[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Contemporary notation (Re: GSoC projects list)
From: |
Jürgen Reuter |
Subject: |
Re: Contemporary notation (Re: GSoC projects list) |
Date: |
Mon, 6 Feb 2017 20:15:10 +0100 |
Hi all,
personally, I think, it is as always in software development that
addresses a wide audience: the challenge to find an appropriate level
of abstraction.
If you want to support *any* kind of notation, then just use a painting
or CAD software. Obviously, you do not want to do that, because you
will loose any musical semantics, including the possibility of
reformatting, transposing, or whatever else musicologically editing you
would like to apply.
On the other extreme, you would focus on a specialized notation system
that addresses a selected audience only and is of little or no value
for other users.
A common approach is solve this dilemma is to:
* (1) Focus on a selected set of specialized features that you expect
to be useful for many users. Then you can add specialized automation.
For example, the abstraction of having objects called "notes" that have
a particular property called "pitch" enables you to group a selection
of notes into a "music expression" and "transpose" the whole expression
by altering the pitch of each note in that group.
* (2) For exceptional cases, provide more lower-level features, that
provide less automation due to an increasing lack of musical semantics,
but are more flexible. For example, LilyPonds feature to embed
postscript snippets is extremely flexible. But it is just graphics,
without any musicological sementics. And as such, you can not impose
any musical operation on it.
Having this approach in mind, I implemented the cluster engraver
roughly 15 years ago. Urs, you mentioned creating "notation that
behaves like a glissando, i.e. any drawn connection between two
notes." With the cluster engraver, you (sort of) can do such a thing.
The idea was to provide graphical notation that builds upon musical
expressions by transforming that musical information into a
corresponding graphical shape. This way, the cluster engraver fills
the gap between non-graphical (and therefore specialized) standard
notation on the one hand and generic, but non-musical low-level
graphics on the other. Maybe the cluster engraver would be a proper
starting point for more music expression based graphical notation?
Another thing, I guess, is making it easy for musicians without
programming knowledge to smoothly embed their own articulation signs,
note heads, clefs, and other font symbols into LilyPond at runtime:
Just define a new articulation sign or note head shape or clef at the
top of your .ly file with a single short line of scheme code that
references some, say, .eps file. I think, this is still not that
easily possible, right? (Please correct me, if I am wrong.)
Personally, I am even not sure of how to properly notate contemporary
music. Yes, I have seen e.g. excerpts of Stockhausen's score of his
Studie II, and Wehinger's aural score of Ligeti's Artikulation, as well
as a score of Kagel. (LilyPond's short, long and very long fermata
signs were actually inspired by this score of Kagel.) Still, I am not
satisfied with such notation: At least to my perception, it typically
does not represent well essential nuances of e.g. electronic sounds.
Probably most important, I think you first of all need lots of examples
to get a sense for what might classify as candidate for an appropriate
abstraction: Is it all about graphical notation? Or rather use of
individual / personalized font symbols? What else is useful? In fact,
classification by having seen lots of examples is one of our brain's
fundamental approaches for recognition...
Best wishes,
Jürgen
- Re: Contemporary notation (Re: GSoC projects list),
Jürgen Reuter <=