ABC versus Standard Notation

Subject: ABC versus Standard Notation/Sheet/Dots
From: meself
Date: 06 Jun 18 - 02:07 PM

Those who would like to argue the merits of ABC notation vs standard notation (sheet music, dots, etc.) are invited to do so here, rather than cluttering up the ABC TO Standard Notation thread. Thank you, you're welcome.

Subject: RE: ABC versus Standard Notation
From: DMcG
Date: 06 Jun 18 - 02:23 PM

In my opinion was a bit of a silly argument, over on the other thread . The two systems were designed for different purposes. ABC in particular was designed to share music before it was possible to share images over the Internet. To achieve this, it used a pure text form, which happens also to make it ideal for searching.   Traditional notation is inherently image based, so if you want to do very precise layout, like slightly altering the physical positions of notes, but not timings, the image will be superior.

Or to put it another way, each has strengths and weaknesses, and how important each of these are is entirely dependant on how you use it.

Subject: RE: ABC versus Standard Notation
From: Jack Campin
Date: 06 Jun 18 - 02:41 PM

It isn't helpful to say they were designed for different purposes - they were meant to serve complementary ones. ABC was designed to express a large and useful subset of what you can by "standard" notation (which in fact is very un-standard, shading into downright paper artwork with things like Trevor Wishart's "Vox"). Exactly how large that subset is depends on the version, the implementation and how far the user is prepared to use weird tricks. (I got Phil Taylor to add quite a few features in Barfly because I wanted them for the old Scottish music I was transcribing).

Conversely, if you write staff notation in such a way that ABC can represent it, you have a better chance of it being portable to other notation systems, not just ABC. (In particular, if you get formally precise about bar lengths, you will be doing the world a favour; the way some traditional notation plays fast and loose with the lengths of upbeats is not a desirable tradition). And some ideas originating in ABC can also be taken over into staff notation: writing mode names explicitly, using the part construct to abbreviate, thinking of ornament patterns as macros.

Subject: RE: ABC versus Standard Notation
From: The Sandman
Date: 06 Jun 18 - 03:47 PM

Subject: RE: ABC to standard notation
From: Jack Campin - PM
Date: 06 Jun 18 - 12:28 PM

You don't have a fucking clue, do you? Quote
    Jack, a case of the pot calling the kettle black

Subject: RE: ABC versus Standard Notation
From: Jack Campin
Date: 06 Jun 18 - 04:51 PM

We still haven't seen any notation you've written.

I have a few thousand tunes I've transcribed on my website, which people have been downloading (free) and using for about 20 years. Have you got even one notated tune or song that anyone can access and use?

Subject: RE: ABC versus Standard Notation
From: Tunesmith
Date: 06 Jun 18 - 07:13 PM

Well, It is easier to "read" a melody/harmony in standard notation. There is no doubt about that.

Subject: RE: ABC versus Standard Notation
From: Tunesmith
Date: 06 Jun 18 - 07:20 PM

That last post didn't come out right. in standard notation it's easier to understand the relationship between the notes.

Subject: RE: ABC versus Standard Notation
From: Jack Campin
Date: 07 Jun 18 - 01:51 AM

So what?

Mudcat sends HTML to your computer, do you read it in source form?

Subject: RE: ABC versus Standard Notation
From: DMcG
Date: 07 Jun 18 - 02:02 AM

I think it important to make a distinction between representation (which notes for how long in what order) and presentation (layout on pieces of paper or screen)

ABC started as a system with no presentation and limited representation but it quite rapidly grew so that all commonly encountered 'patterns of notes' could be represented and there is no inherent reason this should not continue so that increasingly rarer sequences can be denoted. At the same time a set of tools grew up to address the separate presentation aspect, so the raw and could be printed in standard notation. Since these work hand in hand with the notation itself, there can be a lag between what the notation can hold and whether the presentation "Looks nice". These are less capable than tools like Finale which have the presentation at their core. For example, if you look at children's music books it is quite common that all Cs are one colour, all Ds another and so on. That's pure presentation and nothing to do with representation. I may just be unaware of it, but I know of no ABC presentation tool that can do that.

Which gets me back to my original point. Both tools cover representation and, if there is a shortfall in ABC, it is rare and getting increasingly rarer. For most practical purposes, both systems are equivalent. They differ in presentational aspects and, as I said before, the textual nature of ABC makes searching for 'that tune that goes de-dahh-diddle-dah' out of thousands feasible in a way that is not possible in traditional notation.

But which of these aspects matters more to you is entirely dependant on how you use it, so I don't think 'better' is meaningful: fitness for your purpose is what matters.q

Subject: RE: ABC versus Standard Notation
From: Stanron
Date: 07 Jun 18 - 02:36 AM

There's this quote from a book I can't remember;

"A difference that isn't different makes no difference".

That's not the exact quote but it is not without relevance.

The code, in a file of abc, is the text file starting with X: and ending with an empty line.

We then enter this into a converter which displays the notation on a screen and may print it onto paper.

In programs like Sibelius or Musescore, the code of the file, which would be unreadable to us, is immediately entered into an inbuilt converter and displayed, note by note as entered, as musical notation.

EasyABC does the same and I imagine most ABC editors do it too.

When we write a score by hand the code of the file is our knowledge of music and what is written on the paper is the notation.

All three systems have code, converter and display.

I've no doubt that there are advantages and disadvantages in all three methods.

An advantage of abc is the minute size of the files and the wealth of collections of files available on-line.

An advantage of programs like Sibelius and Musescore is their ability to present tablature connected to a score.

An advantage of handwritten notation is that you can write it and read it without any hardware other than pen and paper.

In all three the result is a musical score.

They are only as good as your ability to read them.

Subject: RE: ABC versus Standard Notation
From: GUEST,Jerry
Date: 07 Jun 18 - 11:22 AM

Just for the record, I am aware that the subject of the other discussion thread was not about the merits of different notations. Also, that conventional notation has only been possible electronically in relatively recent years, and whilst abc has served us well for some time it still has some advantages when it comes to transferring it to other systems, etc. Personally, I still think though that all players are better off becoming reasonably fluent in standard notation, as well as the likes of abc, and tablature for fretted instruments; sometimes it’s only when you compare them side by side that you can actually nail the tune/arrangement.

Subject: RE: ABC versus Standard Notation
From: Lester
Date: 08 Jun 18 - 07:00 AM

Why do people who prefer conventional notation have to bash us who are quite happy with ABC. Never seems to be the other way round.

Subject: RE: ABC versus Standard Notation
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 08 Jun 18 - 07:07 AM

It gets quite silly and the fact is, a lot of people who use abc do read standard notation.

Me, I read neither in a sight reading sense but did a tone time have a fair amount of involvement in the sharing and helping to make available to others folk songs and tunes... As far as I'm concerned, abc is a great format for what we tried to do...

Subject: RE: ABC versus Standard Notation
From: The Sandman
Date: 08 Jun 18 - 01:18 PM

I have not bashed anyone , i prefer standard notation and find ABC G UNSATISFACTORY. that is my opinion,which i am entitled to, if abc was so good why would be people need to transfer it to standrd notation, i asked before and noone has answered

Subject: RE: ABC versus Standard Notation
From: GUEST
Date: 08 Jun 18 - 01:41 PM

Because it's very convenient format that, even with free tools, can easily be converted to standard notation for those who want or prefer it as well as to midi for those who prefer to learn by ear. Some even choose abc purely for the sheet music it can produce.

Now tell me Dick. How are you going to do all that with your piece of sheet music. Would it be a hand written sprawl that could only be photocopied or rewritten or would you using notation software to do that. And if the latter, in doing so, would you be completely oblivious that the software would be converting some (in most cases unreadable) other representation,internal or on file, format into your dots~?

Subject: RE: ABC versus Standard Notation
From: meself
Date: 08 Jun 18 - 01:42 PM

Okay, I'll bite: ABC can be produced on a conventional keyboard with a conventional word-processing program; standard notation cannot.

Subject: RE: ABC versus Standard Notation
From: GUEST
Date: 08 Jun 18 - 01:59 PM

Perhaps Dick would prefer this, it is after all a graphic of sheet music in a format I can post directly to a thread - kesh jig as a svg.

