Invention no1 fourth trill fingering ?

[goran]

I am practicing the number 1 Invention (BWv772).
This is my very first piece. I could not resist trying it.

My Yamaha P90 digital piano plays the first trill (in the first measure): b-a-b
(This made me play all trills in the same manner).

Now I see in this forum (and elsewhere) that this trill should be played. c-b-c-b instead.
Even if this i not as harmonic (?) as the mordent it makes the trill stand out better (?).
(Still another alternative would be a "turn": c-b-a-b)

So I will try to change at least some of my misunderstood-mordents to trills.
The first three is quite straight forward (at least I think so) and I have changed them.

Then to the fourth trill in measure 8. Trill on f#: g-f#-g-f#.

Before the trill I play the notes g-a-b-c-a-b-g with my fingers 1-2-3-4 (1=thumb)
that is: g(1)-a(2)-b(3)-c(4)-a(2)-b(3)-g(1)

So shall I trill with fingers 1-2 : g(1)-f#(2)-g(1)-f#(2) (quite hard)
or trill with fingers 3-2: g(3)-f#(2)-g(3)-f#(2) ( not so hard but do not fit with the other fingering so well)
or change everyting to what ?


Göran/Sweden.

[bernhard]

You can find a full discussion (with the realised ornaments all fingered) of this invention in this thread:

https://www.pianoforum.net/smf/index.php/topic,8015.msg81149.html#msg81149
(ornamentation of invention no. 1)


And here is another thread where this invention is discussed:

https://pianoforum.net/smf/index.php/topic,2714.msg23310.html#msg23310
(how to teach invention no. 1)



Best wishes,
Bernhard.

[Barbosa-piano]

 I believe that it depends on the edition. If the sign on the B is a mordant, the ornament is executed B-A-B. If there is a trill, B-C-B and so on... But I don't know why, my Yamaha piano plays the demo of this piece with the mordant. Another recording that I have at home, has this passage as a trill.

Bernhard's links on this are very useful.

Mario Barbosa.

[Floristan]

My teacher has insisted that I omit that particular ornament.  I've never asked him why (I guess I will now!)  I know he thinks it is inappropriate and unauthentic.

[jeremyjchilds]

Floristan, ask your teacher..I'm curious, post it when you find out.

My edition of the 2-viocers has bachs autograph explanation of his ornaments (I'm sure everyone else's has that as well) That would make it seem as though they are authentic.

If they are not I would like to know.

[gouldfischer]

Before the trill I play the notes g-a-b-c-a-b-g with my fingers 1-2-3-4 (1=thumb)
that is: g(1)-a(2)-b(3)-c(4)-a(2)-b(3)-g(1)

So shall I trill with fingers 1-2 : g(1)-f#(2)-g(1)-f#(2) (quite hard)
or trill with fingers 3-2: g(3)-f#(2)-g(3)-f#(2) ( not so hard but do not fit with the other fingering so well)
or change everyting to what ?

I guess the most confortable way of making it is g(3)-f#(2)-g(4)-f#(3), as is written in the G. Henle Verlag edition. Give it a try.

[bernhard]

Floristan, ask your teacher..I'm curious, post it when you find out.

My edition of the 2-viocers has bachs autograph explanation of his ornaments (I'm sure everyone else's has that as well) That would make it seem as though they are authentic.

If they are not I would like to know.

The ornaments in the original manuscript of the inventions form its most problematic issue, since it is uncertain as to which ones were prescribed by Bach himself.

(Rosalyn Tureck - "An introduction to the performance of Bach" - Vol. 2 - Oxford University Press).

In other words. No one really knows.

Best wishes,
Bernhard.

[Floristan]

True, no one knows, but still...

My Henle "urtext" edition has a trill above the F# in measure 8.  Many other editions show no ornament here.  My teacher believes it is wrong.  The Henle editor doesn't mention a "disputed" trill in this measure.  Yes, ultimately, "no one really knows," but we still have to start somewhere.  Most of us start with a score, and most of us don't have the improvisatory skill of a baroque performer, with the ability to throw in whatever ornament wherever, so we tend to trust our scores.  Egads!

I have a Yamaha P120, and so am familiar with the dreadful performance of the first invention recorded on it.  The performer takes the piece at about mm=84, and he/she plays it totally mechanically -- metrically perfectly but without an ounce of musicality, like pistons hitting the keys.  And yes, the performer put mordants in for every ornament, which is obviously non-standard.

