On Jan 17, 2016, at 4:16 PM, Carl-Henrik Buschmann <address@hidden> wrote:
While i might agree with you to some extent this is also a practial matter:
1) Whether or not you call it maj or *triangle*, m or MI is indeed a matter of culture and personal taste. But consider the following: A C7, a dominant, might tell a performing musician lots but when dealing with academic and analysis it is quite thin if the actual sounding timbre is a C13(b9), also a dominant, but allowed for when performing certain styles. What the composer/arranger chooses to do, is a different case than the needs of the academic (and specific composer/arranger).
Perhaps. Musicality and practicality often seem secondary in academic pursuits as it is the idea that seems primary, not the resultant. 13b9 chords are common enough in jazz, though, although practically speaking in improvisation it is often more fruitful to think of them as a polychord- C7 with A major triad superimposed in this case- as this offers more options.
While i agree on this way of thinking *practically* makes a lot of sense. But you are talking about changing a whole culture of thinking. To sum up: Stacked chords are useful for in some musical settings but it is not the future as of yet as they do not display function.
Although the ever singing chorus here on lilypond-user is that there is no agreed apon conventions in chords, i disagree both as a musician and a scholar. The way to notate jazz/pop chords are established thoroughly through the "real book" series and others.
Kieren is thankfully working on this and i hope the brains that code for lilypond can bash heads together and at least give us a *working* solution and stop bickering over personal preferences that only hinder the development.
2) There is also the matter of spacing. Cmaj7 #5 b9 #11/F# is stealing a whole system! That is insane (in the membrane!) and i stand by my statement that the default output of lilypond is undesirable.
Which is why you can create chord exceptions to the default behavior.Excessive definition of chords restricts the freedom of the musician- for jazz, maximizing freedom is more useful.
I see your point and I agree. Both Sibelius and Finale have a comprehensive libraries of chords and while not to everybodys taste, it does pave the way for a good default. The people of Sib and Fin have done theire homework. Sibelius perhaps even more so regarding chords. Perhaps it is possible to look what have already been done?
Their code is proprietary, unlike Lilypond, and it may be that one of those applications would be more suitable for your needs. Indeed, given the expectations of the academic and publishing worlds it would probably be required that you submit the piece as a Finale or Sibelius file in any event. Ideally Lilypond should be able to use a variety of chord rendering formats, but given that it is developed largely by unpaid volunteers it may take a while to get there.
I'm not talking about code, i'm talking about style. And by the looks of it Sibelius at least have by and large been inspired by B&R. But as you said, predefined is not the way to go. Even so, look at what they have done and simply mimick the behaviour. "Great artists steal".
|