Mixolydian and similar key signatures
I'd like to be able to show (e.g.) mixolydian keys as normal key signatures with the final sharp bracketed out. So, D mixolydian would would have a key signature of two sharps with the second in brackets, and playback would have all Cs as C- natural. I've tried faking it with text but can't get anything that looks good.
Comments
You wrote:
![Mixolydian.png]( "Mixolydian.png")
I'd like to be able to show (e.g.) mixolydian keys as normal key signatures with the final sharp bracketed out. So, D mixolydian would would have a key signature of two sharps with the second in brackets...
Do you positively need playback in MuseScore; or do you only need to show the key signature - e.g. for printing/viewing?
Regards.
In reply to You wrote:… by Jm6stringer
Precisely that. The 'real' key signature (for playback) would be 1 sharp, but the bracketed c# gives the reader a hint of ambiguity. I'm looking at some old traditional scores and beginning to suspect that some are melds of modal with non-modal parts, but all lumped together in a single key signature. I don't want to be too prescriptive by inserting what I think the key signature(s) should be. I would use the above key signature if I though that the music was in D mixolydian, but perhaps sometimes just in D. The player can make a conscious decision.
In reply to Precisely that. The 'real'… by Dougie
My opinion:
The extra sharp key in the signature is just confusing.
Perhaps it would be better, a "natural-sign" in brackets. (or nothing).
And why don't you just write a "D Mixolydian" as System Text (or Staff Text)?
Reason:
1. We shouldn't add any extra thing that will not be played.
2. If I see an extra sharp sign in brackets , I can tell something different. (eg G Lydian: G to G; but with sharp on "C" note.)
In reply to My opinion:… by Ziya Mete Demircan
'We shouldn't add any extra thing that will not be played.'
It's traditional music. What is played is at the discretion of the player. Traditional scores do not have biblical authority - they are sketches from memory by one player whose competence as a scribe we do not know. I am looking in particular at the Rook Manuscript (1840) which is quickly handwritten and contains many 'errors'. Or perhaps they are not errors. It should be left to the player to decide.
'And why don't you just write a "D Mixolydian" as System Text (or Staff Text)?'
Because that is prescriptive - it might not be true. It is merely my opinion that some parts of the tune are in D and other D-mixolydian parts have been added. The point is that I can't be sure, and I don't want to force one reading of the score. I like the bracketed sharp as a warning that some varying modality might be involved. Perhaps #? would be a better notation?
In reply to 'We shouldn't add any extra… by Dougie
Now, another problem arose.
Maybe: you should make a text notice in the score:
([#] means: Here it may or may not be sharp; Use your own judgement.)
PS:
I'm pretty familiar with traditional notation.
for example: Key signature: Bb, Eb, F#, C#; and Tonic is D.
Scale is: D, Eb, F#, G, A, Bb, C#, D.
There is no easy way to solve this.
So, my opinion is: We have to write the Mod of the work on top of the score.
Example: "Maqam = Hijaz on D"; or "Bb Blues"; or "D Mixolydian"; or "Scale is: D, E, F#, G, Ab, B, C, D"; or "Neopolitan Major (F)", or Any other definition.
In reply to Now, another problem arose… by Ziya Mete Demircan
I don't want an over-annotated score. Just a key signature which says 'uh-huh - two sharps - perhaps - not sure. Listen and think about it'. I know from past experience that things that seem 'wrong' to my ear are actually what was played or sung. There must have been loads of guys who could sing a major seventh. So I don't want to be a dumb, unwitting censor.
See the Handbook under "Key signatures" to learn how to create custom ones, although note there are some pretty significant limitations.