Jack Campin writes:
>I need to create some publication-quality staff notation using ornament
>signs from the early 18th century. There are four essential ones:
>
> - a + over the notehead
> - an = over the notehead
> - a || over the notehead
> - lines drawn in between two noteheads (in this cont
Jack Campin wrote:
> Best of all would be to allow these modes to be defined, on both
> a per-tune and per-file basis:
>
> K:Montgomerie A Mix =G ^g
> ...
> K:E Montgomerie % the original pipe is in fact in E though
> % nobody would notate for it that way
>
> And yes, thi
On Mon, 16 Oct 2000, Bob Archer wrote:
> At 08:10 PM 16-10-00 +0100, Richard Robinson wrote:
> >On Mon, 16 Oct 2000, Bob Archer wrote:
> >
> >> The more variants of abc programs accept, the less useful abc is as an
> >> exchange mechanism.
> >
> >Reductio ad absurdum: if abc programs accept no va
Jack Campin writes:
| It might be less confusing if the default behaviour were for these
| accidentals to be reflected in all octaves, with octave-specificity
| being implied by usages like
|
|K:A Mix =G ^g % scale of the "Montgomerie" 18th century smallpipe
| % see
> So, K:^f would apply the F# to all octaves, but K:^f=F would apply ^f to f's and =F
>to
> F's. We then come to the question of what player programs should do when they
>encounter
> a f' or F, -- probably either issue an error or leave it natural.
I personally would define the rule to be: Al
Eric Galluzzo writes:
| [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
| > The obvious suggestion is yet another %% directive. I wonder what
| > would be the simplest, most elegant notation for these two options?
|
| Alternatively, another rule (I don't know if this is sensible or not, but I figured
|I'd
At 08:10 PM 16-10-00 +0100, Richard Robinson wrote:
>On Mon, 16 Oct 2000, Bob Archer wrote:
>
>> To finish off with, I am going to restate my basic premise:
>>
>> The more variants of abc programs accept, the less useful abc is as an
>> exchange mechanism.
>
>Reductio ad absurdum: if abc program
> For those living outside the UK, Lewes and several other towns in
> south-east England have had severe flooding over the last few days.
I posted this to uk.music.folk to mark the occasion - Marjorie Clarke
(nearby but not flooded) said she'd pass it on to someone at the Lewes
folk club, dunno i
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> |But ABC is a world-wide, networked and computerized music notation.
> There is a lot of software that converts it to sound. This software
> can't reasonably be expected to look at a chunk of ABC, classify it
> as to style, and infer what rule is used for accid
I need to create some publication-quality staff notation using ornament
signs from the early 18th century. There are four essential ones:
- a + over the notehead
- an = over the notehead
- a || over the notehead
- lines drawn in between two noteheads (in this context,
it's not a glissando but
>> Does K:^f mean sharpen the f in every octave or sharpen the f in just
>> one octave? I usually make the assumption that an accidental in the
>> key signature applies to every octave, which rules out notation such
>> as K:^f =F
> My version interprets K:^f and K:^F differently [...]
> I'd cons
On Mon, 16 Oct 2000, Bob Archer wrote:
> To finish off with, I am going to restate my basic premise:
>
> The more variants of abc programs accept, the less useful abc is as an
> exchange mechanism.
Reductio ad absurdum: if abc programs accept no variants of abc they'll be
universal exchange me
Frank wrote:
>I've just translated a Beethoven piece into ABC, and ran into a
>strange problem...
