![]() These most commonly occur in jazz music, where the key signature (if any) is most likely going to be a simple representation of overall major or minor key. When you're talking about scales like super locrian or lydian dominant, there exists far less precedent. The "church modes" as we know them, are the ones with the most background in western tonality, so I consider this convention to apply primarily to them. When they start seeing that in the music, they'll realize soon enough. Ionian and Aeolian), it's just that most people don't realize there are other possibilities. We already have this convention for major and minor (i.e. You would write two flats and be done with it.Īnd yes, it's true, writing a natural key signature for G mixolydian could easily be confused for C major. ![]() If you were writing in D phrygian, for example, would you have two sharps in the key signature and then naturalize all Fs and Cs while flatting the Bs and Es? I should hope not, that would be confusing as all heck as far as I'm concerned. Then, we use the music itself to figure out where the root is. There is not a 1 to 1 relationship of key signature to root, rather, the key signature is there to tell us what notes exist in the scale. The convention generally follows that which we see for minor key signatures. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |