John Chambers a skrivas:
[snip]
> Several people have mentioned the one real problem with this: There
> is a lot of abc out there that simply gets the tonic wrong, because
> the transcriber doesn't understand keys. This is worse than having no
> tonic at all. The main use of a tonic is for lookups, and it would be
> better to have nothing there than to have an incorrect tonic.
I don't agree. Look at the J.S. Bach toccata in D mol "dorian": the key
signature is C (or Am, or Dm dorian), but almost all B's are flat.
> Making K:<accidentals> by itself legal would simplify the work of
> people just trying to transcribe music and preserve the information
> on the printed page. Staff notation gives only the signature, not the
> key, so requiring the tonic means asking the transcriber to add
> information that wasn't there. Some people can't get this right.
I don't agree yet. As an organ player, I often change the chords of
a song while playing it as a whole or only some part of it, and also,
I may feel a better harmony from time to time. Sure it is not what the
original composer wrote, but it gives something new in the celebrations!
> Personally, I'm a bit annoyed by this, too. Tonic+mode was a minor
> improvement of abc over staff notation. But experience does show that
> a fair number of musicians can't get it right. I've been amused and
> at times annoyed by incorrect K: lines that merely get the signature
> right. Stating the tonic should be encouraged, but I don't think it
> should be required.
[snip]
OK
--
Ken ar c'henta� | ** Breizh ha Linux atav! **
| http://moinejf.free.fr/
P�p� Jef | please, on reply, mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
| or mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html
