo"? --Steerpike 15:09, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

A whole movement? For a section, see the coda to the Waldstein sonata of Beethoven (starting page 398 of the Dover score published in 1975, ISBN 0-486-23135-6. It is sometimes used as the tempo of an entire movement, however, as with the finale of a Joseph Haydn piano sonata (labeled no. 39 in the - again Dover - edition) in G major, apparently dating from before 1780 (pp. 89-93 of volume II, ISBN 0-486-24727-9, released 1984.) A less well-known example is the "Finale all saltarella: Prestissimo" movement (in E minor) that concludes Charles-Valentin Alkan's sonata for cello and piano, to give three then (out of quite a few.)
There's also the Prestissimo Sonatine by David Hart. Dick Kimball (talk) 15:40, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
The Piano Sonata in F minor by Beethoveen's last movement is prestisimmo, but the article incorrectly labeled it in cut time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jasper Deng (talkcontribs) 02:53, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Probably more common as a contrasting (central or concluding, often) section of a movement than as a movement tempo itself though. Schissel | Sound the Note! 01:42, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

One of Smetana's Czech dances, the "Dupák" or "stamping dance" is marked "prestissimo." At the end, Smetana indicates an "accelerando"! Schumann did the same thing in his g minor sonata in both first and last movements! (The first movement uses the German equivalent ("So rasch wie möglich") (as fast as possible) and at the end directs "schneller" (faster) and "noch scneller" (still faster) and the last, a presto the coda of which is marked "prestissimo" similarly ends "immer schneller und schneller")(ever faster and faster)!!!) 04:30, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Yep. Because the key word is 'possible'. The way the notes are laid out, a pianist can't play as quickly at the beginning as at the end. The writing in the coda is, I gather, just slightly easier to negotiate at a faster speed- fewer cliffs, anyway. Not easy- just easier. Hence it's possible to play it faster than it was possible to play the opening: no pair of ducks. :) So did a music (not piano- I'm no pianist, nor do I play on teevee) teacher explain this to me... Schissel | Sound the Note! 04:38, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
A whole movement? How about a famous one? Finale of Schubert's Death and the Maiden Quartet. Schissel | Sound the Note! 16:09, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, the Death and the Maiden finale is "only" marked "presto." The coda is marked "prestissimo." Kostaki mou (talk) 21:34, 30 September 2014 (UTC)


"Vivace" is currently listed under both "Basic tempo markings" and "Mood markings with a tempo connotation." Well, which is it? I say the first: it is a tempo marking with a mood connotation, not the reverse, and should be removed from the second section. Any disagreement? !melquiades 06:59, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

All tempo markings were originally "mood markings with a tempo connotation." This is a distinction without a difference. —Wahoofive (talk) 17:00, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Etymology is not current meaning; the distinction is not at all meaningless (and is rightly reflected in the organization of the page). Consider: "Allegro" originally meant "happy," but that meaning is now largely lost: it's quite easy to find pieces marked "Allegro" which are not at all happy (e.g. Chopin etudes Op 10 No 12, or Op 25 Nos 10-12). The primary meaning of "Allegro" is now "fast;" it is a tempo marking, which has a very arguable emotional connotation. On the other hand, "Maestoso" and "Sostenuto" belong where they are: they do not have any clear tempo denotation, but might imply a tempo if used alone. I claim "Vivace" is now primarily a tempo marking, like "Allegro." !melquiades 21:53, 19 October 2006 (UTC) offers lists of speeds and emotional correlates that fill this page out. In fact, metronome markings are predictive of emotional expression.

Ian Schneider Meanspeed Music Trust

Under basic tempo markings, the tempo for vivace is given as 132–144 BPM. Under mood markings, the tempo is given as greater than 140 BPM. 2601:6:7180:86D:1DEF:5492:1DCF:C680 (talk) 22:12, 15 October 2014 (UTC)


I'm pretty sure it's rallantando, not rallentando. ~ EdBoy[c] 22:47, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

It's rallentando. —Wahoofive (talk) 01:41, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Merge Proposal[edit]

