From: Laura Conrad [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 30 Jul 2003 09:19:29 -0400
Besides, those of us who typically read from only treble and bass
clefs, can't ever remember which line an alto C clef is on.
This reminds me of a conductor joke that's popular among us violists.
However, I'll have to
On Wed, Jul 30, 2003 at 02:51:45PM -0400, Laura Conrad wrote:
Phil == Phil Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Phil Also I don't like the idea of
Phil %%MIDI nobarlines
Phil because it means something totally at odds with what it says. Bar
Phil lines have nothing to do
Richard == Richard Robinson
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Richard Though, yes, the use of the existing %%midi namespace
Richard would be a clue - helpful in general (since it gives a
Richard rough idea of what sort of work it does) and misleading
Richard in particular (since, as
On Thu, Jul 31, 2003 at 10:42:15AM -0400, Laura Conrad wrote:
Richard == Richard Robinson
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Richard Though, yes, the use of the existing %%midi namespace
Richard would be a clue - helpful in general (since it gives a
Richard rough idea of what sort of
Richard == Richard Robinson
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Richard Ah. Interesting, yes. Also, come to think of it, ny
Richard abc_compare, which borrowed the abcMIDI parser, to unroll
Richard ABC into a stream of notes. Does abc2ly also unroll
Richard repeats, etc ?
Optionally.
On Thu, Jul 31, 2003 at 11:01:34AM -0400, Laura Conrad wrote:
Richard == Richard Robinson
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Richard If so, maybe what we're actually talking about is a
Richard distinction between 2 parsing methods - unroll into a
Richard stream and then re-parse, vs do
Bernard Hill wrote on 29 Jul 2003
I did not say beginning of a piece I said beginning of a section. It
has always been standard notation to assume the first repeat is from the
beginning of the work. We are talking about
| . | | :|
| . | | :|
which
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], John Walsh
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes
Correction: in Irish music, a roll is a specific way of playing
several repeated notes, not a general ornament on a given note. It's
basic to the music, which is why it's part of abc. I'm not at all
surprised rolls aren't
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes
Bernard Hill wrote on 29 Jul 2003
I did not say beginning of a piece I said beginning of a section. It
has always been standard notation to assume the first repeat is from the
beginning of the work. We are talking about
| . |
From: Bernard Hill [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2003 10:43 AM
Subject: Re: [abcusers] ABC Standard 2.0 revision III
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], John Walsh
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes
Correction: in Irish music, a roll is a specific way of playing
I notice that the clefs section uses only a small number of arbitrary
names, and doesn't allow for specifying shapes on lines. I think you
should also allow:
G1, G2,...G5
F1, F2,...F5
C1, C2,...C5
Or at least, make C, G, and F names as well as treble, alto, etc.
For the
I don't see any discussion of the relationship between accidentals and
barlines. This is important, because in order to translate ABC, which
records the appearance of a note in staff notation, into, e.g., MIDI
or lilypond, which records the absolute pitch of the note, you need to
know how long
BarryBarry Say says:
| Bernard Hill wrote on 29 Jul 2003
|
| ... We are talking about
|
| | . | | :|
| | . | | :|
|
| which is ambiguous. And should maybe be
|
| | . | | :|
| |:.. | . | | :|
|
|
| In British
Do we lose anything if we couple this to M:none? or do we need to be
able to specify
both a meter (M:C comes to mind) and separately the behaviour of
accidentals?
Laura Conrad wrote:
I don't see any discussion of the relationship between accidentals and
barlines. This is important, because in
Wil == Wil Macaulay [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Wil Do we lose anything if we couple this to M:none? or do we
Wil need to be able to specify
Wil both a meter (M:C comes to mind) and separately the behaviour of
Wil accidentals?
Yes.
Not having barlines is very different from not
Strikes me that the %%MIDI directives are the equivalent of an audio
stylesheet...
wil
Laura Conrad wrote:
Wil == Wil Macaulay [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Wil Do we lose anything if we couple this to M:none? or do we
Wil need to be able to specify
Wil both a meter (M:C
John Chambers wrote:
In Ryan's case, the p.37 examples do have a double bar before the
repeat colon - at the end of the preceding staff. This may have been
the origin of that perverse :|!: example that we saw recently. If the
! means new staff, this would exactly match what Ryan did.
