Eric Dantan Rzewnicki wrote:
> 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