I looked up "inch" and "distance," and they each have their own Wikipedia entry. I don't understand the rationale for merging the two. If we did this, then it should follow that all specific units of measurement that have entries on Wikipedia should be merged with their respective general phenomena being measured. Right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaxelrod (talkcontribs) 03:17, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I think the expression 'BPM' is not used as such in classical music, and metronome marks and tempo indications like allegro, andante etc. are not used in that way in several popular genres. Please do not merge. Maybe a -see also- on both pages is enough. Just my 2 cents. DTB (talk) 22:43, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Merge Proposal[edit]

I personally think that BPM shouldn't be merged with Tempo, it should be merged with beat; because BPM is a phenomenon inside Beat. Maybe you could also merge Tempo with Beat and create a complete article about BEAT, because these three concepts are similar. Carmaster 03:39, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I think you shouldn't merge the BPM with the tempi, because they're not the same thing. BPM says something about the speed of the movement and the tempo tells you more about the mood of the piece/movement. For instance Allegro means happy, and has nothing to do with "fast". Usually allegri are played fast, but it's not necessary. Vivace means lively and lento means broad. Lenti are mostly played slow, but it doesn't have to be that way. Beethoven and Mozart for sure never wrote BPM's or MM's or whatever you want to name it. Musicians will decide the BPM for themselves. The composer just indicates whether you have to play it lively, or sad, or happy, etc. Allegro, Presto, Adagio, Lento, etc. are just italian words. You can look them up in a dictionary. But hey, that's just the humble opinion of a musician who is still studying at the conservatory... —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:01, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Allegro doesn't mean "happy" -- it merely means quickly. Consider, for example, the first movement of Beethoven's Pathétique piano sonata: the exposition is marked Allegro di molto e con brio, but the pervading mood of the piece certainly isn't one of happiness (as the title would indicate). Also, Beethoven did use BPM markings in a few of his pieces. (In fact, it was a friend of his who first patented the metronome and began selling them.) It is true, however, that tempo markings do generally provide a better indication of the mood of a piece of music than mere beats per minute (such as the con brio marking in my previous example, or the Grave introduction), and for that reason they aren't quite the same thing. Thus, I would also recommend not merging the articles. --Todeswalzer|Talk 00:54, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Actually, Allegro does mean happy. Composers standarized it to just make it mean 'quick'. It's probably because music started as an entertainment activity, not an artistic one.

Deafussy 20:01, 23 May 2008

"Beats per minute" is never properly indicated on music. Instead we always have some actual note value per minute, quarter notes, eighth notes, and so on. "Beats per minute" is not a legitimate musical subject, and no such article should appear anywhere in Wikipedia, whether merged with this one or not. (talk) 08:53, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Though I'm not sure that BPM (referring to music) should have its own article, I'd like to point out that your dismissal of BPM as utterly unworthy of discussion seems..pompous and dismissive. A large proportion of the music that people listen to these days - Hip-Hop and other electronic music especially - is created by specifying beats per minute on the electronic device being used. No old-fashioned tempo markings are used. The knowledge of BPM, and not simply "tempo", is crucial for DJs, and to some is itself a subject worthy of discussion. What with Hip-Hop and other electronic music being the most pervasive and important of our time, I would suggest that BPM is actually a more important subject than tempo.Headbeater (talk) 12:34, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

"BPM" means "beats per minute. Anytime a metronome marking such as "M.M." or as a "rhythmic-value=X" is used, they express how many beats per minute are desired for the correct speed of the piece (as per composer's intentions). Tempo indications such as "allegro", "lento" and so on indicate tempo/speed, and it's up to the interpreter to decide how many BPMs (a response to who wrote "BPM" is a modern concept, like for DJs). I agree, it shouldn't have a separate article, just an in-article explanation (it's there already), and also on the "beat" page. I *would* put it in Wiktionary on its own, though. --David Be 16:50, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Music started as an entertainment activity? That's -- debateable (if seriously off-subject.) Schissel | Sound the Note! 07:21, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Moderato con esspressivo[edit]

In first place, I think 'esspressivo' should go to the Glossary of musical terminology or, at least, to the Mood markings. If we start adding expression to the tempo markings, the list would be endless. The other thing that bothers me about it is that if it's correct. I don't speak italian, but spanish, and it sounds a bit weird. --Deafussy 17:25, 23 May 2005

It's actually espressivo, not esspressivo. (talk) 08:57, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Adagio: 72 bpm is already much too fast![edit]

I'd give a 64-70 bpm, but no 76. This is almost Andante and much too fast. There are also Adagios with lots of 64ths which have the eighths played like crotchets and are played at about 50 bpm, like a Larghetto. -andy (talk) 21:47, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I think that the numbers given are very poorly chosen in all. Choose a representative section of a piece of classical music as actually played, clock its actual beats per music - in a good-sounding, not too slow performance, in a section without too many tempo changes, with score in front of you - count the beats - compare to that table - that table will probably be way off. The 96 beats of più presto concluding Brahms' first cello sonata were played in 42 seconds in a performance I was just listening to; that's Quarter=137; and by the table, that's not A little more presto, that's in the vicinity of Vivace- if one believes that (1) there's such a thing as a regular, contextfree correspondence of metronome markings and tempo indications (... er... erm... er... er... where to start. No. will have to do to begin with) and (2) that that BPM table in there is anything more than darts thrown from a far distance... Schissel | Sound the Note! 16:16, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

During the 1980's classical music graduates became accustomed to using BPM to insert substitute sections of a piece when recording. Up to this point there had been no generally adopted standard interpretation of tempi in terms of exact beats, the matter was more one of feeling. Around the same time there was also a revolution to speed up tempi following Nigel Kennedy's new ways of playing Bach. As a result, many pieces are now played considerably faster than their composers may have originally intended. Modern practice has also departed from indicated tempi in some cases. Moray Welsh first played Faure's 'Apres un Reve'as a cello encore piece in the 1970's, slowing it down considerably to suit the dynamics of the cello, and it makes a fine experience. As a result of often hearing this on the radio many younger singers now sing this piece as a slow vocalise at a far slower pace than Faure's indicated 'andantino'. The point being made is that all these indications of tempo are not graven in stone, but need to be sensitively interpreted or reinterpreted according to circumstances. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:13, 11 May 2015 (UTC)


there is a blatant attempt at advertising in the links section (last link, "Dj BPM studio") but i find myself unable to find the text on the edit page. maybe someone could see to this

I removed that. I also removed the preceding sentence, which tried to describe how to count beats per minute. It described a method that only applies to music that has a bass drum on every beat, which is a remarkably small subset of music.

GreenAsJade (talk) 23:52, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Affrettando shouldn't redirect here, should redirect to Glossary of musical terminology.[edit]

Affrettando redirects here, but this article doesn't define it. Glossary of musical terminology does. The redirect should go there.-- (talk) 03:06, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


The link on the "Furioso" term links to a page about a Racehorse of same name. I haven't edited it because I cannot find the article for the musical term. Remove the link or create a disambiguation page for the term? EcthelionGenesis (talk) 19:50, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Rushing and Dragging[edit]

I removed the weasel words and unreferenced sentences. It's incomplete, but at least it's neutral. Unfortunately, I don't have sources. --David Be (talk) 17:00, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

French tempo markings[edit]

Note that I'm a newbie. I added a line about french tempo markings talking about what Satie used to do, its sources maybe should be a link to an actual score of his gnossiennes, nº1 for example. Let me know any discrepance with my contribution or teaching me how to do it better. Greetings, Stunt21 (talk) 15:08, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Order by relative BPM[edit]

Tempos markings are currently ordered alphabetically, presumably to make them easier to locate. It's confusing to order them alphabetically, since the definitions themselves refer to other tempos like "slightly faster than andante" (two spots before). If a reader is trying to get a sense of where a tempo fits on the spectrum, they will be at a loss. Since browsers have a find function nowadays, is it really more communicative to order alphabetically instead of naturally by pace? It may not be possible to order them rigorously, but at least they can be in the ballpark. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blinkozo (talkcontribs) 21:20, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Material under the "Beats per Minute" section[edit]

Hi. I'm not a regular contributor. I just stumbled onto the tempo page and was floored by this content under the "Beats Per Minute" section:

In this context the beats measured are either crotchets (quarter notes) in the time signature (sometimes called down-beats, although the term is ambiguous), or drum beats (typically bass-drum or another functionally similar synthesized sound), whichever is more frequent. Higher BPM values are therefore achievable by increasing the number of drum beats, without increasing the tempo of the music. House music is faster around 120-128 bpm (from regular house music to UK Garage), and Jungle music generally ranges between 150-180 bpm. Psytrance is almost exclusively produced at 145 BPM,[citation needed] whereas Speedcore and Gabber music both frequently exceed 180 bpm.

