On Mon, 11 Feb 2002, John Walsh wrote:
As you point out, that leads to a contradiction: by rule one, a tied
note is the same as the note in the preceeding measure; by rule 2, it
can't be the same note since the accidental has just been cancelled by
the bar line. Bingo, contradiction!
What
On Sun, 10 Feb 2002, John Walsh wrote:
(1) A pair of tied notes are each part of the same note, and
necessarily have the same pitch.
(2) An accidental becomes part of the key signature (unless
explicitly cancelled) for the remainder of the measure
*and no
On Wed, 6 Feb 2002, James Allwright wrote:
It would also be nice to find a written standard to support the
interpreation, since the only definition I can find says nothing about
ties and so implies that the accidental is necessary.
I just took a look at the draft standard, and it doesn't
On Wed, 6 Feb 2002, [iso-8859-1] Erik Ronström wrote:
I think I'd get your point anyway.
I don't think you do get my point. It seems self-evident to me that ABC
is pseudo-staff notation. You have made it clear *that* you disagree, but
not *why*. Where else do you think ABC got the concepts
On Wed, 6 Feb 2002, Buddha Buck wrote:
So you would agree with the following text
[snipped]
Yes.
See the section on beaming... Beaming is meaningless outside
of staff notation.
I disagree. Beaming is used in staff notation to indicate musical
rhythm. In the face of M:, beaming may
On Sat, 2 Feb 2002, John Walsh wrote:
Another question was lightly touched on, but not resolved: if we
add another f to the examples: ^f-| f f and ^f- | ^f f ...what should
be done with the third f? I would think that in the first example,
it's an f natural, in the second, it's an f
On Sat, 2 Feb 2002, John Chambers wrote:
Most musicians don't understand the distinction between a tie and a
slur.
So you may speculate, but I doubt you have any quantifiable evidence to
back that up.
You could argue that there isn't really a distinction.
Here is an example of the
On Fri, 1 Feb 2002, John Chambers wrote:
I have no control over what people put on their web sites, so I have a
strong incentive to use Be liberal in what you accept as a major
rule.
I disagree, both with this rule and with the idea that you have no
influence over how people choose to write
On Thu, 31 Jan 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Just as with standard music notation, if one is reading the ABC, if
you don't specify the sharpness, naturalness or flatness of the second
F in your example, is that F in the second bar supposed to be an
F-natural or F-sharp?
In standard
On Mon, 17 Dec 2001, James Allwright wrote:
My point is that missing out a start repeat is bad notation; an
anacrusis at the start of a piece generates ambiguity and I think you
will be hard pressed to find a music textbook that legitimizes the
process of missing off start repeats.
From The
On Sun, 2 Dec 2001, Laurie Griffiths wrote:
Q:Allegro -- uses Allegro which must have been already defined.
Does this mean that a transcriber can't specify a tempo without also
defining it metronomically? I'm not sure I like the idea of *forcing*
them to add information that the composer
On Tue, 27 Nov 2001, Jack Campin wrote:
+ in every printed score I own, the tempo text, expression text, and
+ guitar chords are distinguishable from one another by their typeface
+ alone.
But they aren't *identifiable* by their typeface alone - no two publishers
use the same set of
On Fri, 16 Nov 2001, James Allwright wrote:
On Fri 16 Nov 2001 at 10:25AM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
We *do* know what the beat is with the existing syntax. In Q:3/8=120, 3/8
defines the beat. Hopefully you can see why you would not want to use
this if your piece is in 4/4 or
On Thu, 15 Nov 2001, Laurie Griffiths wrote:
Is there any mileage in something like
Q:Allegro=120 % definition
...
Q:3/8=Allegro % use, meaning that the beat is 3/8 in this case
I didn't like it at first glance, but the more I think about it, the more
sense it makes. The only problem I
On Tue, 13 Nov 2001, Laurie Griffiths wrote:
I'm not 100% sure what the right default is in the absence of a
beat=. Is it the L value (explicit or implied)?
I'd rather stay away from L:. A quick look through some of my collection
shows that it would give the wrong beat more often than not.
There is a complication here that I don't think anyone has addressed. By
defining Allegro as 1/4=120, whether this is done in the playback
software or in abc, you are assuming that Allegro is always based on a
quarter note beat. Therefore, alla breve allegro, with a half note as the
beat, would
On Sun, 11 Nov 2001, Anselm Lingnau wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Phil Taylor) writes:
please developers DON'T WRITE A LINE OF CODE UNTIL
A VOTE HAS BEEN TAKEN AND THE STANDARD BECOMES OFFICIAL.
Actually I think this is the wrong way round. Nothing should go in the
standard unless it has
On 3 Nov 2001, Laura Conrad wrote:
If it's playback only, wouldn't it make sense to put it in a %%MIDI
line?
It might not be safe to assume that MIDI is the only way playback can/will
occur.
John
To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html
On 2 Nov 2001, Laura Conrad wrote:
But in most of the music I work with, X is used for both a sharp and a
natural on a note which would otherwise be flatted. So my guess is
that you don't really have to transpose the sharps in the figures to
naturals, either. Someone who knows more than I
On Sat, 27 Oct 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There doesn't seem to be much point in being involved in an
open-source project coded in a language you don't understand.
Sorry, but that's absurd. Coding is not the only way to contribute to a
software project, and I would argue that it is not
On Wed, 24 Oct 2001, Simon Wascher wrote:
Baerenreiter does indeed own the copyright on the actuall layout, the
picture of the print, but never does or did own the musical
composition itself.
IANAL, but they do own the copyright on all of the editorial changes they
made, so for all intents
On Wed, 24 Oct 2001, James Allwright wrote:
PEYA (please expand your acronym).
I Am Not A Lawyer
To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html
22 matches
Mail list logo
