Re: Why don't we get rid of \chordmode?

[David Kastrup]

Carl Sorensen <address@hidden> writes:

> What effect would this have on the parser?

I have only taken a cursory look so far.  When entering chordmode,
something records the chord names and the pitch names, and some grouping
is involved.

> I think that I like this idea, even though I didn't at first thought.
> As long as it can work with the parser, I can't see any downside.

I am thinking of accordion notation, and the usual accordion
accompaniment goes something like
c, <c e g> g,, <c e g>
It is a complete nuisance to have to figure out individual note names
for the chords (since you just have fixed chord buttons on the accordion
anyway), and it is a nuisance not being able to mix bass notes and
chords, and you often have things like
<< { <c e g>4 r <c f a>8 r } \\ c,2. >>
or so, too.

Chord mode is just too limited, and I think it makes much more sense
abandoning it rather than duplicating all other functionality into it.

The one thing that requires some thought will likely be the
"non-relativable" character of chords.  Either they should be
independent from note entry, or not.  If they are independent, then one
would likely want to allow
\relative c: c' { ... }
and
\transpose c: c, { ... }
to relativize/transpose just chords.  But I think it might be saner to
make c: perfectly equivalent to <c e g> all around so that people need
not think about the implications of using either.

>> To make this slightly prettier, one can reserve the modifier M
>> (uppercase) for "major", then c:M can be written for a major chord,
>> looking slightly better than just c: would.
>
> I would NOT be in favor of this.  I don't like having two different
> meanings depending solely on the case of a letter.

Well, suit yourself.  But that's actually standard for Italian, I think
also French, and certainly American accordion notation: bass notes in
the octave below middle c indicate chords (the single bass notes are
notated another octave lower), and a letter above them spells out what
kind of chord: M is major, m is minor, 7 is seventh, d is diminuished.

So since one kind of engraver would actually output those letters, being
able to input them in that manner would feel natural.

> If we really don't want to have c: stand for a major triad,

I think it is fine, just a bit obtuse.

> then I think we should have c:maj stand for a major triad, and need
> the 7 to be maj7.

No, that is going to confuse the heck out of guitarists and pretty much
everybody else as well.

> Have you been working on a patch for this?

Not yet.  Just mulling over it till now.  I am again working out with
accordion notation, and wrapping "natural" user interfaces around the
existing chord mode would be a major pain in the neck right now.

-- 
David Kastrup