Re: Chord Naming

[David Raleigh Arnold]

On Tuesday 27 January 2009, Carl D. Sorensen wrote:
> 
> > 
> > On Friday 23 January 2009, Carl D. Sorensen wrote:
> > > We currently have issues with the chord naming functions of 
LilyPond.
> > If we
> > > pass a \chordmode chord to the the ChordNames construct, we very
> > seldom get
> > > out what we put in (i.e. c:maj13 will give Cmaj7/9/add13).  This 
is
> > because
> > > we currently try to do the chord naming algorithmically.
> > > 
> > > I'd like to add a feature similar to the predefinedFretDiagrams
> > feature.  It
> > > would be a simple means of modifying the chodNameExceptions data
> > structure
> > > (or perhaps a replacement of that structure) so that you could 
define
> > a
> > > chord name by giving a \chordmode chord specifier.  Then, I'd have 
an
> > init
> > > file that would initialize all the chords specified in Dolmetsch
> > online
> > > <http://www.dolmetsch.com/musictheory16.htm> and
> > > <http://www.dolmetsch.com/musictheory17.htm>.
> > 
> > Unfortunately, the chord names in this otherwise excellent theary 
series
> > are terrible. For example, and this is only one, the idea that Cmi7 
and
> > Cma7 is an improvement over Cm7 and Cmaj7 is ill considered, since
> > quick recognition is the only rational criterion.
> 
> I think that you misunderstood my proposal.  I was not proposing to 
use
> names like Cmi7 and Cma7.  I was only referring to the chords that 
were
> included in the series, not the chord names.  I completely agree with 
you
> about the notation in Dolmetsch.
> 
> As for me, I would personally never use circles, or circles with 
slashes, or
> pluses, or triangles.  I always use dim, aug, maj7, etc.  But I 
understand
> that that there are others who want those symbols.  SO I think 
LilyPond
> should provide them.
> 
> > 
> > Any chord may be specified using that system. It requires only the
> > sharp and flat and the slash for bass notes, and occasionally
> > parentheses, as in F(#9) and F#9. It has become customary recently
> > to write the slash bass notes in lower case. This usage seems to 
have
> > suddenly sprung up from many sources (myself included) just as slash
> > chords themselves suddenly appeared back in the 60's.
> >
> 
> I'm most familiar with the system you describe, but I don't know af a
> reference that describes the system.  Can you point me to a reference.
> 
> > I suppose that Dr. Blood's list of chords is reasonably complete. I 
gave
> > up on lilypond's chords when I was unable to write an F#9(b5)/a#. 
(On
> > guitar 6x4554.)  It's easier to enter chords as text attached to 
silent
> > rests. Far easier.
> > 
> 
> If this system works the way I want it to, you'll be able to enter
> fis:9.5-/ais and get out the chord name F#9(b5)/a#.  And if you run it
> through a \transpose fis g{}, you'll get out G9(b5)/b.
> 
> I don't know if I'll be able to get this to work or not, but I think I 
can,
> and I think it's feasible.
> 
> I'm certain I can do it for evertyhing but slash chords.  I'm still 
thinking
> about how slash chords will work.
> 
> > I was ignored before and I expect to be ignored again. Been there, 
no
> > worries. Highest regards, daveA
> > 
> 
> I don't know when you were ignored before.  You're not being ignored 
now.

There is so much to do to fix lilypond's chord implementation.

It as a terrible font, which looks as bad as engineering lettering done 
with a lettering guide. The default should be a serif font like 
lilypond's text font, which looks great.

The size is predicated on having super and subscripts, but they
are hard to read and are used to save horizontal space. The default 
should have the chord name on one line so that the letter size can be
smaller and still be readable. Legibility should come first. Where 
horizontal space is limited then the option is to stack.

The nutty "separators" should be separated from the program. Parentheses
for the list of alterations should be the default, and optional for
"omit" and "add".

There are different musical cultures for chord names. Since C4, C5, and
C6 are easily understood, there is nothing wrong with them. C2, not so 
much. There is nothing wrong with C6add9 when in line and C "6 over 9" 
when super/subscripted.

The closest thing to an authoritative work is the "Music Copying" which
used to be in LilyPond's reference list. It may have been removed 
because of being out of print. If you have legibility, simplicity, and 
historical perspective you have it all. At present LilyPond lacks
all three in the way it prints chords.

The system was developed for quick recognition. Academics have tried
to extend and improve it to use it for analysis, and of course the 
result is bad analysis and much unnecessary confusion. Highest regards, 
daveA

-- 
Free download of technical exercises worth a lifetime of practice:
http://www.openguitar.com/dynamic.html :::: You can play the cards
you're dealt, or improve your hand with DGT.  Very easy guitar
music, solos, duets, exercises.., To contact, visit openguitar.com