  <?xml version="1.0" standalone="no"?>
  <!DOCTYPE svg PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD SVG 1.1//EN"
          "http://www.w3.org/Graphics/SVG/1.1/DTD/svg11.dtd">
  <svg xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg"
       xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink"
       xml:space='preserve'
          width="531" height="270">
  <title>tmp/yliv0o.abc (1)</title>
  <g transform="scale(0.750)" font-family="Times" font-size="20.00">
  <text x="354.13" y="25.67" text-anchor="middle">The Kesh Jig</text>
  </g>
  <g transform="scale(0.750)" font-family="Times" font-size="15.00">
  <text x="75.83" y="68.01">A</text>
  <path stroke="currentColor" fill="none"
          d="M13.33 108.01h681.60m-681.60 -6h681.60m-681.60 -6h681.60m-681.60 -6h681.60m-681.60 -6h681.60"/>
  </g>
  <g transform="scale(0.750)" font-family="Helvetica" font-size="12.00">
  <text x="130.03" y="70.01">G</text>
  <text x="250.53" y="70.01">D</text>
  <text x="403.43" y="70.01">G</text>
  <text x="553.63" y="70.01">G</text>
  <text x="623.63" y="70.01">D</text>
  <defs>
  <path id="utclef" fill="currentColor" d="m-50 -90
          c-72 -41 -72 -158 52 -188
          c150 -10 220 188 90 256
          c-114 52 -275 0 -293 -136
          c-15 -181 93 -229 220 -334
          c88 -87 79 -133 62 -210
          c-51 33 -94 105 -89 186
          c17 267 36 374 49 574
          c6 96 -19 134 -77 135
          c-80 1 -126 -93 -61 -133
          c85 -41 133 101 31 105
          c23 17 92 37 90 -92
          c-10 -223 -39 -342 -50 -617
          c0 -90 0 -162 96 -232
          c56 72 63 230 22 289
          c-74 106 -257 168 -255 316
          c9 153 148 185 252 133
          c86 -65 29 -192 -80 -176
          c-71 12 -105 67 -59 124"/>
  <use id="tclef" transform="scale(0.045)"
          xlink:href="#utclef"/>
  </defs>
  <use x="25.33" y="108.01" xlink:href="#tclef"/>
  <defs>
  <path id="usharp" fill="currentColor" d="
          m136 -702
          v890
          h32
          v-890
          m128 840
          h32
          v-888
          h-32
          m-232 286
          v116
          l338 -96
          v-116
          m-338 442
          v116
          l338 -98
          v-114"/>
  <use id="sh0" transform="translate(-4,5) scale(0.018)"
          xlink:href="#usharp"/>
  </defs>
  <use x="40.33" y="84.01" xlink:href="#sh0"/>
  <g font-family="Times" font-size="15" font-weight="bold" font-style="normal"
          transform="translate(56.33,108.01) scale(1.2,1)">
          <text y="-1" text-anchor="middle">8</text>
          <text y="-13" text-anchor="middle">6</text>
  </g>
  <defs>
  <g id="rdots" fill="currentColor">
          <circle cx="0" cy="-9" r="1.2"/>
          <circle cx="0" cy="-15" r="1.2"/>
  </g>
  </defs>
  <use x="84.83" y="108.01" xlink:href="#rdots"/>
  <path stroke="currentColor" fill="none"
          d="M80.83 108.01v-24.00"/>
  <path stroke="currentColor" fill="none" stroke-width="3"
          d="M76.33 108.01v-24.00"/>
  <defs>
  <ellipse id="hd" rx="4.2" ry="3.2"
          transform="rotate(-20)" fill="currentColor"/>
  </defs>
  <use x="98.53" y="111.01" xlink:href="#hd"/>
  <path d="M102.03 111.01v-20.00" stroke="currentColor" fill="none"/>
  <path fill="currentColor"
          d="        M102.03 91.01c0.6 5.6 9.6 9 5.6 18.4
          c1.6 -6 -1.3 -11.6 -5.6 -12.8
  "/>
  <path stroke="currentColor" fill="none"
          d="M121.23 108.01v-24.00"/>
  <use x="133.83" y="102.01" xlink:href="#hd"/>
  <circle fill="currentColor" cx="141.83" cy="99.01" r="1.2"/>
  <path d="M137.33 102.01v-20.00" stroke="currentColor" fill="none"/>
  <path fill="currentColor"
          d="M177.23 81.41l45.70 -4.80v3.20l-45.70 4.80"/>
  <use x="174.13" y="102.01" xlink:href="#hd"/>
  <path d="M177.63 102.01v-19.60" stroke="currentColor" fill="none"/>
  <use x="196.63" y="99.01" xlink:href="#hd"/>
  <path d="M200.13 99.01v-19.00" stroke="currentColor" fill="none"/>
  <use x="219.13" y="96.01" xlink:href="#hd"/>
  <path d="M222.63 96.01v-18.40" stroke="currentColor" fill="none"/>
  <path stroke="currentColor" fill="none"
          d="M241.63 108.01v-24.00"/>
  <path fill="currentColor"
          d="M257.43 76.81l45.70 0.00v3.20l-45.70 -0.0"/>
  <use x="254.33" y="99.01" xlink:href="#hd"/>
  <path d="M257.83 99.01v-21.20" stroke="currentColor" fill="none"/>
  <use x="276.83" y="96.01" xlink:href="#hd"/>
  <path d="M280.33 96.01v-18.20" stroke="currentColor" fill="none"/>
  <use x="299.33" y="99.01" xlink:href="#hd"/>
  <path d="M302.83 99.01v-21.20" stroke="currentColor" fill="none"/>
  <path fill="currentColor"
          d="M323.23 118.21l45.70 -4.40v-3.20l-45.70 4.40"/>
  <use x="327.03" y="99.01" xlink:href="#hd"/>
  <path d="M323.53 99.01v18.20" stroke="currentColor" fill="none"/>
  <use x="349.53" y="96.01" xlink:href="#hd"/>
  <path d="M346.03 96.01v19.00" stroke="currentColor" fill="none"/>
  <use x="372.03" y="90.01" xlink:href="#hd"/>
  <path d="M368.53 90.01v22.80" stroke="currentColor" fill="none"/>
  <path stroke="currentColor" fill="none"
          d="M394.53 108.01v-24.00"/>
  <path fill="currentColor"
          d="M403.43 108.31l45.70 0.00v-3.20l-45.70 -0.0"/>
  <use x="407.23" y="87.01" xlink:href="#hd"/>
  <path d="M403.73 87.01v20.30" stroke="currentColor" fill="none"/>
  <use x="429.73" y="90.01" xlink:href="#hd"/>
  <path d="M426.23 90.01v17.30" stroke="currentColor" fill="none"/>
  <use x="452.23" y="90.01" xlink:href="#hd"/>
  <path d="M448.73 90.01v17.30" stroke="currentColor" fill="none"/>
  <path fill="currentColor"
          d="M473.43 107.01l45.70 4.40v-3.20l-45.70 -4.40"/>
  <use x="477.23" y="81.01" xlink:href="#hd"/>
  <path d="M473.73 81.01v25.00" stroke="currentColor" fill="none"/>
  <use x="499.73" y="90.01" xlink:href="#hd"/>
  <path d="M496.23 90.01v18.20" stroke="currentColor" fill="none"/>
  <use x="522.23" y="90.01" xlink:href="#hd"/>
  <path d="M518.73 90.01v20.40" stroke="currentColor" fill="none"/>
  <path stroke="currentColor" fill="none"
          d="M544.73 108.01v-24.00"/>
  <path fill="currentColor"
          d="M553.63 110.81l45.70 4.40v-3.20l-45.70 -4.40"/>
  <use x="557.43" y="87.01" xlink:href="#hd"/>
  <path d="M553.93 87.01v22.80" stroke="currentColor" fill="none"/>
  <use x="579.93" y="90.01" xlink:href="#hd"/>
  <path d="M576.43 90.01v22.00" stroke="currentColor" fill="none"/>
  <use x="602.43" y="96.01" xlink:href="#hd"/>
  <path d="M598.93 96.01v18.20" stroke="currentColor" fill="none"/>
  <path fill="currentColor"
          d="M623.53 113.81l45.70 4.40v-3.20l-45.70 -4.40"/>
  <use x="627.43" y="90.01" xlink:href="#hd"/>
  <path d="M623.93 90.01v22.80" stroke="currentColor" fill="none"/>
