Bach Inventions

[Nana_Ama]

What order would you learn them in?  What does each invention help you with?
I realize that there is probably a post regrading this already, but I was too lazy to try to find it. 

[Egghead]

What order would you learn them in?  What does each invention help you with?
I realize that there is probably a post regrading this already, but I was too lazy to try to find it. 

Yes, I am pretty sure there is, and I was too lazy to find it for you. 
No. 8 is one of the easier ones.

[Nana_Ama]

Yes, I am pretty sure there is, and I was too lazy to find it for you. 
No. 8 is one of the easier ones.

LOL 

Yes, I was thinking that...

no.1
no.8
....then... what??

[m1469]

Just passing along the links; great posts from Bernhard


https://pianoforum.net/smf/index.php/topic,5143.msg49023.html#msg49023

https://pianoforum.net/smf/index.php?PHPSESSID=2f40990c57b7c9d897f200e7686cb503&topic=1911.msg14853#msg14853
(Ranking of them (and more))


https://pianoforum.net/smf/index.php?PHPSESSID=62189e14a3679c2229bfa2a295cc1825&topic=3171.msg27807#msg27807
(Strategy on learning: very brief)


https://pianoforum.net/smf/index.php/topic,2714.msg23310.html#msg23310
(Teaching/learning them: in-depth)

Have fun 

[sznitzeln]

I think you should listen to them and take the ones you like the most and start with...
Their purpose was to teach cantabile, and also how to get ideas for composition (inventions).

I started with #13, which is fun, then moved to #1 because I wanted to do them in order, but then realized.. why bother... going for #15 now and then #14.

#1 is good for cantabile... but I think it is pretty boring. Read today in the book by Heinrich Neuhaus that Bach is very good to study to learn polyphony (duh), he recommends Anna Magdalena book, 2-part and 3-part inventions, Wohltemperierte klavier, then the art of the fugue. And after that you can move on to Shostakovich preludes and fugues... Pretty ambitious if you ask me...

He also says that from learning the following preludes from Wohltemperirtes Klavier you get the benefit of atleast 50 highly useful etudes:
Book I: 2,3,5,6,10,11,14,15,17,19,20,21
Book II: 2,5,6,8,10,15,18,21,23
He calls them "motor" preludes.

Let me quote a piece of the book, eventhough its a bit off topic I suppose its nevertheless interresting for you:

"This is my advice: play the E major Fugue from Book II of the Wohltemperiertes Klavier some twenty times running. This is a choral fugue. It could serve as a conclusion to the second part of Goethe's Faust (chorus misticus). Suffer, yes, suffer anguish because the piano does not sound like a choir, because the fugue will sound dull, uninteresting, because the tones will die prematurely. Then try to play it faster than it should be played (belligerently, instead of mysteriously as is right) to prevent the tone from dying off; if you are a musician, the fugue will seem quite repulsive to you. Then get well and truly angry with old man Bach; say that this old wig-wearer did not know the first thing about the piano if he could write for that instrument a fugue that can only be performed on a harmonium or and organ, throw the music on the floor-- then pick it upp and start all over again."

The idea here is that when you aim for the impossible (singing like a choir with the piano) you achieve the possible (singing with the piano... cantabile).

[bernhard]

Also have a look here:

https://pianoforum.net/smf/index.php/topic,5143.msg49995.html#msg49995
(Inventions and sinfonias: Bach’s pedagogical order of difficulty)

https://pianoforum.net/smf/index.php/topic,4736.msg44774.html#msg44774
(how to play inventions – Escher picture – Example: Invention 4 – Analogy with the game of chess)

Best wishes,
Bernhard.

[bernhard]

I think you should listen to them and take the ones you like the most and start with...
Their purpose was to teach cantabile, and also how to get ideas for composition (inventions).

I started with #13, which is fun, then moved to #1 because I wanted to do them in order, but then realized.. why bother... going for #15 now and then #14.

#1 is good for cantabile... but I think it is pretty boring. Read today in the book by Heinrich Neuhaus that Bach is very good to study to learn polyphony (duh), he recommends Anna Magdalena book, 2-part and 3-part inventions, Wohltemperierte klavier, then the art of the fugue. And after that you can move on to Shostakovich preludes and fugues... Pretty ambitious if you ask me...

He also says that from learning the following preludes from Wohltemperirtes Klavier you get the benefit of atleast 50 highly useful etudes:
Book I: 2,3,5,6,10,11,14,15,17,19,20,21
Book II: 2,5,6,8,10,15,18,21,23
He calls them "motor" preludes.

Let me quote a piece of the book, eventhough its a bit off topic I suppose its nevertheless interresting for you:

"This is my advice: play the E major Fugue from Book II of the Wohltemperiertes Klavier some twenty times running. This is a choral fugue. It could serve as a conclusion to the second part of Goethe's Faust (chorus misticus). Suffer, yes, suffer anguish because the piano does not sound like a choir, because the fugue will sound dull, uninteresting, because the tones will die prematurely. Then try to play it faster than it should be played (belligerently, instead of mysteriously as is right) to prevent the tone from dying off; if you are a musician, the fugue will seem quite repulsive to you. Then get well and truly angry with old man Bach; say that this old wig-wearer did not know the first thing about the piano if he could write for that instrument a fugue that can only be performed on a harmonium or and organ, throw the music on the floor-- then pick it upp and start all over again."

The idea here is that when you aim for the impossible (singing like a choir with the piano) you achieve the possible (singing with the piano... cantabile).

Very interesting post!

[sznitzeln]

Thanks Bernhard
I find your posts very interesting too... I am about to find your post where you describe a practice routine... Is it right that your method is much more detailed than the method described in https://members.aol.com/chang8825/entirebook.htm ?
I hope this will help me get an acceptable repertoire over time... I tend to "forget" all my pieces.