Phil wrote:
>From the abc v1.6 standard:
>
>[snip]
>
>So in 2/4 time five notes in the time of two is correct, at
>least in terms of the standard. Whether the standard is correct
>is ano
Richard Robinson wrote:
>On Mon, 16 Oct 2000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> John Atchley writes:
>>
>> | ... You have as much right to use K:^f as he does to unilaterally
>> | decide that an exclamation point! is used for the end of a line (I think
>> | it's Barfly that does that, if not I apologiz
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote :
>
>
>Steve Mansfield writes:
>| As K: is already established as the 'key signature' field, and there are
>| thousands of abc files already out in the wild, would it not make sense
>| to leave K: as the 'key signature' and k: as the 'mode' (please excuse
>| descrip
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote :
>Steve Mansfield writes:
>| As K: is already established as the 'key signature' field, and there are
>| thousands of abc files already out in the wild, would it not make sense
>| to leave K: as the 'key signature' and k: as the 'mode' (please excuse
>| descriptors!)
>
>Me
John Atchley wrote:
>
> On Sunday, October 15, 2000 1:29 PM, Frank Nordberg
> [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote:
> > I am very interested. Is it possible to get this a bit more standardized
> > I mean things like:
> > "_" - Move the text down some
> > could mean anything. To BarFly it means "p
On Monday, October 16, 2000 7:05 AM, Guido Gonzato [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
wrote:
> 2. (shock! horror!) M: none is not accepted! But it should be easy to
grab
> the code from the original abcm2ps.
I took a quick glance at this and the problem is definitely in the original
I started with.
Phil Taylor notes that the standard has:
> Duplets, triplets, quadruplets, etc.
>
>
> (2 2 notes in the time of 3
> (3 3 notes in the time of 2
> (4 4 notes in the time of 3
> (5 5 notes in the time of n
> (6 6 notes in the time of 2
> (7 7 notes in the time
Bob Archer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I don't think that the standard should use words like "top" and "bottom" at
>all. The standard should specify a syntax for describing alternative sets
>of chords, it's then up to a formatting program to have options that define
>where the alternative sets of
At 06:48 AM 16-10-00 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>
> Bryan writes:
>
>| I will, but as I have said, abc is useless as an exchange medium if we ar=
>| e=20
>| not all talking the same language.
>
>Well, now, it seems to me that this is disproved by even a casual
>glance at the cur
> ... In
> fact one of the most vociferous arguers does charge for his software.
I think the vociferous arguer must be someone else, but it occurs to
me that the history of Muse finances might interest other developers.
Muse was the source of some very bitter feelings between my wife
and me.
On Mon, 16 Oct 2000, [ISO-8859-1] Atte André Jensen wrote:
> In the "manual" for yaps, yaps.txt, I read:
>
>
> 5. Supports special characters using ISO latin 1 font. Special
> characters are created with a TeX-like code e.g. \'E or a 3 digit octal
> code e.g. \315 .
>
>
> Is the lettes produc
In the "manual" for yaps, yaps.txt, I read:
5. Supports special characters using ISO latin 1 font. Special
characters are created with a TeX-like code e.g. \'E or a 3 digit octal
code e.g. \315 .
Is the lettes produced by this system independent, and where do I find a
table of which codes give
On Mon, 16 Oct 2000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> John Atchley writes:
>
> | ... You have as much right to use K:^f as he does to unilaterally
> | decide that an exclamation point! is used for the end of a line (I think
> | it's Barfly that does that, if not I apologize, Phil). ...
>
> This remi
For those living outside the UK, Lewes and several other towns in south-east
England have had severe flooding over the last few days. Miraculously,
nobody died. The worst news is that Harvey's Brewery was flooded!
Fortunately, both folk clubs are at the top end of town. More seriously, a
l
James Allwright wrote:
| On Sun 15 Oct 2000 at 11:49AM +0100, Phil Taylor wrote:
| > There is some scope for disagreement here. John Chambers wants
| > global accidentals to be octave-specific unlike normal accidentals,
| > so you can have both =C and ^c. That seems useful to me.
| T
Frank Nordberg wrote:
| [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
| > Wendy Galovich says -
| > > That being the case, Brian, then the first thing I'd do is put
| > > those abcs out on the site in plain text format, rather than, or at
| > > least in addition to the zipped files...
| >
| > You are abso
On Monday, October 16, 2000 3:52 AM, Guido Gonzato [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
wrote:
> THANK YOU from me, too! It was about time a very complete abc2ps program
> came about!
