subject:"Re\: \[abcusers\] dynamics"

Re: [abcusers] Dynamics

2002-10-09 Thread ANewman110

The draft standard has some standards for dynamic markings between the !...!, as a modifier on a chord much like the chord symbol (which is enclosed in quotes). It's also possible to 'abuse' the chord notation ("...") to place dynamics below notes, but that doesn't really do it for things like crescendos. (fwiw iabc will eventually honor both these.)

abc2midi honors some proprietary midi volume notations in comment lines. See the rendition of Beethoven's 7th on the abc homepage for examples.

RE: [abcusers] Dynamics

2002-10-09 Thread Harris, Anthony ABEC (SIMASD)

Title: RE: [abcusers] Dynamics





Quit sending me this crap.


-Original Message-
From: Starling [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, October 09, 2002 1:55 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [abcusers] Dynamics




Sorry, having a bit of trouble with the documentation. Does anybody
know how to do dynamics in abc, such as crescendos, decrescendos,
markings like forte, mezzoforte, and those nifty alligator clips
used to indicate short cresc(and decresc)endos.



Starling
To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html

Re: [abcusers] dynamics (was)

2001-11-02 Thread Phil Taylor


Gianni Cunich wrote:

I won't let your offensive emails drive me
away... Do you actually wish to ask Toby making this a censored list?

Not a bad idea actually.  Why don't we take a vote on expelling Gianni
from the list?

Phil Taylor


To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html

Re: [abcusers] dynamics (was)

2001-11-02 Thread Wendy Galovich


On Friday 02 November 2001 04:31, Phil Taylor wrote:
 Gianni Cunich wrote:
 I won't let your offensive emails drive me
 away... Do you actually wish to ask Toby making this a censored list?

 Not a bad idea actually.  Why don't we take a vote on expelling Gianni
 from the list?

 Phil Taylor

Well, at this point Gianni has earned himself the sad distinction of being 
the only individual whose posts I have filtered, on any list, ever. If/when I 
see responses from other list members that indicate he's actually 
contributing something constructive, I'll consider removing my filter. In the 
meantime I refuse to be distracted by someone who contributes little to 
nothing positive and consistently derides everyone else's efforts. 

Wendy

To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html

Re: [abcusers] dynamics (was)

2001-11-02 Thread Frank Nordberg


Just for the record:
I've just set up an e mail filter to autmotacially remove all messages
with the subject Re: [abcusers] dynamics (was). Can smeone tell me
when this is over?

Frank Nordberg
http://www.musicaviva.com
To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html

Re: [abcusers] dynamics (was)

2001-11-02 Thread Richard Robinson


On Fri, 2 Nov 2001, Wendy Galovich wrote:
 
 Well, at this point Gianni has earned himself the sad distinction of being 
 the only individual whose posts I have filtered, on any list, ever.

Same here. Likewise, a first.

 If/when I see responses from other list members that indicate he's
 actually contributing something constructive, I'll consider removing my
 filter.

If anybody's left reading them, to notice it.

-- 
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

Re: [abcusers] dynamics (was)

2001-11-01 Thread Bryancreer

Richard Robinson said -

On Wed, 31 Oct 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

.. Richard Robinson and others
have argued that the development of the abc standard should be
associated with a software project.

I have reviewed all my postings to this thread, since Laura's comments and
before. I can't find any such statements.

Well that's what I've been talking about and you have been arguing against me. What did you think we were talking about?

I don't see a conflict, actually. A spec. "should" describe how software
behaves, software "should" behave as described, and wouldn't it be nice if
the thousand flowers could converge on a single description ? Writing code
and writing documentation are not unrelated, but they're not identical
skills either; lots of people are better at one than the other, and lots
of people _are_ invloved, in whatever way is accessible to them. Even if
it be arguing the toss about priorities on the mailing list ...

I think that's a fair summary of what I've been saying.

My feeling
is that things are likely to go better when people are scratching the
itches that they actually feel. If somebody proposes that they might write
some code, I presume they have thought for themselves about what they
could do, and that that is what they think best, and I prefer to accept
that rather than getting upset because they're not scratching whatever
itch I'm feeling.

