[MEI-L] Beat in 6/8

[Kőmíves Zoltán]

Hi,

Great thoughts, Perry!

1. Re allowing @dur on beatRpt:
Strictly speaking this could be understood as the duration of the beatRpt
itself - and while one may argue that this must, inevitably be the duration
of the material that it repeats, and thinking about it, I am not in favour
of this kind of indirection.

2. Defining the beat duration on the beatRpt
I prefer this solution because it is more explicit, and also very
intuitive: for a beatRpt it defines what the beat is.

In either case, the data type could be either very similar to that of @dur,
or indeed a syntax borrowed from elsewhere. I'd be alert to prepare for
obscure cases when the simple duration+dots approach doesn't work: for
example, 14/16 meter could be divided into 3 beats, first two lasting 5
16th-note each, the last one for 4 16th-note. The first and second beats
can't be expressed by means of "dotting" quarter, eights, sixteenth, etc.
notes.

3. Fixing the confusion surrounding beats:
Having had a glance through the usage of beat throughout the guidelines, it
seems to me that it wouldn't be necessary to define @meter.unit and
@meter.count in terms of beats: if we could simply avoid the use of "beat"
in the definition of @meter.count and @meter.unit, the confusion may just
walk away... In the meantime, I am not suggesting ripping off the use of
"beat" at every instance when we talk about the resolution of tstamps
however: in simple meter the beat and meter.unit coincide, so this is
perfectly fine:

"*For example, a value of "0m+3" in 4/4 time indicates that the element
bearing this attribute, a slur for example, ends on beat 3 of the same
measure where it started.*"

In short, my suggestion is to reserve the term "beat" for the musical beat
exclusively. Inclusion of a short paragraph about how tstamps are
understood in compound meter should only make things even clearer.

Best
Zoltan



2015-09-03 20:15 GMT+01:00 Roland, Perry D. (pdr4h) <
pdr4h at eservices.virginia.edu>:

>
>
> Hi,
>
>
>
> Thanks for contributing to the discussion, Zoltán.  As usual, I too am in
> favor of multiple encoding methods, especially in the early phases of
> trying to figure out the best approach – we can deprecate all but one at
> the point where the “right” solution is obvious.
>
>
>
> That being said, and despite what I said earlier about the co-occurrence
> of @copyof and @plist, I think the two approaches here are:
>
>
>
> 1. add @plist to <beatRpt> to allow explicit referencing of the events to
> be repeated
>
> 2. add another attribute, yet to be named, to permit encoding of the
> amount of time to be repeated
>
>
>
> The first option is super easy – just make <beatRpt> a member of
> att.plist.  The differentiation of @plist and @copyof must remain clear,
> however.  @plist identifies the events to be repeated while @copyof
> identifies the element **which the beatRpt element is a copy of**.  The
> likelihood of any element being a copy of another one is rare, so the use
> of @copyof should also occur very infrequently.
>
>
>
> The second option is somewhat more complex, but still practical.  I just
> don’t think we can overload @dur or @dur.ges for this purpose.  I suggest
> that syntax similar to that of @dur.ges be used but another name selected,
> perhaps “beat” or “beatDef”, as its purpose is to define what constitutes a
> beat in a particular context.  Here, we **are** talking about
> metrical/musical beats, not MEI beat units.  So, in a measure of 6/8,
> @beatDef should take the value “4.r” (using Humdrum notation). This defines
> a repeated beat as a dotted quarter note.  Suggestions for a better name
> for this attribute are greatly appreciated.
>
>
>
> Adding these new attributes may help with automated resolution of a
> beatRpt sign, but their presence can’t be required, meaning that can’t rely
> on them entirely in the determination of how much time or which events
> should be repeated.  There always has to be a fallback approach that makes
> a reasonable guess based on the context.
>
>
>
> I’ve had a cursory look at where/how the term “beat” is used in
> descriptions and documentation and I think that simply replacing “beat”
> with “beat unit” won’t work well.  It probably would be better to look for
> places to insert new text about how MEI treats compound meters literally,
> for example in section 4.1.5 “Timestamps and Durations”.
>
>
>
> Sound good?
>
>
>
> --
>
> p.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* mei-l [mailto:mei-l-bounces at lists.uni-paderborn.de] *On Behalf Of
> *Komíves Zoltán
> *Sent:* Tuesday, September 01, 2015 5:55 AM
>
> *To:* Music Encoding Initiative
> *Subject:* Re: [MEI-L] Beat in 6/8
>
>
>
> Hi All,
>
>
>
> As far as I understand there have been two suggestions to solve the
> problem of determining the material that is repeated by <beatRpt>:
>
> 1. use @dur attribute on beatRpt to indicate how much of the preceding
> material is repeated.
>
> 2. provide explicitly what material is repeated.
>
>
>
> I think both solutions make sense. The first one is concise, and has no
> complicated implications, while the second one provides more flexibility -
> I sense there could be situations when the (1) would not suffice, perhaps
> some multi-voice situation when only the material in one voice is repeated,
> but don't want to think about this too hard now... :)
>
>
>
> Could we perhaps allow both solutions, so encoders could chose whichever
> fits best their use case?
>
>
>
> Regarding the discussion of beat in compound meters, I also think it's
> perhaps best to stay away from defining the beat as such, but I also
> support to clarify terminology: using "beat unit" rigorously could be a
> good enough solution.
>
>
>
> Best
>
> Zoltan
>
>
>
>
>
> 2015-08-27 22:57 GMT+01:00 Roland, Perry D. (pdr4h) <
> pdr4h at eservices.virginia.edu>:
>
>
>
> Here are some possibilities for moving forward --
>
>
>
> Using @copyof on beatRpt makes it possible to indicate which events are to
> be repeated; for example --
>
>
>
> <measure>
>
>   <note dur="8" xml:id="n1"/>
>
>   <note dur="8" xml:id="n2"/>
>
>   <note dur="8" xml:id="n3"/>
>
>   <beatRpt copyof="#n1 #n2 #n3"/>
>
> </measure>
>
>
>
> or perhaps
>
>
>
> <measure>
>
>   <beam xml:id="beam1">
>
>     <note dur="8" xml:id="n1"/>
>
>     <note dur="8" xml:id="n2"/>
>
>     <note dur="8" xml:id="n3"/>
>
> </beam>
>
>   <beatRpt copyof="#beam1"/>
>
> </measure>
>
>
>
> In previous discussions about using the copyof attribute, it has been
> determined that the copy is a modified "deep" one; that is, that the result
> tree has the same structure as the designated node with certain attribute
> values removed or modified, like xml:id, for example.
>
>
>
> There's a slight problem with using @copyof, however, in that it doesn't
> allow multiple URIs. We could allow multiple values, but I'm not sure what
> it means to say that something is a copy of more than one thing.  That
> means it's a synthesis, doesn't it?  :-)  So, I'm a little reluctant to add
> @copyof and I lean more toward adding @plist instead.  Of course, this also
> gets us into a  little trouble as both @copyof and @plist would be
> allowed.  As a work-around, a new @targets (notice the plural) could be
> added to beatRpt.
>
>
>
