[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Turkish makam using

From: Torsten Hämmerle
Subject: Re: Turkish makam using
Date: Sat, 3 Nov 2018 01:46:14 -0700 (MST)

Hi, Adam and Hans (in alphabetical order),

I had to stop to think about it (the key signature problem).
*Result: forget about all the fancy tricks, LilyPond can do it

It's rather uncommon (to say the least) to spare out a certain scale step
from the key signature, so it took a while until I noticed that this can be
done in a very simple and obvious way. Even transposition will work,
provided all the accidentals/notes needed are there.

Just leave do not specify the tonic scale step in the scale/key definiton!
That's all! ;)
That way it will never be printed in the key signature.
If we set up the two special key signatures bestenigâr and revnaknüma
completely without step 0 (and 7), the definitions will look like this:

bestenigar = #'((1 . -24/53)(2 . -24/53)(3 . 0)(4 . -24/53)(5 . -48/53)(6 .
revnaknuma = #'((1 . -24/53)(2 . 0)(3 . 0)(4 . 0)(5 . -24/53)(6 . -24/53))

Demonstrating bestenigâr, revnaknüma (and the untouched hüzzâm for
comparison), all the requirements are met without any hazzle:


We all know an extreme case of ignoring accidentals in the key signature:
when specifying no key at all, it's not C major, it's just nothing and there
will be no key signature and all the accidentals will be displayed in the
Here, we just have a mixture of the two extremes: all steps specified vs.
nothing specified, it just took me a while to realize. LilyPond is so
amazing… :D


Sent from:

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]