Music Theory: Modes confusing notation

Subject: Folklore: Modes confusing notation
From: Nick Dow
Date: 04 Jul 26 - 08:43 AM

Is there any logical reason why accidentals are not shown within the run of Folksong melody notation, to enable the reader to understand the mode.
An example would be that a Dorian tune in C is often shown with the two accidentals as a key note, meaning the reader might assume it is in the key of D, and miss the root note, and probably the whole tune. It has been this way since Edwardian times with the exception of RVW who championed my view. I think it is time for an update.
Frank Purslow had a go by noting C-Dorian above a tune seemingly in D (for example) Took me years to figure out what he was on about.
By the way if this post is similar grovelling apologies and all questions respectfully answered.

Subject: RE: Folklore: Modes confusing notation
From: The Sandman
Date: 04 Jul 26 - 11:50 AM

d dorian has the notes d e fnat g a b cnat d, and should be notated as if it is in c major.
d mixolydian should be noted with one sharp f sharp.
mixolydian is like a major key but with the flattened 7

Subject: RE: Folklore: Modes confusing notation
From: Nick Dow
Date: 04 Jul 26 - 12:25 PM

Thank you, Dick. I am aware of that. The notation in C Dorian is confusing if the two accidentals are portrayed only once. The key signature is then confused without explanation. That is my point.

Subject: RE: Folklore: Modes confusing notation
From: Robert B. Waltz
Date: 04 Jul 26 - 03:03 PM

Bronson is pretty good about labeling modes for the tunes he prints. (Though I think "hexatonic" might be clearer than, say, I/M = Ionian/Mixolydian in songs that simply lack the seventh.) That seems to me to be pretty close to ideal.

I think the real problem is that so many transcribers -- and music typesetters, who until recently were a breed very much apart -- just don't think in terms of modes. So they come at it from a standpoint of "everything is major or minor."

Subject: RE: Folklore: Modes confusing notation
From: The Sandman
Date: 04 Jul 26 - 03:05 PM

if you are aware of the sound of the dorian mode , it is easy.,
as Steve Shaw would say it is about listening.
c dprian is c d eflat f g a bflat c. or if you like c d d sharp f g a SHARP b c, i would notate the sharps only when the notes occur,
this next point is just a matter of taste
but i would harmionse the tune with dyads of fifths leaving out the third note of the chord generally speaking., or if using third of a chord doubling the root and fifth.
keys are best worked out by using ears, imo,
but classical musicians cannot help the way they have been trained which is more about reading from script than learning by ear

Subject: RE: Folklore: Modes confusing notation
From: Nick Dow
Date: 04 Jul 26 - 04:26 PM

Thanks, both. Effectively, you have confirmed my belief that the notation problem comes from art musicians decisions upon notation. RVW is the exception. However, were we to insist upon accidentals shown within the manuscript only, then the identification of the root note would be much easier. To note a Dorian tune in C and then mark it with two accidentals immediately makes the sight reader assume it is in the key of D. This is most irritating and I believe as did RVW, that this opposes musical literacy. I am outvoted by all my contemporaries, apart it seems from the excellent Bob Waltz and, to some degree, Dick. I am really referring to singing from the page rather than harmonising.

Subject: RE: Folklore: Modes confusing notation
From: The Sandman
Date: 04 Jul 26 - 05:10 PM

I Agree

Subject: RE: Music Theory: Modes confusing notation
From: Mick Pearce (MCP)
Date: 04 Jul 26 - 07:45 PM

I assume Nick that in your first post you meant might confuse it for the key of Bb, C dorian being the 2nd mode of the Bb major scale (2 flats in the key signature).

The problem is no different from the standard notation of minor scales - G minor would also usually be notated with 2 flats in the key signature, and nobody complains about that, because it's a common case. You rely on the player/reader realising that it's a G minor tune rather than Bb major (clue often in the ending note of melodies, but not always). (If you're thinking modally in this case then you're looking at the 6th mode of the Bb major scale, ie G aeolian.)

Nobody worries about whether 2 flats is Bb major or G minor - you look at or listen to the music the music and decide. Major and minor are common so you check. Because the usage of other modes has been less common in recent centuries, people are not usually checking for them (except folk musicians!)

This is the standard way of notating modal scales ie relating them to the base major key from which the mode is derived. There's nothing to stop you adding text to the piece to indicate the mode. As pointed out, Bronson does this and other publications too. ABC Notation let's you specify a mode as the key of the piece, and I always specify the mode in my ABC files.

The alternative, which I think is what Nick is suggesting, is to give the key signature of the major key with the same name, so notate C dorian using a key signature with no sharps or flats ie the the key signature of C major. The drawback is then that you have to add a flat sign every time a Bb or Eb appears in the music. It's notationally more compact to use the key signature with those 2 flats, even if it does obscure the mode, and as I said it's the norm for minor keys. This method also doesn't make the modes any more obvious. The key signature now tells you it's some C mode, but you have to go through the piece, collect up all the accidentals and decide from them which C mode you're actually dealing with.

And here we're only dealing with modes of the major scale. In the jazz world, they consider modes of the harmonic minor scale and melodic minor scale as well!

As we're in a world where modal tunes are not uncommon (the world of folk songs/tunes that is), I normally do check for likely modes related to the key signature, but hey, that's me!

Subject: RE: Music Theory: Modes confusing notation
From: Robert B. Waltz
Date: 04 Jul 26 - 07:52 PM

Mick Pearce wrote: I normally do check for likely modes related to the key signature, but hey, that's me!

I tend to look at the last note, assume that's the tonic, and then scan the piece to see how much trouble that gets me in. :-)

But I don't see how it could hurt to state the key and mode for every piece. For that matter, it wouldn't hurt to add metrical summaries, in the way that hymnals do.

Subject: RE: Music Theory: Modes confusing notation
From: The Sandman
Date: 04 Jul 26 - 10:39 PM

A mistake to assume the last note is the tonic, better to check if it is dominant or tonic.
tunes finishing on dominant are more common than one might think,
imo a good idea to have tunes finishing on dominant followed by a tune finishing on dominant.
on a slightly differnt point to have tunes arranged that may be going from d major to g major. or from a dorian key to a major key, these tactics can avoid samey sound

Subject: RE: Music Theory: Modes confusing notation
From: Black belt caterpillar wrestler
Date: 05 Jul 26 - 04:11 AM

This is all way above my head as I play by ear.

What I have learned is that "Classical" musicians think that the relative minor of C major is A, whilst most "folk" musicians think the relative minor of C major is D.

RObin

Subject: RE: Music Theory: Modes confusing notation
From: Nick Dow
Date: 05 Jul 26 - 05:13 AM

Yes, Bb. Thank you, Mick! I've learned a lot here. I had no idea about the option of examining the last note for the possible tonic. Thanks for that. I understand about collecting up accidentals, and this is the argument advanced to me by the team involved in my publications.
I am slowly coming round to Mick's (and others') way of thinking. I will have to read his post a couple of times more for it all to sink in. Thank you, Mick, that must have taken a while to type. Because the only stupid question is the one not asked, I think this post has proved useful to me. I'm off to re-evaluate my ideas. I am working on a book about Collinson, and everything is in Bb or Ab, so no excuse for the above mistake.
There is nothing wrong with playing by ear, Robin, but so many good songs get missed due to musical illiteracy. If I can learn to read, anyone can. My formal education is pretty basic. I have found it worthwhile, hence my cry for what I believed was simplicity. You live and learn!

