+ Previously the characters qq were used to start
+ an appogiatura (a.k.a grace note) group. However, this was
+ the only instance in the Plaine & Easie Code where two
+ characters were used to start a group. It also meant that
+ parsing the code was a bit more difficult, since it created
+ ambiguities between a single `q`, or a single appogiatura
+ notes, or a group of notes.
+
+ In Version 2 the start of an appogiatura group is now
+ signalled by the lower-case letter y. It is
+ still ended by the lower-case letter r.
+
- CC0 1.0 Universal (CC0 1.0) Public Domain Dedication + svg .issue, svg .note, svg .example, svg .advisement, svg .amendment, svg .correction, svg .addition { + all: revert !important; + } + + +
++ CC0 1.0 Universal (CC0 1.0) Public Domain Dedication +
++ These cataloging guidelines are written as an accompaniment to the Plaine & Easie Code (PAEC) specification. + In previous editions of the specifications, the formal description of the code, and the guidelines for its + interpretation, were given as a single document. Although convenient as a reference, it also posed significant + challenges for the interpretation of what was actually required, and what was recommended. + In the new edition of the PAEC, the specification document provides a formal description of a valid PAEC + encoding, while this document will provide recommendations on the application of the code to incipit capture. +
++++ The thematic index derives its superiority over non-thematic lists be cause it can not only arrange + a body of music in a systematic order, but it provides, at the same time, positive identification + in a minimum of space and symbols. It does so by the use of the "incipit," or musical citation + of the opening notes. For most music, an incipit of no more than a dozen pitches is required. + When rhythmic values accompany the pitches, the incipit's "uniqueness quotient" is astonishingly high.
-- - -- -Introduction
- -- These cataloging guidelines are written as an accompaniment to - the Plaine & Easie Code (PAEC) specification. In previous - editions of the specifications, the formal description of the - code, and the guidelines for its interpretation, were given as a - single document. Although convenient as a reference, it also - posed significant challenges for the interpretation of what was - actually required, and what was recommended. - In the new edition of the PAEC, the specification document - provides a formal description of a valid PAEC encoding, while - this document will provide recommendations on the application of - the code to incipit capture. -
-- -Considerations for Incipit Capture
---- The thematic index derives its superiority over non-thematic - lists be cause it can not only arrange a body of music in a - systematic order, but it provides, at the same time, - positive identification in a minimum of space and symbols. - It does so by the use of the "incipit," or musical citation - of the opening notes. For most music, an incipit of no more - than a dozen pitches is required. When rhythmic values - accompany the pitches, the incipit's "uniqueness quotient" - is astonishingly high. -
-- A musical work, printed or manuscript, may be identified by - composer, title, opus number, key, instrumentation, movement - headings, first line of text, date, publisher, dedicatee, - plate number, etc. No one of these, indeed no combination of - these, can provide as certain an identification as an - incipit. For example, an anonymous 15th-century Latin motet - may also appear as a French chanson entitled "L'amant - douloureux." A composer may write a dozen trio sonatas in D - major, three of them with the same tempo sequence. A concert - aria found in a library in Vienna, in the key of F, may turn - up in Prague in the key of G, and with added horn parts. Two - printings of a set of quartets may be given different plate - numbers by the same publisher. Two publications of the same - opera, in different cities, may bear different titles, and - dedications to different patrons. Finally, a set of six - symphonies may be published in Amsterdam with one opus - number, in Offenbach with another, and in London within a - series of Periodical Overtures without any at all, and under - another composer's name. -
++ A musical work, printed or manuscript, may be identified by composer, title, opus number, key, + instrumentation, movement headings, first line of text, date, publisher, dedicatee, plate number, etc. + No one of these, indeed no combination of these, can provide as certain an identification as an incipit. + For example, an anonymous 15th-century Latin motet may also appear as a French chanson entitled + "L'amant douloureux." A composer may write a dozen trio sonatas in D major, three of them with the + same tempo sequence. A concert aria found in a library in Vienna, in the key of F, may turn up in + Prague in the key of G, and with added horn parts. Two printings of a set of quartets may be given + different plate numbers by the same publisher. Two publications of the same opera, in different cities, + may bear different titles, and dedications to different patrons. Finally, a set of six symphonies + may be published in Amsterdam with one opus number, in Offenbach with another, and in London within + a series of Periodical Overtures without any at all, and under another composer's name. +
-- By contrast, the presence of the incipit avoids confusion. - Identification is certain. Even transposed works can be - readily identified in properly organized incipit files. In - dealing with anonymi and with works of disputed authorship, - the incipit becomes indispensable-as a catalog without them - will readily demonstrate. In short, the collection, - classification, transposition, and lexicographical ordering - of the incipits into thematic catalogs have enabled scholars - to solve a myriad of otherwise insoluble problems, and have - provided musicians, librarians, students, biographers, and - program annotators with an invaluable reference tool. -
