daver@felix.UUCP (Dave Richards) (07/27/90)
The article that prompted this has expired at my site, but I've been kicking
around an idea I had... since MIDI is pretty much spoken everywhere now, why
not use the midi number values for pitch representation (numbers 0-127)? This
is non-ambiguous with regard to octave, and eliminates the requirement to spell
accidentals correctly (is it F# or Gb), as well as the confusion associated
with the occasional double-flat or double-sharp, and E#, Cb, etc. These MIDI
numbers are not all that hard to memorize, at least for 2 or 3 octaves.
The simplest way of showing duration that I can think of is to simply use
integers representing the note value, eg: 1=whole note, 2=half note, etc.,
plus "." to indicate 1/2 the value. An alternate method would be to specify
the number of beats. Thus 1=1 beat, 4=4 beats, etc. The problem with that
is you wind up using decimals eg: .5, .25, etc. The first way is probably
better.
So with this system, any note is defined by two numbers. The numbers would be
separated by a symbol that also indicates normal, staccato, or legato. I like
the midi idea of not having to list things that don't change. In other words,
for several sequential notes on the same pitch, the pitch is only given for the
first note. Likewise, a series of notes with the same duration would only need
the duration listed once. A series of notes on the same pitch and the same
length would only need the separator.
A file header would be a good idea. Information contained in the header could
be: song name, composer/arranger, tempo, voice characteristics (timbre or patch
no. for a synth, etc), time signature, and key signature. (key signature is op-
tional because absolute note pitches are provided.) With the addition of ver-
tical lines to indicate measures, the system is essentially complete. Here's
the first line of "Happy Birthday" as an example.
(key note=C72)
3/4
| R2 67-8 - | 69-4 67- 72- | 71-2 67-8 - | 69-4 67- 74- | 72-2
Davebriang@bari.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Gordon) (07/28/90)
In article <148632@felix.UUCP> daver@felix.UUCP (Dave Richards) writes: >The article that prompted this has expired at my site, but I've been kicking >around an idea I had... since MIDI is pretty much spoken everywhere now, why >not use the midi number values for pitch representation (numbers 0-127)? This >is non-ambiguous with regard to octave, and eliminates the requirement to spell >accidentals correctly (is it F# or Gb), as well as the confusion associated >with the occasional double-flat or double-sharp, and E#, Cb, etc. These MIDI >numbers are not all that hard to memorize, at least for 2 or 3 octaves. > [...] Oops. For my work (which is obviously not restricted by the limitations of keyboards), the differences between C# and Db, and D## and E are critical, both the the performer and the audience ... -- :-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-: | Brian G. Gordon briang@Sun.COM (if you trust exotic mailers) | | ...!sun!briangordon (if you route it yourself) | :-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-: