Re: triangle chord notation

[eyolf ostrem]

On Fri, 04 Aug 2006 16:39:19 -0400
David Raleigh Arnold <address@hidden> wrote:

> As I wrote years ago, the best thing to do is to adhere to that
> strictly limited symbol set, and always to base spelling on quick
> recognition rather than musical meaning, which is irrelevant in
> improvisation, where the chords are a given.  It doesn't matter what
> they mean.  Your purpose is to give them a different meaning anyway.

I read though your old posts on this matter, and I agree on many of
your points. Your syntax scheme for chord naming is admirably precise:

root [m] [farthest unaltered extension] [(list alterations in ascending
order)] [add|omitNoteOrNumber] (quoted from
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-user/2004-03/msg00361.html)

and could well be used as a basis for a new chord naming standard in LP
as well.
But if we're talking about a possible new or additional chord naming
system (and not about which system is best for certain categories of
users), the aim should be:

a) simplicity of rules and application of these
b) adherence to whatever standards are commonly recognized, not aiming
at pleasing everyone at all cost, but at least not pushing people away,
and 
c) a system which is broad enough and precise enough to satisfy many
different users: both the jazz hornist with his lead sheet, the amateur
guitar player who wants to learn Memphis in June, and even the analyst
who wants to put down what's in a piece of music, as briefly as possible
but without loosing too much information.

I believe your syntax description would come a long way towards
satisfying these demands, but not without some additions:

dim and aug - these are special in that they to some extent fall
outside the system of chords above a keynote, and deserve special
treatment. As for the question whether "dim" means b3b5 or b3b5bb7, or
the latter should be written dim7, i think it can be easily solved if
both Cdim, Cdim7, and Cb5 (could be written c:dim, c:dim7 and c:-5
or something) are available, so that if one desperatly WANTS to specify
a chord c-eb-gb, one can do that, but if one simply means what most
people know as a "dim chord", one can simply have Cdim.

sus2 and sus4 - here, I disagree with you previous posts: a sus4 chord
is not simply an add11omit3 (which would be quite cumbersome to write,
let alone read), and definitely not an 11 (or 11omit3omit9), but an
indication of a progression, where the third is temporarily suspended
and is supposed to return. You may call this academic, but it has the
merits of being precise, concise, and well established. It also aids
the player because it - as the only chord designation in the system -
gives an indication of what is to follow.

+/- vs. b/# - this might be a matter of taste and of what one is used
to; personally, I prefer Bm7-5 to Bm7b5, but in a typesetting
environment like LP, where clear #/b symbols are available, they have
the advantage of avoiding the confusions inherent in +/-, which may
lead inexperienced readers to believe "-" is some kind of hyphen or dash
of some sort, or think of it as "omit", and who confuse "+" with
"add" (and the use of "+" as a standalone symbol for the aug chord adds
to this confusion).

slash chords - which should give the bass notes in lowercase letters,
as we both agree :-)

Other than these, I don't thing anything extra is needed or should be
allowed - no geometrical symbols, no slashed geometrical symbols,
nothing like that.
 As for "add2", I agree that it's an unnecessary redundancy, even
though there is the technical subtlety of indicating a cluster c-d-e-g
rather than a stack c-e-g-d.

> Academics poison the well when they use the system for analysis,
> which is a purpose for which it was never intended.  

... but one for which it can perfectly well be used, within reasonable
limits. They(/we) should not be excluded because some of their(/our)
needs are different from those of the jazz musician at a jam session.

>  Do not follow the
> innovations suggested by academic articles.  It leads to such
> abominations as the flat13th chord or the B#7, which is better
> written C7, regardless of a big fat bis being in the score. daveA

Nope. I can certainly imagine situations (e.g. harmonically complex
pieces with wild/wide shifts) where C7 might be the better choice, for
legibility reasons, but if the progression C-E-Am is transposed to G#,
it should be G#-B#7-E#m, and not G#-C7-E#m. This may be a bad
example, since it would be better written in Ab as Ab-C7-Fm, but the
point is that as long as one follows a defined system, it is easier to
manouver around in a sheet, even in the case where the
composer/typesetter has made stupid choices.


I'm tempted to suggest a sponsorship for a revision of the chord name
system - any takers?


Eyolf

-- 
Could this be the best day of my life?

                -- Homer Simpson
                   Homer the Heretic