[abcusers] abc2midi was: [ties and accidentals]
On Wed, 6 Feb 2002, James Allwright wrote: > Please observe that abc2midi is open source so that you can fix things > yourself if need be. Please understand that the (non-existing) c-code from a jazz piano player is not likely to make it into abc2midi. I'm not unwilling, just unable:-) > I am unlikely to get round to trying to change > this myself for a while, though I have now documented it. Can you please report it here as soon as you've fixed it, I'll stop using (and thus checking versions of) abc2midi as of now, since it for my purposes is broken and useless. Regards -- Atte To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html
Re: [abcusers] ties and accidentals
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > Ignoring for the present how much existing ABC might be broken by this, > suppose it is decided that you have to write ^f-|^f. The notation > software will omit the second sharp by default, in order to display the > staff notation correctly. Now suppose you *want* the second sharp to be > displayed, as a cautionary accidental. How could this be achieved? I think we all agree that »^f-|f«, by virtue of »-« signifying a tie as opposed to a slur, is essentially an »^f2« shifted across the bar line. Therefore in ABC there is no ambiguity as to what the notation *means* in musical terms (and thus what a MIDI player should do). Whether this combination actually appears in a traditional printed score with no accidental on the second »f«, with a cautionary accidental in front of the note, with the accidental in parentheses, or (say) a small »#« above the staff at that point, is an issue of taste and/or convenience on the part of a notation program. A notation program might (or ought to) offer a way for users to be able to specify what sort of behaviour they prefer for such cases, but that preference has no bearing on the ABC notation whatsoever. Anselm -- Anselm Lingnau .. [EMAIL PROTECTED] The obvious mathematical breakthrough [for breaking modern encryption] would be the development of an easy way to factor large prime numbers. -- Bill Gates, *The Road Ahead* To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html
[abcusers] ͨ¸æ£¡
ÐÂÓ¯ÀûÕâÒ»¶ÎµÄ·¢Õ¹´ó¼ÒÓÐÄ¿¹²¶Ã£¬ÓÐЩ³ÉÔ±¿Ï¶¨»ñµÃÁ˲»·ÆµÄ»Ø±¨£¬µ«ÊÇÓÐЩ»¹ÊÇ ¿ÅÁ£ÎÞÊÕ£¬µ«ÊÇ»ñµÃÁ˲»·ÆµÄ»Ø±¨Ò²ºÃ£¬»¹ÊÇ¿ÅÁ£ÎÞÊÕÒ²ºÃ£¬ÏÖÔÚ²¢²»´ú±íÈκÎÈ赀 ³É¹¦¡£ÒòΪÓÐЩÈ˲¢Ã»ÓÐÕæÕýÀí½âÎÒÃÇÕâÌ×ϵͳµÄÔË×÷ʵÖÊËùÔÚ£¬Ò»¿é´ÅÌúµÄ´ÅÐÔÊÇ Î¢²»×ãµÀµÄ£¬µ«ÊÇÈç¹ûÄã°ÑÎå¿é´ÅÌúÞûÔÚÒ»Æð£¬Äã»á·¢ÏÖËûÃǵĴÅÐÔÊǾªÈ˵ġ£ÓÐЩ ³ÉÔ±×Ô¼ºÒ»ÏÂÀÁ˺ܶàµÄ³ÉÔ±£¬¾ÍÕ´Õ¾×Ôϲ£¬¶øÓеijÉÔ±Ò»ÌìÏÂÀ´£¬»¹ÊÇÁÈÁÈÎÞ¼¸£¬ ¾ÍÐÄ»ÒÒâÀ䣬ÕâЩ¶¼ÊÇÐļ±µÄ±íÏÖ£¬ÊDz»¿ÉÈ¡µÃ£¬Õâ²»ÊÇÒ»Ì×Ò»Ò¹±¬¸»µÄϵͳ£¬ÎÒÃÇ ×öµÄÊÇsoho£¬²»ÊǶIJ©¡£ ²»ÒªÒÔΪ×Ô¼º·¢²Æ¼Æ»®ÊÇÔÚ×öÃΣ¬Ñ¡Ôñ¼ÓÈëÎÒÃǵÄͬʱ£¬ÆäʵÄú¾ÍÒѾѡÔñÁ˳ɹ¦¡£ ºÃ£¬ÏÖÔÚÎÒ¸æËßÄú£¬ÔÚÕâÒ»ÄêµÄʱ¼äÀï¡£ÄúÐèÒª×öʲô¡£ - Çë·ÃÎÊhttp://xylrenren.yeah.net ÎÒµÄQQ£º27232132 µç×ÓÓʼþ£º[EMAIL PROTECTED] - 1¡¢Ò»ÄêÖ®ÄÚ£¬Ö»ÐèÍƼö30¸öÒ»¼¶»áÔ±£¨Æ½¾ùÒ»¸öÔÂ3¸ö»áÔ±£©¡£ 2¡¢ÎÒÃǽ¨ÒéÄã×î¶à·¢Õ¹µ½30¸öÒ»¼¶»áÔ±ºóÍ£Ö¹ÔÙ·¢Õ¹Ò»¼¶»áÔ±£¡ 3¡¢°ÑÄúÔÚ¡°ÐÂÓ¯Àû¡±Ñ§µ½µÄËùÓоÑ飬´«ÊÚ¸øËûÃÇ£¬²¢¾¡×î´óµÄÄÜÁ¦°ïÖúËûÃÇÈ¥·¢ Õ¹£¡ 4¡¢²»Òª°Ñʱ¼ä·ÅÔÚ×·Çóϼ¶»áÔ±ÊýÁ¿ÉÏ£¬Ó¦ÒÔ¶ÔËûÃǵĽÌѧΪÖ÷¡££¨ÔÒò¡¢·½·¨¼û ±¾±¾²¿·Ö×îÏÂÃæÒ»¶ÎºìÉ«×ÖÌ壩 5¡¢ÈÃËûÃÇÇå³þµÄÖªµÀ£¬×Ô¼ºÓ¦¸Ã×öµÄÎå¼þÊ¡££¨¾ÍÊÇÕâÎå¼þÊÂÇé±¾Éí£© - Çë·ÃÎÊhttp://xylrenren.yeah.net ÎÒµÄQQ£º27232132 µç×ÓÓʼþ£º[EMAIL PROTECTED] - ×¢Ò⣺ҪÍêÃÀµÄ×öµ½ÕâÒ»²½Äú±ØÐëÒÔ¡°Å¬Á¦ÅàÑø×Ô¼ºÏ¼¶´úÀí¡±µÄÄÜÁ¦ÎªÖ÷£¬½Ì»áËû ÃÇÈçºÎ·¢Õ¹»áÔ±£¬ÈçºÎ×ö¹ã¸æ¡¢¶à°Ñ»ú»áÈøøÄãµÄÏÂÊôÈ¥·¢Õ¹¡£ÒòΪÈç¹ûÖ»ÊÇÄúÒ»¸ö ÈË·¢Õ¹»áÔ±µÄ»°£¬ÒªÏë׬ÕâЩǮ£¬×ãÒÔ°ÑÄãÀÛËÀ£¡£¡ MLM³ä·ÖµÄÌåÏÖºÍÔËÓÃÁË¡°Êг¡±¶Ôö¡±ÕâÒ»ÔÀí£¬ÒѾ³ÉΪµ±½ñÈ«Çò¼«ÆäÖØÒªµÄÐÐÏú ÊÖ¶ÎÖ®Ò»¡£¾¹ýÃÀ¹ú¹þ·ð´óѧÉÌѧԺ£¬Ë¹Ì¹¸£´óѧºÍŦԼ»ª¶û½Ö±¨µÄÑо¿£¬Ô¤¼ÆÔÚδ À´¼¸Ä꣬ȫÊÀ½ç50%ÖÁ65%µÄ»õÆ·½«»áÒÔ"¶à²ã´Î"µÄµçÄÔÓªÏúÐÎʽÀ´½»Òס£ ÔçÔÚ¼¸Äê Ç°µÄÃÀ¹ú£¬MLMÔç¾Íʹ³ÉǧÉÏÍòµÄÃÀ¹úÈ˳ÉΪÁË°ÙÍò¸»ÎÌ¡£¶øÏÖÔÚ£¬ËûÖÕÓÚÀ´µ½ÁËÎÒ ÃǵÄÉí±ß¡£ÏÖÔÚ¹úÄÚÍøÃñµÄÊýÁ¿9000Íò. - Çë·ÃÎÊhttp://xylrenren.yeah.net ÎÒµÄQQ£º27232132 µç×ÓÓʼþ£º[EMAIL PROTECTED] - To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html
