> From: Laura Conrad <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: 30 Jul 2003 09:19:29 -0400
>
> Besides, those of us who typically read from only treble and bass
> clefs, can't ever remember which line an alto C clef is on.
This reminds me of a conductor joke that's popular among us violists.
However, I'll have
On Thu, Jul 31, 2003 at 11:01:34AM -0400, Laura Conrad wrote:
> > "Richard" == Richard Robinson
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Richard> If so, maybe what we're actually talking about is a
> Richard> distinction between 2 parsing methods - unroll into a
> Richard> stream an
> "Richard" == Richard Robinson
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Richard> Ah. Interesting, yes. Also, come to think of it, ny
Richard> abc_compare, which borrowed the abcMIDI parser, to unroll
Richard> ABC into a stream of notes. Does abc2ly also unroll
Richard> repeats, etc
On Thu, Jul 31, 2003 at 10:42:15AM -0400, Laura Conrad wrote:
> > "Richard" == Richard Robinson
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>
> Richard> Though, yes, the use of the existing %%midi namespace
> Richard> would be a clue - helpful in general (since it gives a
> Richard> rou
> "Richard" == Richard Robinson
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Richard> Though, yes, the use of the existing %%midi namespace
Richard> would be a clue - helpful in general (since it gives a
Richard> rough idea of what sort of work it does) and misleading
Richard> in particu
On Wed, Jul 30, 2003 at 02:51:45PM -0400, Laura Conrad wrote:
> > "Phil" == Phil Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Phil> Also I don't like the idea of
>
> Phil> %%MIDI nobarlines
>
> Phil> because it means something totally at odds with what it says. Bar
> Phil> lines h
> "Phil" == Phil Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Not having barlines is very different from not having a meter. Most
>> Renaissance tunes have a meter of C, C|, 3/2 or something, but they
>> either didn't use barlines at all or used them for something very
>> different f
From: "Phil Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Also I don't like the idea of
>
> %%MIDI nobarlines
>
> because it means something totally at odds with what it says. Bar
> lines have nothing to do with midi - the midi standard provides
> no way of representing them because they are a purely visual
> f
>> "Wil" == Wil Macaulay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>Wil> Do we lose anything if we couple this to M:none? or do we
>Wil> need to be able to specify
>Wil> both a meter (M:C comes to mind) and separately the behaviour of
>Wil> accidentals?
>
>Yes.
>
>Not having barlines is ver
John Chambers wrote:
>In Ryan's case, the p.37 examples do have a double bar before the
>repeat colon - at the end of the preceding staff. This may have been
>the origin of that perverse :|!: example that we saw recently. If the
>! means "new staff", this would exactly match what Ryan did.
I
Strikes me that the %%MIDI directives are the equivalent of an audio
stylesheet...
wil
Laura Conrad wrote:
"Wil" == Wil Macaulay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Wil> Do we lose anything if we couple this to M:none? or do we
Wil> need to be able to specify
Wil> both a meter (M:
> "Wil" == Wil Macaulay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Wil> Do we lose anything if we couple this to M:none? or do we
Wil> need to be able to specify
Wil> both a meter (M:C comes to mind) and separately the behaviour of
Wil> accidentals?
Yes.
Not having barlines is very differen
Do we lose anything if we couple this to M:none? or do we need to be
able to specify
both a meter (M:C comes to mind) and separately the behaviour of
accidentals?
Laura Conrad wrote:
I don't see any discussion of the relationship between accidentals and
barlines. This is important, because in
BarryBarry Say says:
| Bernard Hill wrote on 29 Jul 2003
|
| > ... We are talking about
| >
| > | . | | :|
| > | . | | :|
| >
| > which is ambiguous. And should maybe be
| >
| > | . | | :|
| > |:.. | . | | :|
| >
|
| In British
* I think it would be wise to explicitely reserve the use of nonmentioned
letters E, Y lowercase letters.
