2.

3 Specific applications in music – univariate

2.3.1 Tempo curves
Figure 2.3 displays 28 tempo curves for performances of Schumann’s Träu-
merei op. 15, No. 7, by 24 pianists. The names of the pianists and dates
of the recordings (in brackets) are Martha Argerich (before 1983), Claudio
Arrau (1974), Vladimir Ashkenazy (1987), Alfred Brendel (before 1980),
Stanislav Bunin (1988), Sylvia Capova (before 1987), Alfred Cortot (1935,
1947 and 1953), Clifford Curzon (about 1955), Fanny Davies (1929), Jörg
Demus (about 1960), Christoph Eschenbach (before 1966), Reine Gianoli
(1974), Vladimir Horowitz (1947, before 1963 and 1965), Cyprien Katsaris
(1980), Walter Klien (date unknown), André Krust (about 1960), Antonin
Kubalek (1988), Benno Moisewitsch (about 1950), Elly Ney (about 1935),
Guiomar Novaes (before 1954), Cristina Ortiz (before 1988), Artur Schn-
abel (1947), Howard Shelley (before 1990), Yakov Zak (about 1960).
Tempo is more likely to be varied in a relative rather than absolute way.
For instance, a musician plays a certain passage twice as fast as the previ-
ous one, but may care less about the exact absolute tempo. This suggests
consideration of the logarithm of tempo. Moreover, the main interest lies in
comparing the shapes of the curves. Therefore, the plotted curves consist
of standardized logarithmic tempo (each curve has sample mean zero and
variance one).
Schumann’s Träumerei is divided into four main parts, each consisting
of about eight bars, the first two and the last one being almost identi-
′ ′′
cal (see Figure 2.1). Thus, the structure is: A, A , B, and A . Already a
very simple exploratory analysis reveals interesting features. For each pi-
anist, we calculate the following statistics for the four parts respectively:
x̄, M, s, Q1 , Q2 , m3 and m4 . Figures 2.4a through e show a distinct pattern
′ ′′
that corresponds to the division into A, A , B, and A . Tempo is much
′′ ′
lower in A and generally highest in B. Also, A seems to be played at a
slightly slower tempo than A – though this distinction is not quite so clear
(Figures 2.4a,b). Tempo is varied most towards the end and considerably
less in the first half of the piece (Figures 2.4c). Skewness is generally nega-
tive which is due to occasional extreme “ritardandi”. This is most extreme
′′
in part B and, again, least pronounced in the first half of the piece (A, A ).
A mirror image of this pattern, with most extreme positive values in B,
′′
is observed for kurtosis. This indicates that in B (and also in A ), most
tempo values vary little around an average value, but occasionally extreme
tempo changes occur. Also, for A, there are two outliers with an extremly
negative skewness – these turn out to be Fanny Davies and Jörg Demus.
Figures 2.4f through h show another interesting comparison of boxplots.
′′
In Figure 2.4f, the differences between the lower quartiles in A and A
for performances before 1965 are compared with those from performances
recorded in 1965 or later. The clear difference indicates that, at least for the

©2004 CRC Press LLC

 -20
0

ARGERICH
ARRAU
ASKENAZE

BRENDEL
-40

BUNIN

CAPOVA
CORTOT1

CORTOT2
CORTOT3
CURZON
DAVIES
-60

DEMUS
log(tempo)

ESCHENBACH
GIANOLI
HOROWITZ1
HOROWITZ2
HOROWITZ3

KATSARIS
-80

KLIEN

KRUST

KUBALEK
MOISEIWITSCH
NEY
NOVAES
-100

ORTIZ
SCHNABEL
SHELLEY

ZAK

0 10 20 30

onset time

Figure 2.3 Twenty-eight tempo curves of Schumann’s Träumerei performed by 24

pianists. (For Cortot and Horowitz, three tempo curves were available.)

sample considered here, pianists of the “modern era” tend to make a much
′′
stronger distinction between A and A in terms of slow tempi. The only
exceptions (outliers in the left boxplot) are Moiseiwitsch and Horowitz’
first performance and Ashkenazy (outlier in the right boxplot). The com-
parsion of skewness and curtosis in Figures 2.4g and h also indicates that
“modern” pianists seem to prefer occasional extreme ritardandi. The only
exception in the “early 20th century group” is Artur Schnabel, with an
extreme skewness of −2.47 and a kurtosis of 7.04.
Direct comparisons of tempo distributions are shown in Figures 2.5a

©2004 CRC Press LLC

Figure 2.4 Boxplots of descriptive statistics for the 28 tempo curves in Figure
2.3.

through f. The following observations can be made: a) compared to Demus

(quantiles on the horizontal axis), Ortiz has a few relatively extreme slow
tempi (Figure 2.5a); b) similarily, but in a less extreme way, Cortot’s inter-
pretation includes occasional extremely slow tempo values (Figure 2.5b); c)
Ortiz and Argerich have practically the same (marginal) distribution (Fig-
ure 2.5c); d) Figure 2.5d is similar to 2.5a and b, though less extreme; e) the
tempo distribution of Cortot’s performance (Figure 2.5e) did not change
much in 1947 compared to 1935; f) similarily, Horowitz’s tempo distribu-

©2004 CRC Press LLC