At 08:30 AM 01-31-2002 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] you wrote: >Hi, > >I have been following this discussion with interest. Maybe that shows my >level of boredom, but..... ;-) > > > 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 -
From the format of your message, I expected your reply to describe why you "expect translations of ABC into staff notation to look in a specific way". But you don't. You give lots of reasons to use ABC that have nothing to do with now the staff notation looks. Only one of them deals with staff notation: >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. And this does not require that the ABC to staff translation have any particular appearance -- or at least, I don't think so, anyway. To me, what is important about an ABC-to-staff translation is that it accurately represents the music so notated. If I take a piece of sheet music and transcribe it into ABC, then run an abc2staff translator, I do not expect the two sheets of music to look identical, especially if the original sheet music used something currently nonstandard, like figured bass. But I do expect that a competent musician should play the two sheets of music identically. > 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? The standard should be unambiguous about such things. That it is not is a place where the standard is failing, and needs be corrected. >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. The key isn't "is the reader familiar with staff music notation standards" the key is "is the reader familiar with ABC standards". If ABC says, in one form or another, that given ^F-|FabF|, the intermensural F is sharped and played for twice as long as the second, natural, F, then so be it. If it says it is illegal, and to get that effect, one needs to write ^F-|^Fab=F then so be it. Or anything else in between. Right now, the argument is that the standard does NOT so say, and what ^F-|FabF| means is not clear in ABC. >So, for what it's worth, that's my two cents' worth........ ;-) Isn't it odd that people value their opinions at two cents, yet the going rate for thoughts is just a penny? To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html
