Re: [abcusers] Hi
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I can't help feeling that the subject of this thread is no longer entirely appropriate. Any way... Laurie Griffiths said - ... but decided that I had arrogated to myself the right to speak for the entire ABC users community On the contrary. I felt you were claiming the right to disregard the ABC community while speaking for a small group who seemed to claim ownership of ABC without justification. Bryan actually has a good point here. We all have a tendency to regard "the ABC users community" as identical to "the abcusers list subscribers". We could all be a bit more cautious here. But, Bryan - and everybody else: It seems to me we're spending a lot of time and energy discussing water under the bridge here. How about shaking hands and let bygones be bygones? Is it possible? I ask mainly because I think the mode/key sig discussion was rather important, and we really ought to finnish it. But recently even mentioning the subject has been impossible. Frank Nordberg To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html
RE: [abcusers] Hi
pot - kettle - black Perhaps I got here too late and missed the abuse. All I remember reading was a discussion about chords that centered between including a basic set of chords and including every chord known to man because there isn't that much more programming involved. Did I miss something? "Richard L Walker"[EMAIL PROTECTED] Pensacola, FL 32504-7726 USA -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ...I have debated my case robustly but I have never descended into personal abuse despite being on the receiving end of quite a bit and have wasted a considerable amount of effort trying to explain my view to people who have sounded off at me (often at considerable length) while showing little sign of having actually read what I said. I would like to discuss developments in the utopian world you described the other day but, alas, it does not match my experience... To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html
[abcusers] The abc committee (Was: Hi)
I'm posting three different replies to Bryans post, because I think there are three different issues that ought to be kept separat: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: "We" - a different, but overlapping we - are currently trying to push the ABC standard forward. A committee set up with no reference to the wider ABC community. The committee surely should have stated their mandate clearer here at abcusers. It seems quite a few people have the impression that it's just a bunch of people who have decide on their own to take matters in their own hand. But it shouldn't be too late to correct that though, so here's a short history (I might have gotten a few minor details wrong): When Chris Walshaw announced his withdrawal from the abc development work a while ago, he oficially appointed John Atchley as the new "keeper of the ABC standard". John didn't want to have that responsibility alone, so he persuaded Laura Conrad to join him in the work (I've got a feeling she didn't need too much persuation ;) The two of them then set out to recruit committee members. In other words: as far as it is possible to have a clearly founded mandate in such an anarchistic environment as the abc community, the abc standard committee's got it. John and Laura decided to recruit committee members among the most active posters at abcusers. Honestly, I can't see they could have done it any other way. I'm sure there are lots of other abc users out there who could have done a marvelous job, but since they choose to stay in the background, we have no way of knowing about them. They also had senses enough to ask people in private rather than starting a discussion at abcusers. (Just imagine how *that* would have ended!!!) I was one of the people who was asked to join the committee, but I declined, suggesting they should concentrate on the major abc developers instead, and that's more or less how it happened. With hindsight I might agree it wasn't the perfect solution. Among other things it left Jack Campin and - as far as I know - Robert Bley-Vroman out. On the other hand, it made it far easier to set up the committee, and - even more important - it drastically increased the probability that the abc developers actually would follow the new standard. In any case, although I'm sure I wasn't the only one to suggest a committee of major developers, I'm willing to take the blame. So if anybody has any problems with it, please send any flames to me privately. No need to bother the whole list. (I already get so much spam, it won't make much difference to me ;) --- If anybody feels left out, please remember that a committee has to have as few members as possible to be able to work efficiently. Besides the committee is *not* the main forum for developing the abc standard. The abcusers mail list still has that function. So we just keep on discussing abc improvements here. The only difference is that there is now somebody to gather all the pieces and make something coherent out of it afterwards. Just like Bryan, I'm not convinced it'll actually work. But we have to give it a try. There doesn't seem to be any alternatives. Frank Nordberg --- To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html
[abcusers] Old tunes
I was looking for a collection (in abc format, of course) of tunes we used to sing around camp fires when everyone brought their guitars, mandolins, ukuleles, etc. (You Are My Sunshine; Cotton Eyed Joe; Sweet Betsy From Pike; and enough gospel tunes that the neighbors would have thought we were having a revival if they weren't there too). Is anyone aware of such a collection? "Richard L Walker"[EMAIL PROTECTED] Pensacola, FL 32504-7726 USA To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html
Re: [abcusers] The abc committee (Was: Hi)
