Re: [abcusers] Re: End of 2nd time bar
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], John Walsh [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes Bernard Hill writes: Surely a performer wants to know what the writer meant? And lack of repeat starts means there is no information as to how the tune was to be played, eg whether the whole tune repeated or just to the previous double or repeat bar. imo notation which is incorrect should be flagged by software and a clarification requested from a human being. Jack Campin replies: How do you propose to interrogate Captain O'Neill? I never use repeat-start signs unless they'll appear in mid-staff-line (the convention used by O'Neill and mostly by Kerr). This is pretty normal in the folk world, and probably 99.9% of all the ABC ever typed in would fit the assumption that the previous repeat or double bar, if it's located at the end of a line, marks the start of the repeat. There are undoubtedly cases where you want to do it differently, but it would be nuts to make such an alternative the default interpretation an ABC player made, even if it is the official one in the textbooks. Bernard Hill responds: But if the software is the sort which splits the ends at a new position you then a user of different software has a different repeat structure to the one you wrote... My two cents: Irish dance music has a very simple structure---which is shared by the rest of the British Isles dance music, I think, but let me stick to what I know---in which tunes are composed of parts. Each part may or may not be repeated, but the repeat always goes back to the start of the part. There may be exceptions, but I can't think of any at the minute. (Well, there are tunes which have the first part repeated as the third part; I suppose you could be fancy and write the second part and fourth parts as first and second endings, but you'd end up with music even more confusing than this sentence, so the first part is simply written out again, rather than with repeat signs.) Tunes are usually written with each part ended by a double bar---repeat signs count as a double bars, of course---so there is no ambiguity if you start each repeat from the most recent double bar. It won't confuse musicians who know the music, for the performer does know where the repeat starts. (The playback may sound a bit funny if this messes up the pick-up notes, but it doesn't bother traditional musicians, who are used to figuring out pick-up notes for themselves.) Lots of people write it this way, including O'Neill. (Well...most of the time, but for some reason he uses begin-repeats for hornpipes, but seldom uses them for jigs and reels.) I'm not so sure about the distinction between mid-bar and end-bar repeats that Jack makes. I didn't notice it in O'Neill's, but then I only checked a couple of tunes. I did check a few of the tune books on my shelves for begin-repeats. Most books use them carefully, but a sizeable minority, including those I like the most, often omit them. Since O'Neill's omitted begin-repeats, one might expect that those who learned from his books, or from people who learned from his books, will do the same. That's a lot of people. So for Irish dance music, at least, omission of the begin-repeat is not bad abc, for the begin-repeat is simply superfluous. Underline: *for this type of music.* It's just a style of writing. I don't know about Jack's figure of 99%, but the vast majority of abc on the net consists of dance tunes, much of it written without begin-repeats, and I'd expect an abc application to handle it gracefully. Of course, if the application has to handle classical, jazz and pop as well, where the begin-repeats are necessary, there is a problem: how does it know what kind of music it's handling? I suppose that it could look at the R: field. If it says jig, reel or hornpipe, no problem. If the C: field says Beethoven or Bach, there's no problem either. Hmmmsome people might think that doesn't cover all the interesting cases... Cheers, John Walsh So if Irish music does not stick to the standard notation then now does music software generally handle this problem? Suppose you use Sibelius to create a book of jigs and want to include the set on a CD as midi files. I don't know how Sibelius handles this (does anyone here?) but it seems to me that you'd have to create two sets, one for playback, one for printing. Or maybe you have to include an invisible repeat-start symbol. -- Bernard Hill Braeburn Software To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html
Re: [abcusers] Re: End of 2nd time bar
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Jack Campin [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes Surely a performer wants to know what the writer meant? And lack of repeat starts means there is no information as to how the tune was to be played, eg whether the whole tune repeated or just to the previous double or repeat bar. imo notation which is incorrect should be flagged by software and a clarification requested from a human being. How do you propose to interrogate Captain O'Neill? I never use repeat-start signs unless they'll appear in mid-staff-line (the convention used by O'Neill and mostly by Kerr). This is pretty normal in the folk world, and probably 99.9% of all the ABC ever typed in would fit the assumption that the previous repeat or double bar, if it's located at the end of a line, marks the start of the repeat. There are undoubtedly cases where you want to do it differently, but it would be nuts to make such an alternative the default interpretation an ABC player made, even if it is the official one in the textbooks. But if the software is the sort which splits the ends at a new position you then a user of different software has a different repeat structure to the one you wrote... -- Bernard Hill Braeburn Software To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html
Re: [abcusers] Re: End of 2nd time bar
