Re: Typesetting chord symbols

[Johan Vromans]

On Mon, 5 Jan 2015 19:25:44 -0800
Flaming Hakama by Elaine <address@hidden> wrote:

> > As a starter, we could have things like the following (taken from Brandt
> and Roemer):
> 
> I admit to not being familiar with this seminal work.  I wonder how much
> it reflects common practice?

Even though it may not reflect common practice, or the numerous common
practices that are in use, it is very much worth a read.

It's out of print, but there are scans on the internet, e.g.

http://home.cogeco.ca/~douglasgifford/stuffholder/roehmer%20%26%20brandt%20scan.pdf

> A root like "Ab" will be constructed out of more than one font:  the "A"
> from a text font, and the flat from a music font.
> As such, I can imagine wanting to be able to specify the relative size and
> alignment (both horizontal and vertical for both parts of the rootl, as
> well as right padding before what comes next.

I (personally) am considering to leave the idea of creating chord symbols
from different fonts and instead create a new font specifically for this
purpose. Of course some glyphs will be borrowed from existing fonts, but at
least most typesetting details can be handled by the font and kerning
tables.

> I would argue that the basic types of chords represented by chord symbols
> might include:
>    major
>    minor
>    dominant
>    diminished
>    augmented
>    half-diminished
> 
> Of course this list could get arbitrarily long.

I would include major7.

> 1) These are all diatonic 7th chords--at least, if you count the harmonic
> minor scale as diatonic.

Not sure what you mean. I wouldn't consider major and minor triads to be
7th chords.

> 3) I find that in practical use, it is far more important that the the
> chord type be easier to parse visually than extensions and alterations.
> in practical terms, this means that I like to format the 7 for a dominant
> chord larger than any extensions (like b9, #9).

Exactly. One of the 'standards' is to put the type symbol as a superscript,
while additions and omissions go as subscripts.

> I have literally never seen a chord symbol (in actual musical context)
> that refer to omissions. I'm sure some people would actually write chord
> symbols with omissions (rather than using things like "add 9").

E.g., neutral chords (no3rd) are quite common in jazz and blues.

-- Johan