[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: dodecaphonic-no-repeat and missing accidentals

From: Gilberto Agostinho
Subject: Re: dodecaphonic-no-repeat and missing accidentals
Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2016 14:48:56 -0700 (MST)

Hi Simon,

First of all, thanks for your reply!

>> I don't think this behaviour is correct, as it leads to a very
>> confusing output. 
> That’s quite flawed logics – whether or not you find it confusing
> doesn’t have anything to do with it being correct or not. 

Yes, I express myself very badly, the word correct does not apply there at
all. It's not good to talk about "correctness" concerning accidental rules
given that they tend to vary a lot from composer to composer or from
publishing house to publishing house, and there is no single "correct
solution". Also the current algorithm does what it's supposed to do, so in
that sense it is also correct. So I retract that.

> Which I think is perfectly in line with the intended behaviour of the 
> accidental rule.

It surely is in line with the intended behaviour, I was just questioning if
the behaviour itself wouldn't be better/more useful if modified as I
proposed. I believe that the behaviour I proposed is fairly common. Some

Berg's /Violin Concerto/

Boulez's /Anthemes II/

That said, I also came across several counterexamples -- even in scores of
these same composers -- which would then follow the current
dodecaphonic-no-repeat rules, so I guess the engravers/composers made
decisions according to the context.

> or you just have to
> create your own accidental style (which I already made a bit easier; ask
> back on the user list if you need help). 

I will give it a try by myself, and if I run into troubles I will post in
the user list. 

Thanks again for the reply, kind regards,

View this message in context: 
Sent from the Bugs mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]