Robert Bley-Vroman writes: | | Bruce wrote, in passing, that if abc eliminates key+mode in K:, | | >we can cut out ambiguity in | >notation and put it into interpretation where it belongs. | | It seems to me that as long as abc uses any kind of key signature (with | sharps or flats), the chief ambiguity remains. That is, when we write | "K:Amix", we're saying, equivalently, "This scale has a key-note (tonic) of | A and has two sharps, ^f and ^c." Replacing this with something like | "K:^f^c" ...
Just another note to correct the misinformation here: Nobody has suggested replacing K:tonic+mode with K:signature. The suggestion has been to allow both. The discussion keeps getting deflected by the idea that people want to invalidate existing abc by changing the syntax of the K: lines. Nobody has suggested this at all. This is a serious misrepresentation of the suggestions. To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html
