Re: [abcusers] K: command
Bryan Creer wrote: Phil Taylor says - If this change in standard becomes accepted, the vast majority of users will use it not just for the ambiguous tunes where it is appropriate, but for ALL transcriptions. You want to stop this change in standard because it is something the vast majority of users want? As I said in my reply to Wendy Galovich's comments, it isn't me that wants to restrict peoples choices. Judging by the way in which most motorists treat speed limits, it would probably be correct to say that the vast majority of drivers would prefer their speed not to be limited by law. Of course, what you are proposing is that exceeding the speed limits should be optional, not mandatory, so that's OK then. Phil Taylor To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html
Re: [abcusers] K: command
Man, have we been over this before! I think the main arguments (for getting K:, which I think we should) are that 1) It has proved its use for as long as notation has existed. 2) It gives the responsibility of figuring out modes and stuff to the player, so no need for the typist to figure everything out. 'Cause he might make the wrong decisions. But, hey, I don't mess that much with modal stuff. Anyway my vote would be for having the option of a K: On Tue, 10 Oct 2000, Phil Taylor wrote: Bryan Creer wrote: Phil Taylor says - If this change in standard becomes accepted, the vast majority of users will use it not just for the ambiguous tunes where it is appropriate, but for ALL transcriptions. You want to stop this change in standard because it is something the vast majority of users want? As I said in my reply to Wendy Galovich's comments, it isn't me that wants to restrict peoples choices. Judging by the way in which most motorists treat speed limits, it would probably be correct to say that the vast majority of drivers would prefer their speed not to be limited by law. Of course, what you are proposing is that exceeding the speed limits should be optional, not mandatory, so that's OK then. Phil Taylor To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html -- Atte André Jensen "I don't think Microsoft is evil in itself; I just think that they make really crappy operating systems." - Linus Torvalds To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html
Re: [abcusers] Re: O'Neill errors
John Henckel remarked: | I don't think the abc standard should allow K:^g _a ^b I.e., you don't think ABC should be used to transcribe music that uses scales other than the classical western-European modes. Or, if people insist on doing such a thing, they should be forced to use a classical key signature and clutter the music with accidentals to get it into the right scale. But I am curious: What sort of a scale would use ^G_A^B? I don't think I've ever heard such a scale. Presumably the ^G and _A would have slightly different (microtonal) intonation. The huge gap from _A to ^B makes it look like some sort of pentatonic scale. What's the tonic (if there is one)? To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html
Re: [abcusers] Modes (was O'Neill errors)
| 1) To what does this refer: "one of the major advantages of abc | over conventional notation"? ABC does have a number of "advantages", i.e., things that it does better than staff notation. One important advantage is that it has a standard. Conventional notations have rather a large number of different conventions. Laurie To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html
Re: [abcusers] Re: O'Neill errors
What sort of a scale would use ^G_A^B? _E^F_B or _E^F_B^C definitely make sense (tonic is D). To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html
[abcusers] The Blarney Pilgrim
Here's the result of BarFly's analysis of the Blarney Pilgrim. I used this transcription, from Henrik Norbeck: X:235 T:Blarney Pilgrim, The R:jig Z:id:hn-jig-235 M:6/8 K:Dmix ~D3 DEG|A2G ABc|BAG AGE|GEA GED| ~D3 DEG|A2G ABc|BAG AGE|GED D3:| |:ded dBG|AGA BGE|ded dBG|ABA GBd| g2e dBG|AGA BGE|B2G AGE|GAG GFG:| |:ADD BDD|ADD ABc|BAG AGE|GEA GED| ADD BDD|ADD ABc|BAG AGE|GED D3:| The first attempt looked very boring. BarFly said it was in G Major, and was heptatonic. This is clearly wrong, as the tune rather obviously starts and ends in the key of D. However, the algorithm does get fazed by tunes with key changes; it analyses the tune as a whole, and if there's a key or mode change the results are unpredictable. Sometimes it gives one key or the other, sometimes both, sometimes a totally wrong answer. So, I split the tune into its three parts and analysed them separately. Here are the results: (The scores in brackets are a measure of the quality of fit; when there's no clear winner the program may quote up to four answers.) Blarney Pilgrim, The (part 1) Key/mode determined from tune (lower score = higher confidence): G Major (18.042) D Mixolydian (18.264) A Dorian (19.971) D Dorian (21.234) G Major Hexatonic ( -7) Ionian/Mixolydian | . | . | | . | . | . . | --- Blarney Pilgrim, The (part 2) Key/mode determined from tune (lower score = higher confidence): G Major (11.356) G Major Hexatonic ( -4) Lydian/Ionian | . | . | . . | . | . | | Blarney Pilgrim, The (part 3) Key/mode determined from tune (lower score = higher confidence): D Mixolydian (19.467) D Dorian (22.046) G Major (22.500) D Mixolydian Hexatonic ( -3) Mixolydian/Dorian | . | . . | . | . | | . | So, the answer appears to be that the first part is exactly split between G Maj and D Mix (with A Dor and D Dor as less likely possibilities). The second part is solidly in G Major, and the third part in D Mix. D Dor is also valid here because of the gap, and G Major as less likely. Furthermore, although the tune as a whole is heptatonic, the parts are actually in different hexatonic gapped scales. I also tried splitting up the first part into shorter sections to see if I could define which parts of it were in which keys, but the algorithm is a statistical one, and gives very erratic results if you give it too few notes to work with. On the whole, I'd say that Henrik was correct to assign it to D Mix, even though it probably spends more of it's time in G. Phil Taylor To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html
Re: [abcusers] Modes (was O'Neill errors)
David Barnert wrote: I wrote: We've been through this before, and I realize I am in the minority on this, but I continue to feel that the K: field should describe the number of sharps or flats without naming a tonic and/or a mode. A number of folks chimed in to comment that my comments might make more sense if interpreted inclusively rather than exclusively. I'm afraid that careful examination of my wording (specifically, the use of "without") reveals that I cannot claim not to have been thinking inclusively. So I guess my minority is getting smaller. The only reason I don't advocate jettisoning the whole tonic/mode format is that it would invalidate the large body of abc files that already exist. But the first time I mentioned this (months ago) I believe I said something like "Chris Walshaw made an unfortunate choice in deciding that the K: field should contain more information than the printed key signature does." Tonic/mode does not affect playback or printing, which are the two primary uses of abc (at least the way I and most of my friends use it). It is of importance only to people (or machines) trying to supply chords or create databases that include key information. Phil Taylor (my hero) wrote: I'll repeat what I said before on this subject. If this change in standard becomes accepted, the vast majority of users will use it not just for the ambiguous tunes where it is appropriate, but for ALL transcriptions. We will have lost what is one of the major advantages of abc over conventional notation for the sake of dealing with a theoretical problem applying to a very small number of tunes. Phil, it was with your words from last time around in mind that I included the words, "I realize I am in the minority" in my comments. Please clear up for me two points that I see as obstacles to my accepting your viewpoint: 1) To what does this refer: "one of the major advantages of abc over conventional notation"? OK. Perhaps my attitude towards this is conditioned by my early experience of music. I was taught music at school very badly, and basically learned nothing. I got a guitar when I was fourteen, and taught myself to play by ear, because I couldn't make any sense of the dots, and because none of the music I wanted to play at the time was available at a price I could afford, I had no motivation to learn. I only learned to read music much later, when I was already a proficient player. I found it very hard going, and indeed I still can't sight read anything at all complicated. One of the things that struck me when I did come to learn written music was that the notation, while it contained something called a "key signature" actually gave no indication of what the key was. As far as I was concerned "what key is it in?" was the first thing I wanted to know about a new piece of music, and "two sharps" was not an answer. I had learned music on an instrument which is totally chromatic, to the extent that the black notes are not marked in any way as being different from the white notes. Electric guitar players tend to avoid the open strings (because they sound different, and tend to feedback at high volume levels) and if you do that, there is really no difference between the keys of C and D - you just play the same pattern of notes two places higher up the fingerboard. What I needed was to know the key note, and whether it was major or minor, and I resented the fact that I had to play mechanically through the whole tune several times and get the tune into my head before I could extract that piece of information. Without knowing the key, all I could do was reproduce what was written on the paper - I couldn't harmonise it or improvise around it or do anything creative with it. So, when I came across abc I was delighted to find that it gave this information upfront. When I started to write abc software I discovered that it is very easy to convert K:D into "two sharps", but _impossible_ to do the reverse conversion, so the suggestion that we should permit K:^c^f as legal abc involves discarding vital information, and is anathema to me. I realise that placing this information in the notation places the onus of figuring out the key and mode on the transcriber, rather than on the reader. This is particularly the case when the transcriber is working from printed music. I realise that many people who do transcription resent the extra effort which that imposes. However, I feel that that's as it should be, since transcription is a job which only needs to be done once, whereas the abc from that transcription may be read by thousands of readers. and 2) Is the answer to 1) so significant that it's worth severing the tie between printed notation and abc? Sorry, I don't understand this. The tie is not severed; whether you write K:D or K:^c^f you can logically convert abc to printed notation. Let me remind those who don't know me well that this is not a "sour grapes" attitude espoused by
Re: [abcusers] Modes (was O'Neill errors)
On Tue, 10 Oct 2000, Phil Taylor wrote: I had learned music on an instrument which is totally chromatic, to the extent that the black notes are not marked in any way as being different from the white notes. Electric guitar players tend to avoid the open strings (because they sound different, and tend to feedback at high volume levels) and if you do that, there is really no difference between the keys of C and D - you just play the same pattern of notes two places higher up the fingerboard. What I needed was to know the key note, and whether it was major or minor, and I resented the fact that I had to play mechanically through the whole tune several times and get the tune into my head before I could extract that piece of information. That's an interesting thought about the guitar; but it's true of all instruments - as you say, it's information that isn't contained in the key signature (unless you play the sort of music described by 'elementary theory', where a key signature gives you a choice of 1 major key and one minor, which helps to reduce the choices) I realise that placing this information in the notation places the onus of figuring out the key and mode on the transcriber, rather than on the reader. This is particularly the case when the transcriber is working from printed music. I realise that many people who do transcription resent the extra effort which that imposes. However, I feel that that's as it should be, since transcription is a job which only needs to be done once, whereas the abc from that transcription may be read by thousands of readers. As someone who's done a fair amount of transcription (and still has a lot more to do "when the tuits arrive") - I agree. It can cost extra thinking time, but it's part of the job. Also, it's a part of the job that I particularly want done, since the ability to do things like search for tunes on a particular tonic is ine of the things I really like about abc. Incidentally (thinking of the amount of transcription I've done), I finally got the update to http://www.leeds.ac.uk.music/Info/RRTuneBk finished a few days ago. It's been in the works since August of last year. And I'm not going to make it obsolete by typing up anything else for ... ooh, days, I hope :) -- Richard Robinson "The whole plan hinged upon the natural curiosity of potatoes" - S. Lem To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html