RE: [abcusers] ties and accidentals
On Wed, 6 Feb 2002, Buddha Buck wrote: > So you would agree with the following text [snipped] Yes. > >See the section on beaming... Beaming is meaningless outside > >of staff notation. > > I disagree. Beaming is used in staff notation to indicate musical > rhythm. In the face of M:, beaming may be redundant, but it is a > useful redundancy to performers. The description of the > beam-equivalent notation in ABC may refer to beaming, but the concept > of rhythmic grouping of notes is not staff notation-specific. You are confusing the result with the way that it is communicated. That's like saying that the letter S is not alphabet-specific because the *sound* that it makes is not alphabet-specific. Rhythmic grouping of notes is not specific to any notation system, but communicating it with beams is. Furthermore, the ABC standard does not define beams in terms of how they group notes together rhythmically. It defines beams in terms of how the notes will be drawn on the staff. So really, it's less like defining something as "the sound that the letter S makes" and more like defining it as "the letter S itself." > >So, I would counter your suggestion by saying that if you want to write > >stand-alone notation, irrespective of how it would appear on the staff, > >maybe *you* are the one who shouldn't be using abc. > > This seems a little extreme. Keep in mind that it was in response to: "if you *do* expect the staff to look in a certain way: don't use abc - use a music typesetting program or whatever." If what I said was extreme, this was equally so. John To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html
Re: [abcusers] the abc standard [was: abc - the new HTML?]
Atte wrote: | On Wed, 6 Feb 2002, John Chambers wrote: | > | I'm not up to | > | date with the work on the standard, is there still a commission | > | working on what to include in the standard? I really think this work is | > | extremely important if abc is to have any future. | > | > What seems to have happened is more or less consistent with the past | > work on abc. The (semi-official) standards committee started with the | > idea that what it needed was a clear formulation of abc version 1.6 | > as a standard, and has worked on codifying that. New features are to | > be put off until the current standard is established. Of course, this | > is of little relevance to people who need things not covered by | > version 1.6, so those of us have continued on our merry way inventing | > random extensions for our own use, and wondering if the standards | > folks will ever catch up. | | Ok, who's in the committee, where can one follow the progress of their | work, and what do they have to say? http://abc.sourceforge.net/standard.html I hope nobody on the committee objects to this being posted. It's at sourceforge, so I expect that everyone understands that everything there is pretty much all public information. You need to get a project admin to approve changes, but reading a project's info is pretty easy. BTW, if you just go to sourceforge.net and use the search widget, you'll find a number of other ABC-related projects. There's one that converts DNA sequences to ABC, so you can play a gene. I'm not sure what value this may have ... To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html
Re: [abcusers] ties and accidentals
