Re: [abcusers] multivoice linecontinuation
- Original Message - From: John Chambers [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2003 1:22 AM Subject: Re: [abcusers] multivoice linecontinuation Arent Storm writes: | Someone else wrote: | I used to use it and stopped because I always let the software | determine the line breaks for me. But if I were still expecting to | determine my own line breaks, I might still be doing it that way. | | It was the original syntax, wasn't it ? It worked before the inline | field [M:...] syntax was introduced, so there may be a lot of older | tunes out there that have it. | There *may* be, but are there? | I haven't seen any... It's hard to find. I searched around through my collection, including a lot of abc taken from assorted mailing lists, and I had trouble finding more that a handful of files with M: or K: inside the music, either in the clumsy old form or bracketed. Even in classical music, such changes aren't common. It's much more common to just keep the same meter or key, and draw bar lines or accidentals as you need them. People seem to dislike changing such settings unless the change is for a big chunk of the music. So we're talking about what is a somewhat rare usage. Not much abc will have to change if we change the software's behavior for continuation lines in this case. Of course, if you're one of the very few people who do this sort of thing a lot, you might be a bit annoyed ... I was guessing so too, especially where most abc-tunes seem to be rather simple short (as by nature history of abc) Thanks for searching Arent To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html
Re: [abcusers] multivoice linecontinuation
I searched around through my collection, [...] and I had trouble finding more that a handful of files with M: or K: inside the music, either in the clumsy old form or bracketed. I was guessing so too, especially where most abc-tunes seem to be rather simple short (as by nature history of abc) It's pretty common for even the simplest English folk-songs to vary in metre. I am not quite sure why this one needed to be transcribed that way but it was. Incidentally demonstrating a use of ` I hadn't thought of until I started this: simultaneously aligning ABC notes with the text while doing beaming in the modern way Bernard described here. X:1 T:Scarborough Fair O:Yorkshire C:Collected and arranged by Cecil Sharp %%Copyright: 1916, Oliver Ditson Company S:A Selection of Some Less Well Known Folk-Songs vol. 2 S:compiled by Cyril Winn S:London: Novello and Company, Limited Z:Jack Campin 2003 http://www.purr.demon.co.uk/jack/ M:6/8 L:1/8 Q:3/8=60 Andante P:ABABABC K:G Dorian P:A G`A```G F``GA |Bc`B A2 w:1.Where are you go-ing? To Scar- bor- ough Fair? w:3.Tell her to wash it in yon-* der well, w:5.Tell her to plough it with one*ram's horn, % z|G2 A (BA)G |G``B``c d2 w:Pars-ley, sage,* rose-ma-ry and thyme, w:Pars-ley, sage,* rose-ma-ry and thyme, w:Pars-ley, sage,* rose-ma-ry and thyme, % G|d2 d=e``d```c |dG```G (FG) w:Re- mem- ber me to abonn-y lass there,* w:Where water ne'er sprung nor adrop of rain fell,* w:And sow~it all o- ver with one pep-per corn,* % A |(Bc)```B A```A`G |[M:3/8]D``=E`^F |[M:6/8]G2z z3|| w:For once* she was a true lov-er ofmine. w:And she* shall be a true lov-er ofmine. w:And she* shall be a true lov-er ofmine. % P:B GA```G F``G``A|(Bc)`BA`A w:2.Tell her to make me a cam-* bric shirt,* w:4.Tell her to plough me an ac- re of land,* w:6.Tell her to reap it with~a sick-le of leath-er, % z|G2 A (BA)G |G``B``c d2 w:Pars-ley, sage,* rose-ma-ry and thyme, w:Pars-ley, sage,* rose-ma-ry and thyme, w:Pars-ley, sage,* rose-ma-ry and thyme, % G |d`d``d =edc |d2 G F`G w:With-out an-y need-le or thread work'd init, w:Be- tween* the sea and the salt seastrand,* w:And tie it all up with a tom- tit's feath-er, % A |(Bc) B A``A`G |[M:3/8]D``=E`^F |[M:6/8]G2z z3|| w:And she* shall be a truelov-er ofmine. w:And she* shall be a truelov-er ofmine. w:And she* shall be a truelov-er ofmine. % P:C GA```G FG``A |B```c``B A3| w:7.Tell her to gath-er it all in a sack, % G2 A (BA)G |G``B``c d2 w:Pars-ley, sage,* rose-ma-ry and thyme, % G |d```d``d =ed``c|d```G```G(FG) w:And car-ry it home on a but-ter-fly's back, % A |Bc```B A``A`G |[M:3/8]D``=E`^F |[M:6/8]G3-G2z|| w:And then she shall be a true lov-er ofmine. BarFly doesn't do too badly with that - its most serious problem is that it doesn't put the playing order anywhere in the staff notation display. It would look better in landscape format, but I can't tell BarFly to open up the staff spacing enough to stop the text colliding with the staves (5 per page is the minimum). The line numbers are an icky hack. There ought to be some way to integrate that with the P: playing order specification. - Jack Campin: 11 Third Street, Newtongrange, Midlothian EH22 4PU; 0131 6604760 http://www.purr.demon.co.uk/jack * food intolerance data recipes, Mac logic fonts, Scots traditional music files, and my CD-ROM Embro, Embro. -- off-list mail to j-c rather than abc at this site, please -- To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html
Re: [abcusers] multivoice linecontinuation
Jack Campin wrote: The line numbers are an icky hack. There ought to be some way to integrate that with the P: playing order specification. That could get quite complicated. However, just putting the line number before the first word of the line would work OK if the program was smart enough to recognise it as a number and align it with the left of the staff instead of with the first note. There's a suggestion to that effect in the new standard and I'll probably do it for a future version. Phil Taylor To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html
Re: [abcusers] multivoice linecontinuation
- Original Message - From: Phil Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2003 6:21 PM Subject: Re: [abcusers] multivoice linecontinuation Arent Storm wrote: Where it comes to to line continuation in multivoice and/or in-line lyrics things can get (unneccessarily) complicated. IMO line continuation should be allowed only for single voice. For instance, the nicely text-layed-out multivoice canzonetta.abc from the 2.0 standard would become unreadable with line continuation used. Yes, I'm inclined to agree. The only exception should be where there is some limitation on line length (e.g. the tune is going to be emailed), then continuation should only be used to continue on the following line. I'd much prefer the ! for those (rare?) cases that you'd want to override the algoritmical linebreaks, and forget about linecontinuation at all, but I'm afraid that I'll be standing on many toes... Also, when using abc to store complex scores, I think that human readablity is of very small importance, if at all; it will be uncomprehensable anyway. Not all multivoice scores are impossible to read. Jack Campin has some beautifully-constructed abcs of tunes in two or three voices. Not impossible, but in general there will be very little need for it, I guess that sight-readers of ABC will haveno need for it, so it'll be more otr less pointless to try. The 3 different approaches of writing down multivoice I dislike. I would very much prefer one approach the: voice by voice Sight readers will be thus allowed to read their part as easy as they're used to. V1: abc|abc|abc|abc def|def|def:| V2: Abc|Abc|Abc|Abc Def|Def|Def:| over [V1]:abc|abc|abc|abc| [V2]:Abc|Abc|Abc|Abc| [V1]:def|def|def:| [V2]:Def|Def|Def:| Would there be abc-sight-reading conductors? and (least) V1: abc|abc|abc|abc| V2: Abc|Abc|Abc|Abc| V1: def|def|def:| V2: Def|Def|Def:| compatible but useless IMO I'd prefer them in the order 2,3,1. The first is what MusiCAD is exporting, while importing all three. As said before - in multivoice scores - human readability won't have to be/should not be/cannot be a major issue. BarFly won't be able to display the output from MusiCAD, then. Why not give your users the option of all three? If MusiCAD prints music it must know where the line ends should come, so options 2 and 3 should be possible. Its not impossible, only requires a major rewrite of the abc-writing module I'll be (trying) to comply to the upcoming standard though, but as long as option 1 actually is in the standard I'm complying already... Arent To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html
Re: [abcusers] multivoice linecontinuation
From: I. Oppenheim [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2003 6:36 PM Subject: Re: [abcusers] multivoice linecontinuation On Tue, 22 Jul 2003, Phil Taylor wrote: Yes, I'm inclined to agree. The only exception should be where there is some limitation on line length (e.g. the tune is going to be emailed), then continuation should only be used to continue on the following line. I would prefer it STRONGLY that the end-of-line backspace would always mean: continue on the next physical line of music. YES However it seems that there is legacy code around that expects these lines: % variant A G2G2A4 | (FEF) D (A2G) G|\ M:4/4 K:C c2c2(B2c2) | to be interpreted as equivalent to: % variant B G2G2A4 | (FEF) D (A2G) G| [M:4/4] [K:C] c2c2(B2c2) | So I would like to know from you all, if any of you would have serious problems if from now on, backward compatibility with variant A would be discontinued in favour of a simpler continuation mechanism. Hmmm... Let's please forget about the headaching variant A % variant 2 [V1]:abc|abc|abc|abc| [V2]:Abc|Abc|Abc|Abc| [V1]:def|def|def:| [V2]:Def|Def|Def:| I'd prefer them in the order 2,3,1. I also prefer variant 2. Anyone who strongly disagrees? I must note, however, that it should be [V:1] and not [V1]: ! Ooops (of course) Groeten, Insgelijks ;-) Irwin Oppenheim Atent To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html
