Re: [abcusers] ties, accidentals, enharmonics and part order
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 does this prove, except that *your* rules are self-defeating and incomplete? If your rules imply a contradiction where even novice musicians agree on a single interpretation, don't you think maybe the problem is with how you stated them? While it avoids this particular problem, I can imagine that there may be another situation in which that rule conflicts with *another* rule. A further, even more careful statement would clear that up...and so on. If this is the case, and I doubt it, then the problem is with careless statements being made, not the the practices that they are meant to describe. An accurate description of a rule *should* require careful language, and it might require exceptions, or even exceptions to exceptions. But that doesn't imply a contradiction. We have indeed discussed this, and I'd hate to undermine any consensus the list has by dragging it out. I used this as an example because we *had* discussed it, and had agreed on it. Actually, this interpretation did not come from any discussion or consensus on this list. I took it directly from The Norton Manual of Music Notation. We aren't breaking new ground here. Sure, I interpret it as an f sharp too, but...well...suppose that the second accidental was smaller and had parentheses around it, making clear it was a courtesy accidental. Would that change anything? No. A courtesy accidental is still an accidental. In fact, the use of parentheses is unnecessary, and not recommended. They don't communicate anything useful to the performer. Would the third f now be sharp or natural? The conflict for me is this: The accidental on the second f is indeed physically printed in the second measure. But the accidental is printed before the note, which is also physically printed in the second measure. Now we agree that the note is really part of the previous measure, When did we agree to that? The (sounded) note is clearly part of *both* measures. The second written note simply indicates how much longer after the barline to sustain it. And since it describes what is happening *after the barline,* why should the note or its accidental be considered part of the previous measure? John To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html
Re: [abcusers] ties, accidentals, enharmonics and part order
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 longer*. Nitpick: it doesn't really become part of the key signature, since an accidental only applies to the octave in which it is written. rules (1) and (2) are in genuine contradiction, and convention, not logic, decides between them. I think that the contradiction lies not in the rules themselves, but in certain assumptions that you make about them. As you say in rule (1), two notes tied together on paper are really part of a single long note in practice. And since that note was intoned *prior to* the barline, the accidental clearly applies to it. The perceived contradiction arises from your assumption that it is possible to cancel an accidental within a single note. It simply isn't possible; it would result in two *different* notes, and rule (1) would not even be applicable. So, a better way to express rule (2) is that an accidental applies to any note that *begins* before the next barline (subsequent tied notes being regarded as *continuations* of the original note). But we're not quite finished. Suppose there is a third f: ^f-|f f . Is the third f sharp or natural? We've discussed this very example... The third f is natural. It isn't the *pitch* of f sharp that extends to the end of the measure, it's the written accidental itself. Therefore, if there is no written sharp in the second measure, subsequent non-tied notes are natural. However, a courtesy accidental is recommended in such cases. Now suppose the writer writes ^f-|^f f. [snip] again there is a conflict. There is a written accidental in the second measure, so I do not see any conflict in interpreting the third note as an f sharp. John To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html
Re: [abcusers] ties and accidentals
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 appear to say anything about accidentals remaining in effect until the end of the bar, either. Maybe I'm not looking in the right place. John To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html
RE: [abcusers] ties and accidentals
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 of whole notes, beaming, barlines, etc., if not from staff notation? It's hard for me to imagine how you define pseudo-staff notation, if ABC doesn't qualify. My point was that we should have a language that is precise in it's *syntax*, that is, the way in which music is notated and the way in which the language should be interpreted. In other words: what is allowed and what is not. I agree, and there is *nothing* imprecise about ^f-|f if you simply amend the standard to codify the rule -- a rule that most people seem to be following anyway. I still see no advantage to using ^f-|^f. In other words: don't blame the abc source for not looking in a specific way when converted into staff notation. Blame the program! And if you *do* expect the staff to look in a certain way: don't use abc - use a music typesetting program or whatever. I disagree. The ABC standard is full of indications that it has historically been intended primarily as a source for *generating* staff notation. See the section on beaming... Beaming is meaningless outside of staff notation. There are also many instances of language like character x is used to generate symbol y. There's even an ASCII *drawing* of a five-line staff, with ledger lines, in the standard itself! The basic philosophy seems to be draw what I tell you to draw. So, I would counter your suggestion by saying that if you want to write stand-alone notation, irrespective of how it would appear on the staff, maybe *you* are the one who shouldn't be using abc. (Whether or not abc *should* be stand-alone is another question entirely. My point is simply that is is not stand-alone *now*. Not by a long shot.) John To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html
RE: [abcusers] ties and accidentals
