Invention A 2 Voices No. 1 ( It Has Nothing To Do With Piccinesco's )

myhobbyispiano wrote:

Hi guys, I wanted an opinion on mine as well, if possible, because I would like to hear the opinions of other qualified people besides my teacher. And there are quite a few here. Thanks in advance.

Ah, the camera turned off at a certain point, but the audio didn't because I record it separately.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QBplrBU-M-M

Hi. To begin with, you should change editions because the mordents you are playing are all wrong (the first two of the right hand are upper mordents, while you play them as lower ones; I assume you are using the Ricordi edition: burn it and buy an Urtext!).

After that, the phrasing is wrong: the material this invention is based on is acephalous (it starts with a pause), so, for example, the first sound of the second measure is not the beginning of a fragment, but the end of the previous fragment. Let me explain: you must play it like this:

do re mi fa re mi do sol_ (breath) do_ si_ do_ re (breath!!!) sol la si do la si sol re_ (breath) sol_ fa_ sol_ mi (breath!!!) la sol fa mi sol fa la sol (breath) etc etc etc...

PS be careful because the 5th finger of the right hand does not articulate and you play it by rotating the wrist...

Open content (youtube)

Carlos wrote:

Hi. To begin with, you should change editions because the mordents you are playing are all wrong (the first two in the right hand are upper mordents, while you play them as lower ones; I assume you are using the Ricordi edition: burn it and buy an Urtext!).

Dafterward, the phrasing is wrong: the material this invention is based on is acephalous (it begins with a rest), so, for example, the first sound of the second measure is not the beginning of a fragment, but the end of the previous fragment. Let me explain: you must play it like this:

do re mi fa re mi do sol_ (breathe) do_ si_ do_ re (breathe!!!) sol la si do la si sol re_ (breathe) sol_ fa_ sol_ mi (breathe!!!) la sol fa mi sol fa la sol (breathe) etc etc etc...

PS be careful because the 5th finger of the right hand does not articulate and you play it by rotating the wrist...

Thank you for the precious advice.

You are right, I use Ricordi, but I don't know if my teacher's choice fell on this edition because I am still a beginner or if using the Urtext would be indifferent.

I am grateful for your attention. See you soon.

myhobbyispiano wrote:

I don't know if my teacher chose this edition because I am still a beginner or if using the Urtext would make no difference.

The use of the Urtext does make a difference: the difference is that Ricordi is wrong while the Urtext is right. The fact that you are a beginner will require your teacher to give you more explanations. Often, those who suggest using Ricordi (or similar) do so out of laziness, because someone else has already done the things that should be done by them (such as suggesting appropriate fingering). In any case, fingerprinted Urtexts are also available (in a very accurate manner). But at least on those, there are no errors like the ones you find in Ricordi, which, as you can see, I identified immediately. Bye!

Carlos wrote:

The use of the Urtext is significant: the difference is that Ricordi is wrong while the Urtext is right. The fact that you are a beginner will force your teacher to give you more explanations. Often, those who suggest using Ricordi (or similar) do so out of laziness, because someone else has already done the things that should be done by him (such as suggesting appropriate fingering). In any case, fingerprinted Urtexts are also available (in a very accurate manner). But at least on those, there are no errors like the ones you find in Ricordi, which, as you can see, I identified immediately. Bye!

The question I ask myself is this: did the editors who published for Ricordi make mistakes to make the student's task easier, or are they incompetent? Forgive me if the question seems so stupid, but I cannot conceive of either the first nor the second solution..... hmm...

myhobbyispiano wrote:

The question I ask myself is this: did the editors who published for Ricordi make mistakes to make the student's task easier, or are they incompetent? Forgive me if the question seems so stupid, but I cannot conceive of either the first nor the second solution..... well...

Most "Ricordi-style" revisions date back to a historical period in which there was not the attention we have today for the "authentic" mark of the author, and it was common, especially in Bach's music, to stuff scores with indications (non-existent in the source) that correspond to nothing more or less than an interpretation by the person who performed the revision themselves. You will see that in your Ricordi edition, under the title and in parentheses, it says "revision by Joe Blow". There you go: consider that everything you find written on those pages (except for the notes alone!) is their own invention and has, compared to what Bach wrote, a legitimacy close to absolute zero. Bach wrote neither slurs, nor dynamic indications, nor metronome markings, nothing of the sort... make your own assessment: do you want to play "Joe Blow style" or do you want to play Bach?

I had seen it "secretly" 2/3 days ago, then I'll tell you what I think about it.

Piccinesco wrote:

I saw it "secretly" 2/3 days ago, then I'll tell you what I think.

What?

I perfectly agree with Carlos

myhobbyispiano wrote:

What?

