> On Jan 18, 2016, at 1:44 AM, Carl-Henrik Buschmann <p...@nordisk-lyd.no> > wrote: > > >> 18. jan. 2016 kl. 02.40 skrev tim...@bitstream.net: >> >>> >>> On Jan 17, 2016, at 4:16 PM, Carl-Henrik Buschmann <p...@nordisk-lyd.no> >>> 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.
True, if one is focusing on writing out functional harmony the use of polychords can obscure that to a degree. > 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. As an American jazz musician- hmm, attempted jazz musician would be more accurate- I agree that the Real Book has become the de facto standard for most jazz musicians. It’s been some 40 years that those books have been around now, several generations of musicians are used to them. Although the Real Books are inconsistent in how complex chords are written out- some have the extensions written out horizontally, some are parenthesized, some are parenthesized and stacked, etc. > 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. I have had a cobbled-together Brandt-Roemer chord exceptions file modified from the pop-chords.ly file for a couple of years, Kieran’s is going to be much more comprehensive and rigorous than mine is and I am looking forward to it. One advantage of the B-R system is that when I hand out lead sheets to other musician, no one ever asks what the chord symbols mean. >>> 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. Between my quoted response and the subsequent one to Kieran I thought about intended purpose. If you’re creating a chart to use on the bandstand it may look different than one being created for analytical or academic purposes. The latter is intended to elucidate the concepts at work and the greater specificity of a C13b9 rather than a C7 is probably necessary; never having done academic music study I do not tend to think of this. My apologies for not having considered this sooner in the discussion. Tim _______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
