Invention A 2 Voices No. 1 ( This is By J.s.bach )

I liked it very much

Piccinesco wrote:

I made at least 10 recordings, but even though some of these turned out to be more precise under the metronomic profile, I messed up the execution of the lower mordent at measure 13; the execution of this mordent in this recording was a bit too fast. If necessary, I will try to make a short video so that you can also see the fingering I used, which is wrong in some places anyway. http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=neLPFexpAqw

Which edition are you using? There are two errors:

- at measure 8 the left hand must play, notes 9 to 12, re do re (you are playing sol la fa#);

- at measure 21, also in the left hand, the notes are mi do re mi fa re mi fa etc... (you are playing mi do re mi fa sol la_ etc).

The upper mordent is executed from the upper note (e.g., the first one, at measure 1, must be executed from the do, not from the si) and, according to the table of ornaments, what we call an upper mordent is actually a trill, so more notes must be played (e.g., in the first case do si do si do si_ with a stop on the si, the actual note), whereas the lower mordent is, effectively, a mordent and is executed from the actual note, playing three notes (e.g., at measure 5 do si do_ with a stop on the do).

Open content (youtube)

You must excuse me, and not just you, but the others as well, I have probably committed a bigger error than those related to the performance because

i played it from memory, I haven't seen the score for months and months, I must check again, I had some doubts and you confirmed them.

I will record it again and corrected.

Here it is again, I made a mistake at the end by performing an upper appoggiatura, it wasn't indicated in the score, it came to me spontaneously (don't kill me for this), anyway I corrected the measures that I had played incorrectly using wrong notes.

There are still a few hesitations in some parts, I am trying to play as fluidly as possible, and indeed it is going better, but it's not like I am that

relaxed.

Thanks for the clarification Carlos.

Open content (youtube)

You have really improved a lot :)

It is also thanks to Carlos, a Great one.

By the way, the table of embellishments, if you don't already know it, you can find it here:

http://xoomer.virgilio.it/alessandro_corti/abbellimenti.htm

Learn it well, like the ten commandments, and put it into practice, better than the ten commandments (which are too difficult).

Ciao

Kurt Bösendorfer

Piccinesco wrote:

Thanks for the clarification, Carlos.

Thank you instead for your consideration; it is indeed much better; and with a couple of metronome clicks less, you will see that it will be even better. Remember that the material is headless and therefore all conclusions should be "nuanced". For example: the king to the right of the second measure is the conclusion of the previous fragment, not the beginning of the second fragment, which instead begins from the G; subsequently, that fragment will conclude on the E at the beginning of measure 3, when a "divertimento" begins with the inverted fragment. If you read the invention from this perspective, you will see that a slightly more comfortable tempo allows you to phrase while physically breathing at the beginning of the fragments and greatly clarifying the imitation play between the two voices.

Ok, I have to interpret that rest as if it were the pause at the beginning of the first measure, so almost like an external part of the 2nd measure.

The divertimento that begins at the 3rd measure is practically the fragment of the main theme inverted; once, I think, I did a sort of "analysis" of this invention, highlighting precisely the use of melodic fragments taken up in different ways, emphasizing the ability to build a piece with very little starting material, something I still lack: synthesis.

Sometimes I am tempted to play (those that I can manage) certain pieces slowly; I like to highlight details, even if the speed of the piece could be understood as faster. That is why I like "moderate" interpretations; the fast ones are sometimes beautiful because they are very precise, but I prefer the former, although it depends a lot on the piece, whether instrumental or with the voice, solo or with the choir.

Bravo. You said you were fed up with samples and I really admire the courage it took to start playing. Music should be made this way, with the real sound under your fingers, and not with the latest scream sample.

Thanks, yes, samples have bored me a bit precisely because of the lack of physical relationship that develops, and I got tired of being and feeling

ignorant about everything for years, but it takes mental strength to start everything again; at this

age with all the messes to sort out, it's a disaster.

The fact that I have started playing again is anomalous (pleasantly so, anyway), because you know that I go in fits and starts; maybe from tomorrow I won't touch the piano for another 7/8 years as I have already done once, but perhaps some small progress resulting from the exercises I am doing every day (except for 4 counted instances where I couldn't due to the time or because I was tired and tried not to be overly nitpicky) for almost a year now exists; it is truly marginal, but I feel that I can play slightly more relaxed. The exercises are only 5/10 minutes a day, but constant; they are on piano technique preparation. Then there's the fact that this is one of the 4 easiest inventions among those with 2 voices; with the others, I would surely get tangled up.