Re: [abcusers] multivoice linecontinuation
From: Laura Conrad [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2003 6:52 PM Subject: Re: [abcusers] multivoice linecontinuation Irwin == I Oppenheim [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Irwin % variant A Irwin G2G2A4 | (FEF) D (A2G) G|\ Irwin M:4/4 Irwin K:C Irwin c2c2(B2c2) | I think this is actually an example of a recommended syntax in some pretty widespread documentation. (Probably something that comes with abcMIDI or abc2ps.) So you can deprecate it, but you aren't going to be able to not handle it, if you want to deal with what's out there. Is it used often? Arent To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html
Re: [abcusers] multivoice linecontinuation
- Original Message - From: Jack Campin [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2003 1:41 AM Subject: Re: [abcusers] multivoice linecontinuation As said before - in multivoice scores - human readability won't have to be/should not be/cannot be a major issue. Why bother with ABC at all, then? Look at the Atalanta Fugiens scores on my webpage. The way I have laid them out, anybody - including a blind person - can read them vertically and figure out the harmony at every point. Or this (needs a window with 96 columns, fixed-width font): X:5 T:Meine Seel' erhebt den Herren S:Bach/Riemenschneider #358 C:J.S. Bach M:C L:1/4 V:1 V:2 V:3 bass V:4 bass K:GMin V:1 d2 f2 |d d d d |e2d2 |c2c2 |HB4 | V:2 G2 F2 |F ^F G A |G F2 G |G2F2 |HF4 | V:3 B,2 C2 |D C B, A,|B, C2B,|B,2 A,2|HD4 | V:4 G,2 A,2|B, A, G,^F,|G, A, B, G,|E, C, F,2|HB,,4| % V:1 d2 f2 |c c c G |B2A2 |HG4 | V:2 F4 |F F E G |G2 ^F2 |HD4 | V:3 B,4|A, C C C |D3 C |HB,4 | V:4 B,2 D,2|F, A, G, E,|D, C, D,2 |HG,,4| % V:1 d2 f2 |d d d d |e2d2 |c2c2 |HB4 | V:2 G2 A2 |F3 ^F |G A B2- |B B B A|HF4 | V:3 B,2 C2 |D C D2|D C B, F |G2F C|HD4 | V:4 G,2 F,2|B, C B, A,|B, C F, D,|E, C, F,2|HB,,4| % V:1 d2 f2 |c c c c |c2G A|B2 A2 | G4-|G4- |G4 |H G4 |] V:2 z4 |F G A B |c2C2 |D2 D C |=B, D G F |E4- |E2 D C |H D4 |] V:3 z2 F, G,|A, B, C2- |C D =E ^F|G2=F E | D =B, C D-|D G, C2- |C2 =B, A,|H=B,4 |] V:4 B,, C, D, E,|F,3 G,|A, B, C2 |B,, C, D, E,| F,2 E, D,|C, D, E, F,|G,4 |H G,,4|] (Note, this is deliberately *not* designed for good staff notation output - I've put each line of the chorale as a separate system in the ABC source, the last one would be denser than the first three). I guess I'm to use a non proportional font to benefit optimally... ;-) If you can't make your ABC source human-readable you shouldn't be using it. If all you want is staff notation, Finale or Sibelius will do it better. At some expense... It's the other uses of ABC that make it unique, and most of those uses depend on readability. I'm just using abc as 'second language' enabling my users to use already written abc, and to provide the abc-community with the MusiCAD user groups files http://muzamus.dse.nl (dutch) Aremt To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html
Re: [abcusers] multivoice linecontinuation
Arent == Arent Storm [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Also, when using abc to store complex scores, I think that human readablity is of very small importance, if at all; it will be uncomprehensable anyway. Not all multivoice scores are impossible to read. Jack Campin has some beautifully-constructed abcs of tunes in two or three voices. Arent Not impossible, but in general there will be very little Arent need for it, I guess that sight-readers of ABC will haveno Arent need for it, so it'll be more otr less pointless to try. Maybe there aren't that many people who sight-read ABC to perform, but presumably everybody (who isn't using some kind of GUI interface) reads their own ABC to correct errors. So making it unreadable is a way of making it unusable, because you'll have to get everything right the first time you type it, and I never do. I started using ABC instead of musixtex because I got eyestrain whenever I tried to read the musixtex input, and I continue to use it for data entry instead of lilypond because I find it faster to both type and read. If this advantage goes away, I'll figure out how to type lilypond and use templates for the untypeable stuff. -- 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] multivoice linecontinuation