[edit]Extreme BPM

More extreme BPMs are achievable at the same underlying tempo with very fast drum patterns, often expressed as drum rolls. Such compositions often exhibit a much slower underlying tempo, but may increase the BPM by adding additional percussive beats. Extreme music subgenres such as speedcore and cybergrind often strive to reach excessively high BPM rates.

Some of that is misleading, some of it is blatantly false, and almost all of it is garbage and/or only applicable to a tiny sliver of music. I can't speak on any of the styles named here (and neither can their author, since there are no citations). No disrespect to the person who wrote it, but none of this has any place in a general article on tempo. I hope that someone will clean this up. Thank you. (talk) 22:58, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Why hello there. While I agree that the selection of compared music styles is purely at random and favors the techno scene, I also think that this topic should have its place in a general article on tempo. I personally stumbled over this paragraph because I was looking for exactly the information I was looking for. Well, sort of - I was looking for typical BPM-ranges of a few other genres and was really disappointed to see only a few specialized genres picked out.
If this section gets expanded however, I think a comparison of typical tempi of major musical genres could be a valuable addition to this article. (talk) 21:31, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

It seems to me that, overall, the French version of this article does a much better job of laying out the Basic Tempos, mostly because it does not attempt to be prescriptive about the BPM values of each tempo. In particular, the BPM brackets overlap a lot, which is exactly what you would expect, instead of the falsely neat division in the English version of the article. (Moderato marcia is between 83 and 85 bpm??? Is that out of a Monty Python sketch? If we're being absurd, why not write that it's between 83.27 bpm and 86.04?) Pierdeux (talk) 20:59, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Multiple issues[edit]

Additional citations[edit]

Why and where does this article need additional citations for verification? What references does it need and how should they be added? Hyacinth (talk) 07:47, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Only two sections are marked as needing more citations. The first is so obvious that I would say the tag could be removed. The second could possibly use a source, although the terms "rushing" and "dragging" are rather common and their meaning also rather obvious. --Robert.Allen (talk) 22:05, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Original research[edit]

Why and where does this article contain original research? How should it be cleaned up? Hyacinth (talk) 07:47, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps the assignment of metronome ranges to particular tempo markings. No source is given, and I would have some doubts about including them. --Robert.Allen (talk) 22:05, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
Update: Some of the above discussion indicates that some readers wanted these added. Also, I see now that some of these (but not all) are shown on the face of the Wittner electronic metronome which is illustrated. It might be better to add these ranges to the section on the metronome, but leave them out of the longer list of tempo markings. --Robert.Allen (talk) 22:44, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
I can think of a few reasons why I'd agree the table should probably yes be moved to the article on metronomes. An article on tempo could be on quite a few things- tempo markings being among them but also - not limiting to these- rubato (and, a bit tangentially, attempts to find ways to/symbols to use to notate/indicate suggestions for/etc. rubato- by Liszt and a few others - in piano and orchestral music...) ...- also historical changes in perceptions of and responsibility for , etc. ... (and the first appearance of each tempo indication historically would be at least incidentally interesting to know, I guess. :) Just as it's still odd that one doesn't quite know whether the first symphony to use trombones was premiered in 1806 or 1807 (or in Scandinavia or in Germany) (Eggert or Beethoven). ) Schissel | Sound the Note! 16:36, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

in musi what does allegro mean[edit]

i think it means fast — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:48, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Literally, I gather, it means cheerful or joyous. A bit like "vivace" means lively... Schissel | Sound the Note! 16:37, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Broken citation at [3][edit]

I added a "citation needed" tag next to it since the original is broken. I don't know what the original source of that was, so if somebody would be willing to clean that up, I'd much appreciate that. Thanks in advance! (talk) 06:51, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Done. --Robert.Allen (talk) 07:30, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Seeking consensus on link[edit]