Subject: RE: Music Theory: Modes confusing notation
From: Tattie Bogle
Date: 05 Jul 26 - 05:37 AM

I was classically trained, which included recognising key signatures by how many sharps or flats they have, but did not encompass modes.
So, for example, 2 sharps would mean either D maj or B minor, but I have since learned that they could indicate E Dorian or A mixolydian! And here in Scotland we do have a lot of pipe tunes, usually written in A mix (though the Highland pipes play nearer Bb.)
Some of my trad music friends will therefore only write 2 sharps for Amix, whereas I would prefer to show 2 sharps plus a G Nat in the key sig: this is tidier than having to write a Nat sign before each G if you use the standard A maj key sig of 3 sharps.
Their argument is that by only showing two sharps, it helps whistle and harmonica players decide which of their many different keyed instruments they should use. For me, it just causes confusion!
It also confused my very basic scoring software: I had scored a tune in E minor, with one sharp, but then realised it was in E Dorian. When I added the C sharp to the key sig, it transposed the whole tune into D maj!

Subject: RE: Music Theory: Modes confusing notation
From: Nick Dow
Date: 05 Jul 26 - 07:22 AM

Not helpful for you! You have also highlighted the problem I tried to explain earlier.

Subject: RE: Music Theory: Modes confusing notation
From: Robert B. Waltz
Date: 05 Jul 26 - 08:04 AM

Black belt caterpillar wrestler wrote:

This is all way above my head as I play by ear.

As do I, and most of us here I am sure, but I still find music theory useful at times. It can be a shortcut to learning something -- if one treats it as a tool and not a strait jacket. :-)

What I have learned is that "Classical" musicians think that the relative minor of C major is A, whilst most "folk" musicians think the relative minor of C major is D.

This is more complicated than it sounds. "Relative minor" is a technical term, and A minor really is the relative minor of C major. That means that A Aeolian and C Ionian use the same scale (as do D Dorian and G Mixolydian, not that classical musicians admit it :-).

This information is significant, because you can often substitute and Am chord for a C chord and vice versa. (Not always, but often.) You generally cannot substitute a C chord for a Dm chord or vice versa. In the key of C, the chords that is near-equivalent to Dm is F.

But there are chords that "go together" in a key. In the key of C, the most normal chords are C F G Am Dm Em (also D7, but that's another story).

I for one would be very confused if you referred to Dm as the relative minor for the key of C. A better way to think about it is in terms of the chords that might work for a particular note on the scale. So, if we use the key of C (but I'll also use I-II-II notation):

C (I) -- C F Am
D (II) -- G Dm D7
E (III) -- C Am Em
F (IV) -- F Dm
G (V) -- C G Em
A (VI) -- F Am Dm
B (VII) -- G Em

It's perhaps worth noting that the five notes in the pentatonic C scale have three equivalent chords, the two not in the pentatonic only have two.

Another point: Dm (relative minor of F) is one step around the circle of fifths from Am/C.

The chords in a particular key are usually those one step away in the circle of fifths. Thus in C they are F and G (one step in each direction), and the minors are Am (the relative minor of C) and Dm Em, which are one step away from Am on the circle of fifths.

Which is probably just so much gibberish, but the point is that any music theory you know can come in handy. An example, for me: I can play by ear with absolute fluency in Ionian and Aeolian, but I am a little less fluent in Dorian and Mixolydian. (As for the other three modes, I'm not sure I know any songs in them.) Music theory can help work out chord patterns in the rarer modes.

Subject: RE: Music Theory: Modes confusing notation
From: Nick Dow
Date: 05 Jul 26 - 08:37 AM

In the days when I was teaching guitar to youngsters and trying to explain accompaniment, I used to simplify it by telling them that the notes were all there in the scale to make up all the major and minor chords, and then explaining that the relative minor was a good friend of the major and was there to help the tune sound better. More gibberish, I suppose, but it got the point across without causing a somnambulistic result or a mass rebellion. (My mate Robb Johnson referred to them as the class enemy! More gibberish!)

Subject: RE: Music Theory: Modes confusing notation
From: Robert B. Waltz
Date: 05 Jul 26 - 12:04 PM

Nick Dow wrote:

and then explaining that the relative minor was a good friend of the major and was there to help the tune sound better.