Arent == Arent Storm [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Irwin % variant A Irwin G2G2A4 | (FEF) D (A2G) G|\ Irwin M:4/4 Irwin K:C Irwin c2c2(B2c2) | I think this is actually an example of a recommended syntax in some pretty widespread documentation. (Probably something that comes with abcMIDI or abc2ps.) So you can deprecate it, but you aren't going to be able to not handle it, if you want to deal with what's out there. Arent Is it used often? I used to use it and stopped because I always let the software determine the line breaks for me. But if I were still expecting to determine my own line breaks, I might still be doing it that way. -- 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] multivoice linecontinuation
On Wed, Jul 23, 2003 at 10:52:38AM -0400, Laura Conrad wrote: Arent == Arent Storm [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Also, when using abc to store complex scores, I think that human readablity is of very small importance, if at all; it will be uncomprehensable anyway. Not all multivoice scores are impossible to read. Jack Campin has some beautifully-constructed abcs of tunes in two or three voices. Arent Not impossible, but in general there will be very little Arent need for it, I guess that sight-readers of ABC will haveno Arent need for it, so it'll be more otr less pointless to try. Maybe there aren't that many people who sight-read ABC to perform, but presumably everybody (who isn't using some kind of GUI interface) reads their own ABC to correct errors. So making it unreadable is a way of making it unusable, because you'll have to get everything right the first time you type it, and I never do. That's a good point. Me too. Finding my way to a typoed note (I tend to make out-by-an-octave errors) is one of the, er, big minor irritations, and time-wasters, of typing tunes up. It helps a lot to have the ABC laid out in a comprehensible way. This is why I may well find myself gravitating towards the ! staffbreak, now it's available in abcm2ps. -- Richard Robinson The whole plan hinged upon the natural curiosity of potatoes - S. Lem To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html
Re: [abcusers] multivoice linecontinuation
On Wed, Jul 23, 2003 at 10:56:15AM -0400, Laura Conrad wrote: Arent == Arent Storm [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Irwin % variant A Irwin G2G2A4 | (FEF) D (A2G) G|\ Irwin M:4/4 Irwin K:C Irwin c2c2(B2c2) | I think this is actually an example of a recommended syntax in some pretty widespread documentation. (Probably something that comes with abcMIDI or abc2ps.) So you can deprecate it, but you aren't going to be able to not handle it, if you want to deal with what's out there. Arent Is it used often? I used to use it and stopped because I always let the software determine the line breaks for me. But if I were still expecting to determine my own line breaks, I might still be doing it that way. It was the original syntax, wasn't it ? It worked before the inline field [M:...] syntax was introduced, so there may be a lot of older tunes out there that have it. -- Richard Robinson The whole plan hinged upon the natural curiosity of potatoes - S. Lem To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html
Re: [abcusers] multivoice linecontinuation
On Wed, Jul 23, 2003 at 04:03:36PM +0100, Richard Robinson wrote: On Wed, Jul 23, 2003 at 10:52:38AM -0400, Laura Conrad wrote: Arent == Arent Storm [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Also, when using abc to store complex scores, I think that human readablity is of very small importance, if at all; it will be uncomprehensable anyway. Not all multivoice scores are impossible to read. Jack Campin has some beautifully-constructed abcs of tunes in two or three voices. Arent Not impossible, but in general there will be very little Arent need for it, I guess that sight-readers of ABC will haveno Arent need for it, so it'll be more otr less pointless to try. Maybe there aren't that many people who sight-read ABC to perform, but presumably everybody (who isn't using some kind of GUI interface) reads their own ABC to correct errors. So making