Re: Measure-free scores

Yes, maybe we should mandate the "big measure" approach. I'm interested in
others' take on this (particularly my co-chairs!)

.            .       .    .  . ...Joe

Joe Berkovitz
Founder
Noteflight LLC

49R Day Street
Somerville MA 02144
USA

"Bring music to life"
www.noteflight.com

On Sat, Apr 1, 2017 at 10:56 AM, Jeremy Sawruk <jeremy.sawruk@gmail.com>
wrote:

> It was my interpretation that such scores would use the "single big
> measure" approach, so I agree with your suggestion. I also agree that
> 'hidden' should only apply to visual semantics.
>
> I base my interpretation on how Dorico handles unmetered music: it puts
> unmetered music into one big measure.
>
> On Sat, Apr 1, 2017 at 10:44 AM, cecilio <s.cecilio@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> In the scope of the profile <score content="cwmn" profile="standard">
>> there are measure-free scores. The typical examples are many pieces from
>> Erik Satie.
>>
>> It has been suggested that for regularity of the schema, measure-free
>> scores or passages be treated as consisting of either a single big measure
>> or of smaller measures with hidden barlines and time signatures.
>>
>> Two ideas on this:
>>
>> 1. In my opinion the MNX standard must choose between using a single big
>> measure or using smaller measures with hidden barlines and time signature.
>> One of the MNX objectives is to enforce programs to create semantically
>> correct MNX files. Leaving the decision on how to encode measure-free
>> scores to each MNX writer/exporter will provide unnecessary freedom and
>> this will introducing unnecessary complexity in MNX parsers and could
>> create unexpected future problems.
>>
>> 2. Although a 'hidden' attribute attached to an element can be useful for
>> a particular application, I dislike the idea of describing the semantics
>> using hidden objects. The attribute 'hidden' has to do with appearance, not
>> with semantics and, therefore, the objects composing the music score should
>> be described in MNX without having to resort on appearance attributes.
>>
>> Therefore, my suggestion is to treat CWMN measure-free scores as
>> consisting of a single big measure, somehow marked as 'structural' to
>> distinguish these structural measures from regular ones, i.e. to treat the
>> structural ones as 'hidden'  ;-)
>>
>> Cecilio
>>
>>
>