All concrete examples that are discussed and where a decision is made should be added to a FAQ collection where the different options and decisions are listed for reference.
The discussed issues should be close in the course of the discussions or attributed to someone. If useful, create milestones.
- Should the principles of post-processing be part of the standard? This would result in me writing down the rules that have been applied so far for creating the feature lists (including computation of chord-tones). This is actually the moment where the labels are treated semantically.
- Yes, this should be part of the specification.
- *hecking labels' syntax (regEx) is context-independent, checking their semantics (during post-annotation feature extraction) is not. Close issue?
- Since we convert labels into chord tones, there are new possibilities of checking against the actual notes in the score. Should that be included in the checks?
- Add this to the specification.
- Stipulate that the seventh in
V+7(for example) is a major seventh?- Solution:
V+7has a minor seventh,V+M7has a major seventh.
- Solution:
- Let
\\stand alone (without repeating identical harmony) - (instead) generally allow for repeating identical harmonies as a means of creating "Sinneinheiten" ("meaningful" chord segments). This would probably lead to the recommendation to always evaluate chord duration instead of counts for statistics; for transition probabilities, immediate repetitions can easily be excluded...
- Solution: phrase annotations with
{}
- Solution: phrase annotations with
- Such "Sinneinheiten" could also encode metrical aspects which would probably require label repetitions.
- Repetitions are allowed
- Add to the guidelines that with a segno, the same label should be repeated? This would be important for the "unfolded" representation if before the D.S. there is a different harmony than at the segno.
- Add this to the guidelines
- So far, there are no guidelines as to in what a phrase ending exists. What is our stance?
- Introduce
\for phrase interlocking? - Do we want to allow for cadence annotations? How would they relate to the phrase ending symbols? Alternative: Have cadences always as separate set of annotations.
- Phrase interlocking yes, integrated cadence annotations no
- Related to above: How do the phrases in the standard relate to form annotations?
- Do we stick to the idea that we use an improved form of Gotham's form annotations?
- Form annotations should be done separately
- Approval of the current 'regulation'
- Discuss concrete examples and add them to the FAQ
- Clarify the semantics of the different alternatives so that annotators can make informed choices.
- Guidelines offer the possibility to write something like
V7/V I/Vin the context of a cadence. Should this be emphasized, maybe also for other cases?
- New symbol for indicating that
2,4, and6exceptionally replace the upper, not the lower neighbour? - What about a
7which exceptionally replaces the lower, not the upper neighbour?^added as a new symbol
- If 8 is present but the 15 is retarded by a seventh it should be called
(14), right? Momentarily, no numbers bigger than 13 are accepted by the post-processor.- Yes, this needs to be accounted for.
- Is this distinction possible? Is it necessary?
- Additionally to added tones (e.g.
+9), allow for missing tones (e.g.-5)- Yes
- On the same note, allow for omitted roots (
(-1))? How to distinguishviio=V7(-1), orIV=ii7(-1)- yes
- Discuss concrete examples and add them to the FAQ
- Confirm that we don't annotate ornamentation.
- Discuss concrete examples and add them to the FAQ
- The bass note can be in a middle voice. Use annotators' expertise
- Discuss concrete examples and add them to the FAQ
- No general rule possible, include examples
- Discuss concrete examples and add them to the FAQ
- Mention in the guidelines/FAQ how to deal with enharmonically inconsistent spellings. Include concrete examples.
- Or the general question how to deal with things we and annotators know about thorough bass practice: Who much knowledge of what someone "would have played" should go into the annotation? --> Look at Johannes Menke's Couperin annotations and talk to him about this issue.
- Would allowing for
ii%instead ofii%7make life easier?- Not difficult to implement
- Consider Ana's suggestion of introducing inversions
9,76,54,32(and consequently21). - Discuss the added complexity.
- Discuss how well 'proper' ninth chords (re-introduced
V9) can be distinguished fromV7(9)andV7(+9).- We are not re-introducing 9th-chords as proper chords
- Probably something to consider for non-functional music? Something to keep in mind for the right-hand extension of the standard.
- Additional scales as an important constituent for left- and right-hand extension of the standard.
- Current suggestion: Define the scale and then use scale degree + figured bass annotation