John Henckel wrote:
>I recommend that when (if?) the ABC notation standard is updated, it should
>contain syntax for "helper" accidentals.
>
>I am going to hack my version of abcm2ps (called jhabc2ps) to support
>accidentals in parentheses. Does anyone have a recommendation for the
>syntax?
>
>I am thinking about using '=' to denote a helper accidental For instance,
>=^C will show a note with (#) in front and =_C will show (b) in front, and
>==C will show a natural sign in parentheses in front of the note. I don't
>think this conflicts with any existing notation.
Seems reasonable, although just putting the accidental in a paren would
be more intuitive: (^)C etc. Harder to code though, as you have to
distinguish it from the other uses to which parens are put.
>Of course, it will be the users responsibility to use it correctly, for
>instance, if K:F then " =B | =_B " is correct, but " =B =_B " is not
>correct because there is no bar between the notes, so it isn't a helper
>accidental. (This kind of "user beware" is not new, for instance a user
>could also misuse accidentals, such as =C or _B when K:F).
>
>In abcm2ps there is a bug. If an accidental is used several times in the
>same measure, it draws all of them. Thus, K:F and " =B =B " will print two
>notes with naturals in front of them, but only the FIRST one should have a
>natural sign. I am going to fix jhabc2ps so that only the first occurrance
>of an accidental is printed in each measure. I recommend that all other
>ABC rendering programs should do likewise.
I don't think this is a bug. If the user puts two accidentals in the
same bar, predumably she _wants_ the second to be drawn. It's not
musically necessary.
>Also I recommend the ABC standard should clarify whether repeated
>accidentals are required or not. For instance, given K:C, is " ^c c | ^c "
>three c-sharps in a row? Or is the second c a natural? According to
>abcm2ps, the second c is SHARP (i.e. no natural sign is
>inserted). However, according to abc2midi, the second c is NATURAL (i.e.
>it sounds lower than the first note). IMO, the way abc2midi works is
>correct, and the ABC standard should say that the second c is natural.
>
>What do others think about this?
The assumption has always been that abc works to the rules of (modern)
staff notation, so repeated accidentals within a bar are not required,
and are ignored if present. Accidentals affect only notes of the same
pitch, and not the same note in a different octave (even in chords).
I'm surprised that abc2midi doesn't work that way.
The early music people need a different convention, where accidentals
affect only the note to which they are attached, but I think that behaviour
should be obtainable via a local switch, and the modern convention should
be the default. In Gregorian chant, accidentals persist until the end
of the current word, which makes it necessary for a player program to
take note of the word alignments. I haven't implemented this in BarFly
on the grounds that anybody that wants to play Gregorian chant on a
computer should have to do penance...
Phil Taylor
To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html
