Than you Phil Taylor for a sensibly argued case. A welcome change from the
this-is-my-opinion-and-I'm-sticking-to-it attitude that has been prevalent
lately. Unfortunately I didn't agree with any of it.
He wrote -
In order to describe a piece of music completely, you need to
know any two of
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Than you Phil Taylor for a sensibly argued case. A welcome change from the
this-is-my-opinion-and-I'm-sticking-to-it attitude that has been prevalent
lately. Unfortunately I didn't agree with any of it.
He wrote -
In order to describe a piece of music
Phil Taylor writes:
I don't mind if you give any random collection of sharps and flats
in the K: field as long as you also give the tonic.
It's clear that the twelve-tone crowd hasn't gotten into abc
yet...
In order to describe a piece of music completely, you need to
know any two of
Bruce Olsen wrote:
I also respectfully disagree with Phil Taylor's rationalle.
I pointed out my objections to the K:key-mode specification, instead of
a direct key signature sharp or flat specification, in a communication
here on Jan 25, 2001. Here is a slightly revised version of it.
The
John Walsh wrote:
I don't mind if you give any random collection of sharps and flats
in the K: field as long as you also give the tonic.
It's clear that the twelve-tone crowd hasn't gotten into abc
yet...
Yeah well, in that case I suppose what's really needed is K:none.
Mind you, I'm
Finally, if we want to make life easier for people transcribing
from manuscript by permitting them to use an incomplete description
of key, perhaps we should do the same thing for those transcribing
by ear, and permit them to specify only the tonic. After all,
any competent musician who was