Move ''exended information fields'' paragraph to front, just after the normal
ones
* irregular compound meter: two ways of display
1) 3+2+2/8 displayed as is
2) (3+2+2)/8 displayed as 7/8
*
I don't see any discussion of the relationship between accidentals and
barlines. This is important, because in order to translate ABC, which
records the appearance of a note in staff notation, into, e.g., MIDI
or lilypond, which records the absolute pitch of the note, you need to
know how long an
I notice that the clefs section uses only a small number of arbitrary
names, and doesn't allow for specifying shapes on lines. I think you
should also allow:
G1, G2,...G5
F1, F2,...F5
C1, C2,...C5
Or at least, make C, G, and F names as well as treble, alto, etc.
For the
From: "Bernard Hill" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2003 10:43 AM
Subject: Re: [abcusers] ABC Standard 2.0 revision III
> In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, John Walsh
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
> > Correc
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes
>Bernard Hill wrote on 29 Jul 2003
>
>
>> I did not say "beginning of a piece" I said "beginning of a section". It
>> has always been standard notation to assume the first repeat is from the
>> beginning of the work. We are talking about
>>
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, John Walsh
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
> Correction: in Irish music, a roll is a specific way of playing
>several repeated notes, not a general ornament on a given note. It's
>basic to the music, which is why it's part of abc. I'm not at all
>surprised rolls a
Bernard Hill wrote on 29 Jul 2003
> I did not say "beginning of a piece" I said "beginning of a section". It
> has always been standard notation to assume the first repeat is from the
> beginning of the work. We are talking about
>
> | . | | :|
> | . | | :|
About rolls in Irish music:
>>...used more in fiddle or pipe music.
>
>Well it's not known in pipe music. They use a particular form of
>embellishment known generically as a doubling and it takes many forms,
>which are written out.
>
Depends on the pipes. They're used a lot for uilleann
Phil Taylor writes:
| John Chambers wrote:
| >
| >The K:D=C_E_B^c example has a natural on the C line (below the
| >staff), flats on the E and B lines, and a sharp on the c line. It
| >might be better to put them in a different order; I just expressed it
| >that way to make the scale cle
John Chambers wrote:
>Bernard Hill writes:
>| In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, John Chambers
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
>| >No, the accidentals should be case sensitive. I might not care about
>| >this, personally, but I've seen the explanations. When the topic has
>| >come up in the past, sever
| In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, John Chambers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
| >The best comparison I've seen is: Suppose you were to find
| >a piece of music written with two sharps (^f^c), and as you
| >played it, you realized that every G had a sharp added, and
| >it really was in A major. You'd
On Tue, Jul 29, 2003 at 08:47:27PM +0100, Phil Taylor wrote:
> John Chambers wrote:
> >
> >that it would be nice if a transcriber could write
> >something like:
> >
> >K:?Adorian
> >
> >This would mean that the transcriber is guessing the key.
> >The software would just ignore the '?', o
On Tue, Jul 29, 2003 at 09:58:42PM +0200, Arent Storm wrote:
>
> > If there are people who use ABC, or are considering using ABC,
> > for music where non-standard signatures are less non-standard,
> > they might make the same discovery.
>
> For the church-modes part I agree, the explicit accidenta
On Tue, Jul 29, 2003 at 08:47:16PM +0100, Phil Taylor wrote:
> Richard Robinson wrote:
>
> >> K:_Bhas no tonic, but a signature, which is _B. Maybe it's F or Dm.
> >
> >This last has the potential to be misunderstood, I think. The key
> >signature would be
> >K:Bb ?
> >
> >Easy to mis-type, o
Bernard Hill writes:
| In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, John Chambers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
| >No, the accidentals should be case sensitive. I might not care about
| >this, personally, but I've seen the explanations. When the topic has
| >come up in the past, several people have pointed out t
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, John Chambers
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
>Arent Storm writes:
>| From: "I. Oppenheim" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>|
>| > They are non standard in Western music, but you will
>| > find something like [K:D _b _e ^f] often in e.g.
>| > Klezmer (Ahavoh Rabboh) or Arabic music (
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Richard Robinson
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
>On Tue, Jul 29, 2003 at 06:26:21PM +0100, Bernard Hill wrote:
>> In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Richard Robinson
>> >
>> >> Now I don't really mind
>> >> having minor keys as t
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, John Chambers
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
>Bernard Hill writes:
>| My suggestion is that accidentals are in lower case, keys in upper. And
>| if the key name is missing then C is assumed.
