Folks,
After donning my asbestos suit, let me propose this alternative. Other
people have hinted at this and perhaps even said it outright; however,
this might be a concise restatement of the point and possible solution.
Regarding !...!
---------------
1. abc2win introduced the "!" sign which, despite it being nonstandard
and confusing to other programs, people have generally agreed is
useful. 9-10% of tunes (i.e. lots and lots) have this construct in it.
2. abc2midi (not abcm2ps, by the way) originally introduced !...! for
dynamics, !ppp! to !fff!. abcm2ps adopted it. It too is useful for
symbols, dynamics, etc. Very few tunes have this construct in it.
Irwin has said, rightly as it seems to me, that both are useful.
However, they also seem to be incompatible. So, why not pick a symbol
other than "!" for the latter usage? "*" seems ideal, and quite
logical, too: in emails, IRC, etc., it is commonly used to boldface or
emote something. Thus:
X:1
T:Sample
M:4/4
L:1/8
K:C
*pp*CDEF GAB*fermata*c |]
If folks do not like "*" (perhaps because of the aforementioned abc2mtex
usage), another unused character could be chosen instead.
All programs, to my knowledge, that implement the !...! construct
(abcm2ps, jcabc2ps, and abc2midi?) are under active development, to my
knowledge. Therefore, all of them could easily be altered to accept "*"
as the character rather than "!" (perhaps accepting the "!" as a legacy
construct). We would have a rather more difficult time changing
abc2win, since it is not open-source; and the myriad tunes that are
already on the web could not be changed.
For the record, I have used !...! a great deal, but I would certainly be
willing to change all my ABC to use the *...* notation instead. I
imagine that if we could reach a consensus on this issue, most other
people who use this notation would be willing to do so as well. People
just want something that works; they do not terribly care what it is.
Furthermore, if this were done, I could feel free to introduce "!" into
my scores with the abc2win meaning, which could be useful at times.
Regarding U:
------------
Someone else has stated both of these points before me, but I do take
the view that the !...! construct is essential, for the following
reasons:
1. It is very possible to use more than 19 symbols (H..Z) in one file.
For example, I could very easily use !pppp! through !ffff!, !sfz!, !<(!,
!<)!, !>(!, !>)!, !fermata!, !tenuto!, !wedge!, !trill!, and !0! through
!4! in a single piece. That's 24 already.
2. Some of the symbols are much more easily understood as their expanded
form than as a single-letter redefined symbol. For example, if I see
!pp! in a tune, I know that it means pianissimo. If I see S, I have no
idea. Again, if I see !1! I know it's a fingering. If I see Q, I have
no idea.
Having said that, Phil has made the very good point that these symbols
clutter up the tune if used very often. So I can also see the utility
of the U: construct, regardless of whether in Phil's fashion (U:T =
trill) or in the fashion of the draft standard (U:T = !trill!). I
personally favor the latter, since it seems more straightforward; but I
also understand that there may be a significant amount of ABC out there
using the first form already, and very little using the latter.
So: how about that we agree that "U:T = trill" type notation is
acceptable, and put into the standard? We could simply state that it is
a symbol binding, or redefinition, or whatever we want to call it. It
would apply to player programs as well as tadpole-generating programs.
The BarFly definition of U:, so I gather, is somewhat broader; but this
is at least a least common denominator that covers most common uses of
U:. I think that this notation should satisfy Phil, Jack, etc., since
it is compatible with BarFly; and it should satisfy John, Irwin, etc.,
since it is close "in spirit" to U:T = !trill!.
Regarding %%staves
------------------
I personally find %%staves very useful, and (despite comments to the
contrary) very intuitive. How about adding some official variant of
this to the standard? It seems much more concise, and more intuitive,
than the
V:1 bracket=2
type notation that abc2ps had originally introduced. We are running out
of letters for headers, though; how about lowercase "s"? Thus:
X:1
T:My Choir + Organ Piece
M:4/4
L:1/4
s:[1 2 3 4] {(5 6) (7 8) 9}
K:C
...
Any takers? :)
- Eric
To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html
