Re: triangle chord notation

[David Raleigh Arnold]

On Sat, 12 Aug 2006 00:25:58 +0200, Eyolf Ostrem wrote:

> On Fri 11 August 2006 16:47, David Raleigh Arnold wrote:
>> On Sat, 05 Aug 2006 00:59:10 +0200, eyolf ostrem wrote:
> 
>> > 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.
> 
> OK, if you don't want the praise... I wasn't referring to the system -
> which is familiar - but the concise description of it, which would save
> lots of budding guitar players a lot of pain and scratching, and probably
> put a theory teacher or two out of their jobs if it was enclosed with
> every guitar sold. :-)
> 
>> > 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.
> 
> [snip]
> 
>> 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.
> 
> Exactly - as long as all the symbols are available. Both "dim" and "dim7"
> should be available for output.
> 
>> > sus2 and sus4 -
> 
> [snip]
> 
>> "well established?"  Not really.  It's always too late for indications
>> of what is to follow.
> 
> Well, disregard my rambling about resolution - the symbols sus4 and sus2
> are well established (you can hardly argue against that), and they serve
> their purpose well.
> 
>> 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.
> 
> Agreed, in principle. Although a Lilypond file can hardly be counted as
> 'scribbling'... But one should be able to use the same system without
> having to take lettering classes.

That's putting it very well.  I think it is the most compelling possible
argument, but unfortunately it fails to persuade very many people.

>> >  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'.
> 
> As I said, I agree that it's an unnecessary redundancy, but I would also
> have to agree that the sound of c-d-e-g - regardless of instrument; that
> has nothing to do with it - is different enough from c-e-g-d to ALMOST
> merit at least the option to notate it. I'd never use it, though.
> 
>> >> 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.
> 
> Scuse me - where did I say anything to advocate colons and minuses? All
> I wish is a clear and consise system which is able to quickly set down
> some aspects of the music (not all of them - hence my attitude towards
> add2), and in that, I'm not really different when I sight read and when
> I analyse. KISS indeed, that's what I'm after. Which is exactly where I
> think your argument against B# in favor of C fails. It does not simplify
> things, especially not for the system, and not either for the player,
> who, e.g. is accustomed to see some kind of relationship between E and B
> and hence also between E# and B#. E# and C would confuse that player.
> 
> But rather than bicker about what is the ultimately, objectively best
> system for chord notation and why, I'd like to discuss what might be
> desired from the chord notation part of LP. How about:
> 
> - Ditch the current 'alternative' system, which nobody has and nor is
> likely to ever use.
> - Replace it with one or more predefined sets, e.g. one with the
> overload of geometrical symbols that is Ignatzek, another which is
> 'brief but verbose', ascii-based, scribble-friendly, like dim, aug,
> sus4, add9, etc. - Expand the set of programmed-in exceptions  from
> today's option to choose between "maj7" or <triangle>, to include
> specifyable rules about e.g. -/+ or b/#, dim/aug or o/+, strict or lax
> use of 'add' (e.g. 69 or 6add9), i.e. the broad dialects in graphical
> preferences. - with the final aim of getting a system which (a) has
> usable defaults, and (b) has options for all/most of the symbols in
> current use in jazz, in rock, and in tin pan alley arrangements alike,
> and without the user having to dig into the source files and boldly
> change defaults there or whatever. If I want to display Fdim or B#7, I
> should be able to do so, and not be forced to write Fo or C. (Of course,
> if I want to write F%& or B@, I accept to have to work for it.)
> 
> Is this something we can agree upon?

Absolutely.  But all of this was before the developers from the beginning.
How can you expect a different result from the same input?  daveA