Wil wrote: >But is there a compelling reason why we should not define >"E hejaz" or "E freygish"? (in a similar manner to the definition >proposed for chords) > We certainly could do that, or better, provide a means for users to define their own named modes. However, there will be some problems with the wierder ones. Some scales extend over more than one octave, so you would not only have to supply the tonic but also specify which octave it's in. Some scales use different accidentals going up and coming down, so you can't just write one key signature. Phil Taylor To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html
- [abcusers] Modes and key signatures (Was: Hi) Frank Nordberg
- Re: [abcusers] Modes and key signatures (Was: Hi) John Chambers
- Re: [abcusers] Modes and key signatures (Was: Hi... Wendy Galovich
- Re: [abcusers] Modes and key signatures (Was: Hi) Frank Nordberg
- Re: [abcusers] Modes and key signatures (Was: Hi) Laura Conrad
- Re: [abcusers] Modes and key signatures (Was: Hi) Wil Macaulay
- Re: [abcusers] Modes and key signatures (Was: Hi) Frank Nordberg
- Re: [abcusers] Modes and key signatures (Was: Hi) Phil Taylor
- Re: [abcusers] Modes and key signatures (Was: Hi) Phil Taylor
- Re: [abcusers] Modes and key signatures (Was: Hi) John Chambers
- Re: [abcusers] Modes and key signatures (Was: Hi) Bruce Olson
- Re: [abcusers] Modes and key signatures (Was: Hi) John Chambers
- Re: [abcusers] Modes and key signatures (Was: Hi) John Chambers
- Re: [abcusers] Modes and key signatures (Was: Hi) Laurie Griffiths
- Re: [abcusers] Modes and key signatures (Was: Hi) Bert Van Vreckem
- Re: [abcusers] Modes and key signatures (Was: Hi... Laurie Griffiths
- Re: [abcusers] Modes and key signatures (Was: Hi) James Allwright