Yes, it would be 'better and less misleading' for the abc user community that understands: 1. 2 sharps 2. they are in the 'standard' place 3. E Dorian means E is the tonic.
Me, personally, just speaking for myself, I can play in (for example) G Dorian without having to remember which flats are there, but I have to puzzle it out if I see a tune written out with one flat and try to figure out which of the possible tonics I should be thinking about. But that's just me, personally, just speaking for myself. So therefore my, personal speaking for myself selfish little opinion clearly shouldn't count. <sigh> A a positive comment, I don't have any objection to a notation that allows the number of flats or sharps to be explicitly notated without tonic information, I just have an objection to the statement or implication that that is somehow wrong or misleading to the entire abc user community to allow tonic and modes to be specified as a a first order definition. Skink allows Dmaj or Dion as synonyms for D, if you like. wil [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Eric Forgeot wrote - > > >I thought it was a good idea to use 2 K: fields to write both the > >mode and the key, but this solution of K:D % EDorian is maybe > >better. Will you forgive me if I use it in the future ? :) > > Wouldn't it be better and less misleading to be able to say K:^f^c % EDorian > or better still have separate actual fields rather than a comment to hold the > tonic and mode? > > Just a thought. > > Bryan Creer > > To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: >http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html
