RE: Measure-free scores

> I would add one more point here: measures are tangible objects in the user interfaces of most CWMN notation editors and viewers.

Amen to that. And why is that so? Because the measure (number) is a key element in how musicians work and organize themselves. "We start at measure ..." is probably the most heard sentence in rehearsals. It synchronizes musicians, and is also the key element in synchronised music sheet viewers. 

It would be really awkward to ignore this real-life concept in MNX. 




From: Joe Berkovitz [mailto:joe@noteflight.com] 
Sent: maandag 3 april 2017 15:52
To: James Ingram <j.ingram@netcologne.de>
Cc: public-music-notation-contrib@w3.org; Dennis Bathory-Kitsz <bathory@maltedmedia.com>
Subject: Re: Measure-free scores

Hi Folks,

I'll leave the SVG business out for the purposes of this response, since I would like to discuss that separately.

Barlines can be already be explicitly notated in MusicXML, independently of measures. The MNX proposal doesn't mention this because it's part of MusicXML, and I assume we would retain it. So that's not controversial.

I think the question of whether <measure> is necessary or not is reasonable to ask, though, and we should discuss it further. It is not necessary to tear down the whole MNX edifice to consider this question, though.

I would add one more point here: measures are tangible objects in the user interfaces of most CWMN notation editors and viewers. So there is tangible value in transferring one application's notion of "measure" to another application. Not every barline corresponds to a measure boundary.

...Joe


.            .       .    .  . ...Joe

Joe Berkovitz
Founder
Noteflight LLC

49R Day Street
Somerville MA 02144
USA

"Bring music to life"
http://www.noteflight.com

On Mon, Apr 3, 2017 at 9:20 AM, James Ingram <mailto:j.ingram@netcologne.de> wrote:
Hi Mogens, Dennis,
I'm assuming that the MNX containers (<system>, <measure> etc.) are abstract. They contain objects that can have temporal and/or graphic parameters.
@Mogens: I agree with you that ties can just be graphic. They don't need to contain temporal info. Neither do the <event> symbols to which they connect. All the temporal info can go in the first <event> to be tied.
@Dennis: Note that nothing has been said about where on the page the <system>s,  <measure>s etc. have to be. Usually, they nest in the way their names suggest for CWMN, but as long as they nest correctly, they can be read vertically or go round in circles as far as I care... :-) They might even overlap significantly, though that's an unusual case.
Where they exist on the page depends on the graphic definitions of the objects they contain, but the arrow of time always takes a predefined route.
James


Am 03.04.2017 um 13:42 schrieb mailto:mogens@lundholm.org:
Since bars/measures are really graphic elements, I think there should be no measures. Instead there should be a pure graphic symbol for a bar/measure. With no measures, I think that also ties should fall. Tie is also just a graphic element and should be a pure graphic symbol.  

Repeat, Segno, Coda and Fine etc. seem to be related to <measure>. For example Segno is always first in a measure, Fine is always last in measure. Will it just simplify 
things being able to put them anywhere?  

/Mogens

-- 
https://github.com/notator
http://james-ingram-act-two.de

Received on Monday, 3 April 2017 14:09:15 UTC