At the moment I think I like the M:4/4 beat=2/4 proposal. It would solve most of the problems and if there is some problem with Allegro in 13/8 that doesn't matter - it still enables much more than the current syntax and you can always fall back on a completely explicit Q:5/8=74 or whatever in those tunes. I'm not 100% sure what the right default is in the absence of a "beat=". Is it the L value (explicit or implied)?
Laurie ----- Original Message ----- From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2001 6:31 PM Subject: Re: [abcusers] something really simple > There is a complication here that I don't think anyone has addressed. By > defining "Allegro" as 1/4=120, whether this is done in the playback > software or in abc, you are assuming that "Allegro" is always based on a > quarter note beat. Therefore, alla breve allegro, with a half note as the > beat, would play back at 60 beats per minute. 6/8 allegro, with a dotted > quarter as the beat, would play back at 80 beats per minute. > > One possible solution: Allow a different "Allegro" to be defined for each > meter. 1/4=120 in 4/4 would not conflict with 3/8=120 in 12/8. One > problem with this is that the list of "Allegro" definitions could grow > very large (and still would never be comprehensive). Another problem is > that in some meters, particularly compound meters, the value of the beat > is not always obvious. For instance, 3/8 time can be counted with three > eighth-note beats to the measure, or with a single dotted-quarter beat. > > Another possible solution: Define "Allegro" as simply "120". Then each > piece that uses "Allegro" must explicitly state what its "beat" is. It's > probably not safe to rely on the L: field for this, but the M: field is a > possible candidate, e.g. "M:6/8 beat=3/8". The problem with this is that > there are some meters in which the beat is not necessarily constant (e.g. > 7/8 or 5/8). There may be some cases in which neither 1/8=120, 1/4=120 > nor 3/8=120 would be an appropriate "Allegro". > > Yet another possible solution: Limit the scope of any "Allegro" > definition so that such conflicts would never occur. This would probably > narrow the scope to the current meter in the current piece/movement, which > would render symbolic tempo definitions all but useless. > > Which leads to the final option, which is to regard the idea of symbolic > tempo definitions as hopelessly complex, and abandon it altogether. :-) > > John > > To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html > > To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html