>|
>| K:A ^b is F# C# G# and Bb.
>| K:A =c is F# and G#
>| K:_b^f is Bb and F#
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Richard Robinson
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
>On Tue, Jul 29, 2003 at 05:32:51PM +, John Chambers wrote:
>>
>> It's quite logical.
>>
>> K:A has a tonic but no scale information, so we assume major (^f^c^g).
>>
>> K:Amix has a tonic and a mode; the signatu
Phil Taylor writes:
| John Chambers wrote:
| >
| >K:?Adorian
| >
| >Implementing this would be easy for most abc software: Just
| >ignore the '?'.
|
| Unnecessary. You can already write:
|
| K: Adorian %?
|
| but nobody does. People who get the mode wrong are mostly
| not aware of their errors, a
On Tue, 29 Jul 2003, Arent Storm wrote:
> For the church-modes part I agree, the explicit
> accidental signature will confuse anyone trying to
> play the music from paper (except for the authors
> band perhaps)
Klezmer musicians all use explicit key sigs, and so do
musicologists. In fact, it
Phil Taylor writes:
| Richard Robinson wrote:
|
| >> K:_Bhas no tonic, but a signature, which is _B. Maybe it's F or Dm.
| >
| >This last has the potential to be misunderstood, I think. The key
| >signature would be
| >K:Bb ?
| >
| >Easy to mis-type, or misunderstand.
|
| You will find sevral
Bernard Hill writes:
| In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Richard Robinson
| >See http://www.leeds.ac.uk/music/Info/RRTuneBk/gettune/0c54.html
|
| (And why sharpen the fs in stave 5?)
I looked at this, and decided that I don't know the tune. Staff 5,
which is in D major, sounds just find. If
John Chambers wrote:
>Richard Robinson writes:
>| >
>| > Of course, such searches are always prone to failure
>| > because people just give the wrong key. It's common to see
>| > K:G for tunes in E minor or A dorian. There's not a lot we
>| > can do about this except try to educate people
Richard Robinson wrote:
>> K:_Bhas no tonic, but a signature, which is _B. Maybe it's F or Dm.
>
>This last has the potential to be misunderstood, I think. The key
>signature would be
>K:Bb ?
>
>Easy to mis-type, or misunderstand.
You will find sevral examples of this in the Village Music Pr
On Tue, Jul 29, 2003 at 06:07:16PM +, John Chambers wrote:
> Richard Robinson writes:
> | >
> | > Of course, such searches are always prone to failure
> | > because people just give the wrong key. It's common to see
> | > K:G for tunes in E minor or A dorian. There's not a lot we
> | >
> On Tue, Jul 29, 2003 at 08:42:32PM +0200, Arent Storm wrote:
> > > They are non standard in Western music, but you will
> > > find something like [K:D _b _e ^f] often in e.g.
> > > Klezmer (Ahavoh Rabboh) or Arabic music (Maqam Hedjaz).
> >
> > My first thing will always be to remove any non stan
On Tue, Jul 29, 2003 at 07:19:17PM +, John Chambers wrote:
> Richard Robinson writes:
> | On Tue, Jul 29, 2003 at 05:32:51PM +, John Chambers wrote:
> | >
> | > K:_Bhas no tonic, but a signature, which is _B. Maybe it's F or Dm.
> |
> | This last has the potential to be misunderstood,
On Tue, Jul 29, 2003 at 08:42:32PM +0200, Arent Storm wrote:
> From: "I. Oppenheim" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > They are non standard in Western music, but you will
> > find something like [K:D _b _e ^f] often in e.g.
> > Klezmer (Ahavoh Rabboh) or Arabic music (Maqam Hedjaz).
>
> My first thing wil
Richard Robinson writes:
| On Tue, Jul 29, 2003 at 05:32:51PM +, John Chambers wrote:
| >
| > K:_Bhas no tonic, but a signature, which is _B. Maybe it's F or Dm.
|
| This last has the potential to be misunderstood, I think. The key
| signature would be
| K:Bb ?
|
| Easy to mis-type, or mis
Arent Storm writes:
| From: "I. Oppenheim" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
|
| > They are non standard in Western music, but you will
| > find something like [K:D _b _e ^f] often in e.g.
| > Klezmer (Ahavoh Rabboh) or Arabic music (Maqam Hedjaz).
|
| My first thing will always be to remove any non standard
| e
- Original Message -
From: "John Chambers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2003 3:24 PM
Subject: Re: [abcusers] ABC Standard 2.0 revision III
> Bernard Hill writes:
> While it is indeed common practice to omit begin-repea
From: "I. Oppenheim" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2003 1:34 PM
Subject: Re: [abcusers] ABC Standard 2.0 revision III
> They are non standard in Western music, but you will
> find something like [K:D _b _e ^f] often in e.g.
Richard Robinson writes:
| >
| > Of course, such searches are always prone to failure
| > because people just give the wrong key. It's common to see
| > K:G for tunes in E minor or A dorian. There's not a lot we
| > can do about this except try to educate people.
|
| If I had them locally
On Tue, Jul 29, 2003 at 05:32:51PM +, John Chambers wrote:
>
> It's quite logical.
>
> K:A has a tonic but no scale information, so we assume major (^f^c^g).
>
> K:Amix has a tonic and a mode; the signature is ^f^c.
>
> K:A_B has a tonic and a key signature, which is _B
>
> K:_B
On Tue, Jul 29, 2003 at 06:26:21PM +0100, Bernard Hill wrote:
> In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Richard Robinson
> >
> >> Now I don't really mind
> >> having minor keys as they are well established, and maybe even the modes
> >
> >Very tolerant of you ..
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, John Chambers
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
>| In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Richard Robinson
>| >>
>| >> K:A_b^f^c
>| >> shouldn't that have a G# also since you've written K:A?
>| >
>| >It definitely shouldn't have a G#, since the Gs aren't sharp.
>|
>| So you are sa
Bernard Hill writes:
| My suggestion is that accidentals are in lower case, keys in upper. And
| if the key name is missing then C is assumed.
|
| K:A ^b is F# C# G# and Bb.
| K:A =c is F# and G#
| K:_b^f is Bb and F#
|
| K:_b is Bb
| K:C _b
| K:F
|
| and the last 3 are equivalent of course.
No,
On Tue, Jul 29, 2003 at 06:23:26PM +0100, Bernard Hill wrote:
> In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, John Chambers
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
> >Bernard Hill writes:
> >| In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, John Chambers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >writes
> >| >
> >| >If I had my druthers, I'd put a rule in
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Richard Robinson
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
>On Tue, Jul 29, 2003 at 05:11:44PM +0100, Bernard Hill wrote:
>> In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Richard Robinson
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
>> >
>> >> And from the abc source you have written
>> >>
>> >> K:A_b^f^c
>>
On Tue, Jul 29, 2003 at 05:20:26PM +, John Chambers wrote:
> Bernard Hill writes:
> | In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Richard Robinson
> | <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
> | >
> | >Or K:E=f=c^G=d ? Longer, but maybe clearer.
> |
> | K:C ^g looks fine to me.
>
> Well, it looks fine, but it has t
| In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Richard Robinson
| >>
| >> K:A_b^f^c
| >> shouldn't that have a G# also since you've written K:A?
| >
| >It definitely shouldn't have a G#, since the Gs aren't sharp.
|
| So you are saying that
|
| K:A has 3 sharps
|
| K:A _b has no sharps and one flat instead?
|
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, John Chambers
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
>Bernard Hill writes:
>| In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, John Chambers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>writes
>| >
>| >If I had my druthers, I'd put a rule in saying that beginnings of
>| >repeated sections *must* be marked prope
Bernard Hill writes:
| In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Richard Robinson
| <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
| >
| >Or K:E=f=c^G=d ? Longer, but maybe clearer.
|
| K:C ^g looks fine to me.
