Re: aiming at 2.2: dodecafonic staves

[Werner LEMBERG]

> > As a diatonic stave, a cromatic stave would have five lines, starting from
> > c'':
> >
> > c''   -O-
> > b'       O
> > ais'  -----O-----------------------------------
> > a'           O
> > gis'  ---------O-------------------------------
> > g                O
> > fis'  -------------O---------------------------
> > f'                   O
> > e'    -----------------O-----------------------
> > dis'                     O
> > d'    ---------------------O-------------------
> > cis'                         O
> > c'                            -O-
> >
> 
> The problem is that there are many different opinions on how a staff
> for contemporary music should look like.  To me, suggestions often
> give the impression of people carrying out a silly contest of who
> has the fanciest idea for a new notation system (see
> http://speechskript.com/samples.htm for some weired examples).  I
> think we should not support a particular one of these innummerable
> systems of equally low(?) quality.  Either there is a commonly
> agreed standard for dodecaphocic music to support (which I do not
> see), or we should look at the underlying common principles and try
> to provide a flexible mechanism such that the user can adopt lily to
> his or her individual notation system.

Notating dodecaphonic music that way isn't something new; it has been
invented already 80 years ago or so.  Another idea was to have staves
looking like the black and white keys on the piano, i.e., three lines,
then a small space, then two lines, then a small space, etc.  IMHO all
these inventions are quite useless, but they do exist -- who wants to
learn such crazy things?  So lilypond should support such kind of
notation even to only help music historians to provide examples of
this notation.

> > Modern music has a lot of new notation, and many of them are good
> > and intuitive. For example, accelerando can be marked with
> > increasing number of bars (here only two notes are shown).
> >
> >    /|
> >  -<-|
> >  | \|
> >  |  |
> >  | O
> > O
> >
> > Here the problem is that what is the mathematical duration of such
> > construct. But anyway, the notation exist and is well known.
> >
> 
> Can you cite a publisher and/or composer?

Universal Edition, Peters, Ricordi, etc.  Even I have used it :-)

> The more scores of temporary music I look at, the more I get the
> impression, that certain publishers try to set notational standards
> solely by their relevance in the market rather than by carefully
> designing their notational extensions.

Believe us, this notation has become standard.  It's advantage is
that you can indicate an accellerando within a fixed tempo, say, the
left hand always plays umm-ta-ta, umm-ta-ta, and the right hand does

  tak       tak      tak     tak    tak   tak  tak taktak


    Werner