Re: [abcusers] Clarification wanted on abc draft standard 2.0 (fwd)

[Richard Robinson]

On Sun, Oct 12, 2003 at 02:17:14AM +, John Chambers wrote:
> Richard Robinson writes:
> | On Sat, Oct 04, 2003 at 03:11:33PM +, John Chambers wrote:
> | >
> | > In general, it seems that rests should almost always  be  treated  as
> | > notes.   The only way they're different is that a rest doesn't have a
> | > pitch.
> |
> | And is tricky to play staccato ?
> 
> Well, you could make the rest very short,  and  immediately
> play  another note.  Or, if you're a John Cage fan ...

... you could call that a strathspey ?

> (Sorry it took so long to reply.  I've been on the road for
> a week. Now I'm in Mammoth Lakes, California, where there's
> one of the few motels that actually has the Internet access
> that  they advertise.  Who knows when I'll be able to reply
> to a reply to this reply ...)

On a subject of such importance, too. Heck.

-- 
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] Clarification wanted on abc draft standard 2.0 (fwd)

[John Chambers]

Richard Robinson writes:
| On Sat, Oct 04, 2003 at 03:11:33PM +, John Chambers wrote:
| >
| > In general, it seems that rests should almost always  be  treated  as
| > notes.   The only way they're different is that a rest doesn't have a
| > pitch.
|
| And is tricky to play staccato ?

Well, you could make the rest very short,  and  immediately
play  another note.  Or, if you're a John Cage fan, you can
play a shole string  of  staccatto  rests,  but  slur  them
together into one long rest.

;-)

(Sorry it took so long to reply.  I've been on the road for
a week. Now I'm in Mammoth Lakes, California, where there's
one of the few motels that actually has the Internet access
that  they advertise.  Who knows when I'll be able to reply
to a reply to this reply ...)



--
   O
 <:#/> John Chambers
   +   <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
  / \  <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html

Re: [abcusers] Clarification wanted on abc draft standard 2.0 (fwd)

[Barry Say]

On 4 Oct 2003, John Chambers wrote:


> I'd guess that this is fairly common. It's likely that some abc tools
> that handle w:  lines now do align syllables with rests,  but  nobody
> has ever noticed.
> 
> If  this is true, then making this the official behavior would hardly
> break anything. And those songs would already be semi-broken, because
> there  hasn't  been an official standard for this and different tools
> probably do handle it differently right now.
> 

I dont believe that ABC 2.0 represents a widely accepted standard 
yet, rather I think that the list just got tired of the discussion

This is exactly the sort of situation for which I suggested an 
extension to the I: field in my proposed extensions to ABC.
(www.nspipes.co.uk/barry/abc2proposal.html.)

I: _switch align lyrics to rests
or I:SWITCH align lyrics to rests
or I:SWITCH align_lyrics_to_rests

(The above three forms are alternatives)

The converse would be 

I:SWITCH no_lyrics_on_rests

I would prefer to see the new standard allowing lyrics on rests (but 
not barlines) and allowing the above switch for the rare occasions 
when old files need to be interpreted. 

I agree with the correspondent who would rather not introduce 
gratuitous percussion notation.

Barry Say
To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html

Re: [abcusers] Clarification wanted on abc draft standard 2.0 (fwd)

[Richard Robinson]

On Sat, Oct 04, 2003 at 03:11:33PM +, John Chambers wrote:
> 
> In general, it seems that rests should almost always  be  treated  as
> notes.   The only way they're different is that a rest doesn't have a
> pitch.

And is tricky to play staccato ?

-- 
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] Clarification wanted on abc draft standard 2.0 (fwd)

[John Chambers]

Stephen Kellett comments:
| In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Phil Taylor
| <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
| >>a) Symbols can be on notes, rests and bar lines
| >
| >Bad Idea.  This breaks all existing programs which support aligned words,
| >and any existing files which include aligned words and rests.
|
| Forgive my ignorance, why is this a bad idea? Have I misunderstood the
| spec? I'm writing my parser/player/display program. I've already
| implemented the above and it was not hard to achieve (I can make the
| symbols attach to anything in the markup, pretty much).

I did a quick check through the couple hundred tunes with  lyrics  in
my  collection,  to find cases where matching lyrics with rests would
break the alignment.  I couldn't find any.

I think the reason is that, as is  done  in  most  "fake-book"  style
songbooks,  my files rarely contain any rests within a phrase.  There
are rests at the ends of phrases, but I generally use bar lines there
to  handle the usual problem of tied notes etc.  So the next phrase's
first word is forced to be after a bar line, and any ties  and  rests
before the bar line are skipped.

I'd guess that this is fairly common. It's likely that some abc tools
that handle w:  lines now do align syllables with rests,  but  nobody
has ever noticed.

If  this is true, then making this the official behavior would hardly
break anything. And those songs would already be semi-broken, because
there  hasn't  been an official standard for this and different tools
probably do handle it differently right now.



--
   O
 <:#/> John Chambers
   +   <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
  / \  <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html

Re: [abcusers] Clarification wanted on abc draft standard 2.0 (fwd)

[John Chambers]

Barry Say says:
| > Under what circumstances would you want a word or symbol in the lyrics
| > to align with a rest?
| >
| I have seen this in the case where words are spoken are shouted or
| indications such as (clap) (stamp). Sophisticates  may well use
| percussion notation rather than rests in the melody line, but I have
| seen both. It seems more flexible to allow this rather than forbid. I
| think the question is why should it be forbidden?

Yeah; I have a Finnish/Swedish tune in my collection where there is a
rest and you're supposed to shout "Hej!". I get it on the page now by
"abusing" the chord notation.  It would make more sense to use  a  w:
line, of course. But it would only work if the word could be attached
to a rest.  In this case, the only word in the tune is on a rest.

In general, it seems that rests should almost always  be  treated  as
notes.   The only way they're different is that a rest doesn't have a
pitch.


--
   O
 <:#/> John Chambers
   +   <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
  / \  <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html

Re: [abcusers] Clarification wanted on abc draft standard 2.0 (fwd)

[Stephen Kellett]

My program will be backwards compatible. If you've aligned your words on
notes that is fine. Using my app you can align on notes/rests/barlines
as the spec dictates.
How will it be backward-compatible?
It will be backwards compatible because you align where the spec says 
they should align. A standard ABC file written to abc 1.7.6 aligns 
against notes. No different to ABC2.0 unless the person writing the ABC 
files explicitly goes to align against rests.

However see below, as I think I unwittingly caused more confusion that I 
intended (not hard, I didn't intend any :-)

These are two different and totally
incompatible sets of behaviour.
Not so, you misunderstand me (you "default" statement is not what I 
intend).

I don't know what abc2.0 draft you are reading but it doesn't say
anything about "note groups" under section 5, Lyrics:
You are correct. Part of my confusion comes from the section about 
Symbols (which can align on notes/rests/note groups etc, then the 
section on s: which says follow the same as w: and I had then 
interpreted that that also meant s: would support the same alignment 
options as for explicit symbols, and by inference that w: did the same. 
I was wrong (or at least I think I am wrong).

You are suggesting that by default lyrics should align with bar lines
and rests, so your program should display it like this:
No I wasn't, I was saying you could align against any of 
notes/rests/etc. I don't know how you could make the assumption that the 
default is rests. I was assuming that it was specifiable down to the 
word. I was wrong. Its a moot point as I've already decided an earlier 
part of my understanding was wrong.

Despite the fact I've concluded my understanding was incorrect, what 
about the individuals that have posted stating they have files with 
alignment on rests? Should the spec cater for them? I think so. Which 
raises the question, how will that be done?

Stephen
--
Stephen Kellett
Object Media Limitedhttp://www.objmedia.demon.co.uk
RSI Information:http://www.objmedia.demon.co.uk/rsi.html
To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html

Re: [abcusers] Clarification wanted on abc draft standard 2.0 (fwd)

[Phil Taylor]

Stephen Kellett wrote:

>In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Phil Taylor
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
>>>In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Phil Taylor
>>><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
>a) Symbols can be on notes, rests and bar lines

Bad Idea.  This breaks all existing programs which support aligned words,
and any existing files which include aligned words and rests.
>>
>>>Forgive my ignorance, why is this a bad idea? Have I misunderstood the
>>>spec? I'm writing my parser/player/display program. I've already
>>>implemented the above and it was not hard to achieve (I can make the
>>>symbols attach to anything in the markup, pretty much).
>>
>>
>>Then anyone who uses your program to make abcs with aligned words will
>>find that their files don't work properly with any other software.
>>Likewise they will find that in any files they download from the net
>>the lyrics won't align properly.
>
>As far as I can see this doesn't answer the second question (am I
>mistaken, or are you just disagreeing with ABC2.0 and not my
>interpretation of it), and only states that the proposed ABC2.0 spec is
>more advanced than the programs to which you refer (but do not name) in
>their current state.

The second question was "Have I misunderstood the spec?".  I don't think
so.  In fact the spec (see below) is ambiguous, so you can be forgiven
for taking a different interpretation to everybody else, provided that
you realise the consequences.

>This is no more different than putting an ABC file
>with V: voicing into ABCWin - it doesn't like it. I don't think anyone
>is claiming ABCWin is broken because the standard has advanced past its
>capabilities.

It's very different. The introduction of the V: field represented a new
extension to abc.  It did not invalidate abc2win's existing data files,
and its use could be avoided by newer programs if the user wanted to
achieve backwards compatibility with abc2win.  And it was a very important
extension in that it made available whole swathes of music which could
previously not have been represented in abc.  What you are proposing is
not a new extension, but a change in the interpretation of an existing
one.  This means that programs which work in the way you suggest will
interpret existing files differently, and not in the way that their
authors intended.  And all of this just to enable the alignment of
lyrics with rests and bar lines?  That's a whole can of worms being
opened to achieve an infinitesimal extra feature.

>My program will be backwards compatible. If you've aligned your words on
>notes that is fine. Using my app you can align on notes/rests/barlines
>as the spec dictates.

How will it be backward-compatible?  These are two different and totally
incompatible sets of behaviour.  You could give your users the option
of interpreting aligned lyrics one way or the other, but it would be
quite difficult to make this choice automatic.

>I made a mistake in my previous posting. The ABC2.0 draft spec actually
>includes "note groups" and doesn't specifically disallow grace notes.
>Given that the spec does not define "note group" (or if it does I
>haven't found it), I am not sure if a note group is
>a) ABC
>which is notes next to each other
>b) [ABC]
>which is chords
>c) {abc}
>which is grace notes - these are clearly "grouped" in one sense.
>d) either of (a) (b) (c)
\
I don't know what abc2.0 draft you are reading but it doesn't say
anything about "note groups" under section 5, Lyrics:

-
5. Lyrics

The W field (uppercase W) can be used for lyrics to be printed separately
below the tune.

The w field (lowercase w) in the body, supplies a line of lyrics to be
aligned syllable by syllable below the previous line of notes. Syllables
are not aligned on grace notes and tied notes are treated as two separate
notes; slurred or beamed notes are also treated as separate notes in this
context. Note that lyrics are always aligned to the beginning of the
preceding music line.

It is possible for a music line to be followed by several w fields. This
can be used together with the part notation to create verses. The first w
field is used the first time that part is played, then the second and so
on.

The lyrics lines are treated as an ABC string. Within the lyrics, the words
should be separated by one or more spaces and to correctly align them the
following symbols may be used:

-
(hyphen) break between syllables within a word
_
(underscore) last syllable is to be held for an extra note
*
one note is skipped (i.e. * is equivalent to a blank syllable)
~
appears as a space; aligns multiple words under one note
\-
appears as hyphen; aligns multiple syllables under one note
|
advances to the next bar

Note that if '-' is preceded by a space or another hyphen, it is regarded
as a separate syllable.

When an underscore is used next to a hyphen, the hyphen must always come first.

If there are not as many syllables as notes in a measure, typing a '|'
automatically advanc

Re: [abcusers] Clarification wanted on abc draft standard 2.0 (fwd)

[Bernard Hill]

In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Stephen Kellett
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
>
>I can't see the value in (c), especially if you've listened to music 
>with grace notes, putting symbols to accent them even more is 
>"optimisitic" from the playing point of view, and from the singing point 
>of view, well...

One of my notation books recommends that the slur between an
acciaccatura and its "target" always be omitted as it is almost always
indicated. And if you do want the acciaccatura detached then you should
put a staccato mark on it.

And as for singing, grace notes in my experience are always
appoggiaturas. So since they have a normal duration there is no reason
why they can't have accents (although I've never actually seen one) and
it's perfectly possible for a singer to articulate it.

Bernard Hill
Braeburn Software
Author of Music Publisher system
Music Software written by musicians for musicians
http://www.braeburn.co.uk
Selkirk, Scotland

To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html

Re: [abcusers] Clarification wanted on abc draft standard 2.0 (fwd)

[Jon Freeman]

From: "Stephen Kellett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

> >There are lots of examples of songs with aligned words at
> >.
>
> OK, I think this is examples of files conforming to 1.7.6.

There are bits where I must admit that I have been lax on (e.g. not that it
is part of the standard but I'd promised to split some our long line abcs
and never got round to) but overall we have aimed to and still want to have
our abc compatible with standards and have made the effort to seek advice
here, adive that has been freely and helpfuly given.

I'm not sure that with only around 350 songs, we could be considerd to be a
significant abc site but we are trying and learning at the same time.

My own role within the site is different to a few weeks ago as I've decided
to take a back seat in terms of admin duties and overal control is now in
the hands of Pip, my mother, and I mostly just try to help on the "tech"
side.  (There is plenty of other help there too).

Having set the limit of my scope within folkinfo, I would say that having
gone even so far, I'd prefer it if lyrics are not underligned under rests as
even now, it would involve some work. That said, if a need could really be
justified and incorporated into 2.0, I think we would follow. My concerns
are:

1: That any software we run, currently abcm2ps and abc2midi work correctly
with the abc we hold.

2: That in time, we will be able to point people to reliable abc software
that will render tunes correctly (I think as it stands without the long
lines which can look clumsy, just about everything we have will work with
current versions of abcm2ps and with barfly) . I'd like to think that in
time we can offer a bulk download of everything we hold in abc format as a
single text file.

To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html

Re: [abcusers] Clarification wanted on abc draft standard 2.0 (fwd)

[Stephen Kellett]

In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Phil Taylor 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Phil Taylor
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
a) Symbols can be on notes, rests and bar lines
Bad Idea.  This breaks all existing programs which support aligned words,
and any existing files which include aligned words and rests.

Forgive my ignorance, why is this a bad idea? Have I misunderstood the
spec? I'm writing my parser/player/display program. I've already
implemented the above and it was not hard to achieve (I can make the
symbols attach to anything in the markup, pretty much).


Then anyone who uses your program to make abcs with aligned words will
find that their files don't work properly with any other software.
Likewise they will find that in any files they download from the net
the lyrics won't align properly.
As far as I can see this doesn't answer the second question (am I 
mistaken, or are you just disagreeing with ABC2.0 and not my 
interpretation of it), and only states that the proposed ABC2.0 spec is 
more advanced than the programs to which you refer (but do not name) in 
their current state. This is no more different than putting an ABC file 
with V: voicing into ABCWin - it doesn't like it. I don't think anyone 
is claiming ABCWin is broken because the standard has advanced past its 
capabilities.

My program will be backwards compatible. If you've aligned your words on 
notes that is fine. Using my app you can align on notes/rests/barlines 
as the spec dictates.

I made a mistake in my previous posting. The ABC2.0 draft spec actually 
includes "note groups" and doesn't specifically disallow grace notes. 
Given that the spec does not define "note group" (or if it does I 
haven't found it), I am not sure if a note group is
a) ABC
which is notes next to each other
b) [ABC]
which is chords
c) {abc}
which is grace notes - these are clearly "grouped" in one sense.
d) either of (a) (b) (c)

I can't see the value in (c), especially if you've listened to music 
with grace notes, putting symbols to accent them even more is 
"optimisitic" from the playing point of view, and from the singing point 
of view, well...

Putting symbols on notes in a chord would be counter productive, but you 
could just stack them above/below each other as the spec states for 
multiple symbols per note. Given that a rest/invisible rest/inaudible 
rest are all forms of note (if you look at the spec for a note) and 
chords are groups of notes, my previous posting omitted groups of notes 
because the fundamental unit in my approach is a note. Hence to me 
groups of notes implies notes anyway.

If "note group" means (a) I would think that it means align on the first 
note of the group. If (b) I'd assume just align on the chord.

I couldn't see (from reading 1.7.6 and 2.0) what the difference was,
except that 2.0 provided me with more information to work with (i.e. 2.0
stated it was notes/rests/bar lines, where as I don't 1.7.6 stating that
(implying it was everything).
As far as I can see all of the existing standards mention only lyrics
aligning with notes, and while they specifically state that gracenotes are
not included, make no mention of rests or bar lines.  Existing software
(e.g. BarFly and abcm2ps) interpret this to mean that rests and bar
lines are to be skipped.
Admittedly the standards are a little ambiguous
here, but there is a well-established precedent, and lots of files which
will be broken if you make a different interpretation.
I don't see how extending a definition breaks things. The old files will 
still play/display correctly, and the existing software such as the two 
you mention (especially BarFly, a commercial app) will be extended to 
handle the new standard. In any other walk of life we accept that new 
standards require backwards compatibility, and expect the software 
vendors to provide this.

I want to implement the spec as written. I've already commented (in a 
different thread) that I think the spec(s) (all that I have seen) are 
too loose. ABC2.0 drafts states notes/rests/barlines/groups of notes, 
etc. I'm as happy to see barlines struck out as I am to see them 
retained. I don't have any strong feeling either way. The software, as 
written, can handle either outcome.

people want. My understanding was notes/rests/bar lines. If I've
misunderstood, please tell me and provide clarification as to what the
standard is.
There are lots of examples of songs with aligned words at
.
OK, I think this is examples of files conforming to 1.7.6.

If your software displays these correctly then you're on the right lines.
If not, please think again!
Certainly. I'm only interested in implementing ABC2.0 and possibly 
pointing out areas I think are fuzzy. I'm absolutely not interested in 
trying to add my own bits to ABC (not that I can think of anything to 
add anyway - I am not that advanced a musician).

Stephen
--
Stephen Kellett
Object Media Limitedhttp://www.objmedia.demo

Re: [abcusers] Clarification wanted on abc draft standard 2.0 (fwd)

[Phil Taylor]

>In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Phil Taylor
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
>>>a) Symbols can be on notes, rests and bar lines
>>
>>Bad Idea.  This breaks all existing programs which support aligned words,
>>and any existing files which include aligned words and rests.

>Forgive my ignorance, why is this a bad idea? Have I misunderstood the
>spec? I'm writing my parser/player/display program. I've already
>implemented the above and it was not hard to achieve (I can make the
>symbols attach to anything in the markup, pretty much).


Then anyone who uses your program to make abcs with aligned words will
find that their files don't work properly with any other software.
Likewise they will find that in any files they download from the net
the lyrics won't align properly.

>>If such a fundamental change from existing practice is to be contemplated
>>we will need some way of marking files to show that they are to be
>>interpreted in the new way.
>
>I couldn't see (from reading 1.7.6 and 2.0) what the difference was,
>except that 2.0 provided me with more information to work with (i.e. 2.0
>stated it was notes/rests/bar lines, where as I don't 1.7.6 stating that
>(implying it was everything).

As far as I can see all of the existing standards mention only lyrics
aligning with notes, and while they specifically state that gracenotes are
not included, make no mention of rests or bar lines.  Existing software
(e.g. BarFly and abcm2ps) interpret this to mean that rests and bar
lines are to be skipped.  Admittedly the standards are a little ambiguous
here, but there is a well-established precedent, and lots of files which
will be broken if you make a different interpretation.

>>It is not manadatory for abc to support every strange construction which
>>anyone
>>has ever used in staff notation.
>
>I don't mind, I'm not pushing an agenda. I'll implement what other
>people want. My understanding was notes/rests/bar lines. If I've
>misunderstood, please tell me and provide clarification as to what the
>standard is.

There are lots of examples of songs with aligned words at
.
If your software displays these correctly then you're on the right lines.
If not, please think again!

Phil Taylor


To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html

Re: [abcusers] Clarification wanted on abc draft standard 2.0 (fwd)

[Stephen Kellett]

In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Phil Taylor 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
a) Symbols can be on notes, rests and bar lines
Bad Idea.  This breaks all existing programs which support aligned words,
and any existing files which include aligned words and rests.
Forgive my ignorance, why is this a bad idea? Have I misunderstood the 
spec? I'm writing my parser/player/display program. I've already 
implemented the above and it was not hard to achieve (I can make the 
symbols attach to anything in the markup, pretty much).

If such a fundamental change from existing practice is to be contemplated
we will need some way of marking files to show that they are to be
interpreted in the new way.
I couldn't see (from reading 1.7.6 and 2.0) what the difference was, 
except that 2.0 provided me with more information to work with (i.e. 2.0 
stated it was notes/rests/bar lines, where as I don't 1.7.6 stating that 
(implying it was everything).