One of those other Johns wrote: | On Wed, 6 Feb 2002, James Allwright wrote: | | > It would also be nice to find a written standard to support the | > interpreation, since the only definition I can find says nothing about | > ties and so implies that the accidental is necessary. | | I just took a look at the draft standard, and it doesn't appear to say | anything about accidentals remaining in effect until the end of the bar, | either. Maybe I'm not looking in the right place. No, for a straightforward reason. The 1.6 "standard" that it was based on was written by Chris Walshaw, who was mostly working on abc2mtex. This is a pure music formatter, and as such, it has no concern with the pitch of any note. His doc wasn't intended as a standard at all; it was simply a readable description of abc for abcmtex users. As such, there was no need to discuss things that don't appear on paper, such as pitches. Those were questions for the readers of the music. The only reason such things are a concern is that people have also written programs that "play" music by converting it to various audio formats. For such programs, questions of pitch are a very serious issue. The best way to handle them is to discuss the topic in the way it has always been discussed: How should a musician interpret such notation? The software should obviously do it the same way. And, of course, over the centuries there have been so many different musical styles with so many different rules, that the only really useful answers to such questions all start with "Well, it depends ..." To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html
RE: [abcusers] ties and accidentals
At 12:52 PM 02-06-2002 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] you wrote: >On Wed, 6 Feb 2002, [iso-8859-1] Erik Ronström wrote: > > > I think I'd get your point anyway. > >I don't think you do get my point. It seems self-evident to me that ABC >is pseudo-staff notation. You have made it clear *that* you disagree, but >not *why*. Where else do you think ABC got the concepts of whole notes, >beaming, barlines, etc., if not from staff notation? It's hard for me to >imagine how you define pseudo-staff notation, if ABC doesn't qualify. My understanding of staff notation indicates that a lot of the things you are talking about -- whole notes, beaming, bar lines, etc -- have musical significants outside of the notation. Bar lines and beaming indicate the rhythm of the music, which helps performers in performance (different parts of the rhythm may have different stress or emphasis when played). A human musician may very well play | abc def | differently than | ab cd ef |, even though it's the same notes, played for the same duration, etc. > > My point was that we should have a language that is precise in it's > > *syntax*, that is, the way in which music is notated and the way in > > which the language should be interpreted. In other words: what is > > allowed and what is not. > >I agree, and there is *nothing* imprecise about ^f-|f if you simply amend >the standard to codify the rule -- a rule that most people seem to be >following anyway. I still see no advantage to using ^f-|^f. So you would agree with the following text (subject to minor amendment, since I'm writing this "off the cuff"): Syntax: - ties A tie may be placed between two or more notes of the same pitch and indicates that the two notes should be played without a break, as if it was one note of duration equal to the sum of the durations of the two notes. As a convenience, accidentals on the first note are optional on successive notes. White space, bar lines, and repeat symbols may appear between the tied notes. Ties are useful for preserving the