lilypond-user
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Discrepancy in documentation,


From: David Stocker
Subject: Re: Discrepancy in documentation,
Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2008 01:18:25 -0500
User-agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.18 (X11/20081125)

Carl,

I've read and absorbed the first two sections of the Notation reference on chords and only have a few minor suggestions. Overall, the documentation is very clear and easy to follow. I think these few clarifications would avoid any confusion on the part of users who may not be as familiar with chord notation.

Notation Reference 2.7.1
   Common chords
      The section beginning with "The table below shows..."
add "All alterations are based on a major triad (or Dominant 7th chord if the 7th is present)"

somewhere in there. This will clarify the starting basis from which all triad and 7th chord alterations are derived from a naming standpoint.

      m, m7    "This modifier lowers the..."

   Change to "This modifier lowers the 3rd and (if desired) adds a 7th."

These two changes together will cause the example for 'maj, maj7' to not be in conflict with the example for 'm, m7.' In the example for 'm, m7,' you say that 'm7' will 'lower the 7th step.' Similarly in the example for 'maj, maj7,' you say that either of those modifiers will add a 'raised 7th step.' These two disagree with each other since they appear to be operating on two different premises. Incidentally, this will also make the example for 'dim, dim7' true as well, when if you start with a dominant 7th (in this case, B-flat), then using the modifier 'dim7' will actually lower the 7th degree (to B-double flat). Also, this generally validates the way those of us who read lead sheets think about chord naming--that alterations are named according to their relationships to the dominant 7th chord. This also works for 9, 11 and 13 chords as well.


Notation Reference 2.7.2
   Customizing chord names
      The first paragraph beginning "There is no unique system..."

might be more descriptive if it read "There are many unique systems for naming chords." -or- "There is no universally accepted standard for naming chords."

I hope these suggestions are useful.

Also, I have some comments about the general behavior of chords (placement, spacing, etc.) which I will post in a separate thread within the next few days.

Overall, I'm pleasantly surprised by LilyPond's functionality with regards to printing chords. Thanks to all who have worked to make this functionality what it is and also to those who have made the documentation so clear and easy to follow.

Regards,

Dave


Carl D. Sorensen wrote:

On 12/16/08 8:14 AM, "David Stocker" <address@hidden> wrote:

Carl,

My confusion comes from not having a firm grasp on how LilyPond handles
chords. I'm only now exploring that functionality and I need to read the
manuals.

Please do read the notation reference on chords.  Before I rewrote it, I
didn't understand about chords at all.  I learned about them, and rewrote
the section.  I think it explains everything, with examples to clarify.

I'm working on a project right now that involves using chord symbols and
expect to be at it for a couple days. If I find discrepancies in the
documentation or can suggest improvements, I'll try to do it as I work.

OK, I'll look forward to your comments.  Even if you can't suggest
improvements, but only report on confusion, that would be helpful.

Thanks,

Carl







reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]