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 be redundant, but it is a useful redundancy to performers. The description of the beam-equivalent notation in ABC may refer to beaming, but the concept of rhythmic grouping of notes is not staff notation-specific. You are confusing the result with the way that it is communicated. That's like saying that the letter S is not alphabet-specific because the *sound* that it makes is not alphabet-specific. Rhythmic grouping of notes is not specific to any notation system, but communicating it with beams is. Furthermore, the ABC standard does not define beams in terms of how they group notes together rhythmically. It defines beams in terms of how the notes will be drawn on the staff. So really, it's less like defining something as the sound that the letter S makes and more like defining it as the letter S itself. So, I would counter your suggestion by saying that if you want to write stand-alone notation, irrespective of how it would appear on the staff, maybe *you* are the one who shouldn't be using abc. This seems a little extreme. Keep in mind that it was in response to: if you *do* expect the staff to look in a certain way: don't use abc - use a music typesetting program or whatever. If what I said was extreme, this was equally so. John To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html
Re: [abcusers] ties and accidentals
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 sharp (since the printing program will have explicitly sharped the first f in the measure, so by extension, all later f's will be sharped.) But I'm guessing---we should just follow whatever the actual convention is in printed music for this. The convention (according to my old notation text) is that the third f in ^f-| f f would be natural, however, it is advisable to write a courtesy accidental to remove all doubt [Heussenstamm, 1987]. If an f sharp is intended, the third f *must* have a sharp in front of it. In the second example, I see no reason why the second sharp wouldn't carry through the entire measure. John To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html
Re: [abcusers] ties and accidentals
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 distinction. These two passages should be played differently: (C D E- | E F G) (C D E | E F G) If there were no distinction, we would never need to write ties within slurs. From a notational perspective, another example of the distinction is the fact that a passage of slurred notes requires only one slur. But when a series of notes are tied, each adjacent pair must be connected with their own tie: E2- | E2- | E2 ===correct (E2 | E2 | E2) ===incorrect Yet another example is the fact that slurring two different chords together requires only one slur. But when you tie a chord to a chord, each note of the chord requires a tie: [C2-E2-G2-] | [CEG] ===correct ([C2E2G2] | [CEG]) ===incorrect Now, if there's no distinction, why do ties and slurs obey different rules? A slur means to play the notes without articulating any but the first. Please tell me how to play a note on the piano, marimba, harp, snare drum, etc. without articulating it. Apparently, I've been playing far too many notes all these years :-) What a slur really means is that the passage should be played legato. This does not preclude any and all articulation (see the first example I gave). On the contrary, it is actually quite common to find articulation marks *within* slurs. It's really the ABC representation that's misleading, implying that ties and slurs are different things. It would be better for ABC to officially go along with the usual musical convention, and just say that the tie notation is shorthand for a two-note slur, and for identical notes, causes them to merge into a single long note. According to whom, exactly, is this the usual musical convention? This is how ties are implemented in a lot of software already, and it's a very useful way to do it. It's also wrong. Implementing ties and slurs this way makes it impossible for the computer to distinguish between the first two examples I gave. The computer would play them both identically. And how would it handle something like this, I wonder: L:1/8 M:C K:Db z2 (.A z .B z .d z | .e z .f z .e z .B) z | d2 z2 z4 | It's nearly impossible for me to dumb down ABC. If you subscribe to some of the musical mailing lists that use ABC, you'll quickly see what I mean. The quality of much of the posted ABC is abysmally low, and dumb syntax errors are rife. What I meant was that the standard should not be changed so that dumb syntax errors become correct. And I would consider notating an F sharp slurred to an F natural with ^F-|F to be just such an error. The day the standard endorses garbage like this is the day I stop using ABC. John To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html
Re: [abcusers] ties and accidentals
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 their ABC. By your own words, the reason this problem exists is because of the widespread use of software that has casually accepted the use of - as a slur without complaint -- i.e., software that has been too liberal. So in effect, you have chosen to become part of the problem, rather than the solution! While it may be the case that you wrote your software intending for it to be a solution for non-standard ABC, it is quite possible now that some people write non-standard ABC precisely because *your* software enabled them to do so without ever learning the correct syntax. At the very least, I think that using - as a slur should result in a clear *warning* to the user that the ABC standard discourages this practice, and it is not guaranteed to work with other ABC software. Then I suppose you could be as liberal as you want in idiot-proofing your software without much risk of further exacerbating the problem. I don't want to waste my time responding to users' complaints about my web site bombing for ABC that works elsewhere. I can respect this, but at the same time, I don't feel that it justifies dumbing down the standard to the lowest common denominator. Interpreting ^F-|F as two F sharps makes the most sense. It is consistent with the standard's definition of a tie; it follows ABC's trend of borrowing from the traditional rules for notating accidentals; and it ensures that it will be possible, when necessary, to force the second sharp to be displayed. Interpreting the second F as a natural gives no appreciable benefit that I can see (besides which, it is poor notation anyway, since a natural sign should be used even in the absence of a slur or tie, as a courtesy to the performer). John To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html
Re: Re: [abcusers] ties and accidentals
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 notation, there is no ambiguity. The second F is assumed to be sharp, as a rule. I can't imagine anyone but a complete novice playing it otherwise. I am aware of only two situations where it is recommended in standard notation to draw the second sharp. The first is when the tie continues from the end of one line to the beginning of the next. The other is when the second F sharp occurs simultaneously with an F natural in another octave. In both cases, the additional sharp is merely for clarification. Its absence would not indicate a natural (though it would be poor notation). As has been mentioned before, if you want to slur an F sharp to an F natural, whether you cross a barline or not, the natural should be made explicit. In abc, there is even less ambiguity, because ties and slurs have distinct syntaxes. ^F-|=F is utter nonsense (according to the draft standard), and should be written as (^F|=F) instead. And if ^F-|=F is nonsense, then it is equally nonsensical for abc software to interpret ^F-|F that way. If we are going to start requiring that abc notation make the second sharp in this example explicit, then we should require that *every* accidental be made explicit, for the sake of consistency. But this seems silly to me. abc was clearly designed to mimic standard notation to a large extent, so it already follows many of the same rules (such as accidentals lasting to the next barline). To follow some rules and ignore others will only lead to confusion. Another problem is that if we required this example always to be written as ^F-|^F, typesetting software would by default have to omit the second sharp in order to conform to conventional notation. But you run into a problem if you want to force the second sharp to be displayed. ^F-|^F won't do it. John To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html
Re: [abcusers] Re: Initial repeats
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 Norton Manual of Music Notation, First Edition (Heussenstamm, 1987): If a passage is to be repeated from the beginning of a piece, only one repeat sign is needed. John To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html
Re: [abcusers] tempo
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 didn't provide, but I can live with it. John To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html
Re: [abcusers] tempo miscellanea
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 conventions. That doesn't matter. The point is, distinguishing between different kinds of text *in some way* is beneficial to the performer. Performers who are used to reading music will take this convention for granted. In any case, is merely being able to implicitly specify a different typeface for tempo indications a feature worth the bother of implementing? This is not a matter of merely changing typeface. I was adding just one example to many other good points. There are other benefits to specifying a context for text information. Sorting, filtering, and extracting information based on context would be useful. I regularly do this kind of thing, for instance to extract just the titles and words from a large collection of tunes. This would not be possible if lyrics were written _like _this. John To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html
Re: [abcusers] something fairly complicated (Q: field)
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 2/2 time. I disagree here. Nowhere in the 1.6 standard does it state that the Q: field will define the beat if it has the form Q:A/B=C . This is the essence of my point. The standard doesn't have to state it, because this metronomic convention already has a meaning in the musical world outside of abc. If you want to use 3/8=80 to achieve a 4/4 Allegro, go right ahead. But it won't make much sense to a musician. John To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html
Re: [abcusers] something fairly complicated (Q: field)
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 can see is that old software might not like it (but if we give this consideration too much weight, the new standard will be stultified). In fact, this could be the solution to extending Q:. Q:3/8=120 % Playback and print 3/8=120, same as now. Q:Allegro=120 % Define Allegro as 120 bpm, no direct effect on % display or playback. Q:3/8=Allegro % Set 3/8=120 for playback, display Allegro. The latter two could even be abbreviated: Q:3/8=Allegro=120 % Set 3/8=120 for playback, display Allegro, % define Allegro as 120 bpm. A couple of questions: Q:Allegro Should display Allegro. But for playback, should it use a default tempo, or take a reasonable guess as to the appropriate beat, or generate an error? The same question applies if Allegro is used but never defined. Also, there must be some way of displaying 3/8=120 AND Allegro at the same time (two Q: fields?), and interpreting = and 3/8 as ordinary characters. John To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html
Re: [abcusers] something really simple
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. It could be treated as an error, but I would rather take a reasonable guess and give a clear warning instead. Perhaps this should be left up to the software, though. In any case, here's a fairly simple rule that would be right most of the time. Given a meter of Y/Z: 1. If Z is less than or equal to 4, beat=1/Z 2. If Z is greater than or equal to 8: a. If Y is evenly divisible by 3, beat=3/Z. b. Otherwise, if Y is odd, beat=2/Z (or 1/(Z/2)). c. Otherwise, beat=1/Z. Examples: 2/2 time, beat=1/2 (rule 1) 3/2 time, beat=1/2 (rule 1) 2/4 time, beat=1/4 (rule 1) 3/4 time, beat=1/4 (rule 1) 4/4 time, beat=1/4 (rule 1) 4/8 time, beat=1/8 (rule 2c) 5/8 time, beat=1/4 (rule 2b) 6/8 time, beat=3/8 (rule 2a) 7/8 time, beat=1/4 (rule 2b) 9/8 time, beat=3/8 (rule 2a) 12/8 time, beat=3/8 (rule 2a) etc. For M:none, assume beat=1/4. I would also suggest that once established, the beat should NOT change, even if the meter changes, unless accompanied by an explicit beat= or another Q: field. John To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html
Re: [abcusers] something really simple
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 play back at 60 beats per minute. 6/8 allegro, with a dotted quarter as the beat, would play back at 80 beats per minute. One possible solution: Allow a different Allegro to be defined for each meter. 1/4=120 in 4/4 would not conflict with 3/8=120 in 12/8. One problem with this is that the list of Allegro definitions could grow very large (and still would never be comprehensive). Another problem is that in some meters, particularly compound meters, the value of the beat is not always obvious. For instance, 3/8 time can be counted with three eighth-note beats to the measure, or with a single dotted-quarter beat. Another possible solution: Define Allegro as simply 120. Then each piece that uses Allegro must explicitly state what its beat is. It's probably not safe to rely on the L: field for this, but the M: field is a possible candidate, e.g. M:6/8 beat=3/8. The problem with this is that there are some meters in which the beat is not necessarily constant (e.g. 7/8 or 5/8). There may be some cases in which neither 1/8=120, 1/4=120 nor 3/8=120 would be an appropriate Allegro. Yet another possible solution: Limit the scope of any Allegro definition so that such conflicts would never occur. This would probably narrow the scope to the current meter in the current piece/movement, which would render symbolic tempo definitions all but useless. Which leads to the final option, which is to regard the idea of symbolic tempo definitions as hopelessly complex, and abandon it altogether. :-) John To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html
Re: [abcusers] developing the standard was:Re: [abcusers] (Attentionplease) - starting the new ABC draft
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 been proved that it is actually implementable with reasonable effort. I was going to say something along these lines as well. I would amend the above to say to the developers, write as much code as you can stomach, report any problems to the standards list, but please don't *publish* the software (except perhaps as beta) until the standard becomes official. John To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html
Re: [abcusers] something really simple
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
Re: [abcusers] RE : The day the music died! voting for abc standard
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 do about the history of baroque notation may want to correct this guess. Most of the figured bass I have seen has used sharps, flats, and naturals. But I believe those were mostly modern editions. It would be nice if abc could handle both, though I suppose it could be left up to the software. I don't think allowing naturals to be entered as part of chord syntax is a kludge. I think it's an obvious extension of the functionality, which may well be useful to some people who write more normal chords, too. I should have stated my assumptions better. If naturals are needed to represent some real-world chord, then that's fine. But in principle, I don't think a feature should be added to the chord syntax that would extend its use beyond writing chords. It is already being used for too many things... expressions, dynamics, and essentially any other type of text, even though its stated purpose in the 1.6 standard is Guitar Chords. On the one hand, it's nice to have that kind of flexibility, so that you *can* kludge things like figured bass into abc. But it often results in conflicts (above- vs. below-the-staff placement), unexpected behavior (Andante becoming Bbndante after transposition), and confusion to the user who might assume that 4\n2 is supposed to be some kind of guitar chord. Ideally (and perhaps idealistically), it would be better for each distinct feature to have its own distinct syntax. I agree that if there were ever a community of users and developers who were using ABC to do figured bass, there should be extensions for that purpose added to the standard. My attempts have involved a fair number of kludges. I don't see such a community now. I was speaking from an ideal-world standpoint. Personally, I would like to see a standard based primarily on a representative sampling of musical literature, as far as that is possible. A measurable goal could be stated as the ability to codify X% of the samples accurately and completely. Leave it up to the developers to decide whether or not there is a large enough audience for a particular feature; if it is common enough in musical literature (and I think figured bass probably is), it should at least be in the standard. Again, from an ideal-world standpoint. John To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html
Re: [abcusers] dynamics (was)
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 even the most important way. Probably 75% of the people on my team at work have never even seen our product's source code. And there are plenty of SourceForge members who can't program in *any* language. I think an open-source project *could* be an appropriate venue for working on the abc standard, as long as it's open to input from anyone. I don't understand why you think a project contributor would have to know C or any other programming language in order to provide input on the standard. Coding would follow the standard, not the other way around. I'm not saying this is what libabc should be, or even could be, but I don't understand why you are singling it out for criticism over any other implementation. It seems like a huge leap to say that there is a danger of it becoming synonymous with the future of abc, let alone in some way that would exclude your input. All that aside, based on the present standardization efforts (or lack thereof), abc *has* no forseeable future. I don't think that should stop someone from writing a useful tool. And since it hasn't stopped *you*, I assume you would agree. To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html
Re: [abcusers] Gloggauer Liederbuch
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 and purposes, the music itself is copyrighted. To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html
Re: [abcusers] Gloggauer Liederbuch
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