What do you think we are talking about?

Tomorrow I will tell you (write) my impressions.

Piccinesco wrote:

What do you think we are talking about?

Tomorrow I will tell you (write) my impressions.

the "secretly" misled me....

The expression "Ricordi Edition" regarding the Inventions and Sinfonias is a bit too generic and also ...unfair.

It would be more accurate to cite instead the name of the revisor, e.g., Mugellini (1871-1912 !!!).

The Ricordi edition in my possession (for at least fifteen years) is by Carlo Pestalozza, "revision based on autographs," with a long

introduction where, among other things, we read:

"The embellishments are realized according to the style of the period, taking into account...the table of embellishments that Bach himself(?) proposes in the introduction of the Clavierbüchlein. Their execution will therefore sometimes result in being less easy compared to the practice adopted in most editions."

Unfortunately, however, in defiance of poor Pestalozza, the nineteenth-century Ricordi/Mugellini versions are still found around.

I will tell you the impressions I had the other day, but also today, except for the mordents, while listening to it:

because I was left with memories that later turned out to be wrong, I hadn't understood those initial mordents as incorrect, even if, as in my interpretation, they seemed a bit too reductive to me, almost truncated, in short; for the rest, from the 3rd measure onwards, you play the eighth notes staccato with the left hand, as I was actually told to do in the past, the sixteenth notes legato, the eighth notes staccato, but lately I have been told that the eighth notes on beats 3 and 4 must be legato, as happens on measures 11 and 12 for the right hand; these indications are not specified, and doubts remain, which causes me some uncertainty, but if (I don't know if it's right) I think about the consistency of the fact that this type of execution occurs for two passages, for both hands, on practically identical fragments but placed in different positions, I think it shouldn't necessarily be understood as wrong; however, to be precise, I was told this is not indicated in the score.

At the second 0:23, go to F#, at measure 8, and as I did in a first tempo (to avoid performing a mordent—think that in the past I performed it, but from memory, I didn't remember it was indicated in the score).

What I like (although I don't know, you must tell me this, I sense a minimum of uncertainty while you perform it, perhaps I am wrong, and this feeling of mine stems from the fact that to keep a constant metronomic tempo, even the smallest "hesitations" are more noticeable, as in the passage at measures 11 and 12, which is always a bit difficult due to the left-hand fingering, where some passages do not align and require more control) is that you play constantly at the same speed, you don't get rushed, and you seem quite fluid in the execution.

The error in the finale does not compromise for me the quality (a term I never use, and I feel like an old man using it) of the execution precisely because of the search for consistency rather than effect; as you well know, many on the internet insert interpretations at 14,000 [BPM] of these pieces just for effect, but the intensity and the balance necessary to make every passage sensible and effective are lost.

If you find a way to do a reprise from the beginning, it might be possible (I say this for myself and for others) to better verify the fingering.

One thing that I also feel compelled to say is that the teacher must find the best way to make the student understand the correct mode of execution of a piece, and not tire of looking for it; because even in solfeggio, if someone comes along who does not give importance to details that play a role in initial training, taking for granted that everything can be resolved or that some things are negligible, they sometimes cause irreparable damage, and certain teachers simply do not understand this.

Sometimes I have tried to personally insert the fingering even in the pieces I write; it is a way to find solutions and it is also useful for the execution of the very pieces one writes, because you must find the best solution yourself, and this involves significant reflection because it is a bit like when doing harmony exercises: to remedy an error in the middle of the exercise, one is sometimes forced to rewrite it from the beginning.

Dear Piccinesco, first of all, thank you for the care with which you listened to the performance, even catching nuances that perhaps even I cannot grasp. We all have uncertainties and they are more than minimal, especially in the points you indicated. Unfortunately, I was not able to correct them. The fear of playing the wrong notes, something my teacher always reproaches me for, causes me to freeze on the most delicate passages. As for wrong mordents, 19th-century editions, and revisors, I knew nothing about them, and thanks also to Carlos and Boesendorfer, I have started to understand a bit more. For the moment, however, I do not think I will return to this piece, and I will explain why (hoping that no one invites me to leave this forum for what I am about to say). I am 49 years old, I am a computer science teacher and also a software developer with a great love for music. I have been taking lessons for less than 2 years and I know that I am not and will never be a professional pianist. I play one hour, an hour and a half at most every day (sometimes I happen to skip). My intention is to study as long as my love for the piano remains unchanged, to learn everything I can (that's why I am here) and perhaps, after having learned better, revisit these wonderful works with greater awareness. I know that if I were to play this invention again now, it would not be much better than how I have played it so far. I hope that all of you, despite knowing my real situation, still have the desire to explain certain things to me as you have done on this occasion. Regarding fingering, my teacher often rewrites or modifies it in parts that she deems a bit too complex for my preparation; in short, she often attends to this aspect, but I do not even expect her to use the same techniques with me that she uses with someone who might have to face conservatory exams. And finally, Bach is difficult also because he did not write for the piano and, very often, who says it must be interpreted exactly as Mugellini, Pestalozza, Gould, or others suggest?

