Carl D. Sorensen wrote:
My currently-planned starting point for chord naming is
http://www.dolmetsch.com/musictheory17.htm#namechords
If you have any disagreement with this reference, please let me know.
It looks like a good starting point to me - there are a couple of things
that don't appear that I have seen in published music (stacked
additions, for example) - I'll make a list.
Isn't it possible to give more options and be able to choose an way of
noticing?
For example
\europe
\vs
\Berklee
\realbook
\fakebook
Yes. That is why I want to separate naming from displaying, as much as
possible.
Makes sense, but I wonder at how many options would needed - the
problem, as stated before, is that there is no standard, and every
publishing house seems to do its own thing, even to the point of having
different conventions used within the same publishing house.
I have in front of me right now three pieces which I'm currently
performing with my jazz ensemble, from two different publishers, all
bought in the last twelve months. While at first glance they appear
similar (partly because the same ugly font has been used in all three),
a closer look reveals that there are differences in the way chords are
named in all three pieces. Whether this comes from the original
composer, the arranger or the typesetter is not clear.
I assume that there would still have to be some means of creating
exceptions. If someone wants chords named mainly in the Real Book style,
but with minors notated slightly differently ( Cm / Cmi / C- ) for
example, would they find themselves having to put together a large list
of exceptions to get their preferred style? Or would there be some other
way of 'tweaking' just that aspect of how chord names are displayed?
Brett
_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