[bernhard]

Rosalyn Tureck: “An introduction to the performance of Bach” Vol. 2 (Oxford):

Bar 8: A short trill appears here but its inclusion would necessitate its repetition in all the following sequential phrases, despite the fact that the ornament does not reappear. This is somewhat too complicated for the present stage of study, therefore I do not prescribe it. The omission does not violate the score in any way.

In other words, if you are going to play the trill on the F#, then you should play it on the B (bar 9), on the C (bar 10) and on the first D (bar 11). However the manuscript does not show trills in any of those instances, only on the F# on bar 8.

Is that because a musician of the time would know this was the case, so that it was not necessary for Bach to repeat it in every instance? (difficult to believe, Bach used to be a stickler for this kind of detail. Such behaviour would certainly be expected of Scarlatti, but not of Bach).

Or is it because Bach never put an ornament there in the first place?

I don't play it, but most editions have it though.

Best wishes,
Bernhard.

[quasimodo]

There's something I don't get : at Bach's time, didn't interpretors ADD ornamentations, according to their taste though these were not written ?

[bernhard]

There's something I don't get : at Bach's time, didn't interpretors ADD ornamentations, according to their taste though these were not written ?

Exactly!

Ornamentation (and to a great extension the "arrangement" at a keyboard instrument of the accompaniment to a melodic line) were usually not written out by the composer, but rather improvised (or worked out in advance) by the performer.

In the Baroque, three guys went against the grain: JS Bach, Couperin and Handel. They had their own ideas about how their pieces should be ornamented and went to great pains to describe in detail how to do it. Most of the information we have on Baroque ornamentation comes from the writings left by Couperin and C.P.E. Bach (who basically wroet down what hehad learned from his father). Needless to say, performers resented the intrusion heartily ("The nerve of the composers! What next? Being faithful to the composers intentions? That will be the day!")

Bach many times writes out the ornamentation in full without using small notes or symbols (e.g., the 2 voice invention no. 14 in Bb).

Best wishes,
Bernhard.

[quasimodo]

In the Baroque, three guys went against the grain: JS Bach, Couperin and Handel. They had their own ideas about how their pieces should be ornamented and went to great pains to describe in detail how to do it.

Ok I missed that part. But then, when I listen to different versions of, let's say Goldberg Variation, ornamentations vary alot. Would that mean that some modern interpretors are in the wrong ?

I read above, for example that if an ornamentation is played at a certain passage, then it should be maintained in every similar passage. In most of the Goldberg's, there are repeats and in many interpretations, the performer does not do the same ornamentation on each repeat. How about that ?

[bernhard]

Ok I missed that part. But then, when I listen to different versions of, let's say Goldberg Variation, ornamentations vary alot. Would that mean that some modern interpretors are in the wrong ?

I read above, for example that if an ornamentation is played at a certain passage, then it should be maintained in every similar passage. In most of the Goldberg's, there are repeats and in many interpretations, the performer does not do the same ornamentation on each repeat. How about that ?

Not necessarily in the wrong (although sometimes they may well be). Ornamentation has rules. It is not a free for all.

I again refer you to Tureck:

[ornamentation] is a written system which is comprehensible only to the literate; it has its own terms, its own idiomatic expressions, its own nuances of meaning and expression, all of which are expressed by and communicated through its symbols.

[...]

Ornamentation forms a mass of rules and categories of types which allow exceptions, variations, improvisations and personal freedom. Therefore scholarship, judgement and feeling must  all be present in its practice

(Rosalyn Tureck - "An introduction to the perfromance of Bach" - Oxford)

And yes, in most Baroque music you play the first time without ornamentation (or with the bar minimum), and on the repeat you are given an opportunity to "show off" so to speak.

Best wishes,
Bernhard.

[quasimodo]

Thanks for your insight Bernhard. It makes things much more clear in my mind.

Obviously, I should get myself reading more...

[bernhard]

You are welcome.

And just to make things a bit more confusing, I have been quoting Rosalyn Tureck, but many people criticise (some of) her ideas. For instance, read this wonderful book:

Paul Badura-Skoda - "Interpreting Bach at the Keyboard" (Oxford University Press)

Best wishes,
Bernhard.