On Tue, Jul 29, 2003 at 06:26:21PM +0100, Bernard Hill wrote: > In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Richard Robinson > > > >> Now I don't really mind > >> having minor keys as they are well established, and maybe even the modes > > > >Very tolerant of you .... ;) > > Well they're not really needed now, are they? There's no separate > notation for them.
What, modes ? There's a notation for them, yes. They're needed, yes. In that, it's another of those things that you can do with ABC key signatures that you can't do on paper. Same idea as the explicit accidentals, that you can give the tonic as well as the accidentals. > However I had not allowed for the use of abc files as a database. In > that case I can see a use for a tonic= or mode description. Ah. That's how we were talking at cross purposes, then. Yes, that's the point of things like that, that you can search a collection of ABC files for them. And that's one of the really huge advantages that ABC has, for my purposes. Perhaps this should have a mention in the spec., if people can currently overlook it ? > As I have proposed in another post, how about > > K:_b^f^c tonic=A > > ? I'd think the usage that John was clarifying (see the "K:E ^G" discussion) does the same job rather more neatly without breaking the orginal usage. -- 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