Well, it looks fine, but it has the wrong tonic. This
doesn't matter on paper. But there are those of us who t
Bernard Hill writes:
| In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, John Chambers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
| >
| >If I had my druthers, I'd put a rule in saying that beginnings of
| >repeated sections *must* be marked properly. But of course that's
| >dreaming yet another impossible dream.
|
| Well in
On Tue, Jul 29, 2003 at 05:11:44PM +0100, Bernard Hill wrote:
> In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Richard Robinson
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
> >
> >> And from the abc source you have written
> >>
> >> K:A_b^f^c
> >>
> >> shouldn't that have a G# also since you've written K:A?
> >
> >It definitel
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Steven Bennett
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
>Bert Van Vreckem wrote:
>
>That all said, I don't think I've ever actually *seen* any Irish music with
>a roll ornament actually placed (didn't even know there was a symbol for it
>until I read this thread...) -- as I said b
Bert Van Vreckem wrote:
> Bernard Hill wrote:
>> In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Bert Van Vreckem
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
>>> Bernard Hill wrote:
>>>
2. What's a "roll" (+roll+ in the decorations)? I've checked 6 music
dictionaries and books on notation and the only rolls mentioned
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, John Chambers
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
>
>Actually, I've seen music with nested repeats that work exactly like
>parentheses. I've even used this on occasion myself. Granted, most
>musicians have probably never seen this. But I've found that it
>doesn't ev
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Richard Robinson
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
>
>*sigh* yes. So how to reconcile these ? If accidentals are given on a
>K: line, then if a mode is given you get the second usage, just above,
>and if it's just a bare notename you get the first usage ?
My suggestion is
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Richard Robinson
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
>
>> And from the abc source you have written
>>
>> K:A_b^f^c
>>
>> shouldn't that have a G# also since you've written K:A?
>
>It definitely shouldn't have a G#, since the Gs aren't sharp.
So you are saying that
K:A ha
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Richard Robinson
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
>
>Or K:E=f=c^G=d ? Longer, but maybe clearer.
K:C ^g looks fine to me.
Bernard Hill
Braeburn Software
Author of Music Publisher system
Music Software written by musicians for musicians
http://www.braeburn.co.uk
Selkirk
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, John Chambers
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
>
>If I had my druthers, I'd put a rule in saying that beginnings of
>repeated sections *must* be marked properly. But of course that's
>dreaming yet another impossible dream.
Well in Music Publisher it refuses to pla
David Barnert wrote:
| Bernard wrote-
|
| > 2. |: at the beginning of a section is not ugly. And I do
| > not like being forced to accept incorrect notation in that
| > if a |: is missing then the repeat should be made from the
| > previous double bar.
|
| But it *is* ugly at the beginning of a pie
On Tue, Jul 29, 2003 at 04:12:38PM +, John Chambers wrote:
> Richard Robinson writes:
> | > The only solution would be to write this:
> | > K:Ephr^G
> |
> | Or K:E=f=c^G=d ? Longer, but maybe clearer.
>
> Actually, I do include accidentals with this scale at times. The main
> reason is that
Richard Robinson writes:
| > The only solution would be to write this:
| > K:Ephr^G
|
| Or K:E=f=c^G=d ? Longer, but maybe clearer.
Actually, I do include accidentals with this scale at times. The main
reason is that with:
K:E^g
many musicians will not notice the subtle positioning of the sha
On Tue, Jul 29, 2003 at 03:17:52PM +, John Chambers wrote:
> Richard Robinson writes:
> | On Tue, Jul 29, 2003 at 01:15:54PM +0100, Bernard Hill wrote:
> |
> | > And from the abc source you have written
> | >
> | > K:A_b^f^c
> | >
> | > shouldn't that have a G# also since you've written K:A?
>
> "John" == John Chambers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
John> Next you'll be telling us that Britney Spears is a musician ...
Does she follow standards?
--
Laura (mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] , http://www.laymusic.org/ )
(617) 661-8097 fax: (801) 365-6574
233 Broadway, Cambridge, MA 02139
Bryan Creer writes:
|
| Perhaps it's time to plug my idea of -
|
| K:_b^f^c tonic=A mode=whatever
|
| Completely unambiguous.
Yeah, and I'd probably use that. Maybe I should just implement it.
