Re: [abcusers] Clarification wanted on abc draft standard 2.0 (fwd)
Richard Robinson writes: | On Sat, Oct 04, 2003 at 03:11:33PM +, John Chambers wrote: | | In general, it seems that rests should almost always be treated as | notes. The only way they're different is that a rest doesn't have a | pitch. | | And is tricky to play staccato ? Well, you could make the rest very short, and immediately play another note. Or, if you're a John Cage fan, you can play a shole string of staccatto rests, but slur them together into one long rest. ;-) (Sorry it took so long to reply. I've been on the road for a week. Now I'm in Mammoth Lakes, California, where there's one of the few motels that actually has the Internet access that they advertise. Who knows when I'll be able to reply to a reply to this reply ...) -- O :#/ John Chambers + [EMAIL PROTECTED] / \ [EMAIL PROTECTED] To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html
Re: [abcusers] Clarification wanted on abc draft standard 2.0 (fwd)
On Sun, Oct 12, 2003 at 02:17:14AM +, John Chambers wrote: Richard Robinson writes: | On Sat, Oct 04, 2003 at 03:11:33PM +, John Chambers wrote: | | In general, it seems that rests should almost always be treated as | notes. The only way they're different is that a rest doesn't have a | pitch. | | And is tricky to play staccato ? Well, you could make the rest very short, and immediately play another note. Or, if you're a John Cage fan ... ... you could call that a strathspey ? (Sorry it took so long to reply. I've been on the road for a week. Now I'm in Mammoth Lakes, California, where there's one of the few motels that actually has the Internet access that they advertise. Who knows when I'll be able to reply to a reply to this reply ...) On a subject of such importance, too. Heck. -- Richard Robinson The whole plan hinged upon the natural curiosity of potatoes - S. Lem To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html
Re: [abcusers] Clarification wanted on abc draft standard 2.0 (fwd)
Barry Say says: | Under what circumstances would you want a word or symbol in the lyrics | to align with a rest? | | I have seen this in the case where words are spoken are shouted or | indications such as (clap) (stamp). Sophisticates may well use | percussion notation rather than rests in the melody line, but I have | seen both. It seems more flexible to allow this rather than forbid. I | think the question is why should it be forbidden? Yeah; I have a Finnish/Swedish tune in my collection where there is a rest and you're supposed to shout Hej!. I get it on the page now by abusing the chord notation. It would make more sense to use a w: line, of course. But it would only work if the word could be attached to a rest. In this case, the only word in the tune is on a rest. In general, it seems that rests should almost always be treated as notes. The only way they're different is that a rest doesn't have a pitch. -- O :#/ John Chambers + [EMAIL PROTECTED] / \ [EMAIL PROTECTED] To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html
Re: [abcusers] Clarification wanted on abc draft standard 2.0 (fwd)
On Sat, Oct 04, 2003 at 03:11:33PM +, John Chambers wrote: In general, it seems that rests should almost always be treated as notes. The only way they're different is that a rest doesn't have a pitch. And is tricky to play staccato ? -- Richard Robinson The whole plan hinged upon the natural curiosity of potatoes - S. Lem To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html
Re: [abcusers] Clarification wanted on abc draft standard 2.0 (fwd)
On 4 Oct 2003, John Chambers wrote: I'd guess that this is fairly common. It's likely that some abc tools that handle w: lines now do align syllables with rests, but nobody has ever noticed. If this is true, then making this the official behavior would hardly break anything. And those songs would already be semi-broken, because there hasn't been an official standard for this and different tools probably do handle it differently right now. I dont believe that ABC 2.0 represents a widely accepted standard yet, rather I think that the list just got tired of the discussion This is exactly the sort of situation for which I suggested an extension to the I: field in my proposed extensions to ABC. (www.nspipes.co.uk/barry/abc2proposal.html.) I: _switch align lyrics to rests or I:SWITCH align lyrics to rests or I:SWITCH align_lyrics_to_rests (The above three forms are alternatives) The converse would be I:SWITCH no_lyrics_on_rests I would prefer to see the new standard allowing lyrics on rests (but not barlines) and allowing the above switch for the rare occasions when old files need to be interpreted. I agree with the correspondent who would rather not introduce gratuitous percussion notation. Barry Say To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html
