Re: Measure-free scores

Actually I hope there will be no discussion of "measures or not 
measures". But we should rather accept measures and find solutions to 
the unsolved problems in MusicXML, some of them related to measures. See 
the list below.

About Alex's MNX example: I try to search Joe's MNX-Proposal for words 
in this example but can't find them. Cannot see the link to MNX-proposal.

/Mogens
___________________

PS: Is it time for MNX to proceed into these structural elements?

1. Repeat-Segno-Fine-Coda: The meaning of these symbols is not clear. I 
want a clear definition like the text Joe wrote on accidentals (pt. 
5.3.10 Pitch encoding) - no room for interpretations. Worried about what 
Glen wrote that Segno is not always in the start of a measure (Glen: do 
you have a MusicXML-example?). The symbol Coda is often opposite or 
there may be e.g. two Coda's instead. And things get complicated because 
Segno, Fine and Coda Dacapo are written in one part,  but affects all 
part.  And more than that: With an exact definition there will be 
notewriters that still want e.g. to put a Coda-symbol on ToCoda. Can 
this be defined by an attribute?
And repeat in first measure: Implicit, invisible or forced?  (The 
current implicit repeat-definition on measure one gives extra processing)

2. Verses and Lyrics - maybe solved in MusicXml version 3.1 (Lyrics - To 
which note does a syllable belong? #151). But the number of verses could 
be defined before any part and notes, in order to know what is going on 
before processing the parts and reduce processing in MNX.

3. Keys: There are two ways to define a key in MusicXML. What about 
having only one in MNX?:  The "free-style" specifying the accidentals. 
No division in "standard" and "not standard".  Like the MusicXML commands:
<key-step>B</key-step>
<key-accidental>quarter-flat</key-accidental>
etc.

Received on Tuesday, 4 April 2017 22:22:29 UTC