Thank you for everything, I am infinitely grateful to you.

Ciao.

No one can afford to say that Bach (and I add no composer) must be interpreted exactly as proposed by Mugellini, Pestalozza, Gould,

Bösendorfer, Carlos Kleiber or Busoni.......

Myhobbyspiano, you have written a self-evident truth, but in doing so, you are confusing execution with interpretation.

Here we are talking about execution: executing what the Author actually wrote, exactly the same notes, the mordents as Bach intended them to be performed, for the simple fact that that is how they were to be performed.

To execute is the answer to "what".

To interpret is the answer to "how", which implies having resolved the answer to the "what", but then ventures into the abyssal depths of Art.

No honest master is able to explain to you how to interpret. Suggestions, many; exhaustive answers, none.

An assiduous listening to interpretations by great performers, filtered through one's own musical sensitivity, can be helpful.

But in the end, we must seek interpretation within ourselves, "in interiore homine habitat veritas" (Augustine of Hippo).

Boesendorfer wrote:

No one can afford to say that Bach (and I add no composer) must be interpreted exactly as proposed by Mugellini, Pestalozza, Gould,

Bösendorfer, Carlos Kleiber or Busoni.......

Myhobbyspiano, you have written a self-evident truth, but in doing so, you are confusing execution with interpretation.

Here we are talking about execution: executing what the Author actually wrote, exactly the same notes, the mordents as Bach intended them to be performed, for the simple fact that they had to be performed that way.

Executing is the answer to "what".

Interpreting is the answer to "how", which implies having solved the answer to "what", but then ventures into the abyssal depths of Art.

No honest master is able to explain to you how to interpret. Suggestions, many; exhaustive answers, none.

Assiduous listening to interpretations by great performers, filtered through one's own musical sensitivity, can be helpful.

But in the end, we must seek interpretation within ourselves, "in interiore homine habitat veritas" (Augustine of Hippo).

I think I expressed myself poorly, but I meant exactly "to interpret". I fully agree with you that execution must perfectly correspond to the author's writing, even though it often happens to me that I hear many small differences between one performer and another and I still cannot distinguish who is executing the original score. At this moment, ultimately, I only know minimal versions, study versions, so to speak. This is also happening to me with Chopin's Waltz of Farewell. The versions by Rubinstein, Cortot, Michelangeli seem to contain different elements from one another. I know there are 2 different scores for this Waltz, but it doesn't seem to me that I have listened to only 2 different versions.... bah...

Ciao.

I would say thanks especially to them, Carlos first of all because every now and then I get lost in the details; I am as precise as I am forgetful about certain things.

The fact that your teacher indicates the fingering by placing it herself on the score is certainly another positive aspect; it means, in fact, that she deems it necessary to shape the fingering (as much as possible) to make certain passages feasible and more fluid for a specific person, which highlights an open-minded view of the matter.

You might think that I first talk about fingering, then while playing even my own pieces (which are simple, moreover) I tend to get stuck on certain passages, but I must also say that I haven't prepared the fingering beforehand (precisely), sometimes I like to do it while I write, but then the compositional act prevails, and the part relating to execution comes later out of a necessity for clarity even in performance; in short, I would like to write 100% being aware of what I am doing.

Years ago, I remember a friend "wrote" with software for making electronic music, hip hop in that case (imagine, I do these things too, but very far from the Italian aesthetic, if you can call it that) and inserted random notes into the piano roll—that screen where you can see the piano keyboard on the left, but with a considerable extension, reasonably absurd nonetheless, precisely because it is a software and not notation (it is important to specify this), and to the left of the lines where you can insert notes and establish their length; so, in practice, he didn't insert many notes, but he did it in such a way as to make a real performance impossible even for a simple part; I pointed it out to him and he didn't care much, this is to say that even in other fields (for me, and I think for you too) a person should know what is possible and what is not, and from this point of view, I find myself halfway; in the sense that electronic music, synthesizers, hardware, and software allow everything or almost everything, but I want to remain connected also to classical writing, because I always think that what can be reproduced by means of electronic instrumentation, strictly relegated to the use of a PC and electricity, does not have the same body and substance (at a perceptual level) as compositions for acoustic instruments, which can be played in any situation (except for those of a certain weight, obviously).