Re: [abcusers] Re: abc and microtonality
John Wlash wrote:
Phil taylor wrote
I can't actually do that for ~ at the moment, because I haven't included
the tilde in the list of symbols which can be reassigned (only H..Z).
There *are* several ways to play rolls on some instruments, of
course, and sometimes you'd play them differently in successive places for
variation--pipers often do it in crans (type of roll on D and E) for
instance. In most cases, one symbol will do for all. Unfortunately, in
the very small number of cases where the difference is important, such as
in transcriptions, it is *very* important. But then, the abcer could just
write an ~n4 macro and assign it a different letter.
The commonest place where this happens is where the mechanics of the
instrument force a different ornament on some notes. e.g. a roll may
normally involve notes both above and below the principal note, but
that becomes impossible when the principal note is the lowest note
the instrument can play. So you need to substitute a different ornament
(say a cran in place of the roll) where this happens. In any list
of macros, later ones take precedence over earlier ones, so you can
override a transposing macro for one or more notes by following it
with one or more static macros.
m: n3 = n{o}n{m}n % plays on all notes except D
m: D3 = D{F}D{E}D % plays only on the bottom D
However, if it's a roll to be played differently on the same principal
note (for variation) I can't currently deal with it. I'd need to include
the tilde in the list of redefinable symbols.
Phil Taylor
To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html
Re: [abcusers] Re: abc and microtonality
John Walsh wrote: Ah yes, the M word. I think I added my own bit to the confusion, tho not, I hope, to the flames. What is clear is that there are a couple of definitions of macro floating around. They overlap but don't coincide; and there are a couple of different types of macro in abc which fit into one definition but not the other. The subject seems to be returning, carrying its usual confusion, so I looked up the definitions to see what they said. First, in my on-line Websters, a macro is defined as: macro n, pl macros [short for macroinstruction] (1959): a single computer instruction that stands for a sequence of operations. However, the new Hacker's dictionary defines it: macro /mak'roh/ techspeak n. A name (possibly followed by a formal arg list) which is equated to a text or symbolic expression to which it is to be expanded (possibly with the substitution of actual arguments) by a macro expander. There's more---I'll get back to that---but note that there is quite a difference in the two definitions. Webster's definition is pretty general while the Hacker's definition is more specific: it tells you not only what a macro is, but how it is accomplished (by a macro expander). Kind of strange if you think of it---if you wanted to be really careful (perish the thought!) you'd say that a macro was an ordered pair, macro plus expander. On the other hand, the hacker's definition is not limited to instructions, while Webster's is. There is a third definition that I've heard on this list: a macro is a text substitution. Historically, the definitions aren't that different. To someone programming in 1959 using a macro assembler, it was a BIG advantage to be able to type in a short keyword or two to put in a common idiom, rather than type blocks of the same code over and over again. Likewise, to someone using the text editor TECO in the early 1970's, it was nice to be able to hit a single, special key and get a common editing idiom, rather than type long sequences of editor commands over and over again. I find it amusing to hear Unixy folk complaining about WordPerfect and Microsoft Word adding keyboard macro capability to teir word-processors, when emacs started out as a macro collection for TECO. Lisp programmers swear by their macros. They allow, once again, common idioms to be typed in rather simply instead of typing on long blocks of code over and over again. All of these early uses of macros, as well as most later ones, work via some variation of text substitution. The macro assembler is more pure along those lines. The keyboard macros does the substitution as you type, the lisp macros manipulate parse trees instead of text directly. Even TeX macros are really text substitution, which Knuth makes clear in his documentation. I'd always understood macro in the Webster's sense, having run into them principally in TeX and in keyboard macros for text editors, so I was surprised when this usage led to confusion. Now I understand why. To a certain degree, the Webster sense was the original intent, with the Jargon file sense being the method. However, it is a very powerful, flexible method, and can (and is) used for much more than simply using a single instruction instead