Last Tuesday 13 July 2004 02:43, email@example.com was like:
Surely it counts as scripting, like an html page or postscript file and thus
can be considered the 'source' of a piece of music.
> I think the above methods need to somehow be extended to work with
A score needs to be a human-readable explanation of how to realise the piece
of music so that it sounds the way the composer intended. The use of samples
in a piece would need specifying in the same place as the rest of the
instrumentation with clear directions of how to get hold of these samples.
These things could easily be represented by an icon and a link.
> > I don't think that computer programs should reflect the physical world
I think scoring is an art form in itself, I also think that the conventional
form of musical score is an anachronism that belongs with the musical
fashions of 1700 to 1950. I also enjoy working with the random factor of
interpretation so I like to present my performers with alien looking musical
maps to explore sometimes, but I wouldn't want to do that to my community
choir, I'd never hear the end of it! ~They get conventional scores ;-)~
If you deal with any amount of electronic instruments, then your scoring
language will require considerable extension. If it contains computerised
elements, then we may as well use existing computer conventions to describe
those elements. I think the reality of that is burning it all to CD and
distributing that with the score if it's that important to the piece. Then
you get to the point where it works out cheaper just to put the score on the
CD as well and have done with it! Usually I find there's enough room for
several demo versions, and there you have it, rehearsal copies for all into