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.
|
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
[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
Phil Taylor writes:
| John Chambers wrote:
|
| (One textbook example for English is the lack of any word that is the
| singular form of cattle. Other languages have such words, and they
| can't be translated to English with a single word. But you aren't
| going to fix the English language;
Eric wrote
So this way, by allowing !, !...! and *=!, everyone would be
happy, and I don't know the reason why this thread lasts so long.
The reason the thread is lasting so long is that not everyone would be happy
with this.
The use of abc for printing classical etc music is fairly recent and
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
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
on 7/29/03 11:03 AM, Phil Taylor wrote:
The singular of cattle is cow. [...] I referred to
bull semen at one point and my supervisor (himself a world expert
in the field of Reproductive Biology) wanted it changed to cow semen.
I saw a man milk a bull, fie, man, fie.
I saw a man milk a bull,
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
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
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
- 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
Dear Abcusers,
Thank you for your feedback. Based on your input (both
on and off-list) I have made the following
modifications to the standard.
-- The debated section on Key sigs reads now as
follows:
By specifying K:none, it is possible to use no key
signature at all.
The key signatures may
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
I've now also updated the ties and slurs section of
http://www.joods.nl/~chazzanut/abc/abc2-draft.html
to give PNG examples of nested slurs.
Please have a look to see if you can agree.
Groeten,
Irwin Oppenheim
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
~~~*
Chazzanut Online:
http://www.joods.nl/~chazzanut/
To
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
I. Oppenheim writes:
| I've now also updated the ties and slurs section of
| http://www.joods.nl/~chazzanut/abc/abc2-draft.html
| to give PNG examples of nested slurs.
| Please have a look to see if you can agree.
It's getting to look better and better.
One thing I noticed missing: The repeat
On Tue, 29 Jul 2003, John Chambers wrote:
I. Oppenheim writes:
| I've now also updated the ties and slurs section of
| http://www.joods.nl/~chazzanut/abc/abc2-draft.html
| to give PNG examples of nested slurs.
| Please have a look to see if you can agree.
It's getting to look better and
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
A couple of bugs have shown up in the recent BarFly release:
Under OS X only, when printing at high magnification part of the
tune title gets blanked out.
Under some circumstances all versions may hang, displaying an
Unknown System Error message which cannot be cancelled.
Version 1.41 fixes
| 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
I. Oppenheim writes:
| On Tue, 29 Jul 2003, John Chambers wrote:
|
| |:: ... ::| % Play this three times.
| |::: ... :::| % Play this four times.
|
| These are already in the standard:
|
|
| By extension, |:: and ::| mean the start and end of a
| section that is to be repeated three
On Tue, Jul 29, 2003 at 10:08:13PM +0200, I. Oppenheim wrote:
-- The debated section on Key sigs reads now as
follows:
...
The key signatures may be modified by adding
accidentals, according to the format K:tonic mode
accidentals. For example, K:D Phr ^f would give a
key signature with
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
Richard Robinson writes:
| What about the cases where notes in different octaves
| have different accidentals ? I don't see why notes in the key
| signature couldn't take the full normal ABC value, with uppercase
| and lowercase and , and ' as necessary, so that somebody could
| express a key
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.
On Wed, 30 Jul 2003, Richard Robinson wrote:
What about the cases where notes in different octaves
have different accidentals ?
I personally think that the explicit key signature
scheme as it is currently defined in the standard is
already quite complex.
Making distinction between the octave
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 Tue, 29 Jul 2003, Ray Davies wrote:
be encouraged but not if it messes up the abc of the original folk users. I
vote to change the !--! usage to *--* or some other unused symbol.
good. Since breaking backwards compatibility with thousands of tunes is
apparently no longer a problem, I vote
84 matches
Mail list logo