  <use x="649.93" y="96.01" xlink:href="#hd"/>
  <path d="M646.43 96.01v19.00" stroke="currentColor" fill="none"/>
  <use x="672.43" y="99.01" xlink:href="#hd"/>
  <path d="M668.93 99.01v18.20" stroke="currentColor" fill="none"/>
  <path stroke="currentColor" fill="none"
          d="M694.93 108.01v-24.00"/>
  <defs>
  <path id="grm" fill="currentColor" d="
          m-5 -2.5
          c5 -8.5 5.5 4.5 10 -2
          c-5 8.5 -5.5 -4.5 -10 2"/>
  </defs>
  <use x="133.83" y="80.01" xlink:href="#grm"/>
  <path stroke="currentColor" fill="none"
          d="M13.33 181.01h681.60m-681.60 -6h681.60m-681.60 -6h681.60m-681.60 -6h681.60m-681.60 -6h681.60"/>
  <text x="54.53" y="143.01">G</text>
  <text x="200.33" y="143.01">D</text>
  <text x="385.63" y="143.01">G</text>
  <text x="567.63" y="143.01">D</text>
  <text x="652.53" y="143.01">G</text>
  <use x="25.33" y="181.01" xlink:href="#tclef"/>
  <use x="40.33" y="157.01" xlink:href="#sh0"/>
  <use x="58.33" y="175.01" xlink:href="#hd"/>
  <circle fill="currentColor" cx="66.33" cy="172.01" r="1.2"/>
  <path d="M61.83 175.01v-20.00" stroke="currentColor" fill="none"/>
  <path fill="currentColor"
          d="M110.33 154.51l55.30 -5.00v3.20l-55.30 5.00"/>
  <use x="107.13" y="175.01" xlink:href="#hd"/>
  <path d="M110.63 175.01v-19.50" stroke="currentColor" fill="none"/>
  <use x="134.43" y="172.01" xlink:href="#hd"/>
  <path d="M137.93 172.01v-19.00" stroke="currentColor" fill="none"/>
  <use x="161.73" y="169.01" xlink:href="#hd"/>
  <path d="M165.23 169.01v-18.50" stroke="currentColor" fill="none"/>
  <path stroke="currentColor" fill="none"
          d="M189.03 181.01v-24.00"/>
  <path fill="currentColor"
          d="M207.33 149.81l55.30 0.00v3.20l-55.30 -0.0"/>
  <use x="204.13" y="172.01" xlink:href="#hd"/>
  <path d="M207.63 172.01v-21.20" stroke="currentColor" fill="none"/>
  <use x="231.43" y="169.01" xlink:href="#hd"/>
  <path d="M234.93 169.01v-18.20" stroke="currentColor" fill="none"/>
  <use x="258.73" y="172.01" xlink:href="#hd"/>
  <path d="M262.23 172.01v-21.20" stroke="currentColor" fill="none"/>
  <path fill="currentColor"
          d="M288.63 191.21l55.30 -4.60v-3.20l-55.30 4.60"/>
  <use x="292.43" y="172.01" xlink:href="#hd"/>
  <path d="M288.93 172.01v18.20" stroke="currentColor" fill="none"/>
  <use x="319.73" y="169.01" xlink:href="#hd"/>
  <path d="M316.23 169.01v18.90" stroke="currentColor" fill="none"/>
  <use x="347.03" y="163.01" xlink:href="#hd"/>
  <path d="M343.53 163.01v22.70" stroke="currentColor" fill="none"/>
  <path stroke="currentColor" fill="none"
          d="M374.33 181.01v-24.00"/>
  <path fill="currentColor"
          d="M385.63 181.31l55.30 0.00v-3.20l-55.30 -0.0"/>
  <use x="389.43" y="160.01" xlink:href="#hd"/>
  <path d="M385.93 160.01v20.30" stroke="currentColor" fill="none"/>
  <use x="416.73" y="163.01" xlink:href="#hd"/>
  <path d="M413.23 163.01v17.30" stroke="currentColor" fill="none"/>
  <use x="444.03" y="163.01" xlink:href="#hd"/>
  <path d="M440.53 163.01v17.30" stroke="currentColor" fill="none"/>
  <path fill="currentColor"
          d="M470.53 181.41l55.30 6.90v-3.20l-55.30 -6.90"/>
  <use x="474.43" y="154.01" xlink:href="#hd"/>
  <path d="M470.93 154.01v26.40" stroke="currentColor" fill="none"/>
  <use x="501.73" y="163.01" xlink:href="#hd"/>
  <path d="M498.23 163.01v20.80" stroke="currentColor" fill="none"/>
  <use x="528.93" y="169.01" xlink:href="#hd"/>
  <path d="M525.43 169.01v18.20" stroke="currentColor" fill="none"/>
  <path stroke="currentColor" fill="none"
          d="M556.23 181.01v-24.00"/>
  <path fill="currentColor"
          d="M574.63 152.51l55.30 5.00v3.20l-55.30 -5.00"/>
  <use x="571.43" y="172.01" xlink:href="#hd"/>
  <path d="M574.93 172.01v-18.50" stroke="currentColor" fill="none"/>
  <use x="598.73" y="175.01" xlink:href="#hd"/>
  <path d="M602.23 175.01v-19.00" stroke="currentColor" fill="none"/>
  <use x="626.03" y="178.01" xlink:href="#hd"/>
  <path d="M629.53 178.01v-19.50" stroke="currentColor" fill="none"/>
  <use x="656.33" y="175.01" xlink:href="#hd"/>
  <path d="M659.83 175.01v-20.00" stroke="currentColor" fill="none"/>
  <path stroke="currentColor" fill="none" stroke-width="3"
          d="M693.43 181.01v-24.00"/>
  <path stroke="currentColor" fill="none"
          d="M688.93 181.01v-24.00"/>
  <use x="684.93" y="181.01" xlink:href="#rdots"/>
  <use x="58.33" y="153.01" xlink:href="#grm"/>
  </g>
  <g transform="scale(0.750)" font-family="Times" font-size="15.00">
  <text x="55.83" y="221.01">B</text>
  <path stroke="currentColor" fill="none"
          d="M13.33 261.01h681.60m-681.60 -6h681.60m-681.60 -6h681.60m-681.60 -6h681.60m-681.60 -6h681.60"/>
  </g>
  <g transform="scale(0.750)" font-family="Helvetica" font-size="12.00">
  <text x="113.63" y="217.01">G</text>
  <text x="249.13" y="217.01">C</text>
  <text x="324.83" y="217.01">G</text>
  <text x="411.63" y="217.01">G</text>
  <text x="542.03" y="217.01">D</text>
  <use x="25.33" y="261.01" xlink:href="#tclef"/>
  <use x="40.33" y="237.01" xlink:href="#sh0"/>
  <use x="64.83" y="261.01" xlink:href="#rdots"/>
  <path stroke="currentColor" fill="none"
          d="M60.83 261.01v-24.00"/>
  <path stroke="currentColor" fill="none" stroke-width="3"
          d="M56.33 261.01v-24.00"/>
  <use x="79.43" y="252.01" xlink:href="#hd"/>
  <path d="M82.93 252.01v-20.00" stroke="currentColor" fill="none"/>
  <path fill="currentColor"
          d="        M82.93 232.01c0.6 5.6 9.6 9 5.6 18.4
          c1.6 -6 -1.3 -11.6 -5.6 -12.8
  "/>
  <path stroke="currentColor" fill="none"
          d="M103.83 261.01v-24.00"/>
  <use x="117.43" y="249.01" xlink:href="#hd"/>
  <circle fill="currentColor" cx="125.43" cy="246.01" r="1.2"/>
  <path d="M120.93 249.01v-20.00" stroke="currentColor" fill="none"/>
  <path fill="currentColor"
          d="M162.03 268.21l49.50 0.00v-3.20l-49.50 -0.0"/>
  <use x="165.93" y="243.01" xlink:href="#hd"/>
  <path d="M162.43 243.01v24.20" stroke="currentColor" fill="none"/>
  <use x="190.33" y="249.01" xlink:href="#hd"/>
  <path d="M186.83 249.01v18.20" stroke="currentColor" fill="none"/>
  <use x="214.73" y="243.01" xlink:href="#hd"/>
  <path d="M211.23 243.01v24.20" stroke="currentColor" fill="none"/>
  <path stroke="currentColor" fill="none"
          d="M239.13 261.01v-24.00"/>
  <path fill="currentColor"
          d="M248.83 258.01l49.50 0.00v-3.20l-49.50 -0.0"/>
  <use x="252.73" y="240.01" xlink:href="#hd"/>
  <path d="M249.23 240.01v17.00" stroke="currentColor" fill="none"/>
  <use x="277.13" y="234.01" xlink:href="#hd"/>
  <path d="M273.63 234.01v23.00" stroke="currentColor" fill="none"/>
  <use x="301.53" y="240.01" xlink:href="#hd"/>
