John Walsh wrote:
>
> Frank Nordberg wrote:
>
> >A problem with the O'Neill tunes is that many of them doesn't
> >seem to have a clearly defined tonal centre at all.
>
> Ah, that's interesting. I think it's one of the great interests
> of the tunes, rather than a problem, but of course Frank's talking about
> notational questions, not musical interest here.
Of course. :-)
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> >and I realize I am in the minority on this, but I continue to feel
> >that the K: field should describe the number of sharps or flats
> >without naming a tonic and/or a mode.
> >
>
> Well, if you'll amend that to "...the K: field should *be able* to
> describe the number of sharps or flats without naming a tonic and/or mode"
> you might not be in the minority. At least you wouldn't be alone, for I'd
> agree. But I think it should also be able to describe the tonic and/or
> mode, along with a quite few other possibilities.
Count me in too.
Wendy Galovich wrote:
>
> >Thanks David. I held back in the hope that someone else would say this.
> >Selection of mode can be ambiguous or outside the experience of some
> people.
> >When the tonic/mode system is the ONLY choice of K: command there are bound
> >to be problems.
> >
> >Bryan
>
> ..And thank you Bryan, for indirectly acknowledging through your
> wording here that there ARE legitimate reasons for *continuing* to sup-
> port the tonic/mode system as a choice, apart from the need to have
> other choices as well.
I don't think anybody ever actually suggested to *replace* the modal
system with sharps/flats. There was a misunderstanding in that direction
last time we discussed this issue, and that misunderstanding destroyed
the whole discussion.
Frank Nordberg
To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html