of a set of them. I once wrote a 2-pass SPARC assembler using m4, a single-pass macro package. The jargon file goes on to say, Indeed the meaning has drifted enough that the collective 'macros' is sometimes used for code in any special-purpose application control language (whether or not the language is actually translated by text expansion), and for macro-like entities such as the 'keyboard macros' supported in some text editors (and PC TSR or Macintosh INIT/CDEV keyboard enhancers). I think that ESR is incorrect here, at least as far as distinguising keyboard macros as macro-like entities. Historically, keyboard macros have been called macros, and have worked via textual substitution for a long time. The confusion in abc comes from the fact that there are a couple of types of macros (or macro-like entities) floating around: First, Phil Taylor's Barfly macros seem to fit the Hacker's definition nicely. (Even his transposable macros fit, since the definition allows arguments, and these take a note as an argument.) I'm not sure I like the syntax 100%, since it distinguishes a particular letter as the argument. Is there a way to write a Phil Taylor macro that uses an 'n' in the name of the macro? However, there is another kind of m-le which is used in abc2mtex, and has been there since very early versions. (This program might be thought obsolete by some, but not by me, since I need these things, and that's the only program that offers them.) For those only familiar with abc2ps, abc2mtex is a front end for TeX/MusiXTEX, which itself has an extensive macro facility; MusixTeX can print out quite good staff music, including symphonic scores if you want
Re: [abcusers] Re: abc and microtonality
John Walsh wrote: First, in my on-line Websters, a macro is defined as: macro n, pl macros [short for macroinstruction] (1959): a single computer instruction that stands for a sequence of operations. One serious problem with this definition is that all subroutine and function mechanisms satisfy it. There are several ways one can take a chunk of code, give it a name, and then just type the name to make it happen. It's important (to programmers) to distinguish them, but this definition groups them all under the term macro. The term macro was really invented as a way of describing things (assembler opcodes originally) that are expanded in place rather than invoked by a call and return function mechanism. A macro looked like an instruction, but was replaced by a sequence of instructions. A subroutine is a remote chunk of code that is invoked by a call instruction. Of course, the computer industry has always played fast and loose with terminology. Consider the now-common term in-line function. You'd think there would be no reason for such a term, since this is the usual meaning of macro, which has two fewer syllables. But this would be ignoring the well-established tradition of obfuscating your terminology at every opportunity. (Actually, at least in C compilers, there is sort of a distinct sense of in-line function. A macro converts chunks of code to C. An in-line function gets translated directly to assembly code. But it is still really just a kind of macro. The distinction is rather esoteric to everyone except a programmer trying to get the last bit of speed out of a program.) To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html
Re: [abcusers] Re: abc and microtonality
On Fri, 4 Jul 2003, Buddha Buck wrote: Thank you Buddha; I think it's a nice summary of the three different symbol manipulation facilities we're dealing with. 1) long macros -- Phil Taylor's m: macros. These are prefixed in the ABC music with a special character, like ~, or @ or something, and can, through some syntax put, take an argument specifying a musical note 2) single-character macros -- The infamous U:X=!...! macros, but perhaps repackaged in a saner form. Pure text substitution, no arguments. The most common use will probably be for specifying unusual ornamentations not otherwise covered in the ABC standard, but could concievably be used for other things as well. 3) escapes -- abc2mtex TeX macro facility, but generalized. Some sort of syntax to indicate that the following code should be sent directly to the underlying back-end processor, not processed by ABC directly. I'd not call that a macro feature, but rather an escape feature. (There's a better, more proper word for it that I can't think of at 6am.) I guess it's called a Backend Interface; it is comparable to inline assemby in C. As you indicated yourself, such a feature is also implemented in abcm2ps, with the %%deco directive: it allows you to assign postscript code to a new !...! symbol, which in turn can be bound to one of the free available letters if the user so desires. You can view sample output made with %%deco as well as the corresponding ABC code on my website: http://www.joods.nl/~chazzanut/abc/deco.html 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] Re: abc and microtonality