I like that, actually. They live near each other and help each other out. :-)

Subject: RE: Music Theory: Modes confusing notation
From: The Sandman
Date: 05 Jul 26 - 12:09 PM

music theory is useful ,i find it useful to know why something is the way that it is,
but i learned how to use for example syncopation, from listening to missippi john hurt on guitar and the using that sound of playing melody on and off the beat on the concertina, not knowing that it was called syncopation
using shapes on guitar such as standard d7 and moving the shape over, so the 1 string is open produces a lovely jazz chord which can then move the shape over to 543 strings wow and then play an e major chord lovely progression, apparently it works due to chromatic movement, but i discovered it just messing around with shapes and sounds

Subject: RE: Music Theory: Modes confusing notation
From: Jack Campin
Date: 05 Jul 26 - 02:19 PM

Lucy Broadwood introduced the (not very helpful) seven-mode system into English folk musicology. RVW was one of many musicians of subsequent generations who followed her.

Subject: RE: Music Theory: Modes confusing notation
From: Nick Dow
Date: 05 Jul 26 - 02:30 PM

Thanks, Jack is that what inspired Bronson with his mode diagrams (which are beyond me)? Where is LEB's work to be found?

Subject: RE: Music Theory: Modes confusing notation
From: Robert B. Waltz
Date: 05 Jul 26 - 02:49 PM

It occurs to me that the problem here is, in a sense, that there is only one "sort" of accidental in classical music notation, and it is used both to mark notes that are in a mode other than Ionian or Aeolian and to mark notes that don't fit the mode. This even though these are actually different functions. So if you see (say) a Dorian song full of sharps or naturals, the assumption is that the song is funny, when the reality is that it's just not in the Aeolian.

We can't very well hope to make classical composers distinguish "modal" from non-modal accidentals, but maybe people can mark their own "real" accidentals in red or something, to show the ones that really take you out-of-mode?

Subject: RE: Music Theory: Modes confusing notation
From: The Sandman
Date: 05 Jul 26 - 03:28 PM

classical composers should pull their socks up,
school report, must try harder and make more effort in musical communication

Subject: RE: Music Theory: Modes confusing notation
From: Nick Dow
Date: 05 Jul 26 - 04:14 PM

I believe there is an ingrained musical prejudice against anything that is not considered 'serious music' by some art musicians. Maybe things are getting better, after all; Cohen was classically trained. He does tell a tale of downright ignorance shown to the concertina and to Traditional Folk music by tutors.

Subject: RE: Music Theory: Modes confusing notation
From: The Sandman
Date: 05 Jul 26 - 05:09 PM

what was his view of the concertina was it a an accidental collision between two moving objects

Subject: RE: Music Theory: Modes confusing notation
From: Jack Campin
Date: 05 Jul 26 - 05:42 PM

Once you've got the idea of how gapped scales work, Bronson's algebra is pretty obvious. Campbell and Collinson came up with a similar idea in different language about ten years later (I use their scheme on my modes pages).

Subject: RE: Music Theory: Modes confusing notation
From: Nick Dow
Date: 05 Jul 26 - 07:11 PM

Cohen says he was asked what instrument was his choice when he arrived at the music college. When he said concertina, the tutor poured scorn on the instrument and Folk music generally. He graduated with honours, and his final concert is online somewhere.

Subject: RE: Music Theory: Modes confusing notation
From: Nick Dow
Date: 05 Jul 26 - 07:28 PM

This passage is from Jack Campin's page. Apologies for the thread drift.
The ordinary human voice has a range a bit over an octave. The vocal
ranges defined by Western classical music use two octaves; only trained
singers can use the extremes of that, whatever their vocal type.

Sorry, Jack, no offence, but I, for one, can sing two octaves; so can Martyn Wyndham Read and outside Folk, so can Nicky Moore (of the Blues Corporation), Paul Jones, the late Joe Cocker, Jackie Wilson, Robert Plant, Ray Charles, and Mini Ripperton could sing three octaves. None of them (especially me) is a trained singer.

Subject: RE: Music Theory: Modes confusing notation
From: Robert B. Waltz
Date: 05 Jul 26 - 07:46 PM

Nick Dow wrote: Sorry, Jack, no offence, but I, for one, can sing two octaves; so can Martyn Wyndham Read and outside Folk, so can Nicky Moore (of the Blues Corporation), Paul Jones, the late Joe Cocker, Jackie Wilson, Robert Plant, Ray Charles, and Mini Ripperton could sing three octaves. None of them (especially me) is a trained singer.

