2019 and online again (“the saga continues”)

Yes, blogging regularly is difficult … Nearly a year ago I wrote my last post, on the upcoming workshop at the DHBenelux2018 conference, which – IMHO – was quite a success (see this drive for a concise report and some of the materials presented). In August of the same year I co-organised another meeting: the ‘Editing the Past’ symposium, part of the 150th anniversary of the Royal Society for Music History of the Netherlands (KVNM) and embedded in the Utrecht Early Music Festival. The theme of the symposium was the interaction between editors and performers in the world of new digital possibilities. I presented as well, a contribution on editing the music of Josquin in a digital world (worthy of a separate blog post, I presume…).

Musical works

After this very brief summary of last year, a glimpse of 2019. First up is the RISM-conference Works, Work Titles, Work Authorities: Perspectives on Introducing a Work Level in RISM (9-11 May). An interesting program, touching upon different issues surrounding the concept of a ‘work’.

The topic is relevant to my own PhD research, since when modelling a network of musical compositions and the sources in which they are transmitted, there is a need for unambiguously identifying compositions, i.e. a (graph) database needs to know which entity is similar or dissimilar to another entity – it needs to know where the boundaries of an entity are, where a new ID should be assigned. But, such a focus on identifying compositions may seem anachronistic, since in the sixteenth century identification seems less important. As an illustration, we know of letters being sent that include a composition as attachment or refer to a composition, with an indication of what we might call a genre (e.g. ‘canto’, ‘motetto’, ‘canzone’), instead of using the more clear title of the composition:

un canto de Joschino bono per excellentia qual sera al proposto de quella per sonare de S.V. el facia cantare.

David Fallows, Josquin, Collection ‘Épitome Musical’ (Turnhout: Brepols, 2009), 368.

Io mando à vostra eccelentia, un motetto di Giachetto Berchem; degno certo di venire alle mani di tal signore. & mando à vostri Cantori una mia Canzone, mandovi due Sonetti composti dalla mia sprofondata memoria scritti di mia mano, & disegnati i canti, i sonetti, & le carte.2

Antonio Francesco Doni, Virginio Fagotto, and Gian Francesco Malipiero, Dialogo della musica, Collana di musiche Veneziane inedite o rare 7 (Vienna [etc]: Universal Edition, 1964), 163.

Furthermore our notion of a ‘composition’ is influenced by the concept of a ‘work’, and therefore we are compelled to assign a title (and composer) to a piece of music — making sure we have the connection between a Composer and His Works firmly in place.

But, as also stated on the conference site:

…. in recent decades, the concept of the work itself has been uncovered as a construct of the 19th century.

[ for an in-depth discussion on the work-concept and its history, see Lydia Goehr’s The imaginary museum of musical works (1992, reprint 2002) ]

Thus, us assigning database IDs to musical compositions from a time when the work-concept did not exist is problematic. What are we exactly assigning IDs to? Are the boundaries drawn between two compositions ‘natural’ to the music practice of the sixteenth century? Or is the concept of what a composition is perhaps more flexible in this period?

An interesting topic, on which I hope to gain some new insights at the RISM conference!

To be continued…


Posted in musicology | Tagged , | Leave a comment

2018 and online again

After a (too) long period, this blog — and website — is active again. Main reason is that I wanted to create a space for the workshop Network analysis and new approaches to music history at DHBenelux2018, which I am co-organising with Stephen Rose and Thomas Delpeut.

Of course, there should be a continuation of the blog posts of 2014 as well. Not the least since digital musicology has made much progress since. Last but not least I wanted to communicate more on my PhD Research. Hopefully I will show more stamina than I did in 2014 … 😉

groets,
Marnix

Rize Of The Fenix

Posted in musicology | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

The Music Encoding Conference 2014 – some reflections

From 20 to 23 May the Music Encoding Conference 2014 took place at the University of Virginia, Charlottesville VA. From their website:

Music encoding is now a prominent feature of various areas in musicology and music librarianship. The encoding of symbolic music data provides a foundation for a wide range of scholarship, and over the last several years, has garnered a great deal of attention in the digital humanities. This conference intends to provide an overview of the current state of data modeling, generation, and use, and aims to introduce new perspectives on topics in the fields of traditional and computational musicology, music librarianship, and scholarly editing, as well as in the broader area of digital humanities.

