ABC File Standards

[Ice Weasel]

I decided to start a new thread for this topic (some discussion in the Pete Seeger thread). 

We need to explore Part Names, Part Numbering, and File Names.

File Names:

I propose we use a naming system that tries to keep names short, and appends the number of parts on the end of the name. It doesn't have to follow 8.3 naming, but let's try to avoid spaces, underscores or hyphens, and where applicable, omit vowels. I use capital letters to denote a new word.

This: Pete_Seeger_Worried_Man_Blues.ABC

Becomes this: WrrdMnBls7.ABC 

That may be a tad extreme, but Songbook will show you the full name, anyway. The actual file name length matters more to maintaining your folders than anything else. It also helps those people who desire to not use Songbook, and type command-lines. 

Part Names:

Minor thing, really, as long as the part numbers are accurate, but I've found it helpful to name the part after the function of the track or the track name in the original MIDI file.

Examples:

• Lute Melody
• Flute VoxLead
• Harp Rhodes

Part Numbers:

There is some talk in other places about numbering parts. As it is, most of us use Maestro to make our conversions. The default numbering system "prepends" (puts in front) the sequential number for more than one of the same type instrument. Apparently, more common systems "append" the sequential number. 

Now: 

• 1 Lute
• 11 Lute 2
• 21 Lute 3
• 4 Flute
• 14 Flute 2

Proposed:

• 10 Lute
• 11 Lute 2
• 12 Lute 3
• 40 Flute
• 41 Flute 2

I actually like the proposed way.  I am trying to verify with other bands that this is how they do things.

Comments? Votes?

 

[Siltharan]

Filenames: I think we're good with how we use them at this point (tending to use longer, more descriptive names). It's easier than opening up ABCs in Maestro to figure out what the song and/or artist (for genre type folders, vs. artist folders like Seeger) is when you're trying to pick out songs for concerts just by looking at your directories.

Part names: I haven't been very good on this issue myself. Not 100% sure we need the function of each track, except in the case of using the same instrument in multiple parts. Beyond melody, vocals and harmony (for non-percussion parts), I'm not quite sure what I'd call some of them. :P

Part numbers: I'm growing to like the "xy" method better as well ("x" being the instrument, "y" being the part). It seems to make more sense to me at this point.

[Briallan]

umm...  I can see the logic behind standardization. But I'm not really a big fan of enforcing a new standard. We already have a bunch of songs (getting into the hundreds now) and one issue is that who is going to go back and change the existing stuff to meet the standard? if we don't, we will have 2 standards, the maestro numbering system and our new one. Besides at this point I am used to maestro part numbering even though I agree it may not be the most logical.

I think as long as the musicians can easily tell which song to play and can distinguish the part they should play from the part someone else should be playing it works. Also, different arrangers may work differently and might have different reasons for doing what they do with file and part naming.

When I play, the part number helps me guess where the part may be when I am scrolling thru the list of parts to find the one I need to play -- I look at the first part of the part name to make sure I am playing the right instrument, and the second part to make sure that I am playing the right part if someone else is playing the same instrument on that song. Also depending on how much screen space you are using (I often have two clients on a screen, so have limited screen space), long part names in songbook can be problematic as I have to make songbook bigger than I might like, so I like short names like: Lute 1, Lute 2

I do like the idea that the last number in the filename has the number of parts in the song if it's not six -- that helps u see at a glance if u are going to have trouble playing something based on how many musicians u have present.

[Ice Weasel]

The arguments for changing would be mostly to conform to the evolved "LOTRO" standards used by other bands. It only really matters if we anticipate sharing our stuff, to save them work later.  As long as we stick to original conversions for us, then it doesn't matter if we conform to the rest of them.

As for how Maestro numbers parts, that's a really simple fix: the little "gear" at the top of the screen opens a menu, you change a pull-down to the other method, done. Granted it doesn't change everything we've done to date, but  I don't know if that is essential.  It is possible that opening the ABC in Maestro and saving again will change the numbering to what is currently set, I haven't looked yet. There's also the point that if we do want to change, the sooner we do it, the better, as the library grows daily.

File name lengths is a personal thing, probably... I love shorter names, and am used to 8.3 nomenclature... oh, the gymnastics needed to conform to that sometimes. LOL I guess spaces make me nervous... 

 

[Briallan]

Ok, here are more thoughts:

• I am not too worried about sharing -- I sort of like the idea that different bands play different songs -- if we all play the same stuff, there is really little difference between bands
• when I do a midi conversion I make a lot of notes on what I did, so I don't have to re-figure everything out again if I ever revisist the song; some of those notes refer to existing part numbers, so I don't want those to change on my existing songs
• spaces do not cause a problem (no one has ever not been able to play a song because spaces are in it -- almost all my songs have spaces in filenames) and I think it makes the name more readable.

I really think that the most important thing is whether the musicians find the song names and part names easy to understand and use, and so I like song names that seem more readable. Maybe not exactly sure what the benefit is from the 8.3 thing  -- I never really see people name files that way....

[Ice Weasel]

That's because I'm old, and DOS (before they wrapped a shell around the operating system and called it Windows 95) required a maximum of 8 characters, a dot, and three characters max in the extension. It's all antiquated stuff. Long File Names, all that stuff came much later. It doesn't hurt anything, ops-wise, but I still flinch at long names LOL

The only thing a shorter filename would do, I think, is help those who can't expand the width of Songbook more... 

I'm mostly just playing devils advocate on this stuff. In some ways I don't think it matters, but since the topic came up, I figured we might as well establish it. I DO wish we had used the other part numbering, though. I like that system better, just never looked to change what Maestro defaulted at. I mean, someone could write a program to renumber parts in ABC files, I suppose.... But it's not a horribly big deal either way LOL.