Invention 7 in e minor question about motif, analysis, etc.

[qpalqpal]

I'm having trouble with this invention. I'm following Bernhard's method of approaching inventions/contrapuntal works. https://www.pianostreet.com/smf/index.php/topic,2714.0.html
In many analysese of the first invention, there is the motif with a and b and the countermotif, along with inversions and retrogades and augmented motif and all of that. However, I can't find anything on the 7th invention. I'm analyzing it myself, but there's a lot of the piece which isn't marked up as motifs. For example, in bars 5 and six there is no evidence that I can see of a motif or anything.

I know that the subject is BAGF#GE and but there are no apparant inversions etc. Is the subject split in two?: in the second part of bar seven on the bass clef there seems to be some sort of inversion of the beginning of the motif. Can someone give me some hints so that I can see the piece a little clearer?

The score
https://www.pianostreet.com/members/free/bach_invention7_psu.pdf

[brogers70]

Hmm. There are indeed bars in the piece without the basic motif you've identified. That's OK, I think; it would get tedious if there were nothing but that pattern throughout the piece. I also don't see a consistent countermotif; the closest you come is the pattern off beat eighth, dotted eighth, sixteenth, but it's certainly not paired with all the instances of the motif. That thing in the bass at measure seven isn't an inversion of the motif, just a little variation. I think you've probably done fine already. Bernhard chose the first invention as an example because it has so many motivic devices going on; I think this invention is a little simpler.

[brogers70]

One more little thing. That main motif, particularly as it often appears (e.g. the first instance in the bass) followed by an octave jump on the dominant, is a really stereotypical bass line to lead into a cadence. It's funny that he turns it into a tune. And it's also funny that when he gets to the very end and he could use that motif exactly as the bass line leading up the the final chord, he does so, but only after wedging in a couple of extra notes (see the bass line starting on the 3rd beat of the second to last measure.)

[qpalqpal]

Okay, that's helpful . . . so in the motif only sheet should I include the variations of the motif, or just the motifs themselves. I feel like the first invention was so straightforward . . .

Also, in bars 16-17 in the treble clef and then again in bars 18-19 in the bass clef there seems to be a sort of episode of ascending/descending scales and triads. I wonder if thats connected to the motif. . .

[ajspiano]

the inventions get compositionally speaking more complex as you work through them progressively in bach's order (bernhard outlines this so I presume you know it already), the first one is quite straight forward to analyze comparatively to many others, which bernhard also notes. It really is an ideal starting point from a teaching perspective, all the baroque style devices are laid out in front of you very obviously in invention 1.

Firstly, don't assume that a motif/counter motif idea must be the only idea that constitutes an entire piece of music. This is how invention 1 works because it is the first composition study.. it teaches how to manipulate and develop a single idea.

subsequent inventions may work on concepts such as connecting ideas perhaps.

You say there is no motif in bars 5 and 6. Observe in bars t 3 and 4 the line in the upper voice introduced in harmony with examples of the first motif. Compare that to the lower voice in bars 5/6.

there are other introduced and then mimicked concepts also, such as the one you note in bars 16-19

what about the RH in bar 5.
E F# E D C B A G (C) B A B C D E F# G.

idea then inverted idea?
what about in bars 16-19? does this contain fractions of the above idea in retrograde?

looking at that fraction.. such as E F# E D C B..
observe how this overlaps with the motif in bars 13/14.


Bernhard also has a couple of other shorter write ups on inventions, which will show you how inventions can be analysed from a different perspectives to the way invention 1 is in his post, and the way I've pointed out little things about no 7 here.

Outlining invention 14 -
https://www.pianostreet.com/smf/index.php/topic,7246.msg72307.html#msg72307

Rhythmic Analysis, invention 10 -
https://www.pianostreet.com/smf/index.php/topic,10304.msg106137.html#msg106137

[qpalqpal]

I guess I understand what your're getting at. Be creative, in other words. I just don't know what to look for. I guess I don't have enough theory knowledge to understand at the higher level. But I guess, just try my best, right.

There just seems like theres a wealth of knowledge to be uncovered but that it takes skill to see it

[ajspiano]

I guess I understand what your're getting at. Be creative, in other words. I just don't know what to look for. I guess I don't have enough theory knowledge to understand at the higher level. But I guess, just try my best, right.