You could even include a rule saying that the mode is to be ignored
if there is a key signature or y
On Tue, Jul 29, 2003 at 04:03:23PM +0100, Phil Taylor wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
> >There are to supported syntaxes:
> >[A] K:
> >[B] K:
>
> This is actually a bit counterintuitive, since
>
> K:D
>
> means D major (= 2 sharps)
>
> while
>
> K:D ^f
>
> means D mix (= 1 sharp)
>
> No
Richard Robinson writes:
| On Tue, Jul 29, 2003 at 01:15:54PM +0100, Bernard Hill wrote:
|
| > And from the abc source you have written
| >
| > K:A_b^f^c
| >
| > shouldn't that have a G# also since you've written K:A?
|
| It definitely shouldn't have a G#, since the Gs aren't sharp.
|
| It's K:A si
[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
>There are to supported syntaxes:
>[A] K:
>[B] K:
This is actually a bit counterintuitive, since
K:D
means D major (= 2 sharps)
while
K:D ^f
means D mix (= 1 sharp)
Not that there are many tunes about currently which use global accidentals,
but the second interpre
Bernard Hill writes:
| In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, I. Oppenheim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
| >On Tue, 29 Jul 2003, Bernard Hill wrote:
| >
| >> >> 5. No mention of midline
| >> >What do you mean?
| >>
| >> Sorry, I abandoned a comment and forgot to complete
| >> it. I am thinking of the midline
Bernard Hill writes:
| In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, I. Oppenheim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
| >There are to supported syntaxes:
| >[A] K:
| >[B] K:
| >
| >Syntax A will _modify_ the key signature of the mode
| >given, rather than simply append accidentals to it.
| >Example:
| >
| >K:Dmaj =c %
On Tue, 29 Jul 2003, Bernard Hill wrote:
> >[K: clef=bass] or [K: bass] is legal.
> Is it? I couldn't find it.
>
> Anyway the midline field attempted to define the middle line of say the
> bass clef as D or "D," to avoid too many leger lines. I never liked it
> anyway so glad it's gone.
It's not
Bert Van Vreckem writes:
|
| 2. Note lengths: seems to be incomplete. There's no mention of things
| like A3/2, only in the broken rhythm example. A3/2 should obviously be
| parsed, but how far should an abc program go? Is A1531/3001 valid or
| not? Best to clarify this and define what's legal and
Bernard Hill writes:
|
| 1. No ability to change clef in non-voiced music, the clef change is
| only in the voicing section. This means you can't write music for viola
| or cello.
All the clef stuff has "traditionally" (;-) been allowed in both V:
and K: lines. You really need this to handle th
On Tue, Jul 29, 2003 at 01:15:54PM +0100, Bernard Hill wrote:
> In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Richard Robinson
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
> >On Tue, Jul 29, 2003 at 11:41:39AM +0100, Bernard Hill wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> "Strange" key sigs such as the above (while clear in intent) are very
> >>
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, I. Oppenheim
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
>On Tue, 29 Jul 2003, Bernard Hill wrote:
>
>> >> 5. No mention of midline
>> >What do you mean?
>>
>> Sorry, I abandoned a comment and forgot to complete
>> it. I am thinking of the midline field in Clefs.
>
>I'm not sure what
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Richard Robinson
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
>On Tue, Jul 29, 2003 at 11:41:39AM +0100, Bernard Hill wrote:
>>
>>
>> "Strange" key sigs such as the above (while clear in intent) are very
>> non-standard. Are they really necessary? I've never played from one and
>> w
On Tue, 29 Jul 2003, Richard Robinson wrote:
> It then goes on to state where each field "will" be printed. This is at
> least inconsistent, and I don't think this is the right place for this
> level of detail.
Note that it says:
<<
Note that is only indicative, users may change the
formatting b
On Tue, 29 Jul 2003, Bernard Hill wrote:
> >> 5. No mention of midline
> >What do you mean?
>
> Sorry, I abandoned a comment and forgot to complete
> it. I am thinking of the midline field in Clefs.
I'm not sure what you mean.
[K: clef=bass] or [K: bass] is legal.
> I should have said non-Multi
On Mon, Jul 28, 2003 at 08:55:54PM +0200, I. Oppenheim wrote:
>
> Please help me with identifying the errors and the
> mistakes in the draft.
