Talk:Tempo

message: 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)
replies: text: 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, "" and not "Allegro") though it is not clear why it matters to me... - Marvin01 | talk 16:43, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Old talk 

message: :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)
thread_title:  Speaking of Webern 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Andantino 

message: :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)
replies: text: "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)
thread_title:  Lento 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: There's a page about it here: http://www.8notes.com/glossary/Allegro.asp - 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: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctrine_of_the_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 http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/742558?uid=3738032&uid=2&uid=4&sid=55944825093 Robert Walker (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 12:35, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  allegro molto moderato 

message: "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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Vivace 

message: I'm pretty sure it's rallantando, not rallentando. ~ EdBoy[c] 22:47, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's rallentando. —Wahoofive (talk) 01:41, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rallantando 

message: 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 (talk • contribs) 03:17, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Merge Proposal 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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. 24.183.105.207 (talk) 08:53, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

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

message: 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. 24.183.105.207 (talk) 08:57, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moderato con esspressivo 

message: 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 92.229.131.173 (talk) 21:47, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Adagio: 72 bpm is already much too fast! 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Advertising 

message: Affrettando redirects here, but this article doesn't define it. Glossary of musical terminology does. The redirect should go there.--76.167.77.165 (talk) 03:06, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Affrettando]] shouldn't redirect here, should redirect to [[Glossary of musical terminology]].

message: 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)
thread_title:  Furioso 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Rushing and Dragging 

message: 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)
thread_title:  French tempo markings 

message: 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 (talk • contribs) 21:20, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Order by relative BPM 

message: ===Additional citations===
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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Multiple issues

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Additional citations

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

message: i think it means fast  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.92.98.238 (talk) 01:48, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Literally, I gather, it means cheerful or joyous. A bit like "vivace" means lively... Schissel | Sound the Note! 16:37, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  in musi what does allegro mean 

message: 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!  74.85.69.201 (talk) 06:51, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. --Robert.Allen (talk) 07:30, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Broken citation at [3] 

message: I removed a link which was restored at .  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)
replies: text: No need. It seeks donations. Krenakarore TK 19:19, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Seeking consensus on link

message: 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)
thread_title: Marcia moderato

message: Marching bands have their own specialized discipline involving both tempo and step length that is performed differently in different countries. e.g. http://www.thebeatgoesonmb.org/marching/How%20to%20March%20with%20TBGO.pdf
The usage of Marcia moderato is actually a grammatical anomaly (and possibly erroneous) designating a moderate march (half way between the cadence of a military marches and parades (112bpm UK / 120bpm US) and the slow funeral processions marches (48bpm)) rather than a "moderate tempo similar to a march".
The subject came up fairly recently in a youtube video discussing ragtime and some early 20th century recordings were referenced demonstrating this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=judCkMCJgBA
Overall, to prevent further misinformation, I suggest dropping the reference to Marcia moderato altogether until such a time where a specialist source on marching bands could be used to write a separate section on the subject matter.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.226.11.151 (talk) 06:20, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Marcia moderato and actual marches

message: 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 86.175.220.114 (talk) 17:28, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Musical parameters in infobox 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Inconsistency

message: The article currently lists lento as slower than largo. Isn't it the other way round? 2.25.140.191 (talk) 18:49, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lento vs. Largo 

message: 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 Felix Mendelssohn-Bartholdys Werke, Serie 2 Leipzig: Breitkopf & Härtel, 1874. Plate M.B. 7. - IMSLP Library 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.
92.21.203.161 (talk) 20:04, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  beats per minute and notes in a bar 

message: 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. 159.83.54.2 (talk) 20:27, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not true, that's basically the range of Moombahton and some Glitch hop. See this for example . – filelakeshoe (t / c)  10:49, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

text: Thank you!!! 159.83.54.2 (talk) 17:28, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unused Tempos in Electronic Dance Music 

message: There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Andante (disambiguation) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you.  —RMCD bot 19:33, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move discussion in progress 

message: Recently I've gotten acquainted with songs at a decimal number of BPM (e.g. "I Wanna Dance With Somebody (Who Loves Me)" has an original tempo of 118.825 BPM). How could we fit this into the article? There's very little information about it online, but "beats per minute" is supposed to be a measure of speed, not a strict number of beats in a minute. DASL51984 (Speak to me!) 03:26, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Decimal BPM?  

message: As defined by the basic definition (4 beats per measure/bar), allegro is defined as fast, quick, and bright, meaning a tempo below 120 bpm isn't really defined as fast (though 112 bpm is moderately fast), and 120 bpm means 2 bps (beats per second), which makes it the reliable threshold for allegro.
After all, 120 bpm = 30 measures/bars per minute.
Moderato is moderate, suggesting that 108 bpm is where it becomes moderate, and that's the real max limit for lento, andante, and andantino.
108 bpm is 27 measures/bars per minute.
Vivace is lively, fast, and bright, meaning with the 4/4 measurement, a range of 156 to 176 bpm is how it's defined in many metronomes nowadays.
Meaning anywhere between 39 and 44 measures/bars per minute.
Vivacissimo and allegressimo are very fast, bright, and lively, meaning ranges from 172 to 176 are reliable for the 4/4 markings.
Because vivacissimo and allegrissimo are between 43 and 44 measures/bars per minute.
Presto clearly can't go below 168 bpm nowadays since that's very fast (which presto means), though at 200 bpm, that's fast enough cut common time, giving that the name prestissimo. Eric Nelson27 (talk) 03:31, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  The true definitions of basic tempo ranges