John Chambers wrote -
>Bryan Creer writes:
>
>| Talking of which, are there any plans for a procedure for amendments or
>| extensions to the standard or do we just stick to the implement your favourite idea
>| and argue about it afterwards system we have now?
>
>What a concept! This is a gang of
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes
>Bernard wrote-
>
>> 2. |: at the beginning of a section is not ugly. And I do
>> not like being forced to accept incorrect notation in that
>> if a |: is missing then the repeat should be made from the
>> previous double bar.
>
>But it *is*
Bernard wrote-
> 2. |: at the beginning of a section is not ugly. And I do
> not like being forced to accept incorrect notation in that
> if a |: is missing then the repeat should be made from the
> previous double bar.
But it *is* ugly at the beginning of a piece. Apparently,
Beethoven agreed. O
> K:A_b^f^c
>
> shouldn't that have a G# also since you've written K:A?
and a lot of other stuff around the same subject.
Perhaps it's time to plug my idea of -
K:_b^f^c tonic=A mode=whatever
Completely unambiguous.
Talking of which, are there any plans for a procedure for amendments o
