John Chambers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hey, glad to see you're doing this. I've volunteered in the past, but
> the RSCDS didn't respond.
So far I'm doing this for my own enjoyment, with no official RSCDS
sanction. I want to have an »Original Tunes for RSCDS Dances« book
that saves me haulin
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, John Chambers
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
>
>My feeling is that the active developers shouldn't be held back by a
>popular but obsolete program that isn't being maintained. This is a
>"slippery slope", as the media calls it, and will just invite more
>such prob
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, I. Oppenheim
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
>On Fri, 25 Jul 2003, Jack Campin wrote:
>
>> A2 E2 G2 A2 [&[& A B c d e f g a &\
>> A A A A A A A A &\
>> A G F E D C B, A, ]& D2 E2 A2 ...
>
>For meter free music one could use _inviss
Tom Keays wrote:
So, how about combining the two ideas?
A2 E2 G2 A2 |[V:1] A B c d e f g a [V:1+] A A A A A A A A [V:1+] A G F E D C
B, A,|]
Or use Richard's lower case idea [v:1+].
Hmmm...
Why not allow both for transient voices *both* on separte lines and as
through inline fields? That seems
Irwin Oppenheim wrote -
>Using ! and !..! in one and the same
>tune may lead to disaster if you make a small typo. So,
>while "!" should definitely be supported, I encourage
>you to support "*" as well.
It just seems to make a messy situation more complicated. You are still going to have to hand
On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 14:32:39 EDT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[snip]
>For instance with L:1/4, [GD2] A B c would take four beats and [D2G] A B c
>would take five.
[snip]
I though from the previous discussion that the length of the chord
was the length of the smallest note (and that's
On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 13:22:43 UTC, John Chambers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
[snip]
>| {[DGB][EAc]}(3:2:4[EGB]2[DFA]/<<{[EGB]}[EGc]/
>|
>| for example.
>
>Good example. I wish that chords as grace notes generally worked. No
>reason they shouldn't, of course, but how many programs a
On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 01:42:20 +0100, Jack Campin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
[snip]
>You might also want to change your shell to something less
>squirmily haveanicedayish than tcsh. chsh is the command to
>do the change; bash is pretty reasonable though my fave back
>when I was using Unix a
On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 22:02:03 +0200 (W. Europe Daylight Time), "I.
Oppenheim" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[snip]
>Abcm2ps does not support it. In abcm2ps [A2g] is
>equivalent with [A2g2] .
No, it works, even if a bit ugly!
>Please explain to me: would there be any difference
>between [A2g]
(Slightly off-topic but relevant to many subscribers)
Some of you may be interested that there is currently a proposal
running for a new Usenet newsgroup in the uk.* hierarchy for
general discussion about all aspects of notation and software. The
intention is most definitely not to reproduce any o
On Fri, Jul 25, 2003 at 05:58:42AM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Irwin Oppenheim wrote -
>
> >Using ! and !..! in one and the same
> >tune may lead to disaster if you make a small typo. So,
> >while "!" should definitely be supported, I encourage
> >you to support "*" as well.
>
> It just see
Hello,
as you know, Irwin Oppenheim and I are trying to put together a proposal
for ABC 2 standard. I have a simple question: has anybody actually seen
the u: (lowercase u) field in ABC files? We are considering whether
leaving it out.
Suggestions are highly appreciated.
Later,
Guido =8-)
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>, Guido Gonzato <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
>Hello,
>
>as you know, Irwin Oppenheim and I are trying to put together a proposal
>for ABC 2 standard. I have a simple question: has anybody actually seen
>the u: (lowercase u) field in ABC files? We are considering whether
On Fri, 25 Jul 2003, Bernard Hill wrote:
> >Hello,
> >
> >as you know, Irwin Oppenheim and I are trying to put together a proposal
> >for ABC 2 standard. I have a simple question: has anybody actually seen
> >the u: (lowercase u) field in ABC files? We are considering whether
> >leaving it out.
>
Jef Moine wrote -
>I though from the previous discussion that the length of the chord
>was the length of the smallest note (and that's what abcm2ps does).
>Then, if you want a bigger length, you may add invisible rests.
>In a previous discussion, some people wanted the first note to
>give the len
I. Oppenheim writes:
| On Fri, 25 Jul 2003, Jack Campin wrote:
|
| > PATH=/bin:/sbin:/usr/bin:/usr/sbin:/usr/local/bin
| > export PATH
|
| No Jack, that's bourne shell syntax!!!
| A day ago I gave the correct solution for tcsh in a
| separate posting.
...
| At the moment, bash is the de facto s
Anselm Lingnau writes:
| John Chambers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
|
| > Hey, glad to see you're doing this. I've volunteered in the past, but
| > the RSCDS didn't respond.
|
| So far I'm doing this for my own enjoyment, with no official RSCDS
| sanction. I want to have an »Original Tunes for RSCD
Bernard Hill writes:
|
| Invisible barlines? Are you suggesting [|] as a non-printing barline?
This is implemented by a number of abc programs already. There's also
a lot of use of x as a non-printing rest, and y as a non-printing,
non-playing (i.e., just spacing) pseudo-rest. The latter is a
> Some of you may be interested that there is currently a proposal
> running for a new Usenet newsgroup in the uk.* hierarchy for
> general discussion about all aspects of notation and software.
I think it's a good idea, provided that the newsgroup
will be moderated (in the sense that all spam wil
I agree with Bryan's conclusions (and that's what I did for Skink).
wil
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Jef Moine wrote -
>I though from the previous discussion that the length of the chord
>was the length of the smallest note (and that's what abcm2ps does).
>Then, if you want a bigger length,
Jean-Francois Moine writes:
|
| >Please explain to me: would there be any difference
| >between [A2g] and [gA2] ?
|
| In a previous discussion, some people wanted the first note to
| give the length of the chord. But later, it seems that everybody
| agreed using the length of the smallest note.
Hm
In message
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Guido
Gonzato <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
as you know, Irwin Oppenheim and I are trying to put together a proposal
for ABC 2 standard. I have a simple question: has anybody actually seen
the u: (lowercase u) field in ABC files? We are considering whether
leaving it
On Fri, 25 Jul 2003, Richard Robinson wrote:
> If I have a tune with decorations, and want to add a
> staffbreak somewhere, I'm just not going to delete
> the decorations.
Of course you won't delete the decorations!
All I am proposing is that you should be able to use
"!...!" for decorations and
Guido Gonzato asks:
| as you know, Irwin Oppenheim and I are trying to put together a proposal
| for ABC 2 standard. I have a simple question: has anybody actually seen
| the u: (lowercase u) field in ABC files? We are considering whether
| leaving it out.
It turns out I can ask my Tune Finder abo
> On Fri, 25 Jul 2003, Bernard Hill wrote:
>
> > >Hello,
> > >
> > >as you know, Irwin Oppenheim and I are trying to put together a proposal
> > >for ABC 2 standard. I have a simple question: has anybody actually seen
> > >the u: (lowercase u) field in ABC files? We are considering whether
> > >lea
On Fri, Jul 25, 2003 at 01:29:11PM +, John Chambers wrote:
>
> This is much of why unix users haven't generally switched
> over to full-time GUI use. Pretty pictures are fun and
> flashy, but if you actually want to accomplish something
> without constantly gritting your teeth about
On Fri, Jul 25, 2003 at 05:19:50PM +0200, I. Oppenheim wrote:
> On Fri, 25 Jul 2003, Richard Robinson wrote:
>
> > If I have a tune with decorations, and want to add a
> > staffbreak somewhere, I'm just not going to delete
> > the decorations.
>
> Of course you won't delete the decorations!
>
>
Guido Gonzato wrote:
>as you know, Irwin Oppenheim and I are trying to put together a proposal
>for ABC 2 standard. I have a simple question: has anybody actually seen
>the u: (lowercase u) field in ABC files? We are considering whether
>leaving it out.
>
>Suggestions are highly appreciated.
The
Bryan Creer wrote:
>Irwin Oppenheim wrote -
>
>>Using ! and !..! in one and the same
>>tune may lead to disaster if you make a small typo. So,
>>while "!" should definitely be supported, I encourage
>>you to support "*" as well.
>
>It just seems to make a messy situation more complicated. You are
John Chambers wrote:
>One of the fun aspects of working on unixoid systems is the
>variety of command languages that you have available, each
>with its own flock of partisans. ;-)
Hmm, sounds just like abc, really.
> Pretty pictures are fun and
>flashy, but if you actually want to accompli
Wil Macaulay wrote:
>I agree with Bryan's conclusions (and that's what I did for Skink).
Me too. I _think_ that's what BarFly does (although since it's not
a feature I make use of I'd really have to go and check).
Phil Taylor
To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tulloch
> > So the bottom line is: it would be nice if both "!"
> > and "*" could be used to notate a staffbreak. The
> > people who do not use !...! won't be bothered by it,
> > and the people who use decorations will have an easier
> > time.
>
> We're into the territory of defining new stuff here. As I
Another historic moment! Phil and Bryan and I all agree on something! Put
it in the
standard, quick, before we lose it!
wil
Phil Taylor wrote:
Wil Macaulay wrote:
I agree with Bryan's conclusions (and that's what I did for Skink).
Me too. I _think_ that's what BarF
On Fri, 25 Jul 2003, Phil Taylor wrote:
> I don't think anyone has implemented w: in a program,
> and as far as I'm concerned it can go.
I think you meant "u:", not "w:"...
Irwin
To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html
On Fri, Jul 25, 2003 at 07:15:34PM +0200, I. Oppenheim wrote:
> > > So the bottom line is: it would be nice if both "!"
> > > and "*" could be used to notate a staffbreak. The
> > > people who do not use !...! won't be bothered by it,
> > > and the people who use decorations will have an easier
>
Wil Macaulay wrote -
>Another historic moment! Phil and Bryan and I all agree on something! Put it in the
>standard, quick, before we lose it!
Oh happy day!
Over to you Jef?
Bryan Creer
Irwin Oppenheim wrote:
>On Fri, 25 Jul 2003, Phil Taylor wrote:
>
>> I don't think anyone has implemented w: in a program,
>> and as far as I'm concerned it can go.
>
>I think you meant "u:", not "w:"...
Sorry, yes.
Phil Taylor
To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tulloc
I have quite a few danish tunes fron at least 1999
disabling abc-'linebreaks' this way and end with a double **
What's the use of **
X:2
T:Tellings hopsa
S:Hans Ole
R:Hopsa
O:Denmark
M:2/4
L:1/8
K:D
D | B2 c/B/^A/B/ | G2D2 | B2 c/B/^A/B/ |ed cB |\
A2B/A/^G/A/ | F2D2 | A2B/A/^G/A/| fe dc |\
B2c/B/
Arent Storm writes:
>
> I have quite a few danish tunes fron at least 1999
> disabling abc-'linebreaks' this way and end with a double **
> What's the use of **
>
Left over from abc2mtex: it was for the last bar of the tune, to
end it with a right-justified double bar without starting a
The current draft standard for multiple voices states:
>>
V: fields can contain voice specifiers such as name, clef, and so on. For
example,
V:T1 name="Tenor I" clef=treble-8
indicates that voice `T1' will be drawn on a staff labelled "Tenor I", using the
treble clef with a small `8' underneath.
On Fri, Jul 25, 2003 at 08:34:03PM +0200, Arent Storm wrote:
> I have quite a few danish tunes fron at least 1999
> disabling abc-'linebreaks' this way and end with a double **
Wahey ! They go back further than that. 1994, I think :)
Nothing goes away, even when you update it ...
> T:Tellings ho
I'd like to catch the use the the Y: field for future extensions like
Y:someinfofield="some info field value"
This way we've maintained compitiblity with existing abc files
while having the possibilty of future expansion.
Arent
To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochg
On Fri, 25 Jul 2003, Arent Storm wrote:
> 1) where does T1 come from
T1 in V:T1 is just an identifier that will make the ABC
source code more readable.
As you know the name of the voice and other options
need to be spelled out only once, so having readable
identifiers throughout a big piece of AB
On Fri, 25 Jul 2003, Arent Storm wrote:
> I'd like to catch the use the the Y: field for future extensions like
> Y:someinfofield="some info field value"
> This way we've maintained compitiblity with existing abc files
> while having the possibilty of future expansion.
Standard says already:
<>
Phil Taylor wrote:
Changing abcm2ps to use *...* instead of !...! (it accepts ! for a linebreak
already) would be a matter of minutes work for Jef. Changing ABC2Win is
not possible. Changing all of the existing files which use !...! to use
*...* is just a matter of search and replace; there are
> What seems to have happened is that I and a few others pointed out
> that we don't really have a serious problem with the two uses of !
> right now, because a simple heuristic can tell which meaning was used
> in a tune. But some people misinterpreted this to mean that both
> could be
- Original Message -
From: "I. Oppenheim" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "ABCusers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, July 25, 2003 9:14 PM
Subject: Re: [abcusers] informationfield extension
> On Fri, 25 Jul 2003, Arent Storm wrote:
>
> > I'd like to catch the use the the Y: field for future
From: "Bert Van Vreckem" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, July 25, 2003 11:18 PM
Subject: Re: [abcusers] Re: About the choice of '!'
> Phil Taylor wrote:
> > Changing abcm2ps to use *...* instead of !...! (it accepts ! for a linebreak
> > already) would be a matter of min
From: "I. Oppenheim" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "ABCusers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, July 25, 2003 9:12 PM
Subject: Re: [abcusers] voice properties
> On Fri, 25 Jul 2003, Arent Storm wrote:
> > 1) where does T1 come from
> T1 in V:T1 is just an identifier that will make the ABC
> source code m
> I'd like to catch the use the the Y: field for future extensions
> like Y:someinfofield="some info field value"
> This way we've maintained compitiblity with existing abc files
> while having the possibilty of future expansion.
Perhaps Phil (as the person whose program has the strangest parser)
From: "Jack Campin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "ABC Users" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, July 26, 2003 12:58 AM
Subject: [abcusers] expandable information field
> > I'd like to catch the use the the Y: field for future extensions
> > like Y:someinfofield="some info field value"
> > This way we
Jack Campin writes:
|
| (I'm going to be away for a week, OS 1:5 sheet 48 302241,
| a mile off the nearest road with no modem).
Hey, no need to rub it in! We're all choked with envy.
To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html
52 matches
Mail list logo
