From: "Arent Storm" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > When trying to fit abcusers in a few groups having > [1] abc-sightreaders (without much need for software) > [2] abc-collectors > [3] abc-software-only-users (1st language) > [4] abc-as- interchange-file-format-users (2nd language) > > Two questions arise > - is this a meaningful division? > - if so, how large do we expect the groups to be?
I guess I would fit into [4]. I do use abc as the storage format for our small (but hopefully one day will grow) collection of folk songs but that is at least partly as I believe abc is a very useful format for that. I do of course recognise that abc in itself is useful and there are people in your [1] and [3] categories but lso recognise that there are also people who visit our site who will want to just click for a MIDI and for graphics. When I was to produce an abc, I am a [4] type user. This is mostly because I can't make musical sense of any notation format. The only way I manage to enter a tune from a book is to copy the actual dots onto a score - trying to convert note names and note lenghts into abc would be very error prone and time consuming for me. I can then use abc if I wish to play back and make adjustments to the abc. If I'm trying to write a tune out of my head, I almost always use Cakewalk as I hear the notes as I move them on the score and only have to play about a little to get the timing right. It's annoying blindness I have and I have known the basic theory of music from primary school... I think what I'm trying to say is I suspect that there are plenty of others around who becuase of difficulties like mine (and also difficulties in using software that is not point and click) who would use abc more for interchange if there was more software around to cater for this. In that sense, perhaps one could speculate over future usage in this way rather than current usage??? Jon To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html