The problems arise when, having scratched their itch, they don't share that comfort with other people (an innovation doesn't pass into general use) or two people are scratching the same itch without knowing it (two different, and possibly incompatible, solutions appear to the same problem). We are all scratching the same body. I'm sorry. This metaphor is getting slightly disgusting.

I think John's comments, yesterday, sum things up pretty well, as regards
software and/or specification.

John is talking a lot of sense but still seems slightly ambiguous about whether the documentation should be associated with one software development or not. I shall respond to his posting separately.

Bryan Creer

Re: [abcusers] dynamics (was)

2001-11-01 Thread Bryancreer

Wendy Galovich said-

A Wiki page? See http://www.usemod.com/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WhatIsaWiki

What I'm thinking here is that if an editable page - say, a table listing abc 
applications against each detail of the standard specifications, was publicly 
available, a sizeable group of contributors could work on it, and the task of 
updating it wouldn't have to fall to one designated person.

Looks interesting. It will depend heavily on goodwill between users. I'll investigate it further.

Bryan Creer

Re: [abcusers] dynamics (was)

2001-11-01 Thread Gianni Cunich

- Original Message -
From: Richard Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2001 6:33 PM
Subject: Re: [abcusers] dynamics (was)

 But silly is not the main point.  I lost my temper, yes. For the second
 time since this list was started. I am seeing Brian, and Gianni, making
 remarks which I consider to be really offensive, about an undefined number
 of other people on this list. And, to borrow Laurie's phrase, it gets my
 goat.

To quote Alessandro Manzoni, our national novelist, which was in turn
quoting an old popular Italian saying: chi è è in difetto è in sospetto! A
complimentary translation for non Italian native speakers: who knows to be
guilty of something, reacts when when anybody talks about it.

If, as a number of other subscribers to this list, you'll find hard to grasp
the meaning of my posting(s), this is an idot proof English native speaker
broad summary: The one you blamed for being offensive were, actually,
replying to messages that where offending them. Blame it on the other
members of your gang, not on us!

In other words: if you think we are offensive just beacuse we don't change
our minds when you, the self appointed Demigods of the abc, stated we should
have... well,you can go to Hell (and possibly remain there!). And if you
think that we - or to say better, I - should be NICE when someone keeps
offending us - well: SEE ABOVE...AND, PLEASE, FOLLOW MY SUGGESTION...
Otherwise, you might discover that the word offensive might show a number
of hidden meanings you have never even dreamed about in you worst
nightmares... yes,  I'm TIRED TO BE INSULTED BY *** LIKE YOU... and the next
time I will post to this mailing list I will feel entitled to avoid using
asterisks!

WOWW!

Given this:  I'm not Bryan (Creer) - I'm not necessarily sharing Bryan's
opinions - I actually think he's wasting his time to try to discuss with ***
like you! And I actually have taken the decision to replay, stroke for
stoke, to the kind of messages you, and the likes, are posting.

ABC is not perfect. A number of people have tried, and put work into, a
number of approaches to improving things. A number of improvements have
been made, even if not the ones that some people hoped for. To abuse
people for doing the work they have done seems to me, as I said before,
unfair, counterproductive, and just plain wrong, even if it has not handed
everybody everything they would like. Particularly, the way that every
time a new poster appears here, they are informed that this is a no-good
bunch of people, an arrogant self-selected clique who are bound not to
listen to them ... it does no good. It makes agreement harder to reach
instead of easier, it drives people away instead of including them, and I
object to it. And I intend to continue doing so, from time to time ...  I
don't think it's true, either ;)

Actuall, YOU ARE  in fact an arrogant self-selected clique who are bound
not to
listen to them. And so what? I won't let your offensive emails drive me
away... Do you actually wish to ask Toby making this a censored list?

