Bernard Hill writes: | In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, John Chambers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes | >No, the accidentals should be case sensitive. I might not care about | >this, personally, but I've seen the explanations. When the topic has | >come up in the past, several people have pointed out that there are | >musical styles that use different accidentals in two octaves. The | >examples I've seen are from southern Asia. | | So how is it notated *as a key signature*? - because that's what we're | talking about. I am happy to have accidentals on individual notes but we | are talking ks here. | > | >I've seen this done in Middle-Eastern music too, with scales like: | > | >K:D=C_E_B^c | > | >where the C is different in the two octaves. | > | >We really shouldn't exclude these musical styles when it's so easy to | >include them. We've had inquiries on the list from people who play | >Persian and Indian classical music. It would be interesting to see | >how well it works for them. | | Again, what's the ks?
Well, it's real hard to draw in ascii ... The K:D=C_E_B^c example has a natural on the C line (below the staff), flats on the E and B lines, and a sharp on the c line. It might be better to put them in a different order; I just expressed it that way to make the scale clear. Which does remind me that, although there's a conventional order for the accidentals in classical key signatures, there really isn't such an order for others. Some particular musical styles might have a conventional order, but I don't know of them. In recent music books that use non-classical key signatures, there are several orders used. I think they position them so that they look good on the page, whatever that might mean to the editor. To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html
