[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Chord Name Fixes

From: Rune Zedeler
Subject: Re: Chord Name Fixes
Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2002 18:40:54 +0100
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.0.0) Gecko/20020529

address@hidden wrote:
I said I'd do my best to fix the chords in lilypond a while ago, but
personal commitments (and the daunting prospects of having to learn guile
and LaTex) prevented me from getting around to it. However, I now have some
time on my hands, and a burning desire to produce beuatiful jazz charts on

Very very great!!! :-)

First things first: fix input chord to pitch generation.

Sounds sensible.

I'm currently holding fixes for chord generation. (e.g. "c:m13.5-", &c)
which generates correct notes for pretty much anything I can think of
throwing at it. The old code really didn't deal with anything above a 9th
very well, and had all kinds of quirky behaviour.

I don't really understand what you mean here...

Fix summary:
    Enter chord names relatively intuitively. Any intuitive sequence of
modifiers and alterations
    produces the exepected result.

One thing I've learned during this is:
Don't assume ANYTHING about what is "expected".

    No strange things with 4ths any more. Must use "sus" to remove the 3rd.

Hmmm, I hadn't though about it like that...
If it works then it is ok, I guess.
But I am not at all sure that it WOULD work in all cases... I am more a fan of the more hacky solution to make c:sus4 give <c eis g> and c:sus2 give <c eses g>.
This would not be theoretically correct but it would be easy to backtrack.

    11ths fixed up to produce 11+ for major, 11 for minor chords.

Eh??? I have NEVER heard about this and this would DEFINITELY NOT be what I would expect. I have learned about chord notation in 4 different schools, and in all of them we learned that the chord systems are based on the mixolydian scale.
How do you notate a Gm7/c if you cannot use Csus11 ???

    Subtractions now affect only implicitly added notes, and ignore
    (e.g.   maj13^7  removes the 7th m9^7 removes the 9th.) maj13^13 does
not remove the 13).

I don't understand why m9^7 removes the 9th. Is m9^7 the same thing as m7? (Or did you make a typo?)

    Multiple alterations of the same degree are permitted and work as

I wouldn't know what to expect. Sounds more than strange to me.

    e.g. alt chords of the form c:5+.5-  c:9+.9- &c.

last example giving <c e g bes des dis> ?

By default, 11ths are augmented (whether added explicitly or implicitly).
c:11 produces c e g bf d fs. A natural 11th may be added by specifying

What about c:13 ? You also modify the 11th here?

Chord modifiers affect the way implicit notes are added to the chord.

m, min  :    implicit 3rds are minor. 11ths are natural.
maj :         7ths are major (whether implicit or explicit).
dim:          implicit 3rds are minor, implicit 5ths are diminished, 7ths
are diminished.
aug:           implicit 5ths are augmented.
sus:           do not generate an implicit 3rd.

sound ok. Perhaps we also need hdim

add:   adds the following note, but not implicit 3rds below it.

Not implicit anything below it, hopefully? c:add11 doesn't add the 9th, right?

Modifiers do not add notes, but affect steps that are added afterward.

        c:2    -->  c d e g
        c:add9  -> c e g  d  (experimental)
        c:sus2 --> c d g
        c:maj13   -> c e g b d fs a

Oh. So you answerede my previous question here...
How would you notate a "real" c13? c:13.11- ?


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]