At 12:52 PM 02-06-2002 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] you wrote:
>On Wed, 6 Feb 2002, [iso-8859-1] Erik Ronstr�m wrote:
>
> > I think I'd get your point anyway.
>
>I don't think you do get my point. It seems self-evident to me that ABC
>is pseudo-staff notation. You have made it clear *that* you disagree, but
>not *why*. Where else do you think ABC got the concepts of whole notes,
>beaming, barlines, etc., if not from staff notation? It's hard for me to
>imagine how you define pseudo-staff notation, if ABC doesn't qualify.
My understanding of staff notation indicates that a lot of the things you
are talking about -- whole notes, beaming, bar lines, etc -- have musical
significants outside of the notation. Bar lines and beaming indicate the
rhythm of the music, which helps performers in performance (different parts
of the rhythm may have different stress or emphasis when played). A human
musician may very well play | abc def | differently than | ab cd ef |,
even though it's the same notes, played for the same duration, etc.
> > My point was that we should have a language that is precise in it's
> > *syntax*, that is, the way in which music is notated and the way in
> > which the language should be interpreted. In other words: what is
> > allowed and what is not.
>
>I agree, and there is *nothing* imprecise about ^f-|f if you simply amend
>the standard to codify the rule -- a rule that most people seem to be
>following anyway. I still see no advantage to using ^f-|^f.
So you would agree with the following text (subject to minor amendment,
since I'm writing this "off the cuff"):
Syntax: - ties
A tie may be placed between two or more notes of the same pitch and
indicates that the two notes should be played without a break, as if it was
one note of duration equal to the sum of the durations of the two
notes. As a convenience, accidentals on the first note are optional on
successive notes. White space, bar lines, and repeat symbols may appear
between the tied notes. Ties are useful for preserving the visible meter
or rhythm of the music when notes extend over beat or measure boundaries.
Examples:
f-f % plays as if it were f2
f-|f % plays as if it were f2 across a measure boundary
f4-|f4-|f4-|f4-|f4-
f4-|f4-|f4-|f4-|f4 % plays as if it were f20 across two lines
^f4-|^f4 % plays as if it were ^f8 across a measure boundary
^f4-|f4 % plays as if it were ^f8 across a measure boundary
C-|:CEGc-|cGEC-:|CE,G,C, % plays as C2EGc2GEC2EGc2GEC2E,G,C,
c-^B-B-^^^A % plays as c4
>I disagree. The ABC standard is full of indications that it has
>historically been intended primarily as a source for *generating* staff
>notation.
I see nothing wrong with a standard for a notation suggesting how parts of
that notation should be translated to or from another notation.
>See the section on beaming... Beaming is meaningless outside
>of staff notation.
I disagree. Beaming is used in staff notation to indicate musical
rhythm. In the face of M:, beaming may be redundant, but it is a useful
redundancy to performers. The description of the beam-equivalent notation
in ABC may refer to beaming, but the concept of rhythmic grouping of notes
is not staff notation-specific.
> There are also many instances of language like
>"character x is used to generate symbol y." There's even an ASCII
>*drawing* of a five-line staff, with ledger lines, in the standard itself!
>The basic philosophy seems to be "draw what I tell you to draw."
Perhaps the basic philosophy should be "To get an effect like X in
staff-notation, do Y in ABC". The only ASCII drawing of a five-line staff
I remember is used to show how ABC notes correspond to staff-notation notes.
A lot of people want to create ABC files based on music they have available
to them in staff notation. It is reasonable for them to want to ask how to
do something in ABC which is possible in staff notation -- such as
extending a note slightly at the end of the music or a piece. Such a query
may be expressed as "How do I put a fermata over a note", or "How do I put
in guitar tablature", or "How do I write figured bass" rather than "How do
I get X effect". I think it is reasonable for the standard to be written
to make it easier for people to find the information they are looking for.
>So, I would counter your suggestion by saying that if you want to write
>stand-alone notation, irrespective of how it would appear on the staff,
>maybe *you* are the one who shouldn't be using abc.
This seems a little extreme.
>(Whether or not abc *should* be stand-alone is another question entirely.
>My point is simply that is is not stand-alone *now*. Not by a long shot.)
ABC clearly shows staff notation in its heritage, and it is clearly
designed to be easy to use by familiar with staff notation. But I do think
it is to a large degree stand-alone, with a few non-standalone warts that
may be able to be repaired.
>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