I removed a link which was restored at [1]. Does this link meet WP:EL? Does it provide additional useful information for people seeking to understand the subject of 'tempo?' I'm seeking consensus here rather than just reverting again. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 18:47, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

No need. It seeks donations. Krenakarore TK 19:19, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Marcia moderato[edit]

Mr. Schie, I agree it's not a 'basic' tempo. You see, it's all the same where that comma is, at least for me. But deleting info based on personal opinions, doesn't go well for a man in you position. Woudn't you prefer to move that content to the proper place instead ? I also think that these don't belong here. They would look much better in an article on their own, but that's my opinion you know. Best regards, Krenakarore TK 07:20, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Musical parameters in infobox[edit]

I'm not sure of the best place to ask this, but I've started a discussion over at Template_talk:Infobox_song, which essentially asks whether tempo and key should have their own parameters. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:28, 9 March 2013 (UTC)


This article claims "con bravura – with skill" while the article Glossary of musical terminology claims "brav.ura: boldness; as in con bravura, boldly". The latter seem more likely. Kricke (talk) 01:41, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Presumably one becomes bold when one becomes skilled, and hopefully one is bold more often when skilled then not. The labyrinth of translation. Hyacinth (talk) 19:12, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
What composer would write "with skill" on a composition? What's the alternative? Doesn't pass the logic test. —Wahoofive (talk) 21:11, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Lento vs. Largo[edit]

The article currently lists lento as slower than largo. Isn't it the other way round? (talk) 18:49, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

beats per minute and notes in a bar[edit]

There is confusion in some contributors minds, apparently in the techno department, between the number of beats per minute, and the number of notes in a bar. I would say that the former is expressed by the time signature and the tempo markings, and the latter is a matter of musical composition. Putting twice as many notes of half the length in a bar does not in itself alter the tempo. If the time signature is defined as 4/4, then four crotchets, or whole notes, at 50 BPM is exactly the same tempo as eight quavers at 50 BPM. There may also be confusion when the time signature changes, especially if an attempt is made to compare BPM with number of bars (measures) per minute. For example, a 4/4 time signature at 100 BPM will have a different number of bars per minute than a 3/4 piece at the same tempo of 100 BPM, (an example of L'istesso Tempo).

Some inclusion of the role of time signature in indicating tempo might be worthwhile, even though it usually plays only a small indicative role.

The case of Cut Time needs to be included as more than a passing comment. A Midsummer Night's Dream (Mendelssohn)OP.21 [1] is in Cut time, and is marked Allegro di Molto (not defined in the article). It is usually played at about 240 crotchets (quarter notes) per minute which is equivalent to 120 BPM (two half note per bar)in cut time. Allegro di Molto defined as BPM and played in Cut time would be half the speed of the same music played in 4/4. It is therefore adviseable to add a comment, near the top of the article, that the BPM definitions apply to 4/4 time signature (if they do) in order to have a consistent approach.

At least one notation software (if I cite it I'll be accused of advertising) allows the use of both textual markings such as Allegro, and/or BPM markings. This allows a composer to define more precisely how fast the music will be played by the software. In live performance, there is a lot of scope for interpretation, and in the case of music such as the Mendellsohn overture, a need to be aware that some players may not have the ability to achieve a specific BPM instruction.

In my opinion, there is a distinction between the mechanically defined tempo in Beats per Minute (BPM) and the style of performance, which as several authors pointed out is a combination of tempo, playing technique, expression and interpretation (and maybe ability and other factors). A comment to this effect perhaps needs to go near the top of the article. I'm sure there is an authoritative musician out there who could be cited on this point. (talk) 20:04, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Unused Tempos in Electronic Dance Music[edit]

Hello. I am having trouble finding citations, so I did not include anything about the concept that there is a range of tempos unsuited for today's dance music. This range falls between roughly 100-115 bpm, as it is too fast to 'groove' to, and too slow to dance to. If anyone can find any citations regarding this concept, I would appreciate it. (talk) 20:27, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

It's not true, that's basically the range of Moombahton and some Glitch hop. See this for example [2]. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 10:49, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
Thank you!!! (talk) 17:28, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
    • ^ Felix Mendelssohn-Bartholdys Werke, Serie 2 Leipzig: Breitkopf & Härtel, 1874. Plate M.B. 7. - IMSLP Library