"Order of ABC constructs" should include all possibilities. Tuplets are
missing, for example.
I suggest structuring this list - like, spell out the order
On Tue, 29 Jul 2003, Bert Van Vreckem wrote:
> 1. Information Fields section: can the additional notes on fields be put
> in alphabetical order?
I preferred to deal with them in logical, rather than
alphabetical order
> 2. Note lengths: seems to be incomplete. There's no mention of things
> like
On Tue, Jul 29, 2003 at 11:41:39AM +0100, Bernard Hill wrote:
>
>
> "Strange" key sigs such as the above (while clear in intent) are very
> non-standard. Are they really necessary? I've never played from one and
> would actually find it very difficult to play _b ^f
See http://www.leeds.ac.uk/mus
On Tue, Jul 29, 2003 at 12:26:09PM +0200, Bert Van Vreckem wrote:
> Bernard Hill wrote:
> >In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Bert Van Vreckem
> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
> >>Bernard Hill wrote:
> >>
> >>>2. What's a "roll" (+roll+ in the decorations)? I've checked 6 music
> >>>dictionaries and book
On Mon, Jul 28, 2003 at 08:55:54PM +0200, I. Oppenheim wrote:
>
> Please help me with identifying the errors and the
> mistakes in the draft.
1) It starts by saying "The ABC standard itself deals only with structured,
high-level information; how this information should be actually rendered by
e.g
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, I. Oppenheim
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
>On Tue, 29 Jul 2003, Bernard Hill wrote:
>
>> 5. No mention of midline
>What do you mean?
Sorry, I abandoned a comment and forgot to complete it. I am thinking of
the midline field in Clefs.
>
>> 1. No ability to change clef
I. Oppenheim wrote:
I hereby publicly release the third draft revision of
the ABC 2.0 standard:
Please help me with identifying the errors and the
mistakes in the draft.
First of all: Guido, Irwin: well done!
1. Information Fields section: can the additional notes on fields be put
in alphabetica
Bernard Hill wrote:
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Bert Van Vreckem
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
Bernard Hill wrote:
2. What's a "roll" (+roll+ in the decorations)? I've checked 6 music
dictionaries and books on notation and the only rolls mentioned are for
timpani or other percussion and notated a
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Bert Van Vreckem
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
>Bernard Hill wrote:
>> 2. What's a "roll" (+roll+ in the decorations)? I've checked 6 music
>> dictionaries and books on notation and the only rolls mentioned are for
>> timpani or other percussion and notated as either "t
On Tue, 29 Jul 2003, Bernard Hill wrote:
> 1. In the table of ABC fields and their usage you have U:user defined
> still saying !trill! rather than +trill+
Fixed.
> 2. In the section O: origin the "separator" is miss-spelled.
Fixed.
> 3. Shouldn't +..+ be deprecated for chords?
It has been depre
Bernard Hill wrote:
2. What's a "roll" (+roll+ in the decorations)? I've checked 6 music
dictionaries and books on notation and the only rolls mentioned are for
timpani or other percussion and notated as either "tr" or a tremolo.
It is used at least in Irish music as a general ornamentation mark. I
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, I. Oppenheim
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
>Dear abcusers,
>
>I hereby publicly release the third draft revision of
>the ABC 2.0 standard:
>http://www.joods.nl/~chazzanut/abc/abc2-draft.html
>
>--- Due to popular demand, +...+ is now the preferred
>syntax for notating d
On Mon, Jul 28, 2003 at 11:15:14PM -0700, John Walsh wrote:
> Wil Macaulay writes:
> >
> >>--- Due to popular demand, +...+ is now the preferred
> >>syntax for notating decorations; !...! has been
> >>deprecated, although it is still allowed.
> >>
> >
> >I thought ** was proposed? although de
Wil Macaulay writes:
>
>>--- Due to popular demand, +...+ is now the preferred
>>syntax for notating decorations; !...! has been
>>deprecated, although it is still allowed.
>>
>
>I thought ** was proposed? although deprecated, ++ is still
around
>as an alternate to [...] for chords.
>
1 - 100 of 104 matches
Mail list logo