It's
From: Phil Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Also I don't like the idea of
%%MIDI nobarlines
because it means something totally at odds with what it says. Bar
lines have nothing to do with midi - the midi standard provides
no way of representing them because they are a purely visual
feature of
Phil == Phil Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Not having barlines is very different from not having a meter. Most
Renaissance tunes have a meter of C, C|, 3/2 or something, but they
either didn't use barlines at all or used them for something very
different from telling you
Wil Macaulay writes:
--- Due to popular demand, +...+ is now the preferred
syntax for notating decorations; !...! has been
deprecated, although it is still allowed.
I thought ** was proposed? although deprecated, ++ is still
around
as an alternate to [...] for chords.
In
On Mon, Jul 28, 2003 at 11:15:14PM -0700, John Walsh wrote:
Wil Macaulay writes:
--- Due to popular demand, +...+ is now the preferred
syntax for notating decorations; !...! has been
deprecated, although it is still allowed.
I thought ** was proposed? although deprecated, ++
Bernard Hill wrote:
2. What's a roll (+roll+ in the decorations)? I've checked 6 music
dictionaries and books on notation and the only rolls mentioned are for
timpani or other percussion and notated as either tr or a tremolo.
It is used at least in Irish music as a general ornamentation mark. I've
On Tue, 29 Jul 2003, Bernard Hill wrote:
1. In the table of ABC fields and their usage you have U:user defined
still saying !trill! rather than +trill+
Fixed.
2. In the section O: origin the separator is miss-spelled.
Fixed.
3. Shouldn't +..+ be deprecated for chords?
It has been deprecated
Bernard Hill wrote:
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Bert Van Vreckem
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes
Bernard Hill wrote:
2. What's a roll (+roll+ in the decorations)? I've checked 6 music
dictionaries and books on notation and the only rolls mentioned are for
timpani or other percussion and notated as
I. Oppenheim wrote:
I hereby publicly release the third draft revision of
the ABC 2.0 standard:
snip
Please help me with identifying the errors and the
mistakes in the draft.
First of all: Guido, Irwin: well done!
1. Information Fields section: can the additional notes on fields be put
in
On Mon, Jul 28, 2003 at 08:55:54PM +0200, I. Oppenheim wrote:
Please help me with identifying the errors and the
mistakes in the draft.
1) It starts by saying The ABC standard itself deals only with structured,
high-level information; how this information should be actually rendered by
e.g. a
On Tue, Jul 29, 2003 at 12:26:09PM +0200, Bert Van Vreckem wrote:
Bernard Hill wrote:
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Bert Van Vreckem
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes
Bernard Hill wrote:
2. What's a roll (+roll+ in the decorations)? I've checked 6 music
dictionaries and books on notation and the
On Tue, Jul 29, 2003 at 11:41:39AM +0100, Bernard Hill wrote:
Strange key sigs such as the above (while clear in intent) are very
non-standard. Are they really necessary? I've never played from one and
would actually find it very difficult to play _b ^f
See
On Mon, Jul 28, 2003 at 08:55:54PM +0200, I. Oppenheim wrote:
Please help me with identifying the errors and the
mistakes in the draft.
Order of ABC constructs should include all possibilities. Tuplets are
missing, for example.
I suggest structuring this list - like, spell out the ordering
On Tue, 29 Jul 2003, Bernard Hill wrote:
5. No mention of midline
What do you mean?
Sorry, I abandoned a comment and forgot to complete
it. I am thinking of the midline field in Clefs.
I'm not sure what you mean.
[K: clef=bass] or [K: bass] is legal.
I should have said non-Multiple
On Tue, 29 Jul 2003, Richard Robinson wrote:
It then goes on to state where each field will be printed. This is at
least inconsistent, and I don't think this is the right place for this
level of detail.
Note that it says:
Note that is only indicative, users may change the
formatting by
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Richard Robinson
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes
On Tue, Jul 29, 2003 at 11:41:39AM +0100, Bernard Hill wrote:
Strange key sigs such as the above (while clear in intent) are very
non-standard. Are they really necessary? I've never played from one and
would actually
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], I. Oppenheim
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes
On Tue, 29 Jul 2003, Bernard Hill wrote:
5. No mention of midline
What do you mean?
Sorry, I abandoned a comment and forgot to complete
it. I am thinking of the midline field in Clefs.
I'm not sure what you mean.
[K:
Bert Van Vreckem writes:
|
| 2. Note lengths: seems to be incomplete. There's no mention of things
| like A3/2, only in the broken rhythm example. A3/2 should obviously be
| parsed, but how far should an abc program go? Is A1531/3001 valid or
| not? Best to clarify this and define what's legal and
On Tue, 29 Jul 2003, Bernard Hill wrote:
[K: clef=bass] or [K: bass] is legal.
Is it? I couldn't find it.
Anyway the midline field attempted to define the middle line of say the
bass clef as D or D, to avoid too many leger lines. I never liked it
anyway so glad it's gone.
It's not gone!
Bernard Hill writes:
| In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], I. Oppenheim [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes
| There are to supported syntaxes:
| [A] K:tonicmode accidentals
| [B] K:tonic accidentals
|
| Syntax A will _modify_ the key signature of the mode
| given, rather than simply append accidentals to it.
|
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes
There are to supported syntaxes:
[A] K:tonicmode accidentals
[B] K:tonic accidentals
This is actually a bit counterintuitive, since
K:D
means D major (= 2 sharps)
while
K:D ^f
means D mix (= 1 sharp)
Not that there are many tunes about currently which use global
Richard Robinson writes:
| On Tue, Jul 29, 2003 at 01:15:54PM +0100, Bernard Hill wrote:
|
| And from the abc source you have written
|
| K:A_b^f^c
|
| shouldn't that have a G# also since you've written K:A?
|
| It definitely shouldn't have a G#, since the Gs aren't sharp.
|
| It's
On Tue, Jul 29, 2003 at 04:03:23PM +0100, Phil Taylor wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes
There are to supported syntaxes:
[A] K:tonicmode accidentals
[B] K:tonic accidentals
This is actually a bit counterintuitive, since
K:D
means D major (= 2 sharps)
while
K:D ^f
means D mix (=
John == John Chambers [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
John Next you'll be telling us that Britney Spears is a musician ...
Does she follow standards?
--
Laura (mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] , http://www.laymusic.org/ )
(617) 661-8097 fax: (801) 365-6574
233 Broadway, Cambridge, MA 02139
To
On Tue, Jul 29, 2003 at 03:17:52PM +, John Chambers wrote:
Richard Robinson writes:
| On Tue, Jul 29, 2003 at 01:15:54PM +0100, Bernard Hill wrote:
|
| And from the abc source you have written
|
| K:A_b^f^c
|
| shouldn't that have a G# also since you've written K:A?
|
| It
Richard Robinson writes:
| The only solution would be to write this:
|K:Ephr^G
|
| Or K:E=f=c^G=d ? Longer, but maybe clearer.
Actually, I do include accidentals with this scale at times. The main
reason is that with:
K:E^g
many musicians will not notice the subtle positioning of the
On Tue, Jul 29, 2003 at 04:12:38PM +, John Chambers wrote:
Richard Robinson writes:
| The only solution would be to write this:
|K:Ephr^G
|
| Or K:E=f=c^G=d ? Longer, but maybe clearer.
Actually, I do include accidentals with this scale at times. The main
reason is that with:
David Barnert wrote:
| Bernard wrote-
|
| 2. |: at the beginning of a section is not ugly. And I do
| not like being forced to accept incorrect notation in that
| if a |: is missing then the repeat should be made from the
| previous double bar.
|
| But it *is* ugly at the beginning of a piece.
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], John Chambers
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes
If I had my druthers, I'd put a rule in saying that beginnings of
repeated sections *must* be marked properly. But of course that's
dreaming yet another impossible dream.
Well in Music Publisher it refuses to play the
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Richard Robinson
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes
Or K:E=f=c^G=d ? Longer, but maybe clearer.
K:C ^g looks fine to me.