Buddha Buck wrote: The confusion in abc comes from the fact that there are a couple of types of macros (or macro-like entities) floating around: First, Phil Taylor's Barfly macros seem to fit the Hacker's definition nicely. (Even his transposable macros fit, since the definition allows arguments, and these take a note as an argument.) I'm not sure I like the syntax 100%, since it distinguishes a particular letter as the argument. Is there a way to write a Phil Taylor macro that uses an 'n' in the name of the macro? Yes, this is one aspect of the syntax which bothers me too - you can't use the letter n in the target string of a static macro, or use it more than once in a transposing macro. Intuitively though, the use of consecutive alphabetical letters centred round a letter in the middle of the alphabet, and the association between n and any was irresistable. I haven't found this to be a problem in practice, but perhaps I ought to allow the use of an escape, e.g. \n for those cases where the n is to be taken literally, rather than to mean any note. There is a lot of possibilities for combinations thereof, especially if it was written that during the macro-expansion phase, parsing would start at the beginning of the expanded text. Phil mentioned a ~n3 macro, that would perform a roll the way a piper would. But I can easily see there being more than one alternative method of playing that someone might want to notate as ~n3, in the same piece. I can't actually do that for ~ at the moment, because I haven't included the tilde in the list of symbols which can be reassigned (only H..Z). You could, however, do this for the trill. There are lots of ways of playing a trill, and you might want to use several of them in the same piece (while keeping the same printed notation for all). You can assign the trill to several different letters: U: T = trill U: U = trill U: V = trill now you can write three different macros to specify how the three different trills represented in the abc by T, U and V are to be played. Turn the macros off for display purposes and they will all be represented as a trill, turn them off for playing and each will play in the specified manner. Phil Taylor To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html
Re: [abcusers] Re: abc and microtonality
I must admit that I like Buddha Buck's idea the best. I'd like to suggest a small modification in case someone ever needs a subdivision of the whole tone smaller than 1/8. 1. The step size should be defined in a special field in analogy to the default fraction specified in the L: field (as Irwin Oppenheim suggested) 2. _# and _## resp. ^# and ^## should denote step sizes in respect to the default fraction 3. _### or ^### should denote deviations in cent (with a leading 0). Example: ^098A. These deviations should be printed above the notes (without leading 0) just like chord symbols (this is standard in some microtonal literature). Please let me know what you think. Regards, Georg On Thursday, June 26, 2003, at 12:10 AM, I. Oppenheim wrote: On Wed, 25 Jun 2003, John Chambers wrote: Buddha Buck writes: | Georg Hajdu wrote: | Actually, I could suggest another notation: _#C, where # is a single | digit, means flatting C by that many eighth-tones. For finer control, | _##C, where ## is a pair of digits, means flattening C by that many | cents, or 100ths of a semitone. ^#C and ^##C have analogous | defintions, but sharpening instead. Or, to be consistent with the rest of abc, we could just put a length after an accidental. So _2/3A would be an A that is flatted 2/3 of a The _# notation is already consistent with the rest of ABC. See, note lengths are always given relative to the default fraction specified in the L: field. The default fraction of the _# notation just happens to be an 1/8th. Wouldn't a resolution of an 1/8th note be sufficient for musical notation? 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 *** Phone: +49-40-23517610 (h) +49-40-42-848-2005 (w) +49-172-787-4214 (m) +49-40-42-848-2030 (f) e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.georghajdu.de/index.html http://www.quintet.net/
Re: [abcusers] Re: abc and microtonality
Sorry, what I meant was ratio not step size. I still think this should defined in a separate line. I might use an incomplete abc implementation (only the things I really need) in my own real-time notation program; I'll leave it to others to integrate Buddha Buck's or my suggestions in their more complete implementations. Nevertheless, it would be nice to see whether or not there could some agreement in the abc community on microtonal notation. Regards, Georg On Thursday, June 26, 2003, at 06:42 PM, I. Oppenheim wrote: I must admit that I like Buddha Buck's idea the best. I'd like to suggest a small modification in case someone ever needs a subdivision of the whole tone smaller than 1/8. 1. The step size should be defined in a special field in analogy to the default fraction specified in the L: field (as Irwin Oppenheim suggested) Are you going to implement it? 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 *** Phone: +49-40-23517610 (h) +49-40-42-848-2005 (w) +49-172-787-4214 (m) +49-40-42-848-2030 (f) e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.georghajdu.de/index.html http://www.quintet.net/
