Re: Measure-free scores

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
>
>
>
>