Re: [abcusers] Chord notation
Phil Taylor wrote: (I have a deep suspicion of the ambiguities inherent in text-based guitar chord symbols. I'd really rather write them out in abc.) And quite right you are, too. Not all chords can be played on the guitar as they should be. There's only six strings and four fingers. ;-) Chords are approximated by dropping some notes (e.g. the 5th, 9th and 11th in a 13 chord) and I believe sometimes notes are replaced with their counterparts of the higher or lower octave. In another mail, Laurie Griffiths wrote: There is no way to indicate root+fifth only Aren't `5' chords root+fifth? I'm prepared to add |11|13 if someone would like to define what these mean (but one rapidly gets to the chord which has every note in it. There is after all already a way in ABC to write explicit chords [CGceg_b] for instance and I would like to "KISS"). About the definition of 11 and 13 chords, see one of my previous mails. I agree with the KISS thing, though. If you want to be able to parse every possible chord, the modifier part in your regular language will become too complicated to be good. If you have a way of defining uncommon chords, I really see no need to make the parser handle stuff like `mmaj13+11' (I'd like to see the definition of this one...). What I _would_ like in that case is a way to define it, e.g. at the start of the file or song, e.g. [insert unassigned letter here]:m13 = [1 b3 5 b7 9 11 13] Hence, Dm13 = D F A c e g b; Gm13 = G Bb d f a c' e'; etc. The last line in the chord regular language then becomes modifier = m|m7||maj7|dim|aug|!|4|5|6|7|9|predefined chord predefined chord = string I don't think that [CGceg_b] is enough: It will be written as notes, not as a guitar chord above the staff. I realise my proposal gives rise to some problems, but I hope discussing them can clear things up. And then, Frank Nordberg wrote: Laurie Griffiths wrote: [...] for instance minmaj is crazy Do you mean the name is crazy or that nobody would ever use such a chord? I can agree to the former, but a minor chord with a major 7th added isn't unusual. The name is crazy, TMHO. I'd call such a chord `madd7'. `minmaj' suggests that the notes of both the maj and the min chords are part of it. 1, 3b, 3, 5, 7? I think this one may sound a little odd ;-) Frank Nordberg also wrote: Laurie Griffiths wrote: what "sus" would add to "sus7". Shouldn't that be "sus4" rather than "sus7". The sus7 chord is a different thing altogether - and definitely *very* common: Gsus7: G-C-D-F I never encountered this notation: only sus = sus4 and sus2. The chord you cite here is G7sus4. Remark that a sus chord doesn't add a note to a chord, it only _replaces_ one (the 2nd or the 4th). Ergo, sus4 has three notes, 7sus4 four. But the difference between "sus" and "sus4" - I'd say "sus" is either sloppy writing or a short form of "sus4". sus is definitely a short notation for sus4. In yet another mail, Mike Whitaker wrote: Frank's Woodchopper ball arrangement snipped There are ambiguities here. Does G+11 mean G with added 11, G aug 11, or G11 with the 11th sharpened? From the chord faq http://guitarnotes.com/notes/noteget.cgi?chord_faq: There are a few different ways to write these chords. '-' and '+' signs are sometimes used to mean 'flat' and 'sharp' respectively, but 'b' and '#' are used as well. You might even see 'dim' and 'aug' (diminished and augmented) used too for the same thing. So E7#9 could be written as E7+9 or E7aug9 and E7b9 could be written as E7-9 or E7dim9 So, G+11 would be a synonym of Gaug11. -- bert van vreckem echo bexryt.vzaxnvrexckyemqxadvyaxlvasz.bxe|sed -e "s/[x-z]//g;s/q/@/" If you have a procedure with 10 parameters, you probably missed some. To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html
Re: [abcusers] Chord notation
On Fri, Feb 16, 2001 at 09:18:57AM +0100, Bert Van Vreckem wrote: Frank's Woodchopper ball arrangement snipped There are ambiguities here. Does G+11 mean G with added 11, G aug 11, or G11 with the 11th sharpened? From the chord faq http://guitarnotes.com/notes/noteget.cgi?chord_faq: There are a few different ways to write these chords. '-' and '+' signs are sometimes used to mean 'flat' and 'sharp' respectively, but 'b' and '#' are used as well. You might even see 'dim' and 'aug' (diminished and augmented) used too for the same thing. So E7#9 could be written as E7+9 or E7aug9 and E7b9 could be written as E7-9 or E7dim9 So, G+11 would be a synonym of Gaug11. Which doesn't answer my question, since it's still unclear! Is Gaug11 meant to be (Gaug)11 (G B D# F A C) or G(aug11) (G B D F A C#)? *grin* And if we go back to G+11, it's perfectly understandable to interpret G+11 as Gadd11, i.e G B D C. (Gotta watch these jazzers, they get wierd...) It's all very well pointing at one FAQ that defines it one way, but it's not the only FAQ or the only interprotation. -- Mike Whitaker | Work: +44 1733 766619 | Work: [EMAIL PROTECTED] System Architext | Fax: +44 1733 348287 | Home: [EMAIL PROTECTED] CricInfo Ltd | GSM: +44 7971 977375 | Web: http://www.cricinfo.com/ To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html
Re: [abcusers] Chord notation
