I write:

>>... The score will always be an approximation of the performance, and not
>>vice versa.
>>
>>My proof? It exists in computer programs that translate keyboard playing
>>into musical notation.  By necessity, the program offers the option of
>>*rounding off* the just-performed piece to the nearest 16th note.

Stirling writes:

>This makes a confusion between "the score is a literal description of
>notes" - that is like midi a pitch/duration/dynamics code - and "the score
>encodes music".  When one learns how to play a great deal of the challenge
>of going from "typing notes" to "performing" is learning what the score
>acutally says...

Of course a score is more than a literal description, but I was trying to
demonstrate that even in this purest of forms, the score will always be an
imperfect representation.  I assume that when Stirling talks about "encoded
*music,* and "performing," he is talking about the window dressing that the
composer adds and the performer interprets to bring correct perspective to
a piece; but window itself will always inherently distort the original
thought!

"Isben a pleasure,"

John Smyth <[log in to unmask]>