Home
Piano Music
Piano Music Library
Top composers »
Bach
Beethoven
Brahms
Chopin
Debussy
Grieg
Haydn
Mendelssohn
Mozart
Liszt
Prokofiev
Rachmaninoff
Ravel
Schubert
Schumann
Scriabin
All composers »
All composers
All pieces
Search pieces
Recommended Pieces
Audiovisual Study Tool
Instructive Editions
Recordings
PS Editions
Recent additions
Free piano sheet music
News & Articles
PS Magazine
News flash
New albums
Livestreams
Article index
Piano Forum
Resources
Music dictionary
E-books
Manuscripts
Links
Mobile
About
About PS
Help & FAQ
Contact
Forum rules
Pricing
Log in
Sign up
Piano Forum
Home
Help
Search
Piano Forum
»
Piano Board
»
Student's Corner
»
Bach Invention nr 1 for two part
Print
Pages: [
1
]
Go Down
Topic: Bach Invention nr 1 for two part
(Read 8600 times)
rmbarbosa
Sr. Member
Posts: 453
Bach Invention nr 1 for two part
on: April 04, 2010, 03:45:01 PM
I like to play the Inventions for two part and I play all of them. But yesterday, when I was in the forum, I saw some posts about Invention nr 1 where the mordent, at the first bar, was suposed to be played b-c-b. And the same at 2º bar (f-G-f). It happens that I learned this Invention with an old edition of Inventions, by Bruno Mugellini (<> year 1900!), where he says:"in the manuscripts we find a mordent, not a inverted mordent, but this is undoubtedlly an error of the writing". I dont kow what were his reasons to say this, but I allways have played b-a-b. Am I wrong? Must I play b-c-b? And why Mugellini wrote "
undoubtelly
an error". May you help me? Thanks.
Rui
Logged
Bach: Invention BWV 772 in C Major
Sign up for a Piano Street membership to download this piano score.
Sign up for FREE! >>
stevebob
PS Silver Member
Sr. Member
Posts: 1133
Re: Bach Invention nr 1 for two part
Reply #1 on: April 04, 2010, 05:57:13 PM
I reckon that Mugellini used the word "undoubtedly" because he was convinced he's right and other editions are wrong. Unfortunately, the same can be said for the editors whose own judgments diverge from Mugellini's; each has faith that his scholarship and sources are uniquely authoritative.
In this specific instance, I couldn't say whether a mordent or an inverted mordent is more correct, authentic or appropriate; I've seen it printed both ways, and heard it played both ways. Though I'm hardly an authority on Bach or Baroque performance practices, it may be helpful to recall that some license was expected of performers in the location and execution of embellishments in music of that era.
If you prefer a mordent, I think you should continue to play it as such. The editions that prescribe a mordent are undoubtedly (!) as reputable as Mugellini's.
Logged
What passes you ain't for you.
rmbarbosa
Sr. Member
Posts: 453
Re: Bach Invention nr 1 for two part
Reply #2 on: April 04, 2010, 06:58:59 PM
Thank you, Stevebob, your opinion makes sense. I was so worried ...
Logged
Sign-up to post reply
Print
Pages: [
1
]
Go Up