Bach B minor 2-part invention

[davidz]

Hello all,

I recorded this at a friend's house here in the Lehigh Valley region of Pennsylvania.  Comments and suggestions are welcome.

Regards,
David

[m1469]

Hi David, quite enjoyable to listen to  .  What a first impression to give us, your first post ever being a beautiful rendition of a loved Bach invention.  Welcome, and thanks !


m1469

[00range]

Hi David, quite enjoyable to listen to  .  What a first impression to give us, your first post ever being a beautiful rendition of a loved Bach invention.  Welcome, and thanks !

Agreed.

[ganymed]

very nice how long are you playing alreadY?

[davidz]

very nice how long are you playing alreadY?

Thanks for the kind words.  I am 41 and have been playing on and off most of my life.  I'll try to post a few more tracks today.

[instromp]

So clear and beautiful,very nice indeed   .

[riga]

Recordign sound is very nice.

In my Urtext edition I have several trills. Why you don't play them? Sounds much better with those ornaments!

[davidz]

Recordign sound is very nice.

In my Urtext edition I have several trills. Why you don't play them? Sounds much better with those ornaments!

I used to.  Then at one point I took out the ornaments for practice purposes and found myself fascinated with the unadorned melody.

I'm not trying to argue with the Urtext but for me the mordants and trills mostly just get in the way of what I'm trying to do with the piece.

[asyncopated]

Hi,

I just started learning to play this piece this week.  I do like your playing, its very crisp and sound effortless.

I would like to start a small discussion on interpretation, if you would oblige.

First thing I noticed is that you seem to start a slightly slow tempo and rev it up after a couple of bars.  This makes it sound slightly cautious at the start, and I'm not sure if I would like to start the piece in that character.

The second thing is that i've noticed that you've chosen to pay the semi-quaver lines slightly stacato, or at least marcato. Is there a reason for this?  I am currently trying to play the semiquaver lines slighly lagato, but crisp, in contrast to the quavers that carry the main subject.  It's good that i you have provided me with a reference -- an alternative way of expressing the figures in the invention. 

I like the sequences before the cadence in the middle of the piece, and will probably try a similar type of sound in that section.

The main thing for me is that I think the sound carried by the quaver line should be distinctly different in quality and texture from the semi quavers.  Any suggestions on how you did this will be great!

Thanks for posting.

[piano121]

I'm not trying to argue with the Urtext but for me the mordants and trills mostly just get in the way of what I'm trying to do with the piece.

Actualy the ornaments on these pieces where aded latter, represent theway it was played on that period. They are nice embelishments in my opinion, and sometimes they help a lot with emphasis in the melody. but is absolutely all right to drop them all if you thing they arenīt helping in your playing, keep up th good work

[davidz]

First thing I noticed is that you seem to start a slightly slow tempo and rev it up after a couple of bars.  This makes it sound slightly cautious at the start, and I'm not sure if I would like to start the piece in that character.

The second thing is that i've noticed that you've chosen to pay the semi-quaver lines slightly stacato, or at least marcato. Is there a reason for this?  I am currently trying to play the semiquaver lines slighly lagato, but crisp, in contrast to the quavers that carry the main subject.  It's good that i you have provided me with a reference -- an alternative way of expressing the figures in the invention. 

Yes, the tempo is a bit uneven and this is not always intentional.  I need to work on this.

About the slightly staccato sixteenths, this is probably a result of listening to too much Glenn Gould.       But actually, I do think it helps to contrast the lines.  The main subject alternates jumps and appoggiaturas, therefore must be alternately staccato and legato-- do you agree?  So the countersubject/filigree sixteenths should stand apart with an in-between portamento phrasing.

[asyncopated]

Yes, the tempo is a bit uneven and this is not always intentional.  I need to work on this.

About the slightly staccato sixteenths, this is probably a result of listening to too much Glenn Gould.       But actually, I do think it helps to contrast the lines. 

Here is an alternate interpretation. I'm a but ashame of linking this instead of playing myself --  but this is an excerpt of Angela Hewitt's interpretation, and I can't really top that.  The other thing about her playing is not only is there a distinct character to the separate voices but also a fantastically control phrasing and dynamic contrast between the lines.

https://www.amazon.com/Bach-Two-Part-Inventions-Three-Part-Chromatic/dp/B000002ZUY

Unfortunately, I lost my cd of Glen Gould's inventions.   I will go hunt a version down in the library.

The main subject alternates jumps and appoggiaturas, therefore must be alternately staccato and legato-- do you agree?  So the countersubject/filigree sixteenths should stand apart with an in-between portamento phrasing.

Yes i agree.  I should say this explicitly, just to be clear.  In the main subject,  the appoggiatura-type quavers (eighth notes) are those with ornaments on them + the following quaver -- these should be played together legato.  All the other quavers, even if they are linked by a stem are distinct and are to be played staccato, and not with a sigh motif.  You do this very well, and i do hear it very clearly.

One other thing about character is that I was told is to imagine a bit of pomp.   

I really like your bach sound -- each note has a nice clear ring to it.  I'm getting there but was told that some of my notes are sometimes still slightly unfocused.