Key Signatures and MOS Notation
Posted: Mon Oct 10, 2016 12:28 am
I have debated for a while on how to use sagittal for key signatures. It makes a score much cleaner looking to put all the needed signs in the key for a set of 7 pitches but it also MIGHT make it more difficult to read the score for some. I personally do not know what is best yet as I have only just now begun to put time into mastering sagittal at least for 22 EDO.
Take my piece endless flow. It pretty much uses a fixed set of 7 pitches for the majority of the piece or at least half of it. The pitches are B C D E F G A . My first reaction based on the simplicity of chain of fifths notation is to put keys as superpyth[7] MOS only with deviations being written into the score as accidentals because it shows we are dealing with a MODMOS of superpyth. In that case we get a E Major Superpyth[7] key signature, F C G D since we're essentially dealing with a mixolydian thing given that 4:5:6:7 is on the tonic B. Then I used a for all instances of D. This makes sense because we're keeping ratios of 5 as modifications to the superpyth MOS which is easy to understand. However, there were D all through the piece.
The other option is of course to allow any set of 7 pitches in the key signature marking thus have the key be F C G D instead making the score much cleaner to read but I'm not sure if this is a bad idea to use 5 commas in the key itself. Given that the piece is in that key however, D never occurs in the piece, of if it does it's in the weird key change part.
My simple question is, if in superpyth MODMOS should we stay out of putting 5-comma in the key signature entirely or allow it?
Then this brings up the question of using key signatures for all MOS and MODMOS if held for an extended period of time. Porcupine key signatures make sense of course but we need some sort of consistency of key markings. We don't want to have several ways of writing the same key signature.
Take my piece endless flow. It pretty much uses a fixed set of 7 pitches for the majority of the piece or at least half of it. The pitches are B C D E F G A . My first reaction based on the simplicity of chain of fifths notation is to put keys as superpyth[7] MOS only with deviations being written into the score as accidentals because it shows we are dealing with a MODMOS of superpyth. In that case we get a E Major Superpyth[7] key signature, F C G D since we're essentially dealing with a mixolydian thing given that 4:5:6:7 is on the tonic B. Then I used a for all instances of D. This makes sense because we're keeping ratios of 5 as modifications to the superpyth MOS which is easy to understand. However, there were D all through the piece.
The other option is of course to allow any set of 7 pitches in the key signature marking thus have the key be F C G D instead making the score much cleaner to read but I'm not sure if this is a bad idea to use 5 commas in the key itself. Given that the piece is in that key however, D never occurs in the piece, of if it does it's in the weird key change part.
My simple question is, if in superpyth MODMOS should we stay out of putting 5-comma in the key signature entirely or allow it?
Then this brings up the question of using key signatures for all MOS and MODMOS if held for an extended period of time. Porcupine key signatures make sense of course but we need some sort of consistency of key markings. We don't want to have several ways of writing the same key signature.