Re: Turkish makam using regular.ly

[Hans Åberg]

> On 1 Nov 2018, at 02:40, Adam Good <address@hidden> wrote:
> 
> On Wed, Oct 31, 2018 at 5:46 PM Hans Åberg <address@hidden> wrote: 
> Is this right? It is traditional to raise the third below the finalis, but 
> not in the octave above, and it looks as though is a. I found this [1], it 
> has an additional accidental at e.
> 
> Then the finalis should also be the key, as it is always within the scale.
> 
> Typically but bestenigar is one of those rare makams in which it's not and 
> keep in mind this only happened 2 out of 91 makams for me so far. There's 
> bound to be at least one more.
> 
> In terms of musicality I get it...bestenigar's behavior starts out and uses 
> so much of makam saba's behavior. It's a quick turn at the end to a finalis 
> on the pitch IRAK. And the high leading tone of eb will never find its way 
> into the key signature.
> 
> http://www.neyzen.com/nota_arsivi/02_klasik_eserler/011_bestenigar/bestenigar_p_tanburi_numan_ney.pdf
>  
> Is is then possible to have both f and fb, and set the key signature as to 
> want.
> 
> I would just recommend going with what's tradition. I actually find it 
> difficult to read through bestenigar pieces with the fb in the key signature 
> and not showing up in the score. It doesn't look familiar to me.

It is possible have it, by just changing the accidental of the first scale 
degree:
bestenigar = #'((0 . -24/53)(1 . -24/53)(2 . -24/53)(3 . 0)(4 . -24/53)(5 . 
-48/53)(6 . -24/53))
revnaknuma = #'((0 . -24/53)(1 . -24/53)(2 . 0)(3 . 0)(4 . 0)(5 . -24/53)(6 . 
-24/53))

Actually, as LilyPond admits this, I considered this feature when writing a 
more general pitch system originally intended for LilyPond, but removed it, as 
did not have any examples of its use and it clashes with anything other 
tradition to write scales.