From: Michael Will Date: Fri, 09 Feb 1996 18:50:11 -0800 Subject: [Fwd: Re: Position Feel -- An Position Nominclature]
X-Mozilla-Status: 0001 Date: Fri, 09 Feb 1996 18:20:54 -0800 From: Michael Will X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.0 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: JfGindi~ol.com Subject: Re: Position Feel -- An Position Nominclature References: <960209205835_3176875~mout09.mail.aol.com>
JfGindi~ol.com wrote: > > Mic-l, if the idea is to move the harp into the same language as mainstream > music, then "Circle of Fifths" is incorrect nomenclature because this term > describes a circle based on ascending sharps as detailed in previous post. > I think it's a great idea to move around a circle in fifths, but the Circle > of Fifths is another beast. Jon
But, the ascending sharps are each five steps apart, so I'm not following what you are saying. The Circle of Fifths, clockwise, is ascending sharps. Counterclockwise it's a circle of 4ths, ascending flats. Anyway, in terms of
mainstream music nomenclature, the statement:
"To determine the harmonica position, start in the Circle of Fifths at the key of the harmonica, and that is position 1. Proceeding clockwise around the Circle of Fifths, the positions for that harmonica key are numbered in sequence."
or something less stilted, seems perfectly in keeping with mainstream nomenclature, don't you think? In other words, it is the term "position" that isn't really in the mainstream nomenclature. The ordinary Circle of Fifths is used to define the corresponding positions precisely because it is standard.
