>>>>> "jhoerr" == jhoerr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Maybe not, but they're used in figured bass all the time. And the
>> chord syntax is one of the possible ways to notate figured bass in
>> ABC.
jhoerr> Would this hold up under transposition? A sharp 6 in the key of G
jhoerr> *should* become a natural 6 in Eb.
One of the nice things about figured bass as opposed to most other
ways to indicate harmonies under a tune is that you don't usually have to
transpose it at all. I agree that the particular case you're talking
about would need a change in standard modern notation. But in most of
the music I work with, X is used for both a sharp and a natural on a
note which would otherwise be flatted. So my guess is that you don't
really have to "transpose" the sharps in the figures to naturals,
either. Someone who knows more than I do about the history of baroque
notation may want to correct this guess.
jhoerr> Rather than a kludge to make the chord syntax work better for figured
jhoerr> bass, I'd rather see figured bass added to the standard. Dreaming, I
jhoerr> know.
I don't think allowing naturals to be entered as part of chord syntax
is a kludge. I think it's an obvious extension of the functionality,
which may well be useful to some people who write more normal chords,
too.
I agree that if there were ever a community of users and developers
who were using ABC to do figured bass, there should be extensions for
that purpose added to the standard. My attempts have involved a fair
number of kludges. I don't see such a community now.
--
Laura (mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] , http://www.laymusic.org/ )
(617) 661-8097 fax: (801) 365-6574
233 Broadway, Cambridge, MA 02139
To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html
