Apologies for dragging up old threads, but I've been away for a while.
jhoerr writes:
>What does this prove, except that *your* rules are self-defeating and
>incomplete? If your rules imply a contradiction where even novice
>musicians agree on a single interpretation, don't you think maybe the
>
On Mon, 11 Feb 2002, John Walsh wrote:
> As you point out, that leads to a contradiction: by rule one, a tied
> note is the same as the note in the preceeding measure; by rule 2, it
> can't be the same note since the accidental has just been cancelled by
> the bar line. Bingo, contradiction!
Wh
On Sun, 10 Feb 2002, John Walsh wrote:
> (1) A pair of tied notes are each part of the same note, and
> necessarily have the same pitch.
>
> (2) An accidental becomes part of the key signature (unless
> explicitly cancelled) for the remainder of the measure
> *an
I'm more or less thinking out loud here. No conclusions, a couple
of questions at the end, a lot of verbiage in between.
Jack Campin said,
>
> ^f-|f-|f-|_g-|g-|^^e-|e-|^f
>
which would be pretty racy dialogue in a Gothic novel, but in this case,
it just started me mu
> There is no ambiguity in abc---the example ^f- | f has a tie, not
> a slur---so that the second f has to be an f sharp. Which means that
> playback and midi programs should play ^f, but printing programs don't
> print the accidental (because they don't need to--the convention takes
> care of it
