Jack Campin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >In an attempt to wrap up this thread, would the following proposal
> >for a new field meet everyone's requirements ?
> >
> >Field Name: q:playing style
> >Header: Yes
> >Tune Body: No
> >Description: Contains a written non-numerical description of the
> >
Does anybody know anything about this tune?
Frank Nordberg
---
X:3294
T:The admiral's hornpipe
C:anon.
R:Hornpipe
Z:Transcribed by Frank Nordberg - http://www.musicaviva.com
M:2/4
L:1/16
K:F
D|FGAB AGFA|G2D2 D3D|FGAB AGFA|B2G2 G3G|
FGAB AGFA|G2D2 B3G|FGAB AGFA|G2F2 F2z2|
F3G AGFA|GFGA B2z2
>> Unless your "q:" field provides me with a way of DEFINING those strings
>> in a musically intuitive way so that a numerical playback speed can be
>> statically deduced from the musical text (e.g. by a playback program),
>> there is no point in what you're suggesting. There are already about
>>
On Thu 22 Nov 2001 at 12:22AM +, Jack Campin wrote:
>
> That says exactly nothing about the semantics.
>
> Unless your "q:" field provides me with a way of DEFINING those strings
> in a musically intuitive way so that a numerical playback speed can be
> statically deduced from the musical te
On Wed 21 Nov 2001 at 01:41PM -0500, Buddha Buck wrote:
> At 03:40 PM 11-21-2001 +, James Allwright you wrote:
>
> >In an attempt to wrap up this thread, would the following proposal
> >for a new field meet everyone's requirements ?
> >
> >Field Name: q:playing style
> >Header: Yes
> >Tune Bo
Try abc2abc. This has options for doubling up and halving the L:
value used. I usually stick with one L: value for a tune though;
swapping about would make it too confusing to read in my opinion.
James Allwright
On Wed 21 Nov 2001 at 11:06PM +0100, Simon Wascher wrote:
> Hello,
>
> from time t