- -- The cataloging of musical incipits in RISM is primarily intended - for the purposes of identification and disambiguation, where all - other bibliographic means of doing so are not sufficient to - uniquely identify a musical piece. -
-- The most important component of incipit cataloging is the - capture of identifiable musical material. This will, in most - cases, be the opening measures of a piece. It may, occasionally, - be the entrance of a melodic instrument when the opening of the - piece starts with otherwise ambiguous accompaniment, such as a - ground bass. In rare instances, it may be the entrance of a - theme that is many measures in. -
-- In all cases, the encoder of the incipit must keep in mind the - primary motivations of identification and disambiguation when - choosing the musical content to capture as the incipit. It does - not serve the users of the catalog to encode a unique part of a - musical work when all other instances of the incipit in the - catalog identify the opening measures. The uniqueness of the - cataloging simply means that the incipit will not group with - like, and it will thus be "lost" in the larger catalog. -
-- The capture of melodic and rhythmic qualities is of primary - importance. Considerations of visual appearance, phrasing, - polyphony, or other special indications are of secondary - importance, or should be ignored altogether, when capturing - incipits. While it may seem important to capture for any single - given source, it can also pose significant challenges to - positive identification or disambiguation when compared to all - other sources. Other means of capture, such as analytical notes - fields, may be a more suitable mechanism for accurately - describing these features. -
-- -The Plaine & Easie Code
-- From the beginning, the PAEC was purpose-built for the capture - of identifying incipits. It could be written by hand, or typed - on a standard mechanical typewriter. Unlike other codes, the - goal of the PAEC was to be simple. Indeed, the first version of - the PAEC, issued in 1964, was subsequently simplified in 1965, - to "make the code more usable on an international basis." - (Brook, Fontes, 1965). The current PAEC specification is based - primarily on this simplified version. -
-- In the intervening years since the introduction of the PAEC, a - number of changes and additional features have been introduced. - In some cases these additions have significantly improved the - coding scheme; in other cases the additions have ultimately - distracted from the central purpose of the PAEC when put into - practice. The reasons for these changes are not always known. - They may have been in response to a specific need, or they may - have been added as a "nice-to-have" without an identified use - case. Whatever the reason, they have been available and widely - adopted and standardized, making it difficult to introduce - retrospective changes to the coding system to address problems - and clarify ambiguities. With no clear versioning scheme in - place, the previous version is now no longer updated, and is now - known as "Version 1". -
-- The new version, Version 2, contains several - backwards-incompatible changes from Version 1. It is not the - case that incipits in Version 1 need to be "upgraded," nor is it - a problem to have software or other standards support PAEC - Version 1. It is simply a way to differentiate the two versions. - In most cases, unless the version of the incipit is plainly - stated as being Version 2, it should be assumed that it is - supposed to conform to Version 1 of the specification. -
-- -Version 2
-- The goals of the effort behind Version 2 were to clarify - ambiguities in the previous specification, and to make the - PAEC more suitable for machine processing of incipits. Since - the previous version was developed before the World Wide - Web, and even before there was software available to render - the code into a graphical representation, several parts of - the specification existed that made it difficult to - unambiguously and reliably process the data into the - notation it was intended to represent. -
-- Version 2 of the specification is written to make the - requirements of the encoding system clear, to help software - developers to build applications that can process the data - in a uniform way. The requirements are given using - [RFC2119], which provide keywords, such as "MUST" and "MAY", - to indicate required or optional features, respectively. - Most of the sections in the specification have also been - expanded to include an actual description of the code, as - well as illustrative examples. -
-- -Maintenance
-- This version of the code is maintained by the International - Association of Music Libraries, Archives and Documentation - Centres (IAML) and the Répertoire International des Sources - Musicales (RISM) for use as an exchange format in the - library environment. -
-- - +General Guidelines for Incipit Capture
-- Music incipits help identify works and facilitate the comparison - of historical musical sources. -
-- Which music incipits to enter depends on the kind of music. Best - practice for instrumental music is to enter incipits for the - violin or the highest part. For vocal music, enter the highest - voice plus the first violin or the highest instrumental part. -
-- The incipit should be neither too long nor too short, and make - as much musical sense as possible. It should contain at least 3 - bars or 10 non-repeated notes. -
-- If the music is written for a transposing instrument, notate the - incipit at sounding pitch. -
-- -Tremolo, Slash
-- Notation abbreviations, such as tremolo, slash, etc., must - be written out in full using the actual notation. -
- -+ By contrast, the presence of the incipit avoids confusion. Identification is certain. Even transposed + works can be readily identified in properly organized incipit files. In dealing with anonymi and with + works of disputed authorship, the incipit becomes indispensable-as a catalog without them will readily + demonstrate. In short, the collection, classification, transposition, and lexicographical ordering + of the incipits into thematic catalogs have enabled scholars to solve a myriad of otherwise insoluble + problems, and have provided musicians, librarians, students, biographers, and program annotators with + an invaluable reference tool. +
+ +
+ The cataloging of musical incipits in RISM is primarily intended for the purposes of identification and + disambiguation, where all other bibliographic means of doing so are not sufficient to uniquely identify a + musical piece. +
++ The most important component of incipit cataloging is the capture of identifiable musical material. + This will, in most cases, be the opening measures of a piece. It may, occasionally, be the entrance + of a melodic instrument when the opening of the piece starts with otherwise ambiguous accompaniment, such + as a ground bass. In rare instances, it may be the entrance of a theme that is many measures in. +
++ In all cases, the encoder of the incipit must keep in mind the primary motivations of identification + and disambiguation when choosing the musical content to capture as the incipit. It does not serve the users + of the catalog to encode a unique part of a musical work when all other instances of the incipit in the + catalog identify the opening measures. The uniqueness of the cataloging simply means that the incipit will not + group with like, and it will thus be "lost" in the larger catalog. +
++ The capture of melodic and rhythmic qualities is of primary importance. Considerations of visual + appearance, phrasing, polyphony, or other special indications are of secondary importance, or should be ignored + altogether, when capturing incipits. While it may seem important to capture for any single given source, it + can also pose significant challenges to positive identification or disambiguation when compared to all other + sources. Other means of capture, such as analytical notes fields, may be a more suitable mechanism for + accurately describing these features. +
++ From the beginning, the PAEC was purpose-built for the capture of identifying incipits. It could be written + by hand, or typed on a standard mechanical typewriter. Unlike other codes, the goal of the PAEC was to be + simple. Indeed, the first version of the PAEC, issued in 1964, was subsequently simplified in 1965, to "make + the code more usable on an international basis." (Brook, Fontes, 1965). The current PAEC specification is based + primarily on this simplified version. +
++ In the intervening years since the introduction of the PAEC, a number of changes and additional features have + been introduced. In some cases these additions have significantly improved the coding scheme; in other cases + the additions have ultimately distracted from the central purpose of the PAEC when put into practice. The + reasons for these changes are not always known. They may have been in response to a specific need, or they may + have been added as a "nice-to-have" without an identified use case. Whatever the reason, they have been + available and widely adopted and standardized, making it difficult to introduce retrospective changes to the + coding system to address problems and clarify ambiguities. With no clear versioning scheme in place, the + previous version is now no longer updated, and is now known as "Version 1". +
++ The new version, Version 2, contains several backwards-incompatible changes from Version 1. It is not the case + that incipits in Version 1 need to be "upgraded," nor is it a problem to have software or other standards + support PAEC Version 1. It is simply a way to differentiate the two versions. In most cases, unless the + version of the incipit is plainly stated as being Version 2, it should be assumed that it is supposed to conform + to Version 1 of the specification. +
++ The goals of the effort behind Version 2 were to clarify ambiguities in the previous specification, and + to make the PAEC more suitable for machine processing of incipits. Since the previous version was developed + before the World Wide Web, and even before there was software available to render the code into a graphical + representation, several parts of the specification existed that made it difficult to unambiguously + and reliably process the data into the notation it was intended to represent. +
++ Version 2 of the specification is written to make the requirements of the encoding system clear, to help + software developers to build applications that can process the data in a uniform way. The requirements are + given using [RFC2119], which provide keywords, such as "MUST" and "MAY", to indicate required or optional + features, respectively. Most of the sections in the specification have also been expanded to include + an actual description of the code, as well as illustrative examples. +
++ This version of the code is maintained by the International Association of Music Libraries, Archives and + Documentation Centres (IAML) and the Répertoire International des Sources Musicales (RISM) for use as an + exchange format in the library environment. +
++ Music incipits help identify works and facilitate the comparison of historical musical sources. +
++ Which music incipits to enter depends on the kind of music. Best practice for instrumental music is to enter + incipits for the violin or the highest part. For vocal music, enter the highest voice plus the first violin or + the highest instrumental part. +
++ The incipit should be neither too long nor too short, and make as much musical sense as possible. It should + contain at least 3 bars or 10 non-repeated notes. +
++ If the music is written for a transposing instrument, notate the incipit at sounding pitch. +
+