James Allwright wrote: > > I'm willing to bow to Frank's superior knowledge here.
Thanks :-) > > The conclusion is > that tempo indicators are essentially random text and it is not worth > our while attempting to codify them so they can be translated into > numerical meanings. In other words - we should get rid of the Q: field altogether ;-) But seriously: The reason why there are no easily definable always-correct tempo indications in music, is that it's impossible to create such a thing. The tempo of a performance depends on so many different factors that simply can't be quantified. So what composers throughout the centuries have done, is to add a short description of the "feeling" of the piece, hoping that the musicians are intelligent enough to interpret it in a sensible way. Laurie Griffiths wrote: > > I personally imagined that we could have whatever terms the author thought > good. I agree. In a way the present definition of the Q: field represents a perversion of everything music is about. Notated music (standard notation or abc or whatever) exists mainly to aid the performing musician, but the Q: field as it is today seems to assume that the music is to be played by a computer. My idea is to have ABC present the tempo in a way that is as useful as possible to the live musician, and *then* add some kind of mechanisms for helping the computer interpret it as well as it can. Frank Nordberg http://www.musicaviva.com To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html
