RE: The MusicXML challenge and Chords

Hello all, 

 

"MusicXML needs to allow for innovation."

 

Yes it must from the (modern) composers side of view, and that's a
fundamental problem for what we're trying to do here. 

 

Allowing innovation allows an" open"  standard where new things can be added
without passing by a committee to standardise it first before it can be
used. 

 

But an open format is a guarantee for interop problems when moving from one
application to another, and that's what MusicXML strives to accomplish. Or
at least I hope that's still the goal.

 

Interop requires a strictly defined, closed standard. Even more than that,
user interfaces should encourage or even force composers/engravers to enter
elements in the standard way. A glissando must be entered as a glissando,
not as a line drawing. 

 

If we want interoperability, then we will have to accept that we can only
capture the "lowest common denominator". This is also why Joe hinted in a
very friendly manner that MusicXML should probably not try to cover new
grounds. 

 

But let me state it not-so-friendly, but clear: if MusicXML must succeed as
a format for storage and exchange, we can only cover the "normal" music.
Normal meaning: music being notated in well-defined ways. Ways that are
standard already outside of MusicXML and that are directly understood by the
vast majority of musicians. Something should only be considered for adding
to MusicXML when it is already a standard way of notating things with pen
and paper in a significant part of the musical society. 

 

We've seen some " examples"  pass here that required a "manual" with the
work on how to read/interpret things. That implies it is not a standard way
of doing things even in the musical world, which is why - by definition - it
has no place in a standard format such as MusicXML. Constructs that are only
used in a handful of works should not litter a standard, and a committee
should spend no time on trying to cover it. 

 

With my apologies for the ranting, but we must draw a line in the sand for
what we want to do, or we will never get anywhere. There's a perfect format
for the more experimental/innovative stuff: it's called PDF. 

 

Let us please first fix the things that are wrong with MusicXML as it is and
then move on to taking in new concepts. 

 

Regards, 

 

 

Jan Rosseel 

SCORA (www.scora.net)

 

 

 

 

From: George F. Litterst [mailto:glitterst@timewarptech.com] 
Sent: donderdag 5 november 2015 17:50
To: public-music-notation-contrib@w3.org
Subject: Re: The MusicXML challenge and Chords

 

Good morning, everyone.

 

 

On Nov 4, 2015, at 9:11 PM, David MacDonald <davidjohnmacdonald@gmail.com>
wrote:

 

Either way, I think MusicXML must be able to show that LH rhythm in whatever
right or wrong way suits the user.

 

I agree with David and would like to point out that right and wrong are
constantly evolving concepts in music, grammar, and other areas of life.

 

When a novel concept is put forth, it is often wrong by contemporary
standards. If the novel idea find wide spread adoption, it later becomes
right.

 

MusicXML needs to allow for innovation.

 

Regards,

George





George F. Litterst
TimeWarp Technologies
"changing the tempo in music software"
 <mailto:GLitterst@timewarptech.com> GLitterst@timewarptech.com