John Chambers wrote -
But if the software doesn't agree on what pieces
of the notation mean, it can sorta interfere with getting
the music across.
I've been thinking along the same lines myself for quite a while.
And abc has a quandary that's common in all other kinds of
computer
Than you Phil Taylor for a sensibly argued case. A welcome change from the
this-is-my-opinion-and-I'm-sticking-to-it attitude that has been prevalent
lately. Unfortunately I didn't agree with any of it.
He wrote -
In order to describe a piece of music completely, you need to
know any two of
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Than you Phil Taylor for a sensibly argued case. A welcome change from the
this-is-my-opinion-and-I'm-sticking-to-it attitude that has been prevalent
lately. Unfortunately I didn't agree with any of it.
He wrote -
In order to describe a piece of music
Phil Taylor writes:
I don't mind if you give any random collection of sharps and flats
in the K: field as long as you also give the tonic.
It's clear that the twelve-tone crowd hasn't gotten into abc
yet...
In order to describe a piece of music completely, you need to
know any two of
Bruce Olsen wrote:
I also respectfully disagree with Phil Taylor's rationalle.
I pointed out my objections to the K:key-mode specification, instead of
a direct key signature sharp or flat specification, in a communication
here on Jan 25, 2001. Here is a slightly revised version of it.
The
John Walsh wrote:
I don't mind if you give any random collection of sharps and flats
in the K: field as long as you also give the tonic.
It's clear that the twelve-tone crowd hasn't gotten into abc
yet...
Yeah well, in that case I suppose what's really needed is K:none.
Mind you, I'm
Phil Taylor wrote -
Even a wrong tonic+mode is better than nothing!
I don't think I need to comment.
Bryan Creer
To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html