These days I thought, let's try recording a bit, and I went ahead with it; it relaxes me a bit. Today, shortly before recording, I had been

at the tax agency (outings), so not exactly the right environment to keep one's head straight; as soon as I got back, I started recording immediately. After some practice with various errors and one where I was doing well, but interrupted by the cat who literally jumped on the piano keys right in the middle of the piece, I had to resist throwing the piano at him and start again.

While waiting for recordings from prepared people (regarding certain piano pieces I have written), today I made another one, for the moment hands separate, in the sense that I first did the recording for the left hand part and then the other, so as not to spend

14 hours on a piece simpler than the one I published some time ago (simple, precisely); thus I learned the piece by heart and I could even record it completely, if I try tomorrow or in the coming days. There's no way around it: personal interpretation (necessarily) allows for nuances that with a sequencer can only be obtained with many minutes of manipulating

velocity, volume, and agogics.

Carlos wrote:

The upper mordent is performed from the upper note (e.g., the first one, at measure 1, must be performed from C, not B) and, according to the table of ornaments, what we call an upper mordent is actually a trill, so more notes must be played (e.g., in the first case C B C B C B_ with a stop on B, the actual note), whereas the lower mordent is, effectively, a mordent and is performed from the actual note, playing three notes (e.g., at measure 5 C B C_ with a stop on C).

Speaking of the mordent, I noticed in passing that by playing the first mordents correctly (those in the first 2 measures), I find myself in a more comfortable position to continue with the right-hand line.

Piccinesco wrote:

after a bit of practice with various mistakes and one where I was doing well, but interrupted by the cat who literally jumped on the piano keys right in the middle of the piece, I had to resist the urge to throw the piano at him and start over.

But don't hold it against the cat, okay...? Think of Scarlatti, who wrote a "cat fugue" inspired by four-legged walks on his harpsichord...

The cats here are like brothers, they've both gone crazy, but I've gotten used to it by now.

I took a look at the Poltronieri [books] I have at home; regarding turns, I remembered correctly, meaning I remembered well how they are illustrated and explained in this book, the theory one, and for both the upper and lower ones (both normal and double) the real note is indicated as the starting note, with an ascending movement (of a tone or semitone if indicated, in both cases) if upper, and descending if lower; at this point, is what is indicated in this book wrong, and consequently what other treatises have indicated?

For Bachian embellishments, get the Henle...on the first pages there is the "bible", that is, what must be done

Thanks, I will go see.

Hello everyone.

In the edition I possess (Ricordi - Bruno Mugellini), the first two mordents are indicated as lower mordents. To justify this, Mugellini writes in the notes: "In the original, the mordent is upper, but it is certainly a writing error".

Can anyone give me an explanation for this? How can Mugellini be so sure that Bach intended a lower mordent when the opposite is indicated in the original?

The fact remains that in all the performances I have heard/seen on the internet, the first two mordents are performed as trills (do si do si), as Carlos already pointed out, and not as a lower mordent (as in my edition: si la si).

Slowtempo wrote:

Hello everyone.

In the edition I possess (Ricordi - Bruno Mugellini), the first two mordents are indicated as lower mordents. To justify this, Mugellini writes in the notes: "In the original the mordent is upper, but it is certainly a writing error".

Can anyone give me an explanation for this? How can Mugellini be so sure that Bach intended a lower mordent when the opposite is indicated in the original?

I hope that, in that case, he did not intend to convince readers of a personal conviction of his, because in effect it would not be explainable otherwise if the indicated mordent in the original is the opposite.

Slowtempo wrote:

Can anyone give me an explanation for this fact? How can Mugellini be so sure that Bach intended a lower mordent when the original indicates the opposite?

The point is, how can one today still buy editions revised years ago when Philology and Musicology were not taken into account. Lacking this awareness, it was a way to express “scone's own” interpretation of the text .... obviously not conforming to the original.

Well, I give up... I did a little research among the various editions. There are even editions that have fully developed the ornaments so as to leave nothing to chance, and often the first two mordents are indicated as lower!

For example, this one (Breitkopf & Hartel (editor F. B. Busoni):

http://conquest.imslp.info/files/imglnks/usimg/b/b2/IMSLP42098-PMLP03267-Inventions_Busoni.pdf

or this one (C.F. Peters with editor, among others, Carl Czerny):

http://conquest.imsl...ntions_corr.pdf

I ask forgiveness from Mugellini, evidently his choice is anything but arbitrary.