In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, John Chambers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes >Irwin Oppenheim wrote: >| On Tue, 1 Jul 2003, John Chambers wrote: >| >| > This really just means that '+' would be added to the >| > list of ornament symbols, and the default display >| > form is merely a '+' above the note. >| >| Something like: >| U: X = "^+" ? > >No, more like: > > ... | fe +d2 | c4 |] > >where the d has a '+' drawn above the note head. Of course, for the >benefit of people who want to make the music a bit more specific, >they could add > >U: + = trill
Shouldn't that be U:+=!trill! ? > >to the headers, and then they'd get the "Tr" ligature above the note >head. That would satisfy Romantic-era musicians, who mostly don't >know this notation. But Baroque musicians would of course sneer at >that, and prefer the plain '+' that doesn't presume to tell them how >to ornament the note. > >(Then they'd complain about ABC's lack of all those overly-intricate >ornaments that some Baroque composers liked to use. ;-) > >I just thought that we could get '+' added to the list of official >ornament symbols before it gets gobbled up for some other use. And >then, if you don't see the point in that notation, you can use a U >line to use it for something else. There are lots of potential uses >of '+' in musical notation. Maybe you'd like it for a quarter-tone >sharp sign. (I've seen people use '+' this way. It makes sense, since >visually '+' is half of a '#'. But this visual metaphor doesn't >extend to quarter-tone flats.) > Bernard Hill Braeburn Software Author of Music Publisher system Music Software written by musicians for musicians http://www.braeburn.co.uk Selkirk, Scotland To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html
