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
