-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 19
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Remove "incoming" and "outgoing" from <slur> and <tie> #259
Comments
I think I agree with not needing |
It's true that if all you want is to render a tie that looks like the above examples, This might well be enough. Just one question to consider: is it useful to distinguish a tie that merely means "let this note ring" (where I'm inclined to agree, no, we don't need this distinction. It does put more responsibility on software that renders an audio performance to make sense of such ties, in the same way that a performer would. |
One quick follow up: if the initial proposal from #262 is adopted, then |
I'm in very much in favour of @joeberkovitz' initial proposal in #262, and would really like to make Here's how I understand @joeberkovitz' current thoughts:
That's a really elegant way to cross structural boundaries! :-) The problem (also with The solution depends, I think, on us first agreeing about voice identifiers (in #185). (That's coming very soon!) |
From a semantic point of view, is it actually accurate to say a note is 'tied' to a barline in the same way that it is 'tied' to another note? This makes sense from a visual encoding perspective, but not necessarily from a semantic encoding. This would be very confusing in the first example posted by @joeberkovitz -- the note on the second ending is only Another alternative for the |
@ahankinson We could indeed have a separate |
In the first ending the note is tied to the F in the second measure; it's only the second time around where it's tied to the barline. So is the
You must be new here. 😁
I find one of the hardest tasks in making music encoding systems is identifying different things in XML that look exactly the same on paper. The old 'if it walks like a duck' rule doesn't always hold true. |
This is a thorny problem and I think @ahankinson's objections need to be talked through carefully. As I asked here:
I did move away from that point of view, but after thinking about it I can't dismiss the need for a semantic distinction here. Some notation programs (Dorico) appear to distinguish between the two kinds of ties even though they look the same, while others (Noteflight and I think Sibelius) do not. First off, I believe the Here are some ideas for how we might allow encodings to resolve the cases in play. They're not mutually exclusive.
One important note: a real-life notation editor will not be easily able to validate the targets of form-jump ties, because documents can never be assumed to be in a complete state with the entire form represented. A composer could author bar 3 of example 1, and then later fill in bars 1 and 2. So this is one more reason we may still need bare |
I have no strong feelings about "let-ring" ties. Both
Perhaps you could say a bit more about that? Ties across structural boundaries: @ahankinson said
I was imagining tying the final F in measure 1 to the barline at the end of measure1 (which is semantically equal to the barline at the beginning of the first-time bar the first time through, and semantically equal to the barline at the beginning of the second-time bar the second time around. In other words, I'm saying that it would be possible to code ties across structural boundaries by tying to the barlines that define those structural boundaries. All that's necessary, is to say that if a graphical barline is tied to notes on both its left and right, then those ties should be rendered as a single tie. Performing applications can easily find the structurally relevant barlines, since they are explicitly present in the MNX code. Note that this strategy would work regardless of how many different repeat endings there are (1st time, 2nd time, 3rd time etc.), and how many measures each of them contains. |
|
@joeberkovitz Point 1: Point 4: Points 2 and 3:
(As we've discovered, the use of noteIDs gets around the voice-identity problem.) |
I think the backwards-tie idea does not work because 1) authors conventionally create a tie on its starting note (as when engraving by hand), 2) the ending note may not exist at this time, while a passage is being actively notated, and 3) MNX must encode partial-edit states such that document authoring can resume smoothly across a save/reload cycle. It doesn't matter how careful we are to make nice rules, documents will be incomplete and they must still be completely renderable and meaningful in order for authoring to resume. We cannot have cases where a partially-authored document fails to export. Consider that we may be migrating from one application (or author) to another in the midst of the engraving process, using MNX as an interchange format. If you don't agree with this principle, that should be taken up in another issue, because making incomplete documents nonrenderable wille cut across many different features of MNX. |
I don't consider the backward-tie idea to solve any of these problems. It's exactly programmatically equivalent to a forward tie. The other end might be on the other side of a barline. It might be on the on the other side of a system break. It might be on the other side of a jump. I also can't see why an editor would have more problems with an incomplete document one way or the other. When doing actual editing on music, do you really draw one note, draw the tie, and then draw the other note? No, you (or at least I) put in both notes, and then define the tie in between them, so it doesn't matter which note it's on. As long as it is only defined once. (I also object to @notator's "define it on both notes" proposal. A tie should be defined once. If you need a system break, then so be it.) @notator I noticed that you picked only one of the two examples in order to make your backward-tie proposal. It does, in fact, make sense to say that the note in measure 3 is tied backward to the note in measure 1. But it makes far less sense for the other example, where we would have to say that the note in measure 2 is tied backward to the note in measure 3 (on the other side of the D.S.) It's exactly the same problem that we have with forward ties, but in the other direction! I think that we have to actually consider these to be two separate ties. One tie is going to the note in the next measure, one is going over a jump. Here's my current proposal:
In this case, the tie representation is simple enough
I'm a little wonky about describing a tie that is only visually present in m3 on the m1 note, so I'm absolutely willing to hear alternate syntax around that one. Maybe we do allow the tie to be specified on the ending note, by renaming |
@clnoel: In response to your question, yes, when authoring music in a notation editor (in all the editors I've used, actually) it is very common to apply the tie to the starting note before there is an ending note. Writing music fast in an editor typically requires one to use keyboard shortcuts, and the sequence of editing keys for a tied pair is always [starting note] [tie] [next note]. Virtually all editors I have used automatically attach the dangling tie on the first note to the next note, once the latter has been supplied — otherwise one would have the inefficiency of having to go back, select both notes, and apply a tie. This is how it works whether there is an intervening barline or not. In the case of incoming/outgoing ties it's even easier to imagine that the target is not identifiable at the time the tie is specified. Composers do not write pieces in the order that they are played. I have often written repeat endings before the material that preceded them. For this reason, it's possible (and quite common) to have a savable/encodable document in a state where there is a dangling tie before a barline, or before a rest. Likewise it's possible (though less common) to have a document with a dangling tie coming into a bar for which an algorithm would be able to find no target note, because the author hasn't engraved that note yet, or because the musical form is non-standard. Back to your proposals.
3a/3b thus only differ from your suggestion in not requiring a redundant |
One more point. Consider short excerpts of scores encoded as MNX. These must be able to encode all the missing-target cases: regular non-l.v. ties where the next measure is missing, and incoming/outgoing ties where the measure on the other end of the form jump is missing. |
This proposal comes from @notator in #203. I'm splitting it into a separate issue to better organize things.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: