Under "German H as an alternative to B", John Chambers said -
>Actually, our inability to force musicians to use standard notations
>is one of the things that makes such notation possible. If there were
>a way to enforce a standard, we'd still be stuck with the Medieval
>4-line staff. There would be no such things as clefs, key signatures,
>bar lines, or chords.
Nonsense! We're not talking about Commandments carved in stone, never to be
broken. A standard is just a statement of what is agreed on. It can be
modified, adapted and developed. It forms a basic for future development,
not a barrier to it.
Use of words like "force" is ridiculous. You only need to force people to do
things they don't want to do. Think in terms of enabling people to do what
they do want to do, which, in the case of abc, is to exchange musical
information in a coherent way. If the standard gives people what they want,
you won't need to enforce it.
If John is fundamentally opposed to the concept of a standard, you have to
ask why he joined the standards committee in the first place. The same
question could be asked of some of the other members.
Perhaps it is the word "standard" that is the problem. Maybe something like
"protocol" would be better.
Bryan Creer