Re: [abcusers] Re: abc and microtonality
Georg Hajdu wrote: Is that correct, or could there be an attempt to make eighth-tone notation (which is quasi-standard in places such as IRCAM, Paris) standard in abc with predefined symbols? What do these symbols normally look like. I've seen quarter-tone symbols, but not 8th-tone. Can you point us to a web page? Henrik Norbeck, Stockholm, Sweden [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.norbeck.nu/ My home page http://www.norbeck.nu/abcmus/ AbcMus player program http://www.norbeck.nu/abc/ 1900 ABC tunes http://www.norbeck.nu/blackthorn Irish trad music band http://www.rfod.se/folklink/ Links to Swedish trad music To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html
Re: [abcusers] Re: abc and microtonality
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes Bernard Hill wrote: I was advised by Chris Walshaw himself that that is the current standard and has replaced the one on the standard web site. Cool. Thanks. First I'd heard. No mention of it on Chris's web site (still refers to it as draft and 1.6 as current). Well he did say he must get around to doing it... maybe a gentle reminder? 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] Re: abc and microtonality
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Jeff Bigler [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2003 21:06:28 +0100 From: Bernard Hill [EMAIL PROTECTED] In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes Bernard Hill wrote- Surely by the standard (www.gre.ac.uk/~c.walshaw/abc/abc-draft.txt) H *is* predefined as fermata. But that's not the standard. That's the draft of the elusive next standard. I was advised by Chris Walshaw himself that that is the current standard and has replaced the one on the standard web site. From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2003 22:08:59 EDT Cool. Thanks. First I'd heard. No mention of it on Chris's web site (still refers to it as draft and 1.6 as current). Does everyone know about this? My subscription to the list was broken for a couple of months earlier this spring, so I might have missed it. I've been on the list continuously during that time, and I certainly didn't know that there was any official proclamation (whatever that means) of the 1.7.6 standard becoming current. Certainly http://www.gre.ac.uk/~c.walshaw/abc/#standard currently refers to 1.6 as the standard and the 1.7.6 document as a draft. However, several developers have been coding to the 1.7.6 draft for quite some time. (In fact, discussion on this list suggests to me that a majority of developers appear to have either implemented many of the elements in the 1.7.6 draft standard, or at least have been careful to avoid violating it wherever possible.) Given that, it would seem reasonable to me to treat the 1.7.6 document as if it were the current de facto standard. That's pretty much what Chris said to me on enquiry. I've certainly been implementing to that document!!! 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] Re: abc and microtonality
Proposed symbols for eighth-tone notation: 1/8 sharp: =` ( ` is back quote is ascii 96) 1/4 sharp: ; 3/8 sharp: `^ 1/2 sharp: ^ 5/8 sharp: ^ ` 3/4 sharp: or ^ `` 1/8 flat: `= 1/4 flat: ? 3/8 flat: _ ` 1/2 flat: _ 5/8 flat: `_ 3/4 flat: \ or ` `_ Example A `= would be middle-a eighth-tone flat or 6875 MIDI cents. Regards, Georg Hajdu On Wednesday, June 25, 2003, at 10:33 AM, I. Oppenheim wrote: On Wed, 25 Jun 2003, Georg Hajdu wrote: could there be an attempt to make eighth-tone notation (which is quasi-standard in places such as IRCAM, Paris) standard in abc with predefined symbols? Since you seem to be the local expert on microtonality - could you propose an extension to ABC that would do the job? Then we can discuss it further. Groeten, Irwin Oppenheim [EMAIL PROTECTED] ~~~* To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html *** Phone: +49-40-23517610 (h) +49-40-42-848-2005 (w) +49-172-787-4214 (m) +49-40-42-848-2030 (f) e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.georghajdu.de/index.html http://www.quintet.net/
Re: [abcusers] Re: abc and microtonality
