Robert Bley-Vroman wrote: >> My comments interspersed Date: Fri, 19 Jul 2002 12:03:43 -0700 From: Robert Bley-Vroman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: [abcusers] RE: Explicit key signatures
... For what it's worth: In any notation system, one must make a distinction between what the notation permits and what conventional good practice is. It seems inevitable that abc will have to permit key signatures that are simply lists of sharps and flats, simply because people are going to want to transcribe music that doesn't fit traditional key+mode designations. Given that, it will be possible, in principle, to use this technique even in completely straightforward traditional keys. A transcriber will be able to write K:^f^c instead of K:D (or instead of K:Edor or K:Bm). The question arises of what good practice would be. As a frequent user of abc transcriptions, I'd much rather see K:D in a tune file than K:^f^c. It's easier to read and provides more information directly. It's generally more _useful_. It's not an accident that when the guitarist asks the key of the tune coming up, the other musicians call out "D" rather than "signature has f-sharp and c-sharp". (An interesting study would be what practicing musicians call out. I've found that for an E dorian tune, musicians will say to each other "It's one of them Em-D tunes." For A mix, they say "One of them A-G tunes." Or, "like Old Joe Clark".) >>As a (contradance) player and tune collector of British Isles trad music >>who has played backup in the past and now plays a melody instrument, I'd try >>calling out "mode and key" if it's simple, or "Mainly Em-D-Bm but watch >>out for the pass through G major in the second part" or "Mainly Em-D-Bm >>but watch for the Em-A tradeoff in bar 2, like in 'Dancing Bear' " I would hope that transcribers would use the key+mode system when they can, though of course no one can force them to, and we can't legislate it in a standards document. Just as some computer programmers have a reputation for writing (and formatting and commenting) code so that it is easy to read and understand, and some have a reputation for ugly code with weird indentations and cryptic comments, so some abc transcribers will write abc that users like to work with, and others will write hard-to-use (though technically grammatical) transcriptions. When I encounter a transcription that uses K:^f^c or K:D for an obvious E dorian tune, I will say "What a pain! Who is this jerk anyway? Oh, him again!" >>Give them hell!! (The distinction between what a notation technically permits and what good practice is also applies to traditional staff notation, of course. If all you're concerned with is that the right notes be sounded in the right order, with the right durations, then in staff notation you could transcribe a C-major piece with a key signature of two sharps and explicit naturals throughout the piece. It's 'grammatical', but it's hardly good practice. It's certainly confusing, and arguably misleading, like using K:D for an E dorian piece in abc notation. ......) In addition to providing a method of writing tunes, an incidental effect of any notation system is educational. The fact that abc uses key+mode has helped many people gain a better understanding of traditional music. This is a Good Thing. >>Amen, bro! So, while we're probably going to have to extend the K: field to permit lists of sharps and flats >>Yes, there are enough tunes around where the mode is hard to establish, >>or a subject of varying opinion, so it's really handy to just be literal >>about the sharps and flats. I predict that ordinary users will greatly prefer the key+mode system wherever it is possible. Transcribers who are interested in writing useful abc would be well-advised to use it, and use it correctly.. (Otherwise, think of all those nice people saying "Who is this jerk anway?") >>I certainly agree, at least for the British Isles/U.S./Canadian music >>I work with, that this is the preferred or default way of doing things >>"wherever it is possible". That's all based on the fact that in those >>genre, _most_ tunes "live in their modes", within small variations >>representable by a few accidentals. >> >>Otoh there are a substantially many tunes around, even in the abovementioned >>genre, which follow "classical" minor progressions (eg different ascending >>than when descending, or third note lowered but not 6th and 7th), where it >>is imo very clumsy to force-fit them into mix or dor or aeol. For such >>tunes, K:^f^g or K:none (w/ all "black keys" as "accidentals" in-line) may >>be the only way to go. Phil Katz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> tel: 206 722 8228 (noon - midnight Pacific time is best) 3720 41st Avenue South Seattle WA 98144 USA To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html