Re: [abcusers] Clarification wanted on abc draft standard 2.0 (fwd)
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Stephen Kellett [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes I can't see the value in (c), especially if you've listened to music with grace notes, putting symbols to accent them even more is optimisitic from the playing point of view, and from the singing point of view, well... One of my notation books recommends that the slur between an acciaccatura and its target always be omitted as it is almost always indicated. And if you do want the acciaccatura detached then you should put a staccato mark on it. And as for singing, grace notes in my experience are always appoggiaturas. So since they have a normal duration there is no reason why they can't have accents (although I've never actually seen one) and it's perfectly possible for a singer to articulate it. 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
Re: [abcusers] Clarification wanted on abc draft standard 2.0 (fwd)
Stephen Kellett wrote:
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Phil Taylor
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Phil Taylor
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes
a) Symbols can be on notes, rests and bar lines
Bad Idea. This breaks all existing programs which support aligned words,
and any existing files which include aligned words and rests.
Forgive my ignorance, why is this a bad idea? Have I misunderstood the
spec? I'm writing my parser/player/display program. I've already
implemented the above and it was not hard to achieve (I can make the
symbols attach to anything in the markup, pretty much).
Then anyone who uses your program to make abcs with aligned words will
find that their files don't work properly with any other software.
Likewise they will find that in any files they download from the net
the lyrics won't align properly.
As far as I can see this doesn't answer the second question (am I
mistaken, or are you just disagreeing with ABC2.0 and not my
interpretation of it), and only states that the proposed ABC2.0 spec is
more advanced than the programs to which you refer (but do not name) in
their current state.
The second question was Have I misunderstood the spec?. I don't think
so. In fact the spec (see below) is ambiguous, so you can be forgiven
for taking a different interpretation to everybody else, provided that
you realise the consequences.
This is no more different than putting an ABC file
with V: voicing into ABCWin - it doesn't like it. I don't think anyone
is claiming ABCWin is broken because the standard has advanced past its
capabilities.
It's very different. The introduction of the V: field represented a new
extension to abc. It did not invalidate abc2win's existing data files,
and its use could be avoided by newer programs if the user wanted to
achieve backwards compatibility with abc2win. And it was a very important
extension in that it made available whole swathes of music which could
previously not have been represented in abc. What you are proposing is
not a new extension, but a change in the interpretation of an existing
one. This means that programs which work in the way you suggest will
interpret existing files differently, and not in the way that their
authors intended. And all of this just to enable the alignment of
lyrics with rests and bar lines? That's a whole can of worms being
opened to achieve an infinitesimal extra feature.
My program will be backwards compatible. If you've aligned your words on
notes that is fine. Using my app you can align on notes/rests/barlines
as the spec dictates.
How will it be backward-compatible? These are two different and totally
incompatible sets of behaviour. You could give your users the option
of interpreting aligned lyrics one way or the other, but it would be
quite difficult to make this choice automatic.
I made a mistake in my previous posting. The ABC2.0 draft spec actually
includes note groups and doesn't specifically disallow grace notes.
Given that the spec does not define note group (or if it does I
haven't found it), I am not sure if a note group is
a) ABC
which is notes next to each other
b) [ABC]
which is chords
c) {abc}
which is grace notes - these are clearly grouped in one sense.
d) either of (a) (b) (c)
\
I don't know what abc2.0 draft you are reading but it doesn't say
anything about note groups under section 5, Lyrics:
-
5. Lyrics
The W field (uppercase W) can be used for lyrics to be printed separately
below the tune.
