--------
Simon Wascher writes:
| Frank Nordberg wrote:
| > My transcriptions raises a few interesting questions regarding
| > ABC-versions of early music. Should we add barlines? How do we disern
| > between original and editorial accidentals? etc. etc. etc.
|
| I usually use "#"A or "b"A to show editorial accidentals.
I've done this, too. One thing to beware of here is that in some
musical circles, an accental above (or below) the note is used to
mean "just this one note". I've seen both of these usages a lot, and
often the people who use them are disappointed when you don't
understand their notation. They insist that "everyone knows what it
means" despite the fact that others are using exactly the same
notation for something completely different. ("Well, they're wrong.")
Humans can sometimes figure out what is meant in such cases, but we
really can't expect a computer to figure it out. If we use such
notation in ABC, we probably should decide what we mean by it.
Meanwhile, others would use the print equivalent of (^)A or (_)A to
indicate an editorial accidental, where the parens are drawn around
the accidental. There doesn't seem to be any ambiguity in ABC if we
use this notation; the only problem is that there is probably no ABC
program right now that would accept it.
Of course, this runs afoul of another inconsistent usage: Some people
use parens around accidentals to mean that the accidental is
optional; the note may be played either way. It's yet another way
that musicians are inconsistent.
To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html