  <path d="M298.03 240.01v17.00" stroke="currentColor" fill="none"/>
  <path fill="currentColor"
          d="M324.73 266.11l49.50 8.20v-3.20l-49.50 -8.20"/>
  <use x="328.63" y="243.01" xlink:href="#hd"/>
  <path d="M325.13 243.01v22.20" stroke="currentColor" fill="none"/>
  <use x="353.03" y="249.01" xlink:href="#hd"/>
  <path d="M349.53 249.01v20.20" stroke="currentColor" fill="none"/>
  <use x="377.43" y="255.01" xlink:href="#hd"/>
  <path d="M373.93 255.01v18.20" stroke="currentColor" fill="none"/>
  <path stroke="currentColor" fill="none"
          d="M401.83 261.01v-24.00"/>
  <use x="415.43" y="249.01" xlink:href="#hd"/>
  <circle fill="currentColor" cx="423.43" cy="246.01" r="1.2"/>
  <path d="M411.93 249.01v20.00" stroke="currentColor" fill="none"/>
  <path fill="currentColor"
          d="M455.23 266.11l49.50 8.20v-3.20l-49.50 -8.20"/>
  <use x="459.03" y="243.01" xlink:href="#hd"/>
  <path d="M455.53 243.01v22.20" stroke="currentColor" fill="none"/>
  <use x="483.43" y="249.01" xlink:href="#hd"/>
  <path d="M479.93 249.01v20.20" stroke="currentColor" fill="none"/>
  <use x="507.83" y="255.01" xlink:href="#hd"/>
  <path d="M504.33 255.01v18.20" stroke="currentColor" fill="none"/>
  <path stroke="currentColor" fill="none"
          d="M532.23 261.01v-24.00"/>
  <path fill="currentColor"
          d="M549.03 229.81l49.50 0.00v3.20l-49.50 -0.0"/>
  <use x="545.83" y="252.01" xlink:href="#hd"/>
  <path d="M549.33 252.01v-21.20" stroke="currentColor" fill="none"/>
  <use x="570.23" y="249.01" xlink:href="#hd"/>
  <path d="M573.73 249.01v-18.20" stroke="currentColor" fill="none"/>
  <use x="594.63" y="252.01" xlink:href="#hd"/>
  <path d="M598.13 252.01v-21.20" stroke="currentColor" fill="none"/>
  <path fill="currentColor"
          d="M624.93 234.01l49.50 0.00v3.20l-49.50 -0.0"/>
  <use x="621.73" y="252.01" xlink:href="#hd"/>
  <path d="M625.23 252.01v-17.00" stroke="currentColor" fill="none"/>
  <use x="646.13" y="255.01" xlink:href="#hd"/>
  <path d="M649.63 255.01v-20.00" stroke="currentColor" fill="none"/>
  <use x="670.53" y="252.01" xlink:href="#hd"/>
  <path d="M674.03 252.01v-17.00" stroke="currentColor" fill="none"/>
  <path stroke="currentColor" fill="none"
          d="M694.93 261.01v-24.00"/>
  <use x="117.43" y="227.01" xlink:href="#grm"/>
  <use x="415.43" y="235.01" xlink:href="#grm"/>
  <path stroke="currentColor" fill="none"
          d="M13.33 337.01h681.60m-681.60 -6h681.60m-681.60 -6h681.60m-681.60 -6h681.60m-681.60 -6h681.60"/>
  <text x="54.53" y="296.01">G</text>
  <text x="230.13" y="296.01">C</text>
  <text x="310.23" y="296.01">G</text>
  <text x="402.03" y="296.01">G</text>
  <text x="482.43" y="296.01">D</text>
  <text x="574.23" y="296.01">G</text>
  <use x="25.33" y="337.01" xlink:href="#tclef"/>
  <use x="40.33" y="313.01" xlink:href="#sh0"/>
  <path fill="currentColor"
          d="M61.53 305.81l52.30 0.00v3.20l-52.30 -0.0"/>
  <use x="58.33" y="325.01" xlink:href="#hd"/>
  <path d="M61.83 325.01v-18.20" stroke="currentColor" fill="none"/>
  <use x="84.13" y="328.01" xlink:href="#hd"/>
  <path d="M87.63 328.01v-21.20" stroke="currentColor" fill="none"/>
  <use x="110.03" y="325.01" xlink:href="#hd"/>
  <path d="M113.53 325.01v-18.20" stroke="currentColor" fill="none"/>
  <path fill="currentColor"
          d="M138.03 344.21l52.30 0.00v-3.20l-52.30 -0.0"/>
  <use x="141.83" y="319.01" xlink:href="#hd"/>
  <path d="M138.33 319.01v24.20" stroke="currentColor" fill="none"/>
  <use x="167.63" y="325.01" xlink:href="#hd"/>
  <path d="M164.13 325.01v18.20" stroke="currentColor" fill="none"/>
  <use x="193.53" y="319.01" xlink:href="#hd"/>
  <path d="M190.03 319.01v24.20" stroke="currentColor" fill="none"/>
  <path stroke="currentColor" fill="none"
          d="M219.33 337.01v-24.00"/>
  <path fill="currentColor"
          d="M229.83 334.01l52.30 0.00v-3.20l-52.30 -0.0"/>
  <use x="233.63" y="316.01" xlink:href="#hd"/>
  <path d="M230.13 316.01v17.00" stroke="currentColor" fill="none"/>
  <use x="259.53" y="310.01" xlink:href="#hd"/>
  <path d="M256.03 310.01v23.00" stroke="currentColor" fill="none"/>
  <use x="285.33" y="316.01" xlink:href="#hd"/>
  <path d="M281.83 316.01v17.00" stroke="currentColor" fill="none"/>
  <path fill="currentColor"
          d="M310.23 344.21l52.30 0.00v-3.20l-52.30 -0.0"/>
  <use x="314.03" y="319.01" xlink:href="#hd"/>
  <path d="M310.53 319.01v24.20" stroke="currentColor" fill="none"/>
  <use x="339.83" y="325.01" xlink:href="#hd"/>
  <path d="M336.33 325.01v18.20" stroke="currentColor" fill="none"/>
  <use x="365.73" y="319.01" xlink:href="#hd"/>
  <path d="M362.23 319.01v24.20" stroke="currentColor" fill="none"/>
  <path stroke="currentColor" fill="none"
          d="M391.53 337.01v-24.00"/>
  <path fill="currentColor"
          d="M402.03 331.31l52.30 0.00v-3.20l-52.30 -0.0"/>
  <use x="405.83" y="310.01" xlink:href="#hd"/>
  <path d="M402.33 310.01v20.30" stroke="currentColor" fill="none"/>
  <use x="431.73" y="313.01" xlink:href="#hd"/>
  <path d="M428.23 313.01v17.30" stroke="currentColor" fill="none"/>
  <use x="457.53" y="310.01" xlink:href="#hd"/>
  <path d="M454.03 310.01v20.30" stroke="currentColor" fill="none"/>
  <path fill="currentColor"
          d="M482.43 328.01l52.30 0.00v-3.20l-52.30 -0.0"/>
  <defs>
  <path id="hl" stroke="currentColor" d="m-6 0h12"/>
  </defs>
  <use x="486.23" y="307.01" xlink:href="#hl"/>
  <use x="486.23" y="307.01" xlink:href="#hd"/>
  <path d="M482.73 307.01v19.90" stroke="currentColor" fill="none"/>
  <use x="512.03" y="310.01" xlink:href="#hd"/>
  <path d="M508.53 310.01v16.90" stroke="currentColor" fill="none"/>
  <use x="537.93" y="307.01" xlink:href="#hl"/>
  <use x="537.93" y="307.01" xlink:href="#hd"/>
  <path d="M534.43 307.01v19.90" stroke="currentColor" fill="none"/>
  <path stroke="currentColor" fill="none"
          d="M563.73 337.01v-24.00"/>
  <path fill="currentColor"
          d="M574.23 328.11l52.30 4.10v-3.20l-52.30 -4.10"/>
  <use x="578.03" y="307.01" xlink:href="#hl"/>
  <use x="578.03" y="304.01" xlink:href="#hd"/>
  <path d="M574.53 304.01v23.20" stroke="currentColor" fill="none"/>
  <use x="603.93" y="310.01" xlink:href="#hd"/>
  <path d="M600.43 310.01v19.20" stroke="currentColor" fill="none"/>
  <use x="629.73" y="313.01" xlink:href="#hd"/>
  <path d="M626.23 313.01v18.20" stroke="currentColor" fill="none"/>
  <use x="658.43" y="310.01" xlink:href="#hd"/>
  <path d="M654.93 310.01v20.00" stroke="currentColor" fill="none"/>
  <path stroke="currentColor" fill="none" stroke-width="3"
          d="M693.43 337.01v-24.00"/>
  <path stroke="currentColor" fill="none"
          d="M688.93 337.01v-24.00"/>
  <use x="684.93" y="337.01" xlink:href="#rdots"/>
  </g>
  </svg>

Subject: RE: ABC versus Standard Notation
From: The Sandman
Date: 09 Jun 18 - 12:08 PM

if abc was so good why would be people need to transfer it to standrd notation, i asked before and STILL noone has answered

Subject: RE: ABC versus Standard Notation
From: Jack Campin
Date: 09 Jun 18 - 12:35 PM

Ordinarily you'd say to somebody like Dick "when you're in a hole, stop digging" - but in this case it seems more appropriate to say "keep going, they're waiting to throw a party in Australia when your feet break through".

Subject: RE: ABC versus Standard Notation
From: GUEST,CupOfTea at work, no cookies
Date: 09 Jun 18 - 12:39 PM

After a number of Mudcat postings urging learning ABC notation, I acquired an iPad and got the ABC app "the Craic" which imports ABC files, plays the music in a breathy flute sound, and makes PDF print outs. I had previously tried working with Finale, but without some instruction, couldn't do the simpliest things. A couple of pages of ABC instructions, and I was on my way, accessing tunes, inserting chords, listening to tunes, playing along, learning, making clean versions of hand written tunes.

It has come in very handy when given a tune name for a dance that's not in the standard books. I've found, with ABC printouts, some of the same problems as notation done with more sophisticated programs. In ABC I can fix some of them. I also find ABC a grand way to take down notation as "shorthand" to be gussied up & sorted later when acquiring a new melody. OTOH I am NOT a sophisticated musician, and perhaps the shortcomings of ABC don't bother me because I don't need the things missing?

To answer Sandman - if you have a recording of music, why would you need an actual performance? It's a tool. Having an ABC version that shows in standard notation is a process. As the looooooooong file above shows, it's a nice SHORT process with ABC!

Joanne in Cleveland (who takes about an hour or three to put a tune from hand written to ABC)

Subject: RE: ABC versus Standard Notation
From: Stanron
Date: 09 Jun 18 - 01:20 PM

The Sandman wrote: if abc was so good why would be people need to transfer it to standrd notation, i asked before and STILL noone has answered

Sandman, most people use ABC in conjuction with a converter. Either in a program like ABCExplorer or EasyABC or in an internet converter like

http://www.mandolintab.net/abcconverter.php

All of these convert the ABC file to notation.

It's not really a case of ABC or notation. The ABC file is a means of storing and/or generating notation. I suppose some people can look at an ABC file and hear the tune. Most people won't even try. The ABC files are minute compared with files generated by Notation Editors like Sibelius and Musescore. There are great collections of traditional tunes in this format on the net and their small size makes them well used and well usable.

Subject: RE: ABC versus Standard Notation
From: Howard Jones
Date: 09 Jun 18 - 01:22 PM

The original premise is mistaken in trying to make a distinction between ABC and notation. ABC is simply a way of representing the musical information contained in notation in a way a computer can use. In this it is no different from other music-writing programs such as Sibelius, Finale etc and any comparison should be with them, not with notation.

What seems to confuse people is that the code ABC uses to represent this information is ordinary text, whereas with the other writing systems the digital code is unintelligible without the appropriate software. However that is incidental, and in practice I suspect most users of ABC (myself included) use software to turn ABC code into notation rather than read direct from the code. If some people can play straight from the code without first converting it to notation, that should be seen as an additional level of usefulness rather than a reason to find a false dichotomy between ABC and notation.

I prefer ABC over other programs because it is free, and for writing down simple melodies I find it is easier than the others I have tried. Other programs have more complicated entry systems which make it possible to write more complex music but which I find are slower when entering only a single line of melody. If I were writing more complicated scores then I would probably use something different, but I'm not. If I were usually writing more complicated music and was therefore already a proficient user of another program I would probably stick with that rather than use ABC instead, but I'm not. If I needed more control over the visual appearance of the finished score I would use a different program, but I don't.

I also find it handy that I don't need specialist software. I'm not allowed to install music software on my work laptop, but I can still use an ordinary text editor to write ABC and an online converter to turn it into notation or play it back. At a pinch I don't even need a computer, and for jotting down a tune on the back of a beermat ABC takes up less space than writing out a score (besides I can't draw straight lines) It is also useful that ABC has become the de facto standard for sharing folk tunes over the internet (and can be posted on forums like this where .xml files cannot) so there is a vast library of tunes available in this format. However these are all reasons for using ABC rather than a different program. The end result is still notation.