It is not manadatory for abc to support every strange construction which anyone
has ever used in staff notation.
I don't mind, I'm not pushing an agenda. I'll implement what other 
people want. My understanding was notes/rests/bar lines. If I've 
misunderstood, please tell me and provide clarification as to what the 
standard is.

Regards

Stephen
--
Stephen Kellett
Object Media Limitedhttp://www.objmedia.demon.co.uk
RSI Information:http://www.objmedia.demon.co.uk/rsi.html
To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html

Re: [abcusers] Clarification wanted on abc draft standard 2.0 (fwd)

[Phil Taylor]

>In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, I. Oppenheim
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
>>In most cases, lyrics are NOT wanted on rests, but I have seen some
>>files which DO use lyrics on rests. There is obviously no indication as
>>to which is intended when reading a file. The abc standard (draft 2.0)
>>says nothing about lyrics on rests, but the need DOES occur in some
>>circumstances.
>>
>>Is it possible to state, and include in the standard, what should be done?
>
>I think it is valid. The reasoning is as follows:
>a) Symbols can be on notes, rests and bar lines

Bad Idea.  This breaks all existing programs which support aligned words,
and any existing files which include aligned words and rests.

If such a fundamental change from existing practice is to be contemplated
we will need some way of marking files to show that they are to be
interpreted in the new way.


This is an awful lot of trouble to achieve something which can be achieved
much more easily by restricting non-musical lyrics to percussion notation.

It is not manadatory for abc to support every strange construction which anyone
has ever used in staff notation.

Phil Taylor


To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html

Re: [abcusers] Clarification wanted on abc draft standard 2.0 (fwd)

[Stephen Kellett]

In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, I. Oppenheim 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
In most cases, lyrics are NOT wanted on rests, but I have seen some 
files which DO use lyrics on rests. There is obviously no indication as 
to which is intended when reading a file. The abc standard (draft 2.0) 
says nothing about lyrics on rests, but the need DOES occur in some 
circumstances.

Is it possible to state, and include in the standard, what should be done?
I think it is valid. The reasoning is as follows:
a) Symbols can be on notes, rests and bar lines
b) Symbols can be formatted using the s: line in the same way as lyrics 
using the w: line
c) Leads me to think that if Symbols and lyrics can be laid out the same 
way, they can possibly be attached to the same objects (notes, rest, bar 
lines)?

Note quite sure what use a lyric on a bar line is, but...

Stephen
--
Stephen Kellett
Object Media Limitedhttp://www.objmedia.demon.co.uk
RSI Information:http://www.objmedia.demon.co.uk/rsi.html
To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html

Re: [abcusers] Clarification wanted on abc draft standard 2.0 (fwd)

[I. Oppenheim]

On Thu, 2 Oct 2003, Barry Say wrote:

> > Under what circumstances would you want a word or
> > symbol in the lyrics to align with a rest?

> I have seen this in the case where words are spoken
> are shouted or indications such as (clap) (stamp).

> I think the question is why should it be forbidden?

To maintain compatibility with existing ABC software
and ABC music files. Currently, syllables will be
aligned with the notes following a rest.

Your suggestion to use percussion notes instead of
rests for purposes like these, seems cleaner.


 Groeten,
 Irwin Oppenheim
 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 ~~~*

 The ABC Standard
 http://abc.sourceforge.net/standard/
To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html

Re: [abcusers] Clarification wanted on abc draft standard 2.0 (fwd)

[Barry Say]

> 
> Under what circumstances would you want a word or symbol in the lyrics
> to align with a rest?
> 
> Phil Taylor
> 
> 
I have seen this in the case where words are spoken are shouted or 
indications such as (clap) (stamp). Sophisticates  may well use 
percussion notation rather than rests in the melody line, but I have 
seen both. It seems more flexible to allow this rather than forbid. I 
think the question is why should it be forbidden?

Barry Say
To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html

Re: [abcusers] Clarification wanted on abc draft standard 2.0 (fwd)

[Phil Taylor]

>In most cases, lyrics are NOT wanted on rests, but I have seen some files
>which DO use lyrics on rests. There is obviously no indication as to which
>is intended when reading a file. The abc standard (draft 2.0) says nothing
>about lyrics on rests, but the need DOES occur in some circumstances.
>
>Is it possible to state, and include in the standard, what should be done?

Under what circumstances would you want a word or symbol in the lyrics
to align with a rest?

Phil Taylor


To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html