David Barnert wrote:
Bryan Creer wrote:
>Sticking K:G or better still K:^f...
That one I agree with, as I have said here before, but few of the
movers and shakers seem to agree. I think having abc represent
information that is not in "the tadpoles" (except for header info
related to the tune's provenance) is asking for trouble.
Well, I don't think I'd agree. Although I've been one who has long
argued for the K:^f notation, I think that the original tonic+mode
was a Good Idea. It's just not sufficient for all the music that some
of us want to transcribe.
The fact that it conveys info not in the tadpoles is true but
unimportant. This is more a defect in standard staff notation. Common
speech in English (and most other languages) doesn't use such
accidentals, we give the tonic and mode as a matter of course. ABC's
standard K: notation mirrors common speech, and gives information
that is very useful in lookups.
If there were some simple, elegant way of defining arbitrary modes,
I'd have argued for that. But so far, I haven't seen any such scheme
that would be usable by your average musician. Falling back to just
the key signature is the obvious solution, although it loses some
useful information. It also makes transcription easier for people who
don't understand modes, or can't instantly determine the key and mode
of a tune at a glance.
To repeat myself, I'd predict that, even if the K:<accidentals> sort
of signature is implemented in all ABC software, most users will
continue to use the K:<tonic><mode> notation. It's straightforward
for musicians who understand keys and modes, and matches common
speech. But I think that K:<accidentals> is needed if we are to make
further progress in our goal of world domination.
To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html
