Guido Gonzato wrote: >On Tue, 22 Jan 2002, Phil Taylor wrote: > >> >I would regard C>C/ as an illegal construct since > only makes sense >> >when both sides have the same length. Maybe this is the problem ? > >> I'm inclined to agree. It's not explicitly illegal in the abc standard, >> but it's a bit ambiguous as to what it actually means. BarFly >> translates C>C/ as C3/C/4, but that is a different length from CC. >> You could also argue that it should mean C5/4C/4, which would keep the >> total length the same. > >I see the point. Should I conclude that if I want to obtain a dotted quarter >followed by two semi-quavers, with L:1/4 I'll have to resort to an inline >[L:1/8]?
Why do you need the change of default note length? With L:1/4 you can write C3/C/4C/4 which is shorter than [L:1/8] C3C/C/ (and you don't have to change back to L:1/4 later). >I have doubts though. In fact, the 1.6 standards states: > > To support this abc notation uses a > to mean `the previous note is dotted, > the next note halved.` > >following this rule, C>C/ with L:1/4 would mean a dotted quarter followed by >a semi-quaver... exactly what I need, even though it isn't a real broken >rhythm. I find this notation much more handy than an inline [L:1/8]. > >If the general consensus is that one should avoid writing this, I'll follow >the rule. I just want to make sure I write portable, standard ABC. The broken rhythm construct is a shortcut which saves a huge amount of typing in some dance tunes (e.g. Strathspeys), where it happens twice in every bar. The situation where you might want to use it between unequal notes is relatively rare, so it saves very little typing. Here I would always write it out in full in order to achieve portability. Phil Taylor To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html