Subject: RE: ABC versus Standard Notation
From: GUEST,Richard Robinson
Date: 09 Jun 18 - 01:59 PM

"if abc was so good why would be people need to transfer it to standrd notation"

ABC is useful because you *can* generate the 5-line thing from it. Along with MIDI, various tab notations, and anything else the wit of humans can write programs to translate it into. And because it's ordinary text that can be posted around on the web, emailed, etc, and written in an ordinary text editor. And, likewise, use your ordinary text-search stuff to find tunes in amongst your collection of ABC tunes, if you have one, which is why it's useful to have one.

Because computers can be told what it means, basically.

It's not a competition.

I have heard of people who claim to be able to sight-read ABC, personally I can't. I write a tune as ABC because it's easy to generate standard notation from it, and I also get all the other advantages of having ABC on my hard disk (or webserver, or whatever) for other programs to do useful things with when I need them to.

Subject: RE: ABC versus Standard Notation
From: Jack Campin
Date: 09 Jun 18 - 05:23 PM

I can sightread my own ABC because I make an effort to make it readable; Nigel Gatherer's is just as easy. I wouldn't have a prayer of sightreading John Chambers's or stuff that uses Gonzato's typesetting directives.

Not very different from staff notation - I can easily sightread David Young's 18th century Scottish tunebooks, or Bartok's field notes, but no way could I play off one of Janacek's manuscripts or one of Beethoven's umpteen-times-revised efforts.

Subject: RE: ABC versus Standard Notation
From: GUEST
Date: 09 Jun 18 - 06:24 PM

Could it be that 'The Sandman' is only familiar with the "ABC" that is used at workshops in Ireland rather than what the rest of you are talking about?

That seems to do the job that people who use it want done but appears limited compared with the (?newer) ABC code that most people use.

Subject: RE: ABC versus Standard Notation
From: Jack Campin
Date: 10 Jun 18 - 04:53 AM

Added features always make ABC less readable in source form and harder to re-use. You use them only when you absolutely have to.

ABC can easily represent everything in the O'Neill or Breathnach tune collections, providing better typographic quality than the originals, and with no need for any funny extensions to the basic formalism.

Subject: RE: ABC versus Standard Notation
From: Johnny J
Date: 10 Jun 18 - 08:56 AM

Aaarrrgghh.

Not this argument again!

They both have their uses and pros and cons...   ABC was and is ideal for the portable transfer of tunes on The Internet and e-mail. Also handy for jotting tunes down at a session or workshop.

For me, sheet music is much easier to read but all I have to do is convert the ABC with one of the many programmes out there. However, I will often also write out tunes in ABC form too and convert them into sheet music myself. It's a very easy and cheap way to create simple sheet music without having to buy expensive programmes.

Having said that, you can add just as many different "instructions" as you want on sheet music which isn't always possible to translate into ABC although there's much you can do with the latter these days too.
However, why do you need to make things so cumbersome unless it's a special arrangement for a concert, performance, or a group of musicians? In such a case, you'd probably want to be using "the dots" anyway.

Anyway, I shall continue to use both methods and, also, play "by lug" as I see fit.

;-))

Subject: RE: ABC versus Standard Notation
From: Jack Campin
Date: 10 Jun 18 - 09:22 AM

I suppose the music Dick writes down must look like the samples in this book:

https://monoskop.org/File:Cage_John_Notations.pdf

Subject: RE: ABC versus Standard Notation
From: nigelgatherer
Date: 10 Jun 18 - 02:28 PM

ABC notation isn't better than staff notation, but in certain circumstances it has advantages, as outlined above. Where it scores big is in the ability to search for tunes - either locally or on the WWW - using snippets of ABC, something that one cannot do, as yet, with staff notation.

Subject: RE: ABC versus Standard Notation
From: GUEST,Rev Bayes
Date: 10 Jun 18 - 03:57 PM

Sandman,

I have one observation, and one question. The observation is that you do not seem to actually understand what ABC is. I suspect this may be because you have seen people use it in a way that is not in accordance with the standard, but that is their problem.

The question is, what do you think of Lilypond?

Subject: RE: ABC versus Standard Notation
From: GUEST,Richard Robinson
Date: 11 Jun 18 - 10:11 AM

Jack's John Cage pdf - Blimey. The only way I'd want to write that as ABC would be with copious %%EPS statements.

Nigel, search etc - yes. Perhaps the biggest single argument in its favour would be John Chambers's
Tune Finder.

Subject: RE: ABC versus Standard Notation
From: The Sandman
Date: 11 Jun 18 - 02:29 PM

Subject: RE: ABC versus Standard Notation
From: GUEST
Date: 09 Jun 18 - 06:24 PM

Could it be that 'The Sandman' is only familiar with the "ABC" that is used at workshops in Ireland rather than what the rest of you are talking about?

That seems to do the job that people who use it want done but appears limited compared with the (?newer) ABC code that most people use."
EXACTLY

Subject: RE: ABC versus Standard Notation
From: Jack Campin
Date: 11 Jun 18 - 03:37 PM

What have you notated that couldn't be done better by an ABC newbie using even the simplest form of the system?

The one thing you HAVE made crystal clear is that you have never written anything down in any form of notation that anyone else either could or would want to make use of.

Subject: RE: ABC versus Standard Notation
From: The Sandman
Date: 11 Jun 18 - 04:17 PM

How ridiculous, I regularly use standard musical notation for pupils,using old fashioned manuscript, your abc system that you suggest needs a comouter, believe it or not, i do not use them during my lessons i prefer to teach by ear or by old fashioned musical notation   Jack do you have some sort of aggression problem? I remember you got very aggressive with roy harris, so much upset was he that he sent me a personal message
Greetings Dick, Thanks for backing me on Mudcat. Who is this Jack Campin? Outside of Mudcat I've never heard of him.
All Best, ROY .

Subject: RE: ABC versus Standard Notation
From: GUEST
Date: 11 Jun 18 - 04:58 PM

Subject: RE: ABC versus Standard Notation
From: Jack Campin
Date: 11 Jun 18 - 05:20 PM

Let's see something you've written then.

Subject: RE: ABC versus Standard Notation
From: Jack Campin
Date: 11 Jun 18 - 05:53 PM

I just searched for "dick miles sheet music" and this was what I found:

Coffee in Brazil

The whole first page is doable in ABC with nothing at all left out. Seeing more than that page costs money.