> Another option is to allow beatRpt to contain content -- either new events
> that duplicate those that the repetition sign refers to or <ptr> elements
> that reference the events; for example,
>
>
>
> <measure>
>
>   <note dur="8" xml:id="n1"/>
>
>   <note dur="8" xml:id="n2"/>
>
>   <note dur="8" xml:id="n3"/>
>
>   <beatRpt>
>
>     <note dur="8" xml:id="n4"/>
>
>     <note dur="8" xml:id="n5"/>
>
>     <note dur="8" xml:id="n6"/>
>
>   </beatRpt>
>
> </measure>
>
>
>
> or
>
>
>
> <measure>
>
>   <note dur="8" xml:id="n1"/>
>
>   <note dur="8" xml:id="n2"/>
>
>   <note dur="8" xml:id="n3"/>
>
>   <beatRpt>
>
>     <ptr target="#n1"/>
>
>     <ptr target="#n2"/>
>
>     <ptr target="#n3"/>
>
>   </beatRpt>
>
> </measure>
>
>
>
> Each one of these options allows an easy "toggling" between the repetition
> sign and the material inside.  The 2nd method may be more flexible because
> of the use of references.  The down-side for both of these possibilities is
> that they are more verbose than using an attribute.
>
>
>
> Yet another approach is to create a generic copy element, say, <copyOf>
> that represents a copy of any event.  That may be too general, however.
> For example, the function of the copyOf (beatRpt, mRpt, etc.) would have to
> be placed in an attribute.  This could lead to mis-use and it would be more
> difficult to control where certain functions could occur.  But, Johannes
> has put this forward in the past, so he's better qualified to address this
> approach than I.
>
>
>
> --
>
> p.
>
>
>
> __________________________
> Perry Roland
> Music Library
>
> University of Virginia
>
> P. O. Box 400175
>
> Charlottesville, VA 22904
> 434-982-2702 (w)
> pdr4h (at) virginia (dot) edu
> ------------------------------
>
> *From:* mei-l [mei-l-bounces at lists.uni-paderborn.de] on behalf of Roland,
> Perry D. (pdr4h) [pdr4h at eservices.virginia.edu]
> *Sent:* Thursday, August 27, 2015 11:48 AM
>
>
> *To:* Music Encoding Initiative
> *Subject:* Re: [MEI-L] Beat in 6/8
>
>
>
>
>
> Ok, this gives us a place to start.  It seems to me, however, that rather
> than talking about how much time it repeats (as this reignites the
> confusion around "beat" and "beat unit"), it may be better to investigate
> ways to explicitly indicate which *events* are to repeated.
>
>
>
> --
>
> p.
>
>
>
>
> __________________________
> Perry Roland
> Music Library
>
> University of Virginia
>
> P. O. Box 400175
>
> Charlottesville, VA 22904
> 434-982-2702 (w)
> pdr4h (at) virginia (dot) edu
> ------------------------------
>
> *From:* mei-l [mei-l-bounces at lists.uni-paderborn.de] on behalf of Laurent
> Pugin [lxpugin at gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Thursday, August 27, 2015 11:18 AM
> *To:* Music Encoding Initiative
> *Subject:* Re: [MEI-L] Beat in 6/8
>
> The problem is that when I encounter a <beatRpt> in an encoding I would
> like to know how much time it repeats. I understand that it represent the
> repetition of the material that occur on a previous musical beat, as you
> say. However, since the duration of what the musical beat is not encoded
> explicitly (as far as I understand) it does not seem to be possible to know
> it (i.e., how much time it repeats.).
>
>
>
> Laurent
>
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Aug 27, 2015 at 5:02 PM, Roland, Perry D. (pdr4h) <
> pdr4h at eservices.virginia.edu> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> Did you mean to say it is "unfortunate" that MEI doesn't use "beat" as an
> attribute?
>
>
>
> And how does one allow an attribute directly "in" <measure> or <staff>?
>
>
>
> We should stay away from determination of meter in MEI.  As we've already
> heard, it often introduces a lot of subjectivity and interpretation.  That
> kind of thing is best left to a different, analytical layer.
>
>
>
> I still don't see the point -- what does this have to do with beatRpt?
>
>
>
> --
>
> p.
>
>
>
>
> __________________________
> Perry Roland
> Music Library
>
> University of Virginia
>
> P. O. Box 400175
>
> Charlottesville, VA 22904
> 434-982-2702 (w)
> pdr4h (at) virginia (dot) edu
> ------------------------------
>
> *From:* mei-l [mei-l-bounces at lists.uni-paderborn.de] on behalf of Laurent
> Pugin [lxpugin at gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Thursday, August 27, 2015 10:45 AM
> *To:* Music Encoding Initiative
> *Subject:* Re: [MEI-L] Beat in 6/8
>
> What seems fortunate to me is that "beat" is not used as attribute in MEI
> (yet?)
>
>
>
> Maybe we could use it when we need to specify a musical beat that is not
> the meter.unit. As I suggested with <beatRpt>, it would be assumed to be 1
> in most cases, but could be "3" in 6/8 (or similar) when the desired
> musical beat is 4. . In 5/8, we could imagine having an attribute value
> such as "2+3" if the beat is expected to be 4 - 4. . Along the same lines,
> it could be useful to allow the attribute directly in <measure> (or even
> <staff>?) when the beat structure is changing.
>
>
>
> Laurent
>
>
>
> On Thu, Aug 27, 2015 at 4:06 PM, Benjamin Wolff Bohl <bohl at edirom.de>
> wrote:
>
> Dear Craig,
>  many thanks for your always helpful advice!
>
> Am 27.08.2015 um 11:08 schrieb Craig Sapp:
>
> The problem is the ambiguous/conflicting terminology in this sentence:
>
>
>
