Bach Invention analysis questions

[1piano4joe]

Hi all,

I'm am learning to "play" Invention #1 in C major. I have dabbled with numbers 4,8 & 13 with varying degrees of success.

The best for me was number 4 at full tempo, followed by number 13 at 1/2 tempo and number 8 at a snails pace.

Invention number one seems to be a favorite to teach of many teachers.

I read there are 3 four note motifs, inversions, augmentations, retrograde, sequences, transposition, etc.

Questions:

1. What exactly is this "knowledge" supposed to do for me?

2. Is all this analysis supposed to make it easier to memorize?

3. Is this analysis supposed to make it easier for me to read?

4. Should it make it easier to learn or learn faster?

5. Would it allow me to play full tempo?

I have seen firsthand, the benefits of "playing" them, but this "analysis" seems to be wasted on me.

Also, I've read that it supposedly gets easier after the first one. Well, not for me. They all seem quite different and each one presents new difficulties.

I did find the "analysis" interesting and can see how this is immensely beneficial to composition.

I'm sure, there are many here, who have learned this analysis and this piece. Can someone please share with me exactly what the analysis did for you?

I think I'm just missing something, Joe.

[j_tour]

I did find the "analysis" interesting and can see how this is immensely beneficial to composition.

I'm sure, there are many here, who have learned this analysis and this piece. Can someone please share with me exactly what the analysis did for you?

I think I'm just missing something, Joe.

That's a darned good question.

I'm not sure you're really missing anything in your exploration:  TBH, for just playing the piece, I'm not really sure the level of analysis you're talking is all that helpful.

It's possible it could help in memorizing, as well as indicating some of the structure of the piece so the performer knows some of the important features "behind the music," and possibly produce a more coherent performance.

But, I can't really remember if those were helpful for me in particular.

I just think it's an interesting exercise in analysis, and, like you suggest, performing the analysis really highlights one of the purposes of the inventions and other works of Bach.  Namely to expose some principles of composition or improvisation.

Also, I've read that it supposedly gets easier after the first one. Well, not for me. They all seem quite
different and each one presents new difficulties.

Yeah, I think that's exactly right.  Some are trickier than others in some ways (like the A major), but I don't really see any generalized progressive difficulty, at the level of playing them.  They're just all different, as far as I remember, with regards to mechanical difficulties.

[brogers70]

I think that, yes, analysis definitely helps in memorization, at least for me; it gives me ways to name chunks of material simply and that makes it easier to remember.

I think it also helps you play the piece in a more interesting way. But for it to help that way you need to hear all those things, motifs, inversions, augmentations, etc, rather than just see them on the page. If you listen for them and hear them as you are playing the piece, your audience will too, and it will make it more interesting to listen to.

[lostinidlewonder]

I read there are 3 four note motifs, inversions, augmentations, retrograde, sequences, transposition, etc.

Questions:

1. What exactly is this "knowledge" supposed to do for me?

2. Is all this analysis supposed to make it easier to memorize?

3. Is this analysis supposed to make it easier for me to read?

4. Should it make it easier to learn or learn faster?

5. Would it allow me to play full tempo?

Well ultimately in a practical learning sense (in this case playing it on the piano) it is not that useful for the vast majority of people even high level players. I personally don't think in these terms while sight reading or playing a piece, that is just too clumsy for me. We see pattern in the score all in different ways, some might thrive giving specific names to particular movements and pattern changes but others like myself simply appreciate the sound and pattern changes in practical terms, in ways which help us learn the piece. Sound, fingering and pattern recognition is more important I feel and I see it in terms which make most sense to me and how it relates to my past experience, that is the important point. There is no reason to use something that makes little sense to you, you have to use what makes sense to you first then go from there.

Something like this: https://www.schoolofcomposition.com/bach-invention-1-analysis/
for me at least doesn't help me learn the piece in practical playing manner. It is more technical language that can be used to describe something more specific in a clear mathematical type manner. It can help you understand its construction on a theoretical level but not all theory translates to practical use in terms of playing the piano, of course if we are talking about composition and improvisation (although less so I feel compared to compostion) these kind of thoughts can be very helpful.

[lelle]

Hi all,

I'm am learning to "play" Invention #1 in C major. I have dabbled with numbers 4,8 & 13 with varying degrees of success.

The best for me was number 4 at full tempo, followed by number 13 at 1/2 tempo and number 8 at a snails pace.

Invention number one seems to be a favorite to teach of many teachers.

I read there are 3 four note motifs, inversions, augmentations, retrograde, sequences, transposition, etc.

Questions:

1. What exactly is this "knowledge" supposed to do for me?

In the long term, analyzing simple pieces teaches you how to analyze more complicated pieces where it is sorely needed later. The intellectual map you gain of the piece certainly contributes to interpretation, because it enables you to make intelligent choice about how to shape the piece and show the listener where you are in its structure. A piece is not just its notes but its logical architecture and how it all fits together. Understanding how composers use and manipulate motifs contributes to that.

For example, if you recognize that something is an inversion or augmentation of an important motif from the beginning of the piece and not just a random collection of notes, you might make choices to highlight it or to color it in a certain way or use certain inflections of phrasing to connect it in the listener's ear to the original motif, depending on how the composer used these things in the structure.

If you play the Liszt Sonata and want to keep it all together you need an intellectual understanding of how the piece is made so you can make choices on how to layer, color and highlight different aspects of the piece, else it just becomes a loud mess. One small example is that the "main" motif of the sonata comes back in inversion just before the recapitulation, and if you are not aware of that, you might completely run past it and not highlight it to the listener.

2. Is all this analysis supposed to make it easier to memorize?

I think so. The more I can understand the piece and the patterns used, the more I have to fall back on as a "backup" if my memory fails me. I also generally think it's easier to memorize something I deeply understand, compared to something that just seems like a random, arbitrary collection of "stuff", regardless if it's music or something else.

3. Is this analysis supposed to make it easier for me to read?

It might. Once you get good at reading once you see it you might go "hmm we are in c major and oh! here is the motif in inversion, I already know how that goes" and then you can instantly play it.

4. Should it make it easier to learn or learn faster?

I would say that it contributes to learning it deeper rather than faster, but again, seeing the various patterns the music is made from helps me memorize so it might.

5. Would it allow me to play full tempo?

I doubt it would contribute much.