This conference aims to gather specialists in all the above areas, to discuss the current state of modeling, generation and use of music encoding, to exchange experiences, report on successful projects on major collections and composers, and to forge collaborations for future projects.

Although the above quote might imply that any form of encoding of music is dealt with, the conference actually focussed on the principles and implementations of the Music Encoding Initiative (MEI) format. The ultimate commendable goal of the MEI community is to “get the musical data out of the different silos” (to quote MEI founder Perry Roland). Actually, I am not sure whether I agree fully with this. Yes, working on reaching a common standard for musical encoding is needed. And yes, maybe MEI could be this standard. Furthermore musicology does need a large, high quality corpus of encoded music to do research on.

My objections lie in the area of the applications of an encoding standard like MEI. Currently it is used by several projects, the largest being the Detmold based Edirom project, but it lacks an easy to use editor for preparing music editions. The MEI Score Editor offers the best option, but since it is developed within the context of the German DARIAH-DE and TextGrid initiatives it is bounded to their technical requirements, not offering the best in usability and ease of use for musicologists, especially those who are less ‘technology minded’.

Another issue is the current scope of these implementations of MEI. In principle MEI – as a standard – can deal with all types of musical notation, including mensural notated music (a type of musical notation used from the late 13th century until 1600; see the article on notation in Oxford Music Online, §III, 3-4; if you have no institutional access, see Wikipedia). But the current implementations in fact only deal with so-called Common Music Notation (CMN).  Although there are some MEI related initiatives in the field of mensural notated music, tools for the production of scholarly editions of Early Music are not yet available.

The CMME project offers tools for editing and viewing mensural notated music of the 15th and 16th centuries. CMME was founded in 1999, is currently based at Utrecht University, published around 70 editions online and has a considerable user group. It uses an encoding format based on MusicXML instead of MEI though. So should we change the CMME software to handle MEI? So CMME works in ‘the same silo’ as the other MEI projects? I think the better alternative is to work on a conversion between the CMME-MusicXML and MEI. I see no objections in applications using their own proprietary format, as long as it is open and interoperable with other formats. We should at least keep all the tools which have proven their use in historical musicology, especially since this is not the most ‘tech savy’ community.

Creating interoperability between music encoding standards, while keeping in mind that musicologist need easy-to-use tools to do their research, is something we can certainly achieve in the coming years. We will indeed “forge collaborations for future projects“!

Posted in musicology | Tagged , , , ,

Study trip US 2014

— San Francisco, Tuesday 27 May 2014

In between two conferences it might be a good time to write a first post on what I am doing, and will be doing over the coming weeks. I am actually in the USA, on a three-week ‘study trip’, to focus my time a bit more on my PhD research and musicology, which is usually more difficult in a regular working week at home. Below a description of the activities I will pursue during my stay – besides some serious PhD reading & writing. 😉

Music Encoding
Last week I visited the Music Encoding Conference. For my reflections on this meeting, see this post.

CMME website
This week I will be working on enhancing the CMME website, together with the project founding director, musicologist and web developer Ted Dumitrescu. Besides updating the content of the site and giving it a more ‘contemporary’ appearance, the underlying data structure (currently a PostgreSQL 7.3.10 database) will be reconsidered. Moving the data to a Linked Data oriented format like RDF will open up the possibilities of machine interaction with the CMME data.

Network Science
In my last week in the USA, I will visit two events of the NetSci 2014 conference (at the University of California, Berkeley CA). I will start with one day of the NetSci school, to refresh my knowledge of (the basics of) network theory. On my second day in Berkeley the annual Arts, Humanities and Complex Networks meeting takes place. The topic of this event is exactly the cross point of disciplines I am working in: humanities and network theory. Besides the relevance of the papers presented, I hope to revive/renew the contacts I made at the 2013 edition of this meeting in Copenhagen, and meet some new people of course.

The next posts on this blog will present some of my experiences and/or related thoughts.

Posted in musicology | Tagged , , ,

Hello World!

print("Hello World!")
Posted in general | Tagged | Leave a comment