On the other hand, I only have about an octave and a third left, and even when I was forty years younger, I could only manage about an octave and a fifth.

But is this purely biological? I post merely to mention something that I found once, decades ago: I went through a selection of the melodies I knew, and classified as "American" or "British," and worked out the ranges.

The American tunes -- even American tunes of songs originally British, were relatively unlikely to use more than an octave. Very few used more than a ninth. Whereas something like half the British tunes, and especially the Scottish tunes, used an octave and a third or more.

I don't have the data any more; I'm not even sure what sample I used. It surely was not a large enough sample to guarantee that the results would generalize to the entire corpus of American versus British melodies. So don't bug me about it; it might be wrong! But it was certainly intriguing. People aren't likely to sing songs that are uncomfortable to sing. Which implies that most American folk singers had ranges not much more than an octave, while British singers had bigger ranges.

Why? Practice? I dunno. I haven't seen any research on the effects of environment on vocal range. (Pitch, yes; rhythm, yes, vocal range, no.) And, I repeat, I don't trust my results, and cannot reproduce them anyway, so I don't expect others to trust them, and people are individuals anyway. But still... hm.

Subject: RE: Music Theory: Modes confusing notation
From: The Sandman
Date: 06 Jul 26 - 01:52 AM

it is possible to extend vocal range by working on it,I can sing 2 octaves.

Subject: RE: Music Theory: Modes confusing notation
From: Nick Dow
Date: 06 Jul 26 - 02:38 AM

It depends on what is accepted as training by art musicians, I suppose. I remember Dick saying to me decades ago when he was criticised (not by me!), 'Do we all want to sing like opera singers?' A resounding No is the answer to that.

Subject: RE: Music Theory: Modes confusing notation
From: Jack Campin
Date: 06 Jul 26 - 03:16 AM

Folksong tunes using more than an octave and a fourth are rare in Scottish music, and most of the ones that caught on at all were due to Burns borrowing fiddle tunes (or Irish songwriters following his example). When somebody goes beyond an octave and a fourth - Danny Boy, say - you can inmediately tell they're showing off.

Mediæval chant stays around an octave. Hildegard of Bingen was a very rare exception asking for much more.

Subject: RE: Music Theory: Modes confusing notation
From: Nick Dow
Date: 06 Jul 26 - 05:37 AM

There! I'm a show off and I never knew it!

Subject: RE: Music Theory: Modes confusing notation
From: GUEST,Howard Jones
Date: 06 Jul 26 - 07:32 AM

I think the logical reason is that the key signature shows the notes in the scale the piece is written in. It is up to the reader to interpret what that means. Because art music has settled into major or minor we are used to junping to the concludation that say two sharps means D major or B minor, but with modal tunes there are other possibilities. Just as you have to infer major or minor from the music, the same applies with modes. Most tunes resolve to the tonic, so looking at the last note is usually a clue, but this doesn't always apply.

I agree that explcitly stating the mode is probably helpful, but (as someone who is not a confident music reader) I think filling the score with sharps or flats would be more confusing than putting them in the time signature.

I find the biggest problem is on sites like The Session, where some tunes have been submitted by someone with apparently no knowledge of modes, so a tune with say two sharps is confidently stated to be in D major when it is clearly in A mixolydian.

ABC script allows modal key signatures to be stated in the K: field, and for mixed key signatures (so A mix could be represented by 2 sharps and a natural, making it clear that, although it is based around A, C natural is to be played rather than C#)

Subject: RE: Music Theory: Modes confusing notation
From: Nick Dow
Date: 06 Jul 26 - 10:49 AM

Thanks Howard. I am slowly coming round to your way of thinking. I can see the logic thanks to Bob and Mick as well. It always helps me when I get the why as well as the how in any enquiry.This thread was started as a request for info.

