On Wed, 30 Jul 2003, Richard Robinson wrote: > What about the cases where notes in different octaves > have different accidentals ?
I personally think that the explicit key signature scheme as it is currently defined in the standard is already quite complex. Making distinction between the octave of the accidentals would be a bridge to far. > Why do we have to forbid everything we can't think of > a use for ? I could think of a use for it, just as I could think of a use for microtonal notation, gregorian notation, etc. But I think that this are all highly specialized extensions that will have to wait for a following standardization attempt. > > It is possible to use the format "K:<tonic> exp > > <accidentals>" to explicitly define all the accidentals > > of a key signature. Thus "K:D Phr ^f" could also be > > notated as "K:D exp _b _e ^f", where 'exp' is an > > abbreviation of 'explicit'. > Is "K:D exp _b _e ^f" different from "K:D _b _e ^f" ? > Where does this come from, has it been mentioned before ? This is my solution to the problems identified in the discussion. "K:D exp _b _e ^f" explicitly defines a key signature, consisting of "_b _e and ^f" with D as tonic. "K:D _b _e ^f" is the equivalent to "K:Dmaj _b _e ^f" which would modify the D major key signature to "^f ^c _b _e" Groeten, Irwin Oppenheim [EMAIL PROTECTED] ~~~* Chazzanut Online: http://www.joods.nl/~chazzanut/ To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html
