[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Frank wrote:
>
> >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.
>
> Isn't it just the other way around?
Yes, it is the other way around, but it shouldn't be!
>
> We cannot deny that it is often convenient (if not artistically
> valuable) to have a computer play music from abc notation.
Of course, and we definitely need a way to add tempo data for computer
playback to an ABC tune.
But still, the main purpose for ABC must be readability for humans -
either directly or after conversion to standard notation. This goes for
the Q: field as well.
>
> BTW, I don't suppose we'll ever find a consensus as to how to
> represent the metronome markings in Beethoven which were almost
> certainly derived from a faulty mechanism and are routinely
> ignored in modern performance.
Not faulty mechanism, but faulty editors. This is actually a *very* good
example of why a transcriber should try to stay as close to the original
as possible without adding stuff like metronome markings.
Beethoven was 46 years old when M�lzel invented the metronome.
M�lzel worked really hard to persuade Beethoven to support his
invention, but without too much success. Beethoven actually did write
down metronome markings for a few of his compositions, but apparently he
was never very enthusiastic about this brand new concept. There is at
least one piano sonata where he did it twice, specifying wildly
different tempi.
Generally he just didn't care.
Frank Nordberg
http://www.musicaviva.com
To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html