The w field (lowercase w) in the body, supplies a line of lyrics to be
aligned syllable by syllable below the previous line of notes. Syllables
are not aligned on grace notes and tied notes are treated as two separate
notes; slurred or beamed notes are also treated as separate notes in this
context. Note that lyrics are always aligned to the beginning of the
preceding music line.
It is possible for a music line to be followed by several w fields. This
can be used together with the part notation to create verses. The first w
field is used the first time that part is played, then the second and so
on.
The lyrics lines are treated as an ABC string. Within the lyrics, the words
should be separated by one or more spaces and to correctly align them the
following symbols may be used:
-
(hyphen) break between syllables within a word
_
(underscore) last syllable is to be held for an extra note
*
one note is skipped (i.e. * is equivalent to a blank syllable)
~
appears as a space; aligns multiple words under one note
\-
appears as hyphen; aligns multiple syllables under one note
|
advances to the next bar
Note that if '-' is preceded by a space or another hyphen, it is regarded
as a separate syllable.
When an underscore is used next to a hyphen, the hyphen must always come first.
If there are not as many syllables as notes in a measure, typing a '|'
automatically advances to the next bar; if there are enough syllables the
'|' is just ignored.
Some examples:
Re: [abcusers] Clarification wanted on abc draft standard 2.0 (fwd)
Under what circumstances would you want a word or symbol in the lyrics to align with a rest? Phil Taylor I have seen this in the case where words are spoken are shouted or indications such as (clap) (stamp). Sophisticates may well use percussion notation rather than rests in the melody line, but I have seen both. It seems more flexible to allow this rather than forbid. I think the question is why should it be forbidden? Barry Say To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html
Re: [abcusers] Clarification wanted on abc draft standard 2.0 (fwd)
On Thu, 2 Oct 2003, Barry Say wrote: Under what circumstances would you want a word or symbol in the lyrics to align with a rest? I have seen this in the case where words are spoken are shouted or indications such as (clap) (stamp). I think the question is why should it be forbidden? To maintain compatibility with existing ABC software and ABC music files. Currently, syllables will be aligned with the notes following a rest. Your suggestion to use percussion notes instead of rests for purposes like these, seems cleaner. Groeten, Irwin Oppenheim [EMAIL PROTECTED] ~~~* The ABC Standard http://abc.sourceforge.net/standard/ To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html
Re: [abcusers] Clarification wanted on abc draft standard 2.0 (fwd)
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], I. Oppenheim [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes In most cases, lyrics are NOT wanted on rests, but I have seen some files which DO use lyrics on rests. There is obviously no indication as to which is intended when reading a file. The abc standard (draft 2.0) says nothing about lyrics on rests, but the need DOES occur in some circumstances. Is it possible to state, and include in the standard, what should be done? I think it is valid. The reasoning is as follows: a) Symbols can be on notes, rests and bar lines b) Symbols can be formatted using the s: line in the same way as lyrics using the w: line c) Leads me to think that if Symbols and lyrics can be laid out the same way, they can possibly be attached to the same objects (notes, rest, bar lines)? Note quite sure what use a lyric on a bar line is, but... Stephen -- Stephen Kellett Object Media Limitedhttp://www.objmedia.demon.co.uk RSI Information:http://www.objmedia.demon.co.uk/rsi.html To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html
Re: [abcusers] Clarification wanted on abc draft standard 2.0 (fwd)
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], I. Oppenheim [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes In most cases, lyrics are NOT wanted on rests, but I have seen some files which DO use lyrics on rests. There is obviously no indication as to which is intended when reading a file. The abc standard (draft 2.0) says nothing about lyrics on rests, but the need DOES occur in some circumstances. Is it possible to state, and include in the standard, what should be done? I think it is valid. The reasoning is as follows: a) Symbols can be on notes, rests and bar lines Bad Idea. This breaks all existing programs which support aligned words, and any existing files which include aligned words and rests. If such a fundamental change from existing practice is to be contemplated we will need some way of marking files to show that they are to be interpreted in the new way. This is an awful lot of trouble to achieve something which can be achieved much more easily by restricting non-musical lyrics to percussion notation. It is not manadatory for abc to support every strange construction which anyone has ever used in staff notation. Phil Taylor To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html