There just seems like theres a wealth of knowledge to be uncovered but that it takes skill to see it

Just don't think of it as if you're looking for the correct analysis of the invention, in that with number 1 you will have found everything bernhard told you to. You're on your own now, you have to actually "analyse", and do so beyond the scope of what you think might be there - its not text book now, its genuine research. Assume that everything matters, every single note follows some kind of pattern in melody, rhythm, harmony..  then compare each section to every other section. Your going to dig in places where there will ultimately be nothing.

Its not as if we really have a written out instruction set from bach here (other than the score itself), so while there are established ideas about analysis you're free to have your own ideas. Your understanding will develop as you do more and more of it over multiple pieces and discover which concepts recur and what effects they create musically.

The inventions are phenomenal learning tools, basic analysis (as set out by bernards "how to teach inv. 1") is the very beginning of the scope you have available. Send me a PM if you like I can do you up something to help with how to approach things in a few different ways, and to help you learn more from the pieces.

[ajspiano]

Grab this edition from IMSLP
https://conquest.imslp.info/files/imglnks/usimg/b/b2/IMSLP42098-PMLP03267-Inventions_Busoni.pdf

^Busoni used a huge amount of editorial marks to really help you understand the works and also to help with the ornamentation. He uses things like slurs within slurs to mark motifs and variations.. all the ornaments are fully notated.

[outin]

Grab this edition from IMSLP
https://conquest.imslp.info/files/imglnks/usimg/b/b2/IMSLP42098-PMLP03267-Inventions_Busoni.pdf

^Busoni used a huge amount of editorial marks to really help you understand the works and also to help with the ornamentation. He uses things like slurs within slurs to mark motifs and variations.. all the ornaments are fully notated.

You just had to post that link and I was silly enough to open it...so I could not resist the temptation to try once again 

What I noticed immediately that I can actually read these, unlike my Henle edition, where it's been just impossible for me to follow the score. Being able to read seems quite helpful in trying to learn. Also the Busoni fingerings for nr 13 actually seem to work for me now, much better in reasonable tempo than the ones I used before. I think my right hand thumb has improved just enough to comfortably manage these...The editorial markings seem to be very consistent with what I did before.

Maybe I'll do just a little bit every day...not really intending to learn them, but just to practice my sight reading and fingers...

[j_menz]

Maybe I'll do just a little bit every day...not really intending to learn them, but just to practice my sight reading and fingers...

Busoni for Sainthood!!!!! 

[ajspiano]

Being able to read seems quite helpful in trying to learn.

Quoted for truth. Students take note. 

Maybe I'll do just a little bit every day...not really intending to learn them, but just to practice my sight reading and fingers...

LOL.
Careful.

[qpalqpal]

I really prefer URTEXT for obvious reasons, but I secretely also like heavily editted stuff because it guides me thru and gives me the "easy way" out. But then again, everytime I have a URTEXT piece there seems to be confusion and what seems to be a lack of information for me to figure out a piece of music. Maybe using both would be great.

Anyways, another concern I had was that learning about the inventions and counter-point etc. would take too long. It seems to be a lot of information. I'm reading an online course from a while back that is an excellent guide to Bach. It explains everything. However, I want to get to the piano and play the music, and feel the music and be a pianist more than a musician. Would it pay off to learn all of that stuff and to obsess myself over it etc? Thoughts

[ajspiano]

Maybe using both would be great.

Have a good urtext to work from primarily, also have several different edited versions for reference.

Anyways, another concern I had was that learning about the inventions and counter-point etc. would take too long. It seems to be a lot of information. I'm reading an online course from a while back that is an excellent guide to Bach. It explains everything. However, I want to get to the piano and play the music, and feel the music and be a pianist more than a musician. Would it pay off to learn all of that stuff and to obsess myself over it etc? Thoughts

Check out this thread.
https://www.pianostreet.com/smf/index.php?topic=48429.0

^Might even serve in place of that PM I'm planning to send you, let me know.

[qpalqpal]

This seems very interesting . . . although a lot of what he says, well, not a lot but a good bit of what he says, I don't really understand just yet. And also I don't see exactly how this connects. Maybe you can connect the dots for me>

[ajspiano]

So i don't really know what exactly you already know so hopefully I don't go over your head or leave out explanations..

Contrapuntal composition is usually taught using a method called "species counterpoint". Essentially this means that you start out by writing a very simplified version of counterpoint and gradually increasing the complexity step by step. There are 5 "species" or stages of development.

In 1725 Johann Joseph Fux published Gradus ad Parnassum (Steps to Parnassus), in which he described five species:
1. Note against note;
2. Two notes against one;
3. Four (extended by others to include three, or six, etc.) notes against one;
4. Notes offset against each other (as suspensions);
5. All the first four species together, as "florid" counterpoint.

There are seemingly a lot of rules about what notes go where, so its a lot of slow and painful thinking to get right. Dereks videos/thoughts (along with my own comments in there) seek to lesson the thinking and make it possible to improvise this on the go with minimal mental effort. I think its perhaps relevant to you because you said this..

However, I want to get to the piano and play the music

Derek's ideas will allow you to explore counterpoint at the piano in real time, rather than having to read too much and think away from the piano.

He starts out with what is essentially a simplified First Species exercise. There is a FIXED line (he uses a scale) and you harmonise that line with notes that are "baroque sounding" which is lots of 3rds and 6ths.

.........

Connecting the dots.

In the inventions, use No. 1 first because you are likely most familiar with that, you will observe that there is very often a 3rd or 6th (or 10th) interval on the beat (particularly evident through passages like bars 3-4).

Suppose you strip the score down, in a similar way to you do for the motif score.. but instead you keep only the notes that are on the first beat of every bar.. You will now clearly identify the underlying harmonic structure of the work. The motifs are layered on top of this.. AND (here's the best part)

you can change the motifs

You can invert them, begin them on different notes (some of these will wont sound good, others will), turn them into retrogrades etc.. but so long as you keep the notes that sit on the beat at the end of each motif then the harmonic structure will remain and the piece will sound okay. Even if you choose a particular change to the motif that sounds fairly bad in isolation, when you get to the fixed notes, the harmony will often resolve and things will still sound ok.. 

You can also try to make alterations that sound good by maintaining similar intervals as Bach does throughout, or altering the counter motif, so that it harmonises with the new motif variation.

You can also change the fixed notes - though this will totally mess with the compositions structure and is WAY HARDER to do well at first. Example, opening motif of invention 1:

CDEFDEC (G) - if you change the G to a B, so it descends to the B directly below the last C of the motif [CDEFDEC (B)] you will alter the underlying harmonic structure and the direction of the work will change, the motif that follows in the LH (the repeated one that begins on C) will no longer fit so well and it will lend itself to beginning elsewhere.

Observe throughout the work, Bach shows you how to approach a target harmony in several different ways.. These are the main good types of changes you can make to any of the structural elements and keep the continuity of the piece, though you still have to use your ears to decide what doesnt and doesnt work really well. Bach's version is pretty damn difficult to improve on, and there are other elements of composition in play that I haven't touched on at all here.

Bar 1 - CDEFDEC - G
Bar 7/8 - GABCABG - F#
Bar 16 - EFGAFGE - F

..of course there are other examples aswell, I just picked a few, look for more yourself such as approaches that use an inverted motif.

.......................

Now, getting back to dereks stuff. He's teaching you to familiarise your self with some solid nice sounding underlying harmonic structures which you can then layer motifs on top of of your own construction, and you can use some of bach's ideas about how to approach structural elements that you pick up from the inventions.

..........

Here's one I wrote myself a few months back using all these ideas, and without thinking at all about the more standard academic approach to counterpoint. (see attached)

[qpalqpal]

Okay, I understand almost everything....

Now, what about all of that 'complicated' stuff, with harmonic progressions and motifs and inversions and the balance in contrapunctal work? It almost feels like you're throwing out all of the 'scientific' aspects of Baroque and making it seem like Jazz . . . perhaps it is like Jazz in some ways, but it seems much meatier than that.

On the other hand, seeing these patterns in Bach's music and in Baroque music in general does shed light on what to expect in a contrapunctal work, and these patterns Derik talks about can definately help to better understand how Bach uses this method of improvisation interestingly.

