Re: [abcusers] something fairly complicated (Q: field)
On Thu 15 Nov 2001 at 01:07AM -, Laurie Griffiths wrote: Is there any mileage in something like Q:Allegro=120 % definition ... Q:3/8=Allegro % use, meaning that the beat is 3/8 in this case No mileage in my book. The word Allegro describes the whole tempo [Q:3/8=120] not just one number used to define it. Maybe I missed the point of your posting. James Allwright To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html
Re: [abcusers] Looking for ABC transcriber.
The Playford files have been all over the web for ages, and I've never heard of anybody claiming copyrights for them. As far as I understand, this was originally two or more independent projects that gradually merged. I don't know if it was ever finished. I think the project's main home on the web is: http://www.contrib.andrew.cmu.edu/~sca/src/contributed/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]/dance/playford.html (this is a single URL, remove the line shift) I think the easiest place to find the tunes themselves are: http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/5567/playford.txt This seems to be an outdated version, but should include most of the important stuff. You may also find some information about it at Eric Praetzel's site: http://sca.uwaterloo.ca/~praetzel/ although his Playford transcriptions may be an independent project. More Playford: The Cynnabar Baronny (don't remember the URL at the moment) used to have an online edition without the actual music (only the dance instructions and other text) in HTML and PDF formats. I think they've removed it, but not before I managed to get my filthy hands on the files ;-) E mail me in private if you want a copy (but don't tell anybody, and don't post it anywhere). Finally: You definitely should have a look at the site named The Dancing Master, 1651-1728 at: http://www.izaak.unh.edu/nhltmd/indexes/dancingmaster/ This site includes facsimiles of *all* the dances from *all* editions of The Dancing Master, not just the 1651 edition the others seems based on. --- Anselm Lingnau wrote: A lot of Playford stuff is available from the US Library of Congress (they have a special page on the history of dancing, the URL of which escapes me right now) It's: http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/dihtml/dihome.html Frank Nordberg http://www.musicaviva.com To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html
Re: [abcusers] something fairly complicated (Q: field)
The point is that 120 (or Allegro) means 120 of something or other every minute. That something got called beat in some earlier postings and there were proposals to define it via things like L:beat=3/8 and a scheme proposed for sensible defaults which were not the same as the L: defaults. It then seemed to me that the beat was just exactly the first two numbers in a Q:triplet. So that given what (in one scheme) might be written Q:3/8=120 Allegro the 120 is Allegro and the 3/8 is the beat. So I began to wonder whether the beat thing was needed at all and whether, having defined Allegro as 120 one could then say Q:3/8=Allegro and eliminating the beat syntax. And I'm still wondering. Any thoughts? L. - Original Message - From: James Allwright [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, November 15, 2001 12:09 PM Subject: Re: [abcusers] something fairly complicated (Q: field) On Thu 15 Nov 2001 at 01:07AM -, Laurie Griffiths wrote: Is there any mileage in something like Q:Allegro=120 % definition ... Q:3/8=Allegro % use, meaning that the beat is 3/8 in this case No mileage in my book. The word Allegro describes the whole tempo [Q:3/8=120] not just one number used to define it. Maybe I missed the point of your posting. James Allwright To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html
Re: [abcusers] something really simple
James == James Allwright [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I'd rather stay away from L:. A quick look through some of my collection shows that it would give the wrong beat more often than not. James Then presumably you are not using the Q: field as defined. But we aren't discussing the current definition of the Q: field. What we're talking about is adding a new keyword, which should have a default value for tunes where it isn't entered. This doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the default values of the current fields. The way I use the L: field is to simplify data entry; the way I use the Q: field would be pretty unreadable to people who are used to published metronome markings if it was always in terms of the L: field. That is, in music where the beat is divided into 2, 4, 8, or more parts, I might very likely want to enter music with an L: of a much shorter value than I would want to specify the beat. I might also change the L: field when I had no reason to change what the beat was. -- Laura (mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] , http://www.laymusic.org/ ) (617) 661-8097 fax: (801) 365-6574 233 Broadway, Cambridge, MA 02139 To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html
