- From: <mogens@lundholm.org>
- Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2018 21:13:25 +0100
- To: public-music-notation@w3.org
Many thanks for the video and summary. Other thoughts: The MIDI association was also present at NAMM. MIDI is important for all of us. Demiditize? It seems to me like MNX should have an interface that is more general than the specification in MusicXML, with is MIDI-specification. We should call an instrument for an instrument and not for a program. And the instrument should not be limited to 127 but to a bigger list. And channel numbers not limited to 0 to 15. And pitch not to 0..127, but with fraction. They say a new MIDI-version is coming. I could want just another byte to the three limitations on instrument, channel and pitch plus the missing Clef metaevent FF 5A .... Then I would be satisfied. I often think there is a gap between what we want to do and reality. Especially about the structure of the music. Programming languages have simple but effective structures to handle the structure. But music has not. Sitting with a tune with "repeats", "voltas", "Segno", "D.S.al Coda""Coda" and "D.C. senza rep." and two implicite repeats at the start of the tune. A music-subroutine is also needed like done in the makam-music, where the text "[son]" indicates a return to last position. Musikmesse in Frankfurt: As usual? /Mogens
Received on Tuesday, 13 February 2018 20:13:54 UTC