"Frank" == Frank Nordberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Frank With hindsight I might agree it wasn't the perfect Frank solution. Among other things it left Jack Campin and - as Frank far as I know - Robert Bley-Vroman out. No, Robert is a member of the committee. -- Laura (mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] , http://www.laymusic.org/ ) (617) 661-8097 fax: (801) 365-6574 233 Broadway, Cambridge, MA 02139 To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html
Re: [abcusers] Old tunes
Richard L Walker wrote: I was looking for a collection (in abc format, of course) of tunes we used to sing around camp fires when everyone brought their guitars, mandolins, ukuleles, etc. John Atchley's jaabctops package also contains an example file with 101 popular songs. Maybe that's a start? -- bert van vreckem echo bexryt.vzaxnvrexckyemqxadvyaxlvasz.bxe|sed -e "s/[x-z]//g;s/q/@/" The trouble with computers is that they do what you tell them, not what you want. -- D. Cohen To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html
Re: [abcusers] Modes and key signatures (Was: Hi)
Frank Nordberg writes: | I think it's time to discuss modes and key signatures again. ... | We need a way to notate key signatures without implying a root for three purposes: | |1. To be able to notate as correctly as possible music that doesn't fit the | modal system. |2. To be able to notate non-standard key signatures. |3. As a safe way out for transcribers (humans or computer programs) that are | not able to discern between the various modes. One minor quibble, which deals with a marginal issue that I'd like to mention: I think the "without implying a root" isn't the main thing here; it would be better to say "without stating a mode". Of course, with case 3, you want to be able to omit both the root (aka tonic) and the mode when it's not practical to get them right. But in cases 1 and 2, the ideal would be to encourage people to give the tonic if they know it, plus the key signature. One of the advantages of ABC over traditional staff notation, which carries over to computerized music (plain text vs GIF or other image formats) is that computerized lookups become possible. Classical key signatures don't indicate the tonic, but this isn't a problem because you can't search printed music anyway except by laboriously leafing through pages of music. But with ABC, it's now possible to ask the computer things like "Find me a jig in the key of G." So we want to encourage giving the tonic, while not requiring it. We want to encourage giving the mode, while providing a way to give just the signature if the mode isn't easily determined for some reason (such as a non-western scale or an ignorant transcriber). So my "marginal" point: The current standard says that if no mode is given, major is assumed. It has been suggested that in my extended K:tonicmodesignature syntax, the same default should apply. I think this is a bad idea. In my implementation in abc2ps, what I did was to say that if only the tonic is given, with no mode or signature, then major is assumed. This is a subtle point, but I think it has significance. To see why, consider a musician trying to transcribe a tune in what a middle-eastern musician would call "E hejaz" or a klezmer musician would call "E freygish". I'd write this as K:E^G That is, the tonic is E and the signature consists solely of a G sharp. (It could obviously be K:^g if you prefer.) Note that there is no mode stated. If the mode defaults to major, the result will be that this will appear with four sharps, as if K:E had been written. The musician will, of course, be baffled by this, and will probably conclude that the software is broken (or doesn't yet implement key signatures). The ^G seems to have been ignored. Now, to the musicological expert, there's no puzzle here. You need to include a mode to cancel the major default. What mode do you use? To the expert, it's obviously "phr". But to the other 99% of the musicians in the world, it's not obvious at all. Even worse, what's needed to cancel the major default is different for every tonic. Most musicians will never be able to learn or remember this. However, they will quickly learn that there's another solution: K:^G This gives the desired signature. If you don't tell the software the tonic, it can't add an incorrect default major key signature. And we have lost the tonic and the ability to do our lookups. So the effect of making major the default mode is that we will see more ABC without a tonic in K: lines. But if we use the rule that the default is major only if no mode or signature is given, then K:E^G will work exacly like you'd expect, and we've subtly encouraged musicians to include the tonic when they know it. (Now if we could only think of a way to do something about the ABC tunes that have K:G for K:Em or K:Ador or K:Dmix. ;-) To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html
Re: [abcusers] Modes and key signatures (Was: Hi)
John Chambers wrote: One minor quibble, which deals with a marginal issue that I'd like to mention: I think the "without implying a root" isn't the main thing here; it would be better to say "without stating a mode". I stand corrected. ... So my "marginal" point: The current standard says that if no mode is given, major is assumed. It has been suggested that in my extended K:tonicmodesignature syntax, the same default should apply. I think this is a bad idea. In my implementation in abc2ps, what I did was to say that if only the tonic is given, with no mode or signature, then major is assumed. This is a subtle point, but I think it has significance. To see why, consider a musician trying to transcribe a tune in what a middle-eastern musician would call "E hejaz" or a klezmer musician would call "E freygish". I'd write this as K:E^G That is, the tonic is E and the signature consists solely of a G