No regards

Gianni

To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html

Re: [abcusers] dynamics (was)

2001-10-31 Thread Bryancreer

Laurie Griffiths said -

There was a move - and I was part of it - to try to make some sort of
progress on the standard. Part of the thinking was that the fewer people
involved the quicker we might agree. Part of the thinking was that if we
enhanced the standard, even if we didn't do it the way some people would
have liked, it would still be progress and still good for everyone because
something is almost always better than nothing.

and Richard Robinson said-

ABC is not perfect. A number of people have tried, and put work into, a
number of approaches to improving things. A number of improvements have
been made, even if not the ones that some people hoped for. 

whereas Laura Conrad  recently said -

The discussion convinced everybody after a couple of
months that there was no point in putting work into a standard in the
present development environment. Which I think means it was a
productive discussion, which produced the right answer.

to which Phil Taylor responded -

I have to dissent somewhat here. I personally was not convinced that the
task was pointless, and was quite prepared to continue. As far as I remember,
the discussion petered out without any decisions being taken, and I rather
thought that it would be taken up again.

There seems to be some confusion here. Has the standards committee decided anything or not? Could we have a clear statement from the committee (rather than individual members) on what it has achieved and its current status?

Bryan Creer

Re: [abcusers] dynamics (was)

2001-10-31 Thread James Allwright


On Wed 31 Oct 2001 at 05:17AM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 
 There seems to be some confusion here.  Has the standards committee decided 
 anything or not?  Could we have a clear statement from the committee (rather 
 than individual members) on what it has achieved and its current status?
 

I don't think you'll ever get the standards committee to speak as one
person with a unified voice. My opinion is similar to Phil's. I took
the approach of identifying all the new features in the new draft
standard and seeing which ones were universally approved and which
ones were not. This seemed like a good way to make progress, and I
got the impression that disagreement was restricted to relatively
minor features and obscure options of major features. However, the
thread petered out without any definite conclusions; people were
either not interested in this approach or distracted by other
projects.

It is still possible for someone who cares about an abc standard
to help the process along; get hold of every abc program you can,
go through them carefully and then document the compatibilities
and incompatibilities carefully on the web. If you do this
carefully and comprehensively enough it be a valuable resource to
guide any new abc developer on interpreting the more subtle aspects 
of abc.

James Allwright
To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html

Re: [abcusers] dynamics (was)

2001-10-31 Thread Richard Robinson


On Wed, 31 Oct 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 In a posting a few days ago, Laura Conrad spoke first of the
 difficulties of achieving agreement on a standard and then spoke of the
 sort of the sort of open-source project that she would like to see.  I
 took these as one topic reflecting more of the same association of
 standard and software project and used my now notorious outlaw
 reference.  She then said that she was simply making two separate points
 in the same email and I (if you recall) apologised.  I may have been a
 little premature in doing so as, since then, Richard Robinson and others
 have argued that the development of the abc standard should be
 associated with a software project. 

I have reviewed all my postings to this thread, since Laura's comments and
before. I can't find any such statements.

I don't see a conflict, actually. A spec. should describe how software
behaves, software should behave as described, and wouldn't it be nice if
the thousand flowers could converge on a single description ? Writing code
and writing documentation are not unrelated, but they're not identical
skills either; lots of people are better at one than the other, and lots
of people _are_ invloved, in whatever way is accessible to them. Even if
it be arguing the toss about priorities on the mailing list ... My feeling
is that things are likely to go better when people are scratching the
itches that they actually feel. If somebody proposes that they might write
some code, I presume they have thought for themselves about what they
could do, and that that is what they think best, and I prefer to accept
that rather than getting upset because they're not scratching whatever
itch I'm feeling.

I think John's comments, yesterday, sum things up pretty well, as regards
software and/or specification. 


-- 
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

Re: [abcusers] dynamics (was)

2001-10-31 Thread Laurie Griffiths


I had hoped that we could make progress on some of the things which are
already implemented here and there (and in fact the implementations are not
totally incompatible).
From memory (if any of these are in actually the standard then forgive me)
w: to specify words
v: to specify voices
Some way to specify clefs (implementations use k: and v:)

There are of course plenty of other things to do and to argue about.

This is not the Voice Of The Committee, just me.

Laurie

- Original Message -
From: James Allwright [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2001 11:32 AM
Subject: Re: [abcusers] dynamics (was)


On Wed 31 Oct 2001 at 05:17AM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 There seems to be some confusion here.  Has the standards committee
decided
 anything or not?  Could we have a clear statement from the committee
(rather
 than individual members) on what it has achieved and its current status?


