At 00:47 12-07-16, Kelzenberg, David C wrote:
 >
 >By the way, regarding Kroll's edition for BG (not his edition for 
Peters Ed.).
 >
 >I think the arrangement of the sharp key signatures is remarkable.  It
 >makes much more sense than the usual and customary arrangement, and
 >provides a perfect symmetry to the flat signatures.  I don't know why
 >it wasn't universally adopted; it would seem much more logical and
 >more easily comprehensible by people learning theory.  I've never seen
 >this used anywhere else (not even elsewhere in BG), unfortunately, and
 >have no idea where the convention originated.  Perhaps one or more of
 >the sources use this pattern, but I've never seen another published
 >edition using this convention.
 >

I think that this arrangement of accidentals was taken over from the 
time when the soprano clef was used for the upper stave.  With repect 
to the treble clef, this pushes everything up a space.   Thus the f# 
would be on a leger line if one used the present day arrangement of 
sharps.  The first ms of WTC-I in IMSLP shows this arrangement 
clearly in the C# major P&F.

That said, an inspection of the key signatures in the ms of the Two- 
and Three-part Inventions (Dover facsimile) shows that Bach had his own ideas!

(Incidentally, every time I try to download from IMSLP of Bk.I of the 
BG edition referred to, I get a Czery edition!)

David

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Note:  opinions  expressed on HPSCHD-L are those of the  individual con-
tributors and not necessarily  those of the list owners  nor of the Uni-
versity of Iowa.  For a brief  summary of list  commands, send mail to
[log in to unmask]  saying  HELP .
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::