From: "I. Oppenheim" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2003 10:22 PM Subject: Re: [abcusers] ABC Standard 2.0 revision III > On Tue, 29 Jul 2003, Arent Storm wrote: > > > For the church-modes part I agree, the explicit > > accidental signature will confuse anyone trying to > > play the music from paper (except for the authors > > band perhaps).... > > Klezmer musicians all use explicit key sigs I' think that observation is 'wishfull' thinking. Some do, some(most?) don't (including me) and even more don't bother as they don't play from paper...
> and so do musicologists. The fact that you *can* bend music-notation-conventions at will (you can very easily when notating by hand) doesn't mean that you *should*, just to accommodate each need as it arises. You will do the intended audience more of a favor when you stick to established conventions with respect to notation. Compare musicology with fonology. While fonologists can read eachothers notations, mere human beings mostly won't. The same will hold for musicologists. I think of abc as a languge for musicians, not a language made for musicologists leaving most of the musicians in the dark when using obscure features. Musicians are lucky because the written language they use is legible all over the world (because of the notation conventions) > In fact, it are only clasically trained musicians that excludes me for sure > that get confused from this notation, I'm getting confused every time... > because they do not understand how non-western > scales are structured. I know, but still get confused and make unneccesary mistakes on encounting explicit key sigs But don't get me wrong, the arising abc-standard is a nice thing (it should of course refrain from weird things like exlicit key-sigs) ;-) Arent To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html