visible meter or rhythm of the music when notes extend over beat or measure boundaries. Examples: f-f % plays as if it were f2 f-|f % plays as if it were f2 across a measure boundary f4-|f4-|f4-|f4-|f4- f4-|f4-|f4-|f4-|f4 % plays as if it were f20 across two lines ^f4-|^f4 % plays as if it were ^f8 across a measure boundary ^f4-|f4 % plays as if it were ^f8 across a measure boundary C-|:CEGc-|cGEC-:|CE,G,C, % plays as C2EGc2GEC2EGc2GEC2E,G,C, c-^B-B-^^^A% plays as c4 >I disagree. The ABC standard is full of indications that it has >historically been intended primarily as a source for *generating* staff >notation. I see nothing wrong with a standard for a notation suggesting how parts of that notation should be translated to or from another notation. >See the section on beaming... Beaming is meaningless outside >of staff notation. I disagree. Beaming is used in staff notation to indicate musical rhythm. In the face of M:, beaming may be redundant, but it is a useful redundancy to performers. The description of the beam-equivalent notation in ABC may refer to beaming, but the concept of rhythmic grouping of notes is not staff notation-specific. > There are also many instances of language like >"character x is used to generate symbol y." There's even an ASCII >*drawing* of a five-line staff, with ledger lines, in the standard itself! >The basic philosophy seems to be "draw what I tell you to draw." Perhaps the basic philosophy should be "To get an effect like X in staff-notation, do Y in ABC". The only ASCII drawing of a five-line staff I remember is used to show how ABC notes correspond to staff-notation notes. A lot of people want to create ABC files based on music they have available to them in staff notation. It is reasonable for them to want to ask how to do something in ABC which is possible in staff notation -- such as extending a note slightly at the end of the music or a piece. Such a query may be expressed as "How do I put a fermata over a note", or "How do I put in guitar tablature", or "How do I write figured bass" rather than "How do I get X effect". I think it is reasonable for the standard to be written to make it easier for people to find the information they are looking for. >So, I would counter your suggestion by saying that if you want to write >stand-alone notation, irrespective of how it would appear on the staff, >maybe *you* are the one who shouldn't be using abc. This seems a little extreme. >(Whether or not abc *should* be stand-alone is another question entirely. >My point is simply that is is not stand-alone *now*. Not by a long shot.) ABC clearly shows staff notation in its heritage, and it is clearly designed to be easy to use by familiar with staff notation. But I do think it is to a large degree stand-alone, with a few non-standalone warts that may be able t
Re: [abcusers] Playing through sound card
Laura Conrad <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote : >abc2midi in combination with a MIDI player. I'm pretty sure there's >some kind of MIDI player that comes with Windows; I use the version of >Cakewalk that came with my soundcard. Yeah, Media Player (in its various flavours) comes with all versions of Windows from 95 up. It's a simple matter to write a batch file to run an abc file through abc2midi and then launch WMP to play the result - or, if anyone really wants, they can have a copy of mine ... Steve Mansfield [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.lesession.demon.co.uk - abc music notation tutorial, the uk.music.folk newsgroup FAQ, and other goodies To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html
Re: [abcusers] Is ABC going anywhere?
