Closed johentsch closed 3 years ago
Maybe one guiding principle to keep in mind for the discussion could be: Since every label represents a segmentation of the score, it should represent a change in harmony. The alternative would mean to allow for different levels of segmentation, e.g. allowing for singular \\
alone would designate the end of a phrase segment but not of a harmonic segment. But this is happening at present, in any case, with the difference that the same label is repeated, e.g. I I\\
.
I am not quite sure if I follow your considerations. What are circumstances where you would annotate a \\
or ]
without a "supporting" harmony?
I don't see a problem with repeating harmonies at phrase boundaries but wouldn't it be rather I\\ I
instead of I I\\
? Meaning: First I conclude a phrase and then I continue with the same harmony? I can't imagine a situation in which the latter makes sense but I might just not think of the right thing.
No, in I\\ I
the second I
is superfluous because under the current semantics (labels valid until the next label) it does not add new information. I I\\
, however, says "here, the harmony starts, and here is where the phrase ends".
This is a very extreme case where both occur very close to each other:
(Corelli op. 1/7 I mm. 1-4)
Suggestions to discuss:
\\
to stand aloneThe new version will allow for repetition of identical labels under special circumstances and for having phrase annotations occur separately.
The solution we discussed was in favor of a possibility to annotate phrase interlocking. The natural solution seems to be to annotate both phrase endings and beginnings in a way, that both symbols can be combined in one. The first suggestion was to use \
for endings, /
for beginnings and \/
as combination. However, since the expressions continue to end labels, /
would make it impossible to detect mistakes where an applied chord is missing it's secondary key, as in V/
instead of V/V
.
Solution: We suggest a solution with {
for beginnings, }
for endings, and }{
for the combination. In order to distinguish phrase interlocking from "normal" phrase transitions we ask annotators to put }
on the beat where the phrase ends structurally (e.g. the 1 of a cadence's ultima). This way, the phrase length is still calculated until the next phrase's beginning, but we will know how much of the phrase is just a 'codetta'. As an example, here is the previous one with the suggested new notation:
At the moment, annotators are allowed to repeat a label to mark a phraseending, e.g. I (beginning of harmony) I\ (end of phrase). Instead, we could allow for \ to stand as a separate symbol, which is something that annotators sometimes do intuitively and has to be corrected so far. The change can be easily made by updating the regex with a ( )? . Would you agree on that, @fabianmoss ? This change would avoid to have the exception from forbidden repetition of identical labels.
However, there would still be a similar exception for organ points. We could at the same time consider to allow for organ point notation to occur independently of the onsets of harmonies. This would be quite a big change, however:
\\
and]
]
ends.]
to stand alone would make it possible to have it designate the ending of the pedal note directly instead.