On Wed, 25 Jun 2003, Georg Hajdu wrote: Proposed symbols for eighth-tone notation: 1/8 sharp:=` ( ` is back quote is ascii 96) [snip] 3/4 flat: \ or ` `_ Example A `= would be middle-a eighth-tone flat or 6875 MIDI cents. If these are the symbols you need, what about: 1/8 sharp: ^1 2/8 sharp: ^2 3/8 sharp: ^3 4/8 sharp: ^4 5/8 sharp: ^5 6/8 sharp: ^6 full sharp: ^ 1/8 flat:_1 2/8 flat:_2 3/8 flat:_3 4/8 flat:_4 5/8 flat:_5 6/8 flat:_6 full flat:_ Wouldn't that be easier? Your example would be _1A (Accidentals come before the base note). Let me know what you think. BTW: Is there no 7/8 sharp or flat? do double accidentals occur in microtonal notation? Groeten, Irwin Oppenheim [EMAIL PROTECTED] ~~~* To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html
Re: [abcusers] Re: abc and microtonality
4/8 sharp IS a full sharp (as you know, the reference interval is always a whole tone). Therefore labeling it ^4 may be a bit misleading, but it's ok if you can use the symbols alternatively. Other than that, I like it. Microtonal notation is mostly used to approximate tonal events that can't be described with 12 TET (12-tone equal temperament). While a 7/8-tone sharp theoretically exists, one would rather think of it as a 1/8-tone lowering of the tone a whole step above. So, instead of thinking C 7/8 sharp, think D 1/8 flat. Regards, Georg Hajdu On Wednesday, Jun 25, 2003, at 21:23 Europe/Berlin, I. Oppenheim wrote: On Wed, 25 Jun 2003, Georg Hajdu wrote: Proposed symbols for eighth-tone notation: 1/8 sharp: =` ( ` is back quote is ascii 96) [snip] 3/4 flat: \ or ` `_ Example A `= would be middle-a eighth-tone flat or 6875 MIDI cents. If these are the symbols you need, what about: 1/8 sharp: ^1 2/8 sharp: ^2 3/8 sharp: ^3 4/8 sharp: ^4 5/8 sharp: ^5 6/8 sharp: ^6 full sharp: ^ 1/8 flat:_1 2/8 flat:_2 3/8 flat:_3 4/8 flat:_4 5/8 flat:_5 6/8 flat:_6 full flat:_ Wouldn't that be easier? Your example would be _1A (Accidentals come before the base note). Let me know what you think. BTW: Is there no 7/8 sharp or flat? do double accidentals occur in microtonal notation? Groeten, Irwin Oppenheim [EMAIL PROTECTED] ~~~* To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html
Re: [abcusers] Re: abc and microtonality
Georg Hajdu wrote: 4/8 sharp IS a full sharp (as you know, the reference interval is always a whole tone). Therefore labeling it ^4 may be a bit misleading, but it's ok if you can use the symbols alternatively. Other than that, I like it. Microtonal notation is mostly used to _approximate_ tonal events that can't be described with 12 TET (12-tone equal temperament). While a 7/8-tone sharp theoretically exists, one would rather think of it as a 1/8-tone lowering of the tone a whole step above. So, instead of thinking C 7/8 sharp, think D 1/8 flat. Hmmm There is a semantic difference between ^d and _e. For instance, the Cmin scale includes _e, and the EMaj scale includes ^d. Under an equal-temperment scale, there is no difference in sound (both would be 7500 MIDI cents, if I'm interpreting the MIDI cent scale properly), but musically, they are treated differently in notation and meaning. If there is no reason to specify ^7C, on the grounds that it would be easier to think of _1D, why not go further, and only specify _D, _3D, _2D, _1D, C, ^1D, ^2D, ^3D, ^D/_E, _3E, etc? Actually, I could suggest another notation: _#C, where # is a single digit, means flatting C by that many eighth-tones. For finer control, _##C, where ## is a pair of digits, means flattening C by that many cents, or 100ths of a semitone. ^#C and ^##C have analogous defintions, but sharpening instead. The note halfway between E and F could be represented as ^2E, ^50E, _2F, or _50F. F itself could be ^E, ^4E, ^0F, ^00F, F _8G, or __G (or, if you really wanted, ^^^D). Regards, Georg Hajdu On Wednesday, Jun 25, 2003, at 21:23 Europe/Berlin, I. Oppenheim wrote: On Wed, 25 Jun 2003, Georg Hajdu wrote: Proposed symbols for eighth-tone notation: 1/8 sharp: =` ( ` is back quote is ascii 96) [snip] 3/4 flat: \ or ` `_ Example A `= would be middle-a eighth-tone flat or 6875 MIDI cents. If these are the symbols you need, what about: 1/8 sharp: ^1 2/8 sharp: ^2 3/8 sharp: ^3 4/8 sharp: ^4 5/8 sharp: ^5 6/8 sharp: ^6 full sharp: ^ 1/8 flat: _1 2/8 flat: _2 3/8 flat: _3 4/8 flat: _4 5/8 flat: _5 6/8 flat: _6 full flat: _ Wouldn't that be easier? Your example would be _1A (Accidentals come before the base note). Let me know what you think. BTW: Is there no 7/8 sharp or flat? do double accidentals occur in microtonal notation? Groeten, Irwin Oppenheim [EMAIL PROTECTED] ~~~* 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] Re: abc and microtonality
Buddha Buck writes: | Georg Hajdu wrote: | Actually, I could suggest another notation: _#C, where # is a single | digit, means flatting C by that many eighth-tones. For finer control, | _##C, where ## is a pair of digits, means flattening C by that many | cents, or 100ths of a semitone. ^#C and ^##C have analogous | defintions, but sharpening instead. Or, to be consistent with the rest of abc, we could just put a length after an accidental. So _2/3A would be an A that is flatted 2/3 of a semitone. Similarly ^1/2A, ^/2A and ^/A would be a note halfway between A and ^A. I can see the abc that would come from a midi violin. We'd have a lot of notes like ^1737/4275g19323/25734. ;-) To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html