Well, I wouldn't call it complete...;-)
> I have downloaded and tried your version of abcm2ps at once, and found
out
> tha
On Sunday, October 15, 2000 1:29 PM, Frank Nordberg
[SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote:
> I am very interested. Is it possible to get this a bit more standardized
> I mean things like:
> "_" - Move the text down some
> could mean anything. To BarFly it means "place the text below the
> staff",
On Monday, October 16, 2000 7:05 AM, Guido Gonzato [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
wrote:
> I have polished jaabc2ps so that it compiles with no warnings with gcc
(both
> Linux and djgpp). To be precise, I intentionally left the warning
concerning
> the function write_version.
>
> John, shall I packag
Sorry about that, we had a thunderstorm move in and I shut down before I
actually got the new pages and the zip files uploaded to the site. I put
them up about an hour later so they're there now.
John Atchley
On Sunday, October 15, 2000 12:37 PM, Atte Andre Jensen
[SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] w
Bryan writes:
| I will, but as I have said, abc is useless as an exchange medium if we ar=
| e=20
| not all talking the same language.
Well, now, it seems to me that this is disproved by even a casual
glance at the current situation. There is a fairly significant range
of discrep
John Atchley writes:
| ... You have as much right to use K:^f as he does to unilaterally
| decide that an exclamation point! is used for the end of a line (I think
| it's Barfly that does that, if not I apologize, Phil). ...
This reminds me: I've seen a lot trouble with lin
At 05:12 AM 10/16/2000 EDT, you wrote:
>I am sorry that you think I have been ignoring that, so I will make my view
>more explicit. I do not think that the fact that some developers are
>volunteers entitles them to dictate to users what they can or cannot have in
>abc. Nobody is forcing them
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Wendy Galovich says -
>
> > That being the case, Brian, then the first thing I'd do is put
> > those abcs out on the site in plain text format, rather than, or at
> > least in addition to the zipped files...
>
> You are absolutely right.
Great.
And while you'r
Hello,
I have polished jaabc2ps so that it compiles with no warnings with gcc (both
Linux and djgpp). To be precise, I intentionally left the warning concerning
the function write_version.
John, shall I package it up and sent it to you? If you wish, I could make
rpm archives for Linux, too.
In
> ...
> http://members.aol.com/LewesArmsFolk/Lewesfav.html.
> ...
> Bryan
Lewes. I do hope that you have avoided or survived the floods without
damage.
Laurie
To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html
Wendy Galovich says -
> That being the case, Brian, then the first thing I'd do is put
> those abcs out on the site in plain text format, rather than, or at
> least in addition to the zipped files. Every site I've seen listed on
> the ABC index on Chris Walshaw's site has the notation out in
On Sun, 15 Oct 2000, John Henckel wrote:
> John Atchley!!! THANK YOU!!!
THANK YOU from me, too! It was about time a very complete abc2ps program
came about!
I have downloaded and tried your version of abcm2ps at once, and found out
that:
- it needs tweaks in order to compile under Linux an
On Mon, 9 Oct 2000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> David Barnert says -
>
> > I continue to feel
> > that the K: field should describe the number of sharps or flats
> > without naming a tonic and/or a mode.
>
> Thanks David. I held back in the hope that someone else would say this.
> Selection of
John Chamber says -
> You can follow the standard to the letter, yes, but your code
> will work better with existing ABC if it can parse the common
> violations that people post to lists.
At the risk of enhancing my reputation for negativity, I have to say that I
think this policy has
On Sun 15 Oct 2000 at 11:49AM +0100, Phil Taylor wrote:
>
> There is some scope for disagreement here. John Chambers wants
> global accidentals to be octave-specific unlike normal accidentals,
> so you can have both =C and ^c. That seems useful to me.
This may be useful, but it also introduce
43 matches
Mail list logo
