Fixed: Introduction to the Musical Notation section #80
There are no files selected for viewing
| Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
|---|---|---|
|
|
@@ -160,6 +160,9 @@ <h2>Terminology</h2> | |
| <dd><!-- TODO --></dd> | ||
| <dt><dfn>Transcriber</dfn></dt> | ||
| <dd>The person or persons who transcribe the source into Plaine & Easie.</dd> | ||
| <dt><dfn>Logical Unit</dfn></dt> | ||
| <dd>A logical unit of notation data consists of one or more characters that represent a single musical notation | ||
| figure.</dd> | ||
| </dl> | ||
| </section> | ||
| <section class="normative"> | ||
|
|
@@ -591,10 +594,51 @@ <h3>Musical Notation</h3> | |
| <div class="issue" data-number="24"></div> | ||
| <div class="issue" data-number="43"></div> | ||
| <div class="issue" data-number="56"></div> | ||
| <section> | ||
| <h4>Structure</h4> | ||
| <p> | ||
| The Musical Notation section of an encoding is given as a single line of characters. These characters | ||
| represent the main body of the notation encoding. To represent complex notational figures, such as | ||
| notes, chords, beams, or tuplets, a group of characters can act as a single <a>logical unit</a>. | ||
| </p> | ||
| <p> | ||
| A musical note is the single most complex logical unit within the <abbr>PAEC</abbr>. It consists of | ||
| one or more characters representing a note on a musical staff. Many characters representing a note | ||
| are optional, but where one or more character for a note occurs, they MUST occur in the following | ||
| order: | ||
| </p> | ||
| <figure> | ||
| <ol> | ||
| <li>(optional) The grace note character, or the grace note group characters;</li> | ||
| <li>(optional) The octave character(s);</li> | ||
| <li>(optional) The duration character, followed by a duration dot character;</li> | ||
|
Comment on lines
+613
to
+614
There was a problem hiding this comment. I think we need to keep the order between octave an duration flexible, but maybe this is for a later fix? There was a problem hiding this comment. Do you have a use case where keeping the order flexible is useful? There was a problem hiding this comment. No. It is just than when typing it requires additional thinking to have a fix order. I would understand people would complain about it since. Also, there is no strong argument for having the octave before the duration - one might argue that octave relates to the pitch, so that duration should come first. There was a problem hiding this comment. I guess the argument is that it simplifies data processing to know where these characters can occur. I'm OK with swapping the order which they can occur, but I think that if we have an opportunity to make the data more rigorous, we should take it. If there is feedback when typing, users will likely get used to the correct order. It may even be helpful to them because then they don't have to remember the order to be self-consistent. It also only applies when both octave AND duration are provided, which will be infrequent -- typically one or the other (or both) will be omitted. There was a problem hiding this comment. I agree that we need to simplify data processing as much as possible. That would be the only exception for me from my (little) experience in cataloguing incipit. Maybe @jenniferward has a opinion on this? There was a problem hiding this comment. I have been paying attention to the order of octave vs. duration for a while now and I do find that sometimes my brain says "OK, first octave" and sometimes it says "OK, first duration". I think it happens when there is a significant switch: a big octave change or a big rhythmic change or if I have to coordinate one of them with other elements (curly brackets etc.). But I haven't kept track of when this happens, it's just my feeling. Can we take a look at the data and find out how often There was a problem hiding this comment. I think this is the main point. It really depends on the content of the music. Sometimes it clearly makes more sense to have the octave first, and sometimes the other way around. Running an analysis to see if there is a clear tendency towards octave-first would be good. There was a problem hiding this comment. I'm fine with octave-first. I'm also fine with duration first. I am happy to do an analysis to see which is more preferred. However, the bigger question (and the answer that is needed to move this PR forward) is whether we leave the option of both orders being acceptable. I think we should pick one or the other. We don't gain any expressiveness in the notation by allowing both orders, so we don't really get anything by allowing it. The thing we lose is consistency, though. To me, @jenniferward 's comment on not always remembering the ordering would seem to speak towards mandating one or the other so that encoders do not have to remember this to be consistent. It may be annoying at first to those used to the more lax methods, but once it is learned it will likely be a non-issue. There was a problem hiding this comment. I meant that my fingers go naturally to either the octave first or the duration first, depending on musical context. |
||
| <li>(optional) The accidental character;</li> | ||
| <li>(optional) The opening fermata character;</li> | ||
| <li>(<strong>required</strong>) The note name character;</li> | ||
| <li>(optional) The closing fermata character;</li> | ||
| <li>(optional) The trilled note character;</li> | ||
| <li>(optional) The chord indicator character;</li> | ||
| <li>(optional) The grace note group end character.</li> | ||
| </ol> | ||
| <figcaption>Order of characters within a note</figcaption> | ||
| </figure> | ||
| <p> | ||
| Logical units MAY be nested to represent complex notational features; for example, a beam will | ||
| contain two or more notes. All logical units of the same kind MUST be closed before a new one is | ||
| started (i.e., no nested groups of the same kind). | ||
| </p> | ||
| <p> | ||
| Many logical units use the same character(s) to represent the same feature. Notes and rests, | ||
| for example, both make use of the duration character(s). | ||
| </p> | ||
| <p> | ||
| Logical units MUST NOT be separated by a space character. | ||
| </p> | ||
| </section> | ||
| <section id="note-names"> | ||
| <h4>Note Names</h4> | ||
| <p> | ||
| A note name MUST be provided to indicate the pitch class of the note. | ||
| </p> | ||
| <p> | ||
| Note names MUST be one of the following characters: | ||
|
|
||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
What is a musical notation figure? This is not clear, or am I lacking context?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
No, that's a very good question. The definitions are mostly placeholders now. As I work through the sections I'm trying to figure out what concepts need to be defined.
So I think for now it would be good to just let this go while I try to sort everything out, and then we can do another pass trying to standardize the language and the definitions and concepts.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
"entity"? or "event"? figure does not make sense to me.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Is it ok to leave this as-is until we figure out what we want to call it, and then edit to make it consistent?