John Chambers a skrivas:
> Jean-Francois Moine skribis:
> |
> | Let's go further. Someone in the ABC-land will soon write:
> |
> | K:C ^e_f
> |
> | How do you feel "cdefg"?
>
> Too late; this has already happened. ;-) I play several tunes in this
> scale. Well, actually, it also has _B. Among klezmer, Balkan and
> Middle-eastern musicians it's a familiar scale.
Really? With 'e' (sharp) higher than 'f' (flat)? Please, let me know
where I can find such scores (I do like funny sounds)..
> You have a serious gap in your logic here. It's likely true that all
> musicians need the classical modes. Nobody is proposing doing away
> with them. But it's not true that this covers all the music that all
> musicians play. While you may not know or approve of non-classical
> scales, you don't have the right to deny them to musicians who like
> them. And you shouldn't be so arrogant as to decree that nobody needs
> any notation that isn't used by your music.
I am not talking about _my_ music, I'm just talking about *M*usic.
I don't know well modern music, but I don't deny everyone to write
'serial' or 'half pitch' tunes. AFAIK, most people generally use a
`standard` notation. Here is examples from recently died organ
composers:
X:1
T:La nativit� du Seigneur
T:Neuf m�ditations pour orgue
C:Olivier Messiaen
M:none
L:1/16
K:E
P:IX- Dieu parmi nous (measures 79..80 - upper voice)
E=CB,_B,=G,E _DC=B,=F=G_G=C|E=CB,_B,=G,E =B,=C_D=E=F EF_G_B=c GB=Bc_d|
X:2
T:Vingt-quatre Pi�ces
T:pour Harmonium ou orgue
C:Jean Langlais
M:3/4
L:1/4
%%staves 1 (2 3)
K:F#m
P:XIV. Allegro (measures 35..39)
V:1
{/^A,}B,2^D-|^DG,C|B,/^A,/G,2-|G,/F,/ E,/F,/ G,/^A,/|=C/^C/ D/^F/ =G/^G/|
V:2
x3|x3|=A,,3/ B,,/ C,/D,/|z3|z3|
V:3
z3|B,,/^A,,/ G,,/F,,/ ^E,,/^D,,/|=D,,-D,,/ z/ z|[D,,A,,] z z|{/=G,,}_A,,2 =C,-|
> Of course, nobody actually *needs* key signatures at all.
Yes, but in the examples above, they put some, and it's not easy to
read :(
> You could
> forget about them and always write all the accidentals before every
> note. Many modern atonal music is written this way, because for that
> music, key signatures are just confusing.
No, I'd better say the new composers are lazy :)
> But key signatures were developed for a good reason. By listing a set
> of accidentals along the left edge, you tell readers that these are
> the "normal" intonations of those notes, and that those notes are "in
> the scale" of the piece. Accidentals are then only needed for notes
> that are outside the scale. This makes the music a lot more readable.
>
> This is the reason that musicians in various other musical traditions
> have been insisting that they want the correct key signatures on
> their music. It's true that, if your scale is C D _E ^F G ..., you
> can represent it as Bb and write in all the sharps before the F's.
> But this is ugly because it's misleading. It tells the reader that a
> ^F is an altered note, when it isn't; ^F is the note that's in the
> scale, and =F would be an altered note. So ^F should be in the
> signature and =F should have accidentals.
May be we misunderstand each other. I often have to play tunes I have
never heard before. When I look at the key signature, I know where
my fingers have to go. If this key signature is non-standard as the
one you propose, and when thinking to play in G minor, I will never
remember in the middle of the line if the 'F' (without explicit
alteration) should be played as sharp or as natural. I would go further:
some old scores did not indicate when some notes are sharp/flat or not,
because it was played so (?) at this time. Now, modern transcriptions
set explicit accidentals (sometimes between parenthesis) so that
today's players may concentrate on the music.
[snip]
> In any case, if you dislike the idea of ever discovering music that
> uses non-Western scales, you should be very careful of what you look
> at on the Net. There is a crowd of klezmer and Balkan musicians who
> have discovered ABC and they are starting to use it. Some of them
> have ABC tools that only allow classical key signatures. They grumble
> a lot about ABC's stupid limitations, but they use it.
May be it's just as ASCII, ISO-Latin-x, UTF-8, Micro$oft and other
specific encodings. I'm not sure the way you propose for the key
signature is the best definition for non-Western scales: other people
use their own standards since half-eternity, and they are the only ones
who can say what is the best key definition they will see in ABC.
[snip]
> Sticking to music of northwest Europe may not even save you. There is
> a lot of Scottish music written with a key signature of ^f^c=g. ABC
> even has special notation for it: K:Hp. So be careful ...
No problem: when I will see such a key signature, I will run a little
(tcl/perl) script in front of abcm2ps for it prints a nice (standard)
score...
--
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
