> On 1 Nov 2018, at 02:40, Adam Good <goodadamg...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Wed, Oct 31, 2018 at 5:46 PM Hans Åberg <haber...@telia.com> wrote: > Is this right? It is traditional to raise the third below the finalis, but > not in the octave above, and it looks as though is a. I found this [1], it > has an additional accidental at e. > > Then the finalis should also be the key, as it is always within the scale. > > Typically but bestenigar is one of those rare makams in which it's not and > keep in mind this only happened 2 out of 91 makams for me so far. There's > bound to be at least one more. > > In terms of musicality I get it...bestenigar's behavior starts out and uses > so much of makam saba's behavior. It's a quick turn at the end to a finalis > on the pitch IRAK. And the high leading tone of eb will never find its way > into the key signature. > > http://www.neyzen.com/nota_arsivi/02_klasik_eserler/011_bestenigar/bestenigar_p_tanburi_numan_ney.pdf > > Is is then possible to have both f and fb, and set the key signature as to > want. > > I would just recommend going with what's tradition. I actually find it > difficult to read through bestenigar pieces with the fb in the key signature > and not showing up in the score. It doesn't look familiar to me.
It is possible have it, by just changing the accidental of the first scale degree: bestenigar = #'((0 . -24/53)(1 . -24/53)(2 . -24/53)(3 . 0)(4 . -24/53)(5 . -48/53)(6 . -24/53)) revnaknuma = #'((0 . -24/53)(1 . -24/53)(2 . 0)(3 . 0)(4 . 0)(5 . -24/53)(6 . -24/53)) Actually, as LilyPond admits this, I considered this feature when writing a more general pitch system originally intended for LilyPond, but removed it, as did not have any examples of its use and it clashes with anything other tradition to write scales. _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
