The results are definitely an outlier in this study of menuets from 1660 through the 18th century, in the very small number of periods relative to other forms, and in the relatively large number of sentences for menuets in any period, but certainly before 1760. But see my comments on individual pieces below.
period N = 1The only period, the rondeau theme in Suite IV, is close to many examples in my recent posts on Chédeville's Recueils and other, earlier menuets. Fux, however, does begin the change in melody in bar 7, not leaving the difference only to the final note.
antecedent + continuation N = 7
sentence N = 7
16-bar period N = 1
The statistics given above, however, are clouded a bit by a particular feature that I have seen only occasionally in earlier pieces. Here are examples from the other menuets in the keyboard suites.
The antecedent+continuation theme, in principle, should have the greatest variety of ideas among all the possible eight-bar theme types: in its extreme form, a basic idea is followed by a contrasting idea and then by continuation consisting of a contrasting phrase (a new idea followed by still another shape in the cadence). In the second menuet from the first suite, however, Fux veers to the opposite extreme, where only the narrow confines of 8-10 seconds of music permit us to value contrast over relation in bars 3-4 (the obvious change of harmony helps). I am less comfortable with bars 5-6, which form a complete idea (not fragmentation) that could be heard as a variant of bars 1-2.
I do believe that antecedent + continuation is the best reading, based on the historical context of the menuet repertoires from Lully onward till the menuet is caught, after the 1730s, in the contredanse's form-leveling influence, which favors the period for all dances. (The height of that influence on the menuet, specifically, was in the 1760s.) Nevertheless, in this menuet from Fux's first keyboard suite, we are, so to speak, at a formal-function crossroads. If I chose to hear bars 5-6 as a variant of the beginning, then the design would be a period. If I chose to hear bars 3-4 as a variant, then the design would be a sentence (if bars 5-6 initiate continuation) or the presentation-consequent hybrid (if bars 5-6 are also a variant of bars 1-2). Any one of the four (underlined) readings is possible. I favor antecedent + continuation, as I said, because of the historical context--but also because of my assertion that small changes count for more in such a small space as the usual first strain in music for social dance.
I do find the simplicity of Fux's menuets in the keyboard suites a little surprising, more like menuets in the 1680s-1690s than the often highly stylized pieces written by others, such as J. S. Bach, in the 1710s and 1720s. Also, and unexpectedly perhaps, given the mythology that has arisen around Fux because of interpretations of the Gradus exercises, this menuet reminds us yet again of the fragility of our analyses when dance practices are taken into consideration. All it would take is an imaginative (or slightly bored) violinist, playing this strain for the third or fourth time, to turn bars 3-4 into a clearly contrasting idea by changing the rhythms so as not to repeat those of bars 1-2. Similarly for bars 5-6 or for bars 3-4 + 5-6.
The menuet from suite 3 dramatizes the relation of bars 3-4 to 5-6. There is no question about the status of the first phrase as a presentation, but the sequence spills over into the second phrase, the overall effect being 6 + 2, or sequence + cadence. In fact, although I have called it a sentence, I think that 6 + 2, or (basic idea--variant--variant)--cadence probably would be a better way to describe it.
