In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Richard Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes >On Tue, Jul 29, 2003 at 06:26:21PM +0100, Bernard Hill wrote: >> In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Richard Robinson >> > >> >> Now I don't really mind >> >> having minor keys as they are well established, and maybe even the modes >> > >> >Very tolerant of you .... ;) >> >> Well they're not really needed now, are they? There's no separate >> notation for them. > >What, modes ? There's a notation for them, yes. They're needed, yes. >In that, it's another of those things that you can do with ABC key >signatures that you can't do on paper. Same idea as the explicit >accidentals, that you can give the tonic as well as the accidentals.
So what's the different notation between Am, C, Ephr, Ddor etc etc? > > >> However I had not allowed for the use of abc files as a database. In >> that case I can see a use for a tonic= or mode description. > >Ah. That's how we were talking at cross purposes, then. Yes, that's the >point of things like that, that you can search a collection of ABC files >for them. And that's one of the really huge advantages that ABC has, for >my purposes. > > >Perhaps this should have a mention in the spec., if people can currently >overlook it ? > > >> As I have proposed in another post, how about >> >> K:_b^f^c tonic=A >> >> ? > >I'd think the usage that John was clarifying (see the "K:E ^G" >discussion) does the same job rather more neatly without breaking >the orginal usage. > No, the original usage was that the ^G *modifies* the E major key sig in K:E, not replaces it. Which is silly of course and why I originally raised an eyebrow. Bernard Hill Braeburn Software Author of Music Publisher system Music Software written by musicians for musicians http://www.braeburn.co.uk Selkirk, Scotland To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html
