Invention A 2 Voices No. 1 ( Mine)

Given the self-criticism regarding your interpretation, it would be useful to see a video; as for the piece, I am not sure I wish to listen to it a second time, even if it allowed itself to be listened to throughout.

Isn't the final rallentando a bit excessive?

Until next time

Are we sure that the problem is the rallentando?

I am putting myself out there and I see that this thing arouses indifference, or even worse, the unwillingness to listen to the pieces one more time, which is a heavy thing, but anyway it's fine regardless,

it is a way to gauge people's reactions regarding what is written; I am still partly "convinced" that a better interpretation along with some adjustments in

the same piece would change its perception, but we are always back at the same point: if someone doesn't know how to play properly, I could make 300 recordings and the more I go on,

the more mistakes I make.

The rallentando anyway (aside from the fact that I thought about modifying the ending, which is too simple and predictable) I felt it was necessary because arriving too quickly

at that point and then "stopping" out of the blue would have made it sound worse; if, as I have been thinking these days, I were to modify it (only the last 2 bars), things would be different.

Heard, the problem is that if someone wants to "pass themselves off" as Bach... they have to do it well.

You either take one path or the other, namely that of being independent and not making copies (certainly inferior) of the originals.

Take them as exercises and express yourself in your own time with the means of your time and the aesthetics of your time... the rest is culture.

Good luck with your progress and with your ideas, which are there anyway and are quite evident.

I would just like to clarify that I have never "passed myself off" as someone who writes in the style of Bach or in a well-defined Baroque style; I propose what comes to me to write, knowing that I am taking a risk. You rightly put in parentheses that if one wants to propose works claiming they are in the Bachian style, they must be credible, but it has never been my intention to propose these inventions as if they were works to be compared to those of Bach; otherwise, I would have said so, and I would have looked ridiculous.

Titling a piece "two-part invention" does not mean that one wants to compare their works to those of Bach or others who are certainly better and undisputed; it is simply the choice of a title to identify a type of composition. Of course, when I wrote the first two, it was during the first days I was approaching Bach's [inventions], and I liked them so much that I wanted to write my own, and as soon as the opportunity arose, I took it; and this did not mean doing it correctly from a stylistic point of view. Even now, I like the style but I cannot adhere to it; often I feel that I try to write in one way, but I feel attracted toward something else, but not having the technical foundation to do one or the other, I find myself literally in limbo.

If there is a real coincidence that I played his 1st invention and proposed mine, the same thing would happen if I played his 4th and 8th, but not with the 13th, which I have not yet reached.

This invention, moreover, dates back to 2000, and paradoxically perhaps the first two are more consequential than the subsequent ones; I am still halfway between what I feel capable of writing and the application of rules (which, regardless of this work and others in which I absolutely did not analyze them while writing them) that, even though knowing them (up to a certain precise point), I still barely apply them, and this is certainly not a point in my favor, unfortunately, I know well.

I think the title is somewhat off, there are perfectly recognizable elements... it could even have been in the style of Bartók, but instead one thinks of Bach ... there must be a reason, don't you think?

No, I can't find it and I won't dwell on it, at least I'll try; those who don't explain anything are right.

Piccinesco wrote:

No, I can't find it and I won't dwell on it; at least I'll try, those who don't explain anything are right.

I didn't understand this comment, don't you think you are using clear Baroque references? Today they are not very credible if so "polluted".

I don't mind, but there are many references to Bach. I don't know if it was the author's intention.

BackSpace wrote:

I didn't understand this comment, don't you think you are using clear Baroque references? Today they are not very credible if so "polluted".

I was saying that "I don't think" in the sense that it is not entirely obvious, just as I am observing that people giving—that using references that might suggest the Baroque—does not necessarily imply that they must be used in the way one expects; will it be possible to write a piece as a person feels like doing it, for example with mordents (which I did not execute as one should if one wanted to perform them in the style in which Bach wrote, also because I made execution errors as I have already said), trills, phrasing that somewhat alludes to the Baroque without this having to be paired with that period at all costs, simply for the pleasure of writing, or must one at all costs "confine" (let's not misunderstand this term) a work within a very specific style (not having declared it for this piece)?

I mean, to avoid any misunderstanding, otherwise there is no way out, that for me "not writing in a well-defined style" does not mean, in this as in other similar cases, wanting to forcibly detach oneself from a consolidated way of doing things out of pure pleasure, out of restlessness, or whatever, but simply because that is how I felt like writing; after all, I didn't present it as a great work, as something special, I didn't submit it to a composition competition, I didn't label it as the continuation of Bach's inventions, so while understanding the reason why using certain elements and embellishments can make a piece refer to a specific style, I insist on saying that my intention was only to put on paper what I had in my head, that's it, nothing more than this, and I didn't go back to it to modify the structure, but only to improve certain points, purely on an aesthetic level, while unfortunately I ruined others; to all this we add an execution that I wouldn't hesitate to define as poorly done, what else must I specify?

I think and hope that with this statement it might be more understandable; I would like to be able to write more convincingly in the Baroque style, but due to my own shortcomings from a study standpoint, and entirely personal reasons that I will not explain here, when I write the instinctive side still prevails, and I do not worry about it at all (in the sense that I already have many uninspiring thoughts; at least when I write, I would like, just a little, to be able to express myself as I feel, knowing—read carefully—knowing that I am not writing correctly if my intention is to do so in that style). If today things like this are not credible because my intention is not to propose a reimagining of this style, but to write how I feel, with all the inevitable errors, it would be truly long to explain the reasons, which are nonetheless fundamental to understanding why I feel compelled to do so; however, since the conclusion one always reaches is that one either does it this way or in another way (without knowing where one comes from), it is useless.

I read once that for some people it is even sad to write like this, but I don't see the reason; I don't think I can write something absolutely contemporary right now, so it is better for me at the moment to take small steps, hopefully forward, in works of this kind, and then see what can be done.

I recorded it again, this performance is a bit more sober:

Open content (youtube)