linuxaudio.org

Eric Dantan Rzewnicki wrote:

quoted text
> On Fri, Jul 09, 2004 at 02:39:19PM -0400, Chris Pickett wrote:

>

>>Michal Seta wrote:

>>

>>>Well, I must be a different race of a classical musician.  I have been

>>>trained as a classical musician and I've been trained to read the

>>>black dots with beams people call scores.  However, a score is only a

>>>representation of music.  The same music could be represented in

>>>different ways.  As a guitarist I have learnt to play from a guitar

>>>score, piano score, lead sheet, modern guitar tablature and

>>>medieval/rennaissance tablature (of which there were 2 kinds).  These

>>>are all valid representations of musical compositions and they all

>>>have strengths and weaknesses.  Any piece of music (as long as it's

>>>within the traditional 12 tone equal temperament) can be represented

>>>using any of the above methods.  So why not text?  Entering textual

>>>representation of music and following certain _markup_ rules is not

>>>programming.  If it were so, simply scoring should be considered

>>>programming, too.

>>

>>Yes, in my mind, "programming" requires the existance of conditions and

>>(possibly backward) branches.

>

>

> You mean like repeat signs, multiple endings for different times through

> a section, codas, DS al capo, etc, etc?

Yes, of course, but the typesetting language _itself_ doesn't have this,

right?  I can also do:
\begin{verbatim}

for (i = 0; i < 10; i++)

   {

     foo ();

   }

\end{verbatim}
in TeX, but that doesn't make it _programming_.  If TeX or the music

typesetting stuff _does_ have this capacity, that would be interesting.

  In fact, I think functional / procedural sequencing is pretty neat in

itself, although I don't know much about it at all, if it leads to

anything musical, if it's a well-known technique, etc. etc.
Cheers,

Chris