I wrote:
>I think having abc represent information that is not in "the
>tadpoles" ... is asking for trouble.
and Robert Bley-Vroman wrote:
>Since abc is a system for representing musical information in
>human-readable ascii, there is no particular reason for it to
>restrict itself to the sort of information which is commonly
>represented in any other notational system.
>
>To be sure, many people often use abc to produce tadpoles, but
>the language should be driven the desire for perspicuous musical
>notation, rather than by the need to serve as input for
>tadpoles.
Yes, Robert. I remember when you said you had made the change from
a viewpoint like mine to this one (I think that's what you said,
anyway). Well, it hasn't happened to me yet. Sheet music remains a
formidable standard, and if we let abc get much more sophisticated
than it, we run the risk of having them become incompatible with
each other. Then abc [question: How do you start a sentence with
"abc" -- do you capitalize?] will be very efficient in its own
little vacuum while most musicians still use sheet music with all
its quirks.
And once we leave sheet music behind, what next? Sound? "Hey, I've
got a great tune in abc here, but it can't be manifested in sound.
It exists only as pure abc."
I liked it better when we thought of abc as a representation of
sheet music and took for granted the (perhaps tenuous)
correspondence between sheet music and "the noise it makes." I'd
hate for abc to get too far afield of either of them.
______ /\/\/\/\
<______> | | | | | David Barnert
<______> | | | | | <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
<______> | | | | | Albany, N.Y.
<______> \/\/\/\/
Ventilator Concertina
Bellows Bellows
(Vocation) (Avocation)
To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html
