3 ms·

to be clear: MusicXML is a format representing musical notation. MIDI is a format representing musical performance. MIDI doesn't do a good job in communicating

to be clear: MusicXML is a format representing musical notation. MIDI is a format representing musical performance. MIDI doesn't do a good job in communicating to a human reader, for which musical notation is much more useful.

TheOtherHobbes 5y ago
MusicXML is basically a graphics format. MIDI is basically a keyboard sequencing system. They're effectively different render targets at the end of whatever input system you happen to be using. Neither is the musical equivalent of a compiler's IR - which is why OP is confused about two different representations of the same musical object in two different music editors. Without a well-defined IR it's not clear what the musical objects are supposed to be. There's a semantic level missing, so the intent is unclear. And without that information it's impossible to render them unambiguously. Unfortunately it's debatable if a true IR for music is even possible.
- chriskrycho 5y ago
  This is a key insight. One of the things which has most endeared Dorico to me is that it’s the only program in the space which even seems to have had the right approach for this to be possible. They’ve taken the view, from the very outset, that the fundamentals of music are pitch and duration. Everything else we do layers on top of that. By contrast, basically every (maybe actually every, other than perhaps LilyPond?) other program out there takes measures/bars as the starting point. It makes some sense given the historical development of those programs, but because Dorico puts pitch and duration at the core of the program, operations which are extremely-annoying-to-impossible in other programs become trivial. If we were going to come up with the equivalent of a compiler IR, I suspect it would have to start with that insight. Critically, that insight also works for non-Western music, whereas the bars/measures-first approach encodes a lot of assumptions about the Western musical tradition, and the pre-20th century Western musical tradition to boot! Now: that’s mostly what I write, so I got by just fine with Sibelius for a long time, and StaffPad still does fairly well for me in many scenarios. But Dorico’s model is… better. Deeply better. I hope the other programs figure out how to switch to it over the next decade(s).

TheOtherHobbes 5y ago

MusicXML is basically a graphics format. MIDI is basically a keyboard sequencing system. They're effectively different render targets at the end of whatever input system you happen to be using. Neither is the musical equivalent of a compiler's IR - which is why OP is confused about two different representations of the same musical object in two different music editors. Without a well-defined IR it's not clear what the musical objects are supposed to be. There's a semantic level missing, so the intent is unclear. And without that information it's impossible to render them unambiguously. Unfortunately it's debatable if a true IR for music is even possible.

chriskrycho 5y ago
This is a key insight. One of the things which has most endeared Dorico to me is that it’s the only program in the space which even seems to have had the right approach for this to be possible. They’ve taken the view, from the very outset, that the fundamentals of music are pitch and duration. Everything else we do layers on top of that. By contrast, basically every (maybe actually every, other than perhaps LilyPond?) other program out there takes measures/bars as the starting point. It makes some sense given the historical development of those programs, but because Dorico puts pitch and duration at the core of the program, operations which are extremely-annoying-to-impossible in other programs become trivial. If we were going to come up with the equivalent of a compiler IR, I suspect it would have to start with that insight. Critically, that insight also works for non-Western music, whereas the bars/measures-first approach encodes a lot of assumptions about the Western musical tradition, and the pre-20th century Western musical tradition to boot! Now: that’s mostly what I write, so I got by just fine with Sibelius for a long time, and StaffPad still does fairly well for me in many scenarios. But Dorico’s model is… better. Deeply better. I hope the other programs figure out how to switch to it over the next decade(s).