Hello again,
Frank Nordberg wrote:
> http://www.musicaviva.com/abc/tunes/susato-tielman/susato-1551.abc
> My transcriptions raises a few interesting questions regarding
> ABC-versions of early music. Should we add barlines? How do we disern
> between original and editorial accidentals? etc. etc. etc.
> Anybody's views on those question are much apreciated. So are any error
> reprots, of course.
Why do'nt you use the P:field within the tune body for the "Reprise"
text?
I know this is not classical standard, but if there is no P: in the
header, there is no reason not to use the P:field in the body for
something that is in fact exactly in the meaning of "Part".
To my personal understanding I always wonder why someone created a field
that organizes the playing order and does not allow the usual part and
playing order terms to be used within.
This is the standard:
P - parts; can be used in the header to state the order in which
the tune parts are played, i.e. P:ABABCDCD, and then inside the
tune to mark each part, i.e. P:A or P:B.
In fact, the P: field mixes up two things in an unfortunate way: P: as
in part P: as in playing order (of these parts)
So my sugestion to an extension of the standard is:
$ instead of single letters numbers or words can be used. Within
$ the header these words or numbers need to be in [square brackets].
$ Example: P:[Einleitung][1.][1.][2.][2.][1.][Ausgang]
$ To enable this the words or numbers in the playing order within
$ the header need to equal exactly the words and numbers of the
$ P:fields in the body of the tune.
$ If there is no P:field in the header of the tune the contents of
$ the P:fields within the tune body are just text, and should be
$ used for usual terms for marking parts.
If my english is not sufficient please correct me, I hope you can get
the meaning.
regards
Simon Wascher -Vienna, Austria
To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html