Bob Archer wrote: | At 04:09 AM 2/6/2002 UTC, John Chambers wrote: | >What seems to have happened is more or less consistent with the past | >work on abc. The (semi-official) standards committee started with the | >idea that what it needed was a clear formulation of abc version 1.6 | >as a standard, and has worked on codifying that. ... | | I'd agree with this if the standards committee was actually producing | anything at all, but as far as I can tell they're not. I don't think | we've even been able to get a statement out of the committee as to | whether the committee exists or not (which I guess is one of those | questions where a non-answer also answers the question). Given that | the 1.6 standard has been out for years and not been superceded my | suspicion is that the standards folks will never catch up. Maybe. I am (was ;-) on the committee, and I haven't heard many peeps lately. I don't consider myself one of the "drivers", as I'm clearly one of those radical types who thinks that abc should be extended to handle other kinds of music. Anyhow, I wonder how many proposed ABC standards we have now? I have a copy that's probably a bit dated at: http://trillian.mit.edu/~jc/music/abc/doc/abc-draft.txt How many others are online? I suspect that the ABC standards effort have branched more than has abc2ps. One of my favorite wise-ass quips is: One of the great things about standards is that we have so many to choose from. Some time back, I started work on something different: A sort of "ABC extension summary" that includes whatever public standard info I can get my hands on, plus whatever I can learn about existing and proposed extensions. I haven't mentioned this to anyone, partly because it's mostly for my own sanity. But maybe I should make it public, and see if I can get a discussion going about how specific musical ideas can best be handled within abc's narrow focus. One part of this is online: http://trillian.mit.edu/~jc/music/abc/doc/ABCtut_Features.html You'll note, however, that most of the spaces are blank. I suspect that the non-black spaces might not all still be accurate. It's not easy to maintain up-to-date info on such things. To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html
RE: [abcusers] ties and accidentals
On Wed, 6 Feb 2002, [iso-8859-1] Erik Ronström wrote: > I think I'd get your point anyway. I don't think you do get my point. It seems self-evident to me that ABC is pseudo-staff notation. You have made it clear *that* you disagree, but not *why*. Where else do you think ABC got the concepts of whole notes, beaming, barlines, etc., if not from staff notation? It's hard for me to imagine how you define pseudo-staff notation, if ABC doesn't qualify. > My point was that we should have a language that is precise in it's > *syntax*, that is, the way in which music is notated and the way in > which the language should be interpreted. In other words: what is > allowed and what is not. I agree, and there is *nothing* imprecise about ^f-|f if you simply amend the standard to codify the rule -- a rule that most people seem to be following anyway. I still see no advantage to using ^f-|^f. > In other words: don't blame the abc source for not looking in a > specific way when converted into staff notation. Blame the program! > And if you *do* expect the staff to look in a certain way: don't use > abc - use a music typesetting program or whatever. I disagree. The ABC standard is full of indications that it has historically been intended primarily as a source for *generating* staff notation. See the section on beaming... Beaming is meaningless outside of staff notation. There are also many instances of language like "character x is used to generate symbol y." There's even an ASCII *drawing* of a five-line staff, with ledger lines, in the standard itself! The basic philosophy seems to be "draw what I tell you to draw." So, I would counter your suggestion by saying that if you want to write stand-alone notation, irrespective of how it would appear on the staff, maybe *you* are the one who shouldn't be using abc. (Whether or not abc *should* be stand-alone is another question entirely. My point is simply that is is not stand-alone *now*. Not by a long shot.) John To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html