sharp. (It could obviously be K:^g if you prefer.) The problem is the "global accidentals" of abc. Global accidentals is a good idea, but it is misinterpreted by a number of applications and certainly messes up the syntax if we want to introduce non-standard key signatures. I'm sure we can find a way round that though. As for the misinterpretation part, I suggest the devolpers of the applications in question update their software to confirm to the present abc standard. To avoid a potential sidetrack, here's a quote from the abc 1.6. standard: Finally, global accidentals can also be set in this field so that, for example, K:D =c would write the key signature as two sharps (key of D) but then mark every c as natural... So, the standard clearly states that global accidentals is *not* a part of the key signature. Frank Nordberg To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html
Re: [abcusers] Modes and key signatures (Was: Hi)
"Frank" == Frank Nordberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Frank So, the standard clearly states that global accidentals is Frank *not* a part of the key signature. John has been campaigning to change that, on the grounds that nobody has ever been known to use it. I know you suggested that we start from scratch, so let me rephrase that: Many people feel that the current syntax for global accidentals which are not part of the key signature would be more useful and intuitive if it were used for accidentals which are part of the key signature. Does anyone actually use the current syntax? If so, can you post an example? If you do, would you mind if the display of your ABC file were changed, to have the accidental in the key signature instead of applied to every note? Would you still mind if the standard changed, and a conversion tool were supplied which automatically converted your file to have the accidentals applied to every note? In general I'm as against changing the standard in ways which break existing ABC as the next person, but if nobody has ever used that part of the standard, and there is way to use the syntax for something which lots of people are dying to use, I don't think we should be dogmatic. I do think that the minute we change the standard in a way that potentially breaks existing ABC, we should put in a version keyword, so that ambiguity is avoided, and automated conversion tools are possible. -- Laura (mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] , http://www.laymusic.org/ ) (617) 661-8097 fax: (801) 365-6574 233 Broadway, Cambridge, MA 02139 To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html
Re: [abcusers] Modes and key signatures (Was: Hi)
On Tue, 6 Mar 2001, John Chambers wrote: Of course, with case 3, you want to be able to omit both the root (aka tonic) and the mode when it's not practical to get them right. But in cases 1 and 2, the ideal would be to encourage people to give the tonic if they know it, plus the key signature. One of the advantages of ABC over traditional staff notation, which carries over to computerized music (plain text vs GIF or other image formats) is that computerized lookups become possible. Classical key signatures don't indicate the tonic, but this isn't a problem because you can't search printed music anyway except by laboriously leafing through pages of music. But with ABC, it's now possible to ask the computer things like "Find me a jig in the key of G." So we want to encourage giving the tonic, while not requiring it. I didn't want to copy in John's entire post, as I'm sure everyone's read it, but since we're starting the discussion fresh, I want to add my support for his solution. Speaking for myself, my primary concern about the modes question was, and still is, that the current functionality doesn't get broken, both for the sake of the existing body of tunes on the web, and the ability to search them. If there is a way to do that and to expand ABC's capabilities for handling other music not covered by the existing standard, so much the better. John's solution does seem to do that. Wendy To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html
Re: [abcusers] Modes and key signatures (Was: Hi)
But is there a compelling reason why we should not define "E hejaz" or "E freygish"? (in a similar manner to the definition proposed for chords) wil Frank Nordberg wrote: John Chambers wrote: One minor quibble, which deals with a marginal issue that I'd like to mention: I think the "without implying a root" isn't the main thing here; it would be better to say "without stating a mode". I stand corrected. ... So my "marginal" point: The current standard says that if no mode is given, major is assumed. It has been suggested that in my extended K:tonicmodesignature syntax, the same default should apply. I think this is a bad idea. In my implementation in abc2ps, what I did was to say that if only the tonic is given, with no mode or signature, then major is assumed. This is a subtle point, but I think it has significance. To see why, consider a musician trying to transcribe a tune in what a middle-eastern musician would call "E hejaz" or a klezmer musician would call "E freygish". I'd write this as K:E^G That is, the tonic is E and the signature consists solely of a G sharp. (It could obviously be K:^g if you prefer.) The problem is the "global accidentals" of abc. Global accidentals is a good idea, but it is misinterpreted by a number of applications and certainly messes up the syntax if we want to introduce non-standard key signatures. I'm sure we can find a way round that though. As for the misinterpretation part, I suggest the devolpers of the applications in question update their software to confirm to the present abc standard. To avoid a potential sidetrack, here's a quote from the abc 1.6. standard: Finally, global accidentals can also be set in this field so that, for example, K:D =c would write the key signature as two sharps (key of D) but then mark every c as natural... So, the standard clearly states that global accidentals is *not* a part of the key signature. Frank Nordberg To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html
Re: [abcusers] Modes and key signatures (Was: Hi)
Laura Conrad wrote: Many people feel that the current syntax for global accidentals which are not part of the key signature would be more useful and intuitive if it were used for accidentals which are part of the key signature. I have no problems with that. As long as we're talking about changing the standard rather than breaking it. Like laura I don't like changes that interfer with existing ABC, but I've never heard of any abc file that actually uses global accidentals, so it might be safe to do so in this particular case. Wendy Galovich wrote: If there is a way to do that and to expand ABC's capabilities for handling other music not covered by the existing standard, so much the better. John's solution does seem to do that. Seems so. We only have to keep in mind that a letter alone still means major mode. See if I've got this right: K: RootMode Key signature Dlyd D lydian F# - C# - G# DD majorF# - C# D^e_fD sillyE# - Fb D^f^c=g D none F# - C# - G natural _b +-unspecified-+ Bb etc., etc., etc. John's proposal doesn't *really* clash with abc 1.6 since the global accidental syntax seems to require a space between the key signature and the acidentals (e.g. D ^e_f rather than D^e_f), but keeping it might still be a bit too confusing. Frank Nordberg To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html
Re: [abcusers] Modes and key signatures (Was: Hi)
Laura wrote: "Frank" == Frank Nordberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Frank So, the standard clearly states that global accidentals is Frank *not* a part of the key signature. John has been campaigning to change that, on the grounds that nobody has ever been known to use it. I know you suggested that we start from scratch, so let me rephrase that: Many people feel that the current syntax for global accidentals which are not part of the key signature would be more useful and intuitive if it were used for accidentals which are part of the key signature. Does anyone actually use the current syntax? If so, can you post an example? If you do, would you mind if the display of your ABC file were changed, to have the accidental in the key signature instead of applied to every note? Would you still mind if the standard changed, and a conversion tool were supplied which automatically converted your file to have the accidentals applied to every note? In general I'm as against changing the standard in ways which break existing ABC as the next person, but if nobody has ever used that part of the standard, and there is way to use the syntax for something which lots of people are dying to use, I don't think we should be dogmatic. I do think that the minute we change the standard in a way that potentially breaks existing ABC, we should put in a version keyword, so that ambiguity is avoided, and automated conversion tools are possible. I don't think that we need to change the standard by very much here; after all, what goes into the abc is not going to change, only the way in which programs interpret it - and that could simply be a local option. So the standard could just say that "global accidentals" can either be written before the note wherever it occurs in the music (as at present) or added to the key signature. Whichever the user chooses makes no difference to the music as played, it's just a display option and does not break any existing abc files (if there are any). Phil Taylor To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html
Re: [abcusers] Modes and key signatures (Was: Hi)
Frank Nordberg writes: | ... To avoid a potential sidetrack, here's a quote from the | abc 1.6. standard: | | Finally, global accidentals can also be set in this field so | that, for example, K:D =c would write the key signature as two | sharps (key of D) but then mark every c as natural... | | So, the standard clearly states that global accidentals is *not* a part | of the key signature. Yes; I'd noticed that. We had a bit of a discussion a while back that included the suggestion that both could be included if we used the rule that an explicit key signature doesn't contain any spaces between the tonic and the accidentals, while global accidentals are separated by at least one space. The main argument against this is the "user friendly" one. We've seen how a great many abc users play fast and loose with spaces, and many clearly aren't quite capable of considering spaces as characters. This is why a lot of abc is so unreadable, and it also explains why a lot of hand-written music (in staff notation) is so unreadable. But it's an unpleasant fact of life, and if possible, we should accept spaces with key signatures, as is now done by most software between the tonic and mode. The main counter-argument to this is "What if someone is using the global accidentals syntax?" This was mostly why I asked a while back whether anyone had actually implemented it and used it. It got a loud silence then. I'm glad that Laura has asked again; maybe someone is using it that didn't hear the question earlier. However, if we can't turn up some actual uses, a reasonable approach would be to decree "glabal accidentals" as an interesting idea that doesn't seem to have gotten anywhere, and delete it from the standard. We can then say that in the K: line, the tonic, mode and accidentals mayb e run together or separated by spaces, whichever looks best to you. The idea of a tool with an option to distribute accidentals through the music does strike me as potentially useful in some obscure situations. In particular, I've worked on some abc tutorials, and I can imagine using such an option in creating