Bernard Hill writes: Surely a performer wants to know what the writer meant? And lack of repeat starts means there is no information as to how the tune was to be played, eg whether the whole tune repeated or just to the previous double or repeat bar. imo notation which is incorrect should be flagged by software and a clarification requested from a human being. Jack Campin replies: How do you propose to interrogate Captain O'Neill? I never use repeat-start signs unless they'll appear in mid-staff-line (the convention used by O'Neill and mostly by Kerr). This is pretty normal in the folk world, and probably 99.9% of all the ABC ever typed in would fit the assumption that the previous repeat or double bar, if it's located at the end of a line, marks the start of the repeat. There are undoubtedly cases where you want to do it differently, but it would be nuts to make such an alternative the default interpretation an ABC player made, even if it is the official one in the textbooks. Bernard Hill responds: But if the software is the sort which splits the ends at a new position you then a user of different software has a different repeat structure to the one you wrote... My two cents: Irish dance music has a very simple structure---which is shared by the rest of the British Isles dance music, I think, but let me stick to what I know---in which tunes are composed of parts. Each part may or may not be repeated, but the repeat always goes back to the start of the part. There may be exceptions, but I can't think of any at the minute. (Well, there are tunes which have the first part repeated as the third part; I suppose you could be fancy and write the second part and fourth parts as first and second endings, but you'd end up with music even more confusing than this sentence, so the first part is simply written out again, rather than with repeat signs.) Tunes are usually written with each part ended by a double bar---repeat signs count as a double bars, of course---so there is no ambiguity if you start each repeat from the most recent double bar. It won't confuse musicians who know the music, for the performer does know where the repeat starts. (The playback may sound a bit funny if this messes up the pick-up notes, but it doesn't bother traditional musicians, who are used to figuring out pick-up notes for themselves.) Lots of people write it this way, including O'Neill. (Well...most of the time, but for some reason he uses begin-repeats for hornpipes, but seldom uses them for jigs and reels.) I'm not so sure about the distinction between mid-bar and end-bar repeats that Jack makes. I didn't notice it in O'Neill's, but then I only checked a couple of tunes. I did check a few of the tune books on my shelves for begin-repeats. Most books use them carefully, but a sizeable minority, including those I like the most, often omit them. Since O'Neill's omitted begin-repeats, one might expect that those who learned from his books, or from people who learned from his books, will do the same. That's a lot of people. So for Irish dance music, at least, omission of the begin-repeat is not bad abc, for the begin-repeat is simply superfluous. Underline: *for this type of music.* It's just a style of writing. I don't know about Jack's figure of 99%, but the vast majority of abc on the net consists of dance tunes, much of it written without begin-repeats, and I'd expect an abc application to handle it gracefully. Of course, if the application has to handle classical, jazz and pop as well, where the begin-repeats are necessary, there is a problem: how does it know what kind of music it's handling? I suppose that it could look at the R: field. If it says jig, reel or hornpipe, no problem. If the C: field says Beethoven or Bach, there's no problem either. Hmmmsome people might think that doesn't cover all the interesting cases... Cheers, John Walsh To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html
Re: [abcusers] Re: End of 2nd time bar
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Wil Macaulay [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes The problem is, that although it's just bad abc is literally true, there are many cases where large bodies of tunes (order of a hundred in a single file) are written in this way. It comes down to why and how the tunes were notated: sometimes you want to use 'bad' notation because that's the way the tunes were originally written. If software _can_ make assumptions about the way you want to hear them, should it? or should it simply stick its tongue out at you? Surely a performer wants to know what the writer meant? And lack of repeat starts means there is no information as to how the tune was to be played, eg whether the whole tune repeated or just to the previous double or repeat bar. imo notation which is incorrect should be flagged by software and a clarification requested from a human being. [snip] We have a number of different ways people use this tool, and we will all have to compromise in order to get the best use. Part of the compromise is to understand, not just the abstract notation, but indeed how different user communities use the notation so we can make sure we don't cut off uses without knowing it. This may very well mean that, although we think something is wrong, we keep it because it is useful to a significant number of people. No, I disagree as an software author. Computers don't know how to compromise as they only make decisions if you give them rules. As authors we need to know what the rules are: or allow the software to stop and ask. Bernard Hill Braeburn Software Author of Music Publisher system Music Software written by musicians for musicians http://www.braeburn.co.uk Selkirk, Scotland To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html
Re: [abcusers] Re: End of 2nd time bar
