Hi, I have been following this discussion with interest. Maybe that shows my level of boredom, but..... ;-)
To respond to Erik's comments. > ABC is not a pseudo-staff-notation, nor a pseudo-MIDI-format: it is > a standalone >music notation. Well, that's true, but not completely. How one looks at ABC notation depends on one's use for it. See more below........ > The problem with ties and accidentals is > easily solved; ........snip...... > If you use ABC just as a way to save staff notation, and > expect translations of ABC into staff notation to look in a specific > way - why do you use ABC at all? Well, let's see - why do I use ABC to save staf notation? It's simple - 1. ABC software is *much* less expensive than, say, Finale, or several other programs. 2. ABC files are small, simple text files that are easily sent via email. 3. Because ABC files are small, one can have an incredible number (thousands) of tunes on a floppy. 4. As a hammered dulcimer player, I have found an incredible number of tunes on the internet I can download to learn. 5. And those downloaded tunes can be played using an inexpensive ABC-to-MIDI program so I can hear how the tune goes to learn it. 6. ABC files can be read by any ABC software (try *that* with Finale or Noteworthy Composer, etc.) 7. I can get perfectly acceptable, useable staff notation using ABC for the tunes (and songs) that I have collected or written out, not to mention that, with abc2ps, there are number more things one can do than simple music notation. 8. Oh yes - I can read the ABC file directly without putting it into music notation, but that is only a side feature for me. So, those are the reasons I use ABC. > The important thing is that there is no doubt about how an ABC tune > shall be read or interpreted. I don't know about that. It seems there have been a number of comments in this discussion that show the opposite. Just as with standard music notation, if one is reading the ABC, if you don't specify the sharpness, naturalness or flatness of the second F in your example, is that F in the second bar supposed to be an F-natural or F-sharp? On this issue, I vote for explictness - not that programs should all do it this way, but if I have to assume what is meant because either I or the transcriber am/is not familiar with standard music notation "standards" (or at least the same standard of music notation), I would rather the transcriber be explicit than not. So, for what it's worth, that's my two cents' worth........ ;-) Rick To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html
