On 2/8/06, Hudson Lacerda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
> Yes, there is a conflict. My idea was to maintain the current syntax (in
> the exact way I have used it so far with abcm2ps =P ), because this
> seems easier to do than make a new one. The next step is to think about
> possible ``whole new'' syntaxes.
Let's keep the current syntax _and_ semantics then. Semitone fractions are fine.
[...]
> The statement above is intended to maintain ABC backwards compatibility.
> For instance, one cannot use letters like I L M N O P R S T U for BP
> scale, because letters out of a-g/A-G are user defined decorations.
> Sagittal accidentals like |\ or \!!/ conflicts with barlines and other
> ABC symbols. So, we have to stick with a-g and A-G for the base pitches
> (plus accidentals). We need to find a simple (and spartan) way to notate
> microtones.
Semitone fractions are looking better and better...
[...]
> >>For an equal tempered scale, one can:
> >>
> >>- Define the tuning for the base pitches C D E F G A B (pitches C and c
> >>are equivalent mod N, but N doesn't have to be the 2/1 octave);
> >
> >
> > I don't like that. Too confusing.
>
> What exactly is too confusing?
Well, it's neither simple to implement nor adaptable. To be simple and
unambiguous, the note letters should always correspond to the same
pitches. To assign them to different pitches, we would need to define
a new section of the ABC file. On the other hand, to apply naturally
to the widest variety of scales, there should be more than 7 note
names, but unfortunately that's not possible.
[...]
> >>Then, we can obtain a notation like this, for 3 steps in a whole tone
> >>(e.g. 19ET), and using the ratio numerator for the steps:
> >>
> >>=C ^1/C ^2/C =D _1/ _2/D =C
> >
> >
> > For meantone-based temperaments like 19-edo, I would very much like to
> > use extended meantone notation, for example:
> >
> > C ^C _D D D^ _E E ^E F ^F _G G ^G _A A ^A _B B _C C
>
> Me too. We need to include this also (as enharmonics), *beside* integer
> notation.
Okay. And the cool part is we don't even have to worry about this,
because nothing about ABC assumes enharmonic equivalence. I could
write a program that takes in a current ABC file and outputs MIDI
tuned to an extended meantone, or I could look at a printed score and
play it on an extended meantone instrument.
The only changes would be:
Allow unlimited sharps and flats to apply to a single note.
Specify in the standard that no program should arbitrarily change the
spelling of notes, i.e. ^C to _D.
[...]
> If we find a non-conflicting solution, I would like to have different
> scales defined at a moment, for later and possibly sumultaneous use.
> (Then, meantone-based ET need to be identified.)
>
> About the fraction-of-a-semitone question, I think it will not be
> frequently used, we can take advantage of this. Once a scale is defined,
> that meaning of the accidentals is overriden by the new one. I would
> prefer use only numbers instead of combinations of different characters.
>
> Some possibilities:
>
> ^1c ^2c ... steps of current scale
> ^33.3c ^66.6c ... cents
> ^1/4c ... semitone fraction
> ^1:19c ^2:19c or ^1-19c ^2-19c ... n_steps:scale_id
Question: How would these different scales be defined in the ABC file?
> Another question is related to the differences between score and midi
> output. In general, is good to have independent commands for each one.
> For example, I use in a piece different accidental glyphs for clarinet
> and guitar, although both are playing the same scale. Guitar notation is
> tied to the fingering relative to standard tuning, so I used ordinary
> accidentals with arrows. This is basically the same concept to have pure
> and mixed Sagittal accidentals for different instruments/goals.
Good points.
Keenan
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/abcusers/
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
