>In an attempt to wrap up this thread, would the following proposal >for a new field meet everyone's requirements ? > >Field Name: q:playing style >Header: Yes >Tune Body: No >Description: Contains a written non-numerical description of the > tune's tempo or "mood". > >Examples: > >q:Allegro >q:Lento
That says exactly nothing about the semantics. Unless your "q:" field provides me with a way of DEFINING those strings in a musically intuitive way so that a numerical playback speed can be statically deduced from the musical text (e.g. by a playback program), there is no point in what you're suggesting. There are already about 10 different ways to put uninterpreted text into a tune header, we *do not* need another one. And these *have* to go in tune bodies. It is quite routine for tempo to change in the middle of a piece. That suggestion ignores 95% of the issues we've discussed in this thread so it's nowhere near "wrapping it up". The central problem is how to specify the required definition mechanism. If nobody else jumps in first, I'll try to do a revised formulation of my proposal (in the light of the subtleties I hadn't thought of) in a week or two (too busy to launch into it immediately). =================== <http://www.purr.demon.co.uk/jack/> =================== To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html
