I agree very much with most everything you have stated. http://www.malletjazz.com/lessons/cho_symb_les.html
-----Original Message----- >From: eyolf ostrem <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Sent: Aug 4, 2006 4:59 PM >To: lilypond-user@gnu.org >Subject: Re: triangle chord notation > >On Fri, 04 Aug 2006 16:39:19 -0400 >David Raleigh Arnold <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> As I wrote years ago, the best thing to do is to adhere to that >> strictly limited symbol set, and always to base spelling on quick >> recognition rather than musical meaning, which is irrelevant in >> improvisation, where the chords are a given. It doesn't matter what >> they mean. Your purpose is to give them a different meaning anyway. > >I read though your old posts on this matter, and I agree on many of >your points. Your syntax scheme for chord naming is admirably precise: > >root [m] [farthest unaltered extension] [(list alterations in ascending >order)] [add|omitNoteOrNumber] (quoted from >http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-user/2004-03/msg00361.html) > >and could well be used as a basis for a new chord naming standard in LP >as well. >But if we're talking about a possible new or additional chord naming >system (and not about which system is best for certain categories of >users), the aim should be: > >a) simplicity of rules and application of these >b) adherence to whatever standards are commonly recognized, not aiming >at pleasing everyone at all cost, but at least not pushing people away, >and >c) a system which is broad enough and precise enough to satisfy many >different users: both the jazz hornist with his lead sheet, the amateur >guitar player who wants to learn Memphis in June, and even the analyst >who wants to put down what's in a piece of music, as briefly as possible >but without loosing too much information. > >I believe your syntax description would come a long way towards >satisfying these demands, but not without some additions: > >dim and aug - these are special in that they to some extent fall >outside the system of chords above a keynote, and deserve special >treatment. As for the question whether "dim" means b3b5 or b3b5bb7, or >the latter should be written dim7, i think it can be easily solved if >both Cdim, Cdim7, and Cb5 (could be written c:dim, c:dim7 and c:-5 >or something) are available, so that if one desperatly WANTS to specify >a chord c-eb-gb, one can do that, but if one simply means what most >people know as a "dim chord", one can simply have Cdim. > >sus2 and sus4 - here, I disagree with you previous posts: a sus4 chord >is not simply an add11omit3 (which would be quite cumbersome to write, >let alone read), and definitely not an 11 (or 11omit3omit9), but an >indication of a progression, where the third is temporarily suspended >and is supposed to return. You may call this academic, but it has the >merits of being precise, concise, and well established. It also aids >the player because it - as the only chord designation in the system - >gives an indication of what is to follow. > >+/- vs. b/# - this might be a matter of taste and of what one is used >to; personally, I prefer Bm7-5 to Bm7b5, but in a typesetting >environment like LP, where clear #/b symbols are available, they have >the advantage of avoiding the confusions inherent in +/-, which may >lead inexperienced readers to believe "-" is some kind of hyphen or dash >of some sort, or think of it as "omit", and who confuse "+" with >"add" (and the use of "+" as a standalone symbol for the aug chord adds >to this confusion). > >slash chords - which should give the bass notes in lowercase letters, >as we both agree :-) > >Other than these, I don't thing anything extra is needed or should be >allowed - no geometrical symbols, no slashed geometrical symbols, >nothing like that. > As for "add2", I agree that it's an unnecessary redundancy, even >though there is the technical subtlety of indicating a cluster c-d-e-g >rather than a stack c-e-g-d. > >> Academics poison the well when they use the system for analysis, >> which is a purpose for which it was never intended. > >... but one for which it can perfectly well be used, within reasonable >limits. They(/we) should not be excluded because some of their(/our) >needs are different from those of the jazz musician at a jam session. > >> Do not follow the >> innovations suggested by academic articles. It leads to such >> abominations as the flat13th chord or the B#7, which is better >> written C7, regardless of a big fat bis being in the score. daveA > >Nope. I can certainly imagine situations (e.g. harmonically complex >pieces with wild/wide shifts) where C7 might be the better choice, for >legibility reasons, but if the progression C-E-Am is transposed to G#, >it should be G#-B#7-E#m, and not G#-C7-E#m. This may be a bad >example, since it would be better written in Ab as Ab-C7-Fm, but the >point is that as long as one follows a defined system, it is easier to >manouver around in a sheet, even in the case where the >composer/typesetter has made stupid choices. > > >I'm tempted to suggest a sponsorship for a revision of the chord name >system - any takers? > > >Eyolf > >-- >Could this be the best day of my life? > > -- Homer Simpson > Homer the Heretic > > >_______________________________________________ >lilypond-user mailing list >lilypond-user@gnu.org >http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user _______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
