But that practice obfuscates structural things. I know that the university music departments churn out young musicians who claim with lots of bravado that they have no problem reading a chart that squeezes as many bars on a staff as is possible to save paper, the industry standard practice, if commercially available sheet music is any guide. However, over my 37 year career I have found that when playing a wedding with a new musician who does not know my repertoire, a chart that makes it easy to discern each section and the structure of the tune at a glance can be a life saver.Īnd those Reverse Final Barlines make the job of seeing non-repeating section beginnings that much easier especially since those sections do not begin with a repeat sign. Which results in visual abominations where staff A might have ten bars and the following staff only have two bars.Īll of the above is admittedly non-standard practice. This stands in contrast to the industry practice of squeezing in as many bars per staff as is possible. The same goes for putting four bars per staff when a section has eight bars to it. The only way we have gotten to where we are is by some folks stepping outside of the traditional forms and rules.įor example, I make it a point to look at the mega structure of a piece so when I set it to paper I can start each section at the beginning of a staff, especially when that section repeats. If you look back over the history of sheet music, I think it is clear that we have come a long ways from the early days. Moreover, just because an existing practice is common does not mean that one should not try to innovate nor does common practice rule out or invalidate attempts to make written music more visually comprehensible. That is, the physical / visual structure of sheet music should ease the musician's job of understanding the composer's intentions. Please understand that just because the way I use barlines is non-standard does not make my usages a "mistake" or otherwise invalid.įrankly, I find many "standardized" music notation "rules" miss (or even ignore) a basic point about writing music down on paper: clarity. Therefore, I think it ought to be included in the barlines palette instead of having to resort to a less obvious workaround.Ī couple of things - I created that sample. Which means, of course, I am not the only person who is interested in using this type of "non-standard" formatting. I also discovered that MuseScore gives the barline type a name, "Reverse final barline". I appreciate your helping me get to that - thank you! Since setting the style on a Barline object already does that.As you suggested, I was able to find the particular barline type I sought in the Symbols section of the Master Palette that comes up when "z" is pressed. typeToMusicXMLBarStyle ( value ) ¶Ĭonvert a music21 barline name into the musicxml name –Įssentially just changes the names of ‘double’ and ‘final’ĭoes not do error checking to make sure it’s a valid name, standardizeBarType ( value ) ¶Ĭonverts all names to lower case, None to ‘regular’,Īnd ‘light-light’ to ‘double’ and ‘light-heavy’ to ‘final’, Instance variables inherited from Music21Object:įunctions ¶ music21.bar. getTextExpression ( prefix = 'repeat ', postfix = ' times' ) Repeats 2 times values equal to or greater than 0 are permitted.Ī repeat of 0 skips the repeated passage. Thisĭefines how many times the repeat happens. Get or set the “times” property of this barline. TODO: show how changing direction changes type. Get or set the direction of this Repeat barline. Read-only properties inherited from ProtoM21Object: Read-only properties inherited from Music21Object:
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |