[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: aiming at 2.2: dodecafonic staves
From: |
Werner LEMBERG |
Subject: |
Re: aiming at 2.2: dodecafonic staves |
Date: |
Sun, 05 Oct 2003 10:24:06 +0200 (CEST) |
> > As a diatonic stave, a cromatic stave would have five lines, starting from
> > c'':
> >
> > c'' -O-
> > b' O
> > ais' -----O-----------------------------------
> > a' O
> > gis' ---------O-------------------------------
> > g O
> > fis' -------------O---------------------------
> > f' O
> > e' -----------------O-----------------------
> > dis' O
> > d' ---------------------O-------------------
> > cis' O
> > c' -O-
> >
>
> The problem is that there are many different opinions on how a staff
> for contemporary music should look like. To me, suggestions often
> give the impression of people carrying out a silly contest of who
> has the fanciest idea for a new notation system (see
> http://speechskript.com/samples.htm for some weired examples). I
> think we should not support a particular one of these innummerable
> systems of equally low(?) quality. Either there is a commonly
> agreed standard for dodecaphocic music to support (which I do not
> see), or we should look at the underlying common principles and try
> to provide a flexible mechanism such that the user can adopt lily to
> his or her individual notation system.
Notating dodecaphonic music that way isn't something new; it has been
invented already 80 years ago or so. Another idea was to have staves
looking like the black and white keys on the piano, i.e., three lines,
then a small space, then two lines, then a small space, etc. IMHO all
these inventions are quite useless, but they do exist -- who wants to
learn such crazy things? So lilypond should support such kind of
notation even to only help music historians to provide examples of
this notation.
> > Modern music has a lot of new notation, and many of them are good
> > and intuitive. For example, accelerando can be marked with
> > increasing number of bars (here only two notes are shown).
> >
> > /|
> > -<-|
> > | \|
> > | |
> > | O
> > O
> >
> > Here the problem is that what is the mathematical duration of such
> > construct. But anyway, the notation exist and is well known.
> >
>
> Can you cite a publisher and/or composer?
Universal Edition, Peters, Ricordi, etc. Even I have used it :-)
> The more scores of temporary music I look at, the more I get the
> impression, that certain publishers try to set notational standards
> solely by their relevance in the market rather than by carefully
> designing their notational extensions.
Believe us, this notation has become standard. It's advantage is
that you can indicate an accellerando within a fixed tempo, say, the
left hand always plays umm-ta-ta, umm-ta-ta, and the right hand does
tak tak tak tak tak tak tak taktak
Werner