Re: [abcusers] how to solve the slur problem (kludge :-)
Erik writes: | --- "Funzionario E.D." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: | > as a last resort, you may consider writing your ABC source | > code using abcpp #defines. As it happens, I wrote it to | > circumvent abc2midi's idiosyncrasies. | > This is what I would do: | | It is a logical step, but IMHO it will lead to different versions of | abc, "abc-for-MIDI", "abc-for-humans", | "abc-for-convertion-to-staff-notation" etc. I think we should avoid | that as far as possible (see my message from yesterday). Well, I dunno; I think this abcpp looks like a sorta neat tool. One application I've thought in my SCD (Scottish Country Dance) music: There are a lot of marches used as reels, and these are almost exactly evenly divided between M:2/4 and M:4/4 (with the understanding that the latter really means M:C| or M:2/2.) It's confusing to have a medley page with mixed time signatures, and it's a hassle to maintain two versions that differ only in the M and L headers. With abcpp (or even cpp if you're on a unix-like system), you could easily have a single abc file with #if used to generate both of the time signatures as needed. This has nothing to do with abc itself, or any distinction between printing or playing. There are two conventional ways of writing the music, and the difference is easily handled in ABC by changing just the two header lines: #if METER == "2/4" M: 2/4 L: 1/16 #elif M: C| L: 1/8 #endif I can also see using a tool like this for other purposes. Thus, you may want to print a part for different instruments that use different clefs. Leaving aside the question of transposition, with only C instruments you see different clefs. I have a Telemann quartet that has one part indicated for either alto recorder or bassoon. It would be really handy if I could have just one abc file for this part, with a choice of several V lines selected by an #if line. Using C's macro notation, I could say: #if V3 == "alto recorder" V:3 name="alto recorder" clef=treble #elif V3 == "bassoon" V:3 name="bassoon" clef=bass #endif There are also examples such as the flute or tenor recorder part that wants clef=treble while piccolo and soprano recorder should use clef=treble+8. This is a rather trivial example, of course, but it'd be nice to be able to Get It Right. (Note that this example only works if your abc software uses the clef interpretation that maps the letters A-Ga-g to the staff for all clefs, or allows something like the proposed middle=d clause to specify the mapping. But that's a different topic that we've gone over a few times with no clear resolution.) I would recommend using a different suffix than .abc for such files. Maybe .abcm to indicate the use of preprocessor macros. To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html
Re: [abcusers] ties and accidentals
On Wed, 6 Feb 2002, James Allwright wrote: > It would also be nice to find a written standard to support the > interpreation, since the only definition I can find says nothing about > ties and so implies that the accidental is necessary. I just took a look at the draft standard, and it doesn't appear to say anything about accidentals remaining in effect until the end of the bar, either. Maybe I'm not looking in the right place. John To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html
[abcusers] Is ABC going anywhere?
