Just got a book of all 15 two part inventions. I was under the impression that these are good for aquiring further indipendence of the two hands, apart from a priceless compositional value in studying counterpoint and fugato texture. Couple of questions, what actual teaching value do you think these have (not compositional) in respect to something like Well tempered Clavier or Gradus ad Parnassum and are these better played on a harpsichord or a piano? I have heard people like Gould do them on a piano and they sound good anyway.

Appreciate your thoughts as always.

You've pretty much mentioned everything they can develop indepentant hands, contrapuntal playing and the style of Bach's music

I could be very wrong mind you

just started doing these......

....I've just started them, too (or do you mean teaching them, sbhoa?)...in my case, after my disappointing G5 result my teacher said, "do you want to suffer, or just play something pretty?", so I said I wanted to suffer ...

I mean learning.

I would say the teaching value with respect to the WTC is that they're easier so are much more accessible at a lower standard. In order to be able to attempt the WTC (in particular the fugues, I wouldn't count playing just the prelude as the fugues are often an order of magniutde more difficult) one would benifit greatly from experience of playing something similar to the inventions first. The WTC tends to appear spread from grade 8 to LRSM, whereas the inventions can appear as early as grade 4 . (Although there's probably some overlap between the hardest inventions and the easiest pieces in the WTC).

As for the sound, I think I prefer them played on a harpsichord to listen to, especially if I had to listen to a lot of them at once. I'm not generally a fan of Gould's playing of Bach () I find his choice of tempi rather too extreme, fast is way too fast and slow is to the point of tedium; I much prefer Pinnock on Harpsichord for example .

Some good points Anotherpianist, in regards to first looking at the two part inventions in order to progress to the WTC book. The reason for them being easier are only two parts of course although you begin to get some introduction to imitative texture and moto perpetuo.

About Gould, although he is much sought after especially for his playing of Bach (J.S.) more than once he has the tempos wrong. For instance (to cite one but I'm sure there are others) the 1st Invention is marked as Allegro crotchet = 120 which is quite fast, whereas his recording has it almost at crotchet = 80!! Incredibly slow and moreover not as marked on the score....

I really like playing some of these, particularly N° 6. They are not technically too demanding and I find the mathematics of them soothing after a stressful day (don't know if this makes sense ).

The tempo marking isn't Bach's but something an editor added later.
Gould's tempo is no more "wrong" than is the editor's.
In the Alfred edition of the Inventions edited by Willard Palmer there's a table with the different tempos used by various performers and editors. Palmer lists Gould's tempo as quarter note = 60 which is the slowest, but several other performances are not much faster.

Palmer also notes that "it was completely in the baroque spirit to leave the choice of tempo to the performer."

Indeed, the metronome was invented during Beethoven's lifetime, all marks on scores before this time are editorial (as are some afterwards). I personally don't like his choice of tempi, but by no means would I say they are 'wrong' .

Ok thanks guys, I didn't know that. I was playing them too fast! I wondered why it was 120 it seemed really fast although they are still playable. Also I didn't know that the metronome was invented during the classical/romantic stretch, why did modern editors choose such fast tempos though? For instance no.2 is still marked Allegro moderato at crotchet = 108. It still makes me wonder how they really should be played...

I have hardly played any Baroque music, apart from re-arranging some passacaglias (most notably Handle's) so I will have to look things like these up...

EDIT: interesting link http://www.xs4all.nl/~marcz/MoreMetronome.html, there is a much earlier example of a metronome there, surely there must have been some sort of precise indication as to performance speed?

If a crotchet = 60, then it's one per second. (Stating the obvious a bit here...) So, with or without metronomes, it must always have been possible for musicians to judge what sort of tempo a piece should be played at - or at least within what range - by instructions like allegro, adagio, etc. Has the conception of these words changed through history, or is "Allegro", as we interpret it now, the same speed as allegro in the Baroque era?

I often wish that editors would keep their hands off scores, so that my own interpretation can evolve as I study and practise it. I'm talking about slurs, etc - which is wandering a bit off the subject, but it's related in a way. I like to know what is the composer's instruction and what is the editor's.

I've just started learning no 1 - can't believe I've never done them before.

I'm learning number 8 at the moment.

I've been hacking away at No. 13 for a while now, I like it, but I just can't get it to flow...

I love no 8!
Have just steered one of my students towards it.

I find the mathematics of them soothing after a stressful day (don't know if this makes sense ).

I sort of know what you mean - a kind of orderliness, the way everything fits.

Orderliness + beauty is sort of the appeal of Bach isn't it?

When I was learning bass guitar my teacher had me work through quite a few of the 2 part inventions (I"d play the bass line and he'd play the right hand part on the guitar). I chose my teacher because he was a jazz musician, but once he found out I was interested in classical music he had me do almost nothing else but the two part inventions as he thought Bach's bass lines were the basis of everything else that followed!

My impression is that a lot of Bach's music works well on completely different instruments from those it was originally composed for.

Definitely

Quite a lot of music at the time was absolute music: that is it was composed with the intention of being played on any instrument that had the range to do so. Thus Bach's music is not so instrument dependent as later works .

I've played a couple of these in the past unimaginatively it was number 1 and number 2 . Was just saying the other day I could do with playing something truly contrapuntal as I haven't done for a while, might dig up another Bach invention (well maybe later when I've finished what I'm playing at the moment....).

8 is F major.

The F major is number 8, just looked at it I also like number 4, it rocks.

Likewise. Gives me a bit of a brain explosion. Perhaps I should just stick to violin...

People usually start on the two part inventions, then to the harder three part inventions, then to the WTC, then to more professional works like the toccatas and the Art of the Fugue...
They're pretty challenging in terms of technical control, however they are like pearls of piano/harpsichord music to built up your technics simultaneously giving you the style of the era. Bach's WTC was called "Pianists' daily bread" by Schumann...and there had to be a reason for that - to play one every day.

I just love the D minor one, although I still can't seem to properly play the sections with those loooong trills. And yes, no.8 is wonderful too!

I loved the 13th- in A minor....the sequential passenage is just intriguing!!