John Chambers wrote -
>The difference is somewhat minimal, though. The original text had as
>example "K:D =c", which implies a key signature of two sharps but
>with a natural written before all the c's. The natural reaction to
>this is "If all the c's are natural, why put a c sharp in the
>signature and then cancel it everywhere?" This is indeed rather
>silly. It's better to just use ^f as the key signature.
The difference seems real enough to me. If I specify an explicit key
signature, I want it to appear at the beginning of the staff. Someone who wants
global accidentals wants them scattered through the music. As far as I can see,
global accidentals only make sense if you start from a key of C when they might
make things clearer for learners by emphasising what a key signature means.
Does anybody actually use them? I'd be happy to see them go. I think you
suggested making it a run time option which seems reasonable.
>OTOH, using
>"K:Dmix=c" with ^f=c as the signature can be sensible, because that c
>natural in the key signature instead of a sharp is an "advisory
>accidental" that emphasizes the fact that the c is not sharp.
I would have thought that this would confuse people unfamiliar with modes who
will think that K:Dmix=c and K:Dmix are something different, especially since
you also suggest things like K:Dphr^F where the ^F changes the key given by
Dphr and implies that the mode is phrygian. K:_b_e^f tonic=D mode=freygish
would be much clearer.
>If we were designing abc from scratch, I'd agree.
This is where I came in three (?) years ago, by using this as an example of
how we were stuck with an unsatisfactory system when a little more thought and
cooperation could have come up with a better way.
>ABC is compact and cryptic, but easy to type.
but is it easy to understand?
There are more people trying to read it than type it.
Bryan Creer
To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html