At 07:04 PM 2/1/2002 EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >You can argue about ^F-|F till the cows come home. Jack Campin's proposal >for the Q: command seemed to reach some sort of satisfactory conclusion and >then vanished. John Chambers has proposed all sorts of interesting ideas. >Until you have some sort of mechanism for agreeing and implementing a >standard, all such discussion is futile. At 06:07 PM 2/5/2002 +, Erik Ronström wrote: >We shall supply a standard. Not just a standard, but a Standard, which >is 100% consistent, and states as clearly as possible what is allowed >and what is not. Abc applications (such as players and printers) should >try to keep as close to this standard as possible, but they may of >course use the application-defined symbols for their own use. >If abc is going to have a future, it must not divide into >context-dependent variants. This requires a consistent and strict >standard, which leaves no doubt about how what is allowed and what is >not, or how a certain thing shall be written. [ lot's of good stuff that Erik wrote snipped ] I agree entirely with Bryan and Erik. As far as I can tell development of the ABC standard has stalled completely. Development of various program's variants continues but the standard doesn't seem to be getting anywhere and I don't see any real possibility of it getting anywhere. At 04:09 AM 2/6/2002 UTC, John Chambers wrote: >What seems to have happened is more or less consistent with the past >work on abc. The (semi-official) standards committee started with the >idea that what it needed was a clear formulation of abc version 1.6 >as a standard, and has worked on codifying that. New features are to >be put off until the current standard is established. Of course, this >is of little relevance to people who need things not covered by >version 1.6, so those of us have continued on our merry way inventing >random extensions for our own use, and wondering if the standards >folks will ever catch up. I'd agree with this if the standards committee was actually producing anything at all, but as far as I can tell they're not. I don't think we've even been able to get a statement out of the committee as to whether the committee exists or not (which I guess is one of those questions where a non-answer also answers the question). Given that the 1.6 standard has been out for years and not been superceded my suspicion is that the standards folks will never catch up. Bob -- -- Bob Archer [EMAIL PROTECTED] To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html
Re: [abcusers] ties and accidentals
On Wed 06 Feb 2002 at 12:26PM +0100, Atte Andre Jensen wrote: > > James Allwright, will you please reconsider changing the behavior of > abc2midi so that it interprets ^F-|F as ^F-|^F and not ^F|=F, since it's > widely agreed here on the list that that would be the prober way of > understanding this??? > In view of this popularly of this interpretation, I'm willing to accept a patch to implement this behaviour. It would also be nice to find a written standard to support the interpreation, since the only definition I can find says nothing about ties and so implies that the accidental is necessary. Please observe that abc2midi is open source so that you can fix things yourself if need be. I am unlikely to get round to trying to change this myself for a while, though I have now documented it. James Allwright To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html
Re: [abcusers] how to solve the slur problem (kludge :-)
--- "Funzionario E.D." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > as a last resort, you may consider writing your ABC source > code using abcpp #defines. As it happens, I wrote it to > circumvent abc2midi's idiosyncrasies. > This is what I would do: It is a logical step, but IMHO it will lead to different versions of abc, "abc-for-MIDI", "abc-for-humans", "abc-for-convertion-to-staff-notation" etc. I think we should avoid that as far as possible (see my message from yesterday). OK, it may be a resolution "as a last resort", but the abc will not be very readable to humans, and the readability is - I think - the strongest argument to use abc at all (e g in favour of MIDI files). Erik __ Do You Yahoo!? Everything you'll ever need on one web page from News and Sport to Email and Music Charts http://uk.my.yahoo.com To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html
Re: [abcusers] Playing through sound card
> "Laurie" == Laurie Griffiths <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Laurie> Muse is only £20 and does it in one, but are there not free ones? abc2midi in combination with a MIDI player. I'm pretty sure there's some kind of MIDI player that comes with Windows; I use the version of Cakewalk that came with my soundcard. -- 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
[abcusers] how to solve the slur problem (kludge :-)
On Wed, 6 Feb 2002, Atte Andre Jensen wrote: > The whole thing started with me asking for support because I found > abc2midi behaving like this. I think I found that support, so now I ask > officially: as a last resort, you may consider writing your ABC source code using abcpp #defines. As it happens, I wrote it to circumvent abc2midi's idiosyncrasies. This is what I would do: X:1 ... K:C ... #ifdef MIDI ... ^F-|^F ... #else ... ^F-|F ... #endif ... Then convert the source with: abcpp -MIDI music.abc music-mid.abc # for abc2midi abcpp music.abc music-ps.abc # for abc*ps Get abcpp from http://abcplus.sourceforge.net. Ciao, Guido -- Guido Gonzato, Ph.D. - Linux system manager Universita' di Verona (Italy), Facolta' di Scienze MM. FF. NN. Ca' Vignal II, Strada Le Grazie 15, 37134 Verona (Italy) Tel. +39 045 802 7990; Fax +39 045 802 7928 --- Timeas hominem unius libri To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html
