Two-Part Invention No. 10

Good grief, does writing something really create all this repugnance?

The fact that it is concluded that it wasn't Bach who wrote it leads to an a priori rejection; anyway, this thing is interesting.

So, yesterday while I was listening to the recording again, I tried some improvised 3-voice solutions, and certainly

the addition of a voice in strategic points, perhaps with free writing, would make it a bit more interesting, because as it is with 2 voices

it still seems to lack a well-constructed development; in effect, rather than invention, it is a piece written freely in which

only in some points do the constituent elements of the "main theme" return; let's see if I can manage to do something pleasant,

which is something I tried to do by playing it in person, and if I had settled for the recording on the PC with the help

of the sequencer, many nuances would not have been there, much more mechanical, cold, and to make changes to the agogics

I would have had to work on it for hours, it's not worth it.

What I can manage, I play in person; it's a whole different thing.

...not even 24 hours have passed

... it's not like one lives on the forum

I didn't mean this, I know that I don't make a living from it, I am referring to the fact that when they publish YouTube videos, one can (one inevitably sees them, one should make an effort not to watch them) see the views here on the forum and on YouTube, and I noticed that often, for example, out of 20 views here on the forum, 2 or 3 follow on YouTube; this is why I was saying that if someone sees it's not Bach, they steer clear, hence the term "a priori".

Listened to, very delicate ... played with a bit of indecision

Perhaps I played it a bit too slowly, even though I indicated this metronomic tempo at the beginning; that can still be increased, in case I try to make another recording.

Regarding indecision, which points do you mean?

Because I deliberately played by slowing down and accelerating in many places; the sound is what it is, if I had played it too

precise, I wouldn't have liked it (not that I am very convinced now, especially the part at minute 0':56"; I indicated a slower metronomic tempo there coming from a rallentando, but it is precisely those 2 bars that don't seem right to me; for the rest, on the score immediately after this part that convinces me little, there is the indication of the section from minute 1':11" to minute 2':01" in which it is possible to play an octave higher, just as it is possible to hear in this version; in case, I will make one on the harpsichord with some small variations (also specified).

I played it delicately partly because of the dynamics of this sample, which are a bit too sensitive, and partly because it is my own need.

Tried to listen but the video seems to have been removed...

Yes, I modified two measures and one part; I didn't like it, especially because you play those two measures at the same speed I played the piece and they "didn't work"; I had to play them at least 20/25 BPM slower, too much of a gap, even coming from a rallentando, so I modified everything

i revised a series of notes in another spot, as soon as I record it again I will upload it to the channel.

Here is the invention again, this time I recorded it playing it a bit faster.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-UPK26NlCr0&feature=youtu.be

Open content (youtube)