>>> You have to put each P: field in all of the voices if you want >>> to control playing order. >>> Same goes for M: and K: fields (assuming that you want all the >>> voices to change metre and key at the same point). >> The latter pair is actually useful for some picese. > Yes, even Bach did it. One of the Goldberg Variations has the > two hands written in different metres.
Having different voices in different metres and key signatures goes back to the Middle Ages. But what Bach did *not* do was start a new variation in the right hand while the previous one was still going on in the left, nor do you find any Ars Nova masses where the "Christe" overlaps the "Kyrie". What the 1.6 standard says is : P - parts; can be used in the header to state the order in which : the tune parts are played, i.e. P:ABABCDCD, and then inside the : tune to mark each part, i.e. P:A or P:B. Parts of a voice are not parts of a tune. The way Phil's doing it must be a nightmare to implement correctly for a staff-notation generator. It would look damn silly to have "Scherzo" or other section marker repeated in every single voice; is the program supposed to calculate which parts start at the same point so it can merge the display of these labels? Then, how is a player supposed to take advantage of having P: within the scope of V:? It isn't that way in the header, so if I *do* write a piece where voice 1 has part order ABA and voice 2 has order CDCD, how do I specify that order in the header P: line? If all the voices are supposed to have the *same* order, why do I have the apparent freedom to give each of them any order in the body, and how is this constraint meant to be checked? If there is no real support for this apparent independence of parts from voices, it's just adding verbosity by forcing the user to repeat the body P: tags redundantly. =================== <http://www.purr.demon.co.uk/jack/> =================== To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html
