I have a few questions about the Renaissance
musical symbols found in its proposed 3.1 block.
1) I do not see why the notes U+1D1B6-U+1D1C0 are
divided in three different groups, one of them grouping miscellaneous
symbols.
2) U+1D1C0 seems to have an incorrect names
(e.g. "fusa black"). This is character (SEMIBREVIS BLACK + STEM +
FLAG-2)
I believe, this is black
SEMI-FUSA. It will eventually produce the 16th note (in Unicode's
American imperialist terminology) or the semi-quaver (in the tongue of the
Great-British); the lozenge headnote having been replaced by an oval
one.
I believe the confusion may stem from the fact that
some symbols have change names and values through time (see below). Unicode
seems to have aligned itself on the pre-1420 names (the smaller set of symbols)
and have extrapolated from it the names of the black notes that appeared only
after 1420.
Name
Pre-1420 After
1420
SEMIMINIMA U+1D1BE
U+1D1BD or
U+1D1BC
FUSA
---
U+1D1BE
SEMI-FUSA ---
U+1D1C0.
May I ask why the larger set (post-1420) was not
used ? This would not have lead to any errors in naming but present only a
*glyph* ambiguity as far as the SEMIMINIMA/MINIMA/FUSA are concerned. In
other words, should this be displayed with a pre-1420 font ?
Patrick Andries
Sources : Dictionnaire de musique, Larousse &
Encyclopaedia Universalis (scanned copy can be sent)
http://www.nmc.vt.edu/staff/Ed/music/glossary/appendix/notation/Noteshapes.html (only
provided for the neat table I'm not able to reproduced)