the examples. This would make it possible to have a single abc source file that is converted to an image in two different ways, showing the accidentals as a key signature and then spread throughout the music. But I'd predict that there wouldn't actually be very much use for such an option in real life, and it probably won't be widely implemented, if at all. BTW, it is interesting to note that player programs always have to distribute the accidentals throughout the tune, so for them, this whole issue is moot. We've had a number of suggested features (e.g., the issue of octaves with clefs) for which it's the music formatters that don't care (since they don't produce pitches, only marks on paper), while the players have to deal with it. The issue of extended repeats is also significant work for players, but rather trivial for formatters. To a player program, "global accidentals" and "explicit key signatures" look and act like the same thing. To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html
Re: [abcusers] Modes and key signatures (Was: Hi)
John Chambers wrote: . given, major is assumed. It has been suggested that in my extended K:tonicmodesignature syntax, the same default should apply. I think this is a bad idea. In my implementation in abc2ps, what I did was to say that if only the tonic is given, with no mode or signature, then major is assumed. This is a subtle point, but I think it has significance. To see why, consider a musician trying to transcribe a tune in what a middle-eastern musician would call "E hejaz" or a klezmer musician would call "E freygish". I'd write this as K:E^G That is, the tonic is E and the signature consists solely of a G sharp. (It could obviously be K:^g if you prefer.) Note that there is no mode stated. If the mode defaults to major, the result will be that this will appear with four sharps, as if K:E had been written. The musician will, of course, be baffled by this, and will probably conclude that the software is broken (or doesn't yet implement key signatures). The ^G seems to have been ignored. Now, to the musicological expert, there's no puzzle here. You need to include a mode to cancel the major default. What mode do you use? To the expert, it's obviously "phr". But to the other 99% of the musicians in the world, it's not obvious at all. Even worse, what's needed to cancel the major default is different for every tonic. Most musicians will never be able to learn or remember this. However, they will quickly learn that there's another solution: K:^G This gives the desired signature. If you don't tell the software the tonic, it can't add an incorrect default major key signature. And we have lost the tonic and the ability to do our lookups. So the effect of making major the default mode is that we will see more ABC without a tonic in K: lines. But if we use the rule that the default is major only if no mode or signature is given, then K:E^G will work exacly like you'd expect, and we've subtly encouraged musicians to include the tonic when they know it. (Now if we could only think of a way to do something about the ABC tunes that have K:G for K:Em or K:Ador or K:Dmix. ;-) Why so awkward? I've already shown how to do this quite simply with J:key sig, [tonic] and in the K:tonicmode you still have the logic flaw. It's going to be a developer's nightmare to resolve any inconsistanies in the triple K:spec. Bandaids on K:spec isn't going to fix it's logic flaw. And by modes it seems to be implied that it's that of the tune, not that it's scoring mode, often very different things. There's a tune in the Stanford-Petrie collection of Irish music that has no sharps or flats on the key signature, and obvious keynote A. Minor, right?. No! Every F, C, and G has an 'accidental' sharp, so it's A major. Of course you can score it as minor, and K:spec doesn't care if it's correct or not, because it doesn't have much to do with keys and modes, it just limits the possibilities. I had problems with an ABC that I made from Simpson 'The British Broadside Ballad and It's Music'. My program didn't come out right on scoring mode and letter notes, although got the mode# of the tune correct. I spent 2 hours searching for a bug, that turned out not to be there. Simpson had put in brackets a flat on the key signature for E, and there was a single E in the tune with an accidental natural not in brackets. So it was inconsistant tune notation that fouled thing up. My ABZ program isn't fooled by any scoring (that's internally consistant), and will give the real mode of the tune in either case for that Irish tune, scored as you prefer. Note that pentatonic pi1 can be easily scored as lydian, ionian, or mixolydian. The tune isn't lydian, it isn't ionian, and it isn't mixolydian, it's pi1. My mode# (330=pi1) determines the mode of the tune, from whats in the tune and is independent of the scoring mode, and it can easily be inverted by simple math to give the tune's [12TET] scale relative to the key, and the tune can be rescored in any key and scoring mode you like. There are many other examples of this kind of thing where it's obvious that scoring mode is simply convenience or whim, and doesn't mean much. The 4 11 note tunes coded in file COMBCOD2.TXT are from tunes all scored as minor modes, but they is no way of telling whether they are expanded minors or majors. That scoring is just a convenience for minimizing the number of accidentals required for a scoring. If you don't reform ABC, on the K:spec, but just patch it with bandaids, I think your precious patient will die. And lets get it straight what are scoring modes and what are tune modes. Bruce Olson Old English, Irish and, Scots: popular songs, tunes, broadside ballads at my website (no advs-spam, etc)- www.erols.com/olsonw or click below A href="http://www.erols.com/olsonw" Click /a To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to:
