Semantics and Music Notation

This thread used to be
Re: [smufl] Add new 'Fingering' range.
I've changed the name because I think we need some more discussion about 
"semantics" outside the context of SMuFL.

Am 20.04.2016 um 06:54 schrieb Jim DeLaHunt:
> On 2016-04-19 10:39, Jan Rosseel wrote:
>> ...As a big proponent of semantic annotations, we should find a way 
>> to indicate fingerings, and then let the (musician) chose a “font” to 
>> render those. This allows to distribute and transform fingerings 
>> between musicians even if they have different habits of notating them...
>
> SMuFL encodings are not the only way indicate notation or annotation, 
> and may not be the best way. Might "indicat[ing] fingerings" be the 
> domain of the notation language, rather than SMuFL?  The notation 
> language could even offer a way to represent the semantics of the 
> fingering, and independently represent which of various renderings the 
> notator prefers to see in the score.

As I said at the recent face-to-face in Frankfurt, I don't think one can 
legislate on the meaning of a particular glyph. The simplest glyphs (for 
example the dot '.', plus '+', or zero '0') are particularly often 
overloaded to mean different things in different contexts: Dots are used 
for augmentation of durations, staccato, as noteheads etc. A plus glyph 
(+) can mean simple addition in a mathematical text, hand-stopping in 
horn parts, be part of a complex time-signature etc.

And, as Michael Scott Cuthbert wrote to the original thread (at 18:00 on 
20.04.2016):
> The 0 is also used sometimes for thumb fingerings on instruments 
> where  the thumb is not a normal part of the fingering system -- for 
> instance violin, or right-hand clarinet.

Its often the case, in 20th century music, that composers /define the 
meaning/ of a symbol in the foreword to a score, and then /use/ the 
symbol they have defined in the score itself. Apart from the aesthetics 
of creating a beautiful score, this has the practical advantage that the 
defined symbol can take up less space (and be quicker to read in 
real-time) than an exhaustive explanation in a situation where space is 
in short supply.

Jim DeLaHunt continues;
> On 2016-04-19 10:39, Jan Rosseel continued:
>> ...So indeed, maybe this is better handled outside of SMUFL, and 
>> directly in the rendering engine. Which would mean that we need 
>> another standard to cover (semantic) annotations....
>
> Exactly.

Yes. /We need a [different] standard to cover (semantic) annotations.../
Defining a /meaning/ for a symbol is not the same as /using/ the symbol 
in a score. So we need different standards for the two cases. This has a 
lot to do with the famous use-mention distinction...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Use%E2%80%93mention_distinction

I think we need to let composers define their own symbols, and use 
existing glyphs in any way they like, providing that they tell us what 
the symbols are intended to mean. If its really necessary to define a 
symbol, then that could/should be done /outside the score/, in a 
foreword or footnote.

General agreement as to the normal meaning for a glyph in a particular 
context is something to be encouraged, of course, but I think that has 
to be the result of years of evolution. Its something that can't be 
standardized by a legislative body.

But I'm not at all sure if there can be standard ways to explain 
meanings, if the meanings don't already exist.
Some fingering diagrams (e.g. for a standard Boehm flute) are already 
pretty standard, and can be used with very little or no explanation in 
scores. But that's not true for /all /instruments... Or?

Any thoughts?

all the best,
James
-- 
http://james-ingram-act-two.de
https://github.com/notator