it unreadable is a way of making it unusable, because you'll have to get everything right the first time you type it, and I never do. That's a good point. Me too. Finding my way to a typoed note (I tend to make out-by-an-octave errors) is one of the, er, big minor irritations, and time-wasters, of typing tunes up. It helps a lot to have the ABC laid out in a comprehensible way. This is why I may well find myself gravitating towards the ! staffbreak, now it's available in abcm2ps. Which makes me think ... there was a bit of chat about various sorts of abc users, what distinctions are meaningful, etc. Maybe one way to break this down is that, people who type up lots of tunes, or big material, tend to notice things like this, because cumulatively they add up to a lot of aggravation, whereas people who type up one or two tunes once in a while would hardly notice it. -- Richard Robinson The whole plan hinged upon the natural curiosity of potatoes - S. Lem To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html
Re: [abcusers] multivoice linecontinuation
- Original Message - From: Richard Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2003 5:05 PM Subject: Re: [abcusers] multivoice linecontinuation On Wed, Jul 23, 2003 at 10:56:15AM -0400, Laura Conrad wrote: Arent == Arent Storm [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Irwin % variant A Irwin G2G2A4 | (FEF) D (A2G) G|\ Irwin M:4/4 Irwin K:C Irwin c2c2(B2c2) | I think this is actually an example of a recommended syntax in some pretty widespread documentation. (Probably something that comes with abcMIDI or abc2ps.) So you can deprecate it, but you aren't going to be able to not handle it, if you want to deal with what's out there. Arent Is it used often? I used to use it and stopped because I always let the software determine the line breaks for me. But if I were still expecting to determine my own line breaks, I might still be doing it that way. It was the original syntax, wasn't it ? It worked before the inline field [M:...] syntax was introduced, so there may be a lot of older tunes out there that have it. -- Richard Robinson The whole plan hinged upon the natural curiosity of potatoes - S. Lem 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] multivoice linecontinuation
Arent Storm writes: | Someone else wrote: | I used to use it and stopped because I always let the software | determine the line breaks for me. But if I were still expecting to | determine my own line breaks, I might still be doing it that way. | | It was the original syntax, wasn't it ? It worked before the inline | field [M:...] syntax was introduced, so there may be a lot of older | tunes out there that have it. | There *may* be, but are there? | I haven't seen any... It's hard to find. I searched around through my collection, including a lot of abc taken from assorted mailing lists, and I had trouble finding more that a handful of files with M: or K: inside the music, either in the clumsy old form or bracketed. Even in classical music, such changes aren't common. It's much more common to just keep the same meter or key, and draw bar lines or accidentals as you need them. People seem to dislike changing such settings unless the change is for a big chunk of the music. So we're talking about what is a somewhat rare usage. Not much abc will have to change if we change the software's behavior for continuation lines in this case. Of course, if you're one of the very few people who do this sort of thing a lot, you might be a bit annoyed ... To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html
Re: [abcusers] multivoice linecontinuation
It was the original syntax, wasn't it ? It worked before the inline field [M:...] syntax was introduced, so there may be a lot of older tunes out there that have it. There *may* be, but are there? I haven't seen any... Yes, there are. Cheers, John Walsh To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html
Re: [abcusers] multivoice linecontinuation
On Wed, Jul 23, 2003 at 04:17:53PM -0700, John Walsh wrote: It was the original syntax, wasn't it ? It worked before the inline field [M:...] syntax was introduced, so there may be a lot of older tunes out there that have it. There *may* be, but are there? I haven't seen any... Yes, there are. :-) Richard Robinson The whole plan hinged upon the natural curiosity of potatoes - S. Lem To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html
[abcusers] multivoice linecontinuation