I guess it's a little silly but I feel like everything I observe and analyze in a musical piece should have a name. I feel ignorant if I can't name what's going on. It's like being Spanish and speaking Spanish and trying to understand Italian; you will probably understand the main idea and pretty much everything but you won't understand the grammer or the vocabulary or the etymology of the Italian words. Kind of a stupid analogy.

Basically, I want to be able to play say, an invention or a sinfonia and understand where the piece starts and ends and know precisely what happens in every step of the way . . .

I don't explain myself, do I? 

[ajspiano]

I think I get where you are coming from, you want to have an intellectual understanding of the music rather than just be playing the notes.

As strict as some theoretical rules are..

The rules don't come first. That's backwards. The music comes first, the "rules" were then created to describe the music - the understanding of which facilitates imitation of a musical style, or writing in a set form. All the labels used in baroque are describing writing conventions - "if you write music, and use these conventions, you will create a baroque sound".

Analysis of the music isn't so you can logically know that right at this moment you are playing an inverted modal variation of the motif. The analysis is part of what allows you to get inside the composers head, and understand why certain notes came next from a creative perspective. So that as you play, you can re-create a musical direction because you understand where you are going.

.....

Inventions are what their name suggested. You invent an idea (the motif) and then you develop it. That's the purpose of those works, to teach you how to do that. If you just play the notes, even if you identify and name all the baroque conventions as well - thats fine.. but you'd be missing bach's point. These works come from a time when composition (and improvisation) was the primary expectation of a working musician, much more so than refined performance as they are more commonly used for today.

....

That's in no way saying you must learn to compose if you're going to learn inventions though.. everything in its own time...  they are awesome tools for HT coordination development and horizontal thinking among other things as well..

The thing is though, you originally asked about identifying composition devices in an invention..  the ability to recognise such things, like so many things, is perhaps best learned by doing.

[qpalqpal]

Well . . . that's slightly disappointing . . . I was hoping that, althought the inventions were for composing (I knew that), these pieces would help me understand, say, Chopin's or I don't know. I also liked the idea of treating the invention as a book . .. analyze for the moment, where you look up from the paper and see how it comes together and what the composer was  thinking and intending to convey and feeling. I was thinking, " when I get thru most of the inventions, a good amount of sinfonias and a couple of preludes and fugues, I will understand music A LOT more and truly enjoy pieces from other periods better." I think of the inventions and sinfonias as introductions to the complexity of music and what it can do and how ingenious it is.

But. . . I do understand what you mean; analyzing is more of a creative act, where the student tries to communicate with the composer and attempts to create a sort of bond.

Anyways enough poetry. Thanks for the clear up. And I'll definately check out Deriks posts. I watched the first video and that was very interesting. Would his stuff still be helpful even if I do not intend to improvise?

[ajspiano]

they will have that effect.. many great composers that followed held bach in high regard and studied his works in depth to better their craft. Chopin especially.

how do you suppose chopin would've studied bach?

this is mostly about just how much can be gained from the scores, beyond simply playing the notes and knowing some general information about the structure.. and not just bachs works..

[j_menz]

I was hoping that, althought the inventions were for composing (I knew that), these pieces would help me understand, say, Chopin's or I don't know. I also liked the idea of treating the invention as a book . .. analyze for the moment, where you look up from the paper and see how it comes together and what the composer was  thinking and intending to convey and feeling. I was thinking, " when I get thru most of the inventions, a good amount of sinfonias and a couple of preludes and fugues, I will understand music A LOT more and truly enjoy pieces from other periods better." I think of the inventions and sinfonias as introductions to the complexity of music and what it can do and how ingenious it is.

The inventions are a great introduction to how music is put together and to ways of listening to it. Playing them helps, but also listen (with score in hand) and see how ideas develop, intertwine, recapitulate (with or without variation). You can see how music can be "upside down", or "backwards" or both and still make sense and still relate to it's former self. It is good training for polyphony as well as vertical harmony. That is a great foundation for understanding the works of anyone (although the actual theory may depart significantly)

By all means use a theoretical framework to assist in that, but don't let it occupy the place of knowing what it sounds and feels like.

The Fux book that AJ mentioned is available from Dover pretty cheaply in an updated/edited version. (Amazon) and is worth looking at if you want to pursue the theory further.

[hardy_practice]

What makes it more difficult for us is that each invention is a how-to-compose-in-this-particular-genre.  Love no. 7 - anybody know the genre?