Subject: RE: Music Theory: Modes confusing notation
From: The Sandman
Date: 06 Jul 26 - 02:24 PM

abc however gives no indication of rhythm, lts not much use unless you already have the tune in your head, and if you have the tune in your head, pick the tune out by ear

Subject: RE: Music Theory: Modes confusing notation
From: Jack Campin
Date: 06 Jul 26 - 04:07 PM

You have had at least 30 years to learn not to make a fool of yourself like that.

Subject: RE: Music Theory: Modes confusing notation
From: The Sandman
Date: 06 Jul 26 - 04:32 PM

Standard music notation is the most accurate way of depicting music including keys and tempo
Standard Western music notation has existed for about 1,000 years. It did not appear overnight. It evolved over many centuries.Before this time, musicians played everything by ear. They had to remember all their songs.

Subject: RE: Music Theory: Modes confusing notation
From: Nick Dow
Date: 06 Jul 26 - 07:54 PM

Steady on, Jack.

Subject: RE: Music Theory: Modes confusing notation
From: GUEST,.gargoyle
Date: 06 Jul 26 - 08:33 PM

Mr. Sandman - THANK YOU!

Your greatest contribution in three decades.
I am still dazed and confused - but can work it out.

Sincerely,
Gargoyle

Understanding comes slow ... BUT playing it all connects ... JUST DO IT!

Subject: RE: Music Theory: Modes confusing notation
From: Nick Dow
Date: 07 Jul 26 - 02:43 AM

I'm getting there as well. Mudcat at its best!

Subject: RE: Music Theory: Modes confusing notation
From: Robert B. Waltz
Date: 07 Jul 26 - 06:08 AM

Someone was commenting on the power and effectiveness of standard staff notation for describing music. It's worth saying that it isn't always all that good. For things that use 12-tone or atonal scales -- composers like Stravinsky or Berg, say -- it can get pretty complex; scores will be littered with accidentals, and even with double sharps or double flats. It can express such music, but it's an eyesore. And for musics that use things like quarter tones, it is close to helpless.

This arguably cuts closer to home than we think. Has anyone here listed to the compositions of Ruth Crawford Seeger? Not the transcriptions she did after she became a student of folk music; her compositions before that. The ones with "dissonant harmonies" rather than the consonant harmonies we're used to.

I find them actively and acutely unpleasant, but they are highly praised by those who go in for that sort of things -- she was one of the most noteworthy composers of this dissonant stuff.

The staff notation for it is a jumble of symbols, though. A real mess. There has to be a better way. A seven line staff, maybe, conveying all twelve steps of a twelve tone scale? I don't know, and I'm not saying musicians should start using something else. Staff notation is what it is, and the pain of converting to something else would almost certainly be greater than the reward. But it is not a perfect vehicle for conveying all sorts of music; it is deeply rooted in a sort of music based on seven tones of a twelve tone scale.

Subject: RE: Music Theory: Modes confusing notation
From: Nick Dow
Date: 07 Jul 26 - 04:55 PM

Bob are you really referring to tunes that work round the Tritone when you refer to dissonance? The tritone crops up in Rock music (Hendrix Black Sabbath) and also in medieval music and has been noted fairly successfully.

Subject: RE: Music Theory: Modes confusing notation
From: Robert B. Waltz
Date: 07 Jul 26 - 05:41 PM

Nick Dow wrote: Bob are you really referring to tunes that work round the Tritone when you refer to dissonance? The tritone crops up in Rock music (Hendrix Black Sabbath) and also in medieval music and has been noted fairly successfully.

Oh, it shows up in traditional music, too. Ewan MacColl's version of "Johnny Sangster" uses a tritone, and there is a tritone in a version of "Thyme, It Is a Precious Thing" that is truly exquisite. David Braham's music for Edward Harrigan's songs have a few, too; I'm sure I could come up with more examples if I spend more time on it.

No, dissonant harmony is a lot more complicated than that, and I don't claim to understand it. Consonant harmony is basically thirds and fourths and fifths. Dissonant harmony involves tritones, but also things like notes just a semitone away from the tonic. I think. I only know it is hard to listen to. An example is Crawford Seeger's 1931 string quartet. YouTube has a recording at

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=agu5Xo7alIQ.