Bernard Hill
Braeburn Software
Author of Music Publisher system
Music Software written by musicians for musicians
http://www.braeburn.co.uk
Selkirk,
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Richard Robinson
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes
And from the abc source you have written
K:A_b^f^c
shouldn't that have a G# also since you've written K:A?
It definitely shouldn't have a G#, since the Gs aren't sharp.
So you are saying that
K:A has 3 sharps
K:A
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], John Chambers
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes
Actually, I've seen music with nested repeats that work exactly like
parentheses. I've even used this on occasion myself. Granted, most
musicians have probably never seen this. But I've found that it
doesn't even take
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Steven Bennett
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes
Bert Van Vreckem wrote:
That all said, I don't think I've ever actually *seen* any Irish music with
a roll ornament actually placed (didn't even know there was a symbol for it
until I read this thread...) -- as I said before,
On Tue, Jul 29, 2003 at 05:11:44PM +0100, Bernard Hill wrote:
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Richard Robinson
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes
And from the abc source you have written
K:A_b^f^c
shouldn't that have a G# also since you've written K:A?
It definitely shouldn't have a G#,
Bernard Hill writes:
| In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], John Chambers [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes
|
| If I had my druthers, I'd put a rule in saying that beginnings of
| repeated sections *must* be marked properly. But of course that's
| dreaming yet another impossible dream.
|
| Well in Music
Bernard Hill writes:
| In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Richard Robinson
| [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes
|
| Or K:E=f=c^G=d ? Longer, but maybe clearer.
|
| K:C ^g looks fine to me.
Well, it looks fine, but it has the wrong tonic. This
doesn't matter on paper. But there are those of us who take
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], John Chambers
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes
Bernard Hill writes:
| In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], John Chambers [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes
|
| If I had my druthers, I'd put a rule in saying that beginnings of
| repeated sections *must* be marked properly. But of
| In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Richard Robinson
|
| K:A_b^f^c
| shouldn't that have a G# also since you've written K:A?
|
| It definitely shouldn't have a G#, since the Gs aren't sharp.
|
| So you are saying that
|
| K:A has 3 sharps
|
| K:A _b has no sharps and one flat instead?
|
| This is
On Tue, Jul 29, 2003 at 05:20:26PM +, John Chambers wrote:
Bernard Hill writes:
| In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Richard Robinson
| [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes
|
| Or K:E=f=c^G=d ? Longer, but maybe clearer.
|
| K:C ^g looks fine to me.
Well, it looks fine, but it has the wrong
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Richard Robinson
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes
On Tue, Jul 29, 2003 at 05:11:44PM +0100, Bernard Hill wrote:
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Richard Robinson
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes
And from the abc source you have written
K:A_b^f^c
shouldn't that have a G#
On Tue, Jul 29, 2003 at 06:23:26PM +0100, Bernard Hill wrote:
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], John Chambers
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes
Bernard Hill writes:
| In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], John Chambers [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes
|
| If I had my druthers, I'd put a rule in saying that
Bernard Hill writes:
| My suggestion is that accidentals are in lower case, keys in upper. And
| if the key name is missing then C is assumed.
|
| K:A ^b is F# C# G# and Bb.
| K:A =c is F# and G#
| K:_b^f is Bb and F#
|
| K:_b is Bb
| K:C _b
| K:F
|
| and the last 3 are equivalent of course.
No,
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], John Chambers
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes
| In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Richard Robinson
|
| K:A_b^f^c
| shouldn't that have a G# also since you've written K:A?
|
| It definitely shouldn't have a G#, since the Gs aren't sharp.
|
| So you are saying that
|
| K:A
On Tue, Jul 29, 2003 at 06:26:21PM +0100, Bernard Hill wrote:
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Richard Robinson
Now I don't really mind
having minor keys as they are well established, and maybe even the modes
Very tolerant of you ;)
Well
On Tue, Jul 29, 2003 at 05:32:51PM +, John Chambers wrote:
It's quite logical.
K:A has a tonic but no scale information, so we assume major (^f^c^g).
K:Amix has a tonic and a mode; the signature is ^f^c.