Re: [abcusers] Playing through sound card
Muse is only £20 and does it in one, but are there not free ones? L. - Original Message - From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2002 9:52 AM Subject: [abcusers] Playing through sound card Flos said - >I'm just waiting for someone to write a program to play ABC to >my sound card, so I can rename it as playQabc.exe As a stop gap, you could get my programme abc2nwc downloadable from http://members.aol.com/abacusmusic/ (£7 to register and remove the nag) to create .nwc files and then play them through Noteworthy Composer available from http://www.ntworthy.com/. They do a freeware player programme which will play through your soundcard and a GUI interface music editor/player as shareware for $39 last time I looked. Bryan Creer 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] ties and accidentals
Muse uses sound card to play ABC. Has for ages. I'd be very surprised indeed if it's the only one. I have always presumed that all of those player programs use the sound card. Do you mean plays as wave sound rather than MIDI? Laurie - Original Message - From: Phil Headford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2002 7:08 AM Subject: [abcusers] ties and accidentals I'm just waiting for someone to write a program to play ABC to my sound card To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html
RE: [abcusers] ties and accidentals
In reply to the message from [EMAIL PROTECTED] > So, we've got frequency and duration covered. Now all > that's missing is a way to express amplitude and timbre, > but since the ABC standard never really supported dynamics > or instrument definitions, I don't see that we need to go > that far. > > There you go. A stand-alone, precise notation system. Happy now? First of all, you don't have to taunt me. I think I'd get your point anyway. Second, I don't agree, and it seems to me as you completely misunderstood my opinion. No language can ever claim to be complete. My point was *not* that abc should be something "more real" or "more complete" than staff notation. My point was that we should have a language that is precise in it's *syntax*, that is, the way in which music is notated and the way in which the language should be interpreted. In other words: what is allowed and what is not. > Ignoring for the present how much existing ABC might > be broken by this, suppose it is decided that you have > to write ^f-|^f. The notation software will omit the > second sharp by default, in order to display the staff > notation correctly. Now suppose you *want* the second > sharp to be displayed, as a cautionary accidental. > How could this be achieved? Again: my very point was that abc is NOT a pseudo-staff-notation (you may disagree with that, as some do of course, and that is OK for me - but just write that in that case!). If you have a piece of abc that is clear and unambigous, translate it into staff notation, and doubts appear about how it should be interpreted; the error is not in abc itself, it lies in the translation program, or worse, in staff notation itself (not in this case though)! In other words: don't blame the abc source for not looking in a specific way when converted into staff notation. Blame the program! And if you *do* expect the staff to look in a certain way: don't use abc - use a music typesetting program or whatever. Erik __ Do You Yahoo!? Everything you'll ever need on one web page from News and Sport to Email and Music Charts http://uk.my.yahoo.com To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html
Re: [abcusers] ties and accidentals
On Wed, 6 Feb 2002, Phil Headford wrote: > I can't understand why I've read so many emails on this topic. > ABC quite clearly differentiates between slurs and ties (which > is more than stave notation does), but some player somewhere > interprets ^F-|F as (^F|=F). So? The whole thing started with me asking for support because I found abc2midi behaving like this. I think I found that support, so now I ask officially: James Allwright, will you please reconsider changing the behavior of abc2midi so that it interprets ^F-|F as ^F-|^F and not ^F|=F, since it's widely agreed here on the list that that would be the prober way of understanding this??? Regards -- Atte To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html
[abcusers] Playing through sound card
Flos said - >I'm just waiting for someone to write a program to play ABC to >my sound card, so I can rename it as playQabc.exe As a stop gap, you could get my programme abc2nwc downloadable from http://members.aol.com/abacusmusic/ (£7 to register and remove the nag) to create .nwc files and then play them through Noteworthy Composer available from http://www.ntworthy.com/. They do a freeware player programme which will play through your soundcard and a GUI interface music editor/player as shareware for $39 last time I looked. Bryan Creer To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html
[abcusers] ties and accidentals
I can't understand why I've read so many emails on this topic. ABC quite clearly differentiates between slurs and ties (which is more than stave notation does), but some player somewhere interprets ^F-|F as (^F|=F). So? Mend the player. This is the abcusers group, not the software developers' group. I'm just waiting for someone to write a program to play ABC to my sound card, so I can rename it as playQabc.exe (I'm using ABC2Win). That would be a great improvement. The last system I had delivered arrived with the PC speaker unconnected, and I won't be surprised to see the next arrive without one at all. Flos To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html
