Jack Campin wrote:
I think there are already examples where extra information
may need to be added in order to make abc unambiguous. A simple
example is making | Ac Bd | sound a little more like |Ac Bd |
simply by adding R:hornpipe to the header.
except that hornpipes aren't always
I use the R: field in all my music. Since all my songs are old hymns, I
put the meter in the R:, such as
R: C.M.
R: 8,7,8,7
R: 6-8
etc.
John Henckel alt. mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Zumbro Falls, Minnesota, USA (507) 753-2216
http://geocities.com/jdhenckel/
To
De : Pax [EMAIL PROTECTED]
A : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Objet : RE: [abcusers] problems with the R: field
Date: dimanche 4 fvrier 2001 19:43
Hi All on the List
With a truckload of respect I ask you to leave the R field alone.
I use it all the time as I am only a new player of Irish Music
Phil Taylor writes:
I think a lot of people find it very useful, although I agree that it
would be nice to have an interchange format for stress programs.
And John Chambers writes
Something that I've thought could be useful in a player: People using
them to learn tunes could benefit from a
I think there are already examples where extra information
may need to be added in order to make abc unambiguous. A simple
example is making | Ac Bd | sound a little more like |Ac Bd |
simply by adding R:hornpipe to the header.
except that hornpipes aren't always played dotted. You
Jack sez:
| except that hornpipes aren't always played dotted. You would need
| yet *another* level of extra information to say the style you're
| using is one where this dotted interpretation is appropriate.
...
| And some of the rhythmic types found in folk music are unimplementable
| by any
Jack Campin writes:
The R: field is long due for deprecation. There is no standard
list of what rhythms it covers and what to do with them, and nobody
seems interested in making it extensible in any way that would allow
different users to agree on what their extensions mean. Why not
just let