Where it comes to to line continuation in multivoice and/or in-line lyrics things can get (unneccessarily) complicated. IMO line continuation should be allowed only for single voice. For instance, the nicely text-layed-out multivoice canzonetta.abc from the 2.0 standard would become unreadable with line continuation used. Also, when using abc to store complex scores, I think that human readablity is of very small importance, if at all; it will be uncomprehensable anyway. The 3 different approaches of writing down multivoice I dislike. I would very much prefer one approach the: voice by voice V1: abc|abc|abc|abc def|def|def:| V2: Abc|Abc|Abc|Abc Def|Def|Def:| over [V1]:abc|abc|abc|abc| [V2]:Abc|Abc|Abc|Abc| [V1]:def|def|def:| [V2]:Def|Def|Def:| and (least) V1: abc|abc|abc|abc| V2: Abc|Abc|Abc|Abc| V1: def|def|def:| V2: Def|Def|Def:| The first is what MusiCAD is exporting, while importing all three. As said before - in multivoice scores - human readability won't have to be/should not be/cannot be a major issue. Arent To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html
Re: [abcusers] multivoice linecontinuation
Arent Storm wrote: Where it comes to to line continuation in multivoice and/or in-line lyrics things can get (unneccessarily) complicated. IMO line continuation should be allowed only for single voice. For instance, the nicely text-layed-out multivoice canzonetta.abc from the 2.0 standard would become unreadable with line continuation used. Yes, I'm inclined to agree. The only exception should be where there is some limitation on line length (e.g. the tune is going to be emailed), then continuation should only be used to continue on the following line. Also, when using abc to store complex scores, I think that human readablity is of very small importance, if at all; it will be uncomprehensable anyway. Not all multivoice scores are impossible to read. Jack Campin has some beautifully-constructed abcs of tunes in two or three voices. The 3 different approaches of writing down multivoice I dislike. I would very much prefer one approach the: voice by voice V1: abc|abc|abc|abc def|def|def:| V2: Abc|Abc|Abc|Abc Def|Def|Def:| over [V1]:abc|abc|abc|abc| [V2]:Abc|Abc|Abc|Abc| [V1]:def|def|def:| [V2]:Def|Def|Def:| and (least) V1: abc|abc|abc|abc| V2: Abc|Abc|Abc|Abc| V1: def|def|def:| V2: Def|Def|Def:| I'd prefer them in the order 2,3,1. The first is what MusiCAD is exporting, while importing all three. As said before - in multivoice scores - human readability won't have to be/should not be/cannot be a major issue. BarFly won't be able to display the output from MusiCAD, then. Why not give your users the option of all three? If MusiCAD prints music it must know where the line ends should come, so options 2 and 3 should be possible. Phil Taylor To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html
Re: [abcusers] multivoice linecontinuation
On Tue, 22 Jul 2003, Phil Taylor wrote: Yes, I'm inclined to agree. The only exception should be where there is some limitation on line length (e.g. the tune is going to be emailed), then continuation should only be used to continue on the following line. I would prefer it STRONGLY that the end-of-line backspace would always mean: continue on the next physical line of music. However it seems that there is legacy code around that expects these lines: % variant A G2G2A4 | (FEF) D (A2G) G|\ M:4/4 K:C c2c2(B2c2) | to be interpreted as equivalent to: % variant B G2G2A4 | (FEF) D (A2G) G| [M:4/4] [K:C] c2c2(B2c2) | So I would like to know from you all, if any of you would have serious problems if from now on, backward compatibility with variant A would be discontinued in favour of a simpler continuation mechanism. % variant 2 [V1]:abc|abc|abc|abc| [V2]:Abc|Abc|Abc|Abc| [V1]:def|def|def:| [V2]:Def|Def|Def:| I'd prefer them in the order 2,3,1. I also prefer variant 2. Anyone who strongly disagrees? I must note, however, that it should be [V:1] and not [V1]: ! Groeten, Irwin Oppenheim [EMAIL PROTECTED] ~~~* Chazzanut Online: http://www.joods.nl/~chazzanut/ To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html
Re: [abcusers] multivoice linecontinuation
Irwin == I Oppenheim [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Irwin % variant A Irwin G2G2A4 | (FEF) D (A2G) G|\ Irwin M:4/4 Irwin K:C Irwin c2c2(B2c2) | I think this is actually an example of a recommended syntax in some pretty widespread documentation. (Probably something that comes with abcMIDI or abc2ps.) So you can deprecate it, but you aren't going to be able to not handle it, if you want to deal with what's out there. -- 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