Bernard Hill wrote: In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Wil Macaulay [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes The problem is, that although "it's just bad abc" is literally true, there are many cases where large bodies of tunes (order of a hundred in a single file) are written in this way. It comes down to why and how the tunes were notated: sometimes you want to use 'bad' notation because that's the way the tunes were originally written. If software _can_ make assumptions about the way you want to hear them, should it? or should it simply stick its tongue out at you? Surely a performer wants to know what the writer meant? And lack of repeat starts means there is no information as to how the tune was to be played, eg whether the whole tune repeated or just to the previous double or repeat bar. imo notation which is incorrect should be flagged by software and a clarification requested from a human being. Actually as a performer and software author who has an interest in old manuscripts, I want to see how the tune was notated, and then I'll make up my own mind want I mean when I play the tune. Lack of repeat starts means the information as to how the tune was to be played has to be derived from the structure of the music in the context of the tradition in which the music was created (gasp! Folk music /gasp!). Strictly speaking you are correct, but the 'incorrect' notation may accurately reflect the way music was notated for in the time and place it was recorded (which may not be the same as when it was composed). [snip] We have a number of different ways people use this tool, and we will all have to compromise in order to get the best use. Part of the compromise is to understand, not just the abstract notation, but indeed how different user communities use the notation so we can make sure we don't cut off uses without knowing it. This may very well mean that, although we think something is "wrong", we keep it because it is "useful" to a significant number of people. No, I disagree as an software author. Computers don't know how to compromise as they only make decisions if you give them rules. As authors we need to know what the rules are: or allow the software to stop and ask. Absolutely true, but if we impose rules that are silly in the context of a wide number of users, those users will use software that does not impose those rules. I like BarFly's approach of 'doing its best' to display and play, but having a little unobtrusive icon which indicates that 'rules have been broken' wil Bernard Hill Braeburn Software Author of Music Publisher system Music Software written by musicians for musicians http://www.braeburn.co.uk Selkirk, Scotland To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html
Re: [abcusers] Re: End of 2nd time bar
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Wil Macaulay [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes Actually as a performer and software author who has an interest in old manuscripts, I want to see how the tune was notated, and then I'll make up my own mind want I mean when I play the tune. Lack of repeat starts means the information as to how the tune was to be played has to be derived from the structure of the music in the context of the tradition in which the music was created (gasp! Folk music /gasp!). Strictly speaking you are correct, but the 'incorrect' notation may accurately reflect the way music was notated for in the time and place it was recorded (which may not be the same as when it was composed). Fine. But how do you want software to behave? - that's the point! So it stops and asks you to clarify. You can clarify by changing the abc notation or in the case of a program which can edit the on-screen music (eg Music Publisher or Dave Webber's Mozart) you can do it to the music on the screen. Music Publisher will happily put on screen what you write in abc format. But it won't play it with the repeats until you clarify. From what Dave Webber is saying, Mozart *will* play, until it gets confused (read:an impossible or ambiguous instruction) and then stops. For both programs, correct the music and they're happy. Isn't this a completely reasonable way to carry on? Bernard Hill Braeburn Software Author of Music Publisher system Music Software written by musicians for musicians http://www.braeburn.co.uk Selkirk, Scotland To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html
Re: [abcusers] Re: End of 2nd time bar
Surely a performer wants to know what the writer meant? And lack of repeat starts means there is no information as to how the tune was to be played, eg whether the whole tune repeated or just to the previous double or repeat bar. imo notation which is incorrect should be flagged by software and a clarification requested from a human being. How do you propose to interrogate Captain O'Neill? I never use repeat-start signs unless they'll appear in mid-staff-line (the convention used by O'Neill and mostly by Kerr). This is pretty normal in the folk world, and probably 99.9% of all the ABC ever typed in would fit the assumption that the previous repeat or double bar, if it's located at the end of a line, marks the start of the repeat. There are undoubtedly cases where you want to do it differently, but it would be nuts to make such an alternative the default interpretation an ABC player made, even if it is the official one in the textbooks. - Jack Campin: 11 Third Street, Newtongrange, Midlothian EH22 4PU; 0131 6604760 http://www.purr.demon.co.uk/jack * food intolerance data recipes, Mac logic fonts, Scots traditional music files, and my CD-ROM Embro, Embro. -- off-list mail to j-c rather than abc at this site, please -- To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html
[abcusers] Re: End of 2nd time bar
Wil wrote- On repeating the second section, you need to know how far to go back, so you need to know where the user thought the second repeat ended. Sometimes it's impossible to tell for sure, but in this case you can probably safely assume the double barline ended the first part. If what follows the first repeat is also to be repeated, there needs to be a |: sign. Otherwise it's just bad abc. Often, a tune has the form: |: seven bars |1 first ending :|2 second ending | sixteen unrepeated bars |] There is no need here for a terminator to the 2nd ending. __ /\/\/\/\ __ | | | | | David Barnert __ | | | | | [EMAIL PROTECTED] __ | | | | | Albany, NY __ \/\/\/\/ Ventilator Concertina Bellows Bellows (Vocation) (Avocation) To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html
Re: [abcusers] Re: End of 2nd time bar
The problem is, that although it's just bad abc is literally true, there are many cases where large bodies of tunes (order of a hundred in a single file) are written in this way. It comes down to why and how the tunes were notated: sometimes you want to use 'bad' notation because that's the way the tunes were originally written. If software _can_ make assumptions about the way you want to hear them, should it? or should it simply stick its tongue out at you? My observation (correct me if I'm wrong) is that most software that does not use abc as its native format (but may import/export abc) makes the assumption that each tune is entered separately and has no direct concept of a file that is made for archival purposes and may contain hundreds of tunes. If you want to notate a thousand tunes (cf O'Neill's or Henrik's collections) you probably aren't going to spend the time carefully adjusting note spacings on each one, but you want to spend 15 minutes per tune, following which you likely will want to proof-hear what you wrote. That's a significantly different usecase from the guy who wants to spend a day laying out a tune for printing in a tunebook. I carry Henrik's files around on my laptop when I travel, so I can practice in my hotel room. If I were going to print them out, I'd likely make some adjustments, add an index, page numbers, etc, but I don't need to because I get the index on screen and can choose to see and hear just the tunes I want. Paper isn't the object, here. We have a number of different ways people use this tool, and we will all have to compromise in order to get the best use. Part of the compromise is to understand, not just the abstract notation, but indeed how different user communities use the notation so we can make sure we don't cut off uses without knowing it. This may very well mean that, although we think something is wrong, we keep it because it is useful to a significant number of people. wil [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Wil wrote- On repeating the second section, you need to know how far to go back, so you need to know where the user thought the second repeat ended. Sometimes it's impossible to tell for sure, but in this case you can probably safely assume the double barline ended the first part. If what follows the first repeat is also to be repeated, there needs to be a |: sign. Otherwise it's just bad abc. Often, a tune has the form: |: seven bars |1 first ending :|2 second ending | sixteen unrepeated bars |] There is no need here for a terminator to the 2nd ending. __ /\/\/\/\ __ | | | | | David Barnert __ | | | | | [EMAIL PROTECTED] __ | | | | | Albany, NY __ \/\/\/\/ Ventilator Concertina Bellows Bellows (Vocation) (Avocation) 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] Re: End of 2nd time bar
On Thu, 10 Jul 2003, Wil Macaulay wrote: If you want to notate a thousand tunes (cf O'Neill's or Henrik's collections) you probably aren't going to spend the time carefully adjusting note spacings on each one, We're dealing here not with detailed note spacings, but with essential structural information like were a general repeat starts and a repeat ends. Repeats are not a software dependent layout feature, but form an integral part of the music you're notating. If you're sloppy in notating the start or end of general a repeat, you're loosing essential information. Groeten, Irwin Oppenheim [EMAIL PROTECTED] ~~~* Chazzanut Online: http://www.joods.nl/~chazzanut/ To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html
[abcusers] Re: End of 2nd time bar
Bernard wrote: I quote Gardner Read, (Music Notation) who says [to quote in full]: The first ending is marked with a figure 1 and enclosed by a level bracket with an initial downward jog, ending wiht a similar jog at the repeat sign. The second ending is marked with a figure 2 and is also set off with a horizontal bracket - this time beginning with the down-jog and extended without termination, usually as far as the first barline thereafter. Of the first ending contuinues onto another line or system, the bracket minus a downward jog is not given the concluding downward jog until the repeat mark is reached. Should there be a third, or terminating ending, the second ending is notated in the manner of the usual first ending. Kurt Stone (Music notation in the 20th century) illustrates with examples only, all of which agree with Read, except he allows the word Fine instead of 2 if the 2nd time bar is at the end of a piece. The little pamphlet Standard Music Notation practice bu the Music Publisher's Association (which is available in PDF on the net somewhere) says endings must be bracketed. When a second ending occurs in the middle of a piece, the bracket should extend for a measure or two and then end without the closing stroke. When the second ending occurs at the end of a piece or section, the bracket must be closed. And 2 examples follow, one showing a 2nd time section consisting of 2 bars and then a thin-thick barline and showing a downstroke on the 2-bar bracket. This is entirely consistent with my experience playing classical music from reputable publishers. I never saw a 2nd ending (or last ending, but classical music tends not to have more than two, and in what follows I will refer to them as 2nd endings) that ended with a downward jog. They just trail off after a measure. Of course this makes perfect sense: What logical significance would the end of a 2nd ending have? The 2nd ending is what you play when you reach the beginning of the 1st ending the 2nd time. It begins after the repeat and includes the entire remainder of the piece. To arbitrarily define a point in the music as the end of the 2nd ending would have no effect on how the notes are played. Programs that extend the 2nd ending until some arbitrary terminator (and to the end of the piece absent a terminator) are in conflict with standard typesetting practices. __ /\/\/\/\ __ | | | | | David Barnert __ | | | | | [EMAIL PROTECTED] __ | | | | | Albany, NY __ \/\/\/\/ Ventilator Concertina Bellows Bellows (Vocation) (Avocation) To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html