There is another version out there with guitar chord diagrams. I don't know of an ABC implementation of those (or ukulele chords, which is where the idea started) but if there was enough demand somebody would include them.k

Subject: RE: ABC versus Standard Notation
From: Howard Jones
Date: 12 Jun 18 - 05:37 AM

Dick, do you write out music notation using a computer? If you only write it out by hand on manuscript paper then you probably have no need of ABC (although it is a useful shorthand for jotting music down). If you already use a music-writing computer program then there is probably no need to learn another system.

Don't think of ABC just in terms of the text language. It is part of a package which includes programs to render the text as conventional notation or to play it back. This is how most people use it, to write music notation and hear how it sounds. Being able to read and write ABC without a computer is a useful bonus, but is not how most people use it.

However by ignoring ABC you are missing out on the vast library of tunes on the internet in ABC format. Like it or not, it has become the de facto standard for sharing folk tunes. If you use another program you may be able to import ABC into it to render it as notation, or you can use an online converter such as this one.

http://www.mandolintab.net/abcconverter.php

Even if you don't feel a need to learn ABC yourself, don't dismiss it.

Subject: RE: ABC versus Standard Notation
From: Johnny J
Date: 12 Jun 18 - 06:15 AM

You are right, Howard.

Unlike Jack and Dick both, I'm not unduly interested in whether or not ABC is better, worse, more or less efficient than the dots.

I just see it as another extra useful tool. While I can write and compose ABC, I'm not particularly great at reading it but there's no real need. It's just a case of converting to sheet music one way or another. There's plenty of programs but I could actually do it by hand too if really necessary.

Of course, not everyone can read music either and I would encourage them to do this before trying to learn to "sight read" ABC but that's just my view.

Subject: RE: ABC versus Standard Notation
From: Jack Campin
Date: 12 Jun 18 - 08:25 AM

Unlike Jack and Dick both, I'm not unduly interested in whether or not ABC is better, worse, more or less efficient than the dots.

They aren't comparable as "better" or "worse" and only Dick in this thread is seeing it that way.

Subject: RE: ABC versus Standard Notation
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 12 Jun 18 - 08:25 AM

As I said before, I read neither - and am unlikely to as, despite knowing the rules, just can't get the timing. Still,I understand both well enough to do what I've needed (eg. the converter at mandolin tab is one I put together and was transferred when I closed folkinfo) and get midis out of it for my own learning.

Incidentally, while the programs may be a bit old now (I don't think these or the plain abc ones have been updated since 2012), the manolintab converter actually attempts to handle 2 formats. It will attempt to detect musicxml input in the abc entry box and produce both types (timewise and partwise) as output.

So there's another format to think of... Nowhere near as useful as abc for the sharing, etc. of folk stuff but can be handy for those transferring from one computer program/format to another.

Subject: RE: ABC versus Standard Notation
From: GUEST,Richard Robinson
Date: 12 Jun 18 - 08:47 AM

I think perhaps we make too much of the differences between ABC and the 5-line thing ? They're both ways of representing the same concepts - different ways of showing a quaver, a bar-line, a slur, etc (the only significant - to me - difference is ABC's ability to handle more than 2 modes, which from the POV of The Tunes is a big gain). If somebody can read standard notation I'd be surprised if they found it very hard to get to grips with ABC (if they needed to, of course. If somebody doesn't see a need for it, fine, carry on as you are …). And likewise, if somebody works by ear, I'd expect ABC to be about as hard to pick up as standard notation.

Subject: RE: ABC versus Standard Notation
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 12 Jun 18 - 08:53 AM

Well Richard, a problem such as not being able to turn say "this note is twice as long as that one" into practice just transfers from one system to another...

Subject: RE: ABC versus Standard Notation
From: Jack Campin
Date: 12 Jun 18 - 08:59 AM

Here's an example of something it would have been hard to do any other way. Mostly I did it on my phone while sitting on a park bench in a small town in Hungary at lunchtime during a folk camp where I was learning the tarogato. I used both the (rather crap) Tunebook SD phone app and the mandolintab.net converter, playing bits of the tune from memory on recorders while comparing it with some rather scrappy and inaccurate notation I'd photographed using the phone's camera, revising it a bit later. I think you can find the original field recording on the Meta band's "Bodrogkoz" CD - very expensive for what you get so I don't have it.

http://forum.melodeon.net/index.php?topic=21282.0

There is no other transcription of that version of the tune on the web, in any format and at any price.

I think price is key to the way Dick sees things. ABC is very good for distributing music free, and not designed for payment at all. Dick doesn't do the giving-stuff-away thing; he's always used Mudcat as far as possible as free advertising (it's probably never put a single bum on a seat and driven quite a few folks away from his gigs, but he's never going to see that). Which is why we are never going to see a scan of anything Dick has written down.

Subject: RE: ABC versus Standard Notation
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 12 Jun 18 - 09:30 AM

I think you are being far to harsh on Dick, Jack.I think it's more a matter of a bee in the bonnet and an unwillingness to consider. Shame really as I'd guess it could be a useful addition for him.

Subject: RE: ABC versus Standard Notation
From: Stanron
Date: 12 Jun 18 - 09:39 AM

What is it with you guys and Dick Miles. I can see his point of view clearly. Sometimes it is just simpler to sit down with a pen and some manuscript paper and write out the notation.

Subject: RE: ABC versus Standard Notation
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 12 Jun 18 - 09:43 AM

I see that too. It's the manner of his dismissal of abc I don't get.

Subject: RE: ABC versus Standard Notation
From: GUEST
Date: 12 Jun 18 - 09:47 AM

(eg, Starting from the other thread that caused this one:

"Music clef is more accurate than abc,if it were the other way round classical orchestras would be using ABC, they do not they use standard music clef notation.
if poeple cannot bebothered to learn music notation ,that is their decision,but do not try and pretend that ABC it is as accurate."

)

Subject: RE: ABC versus Standard Notation
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 12 Jun 18 - 09:48 AM

opps, missed name above.

Subject: RE: ABC versus Standard Notation
From: Jack Campin
Date: 12 Jun 18 - 09:53 AM

Sometimes it is just simpler to sit down with a pen and some manuscript paper and write out the notation

I don't think anybody's disputing that. Though ABC can be quicker and more legible if you don't have ruled paper already:

Janacek's fanfares from the Sinfonietta