K:A_b^f^c
shouldn't that have a G# also since you've written K:A?
and a lot of other stuff around the same subject.
Perhaps it's time to plug my idea of -
K:_b^f^c tonic=A mode=whatever
Completely unambiguous.
Talking of which, are there any plans for a procedure for amendments or
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. Apparently,
Beethoven agreed. Open
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes
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
John Chambers wrote -
Bryan Creer writes:
| Talking of which, are there any plans for a procedure for amendments or
| extensions to the standard or do we just stick to the implement your favourite idea
| and argue about it afterwards system we have now?
What a concept! This is a gang of
This response is a little late---I'm still re-installing things
after a crash, and am just getting around to the abc programs.
Irwin Oppenheim writes:
The problem---or one of the problems---is simply that this isn't
good enough when you care how the output looks. (Not to mention
On Wed, 16 Jul 2003, John Walsh wrote:
The @ foo looks useful. Can it place things
relative to a note on the staff? (As do foo and
foo?)
The draft standard says:
Using the @ symbol leaves the exact placing of the
string to the discretion of the interpreting program
To
John Walsh writes:
| John Chambers writes:
| Which does remind me of a suggestion I've long thought of making: Any
| Baroque musician is familiar with the convention that a '+' above a
| note means Ornament this note somehow. ...
|
| Ok, but you don't have to make the plus sign a part of
On Thu, 10 Jul 2003, John Chambers wrote:
Actually, I've long done this, by simply using +. But there are a
couple of problems with this. One is that this is, with some
justification, often referred to as abusing the chord notation.
I quote from the ABC draft standard:
On Mon, 07 Jul 2003 13:02:43 UTC, John Chambers [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Jean-Francois Moine writes:
| abcm2ps supports 'U:' (without '!'), and also 'd:' lines, which is
| an other way for decorations, and which has not been discussed yet...
I don't think I've seen (or maybe I should say
John Chambers writes:
Actually, I've long done this, by simply using +. But there are a
couple of problems with this. One is that this is, with some
The problem---or one of the problems---is simmply that this isn't
good enough when you care how the output looks. (Not to
Am still catching up with last weeks postings...
John Chambers writes:
Which does remind me of a suggestion I've long thought of making: Any
Baroque musician is familiar with the convention that a '+' above a
note means Ornament this note somehow. It's a generic, unspecific
ornament
On Fri, 4 Jul 2003 10:39:36 +0100, Jack Campin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Over the past year or so, this group has become
dominated by discussion of abcm2ps;
[snip]
It won't be if the notation has been designed to be unplayable and
unanalyzable, which is where the !...! stuff is heading.
Jean-Francois Moine writes:
| On Fri, 4 Jul 2003 10:39:36 +0100, Jack Campin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
| wrote:
| Over the past year or so, this group has become
| dominated by discussion of abcm2ps;
| [snip]
| It won't be if the notation has been designed to be unplayable and
| unanalyzable,
Over the past year or so, this group has become
dominated by discussion of abcm2ps;
Probably because it is the best and least limited ABC implementation
around: it implements an extensive set of features, is actively
developed, runs on all computer platforms that we use and gives
excellent
| Is ~ a roll or a turn?
| According to ABC 1.7.6, it's a roll:
One more disaster with that standard. The 1.6 standard said:
: Alternatively, the tilde symbol ~ represents the general gracing
: of a note which, in the context of traditional music, can mean
: different things for different
On Friday 04 July 2003 10:07 am, Jack Campin wrote:
A full solution would need to allow new graphical elements to be
introduced (in a platform-independent way, say as GIFs; in the worst
case they might have to be taken from a scan of a manuscript) and
allow their meaning to be redefinable, in
Bert van Vreckem wrote:
The committee in itself is a good idea [...], but if we want the
standard to go forward, there should be only one leader
OK, agreed. So can we decide on that and go forward?
After what Guido wrote (quoted below) I feel he should be the
leader.
Guido wrote:
We're
From: Bernard Hill [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The problem as a developer is that we're second-guessing writers
of
bad abc notation.
A concise way of putting it. :-)
We're in a slightly different boat from some of the others though.
If people want to write abc and read it using Notepad (or other
From: John Chambers [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Actually, my main reasoning is that of a programmer: If we
want
everyone to implement this U: header, it should be as simple
as
possible. A string substitution is about as simple as it gets,
and
very easy to implement in just about any
From: Bernard Hill [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I read the (old) standard and thought that's OK. Not too much
work.
Hmm I must be telepathic - that's what *I* thought - before I came
here :-)
MOZART already has a general spec for an import filter for any
non-native format, and its MIDI import module is
I've held back from this discussion so far to see where it was going
but I think it's time to add my 2p.
Over the past year or so, this group has become dominated by discussion
of abcm2ps; it shows a strong tendency to become the abcm2ps users
group. Now abcm2ps is an excellent program, but it
On Tue, 1 Jul 2003, Phil Taylor wrote:
Over the past year or so, this group has become
dominated by discussion of abcm2ps;
Probably because it is the best and least limited ABC
implementation around: it implements an extensive set
of features, is actively developed, runs on all
computer
From: John Chambers [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Maybe not. There is a fairly well-established convention in
the computer biz that the first digit should change only
when you break backward compatibility.
Well I must admit I believe that well established is a slight
exaggeration - different people
On Tue, 1 Jul 2003, Bernard Hill wrote:
But the 23 different ways is with us already it seems to me.
Downloading files from various sources on the net has given a LOT of
differences which can't all be correct at the same time. I even asked
for advice from Chris Walshaw but no reply.
As soon
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], I. Oppenheim
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes
It is a very good idea to add an ABC version field to
the header, to distinguish old ABC from new ABC.
That gets my vote. And/or a change of file extension.
Bernard Hill
Braeburn Software
Author of Music Publisher system
Music
From: Bernard Hill [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I'm in a slightly worse position, Dave. Music Publisher 5's abc
import
facility is almost at the finished stage and I don't want to undo
any
code writing!
I have made a lot of progress with MOZART's abc import, but as you
indicate I still have a long way
Suggestions that we change the abc file extension to something other
than .abc are kind of missing the point. File extensions are irrelevant
in Classic MacOS, so BarFly will open any text file, regardless of
extension. If the file contains any lines which start with X: it
will treat what follows
I. Oppenheim wrote:
On Tue, 1 Jul 2003, Phil Taylor wrote:
Over the past year or so, this group has become
dominated by discussion of abcm2ps;
Probably because it is the best and least limited ABC
implementation around: it implements an extensive set
of features, is actively developed, runs on
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Phil Taylor
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes
Suggestions that we change the abc file extension to something other
than .abc are kind of missing the point. File extensions are irrelevant
in Classic MacOS, so BarFly will open any text file, regardless of
extension. If the
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], David Webber
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes
From: Bernard Hill [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I'm in a slightly worse position, Dave. Music Publisher 5's abc
import
facility is almost at the finished stage and I don't want to undo
any
code writing!
I have made a lot of progress
On Tue, 1 Jul 2003, Phil Taylor wrote:
Have you ever used any other abc software?
Yep, under both Linux and Windows (I do not have a
mac). Currently I'm using mostly abcm2ps and abc2midi
with a midi player, sometimes I use nwc2abc.
Are you suggesting that a standard can be developed
without
So, let's get down to the real business now, instead of just saying
how it should be, or what kind of person .
I suggest the following ABC standards committee with motivations
why everyone is suggested. Comments and changes welcome,
and those suggested are also welcome to say no.
Jef Moine
On Tue, 1 Jul 2003, Bernard Hill wrote:
Is ~ a roll or a turn?
According to ABC 1.7.6, it's a roll:
$ The standard set of definitions (if you do not
$ redefine them) is:
$ U: ~ = !roll!
$ U: T = !trill!
$ U: H = !fermata!
$ U: L = !emphasis!
$ U: M = !lowermordent!
$ U: P = !uppermordent!
$
Bernard Hill wrote:
[..] is the symbol for a chord, but I've seen +..+ also used
+...+ for chords is obsolete long, long ago.
Change of time sig (etc) can be done with [M:3/4] in the middle of a
line or M:3/4 on a line by itself. But I've seen music with M:3/4
without brackets in a
I. Oppenheim writes:
| On Tue, 1 Jul 2003, Bernard Hill wrote:
|
| Is ~ a roll or a turn?
|
| According to ABC 1.7.6, it's a roll:
Of course, a lot of people would ask What's the difference? ;-) And
a lot of arrogant musicians (like me) would say Who cares? and
interpret it as a suggestion
On Tue, 1 Jul 2003, John Chambers wrote:
This really just means that '+' would be added to the
list of ornament symbols, and the default display
form is merely a '+' above the note.
Something like:
U: X = ^+ ?
Groeten,
Irwin Oppenheim
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
~~~*
Chazzanut Online:
Irwin Oppenheim wrote:
| On Tue, 1 Jul 2003, John Chambers wrote:
|
| This really just means that '+' would be added to the
| list of ornament symbols, and the default display
| form is merely a '+' above the note.
|
| Something like:
| U: X = ^+ ?
No, more like:
... | fe +d2 | c4 |]
responsibility over the standard. Personally, I would
propose Jef Moine and Guido Gonzato: Jef because he's
I think it's a good idea, if they agree of course ;)
I think also of John Chamber.
Just one comment: having a software developer in charge of
standards is
a conflict of interests. S/he
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], John Chambers
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes
I. Oppenheim writes:
| On Tue, 1 Jul 2003, Bernard Hill wrote:
|
| Is ~ a roll or a turn?
|
| According to ABC 1.7.6, it's a roll:
Of course, a lot of people would ask What's the difference? ;-) And
a lot of arrogant
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Henrik
Norbeck [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes
Bernard Hill wrote:
[..] is the symbol for a chord, but I've seen +..+ also used
+...+ for chords is obsolete long, long ago.
Great. But does that mean there's no music out there with +..+?
Change of time sig (etc) can be
From: Bernard Hill [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Consider:
Is ~ a roll or a turn?
It was so vague in the origibnal spec that I was considering
ignoring it :-)
[..] is the symbol for a chord, but I've seen +..+ also used
[ ] is what the spec says and so that is what I have implemented.
Is ++ written
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], I. Oppenheim
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes
On Tue, 1 Jul 2003, Bernard Hill wrote:
Is ~ a roll or a turn?
According to ABC 1.7.6, it's a roll:
$ The standard set of definitions (if you do not
$ redefine them) is:
$ U: ~ = !roll!
$ U: T = !trill!
$ U: H = !fermata!
$
Forgeot Eric mentioned:
|
| I think it'd be difficult to avoid notation such as the x for the
| invisible rests... I don't think it would be used in folk tune for
| ex. so only tunes with heavy needs would need this, that mean
| they would include also V: and other unsupported features in old
|
Henrik Norbeck wrote:
So, let's get down to the real business now, instead of just saying
how it should be, or what kind of person .
I suggest the following ABC standards committee with motivations
why everyone is suggested. Comments and changes welcome,
and those suggested are also welcome to
I. Oppenheim writes:
| On Wed, 2 Jul 2003, John Chambers wrote:
| I'd suppose that the answer would be that the bangs
| are optional.
|
| I'm not sure that this will always work. For example:
|
| A!1!B versus A1B
|
| and even
|
| AaccentB
|
| could be difficult to parse, since a c and e are
Atte wrote:
| On Wed, 6 Feb 2002, John Chambers wrote:
| | snip I'm not up to
| | date with the work on the standard, is there still a commission
| | working on what to include in the standard? I really think this work is
| | extremely important if abc is to have any future.
|
| What seems
On Wed, 6 Feb 2002, John Chambers wrote:
| snip I'm not up to
| date with the work on the standard, is there still a commission
| working on what to include in the standard? I really think this work is
| extremely important if abc is to have any future.
What seems to have happened is more
47 matches
Mail list logo