Re: [abcusers] something fairly complicated (Q: field)
On Thu, 15 Nov 2001, Laurie Griffiths wrote: Is there any mileage in something like Q:Allegro=120 % definition ... Q:3/8=Allegro % use, meaning that the beat is 3/8 in this case I didn't like it at first glance, but the more I think about it, the more sense it makes. The only problem I can see is that old software might not like it (but if we give this consideration too much weight, the new standard will be stultified). In fact, this could be the solution to extending Q:. Q:3/8=120 % Playback and print 3/8=120, same as now. Q:Allegro=120 % Define Allegro as 120 bpm, no direct effect on % display or playback. Q:3/8=Allegro % Set 3/8=120 for playback, display Allegro. The latter two could even be abbreviated: Q:3/8=Allegro=120 % Set 3/8=120 for playback, display Allegro, % define Allegro as 120 bpm. A couple of questions: Q:Allegro Should display Allegro. But for playback, should it use a default tempo, or take a reasonable guess as to the appropriate beat, or generate an error? The same question applies if Allegro is used but never defined. Also, there must be some way of displaying 3/8=120 AND Allegro at the same time (two Q: fields?), and interpreting = and 3/8 as ordinary characters. John To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html
Re: [abcusers] something really simple
James, it looks as though you missed the beginning of this sub-thread: The problem was if we define words to mean particular rates e.g. lento=60, Allegro=120, vigorous skipping=95 etc, it begs the questions 60 what?, 120 what? etc. 120 L units seems to often give silly answers, so we are searching for a better answer. The answer seemed to be 120 beats where a beat might be a dance step for a dance or something a little less tangible, (but still quite clear to a musician) in other cases. So we were inventing yet more syntax to define a beat and were thinking if there was a sensible default if it were not explicitly defined. The thread below then picks up saying the L: value is not clever as this default. L. - Original Message - From: James Allwright [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, November 15, 2001 2:14 PM Subject: Re: [abcusers] something really simple On Wed 14 Nov 2001 at 11:24AM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, 13 Nov 2001, Laurie Griffiths wrote: I'm not 100% sure what the right default is in the absence of a beat=. Is it the L value (explicit or implied)? Yes. See the 1.6 standard. Q:100 means 100 unit note lengths per minute. I'd rather stay away from L:. A quick look through some of my collection shows that it would give the wrong beat more often than not. Then presumably you are not using the Q: field as defined. James Allwright To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html
Re: [abcusers] something fairly complicated (Q: field)
At 11:40 AM 11-15-2001 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] you wrote: A couple of questions: Q:Allegro Should display Allegro. But for playback, should it use a default tempo, or take a reasonable guess as to the appropriate beat, or generate an error? The same question applies if Allegro is used but never defined. My feeling is that on playback Q:Allegro should use the current definition of the beat as a default, but use the defined bpm tempo. Example: X: 1 T: Simple scales, in arpegios of 3rds. Q: Slow=60 Q: Quick=90 M: 6/8 L: 1/8 K: C Q: 3/8=Slow CEG DFA | EGb FAc | Gbd Ace | Q: Quick ecA dbG | cAF bGE | AFD GEC | Should display Slow for the first bar, Quick for the second. Playback should play the first bar in about 6 seconds, the second in about 4. (That example suggested a utility for a Q:3/8 line, which would define the timing beat of the work. Hence, Q:3/8 would go above the K: line, and the first Q line after the K: could read simply Q: Slow. If a Q: Slow is given, but there is no previous Q: specifiying a beat, going with the L: setting, or some reasonable default for the beat length is probably best. If Q:undefinedtempo is encountered, I think the best the standard should/could do say that the playback speed is implementation dependent, and encourage developers to provide a way for the user to control it. Also, there must be some way of displaying 3/8=120 AND Allegro at the same time (two Q: fields?), and interpreting = and 3/8 as ordinary characters. Dunno... Another thought: I wonder if it would make sense to not use = for two purposes. In Q: Allegro=120, the = is defining the meaning of Allegro. In Q: 3/8=Allegro, = is setting the speed of a 3/8 note. In Q: 3/8=Allegro=120, it's doing both. Could a different symbol be used for one of those purposes, like == or :=? Q: Allegro:=120? Q: 3/8==Allegro? Q:3/8=Allegro:=120? Not a big deal, feel free to reject it. However, I do see the possibility of symbol:=value as being potentially useful for the beginnings of a macro facility (which may prove useful elsewhere). John To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html
Re: [abcusers] Looking for ABC transcriber.
