Jon Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > Speaking specifically of music the ideal would be a protocol that could > transmit without regard to notation. The absolute notes themselves.
would it? I wonder. Consider natural language for a moment. The several writing systems in use modernly and historically have numerous flaws relating to imprecision of pronunciation. English is quite varied in the sound of its vowels, enough so to be a major source of confusion to non-native speakers (to the point of making for songs and puns). Linguists have their own notations when recording suonds precisely, but these are sometimes TOO precise; one wouldnt expect a peom to be set down in IPA, especially one that depended on aural ambiguity for some of its art. Tablature and staff notations record different things, tablature records finger positions; staff notation records pitch. One CAN translate either into the other, but, SHOULD one? the translation requires knowledge of the tuning of the instrument; is one ALWAYS certain of that? When an instrument has multiple ways of playing the same note (2 or 3 on guitar, lute and cittern, there is potential ambiguity that is best avoided by use of tablature. Whether > that was done as serial notes with individual time signatures, then the next > line (with voids for open chords, etc) so that there would be ten or twenty > series for a full score with a header to define them - or a parallel set of > notes (again with the rests and the voids) is irrelevant. But that is what I > would see as an ideal data exchange protocol. One that is converted from > notation to notes for transmission, and back to notation for reception. Then > the individual programs can treat them as they choose. Perhaps a > modification, and expansion, of the MIDI protocol. > > The notation should be the result of the local program, the transmission > should be the absolute notes. > > Best, Jon > > > > To get on or off this list see list information at > http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html > --
