David Barnert wrote:
>I wrote:
>
> >We've been through this before, 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.
>
>A number of folks chimed in to comment that my comments might make
>more sense if interpreted inclusively rather than exclusively.
>
>I'm afraid that careful examination of my wording (specifically,
>the use of "without") reveals that I cannot claim not to have been
>thinking inclusively. So I guess my minority is getting smaller.
>
>The only reason I don't advocate jettisoning the whole tonic/mode
>format is that it would invalidate the large body of abc files
>that already exist. But the first time I mentioned this (months
>ago) I believe I said something like "Chris Walshaw made an
>unfortunate choice in deciding that the K: field should contain
>more information than the printed key signature does."
>
>Tonic/mode does not affect playback or printing, which are the two
>primary uses of abc (at least the way I and most of my friends use
>it). It is of importance only to people (or machines) trying to
>supply chords or create databases that include key information.
>
>Phil Taylor (my hero) wrote:
>
> >I'll repeat what I said before on this subject. If this change
> >in standard becomes accepted, the vast majority of users will
> >use it not just for the ambiguous tunes where it is appropriate,
> >but for ALL transcriptions. We will have lost what is one of the
> >major advantages of abc over conventional notation for the sake
> >of dealing with a theoretical problem applying to a very small
> >number of tunes.
>
>Phil, it was with your words from last time around in mind that I
>included the words, "I realize I am in the minority" in my
>comments. Please clear up for me two points that I see as
>obstacles to my accepting your viewpoint:
>
>1) To what does this refer: "one of the major advantages of abc
>over conventional notation"?
OK. Perhaps my attitude towards this is conditioned by my early
experience of music. I was taught music at school very badly,
and basically learned nothing. I got a guitar when I was fourteen,
and taught myself to play by ear, because I couldn't make any sense
of the dots, and because none of the music I wanted to play at
the time was available at a price I could afford, I had no motivation
to learn. I only learned to read music much later, when I was already
a proficient player. I found it very hard going, and indeed I still
can't sight read anything at all complicated. One of the things
that struck me when I did come to learn written music was that the
notation, while it contained something called a "key signature"
actually gave no indication of what the key was. As far as I was
concerned "what key is it in?" was the first thing I wanted to know
about a new piece of music, and "two sharps" was not an answer.
I had learned music on an instrument which is totally chromatic,
to the extent that the black notes are not marked in any way as being
different from the white notes. Electric guitar players tend to
avoid the open strings (because they sound different, and tend to
feedback at high volume levels) and if you do that, there is really
no difference between the keys of C and D - you just play the same
pattern of notes two places higher up the fingerboard. What I needed
was to know the key note, and whether it was major or minor, and I
resented the fact that I had to play mechanically through the whole
tune several times and get the tune into my head before I could extract
that piece of information. Without knowing the key, all I could do
was reproduce what was written on the paper - I couldn't harmonise
it or improvise around it or do anything creative with it.
So, when I came across abc I was delighted to find that it gave this
information upfront. When I started to write abc software I discovered
that it is very easy to convert K:D into "two sharps", but _impossible_
to do the reverse conversion, so the suggestion that we should permit
K:^c^f as legal abc involves discarding vital information, and is
anathema to me.
I realise that placing this information in the notation places the
onus of figuring out the key and mode on the transcriber, rather
than on the reader. This is particularly the case when the transcriber
is working from printed music. I realise that many people who do
transcription resent the extra effort which that imposes. However,
I feel that that's as it should be, since transcription is a job which
only needs to be done once, whereas the abc from that transcription may
be read by thousands of readers.
>and
>
>2) Is the answer to 1) so significant that it's worth severing the
>tie between printed notation and abc?
Sorry, I don't understand this. The tie is not severed; whether
you write K:D or K:^c^f you can logically convert abc to printed
notation.
>Let me remind those who don't know me well that this is not a
>"sour grapes" attitude espoused by someone who is uncomfortable
>with modes. I studied six semesters of theory and composition in
>college and find modes fascinating. As a child, I worked out the
>math myself, before I found out that the Greeks (or anyone else)
>had done it much earlier. My objection to giving modes a prominent
>place in abc is that I believe abc should be a representation of
>printed music notation and not contain information that cannot be
>expressed in standard printed music notation.
>
I would not have suspected you of sour grapes - you clearly have
a thoughtful attitude to music, and your contributions to this
group are always worth reading.
Phil Taylor
To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html
