Robert Bley-Vroman wrote - >Will major-scale tune with some flatted sevenths be transcribed with the flatted >seventh as part of the key signature, or with the flatted sevenths >indicated as accidentals within the body of the tune?
Whichever you like as long as you specify all the notes unambiguosly. >With gapped scales: Will a tune with a missing seventh >be called ionian or mixolydian in the key+mode system? Why should it be called either since it's not a heptatonic scale? What is the pitch of a silent note? What is the sound of one hand clapping? How such a tune would be harmonised is the choice of the performer not part of the specification of the tune. >The larger point is this: Music notation is primarily something that is >used by particular musicians with particular backgrounds in particular >contexts. Which is why trying to enforce the tonic/mode system on everybody is wrong. An explicit key signature is much more general and value free. Robert Bley-Vroman did not call anybody a jerk in this posting. John Chambers wrote - >Nobody has suggested replacing K:tonic+mode with K:signature. Unfortunately Bruce Olson did say - >That's one more reason why I'd like >to see the key-mode in K: eliminated; we can cut out ambiguity in >notation and put in into interpretation where it belongs so my prediction that nobody would ever say anything of the sort was wrong. While I agree with almost all the bits I understand of what he says I dissent from this. Clearly the tonic/mode format cannot be eliminated now that it has passed into use which is the point I was making when I first raised the subject. If a system to allow the notation of a sharps/flats key signature and tonic and mode information at the same time had been introduced in the first place we would have been saved all this pain. I don't know if it is now possible. John Chambers' proposed system does not allow it. Bryan Creer To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html