Anselm Lingnau [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote : A lot of Playford stuff is available from the US Library of Congress (they have a special page on the history of dancing, the URL of which escapes me right now), so one could go back right to the original sources to make sure that the ABCs in question are `uncontaminated'. That's exactly what I did for my Orchesography transcription - although I was primarily working from a printed source, anything I thought might be editorial to that edition was checked back to the facsimile on the Library of Congress site, as I thought 483 years was probably long enough for Jehan Tabouret's copyright to lapse. Now all we need to do is get a working party to abc all the *rest* of the stuff on the LoC site :-) Start at http://memory.loc.gov and follow your nose from there. Steve Mansfield [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.lesession.demon.co.uk - abc music notation tutorial and other goodies To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html
Re: [abcusers] Looking for ABC transcriber.
At 08:12 PM 11-15-2001 +, Steve Mansfield you wrote: Anselm Lingnau [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote : A lot of Playford stuff is available from the US Library of Congress (they have a special page on the history of dancing, the URL of which escapes me right now), so one could go back right to the original sources to make sure that the ABCs in question are `uncontaminated'. That's exactly what I did for my Orchesography transcription - although I was primarily working from a printed source, anything I thought might be editorial to that edition was checked back to the facsimile on the Library of Congress site, as I thought 483 years was probably long enough for Jehan Tabouret's copyright to lapse. Fortunately for me, the Dover edition of Orchesography claims that the illustrations and music included in the text are facsimiles of Jehan Tabouret's original artwork, so I have no problem coding from those. Unfortunately, the available editions of Playford I've been able to find currently available for commercial purchase have all the music transcribed to modern notation. I'd rather not double-check one person's interpretation/transcription using another secondary source of unknown copyright. The complete Dancing Master website is an amazing piece of work which I have found in the past to be a valuable resource, but the scans of the music are too small to be useful -- when I can't tell which end of a quaver is the note head and which is the flag, it is of limited usefulness. Now all we need to do is get a working party to abc all the *rest* of the stuff on the LoC site :-) Start at http://memory.loc.gov Playford there has good-quality scans that are very readable with clear music. My only problem is the selection -- it only has volume 2 of the 4th edition. It's better than nothing, but I'd prefer more. and follow your nose from there. Will do. To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html
Re: [abcusers] something fairly complicated (Q: field)
Is there any mileage in something like Q:Allegro=120 % definition ... Q:3/8=Allegro % use, meaning that the beat is 3/8 in this case I hadn't thought about the problem of varying beat length in my initial proposal and I should have. What I would prefer would be to allow: Q:[6/8] Allegro 3/8=124 % definition Q:[C|] Allegro 1/2=120 % definition so that the speed you'd get from a later use would depend on the time signature. It's quite likely that this happens in some musical genres already. That way, the tempo definitions could be in the file header, perhaps written by somebody other than the tune transcriber, and the transcriber would not need to think about the size of a beat on a per- tune level. The fact that Jim Vint and his users have been getting the notions of beat and default note length muddled for years suggests that (a) beat size is something it's easy to get wrong and (b) it isn't going to be easy to get people fluent with the correct concept. The scheme above would also allow for more generality when the M: field gets extended. You can't make a once-and-for-all, culture-independent definition of what the right beat unit for 9/8 is, regardless of whether it's 3+3+3 (slip jig) or 2+2+2+3 (aksak). Whereas when we get to be able to write an aksak time signature explicitly the above simply extends to Q:[(2+2+2+3)/8] Allegro 2/8=120 which would not match with the header of any slip jig and hence not confuse their tempi. === http://www.purr.demon.co.uk/jack/ === To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html
