Re: Measure-free scores

Dennis raises a valid point, though... does a measure have to be a 
container at all?  A measure extends from one bar to the next, but the 
sequence of notes and bar lines can be thought of as a exactly that, a 
sequence, rather than a containment concept.  As has already been 
mentioned, sounded notes can escape the containment by being tied across 
bar lines. Further, shifting things from one measure to the next may be 
far easier by moving the bar lines in the sequence rather than moving 
notes from one container to another. So there are some merit to simply 
allowing bar lines to be notated, rather than thinking of measures as 
containers (either in the logical or XML sense of containment).

On 4/1/2017 12:05 PM, Joe Berkovitz wrote:
> Hi Dennis,
>
>     Speaking as a composer, "one big measure" is still some sort of
>     container and
>     therefore incorrect. I have not understood in these discussions and in
>     existing software why the measure must be the  basic consideration
>     in encoding
>     information.
>
>
> If we used a <measure> element in this way, it would be just a
> "container of convenience" to hold a series of events and would not
> imply a notated measure. We'd want to figure out a way to make sure that
> this understanding was part of the encoding. I wish I had not used the
> term, "one big measure": I simply meant, one big container. It may make
> sense to name the element differently in this case -- that, too, is up
> for discussion.
>
> Truly, there's no claim here that measures are a basic consideration in
> encoding music. Where measures exist and the composer notated them,
> though, I think it's reasonable to include them in the encoding as part
> of what the composer chose to express. Where the composer didn't do so,
> then the encoding can say that too.
>
> With respect to the other generalities that you talked about, I think
> we're envisioning that MNX will *also* include a culturally neutral
> encoding approach based entirely on graphics and time, and that this
> will provide an escape valve for the many notation systems that don't
> fit the 1600-1900 model. The emphasis you see in the CG's work right
> now, in no way excludes our taking up a more general approach as our
> resources and time allow.
>
> I don't feel there is a "tendency to create a [traditional Western]
> system". It's just that there is a large proportion of CG members
> writing applications that work within this system. Our present
> priorities merely reflect the makeup of the group. And they are just
> priorities, not decisions about what notation is or is not. I look
> forward to having the time to devote to thinking through the more
> general graphical/temporal approach as well.
>
> Best,
> ...Joe
>
>
>     Music proceeds. If a measure-based composition is encoded, then
>     apply the
>     markers that determine these aspects (barlines, time signatures, etc.).
>     Dumping the measure, it seems to me, relieves all the struggles with
>     time
>     signatures (such as 4/3 or 3/7) and, of course, notation systems old
>     and new
>     that don't use measure-like divisions at all. If a time-based system is
>     encoded, then the container, if you need one, can be the second. If an
>     instrument-exchange based system is encoded, the container (again,
>     if you need
>     one) is the exchange division. If the answer is 'none of the above',
>     then the
>     encoding system should be required to respect the music -- first.
>
>     With no measure container, for example, having a continuous staff
>     that changes
>     as needed (containers, no containers, switch to time-based,
>     directional, all
>     on the fly) also frees the encoded notation from straight,
>     horizontal lines
>     (meaning no trouble encoding Wolff or Stockhausen).
>
>     I'm not a coder anymore, but I see a tendency to create a system that is
>     driven by Western music 1600-1900. Don't we already have plenty of
>     systems
>     that do that? It seems to me that any new system that depends on that is
>     either mostly redundant or, with respect to the continuing
>     development of
>     music, destined to fail.
>
>     So can the measure 'container' please be scrapped?
>
>     Dennis
>
>
>
>

Received on Saturday, 1 April 2017 23:20:49 UTC