Howard Jones wrote: Whether solfa or ABC is chosen think most Mudcat users will rely on computer software to translate it into something they can use, whether that is notation or a MIDI playback. However ABC has become the standard for sharing folk tunes and a lot of folk musicians use it, and to me it would seem odd for Mudcat to choose something different.

Actually, I incline to agree with you. Most people can't really read either notation with any ease -- nor staff notation, for that matter. They aren't trying to read the tunes on Mudcat; they just want some sort of machine playback to hear the tune. And, for that, ABC is generally better.

Of course, MIDI is also better, and it lets the person who supplies the MIDI put in a true accompaniment and make the piece sound good. But the flip side is that no one can possibly read MIDI :-), and it doesn't translate to staff notation well.

Again, the point I'm making is not that any of these systems is superior to the others. Each has strengths and weaknesses, and each works best for a particular need. What I'm getting at is that we should not be arguing about which format is best. We should be arguing about what are the needs of Mudcat users, and choose the format that fits that.

You are probably right that that is ABC, because it is both relatively playable and relatively easy to convert to staff notation (sol-fa fails on the former, MIDI on the latter). But we should be asking the question first. The argument about the format follows that. :-)