> On 27 August 2015 at 01:19, Benjamin Wolff Bohl <bohl at edirom.de> wrote:
>
> meter.unit contains the number indicating the beat unit, that is, the
> bottom number of the meter signature.
>
>
> This is only ambiguous/conflicting if you are to smart and know too much
> about music! Regarding the term "beat" in the closed system of MEI
> everything is obvious an unambiguous.
>
>
>
>
> The problem is that in compound meters such as 6/8
>
>     https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meter_(music)#Compound_meter
>
> The "musical beat" is a dotted quarter note, while the MEI "beat unit" is
> an eighth note.  Using the word "beat" in such a way is unfortunate as it
> can conflict with the musical definition of a beat, and this will continue
> to cause mis-interpretation of what a beat is.
>
>
> This then would promote using another term in MEI in order to avoid
> confusion, let's say "meter-unit-n".
>
>
>
>
> The duration of a beat is necessary for music analysis, since the
> treatment of dissonance and consonance is tied to the location of a note on
> or off of the beat.
>
>
> This could be a beating argument, if it is the purpose and intention of
> MEI to do musical analysis.
> Is it? I'd rather say it provides a basis for doing analysis, the logic of
> the analysis is not part of MEI, although the result of the analysis might
> be encoded in MEI.
>
>
> The musical beat is also needed to automatically beam notes.  Implicit
> interpretation of the musical beat can be done with 6/8 by assigning it to
> be a dotted quarter note, but there are exceptions to this definition which
> would require a way of assigning an explicit duration to the musical beat.
>
>
> "Automatically" beaming notes is not part of the encoding but of the
> rendering logic an thus will not be reflected in (pure-logical-domain-)MEI.
>
>
>
>
> For example, the middle slow movements in a piano sonata may be labeled as
> 6/8, with the beat actually assigned to the eighth note, in which case the
> "musical beat" and the MEI "beat unit" are the same.
>
>
>
> Another more common corner case would be time signatures such as 3/8.  Is
> that a compound meter with one beat in a measure, or a simple meter with
> three beats in the measure (a variant on a 3/4 meter also possible in slow
> movements)?
>
>
>
> And of course in modern music with irregular meters such as 5/8, the
> musical beats in the measure may may have two beats as 3+2 eighth notes, or
> 2+3 or a mixture of both in different measures.
>
>
> The two above are only a problem if we consider "beat" as being the
> "musical beat". If we consider it to be "meter-unit-n" instead, everything
> would work out fine.
>
>
>
>
> Compound meters resulted in a degeneration of mensural notation.  Since
> modern rhythms are always "imperfect", to emulate a perfect mensuration
> dots are added to the notes (which would usually be implicit the mensural
> metric equivalent).  These are represented as compound meters in modern
> notation (who knows why they did not invent "2/4." time signatures instead
> of "6/8" for such cases). The problem is that modern time signatures are
> ambiguous, since 6/8 could be considered like C-dot, or it could be
> considered as a non-compound meter with 6 beat at the eighth-note level.
>
>
> Ok, air is getting thin for me...
> I've had a problem with modern transcription of mensural notation ever
> since I first encountered it, or more precisely I was whinig about modern
> notation being so restrictive due to having abandoned mensuration signs. I
> would prefer modern transcription sticking to mensuration signs and logic
> instead of adding dots, but I might not be able to change the world about
> this...
>
> But to bang the drum for "meter-unit-n": Couldn't this problem also be
> solved by <mensur> or some additional attribute on <scoreDef> or
> <staffDef>?
>
> Considering the case of a modern transcription of "perfect" mensural
> notation using <beatRpt> in terms of "meter-unit-n" would result in
> completely different applicable cases compared to using it in the sense of
> "musical beat". An there it is the again,
> ** ambiguous and conflicting**
>
> Just for the sake ofplaying advocatus diavoli  3;-)
> Benni
>
>
>
>
> I whine to Perry every once in a while about this, so we can wait for his
> reply on how to disambiguate such cases...
>
>
>
> -=+Craig
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> mei-l mailing list
>
> mei-l at lists.uni-paderborn.de
>
> https://lists.uni-paderborn.de/mailman/listinfo/mei-l
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> mei-l mailing list
> mei-l at lists.uni-paderborn.de
> https://lists.uni-paderborn.de/mailman/listinfo/mei-l
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> mei-l mailing list
> mei-l at lists.uni-paderborn.de
> https://lists.uni-paderborn.de/mailman/listinfo/mei-l
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> mei-l mailing list
> mei-l at lists.uni-paderborn.de
> https://lists.uni-paderborn.de/mailman/listinfo/mei-l
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> mei-l mailing list
> mei-l at lists.uni-paderborn.de
> https://lists.uni-paderborn.de/mailman/listinfo/mei-l
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.uni-paderborn.de/pipermail/mei-l/attachments/20150903/1d28e5f7/attachment.html>