Re: triangle chord notation

[David Raleigh Arnold]

On Sat, 05 Aug 2006 00:59:10 +0200, eyolf ostrem wrote:

> 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.

*Not mine*, not new.  Just what I learned in the Jurassic.

> 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.

G(#5) is a usable substitute for Gaug, but that is not the point.  The
system is really two-tiered.  Things like G2 or G4 or G5 are really for
simple harmonies, and they are less cumbersome than Gadd9 or
G11omit3omit7omit9 or Gomit5.  The Gdim or Gdim7 is a special case, and
never was subject to the bop or post-bop jazz chord rubric.  The system I
outlined was/is the standard for jazz copyists and musicians, not
something I invented.  Academics, unfortunately, worked it over without
any knowledge of its history.  Rock and rollers just went their own way
and ignored it.


 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.

Easier to Cdim7 when you want the dim7 and Cdim when you want the triad.
Since no special symbols are necessary except the $ and b, the chord names
could use 'b' for flat and 's' for sharp and the syntax could easily be
otherwise identical to the finished product, with parentheses around the
listed alterations passed through to the finished product.  Parentheses
are only not optional in the case of having no unaltered extension, i.e.:
Gb vs. G(b5).  

I think many people do dim for the triad only, although it is not a
standard and never has been one.  I already proposed that too.  It does
no harm.

> 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.

The analysis is totally irrelevant.  Resolution has nothing to do with it,
because you don't discover whether it resolves or not until after you've
played the chord.  If you are playing chords it's obvious either way.  If
you are improvising you don't want to parallel the voices anyway, so
resolution is even more irrelevant if that is possible.  Want to see some
unresolved 11th chords from 1836?  See the Carcassi Method.  

> 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.

"well established?"  Not really.  It's always too late for indications 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 "-"

The specific problem is the use of "-" for both minor and flat.  The
general problem is that lead sheets become illegible when quickly written
by hand.  Usages which rule out scribbling are bad IMO.  

 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).

That is what the system I outlined was supposed to avoid, back in the
1940's, but all that crap keeps coming back.
> 
> 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.

Chord names ought not to be specific to a particular
instrument.  Leave 'clusters' in the sense that you mean to the players.
The developers mean something entirely else by 'clusters'.
 
>> 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.

You really should.  Go nuts with colons and minuses and all that stuff
and do your own thing but keep the standard system simple.  It's for
playing at sight, not analysis.

> 
>>  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

Any example is a bad one.  You are missing the point.  The chord *name*
should have the simplest spelling possible.  The notes on the staves
should be correct.  You could well have the notes of a B# chord in the
score, but the chord name should be C regardless.  B# is not in the chord
book, nor is Gxdim7.  They don't exist outside the ivory tower.

It is not an imposition on someone playing the chords to have a C
chord name instead of a B# chord name. If he is capable of reading the
whole score, he is going to understand that it is 'really' B#, and it's
not going to slow him down one bit.  If he is reading only the notes it
makes no difference to him what the chord name is.

> 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.

Depends on the system.  Again, KISS.
> 
> 
> I'm tempted to suggest a sponsorship for a revision of the chord name
> system - any takers?

None of this is new.  All of it was submitted in writing repeatedly before
the present system was completed.  Is it not the very definition of
insanity to expect anything different or better?  daveA

-- 
Free download of technical exercises worth a lifetime of practice:
"Dynamic Guitar Technique": http://www.openguitar.com/instruction.html
Repertoire and/or licks are ammunition.  Tech is a gun.
To email go to: http://www.openguitar.com/contact.html