>I think Bach made both of these transpositions as an expedient. ...
wanted to create a whole which was larger than the sum of its
>parts... In WTC scheme of all keys was motivator... In the case of the
Ouverture, he was completing a key sequence begun
>in Clavierubung ... Clavierubung II uses the keys F and h (with
dominant F#). In Clav II he was also demonstrating
>(and, in a sense polarizing) the Italian and the French in music, and
>using this scheme results in two keys which are as remote as possible
>(major vs. minor, and a tritone apart). I think this scheme was far
more important to Bach than the affect/effect of the key difference.
Of course! Your points are all well taken. And it seems terribly
obvious, but Bach was completing something, i.e. the 24 in _all_ keys,
that people of the generation before him had been working toward, but
thwarted by systems that could not handle it.
The study of how Bach manipulated these temperaments in remote keys
could occupy a lifetime. As with all things harmonic, he was ingenious
>gotten used to hearing/playing Bach's works in certain keys, and there
>is certainly some significance to the keys utilized in certain works.
>seems to be a G-Major "style," for example.) But, in other places,
>transposed to suit his purposes, without apparent attachment to
>keys for specific works.
>Just as an aside, can you imagine Louis Couperin's Pavanne in f-minor?
>Or, Beethoven's 5th Symphony in b-minor?
I've been meaning to cite Louis Couperin's F# minor Pavane; it providesa
great case study of how a skilled composer can wring a new harmonic
scheme out of an essentially hostile or foreign harmonic environment,
i.e. meantone temperament. For starters, the dominant must be avoided
at all times, while conveying the sense of resolution so that one is not
conscious of this persistent avoidance.
Joseph Spencer [log in to unmask]
The Musical Offering Classical Record Shop & Cafe
2430 Bancroft Way, Berkeley, CA 94704
ph (510)849-0211, toll-free 800-478-MUSIC