Re: Turkish makam

[Hans Åberg]

> On 16 Jan 2023, at 10:30, Luca Fascione <l.fascione@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> On Sun, Jan 15, 2023 at 3:49 PM Hans Åberg <haberg-1@telia.com> wrote:
>> As the full number of Turkish makam is very large, perhaps too many to have 
>> in this file, there might be a turkish-makam-extended for the less common 
>> ones.
> Being it said that I'm not clear what the harm is when a file of this kind(*) 
> gets big,
> I would like to bring up that "-extended" is a naming pattern that is likely 
> to create trouble, 
> because there's no obvious rule, given makam "X" to know in which file it 
> belongs.
> In turn this will make the separation annoying for users, and will create 
> potentially annoying
> discussion among contributors when a missing makam needs to be added.
> 
> If the file must be broken up (and again, I'm doubtful it has to), it seems 
> to me that it
> would serve everybody much better if the naming was more descriptive of the 
> content

Adam Good said he put them in the new file, and that seems best unless other 
issues arise.

> --> I don't know anything about Turkish music, …

Rather than transposing existing makam, they prefer to give new names, and in 
addition, in the common AEU notation system, the symbols ♯ and 𝄪 are not the 
sharp and doublesharp of Pythagorean tuning, but microtonal accidentals, so the 
accidentals of key signatures and otherwise will transpose in peculiar manner. 
Also, one may not write out all accidentals in the key signature, but it is 
common to write the name of the makam above it.

I described the theoretical background in the post below:
https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-devel/2022-12/msg00187.html