2 ms·
There's a fairly well-established notation similar to what you made up: ABC notation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ABC_notation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ABC
by kamkha 13y ago
There's a fairly well-established notation similar to what you made up: ABC notation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ABC_notation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ABC_notation).
- przemoc 13y agoYes, back then (2005) I didn't know about ABC nor Lilypond (which I've started using since end of 2011, month after end of my music prototyping Ask HN thing: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3089259 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3089259, which will hopefully get some follow-up in the future). To be honest, today I would slightly change my notation, to make it more readable, consistent and friendlier for English-speaking people: OTD[.] O - octave: [0-9] T - tone: C,d(es),D,e(s),E,F,g(es),G,a(s),A,b(es),B,P(ause) D - duration: [0-9A-Z] meaning: breve (double whole note) // for D==0 1/D note // for D!=0 . - dotted note, changes duration to: // d - duration d(2 - 1/2^n) // n - number of dots Same fugue would start like: 4A8 4G8 4A8 4F8 4A8 4E8 4A8 4D8 4A8 4d8 4A8 4D8 4A8 which is so much more better... Why I didn't do it like that from the beginning? No idea...