John Chambers wrote:
>
> 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.
It seems to me that there really isn't much isagreement here at all,
perhaps just some slight misunderstandings. It's interesting to observe
that some of the people who are supposed to oppose the K:[accidentals]
idea are among those who prosed the whole thing a year or so ago ;)
So:
The ABC idea of specifying the mode, not just the key signature is a
good one and ought to be kept.
However, as Bryan says, it doesn't always work, so we need the
K:[accidentals] system in addition.
I don't think it should be too difficult to keep both possibilities.
I'd be very happy if ABC transcribers resisted the temptation to use
"esotic key signatures" for European harmonic minor tunes, though. It's
bound to cause confusion sooner or later.
Frank
To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html