Re: [abcusers] Clarification wanted on abc draft standard 2.0 (fwd)
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Phil Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes a) Symbols can be on notes, rests and bar lines Bad Idea. This breaks all existing programs which support aligned words, and any existing files which include aligned words and rests. Forgive my ignorance, why is this a bad idea? Have I misunderstood the spec? I'm writing my parser/player/display program. I've already implemented the above and it was not hard to achieve (I can make the symbols attach to anything in the markup, pretty much). If such a fundamental change from existing practice is to be contemplated we will need some way of marking files to show that they are to be interpreted in the new way. I couldn't see (from reading 1.7.6 and 2.0) what the difference was, except that 2.0 provided me with more information to work with (i.e. 2.0 stated it was notes/rests/bar lines, where as I don't 1.7.6 stating that (implying it was everything). It is not manadatory for abc to support every strange construction which anyone has ever used in staff notation. I don't mind, I'm not pushing an agenda. I'll implement what other people want. My understanding was notes/rests/bar lines. If I've misunderstood, please tell me and provide clarification as to what the standard is. Regards Stephen -- Stephen Kellett Object Media Limitedhttp://www.objmedia.demon.co.uk RSI Information:http://www.objmedia.demon.co.uk/rsi.html To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html
Re: [abcusers] Clarification wanted on abc draft standard 2.0 (fwd)
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Phil Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes a) Symbols can be on notes, rests and bar lines Bad Idea. This breaks all existing programs which support aligned words, and any existing files which include aligned words and rests. Forgive my ignorance, why is this a bad idea? Have I misunderstood the spec? I'm writing my parser/player/display program. I've already implemented the above and it was not hard to achieve (I can make the symbols attach to anything in the markup, pretty much). Then anyone who uses your program to make abcs with aligned words will find that their files don't work properly with any other software. Likewise they will find that in any files they download from the net the lyrics won't align properly. If such a fundamental change from existing practice is to be contemplated we will need some way of marking files to show that they are to be interpreted in the new way. I couldn't see (from reading 1.7.6 and 2.0) what the difference was, except that 2.0 provided me with more information to work with (i.e. 2.0 stated it was notes/rests/bar lines, where as I don't 1.7.6 stating that (implying it was everything). As far as I can see all of the existing standards mention only lyrics aligning with notes, and while they specifically state that gracenotes are not included, make no mention of rests or bar lines. Existing software (e.g. BarFly and abcm2ps) interpret this to mean that rests and bar lines are to be skipped. Admittedly the standards are a little ambiguous here, but there is a well-established precedent, and lots of files which will be broken if you make a different interpretation. It is not manadatory for abc to support every strange construction which anyone has ever used in staff notation. I don't mind, I'm not pushing an agenda. I'll implement what other people want. My understanding was notes/rests/bar lines. If I've misunderstood, please tell me and provide clarification as to what the standard is. There are lots of examples of songs with aligned words at http://folkinfo.org/songs/. If your software displays these correctly then you're on the right lines. If not, please think again! Phil Taylor To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html
Re: [abcusers] Clarification wanted on abc draft standard 2.0 (fwd)
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Phil Taylor
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Phil Taylor
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes
a) Symbols can be on notes, rests and bar lines
Bad Idea. This breaks all existing programs which support aligned words,
and any existing files which include aligned words and rests.
Forgive my ignorance, why is this a bad idea? Have I misunderstood the
spec? I'm writing my parser/player/display program. I've already
implemented the above and it was not hard to achieve (I can make the
symbols attach to anything in the markup, pretty much).
Then anyone who uses your program to make abcs with aligned words will
find that their files don't work properly with any other software.
Likewise they will find that in any files they download from the net
the lyrics won't align properly.
As far as I can see this doesn't answer the second question (am I
mistaken, or are you just disagreeing with ABC2.0 and not my
interpretation of it), and only states that the proposed ABC2.0 spec is
more advanced than the programs to which you refer (but do not name) in
their current state. This is no more different than putting an ABC file
with V: voicing into ABCWin - it doesn't like it. I don't think anyone
is claiming ABCWin is broken because the standard has advanced past its
capabilities.
My program will be backwards compatible. If you've aligned your words on
notes that is fine. Using my app you can align on notes/rests/barlines
as the spec dictates.
I made a mistake in my previous posting. The ABC2.0 draft spec actually
includes note groups and doesn't specifically disallow grace notes.
Given that the spec does not define note group (or if it does I
haven't found it), I am not sure if a note group is
a) ABC
which is notes next to each other
b) [ABC]
which is chords
c) {abc}
which is grace notes - these are clearly grouped in one sense.
d) either of (a) (b) (c)
I can't see the value in (c), especially if you've listened to music
with grace notes, putting symbols to accent them even more is
optimisitic from the playing point of view, and from the singing point
of view, well...
Putting symbols on notes in a chord would be counter productive, but you
could just stack them above/below each other as the spec states for
multiple symbols per note. Given that a rest/invisible rest/inaudible
rest are all forms of note (if you look at the spec for a note) and
chords are groups of notes, my previous posting omitted groups of notes
because the fundamental unit in my approach is a note. Hence to me
groups of notes implies notes anyway.
If note group means (a) I would think that it means align on the first
note of the group. If (b) I'd assume just align on the chord.
I couldn't see (from reading 1.7.6 and 2.0) what the difference was,
except that 2.0 provided me with more information to work with (i.e. 2.0
stated it was notes/rests/bar lines, where as I don't 1.7.6 stating that
(implying it was everything).
As far as I can see all of the existing standards mention only lyrics
aligning with notes, and while they specifically state that gracenotes are
not included, make no mention of rests or bar lines. Existing software
(e.g. BarFly and abcm2ps) interpret this to mean that rests and bar
lines are to be skipped.
Admittedly the standards are a little ambiguous
here, but there is a well-established precedent, and lots of files which
will be broken if you make a different interpretation.
I don't see how extending a definition breaks things. The old files will
still play/display correctly, and the existing software such as the two
you mention (especially BarFly, a commercial app) will be extended to
handle the new standard. In any other walk of life we accept that new
standards require backwards compatibility, and expect the software
vendors to provide this.
I want to implement the spec as written. I've already commented (in a
different thread) that I think the spec(s) (all that I have seen) are
too loose. ABC2.0 drafts states notes/rests/barlines/groups of notes,
etc. I'm as happy to see barlines struck out as I am to see them
retained. I don't have any strong feeling either way. The software, as
written, can handle either outcome.
people want. My understanding was notes/rests/bar lines. If I've
misunderstood, please tell me and provide clarification as to what the
standard is.
There are lots of examples of songs with aligned words at
http://folkinfo.org/songs/.
OK, I think this is examples of files conforming to 1.7.6.
If your software displays these correctly then you're on the right lines.
If not, please think again!
Certainly. I'm only interested in implementing ABC2.0 and possibly
pointing out areas I think are fuzzy. I'm absolutely not interested in
trying to add my own bits to ABC (not that I can think of anything to
add anyway - I am not that advanced a musician).
Stephen
--
Stephen Kellett
Object Media Limitedhttp://www.objmedia.demon.co.uk
RSI
Re: [abcusers] Clarification wanted on abc draft standard 2.0 (fwd)
In most cases, lyrics are NOT wanted on rests, but I have seen some files which DO use lyrics on rests. There is obviously no indication as to which is intended when reading a file. The abc standard (draft 2.0) says nothing about lyrics on rests, but the need DOES occur in some circumstances. Is it possible to state, and include in the standard, what should be done? Under what circumstances would you want a word or symbol in the lyrics to align with a rest? Phil Taylor To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html