Re: [abcusers] Re: abc and microtonality
On Wed, 25 Jun 2003, Georg Hajdu wrote: 4/8 sharp IS a full sharp (as you know, the reference interval is always a whole tone). Sorry, I didn't realize that. I thought you were dividing a regular sharp into 8 pieces. Now I understand we are actually dealing with eighth-tones. Therefore labeling it ^4 may be a bit misleading, but it's ok if you can use the symbols alternatively. It's probably best to allow ^0 to ^8, where '^0' is the same as '=', '^4' is the same as '^' and '^8' is the same as '^^' Other than that, I like it. Now the next step. How do these special symbols (^1 ^2 ^3 ^5 ^6 and maybe ^7) look---do you have an example? How do they sound---are it exact eighth-tones? Are you going to implement this extension yourself? 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] Re: abc and microtonality
On Wed, 25 Jun 2003, John Chambers wrote: Buddha Buck writes: | Georg Hajdu wrote: | Actually, I could suggest another notation: _#C, where # is a single | digit, means flatting C by that many eighth-tones. For finer control, | _##C, where ## is a pair of digits, means flattening C by that many | cents, or 100ths of a semitone. ^#C and ^##C have analogous | defintions, but sharpening instead. Or, to be consistent with the rest of abc, we could just put a length after an accidental. So _2/3A would be an A that is flatted 2/3 of a The _# notation is already consistent with the rest of ABC. See, note lengths are always given relative to the default fraction specified in the L: field. The default fraction of the _# notation just happens to be an 1/8th. Wouldn't a resolution of an 1/8th note be sufficient for musical notation? 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] Re: abc and microtonality
On Tue, 24 Jun 2003, Georg Hajdu wrote: The parsing of xml files seems more difficult, XML is very easy to parse: you can make use of several free off-the-shelf parsers that either create a complete document tree (DOM standard) or generate parser events (SAX standard). Just have a look at http://xml.apache.org/ for one of the available solutions. In abc the capital letters H..Z are reserved for user-defined purposes. Software which supported microtonal accidentals could make use of these. That is not a good idea. Several of these letters (THLMPSO?) have already a predefined meaning. It would be better to leave these letters free. Now, what about some other ascii 128-255 characters? Are they supported by abc? That is also not a good idea. Chars 128-255 are not defined by ASCII and have a different meaning depending on the code page that you use on your computer. Using these chars would change ABC from a text format into a binary format. I think the best solution would be to use the !...! symbol notation to add extra symbols to the abc language. Something like !sharp1!, !sharp2!, !sharp3! etc. If the user so desires, he could bind these symbols to some of the free letters, via the U: mechanism. 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] Re: abc and microtonality
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes Bernard Hill wrote- Surely by the standard (www.gre.ac.uk/~c.walshaw/abc/abc-draft.txt) H *is* predefined as fermata. But that's not the standard. That's the draft of the elusive next standard. I was advised by Chris Walshaw himself that that is the current standard and has replaced the one on the standard web site. Version 1.6 is still the operational standard and it says: | New notation | | | The letters H-Z can be used to define your own new notation | within a tune. Currently the way they are implemented (if at all) | is extremely package dependent and so users are advised not to | rely too heavily on them to include new features. Instead, if | there is a feature or symbol that you need and which is not | available it is better to press for it to be included as a part | of the language. 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] Re: abc and microtonality
Bernard Hill wrote: I was advised by Chris Walshaw himself that that is the current standard and has replaced the one on the standard web site. Cool. Thanks. First I'd heard. No mention of it on Chris's web site (still refers to it as draft and 1.6 as current). Does everyone know about this? My subscription to the list was broken for a couple of months earlier this spring, so I might have missed it. __ /\/\/\/\ __ | | | | | David Barnert __ | | | | | [EMAIL PROTECTED] __ | | | | | Albany, NY __ \/\/\/\/ Ventilator Concertina Bellows Bellows (Vocation) (Avocation)