[quasimodo]

Bernhard,

You made a summary analysis of the invention N°1 on this forum, in which you said that its motif is the seven first notes C-D-E-F-D-E-C, which also what I think. Anyway, I read some analysts out there who consider the motif is eight notes, adding the "G". I don't really agree with this as far as this eight note varies all along the piece in interval and in duration.
Is there any other argument, more accurate and formal which leads you to consider that the motif is 7 notes and not eight ?

[bernhard]

Thanks Bernhard
I find your posts very interesting too... I am about to find your post where you describe a practice routine... Is it right that your method is much more detailed than the method described in https://members.aol.com/chang8825/entirebook.htm ?
I hope this will help me get an acceptable repertoire over time... I tend to "forget" all my pieces.

I would not say that. I have the utmost respect for Chang’s book, which I believe is the best reference I have ever come across for the specific subject it addresses.

As far as “my” method is concerned, most of it are things I learned from other teachers, from books, from friends, and tried out in my teaching. In fact every single time I thought I had invented something new, I eventually found my very own ideas described (many times in a much better way) by others. Chang is a good case in point. When I first read it around five years ago (in those days the online book was not yet available, I actually have a hard copy of its first edition!) I was shocked to see how much of what I was using and thought was revolutionary was already in that book. (e.g. play fast before playing slowly, acquire technique with hands separate, break down a passage in small pieces, etc.).

At the same time, these ideas have more or less always been around. Chang’s genius, in my opinion, is not so much the isolated practice tricks and strategies he describes, but rather the unique way he organises them and puts them together. This, of course, is his original contribution.

So no, I would not say it is a question of more or less detail, but rather of emphasis and of a way of putting things together. If you read Sandor’s book ("On playing the piano") and Fink’s book (“Mastering piano technique”), you will see that they are both speaking more or less of the same things, but from very different angles, with different emphasis and a different terminology. So to me at least it is not a question of which is better or more complete: they are both essential and each illuminates the other – which is as it should be.

I find almost nothing in Chang’s book that I disagree with, and I am sure that the little I might take exception to is most likely due to the written language being such a poor way to convey this information. I am sure that if we were to meet and discuss the subject by a piano, we would both agree probably in everything.

Also bear in mind that matters of repertory choice, practice and technique are intensely personal. Nothing will always work for everyone. So, always refer whatever you read to yourself: does it work for you? If it does, add it to your repertory of learning tools. If it does not, ask yourself the following questions:

1.   Did I actually understand the instructions? Am I actually doing what was suggested? (in other words is the idea not working simply because I am not doing it properly? It is surprisingly easy to misunderstand something if you get to attachred to words; when reading about piano practice and piano technique one must always look beyond the words).

2.   Did I give time enough for the idea to bear fruit? Some ideas may have immediate effects, others may take a couple of months before you see any result. So it is no good discarding a method that is supposed to give results after two months because you saw no improvement after three days trial.

3.   Did I have a standard of comparison? The best way to go about this is to choose two pieces of similar difficulty and practise one according to your usual methods and the other by applying the new idea. After 2 weeks compare results. When this is not possible, (and if you teach), select two students of similar achievements and make one practise in one way, and the other the other way. After a month compare results.

If after applying the three steps above the method still does not work then drop it as useless for you – but bear in mind that it might still be useful for someone else (although there are ideas that are truly useless)

Best wishes,
Bernhard.

[bernhard]

Bernhard,

You made a summary analysis of the invention N°1 on this forum, in which you said that its motif is the seven first notes C-D-E-F-D-E-C, which also what I think. Anyway, I read some analysts out there who consider the motif is eight notes, adding the "G". I don't really agree with this as far as this eight note varies all along the piece in interval and in duration.
Is there any other argument, more accurate and formal which leads you to consider that the motif is 7 notes and not eight ?

This is a very interesting question. I think the best way to answer it is to ask another question:

What is the purpose of analysis?

Analysis is a completely artificial construct. What determines the "right" analysis is quite simply your original purpose in doing the analysis.

I tend to think about it in terms of a trial. Both solicitors have the same evidence, but they analyse it quite differently: The prosecutor wants to convict the suspect, the defence attorney wants to acquit it. Inthe end we may never know the truth, and the decision rest upon who was able to convince you best. (Trial by jury: 12 persons trying to decide who is the best lawyer ).

Yes, surely you could include the G as part of the motif. There is nothing wrong with that. In fact you could even consider the first 12 notes as the basic motif. But what would be the reason to do so? What purpose would it serve?

Considering the motif as the first seven notes has a purpose: to show that this motif occurs 46 times in different guises, and as a consequence to show how one can with only a seven note motif compose a whole piece. In particular this allows one to explain bars 3 and 4 as a sequence of inversion and retrogrades overlapping. If you consider the moitf to be the first 8 notes, or the first 12 notes, you will not be able to do so anymore.

However, using as motif 8 notes or 12 notes, may allow you to uncover other equally - or even more -  interesting features in this piece.

So it depends what angle you want to show.

Also keep in mind that this invention has been reworked from a previous piece. In its first form, the motif of seven notes was not so prevalent. So, you could imagine Bach looking at the piece and suddenly realising: "Hey, if I tidy it up here and here, I could make this seven note motif appear 46 times! wouldn't that be neat?". And I can see him smiling to himself and thinking "I wonder how many people will catch up on it, he he!". Yes, Bach was very much like that. His music is full of hidden messages and cyphers. The only other composer I can think ofhand that encyphered so much in his pieces was Schumann.

Does this help?

Best wishes,
Bernhard