Jack Campin wrote: > If you can't make your ABC source human-readable you shouldn't > be using it. If all you want is staff notation, Finale or > Sibelius will do it better. It's the other uses of ABC that > make it unique, and most of those uses depend on readability.
As a user of abc I have to disagree. I use abc because it's easier to write out than most other methods, and is completely adequate for my uses (melody line with chord names for traditional music) so I don't need most of the extra complication of other software. I use abc to write out tunes to aid my memory and to communicate them to others through e-mail or printed notation. I use it for proofreading (or prooflistening I suppose) what I write. I use it to learn new tunes that others have written out - but I do that through listening or viewing written notation from Barfly. I never try to read music directly from raw abc files - I find even sloppily hand-written notation easier to read; and if I have the abc file I can see neat musical notation on screen (and print it if desirable) and I can listen to the tune as well. I won't say there's no reason to read abc notation at all, but I can say that I know a substantial community of traditional musicians in New Hampshire who use abc, and all use it to display musical notation, to listen to the tune in question and to exchange tunes; none use it to read directly. I suspect our usage pattern is pretty typical of the traditional music community in general. Peter To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html
