On 20 Sep 2002 at 10:42, Dennis Bathory-Kitsz wrote: > And now to those folks who resisted it, nondestructive editing is the best > thing since sliced bread (a phrase that had no meaning to me until we > started buying local bread with hard crusts).
This phrase has always prompted me to ask: What was the best thing *before* sliced bread? Anyway, I think your ideas are very interesting, but I hesitate to endorse the idea of a single pool for this. Semantically speaking, these two blocks of text are equivalent: Re-qui-em ae-ter-nam, ae-ter-nam do-na e-is, do-na, do-na e-is Do-mi- ne, re-qui-em ae-ter-nam do-na e-is Do-mi-ne: et lux per-pe-tu-a, et lux per-pe-tu-a lu-ce-at, lu-ce-at e- is. Ex-au-di, ex-au-di, ex-au- di, o-ra-ti-o-nem me-am, ad te, ad te o-mnis, o-mnis ca-ro ve-ni- et. Re-qui-em ae-ter-nam do-na, Re-qui-em ae-ter-nam do-na e-is, e-is Do-mi-ne, do-na e-is Do-mi-ne: do-na, do-na e-is, do-na et lux per-pe-tu-a lu-ce-at e-is. e-is, do-na: et lux Ex-au-di, o-ra-ti-o-nem me-am per-pe-tu-a, et lux ad te o-mnis ca-ro ve-ni-et. per-pe-tu-a lu-ce- at e-is, et lux per-pe-tu-a lu-ce-at e-is. Ky-ri-e e-le-i-son, e-le-i-son, Ky-ri-e e-le-i-son, e-le-i-son, Ky-ri-e e-le-i-son, Chri-ste e-le-i-son, e-le-i-son, Ky-ri-e e-le-i-son. Chri-ste e-le-i-son, e-le-i-son, e-le-i-son, e-le-i-son, e-le-i-son, Chri-ste e-le-i-son, Ky-ri-e e-le-i-son, e-le-i- son, Ky-ri-e e-le-i-son, e-le-i-son, Chri-ste e-le-i- son, e-le-i-son, Chri-ste e-le-i- son, Ky-ri-e e-le-i-son, e-le-i-son, e-le-i-son, Chri-ste e-le-i-son, e-le-i-son, e-le-i-son, e-le-i-son, e-le-i-son, e-le-i-son, Ky-ri-e e-le-i-son. But one is very intimately connected to the musical context, while the other is not. The idea of putting in the right-hand text blocks and then multiply assigning the syllables terrifies me, regardless of how well the user interface might represent the connections and prevent me from making mistakes. It is attractive from a computer programmer's point of view, but from my point of view of the Finale user, I don't like it! Now, if Finale were smart enough to create the canonical text automatically and create no duplication, that would be different. But it surely could not, as the computer's view of the canonical text would surely look like this: Ky-ri-e e-le-i-son, Chri-ste So, I don't think this kind of thing can be automated. Since assignment to musical notes is syllabic, I don't think the idea of marking off chunks of the text stream to assign is very helpful, except where the music is largely completely syllabic. I'm not sure what the answer is here. But TYPE IN SCORE would be greatly improved if there were greater transparency of word separators, for one, if it were better connected to the underlying text stream, and if the results of your edits to that text stream were made clear during the process. -- David W. Fenton | http://www.bway.net/~dfenton David Fenton Associates | http://www.bway.net/~dfassoc _______________________________________________ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
