On Tue, Jul 29, 2003 at 05:11:44PM +0100, Bernard Hill wrote: > In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Richard Robinson > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes > > > >> And from the abc source you have written > >> > >> K:A_b^f^c > >> > >> shouldn't that have a G# also since you've written K:A? > > > >It definitely shouldn't have a G#, since the Gs aren't sharp. > > So you are saying that > > K:A has 3 sharps > > K:A _b has no sharps and one flat instead? > > This is totally illogical. I can understand K:A _b to mean 3 sharps and > add a b flat but what now is the significance of the A?
As I said, Amix would have been better. What I was trying to notate was a key signature of Bb f# c# So, having clarified my mind, I hope, thanks to John, either K:Amix Bb or K:A _Bb ^f ^c since in the 1st, stating the mode brings its keysig in, and in the 2nd, not stating it doesn't imply any key signature. In either case, the significance of the A is that it's the root note of the tune. > The root note is totally irrelevant to anything. I don't think so. > As you indicate, > sometimes there is argument about it anyway. I said I might change my mind about what it is. That hardly implies that it doesn't exist. But the indication that I'd think about it suggests that I'd then like to record it. As I can. > Now I don't really mind > having minor keys as they are well established, and maybe even the modes Very tolerant of you .... ;) > but in the case of made-up key signatures described exactly in a K: > format I don't see the point. Make that K:_b^f^c in your example above. As above, I wouldn't want to have to throw the root note away. Why should I, what's the advantage ? -- Richard Robinson "The whole plan hinged upon the natural curiosity of potatoes" - S. Lem To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html
