Phil Taylor writes:
>I think a lot of people find it very useful, although I agree that it
>would be nice to have an interchange format for stress programs.
>
And John Chambers writes
>Something that I've thought could be useful in a player: People using
>them to learn tunes could benefit fro
> De : Pax <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> A : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Objet : RE: [abcusers] problems with the R: field
> Date : dimanche 4 février 2001 19:43
>
> Hi All on the List
>
> With a truckload of respect I ask you to leave the R field alone.
> I use it all the
I use the R: field in all my music. Since all my songs are old hymns, I
put the meter in the R:, such as
R: C.M.
R: 8,7,8,7
R: 6-8
etc.
John Henckel alt. mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Zumbro Falls, Minnesota, USA (507) 753-2216
http://geocities.com/jdhenckel/
To subscribe/unsubscribe
Jack Campin wrote:
> > I think there are already examples where extra information
> > may need to be added in order to make abc unambiguous. A simple
> > example is making | Ac Bd | sound a little more like |A>c B>d |
> > simply by adding R:hornpipe to the header.
>
> except that hornpipes aren
My point, exactly - unambiguous to a [human] player of the tradition,
but not unambiguous out of context. And although the R: field is
not standardized, BarFly does useful things with it...
My point was simply that the dots are not enough, and that's
part of the reason for adding extra control fi
reel etc etc.
Thanks heaps folks for leaving it alone in advance
Bernard.
-Original Message-
From: John Walsh [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Sunday, 4 February 2001 1:16 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [abcusers] problems with the R: field
Jack Campin writes:
>
>The R:
Jack Campin writes:
>
>The R: field is long due for deprecation. There is no standard
>list of what rhythms it covers and what to do with them, and nobody
>seems interested in making it extensible in any way that would allow
>different users to agree on what their extensions mean. Why not
>just
Jack sez:
| except that hornpipes aren't always played dotted. You would need
| yet *another* level of extra information to say the style you're
| using is one where this dotted interpretation is appropriate.
...
| And some of the rhythmic types found in folk music are unimplementable
| by any pl
> I think there are already examples where extra information
> may need to be added in order to make abc unambiguous. A simple
> example is making | Ac Bd | sound a little more like |A>c B>d |
> simply by adding R:hornpipe to the header.
except that hornpipes aren't always played dotted. You
