At 01:15 PM 6/23/06 -0400, Andrew Stiller wrote: >In my defense, I'll simply observe that it's been everyone for themselves >in the notation department for the past 50 years.
Large guffaws. Well said. Actually, it's a good thing. I was just talking about this in my blog the other day: "There are some very serious implications of scoring software that deeply affect the segregation of composers. One is the codification of notation. This began long ago with print publishing, but accelerated dramatically with the appearance of engraving software in the 1980s. Already marginalized symbols were now entirely absent from music fonts. Although designers such as Christian Texier and Klemm Music Medieval have added some of that missing functionality, it remains that the hard-line codification of musical symbols (including the nominally inclusive but notoriously exclusive and conservative musical symbols list in Unicode) has limited composer options for presentation, and subsequently may limit their successors' vision. "In other words, what isn't easy isn't done, and what isn't done isn't supported. This limits the composer's opportunities to the software's capabilties. 'Writing to the software' has become a creativity curse for those not strong enough to push back at technology. Any push back, however, may lead to a more extreme segregation or stratification of composers into a collaborative class and a rejectionist class..." [...] "Once we cycle back out of these conservative artistic times and experiment once becomes part of the composer's attitude, the software situation (and codification dilemma) may improve -- or, as I suggested above, it may result in further stratification of composers into a collaborative class and a rejectionist class." Dennis -- Please participate in my latest project: http://maltedmedia.com/waam/ _______________________________________________ Finale mailing list [email protected] http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
