Hello Anselm,
Anselm Lingnau wrote:
> Simon Wascher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Lets say you are right, its completely impossible that someone needs
> > that.
> I'm not claiming that it is impossible for anybody to need this. But if
> this is a sensible proposal then surely there must be an example of an
> application that requires it? Obviously if there isn't an actual
> requirement for this notation (other than `Simon says so') there is no
> need to clutter up the standard with it.
Anselm, I posted examples about three times.
> > So why bother about its syntax if you cannot imagine someone may need it?
> I do bother about the proposed syntax because I want the ABC standard to
> stay as simple and straightforward as possible (while still being as
> expressive as is reasonable). If this means we have to think more and
> harder instead of catering for every whim at a moment's notice then
> `tough'.
If you *read* the standard I proposed, You will see that in all cases
you or Frank asked for this syntax reacts completely straightforward an
simple and also in many of the odd examples Laurie gave. In fact it
always reacts straitforewardn and simple.
> The counter-proposal stands:
>
> Q:1/4=120 % [1] explicit tempo specification
> Q:1/4=120 note="Pretty quickly" % [2] explicit tempo with advisory note
> Q:Allegro % [3] symbolic tempo specification, metronome
> % speed (or range) defined elsewhere
> Q:Allegro note="Pretty quickly" % [4] symbolic tempo with advisory note
> Q:Allegro 1/4=120 % [5] definition of symbolic tempo
> Q:Allegro 1/4=120-128 % [6] definition of range
The problem is that there are situations where it is necessary to have
part of the tempo indicator displayed and parts not.
Example:
Q:1/4=120 - Allegro % displaying "Allegro" and playing 1/4=120
In your proposal how can this be done ?
I only found the solution of using two Q: lines, one definition line and
one tempo line but how should this work? It would make a definition line
before the X: line mandatory ! *this* is what I call failling of a
syntax.
Or maybe you repair it by allowing definition *and* playback Q: fields
side by side inside a header. again: *this* is really a worst case
syntax.
having a syntax that allowes such:
Q:1/4=120 - Allegro % displaying "Allegro" and playing 1/4=120
is usefull for: simply for those who want to include a program readable
but userdefined tempo indicater in a file where "Allegro" should be
displayed (for example because just "Allegro" is what the composer
indicated).
> supposed to do). We don't need special syntax for every single ABC
> header field when there is a general pattern that we can apply, like the
> `key=value' convention outlined above.
Remember : the minus sign only is used in cases where something is *not*
printed. so it is additional syntax, not alternative.
Yes there should be a unique header expansion syntax (actually there is
no agreement on which).
I have no problems if quotes are used or minus or pound signs . they are
as good or bad as nearly every other separator (and create other limits
to the syntax).
I might just add that all your examples come from *draft* and till now
there is no agreement on whether this will become standard.
> > allegro is not more or less musical information or convention than
> > 1/4=120
> Wrong.
Anselm. Some composers/musicians/transcribers want this some that.
Inside an abc tune 1/4=120 is the only way to influence a playback
function user/transcriber controled.
> > . If implemented, it would, among other things, make it
> > > possible to control the tempo of a bunch of tunes without having to
> > > change the `Q:' line for every single one, which I find quite appealing.
> > You can have this by now by using your playback programes player
> > settings ;-) .
> > Or using a program that allows active R:fields
>
> Active `R:' fields are quite another can of worms as long as their
> meaning is hard-coded in the player programs (like with abc2midi,
In your own words: let these things to the program packages.
> Besides, what would you put in the active `R:' fields of, say, Bach's
> inventions or Chopin's �tudes so their speed can be controlled?
This is slightly off topic, but if you really want to know, I could
figure out and send it to you of list.
The main question for sure would be to give the playback function of the
program I use a definition for the tempo to play (as not to fall to some
default) and at the same time display whatever Bach or Chopin sugested
as a textual tempo indicator.
Simon Wascher - Vienna, Austria
http://members.chello.at/simon.wascher/
To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html