K:A_B has a tonic and a key signature, which is _B
K:_Bhas no
Richard Robinson writes:
|
| Of course, such searches are always prone to failure
| because people just give the wrong key. It's common to see
| K:G for tunes in E minor or A dorian. There's not a lot we
| can do about this except try to educate people.
|
| If I had them locally (the
From: I. Oppenheim [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2003 1:34 PM
Subject: Re: [abcusers] ABC Standard 2.0 revision III
They are non standard in Western music, but you will
find something like [K:D _b _e ^f] often in e.g.
Klezmer (Ahavoh Rabboh) or Arabic music
- Original Message -
From: John Chambers [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2003 3:24 PM
Subject: Re: [abcusers] ABC Standard 2.0 revision III
Bernard Hill writes:
While it is indeed common practice to omit begin-repeat symbols, this
is not a nice
Arent Storm writes:
| From: I. Oppenheim [EMAIL PROTECTED]
|
| They are non standard in Western music, but you will
| find something like [K:D _b _e ^f] often in e.g.
| Klezmer (Ahavoh Rabboh) or Arabic music (Maqam Hedjaz).
|
| My first thing will always be to remove any non standard
|
Richard Robinson writes:
| On Tue, Jul 29, 2003 at 05:32:51PM +, John Chambers wrote:
|
| K:_Bhas no tonic, but a signature, which is _B. Maybe it's F or Dm.
|
| This last has the potential to be misunderstood, I think. The key
| signature would be
| K:Bb ?
|
| Easy to mis-type, or
On Tue, Jul 29, 2003 at 08:42:32PM +0200, Arent Storm wrote:
From: I. Oppenheim [EMAIL PROTECTED]
They are non standard in Western music, but you will
find something like [K:D _b _e ^f] often in e.g.
Klezmer (Ahavoh Rabboh) or Arabic music (Maqam Hedjaz).
My first thing will always be
On Tue, Jul 29, 2003 at 07:19:17PM +, John Chambers wrote:
Richard Robinson writes:
| On Tue, Jul 29, 2003 at 05:32:51PM +, John Chambers wrote:
|
| K:_Bhas no tonic, but a signature, which is _B. Maybe it's F or Dm.
|
| This last has the potential to be misunderstood, I
On Tue, Jul 29, 2003 at 08:42:32PM +0200, Arent Storm wrote:
They are non standard in Western music, but you will
find something like [K:D _b _e ^f] often in e.g.
Klezmer (Ahavoh Rabboh) or Arabic music (Maqam Hedjaz).
My first thing will always be to remove any non standard
On Tue, Jul 29, 2003 at 06:07:16PM +, John Chambers wrote:
Richard Robinson writes:
|
| Of course, such searches are always prone to failure
| because people just give the wrong key. It's common to see
| K:G for tunes in E minor or A dorian. There's not a lot we
| can do
Richard Robinson wrote:
K:_Bhas no tonic, but a signature, which is _B. Maybe it's F or Dm.
This last has the potential to be misunderstood, I think. The key
signature would be
K:Bb ?
Easy to mis-type, or misunderstand.
You will find sevral examples of this in the Village Music Project.
John Chambers wrote:
Richard Robinson writes:
|
| Of course, such searches are always prone to failure
| because people just give the wrong key. It's common to see
| K:G for tunes in E minor or A dorian. There's not a lot we
| can do about this except try to educate people.
|
| If I
Bernard Hill writes:
| In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Richard Robinson
| See http://www.leeds.ac.uk/music/Info/RRTuneBk/gettune/0c54.html
|
| (And why sharpen the fs in stave 5?)