If you don't want to listen to it for long, you're like me. :-) But that one shows the staff notation as well as playing it. It's worth looking at. The key signature shows no sharps or flats, but look at the rest! Accidentals everywhere, and not only that, but it uses sharps and flats on the same staff. There are harmonic principles in there -- Judith Tick's biography of Crawford Seeger talks a lot about how she learned dissonant harmony -- but they aren't the ones I know!

Subject: RE: Music Theory: Modes confusing notation
From: Nick Dow
Date: 07 Jul 26 - 07:41 PM

Art music meets the crescendo of Ian Dury's Blockheads song! We seem to be invited to listen to the equivalent of a scripted version of Dave Surman, and George Khan, in full-flight-free-form under the direction of Mike Westbrook. I need a lie down, I think. There is something about it, though...

Subject: RE: Music Theory: Modes confusing notation
From: Jack Campin
Date: 07 Jul 26 - 07:48 PM

The original post was pure attention seeking - there are serious and constructive discussions in many places of all the issues it oretends to raise and nobody could ignore them all in good faith.

Bob Waltz missed some of the possibilities of staff notation. As used in atonal music, people mostly follow the conventions set by Schoenberg in his Variations for Orchestra op.31. This involves minimal symbols and because it's built on top of the tonal notation system, it makes use of players' experience with that. Schoenberg's orchestral musicians had a career of playing tonal music behind them so it made sense to make the new stuff as familiar as possible.

Microtonality can be very easy to add - use double flats and double sharps and music in 17-ET, 19-ET and 31-ET is as easy to write as 12-ET chromaticism. Just about nobody uses literal 24-ET but Persian music is written that way, with korons, and they can be typeset in ABC. Turkish art music uses a 53-ET pitch set notated by an extension of the Western system using microtonal sharps and flats - the system has been standardized for decades and is very heavily used. (Notation for folk microtonality is more recent and not as well known - ask me if you want the scoop). This could be added to ABC with a bit of effort.

Subject: RE: Music Theory: Modes confusing notation
From: Nick Dow
Date: 07 Jul 26 - 08:06 PM

Jack , I'm sorry. May I request that you cease the personal attacks you have demonstrated in this thread? So far, you have referred to me as an attention seeker and a show-off, and to Dick Miles as a fool. I have learned a lot from this thread, and I am grateful for those who have taken the time to contribute. Please do not justify your behaviour here; instead, make an effort to be civil.

Subject: RE: Music Theory: Modes confusing notation
From: The Sandman
Date: 08 Jul 26 - 01:18 AM

well said Nick

Subject: RE: Music Theory: Modes confusing notation
From: GUEST,.gargoyle
Date: 08 Jul 26 - 02:06 AM

I have greatly advanced my knowledge through this thread also.

When my piano teacher (I was an older teen) introduced me to Dmitry Kabalevsky ... I was not happy ...BUT ... now thankful. Awkward, Dissonance, Jarring, ... the definition of adolescence.

Sincerely,
Gargoyle

Try DK "by ear" or ABC.

Subject: RE: Music Theory: Modes confusing notation
From: GUEST,..gargoyle
Date: 08 Jul 26 - 02:26 AM

I really like prefer simple, melodious tunes ... aka folk...comfort zone .... fun.

However, advant is fun.

My brother and I experienced a Nicholos Cage performance inside the glass windows of an automobile show room. We went home and recorded glass, clocks, bells etc.

Sincerely,
Gargoyle

. The instructor that got us in said, "Art should never be comfortable."

Subject: RE: Music Theory: Modes confusing notation
From: Nick Dow
Date: 08 Jul 26 - 04:16 AM

Thanks Gargoyle. I have been taken out of my comfort zone by this thread, but yes melody for me!
It occurred to me rightly or wrongly that ABC notation may be in the same sphere as Guitar Tablature. It requires musical translation. Just an uninformed thought.