Re: Measure-free scores

On Sat, April 1, 2017 12:57 pm, Joe Berkovitz wrote:
> Yes, maybe we should mandate the "big measure" approach. I'm interested in
> others' take on this (particularly my co-chairs!)'

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.

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 17:40:59 UTC