[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Fw: Vocal music

From: Trevor Daniels
Subject: Re: Fw: Vocal music
Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2008 17:10:06 +0100


Let's review the background first.

The basic problem is that pretty much all the material in the sections from the current 2.1.2 to 2.1.5 is really common to all lyrics and vocals, but there is too much of it to cram it all into a single section. So we have to compromise, and one of the effects will be that 2.1.1 Common notation will be very short. No problem with that. It will be fine with just the refs and a sentence saying that much of the material in sections 2.1.2 to 2.1.5 applies to all vocal styles. Then there will be enough material to justify separate sections on style-specific stuff at the end.

More comments below ...

You wrote Monday, October 13, 2008 11:41 AM

2008/10/13 Trevor Daniels <address@hidden>:

That's because you've put all the different style stuff
where it doesn't belong, in "Common notation".  "Common
notation" should contain _only_ things which are used
in _all_ the styles.  "Common" here means "belonging
equally to all", not its other meaning of "appearing
frequently, familar".  So anything that is style-specific
should not be there, hence there should be no headings
like "Opera" in "Common".  Take these out and put them
back in a "Specific styles" section, as we agreed
earlier, and I'll be happy.

Yes, but this 'specific styles' section (hehe, I can't wait to see
Graham's face when he'll read this title) will look *very much* like a
"References for vocal music" section, since it will mostly contain
@ref to external sections and not genuine doc material: e.g. in
"Spoken music" subsection I'll have to @ref to "Note heads", in "Song
books" I'll have to @ref to "Chord notation", etc.

A note head ref is relevant only to parlato, so it
shouldn't be in Common; chords are relevant only to
lead sheets, so should only be mentioned there.  I
would suggest the best way is to include an example
of parlato with crossed or slashed note heads in the
Spoken music section, with "more information on note
heads is provided in @ref...".  Same for chords in
Song books (just as you have it now).

Second problem: _the_ "References for vocal music" in "Common
notation" will actually not reference every external section there's
to see about vocal music: e.g. it will not include "Note heads" since
this will already explained in detail in "Specific styles".

Quite right - it shouldn't.  Special note heads are not needed
for every style.  Not a problem.

Third problem: if I put all style-specific stuff in a separate
section, there's no longer enough material remaining to have both
"References for vocal music" and "References for lyrics", as I
suggested previously, which is why I merged these two in a "References
for vocal music and lyrics" subsection.

I'm happy with that.

*But* then, is it really
relevant to have a "Common notation" section at all? (since the @ref
for lyrics will mostly link inside NR2.1 anyway)

See above - the sentence I suggested will cover this

I was quite happy with the layout we agreed upon, but I could hardly
fill these subsections in "Common notation".

See if what I have suggested will help.  I bet we can think
of quite a bit more when these sections are fleshed out.

Suggestion: instead of "Opera" and such, that clearly do not belong in
a "Common notation section", we could name these subsections
"References for opera engraving", "References for song books", etc;
would this help?

I'd prefer to have separate sections so that simple
examples of the use of the notation which is _specific_
to those styles can be shown. Crossed note heads in
Spoken music, spaced out "lyrics" in chants, chords in
Song books, etc.

Look, here's a good example of this.  The notation to
play a note on an open string is produced by \open.
This is the same syntax as any other articulation, but
is not mentioned in NR 1.7.  It should (and will) be
mentioned in NR 2.3 with a trivial example so someone
writing for strings can find it easily.



reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]