[MEI-L] Beat in 6/8
Laurent Pugin
lxpugin at gmail.com
Fri Sep 4 09:34:59 CEST 2015
Thanks Perry for the suggestion. As a simple man I like the simple one ;-)
and adding @beat or @beatDef goes along the same lines as my initial idea.
One question: why would you use Humdrum-like notation and not make is a
factor or a ratio of the current meter.unit? I must be overlooking
something.
Laurent
On Thu, Sep 3, 2015 at 11:47 PM, Kőmíves Zoltán <zolaemil at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Jo,
>
> Interesting proposition! I am sure there are great use cases for this,
> especially for editorial purposes. My feeling is that the sugar of beatRpt
> would still be handy for a great deal of cases.
>
> I have couple of questions:
> 1. tstamp="2" tstamp2="0m+2": it seems to me that a context is needed in
> order to determine how long this repetition lasts, i.e. it will last for as
> long as the material at tstamp="2" lasts for. Do I understand this
> correctly?
> 2. What would the "target slot" addressed by the @ref.* attributes
> contain? <space> perhaps?
> 3. ref.tstamp2 feels redundant. Is it mainly for convenience reasons? (I
> could see why, especially when the target context has a different meter...)
>
> Best
> Zoltan
>
>
> 2015-09-03 21:49 GMT+01:00 Johannes Kepper <kepper at edirom.de>:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> sorry for coming to this discussion very late. Fwiw, I'd like to mention
>> an element we came up with during the Freischütz project, which still lacks
>> sufficient documentation to be implemented into general MEI – even though I
>> strongly believe it's very useful for other projects as well. In essence,
>> it's a more general approach to repeat symbols and other notational
>> "shortcuts". We call it a "cpMark", where the "cp" may be read as "copy"
>> and / or "colla parte". This element is a controlEvent (= it lives inside a
>> measure, just like a slur or dir). In a 4/4 measure, a beatRpt on the
>> second beat of the first staff could look like this:
>>
>> <cpMark staff="2" tstamp="2" tstamp2="0m+2" ref.offset="0m+1"
>> ref.offset2="0m+1">/</cpMark>
>>
>> The attribute pair @tstamp and @tstamp2 is used to delimit the "beats"
>> that this element will say something about – just as in any other control
>> event. "beats" in this context is clearly the numbers of the @meter.count.
>> Then, the attribute pair @ref.offset and @ref.offset2 is used to say from
>> where context is to be copied into this "empty" or "abbreviated" slot.
>> @ref.offset uses the same data type as @tstamp2, with the only difference
>> that the first number (the one before the "m+" part) may take negative
>> values, that is, refer to preceding measures), and @ref.offset2 uses the
>> exact same data type as @tstamp2 (it's value is relative to the origin
>> defined by @ref.offset). These elements may be combined or replaced by
>> @ref.staff (and @ref.layer), which allow to do a colla parte encoding
>> ("…for the range defined by @tstamp and @tstamp2, just copy in the stuff in
>> @ref.staff, potentially affected by @dis for an 'in ottava'…"). The cpMark
>> may contain textual content (plus some editorial stuff) to grab what the
>> source says – a simple slash, a verbal instruction, whatever.
>>
>> This is just a very brief introduction to this element, but I hope you
>> get the idea. Like I said, I'm not sure if it really helps in this
>> discussion of <beatRpt>, but I think it allows to be very explicit about
>> the scope of a beat repetition symbol. In my understanding, <beatRpt>,
>> <mRpt>, and all the other <*Rpt> elements are syntactic sugar for this
>> <cpMark> element, which is really a more semantic solution for a specific
>> type of <dir>. Would it be an option to use <cpMark> instead of <beatRpt> –
>> just to be more explicit? I think this is more or less in line with Perry's
>> second suggestion, or at least I believe we should coordinate the search
>> for an additional attribute with our <cpMark> proposal.
>>
>> Hth,
>> jo
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Am 03.09.2015 um 21:15 schrieb 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
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/20150904/db1d93c2/attachment.html>
More information about the mei-l
mailing list