Re: triangle chord notation

[joelinux]

I agree very much with most everything you have stated.

http://www.malletjazz.com/lessons/cho_symb_les.html

-----Original Message-----
>From: eyolf ostrem <address@hidden>
>Sent: Aug 4, 2006 4:59 PM
>To: address@hidden
>Subject: Re: triangle chord notation
>
>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
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>lilypond-user mailing list
>address@hidden
>http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user