The MusicXML element <duration>
While it at first seems that the MusicXML documentation clearly defines the MusicXML element <duration>, the larger context of its use is not so well defined. As a result, different implementers of MusicXML have adopted different interpretations of this element, and have developed different overall protocols from that. The result is that the interchange of scores between different notation programs via MusicXML does not, in this area, go well.
Attached in Issue 5 of my Technical Paper "MusicXML—the duration element" (it was previously styled "Technical Report"), in which I discuss an extensive analysis of this mysterious topic I have conducted. It is lengthy and detailed, for which I make no apology. The topic itself is very complex and confusing, and I did not cause that.
I would be glad to answer any questions on this paper, or this matter.
Best regards,
Doug
| Attachment | Size |
|---|---|
| TP-MXML_duration-i05.pdf | 119.75 KB |
Comments
I'm not so sure I see it as a MusicXML problem as much as I see it as a software problem. We can save a MusicXML file from any particular software. Then immediately re-open it only to find some differences. There seems to be no universal standard for the MusicXML format or the way software deals with it. Whose format and software is the "best"? How would anyone agree on one? Do companies have much incentive to change anything in this regard? Why would Dorico care if MuseScore can't open a file "correctly"? Who decides what "correctly" means?
In reply to I'm not so sure I see it as… by bobjp
Bobjp wrote >> We can save a MusicXML file from any particular software. Then immediately re-open it only to find some differences.
scorster > Yes. The acid test is if a notation app can "slurp its own urp." I haven't yet see a MusicXML roundtrip work perfectly ... anywhere.
Bobjp wrote >> There seems to be no universal standard for the MusicXML format or the way software deals with it. Whose format and software is the "best"? How would anyone agree on one? Do companies have much incentive to change anything in this regard? Why would Dorico care if MuseScore can't open a file "correctly"? Who decides what "correctly" means?
scorster > As my dear brother would say: "That's the beauty of standards. There are so many to choose from!" And even then standards don't work without understanding and consistence in adherence and interpretation.
• NIFF didn't work well or last long.
• MusicXML is dicey and arcane. Which is what this thread is about.
• The lowly ABC format, though limited, does remarkably well for something so terse and easily understood. Some people claim they can sight read ABC interchange format!
• And as best I can tell, the new darlings (MNX, CWMNX, etc.) have stalled.
Hi Doug,
Your observations and comments on the MusicXML < duration> element make sense to me.
>>Doug Kerr wrote: The topic itself is very complex and confusing, and I did not cause that.
Can't stop laughing ...
Fortunately I'm still able to type: "I totally agree!"