I don't think you'll ever get the standards committee to speak as one
person with a unified voice. My opinion is similar to Phil's. I took
the approach of identifying all the new features in the new draft
standard and seeing which ones were universally approved and which
ones were not. This seemed like a good way to make progress, and I
got the impression that disagreement was restricted to relatively
minor features and obscure options of major features. However, the
thread petered out without any definite conclusions; people were
either not interested in this approach or distracted by other
projects.

It is still possible for someone who cares about an abc standard
to help the process along; get hold of every abc program you can,
go through them carefully and then document the compatibilities
and incompatibilities carefully on the web. If you do this
carefully and comprehensively enough it be a valuable resource to
guide any new abc developer on interpreting the more subtle aspects
of abc.

James Allwright
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] dynamics (was)

2001-10-28 Thread jhoerr


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] dynamics (was)

2001-10-28 Thread Gianni Cunich

- Original Message -
From: Eric Mrozek [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, October 28, 2001 3:41 AM
Subject: Re: [abcusers] dynamics (was)

 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 [

 time for a new approach, preferably one involving as much of the abc
 community as possible not just a self chosen clique

 ]

   Do you have a positive suggestion ?

  Certainly, but before I do, could I have your assurance that you will
  give my suggestions proper consideration, rather than opposing them on
  principle just because they come from me, and that you will restrict
  your reponses to what I actually say rather than your own wild
  speculations about things you think I might say (as you have done twice
  in this thread alone)?

  Bryan Creer

 Bryan, this is an open list - you won't get anyone to agree to your
 personal terms. You'd be best off to just post your thoughts and don't
 mind the critique, whether it's meant personally or not.

 Eric

Actually (even if my English might be a bit rusty), as far as I've been able
to understand the meaning of what Bryan wrote, he wasn't asking for somebody
to agree about any kind of personal terms. He was rather, I guess, talking
about
prejudices, which are a rather different thing than what you call critique.

Even if you aren't able to grasp the difference, it's quite a concrete one!

Gianni

To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html

Re: [abcusers] dynamics (was)

2001-10-28 Thread Simon Wascher


Hello,

reading all this dynamic messages, I want to ask for a bit of
moderation, since things do not get better by breaking down bridges
which have to be rebuilt afterwards anyway.

Abc as it is is working right now and whether there is a further
developement for the standard and/or the programs, abc is of some use
for many people. 
It is true that everybody including me has whishes about extentions to
the existing possibilities, but in effect nothing is as important than
improoving the actuall programs or new programms to fit to the actuall
standard, at least not to loose backwards and cross program file
compatibility. 

regards 

Simon Wascher

To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html

Re: [abcusers] dynamics (was)

2001-10-28 Thread Bryancreer

Eric Mrozek said -

Bryan, this is an open list - you won't get anyone to agree to your
personal terms. You'd be best off to just post your thoughts and don't
mind the critique, whether it's meant personally or not.

Well, some of the critique has been extremely personal. Of course I'm going to post my ideas as to what should be done; give me a few days to collect my thoughts. I was just having a dig at Richard Robinson who, twice in this thread, had said things along the lines of "I expect you would say..." followed by an absurd statement bearing no resemblance to anything I ever have said or ever would say. He is an intelligent chap who knows what he is doing and is simply trying to score debating points. I can't be bothered to waste my time on that sort of thing.

During my time on this list I have seen several people arrive bright eyed and bushy tailed, full of enthusiasm and ideas only to retreat in exasperation a few weeks later after a tirade of "Well, what about..." and "That won't work..." and "We like it the way it is." and "Well, I don't need it so I won't implement it in my software." from the establishment who seem to think they own abc. If that sort of thing doesn't work, they are quite prepared to resort to personal abuse or use such refined techniques as ignoring the content of a posting while picking up on the spelling mistakes (I have deliberately left a few in this email for those who like that sort of thing). They have the ultimate response for irrefutable arguments or awkward questions. They ignore them. I have never known anyone say to anyone "OK. You have convinced me. You are right."

From comments made by Laura Conrad, it would appear that this attitude continues in the inner sanctum of the standards committee which explains why it has failed to achieve anything.

So here is my first proposal -

Members of this list will commit themselves to treating other people's ideas with respect and answering them in a rational way no matter how much they disagree with them.

Let's try and raise the level of debate out of the school playground.
You never know; it might just work.

Bryan Creer

Re: [abcusers] dynamics (again)

2001-10-27 Thread Bryancreer

Jack Campin said -

Programs like abc2win only let you output ABC they can interpret.

abc2win has come under considerable critiscism on this list for its deviations from the standard. After not inconsiderable effort on my part, abc2nwc now accepts abc2win tunes without much trouble. This was essential given the large quantity of abc2nwc tunes there seem to be out there. I have not managed the same with abc tunes produced using BarFly (avoiding calling it 'output') because some of its extensions are incompatible with other implementations; notably the V: command. Surely the ideal to work towards is that the input/output from all software should be mutually comprehensible.

if I need a feature in ABC to represent a piece of music in front of me I'll
invent it and let the programmers catch up when they can.

Why should they if it isn't in the standard? How can they be sure of getting it right without a formal definition? What do they do if someone else has come up with a different solution to the same situation? What do they do if your syntax conflicts with somebody else's solution to a completely different problem? By cooperating at the definition/specification level, all that would be avoided and you would get what you want.

It's fine for an application to report that it can't figure such stuff out,
or to say that it doesn't meet some agreed standard, but that doesn't
mean it shouldn't be there.

But some of the information you wished to convey is lost to the recipient. Hardly satisfactory.

Bryan Creer

Re: [abcusers] dynamics (was)

2001-10-27 Thread Eric Mrozek



[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

[

time for a new approach, preferably one involving as much of the abc 
community as possible not just a self chosen clique

]

  Do you have a positive suggestion ?
 
 Certainly, but before I do, could I have your assurance that you will 
 give my suggestions proper consideration, rather than opposing them on 
 principle just because they come from me, and that you will restrict 
 your reponses to what I actually say rather than your own wild 
 speculations about things you think I might say (as you have done twice 
 in this thread alone)?
 
 Bryan Creer
 

Bryan, this is an open list - you won't get anyone to agree to your 
personal terms. You'd be best off to just post your thoughts and don't 
mind the critique, whether it's meant personally or not.

Eric

P.S. In the spirit of developing cross-platform tools... I currently 
typeset music using abc2ps and abcm2ps, but usually convert the 
postscript to PDF when sharing the files with others. Because the Unisys 
compression patent expires soon, I have considered building a library of 
PDF writing functions similar to the ones in abc2ps so that I could 
generate PDF files directly. Would any of the developers here be 
interested is using such a thing? One issue that causes me to hesitate 
is that compressed PDF output would not be as compact as the postscript 
(ps allows macros which is a huge advantage when you have lots of shapes 
- i.e. note heads - repeated many times on a page). Another is that 
GhostView makes postscript viewing/printing easy enough that PDF doesn't 
seem necessary.







To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html

Re: [abcusers] dynamics (was)

2001-10-27 Thread Laura Conrad


 Eric == Eric Mrozek [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

Eric P.S. In the spirit of developing cross-platform tools... I currently
Eric typeset music using abc2ps and abcm2ps, but usually convert the
Eric postscript to PDF when sharing the files with others. Because the
Eric Unisys compression patent expires soon, I have considered building a
Eric library of PDF writing functions similar to the ones in abc2ps so that
Eric I could generate PDF files directly. Would any of the developers here
Eric be interested is using such a thing? One issue that causes me to
Eric hesitate is that compressed PDF output would not be as compact as the
Eric postscript (ps allows macros which is a huge advantage when you have
Eric lots of shapes - i.e. note heads - repeated many times on a
Eric page). Another is that GhostView makes postscript viewing/printing
Eric easy enough that PDF doesn't seem necessary.

And when it is, ps2pdf does a pretty good job, so I'm not sure the
effort of maintaining an abc2pdf utility makes sense.  

-- 
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

49 matches

Mail list logo