I looked at this, and decided that I don't know the tune. Staff 5,
which is in D major, sounds just find. If I
Phil Taylor writes:
| Richard Robinson wrote:
|
| K:_Bhas no tonic, but a signature, which is _B. Maybe it's F or Dm.
|
| This last has the potential to be misunderstood, I think. The key
| signature would be
| K:Bb ?
|
| Easy to mis-type, or misunderstand.
|
| You will find sevral
On Tue, 29 Jul 2003, Arent Storm wrote:
For the church-modes part I agree, the explicit
accidental signature will confuse anyone trying to
play the music from paper (except for the authors
band perhaps)
Klezmer musicians all use explicit key sigs, and so do
musicologists. In fact, it are
Phil Taylor writes:
| John Chambers wrote:
|
| K:?Adorian
|
| Implementing this would be easy for most abc software: Just
| ignore the '?'.
|
| Unnecessary. You can already write:
|
| K: Adorian %?
|
| but nobody does. People who get the mode wrong are mostly
| not aware of their errors, and
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Richard Robinson
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes
On Tue, Jul 29, 2003 at 05:32:51PM +, John Chambers wrote:
It's quite logical.
K:A has a tonic but no scale information, so we assume major (^f^c^g).
K:Amix has a tonic and a mode; the signature is ^f^c.
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], John Chambers
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes
Bernard Hill writes:
| My suggestion is that accidentals are in lower case, keys in upper. And
| if the key name is missing then C is assumed.
|
| K:A ^b is F# C# G# and Bb.
| K:A =c is F# and G#
| K:_b^f is Bb and F#
|
| K:_b
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], John Chambers
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes
Arent Storm writes:
| From: I. Oppenheim [EMAIL PROTECTED]
|
| They are non standard in Western music, but you will
| find something like [K:D _b _e ^f] often in e.g.
| Klezmer (Ahavoh Rabboh) or Arabic music (Maqam Hedjaz).
|
Bernard Hill writes:
| In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], John Chambers [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes
| No, the accidentals should be case sensitive. I might not care about
| this, personally, but I've seen the explanations. When the topic has
| come up in the past, several people have pointed out that
On Tue, Jul 29, 2003 at 09:58:42PM +0200, Arent Storm wrote:
If there are people who use ABC, or are considering using ABC,
for music where non-standard signatures are less non-standard,
they might make the same discovery.
For the church-modes part I agree, the explicit accidental
On Tue, Jul 29, 2003 at 08:47:27PM +0100, Phil Taylor wrote:
John Chambers wrote:
that it would be nice if a transcriber could write
something like:
K:?Adorian
This would mean that the transcriber is guessing the key.
The software would just ignore the '?', of course, and
| In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], John Chambers [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes
| The best comparison I've seen is: Suppose you were to find
| a piece of music written with two sharps (^f^c), and as you
| played it, you realized that every G had a sharp added, and
| it really was in A major. You'd
John Chambers wrote:
Bernard Hill writes:
| In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], John Chambers
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes
| No, the accidentals should be case sensitive. I might not care about
| this, personally, but I've seen the explanations. When the topic has
| come up in the past, several people
Phil Taylor writes:
| John Chambers wrote:
|
| The K:D=C_E_B^c example has a natural on the C line (below the
| staff), flats on the E and B lines, and a sharp on the c line. It
| might be better to put them in a different order; I just expressed it
| that way to make the scale clear.
About rolls in Irish music:
...used more in fiddle or pipe music.
Well it's not known in pipe music. They use a particular form of
embellishment known generically as a doubling and it takes many forms,
which are written out.
Depends on the pipes. They're used a lot for uilleann pipes,
on 7/28/03 2:55 PM, I. Oppenheim wrote:
I hereby publicly release the third draft revision of
the ABC 2.0 standard:
http://www.joods.nl/~chazzanut/abc/abc2-draft.html
I'm confused now. I thought Guido Gonzato was doing this.
http://abcplus.sourceforge.net/abc2-draft.html
Did I miss the
I. Oppenheim wrote:
Dear abcusers,
I hereby publicly release the third draft revision of
the ABC 2.0 standard:
http://www.joods.nl/~chazzanut/abc/abc2-draft.html
--- Due to popular demand, +...+ is now the preferred
syntax for notating decorations; !...! has been
deprecated, although it is
On Mon, 28 Jul 2003, Tom Keays wrote:
on 7/28/03 2:55 PM, I. Oppenheim wrote:
I hereby publicly release the third draft revision of
the ABC 2.0 standard:
http://www.joods.nl/~chazzanut/abc/abc2-draft.html
I'm confused now. I thought Guido Gonzato was doing this.
89 matches
Mail list logo
