On Tue, Jul 29, 2003 at 07:19:17PM +0000, John Chambers wrote: > Richard Robinson writes: > | On Tue, Jul 29, 2003 at 05:32:51PM +0000, John Chambers wrote: > | > > | > K:_B has no tonic, but a signature, which is _B. Maybe it's F or Dm. > | > | This last has the potential to be misunderstood, I think. The key > | signature would be > | K:Bb ? > | > | Easy to mis-type, or misunderstand. > > Don't look now, but we already have that problem. I've seen > a fair number of abc tunes with key signatures like K:_B or > K:^Fm, where the person was obviously confused on this > issue. It's too bad that abc copied the traditional > confused notation. I suppose the people who do this will > eventually figure out why abc programs produce the wrong > key signature with their tunes. > > This confusion is probably not helped by an extension that > makes K:Bb and K:_B both legal but with different meanings. > But since it's exactly the same sort of confusion that is > in conventional music notation, the same sort of learning > experience applies to both.
Yes. A case where the usual recommendation that parsers be liberal in what they read could, given the extension, have unfortunate results. But not if they implement it, of course. > Now if there were only a way to make conventional music > notation more rational ... Then it would become unconventional notation ? -- Richard Robinson "The whole plan hinged upon the natural curiosity of potatoes" - S. Lem To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html
