It occurs to me that part of the problem here is that the '&' just doesn't stand out visually against the notes.
Well, it seems to me that the *main* problem is simlpy that the 2.0 draft doesn't explain it clearly enough (I can assure you all that Bernard wasn't the only one confused about it!).
But yes, the lowercase "v:" seems clearer than the "&"
I stil prefer John's V:1+ idea, though. Among other things it allows a clear definition of *which* main voice the secondary voice is connected to.
It may get a bit confusing when we have a v:2 as a secondary part to V:1 and a V:2 as an independent voice at the same time.
Howeever, I understand the & notation already is implemented by at least one application, That is definitely something that should be taken into consideration.
-------
John Chambers wrote: ...
> (For some reason, this example reminds me of the piano > piece by Mozart, which ended with widely separated chords > for the left and right hands, plus one note in the middle > to be played with your nose.)
Actually a German (I think) 20th Century composer whose name looses me at the moment also wrote a piano piece along the same line: two widely separated chords and a fast repeated drone note in the middle. Only - well the body part *he* specified for the middle note was not the nose...
Frank Nordberg http://www.musicaviva.com
To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html