I'm going to take the liberty of reposting my suggestion for chord syntax, since it seems to have got rather lost amid discussions on MUSE's, abc2midi;s and the draft standard. Hey, Rocky - watch me pull a formal grammer out of this hat! Note * = zero or more of... [] = optional '' = literal string .. = range of numbers abcchord :== '"'symbol'"' symbol :== chord|bassnote bassnote :== singlenoteletter[accidental] singlenoteletter :== 'a'|'b'|'c'|'d'|'e'|'f'|'g' accidental :== '#'|'b' chord :== notetype[modifierlist]['/'note] note :== noteletter[accidental] noteletter :== 'A'|'B'|'C'|'D'|'E'|'F'|'G' type :== nothing|'m'|'dim'|'aug' nothing :== '' modifierlist :== complexmod* complexmod :== modifier|(modifier) modifier :== suspension|omission|addition|extension suspension :== 'sus2'|'sus4' omission := '5'|'no'degree degree :== '2'..'13' addition :== 'add'altereddegree altereddegree :== [accidental]degree extension :== '6'|complexext complexext :== alteredext1|alteredext2 alteredext1 :== ['maj']ext7th[alterationlist] alteredext1 :== ['maj']accidentalext7th ext7th :== '7'|'9'|'11'|'13' alterationlist :== alteration* alteration :== accidentaldegree NB noX remove degree X from the chord (e.g, C7(no3) 5 same as 'no3' 6 add 6th [maj]7 add b7th (7th if 'maj') [maj]9 add b7th (7th if 'maj') + 9th [maj]11 add b7th (7th if 'maj') + 9th + 11th [maj]13 add b7th (7th if 'maj') + 9th + 11th + 13th [add]X add the Xth note of the scale sus2drop the 3rd to the second sus4raise the 3rd to the fourth accidentalX apply the accidental to the X degree -- Mike Whitaker | Work: +44 1733 766619 | Work: [EMAIL PROTECTED] System Architext | Fax: +44 1733 348287 | Home: [EMAIL PROTECTED] CricInfo Ltd | GSM: +44 7971 977375 | Web: http://www.cricinfo.com/ To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html
Re: [abcusers] Chord notation
Bert Van Vreckem wrote: About the definition of 11 and 13 chords, see one of my previous mails. I agree with the KISS thing, though. If you want to be able to parse every possible chord, the modifier part in your regular language will become too complicated to be good. If you have a way of defining uncommon chords, I really see no need to make the parser handle stuff like `mmaj13+11' (I'd like to see the definition of this one...). Dmmaj13+11: D-F-A-C-E-G#-B (The actual voicing for that chord in my arrangement was: [^C,,D,F,_A,B,CFA] so Dm7add6add+11/C would have been more correct) What I _would_ like in that case is a way to define it, e.g. at the start of the file or song, e.g... Yep, I think that's a far better approach. It seems obvious that a static list of chord suffixes won't be sufficient, but there are three possible solutions to that: a) chord suffix definitons as a part of the tune as Bert suggests b) chord suffixes defined in a separate file (like BarFly's stress programs) c) include a set of rules for how suffixes are constructed rather than a list of chord suffixes in the abc standard. I see no problem implementing all three alternatives. And then, Frank Nordberg wrote: Laurie Griffiths wrote: [...] for instance minmaj is crazy Do you mean the name is crazy or that nobody would ever use such a chord? I can agree to the former, but a minor chord with a major 7th added isn't unusual. The name is crazy, TMHO. I'd call such a chord `madd7'. `minmaj' suggests that the notes of both the maj and the min chords are part of it. 1, 3b, 3, 5, 7? I think this one may sound a little odd ;-) Mixing major and minor thirds is bread and butter for anybody who plays blues and blues inspired music. See if you can find a recording of Blood Sweat and Tears' "Spinning wheel". They're doing some wonderful things with that chord there. I'd use the suffix "+9" for that chord, though (US educated jazz musicians would probably call it "7#9") The spinning wheel progression is: E+9 - A7add13 - D+9 - G7add13 Guitarist Steve Katz plays: XX678X XX567X XX456X XX345X [sus7] I never encountered this notation: only sus = sus4 and sus2. The chord you cite here is G7sus4. Remark that a sus chord doesn't add a note to a chord, it only _replaces_ one (the 2nd or the 4th). Ergo, sus4 has three notes, 7sus4 four. I agree to that. "sus7" seems to be a fairly common abbreviation to "7sus4", though [sus] sus is definitely a short notation for sus4. Glad to hear that, since I use it myself quite often :) [G+11] So, G+11 would be a synonym of Gaug11. Err... probably yes. In the part of the world where I live, the term "aug" tends to refer to the 5th no matter what context it is in. There are three different conventions for indicating altered notes in a chord: #/b, +/- and (less common) aug/dim. All poses some syntax problems, especially since any people tend to use different conventions for different chords. I decided to stick firmly to the +/- convention since that seemed to be that one that caused the least confusion To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html
Re: [abcusers] Chord notation
Regarding my proposal for chord notation: Jack Campin said: ...it allows no way to write a bare octave... Fair enough - I'm happy to add "8" to the list. This begs a question though. How precise should the chord notation be? One expects the same chord notation to be interpretable by (at least!) banjo, guitar, mandolin or keyboard and they will typically play the notes in different octaves and quite likely in different inversions. Bert Van Vreckem seemed to agree when he said: ..There's only six strings and four fingers. ;-) Chords are approximated by dropping some notes... ...Why are the accidentals given that way?... For histerical (sic) reasons. Even though it is possible to translate the chord names between tadpole and ABC I would rather it were not necessary. It's one more thing to go wrong, so I like it the way it is. ...Is this an appropriate moment to suggest throwing in roman-numeral and figured-bass notations as well? Yes, it's the right moment, but I vote against it. I want to reduce the number of ways to write it. I just think that they are not ABC. On the same grounds, I don't want to allow writing f in the melody as (1,1) - that's fret 1 on the first string. It's a valid idea, but it's not ABC ...Parsing "F sharp minor" to print "F#m" should be easy. No, it's impossible - because the range of things that might mean F#m is unlimited. Would FSM be the same? How about the same but in Italian? All one can do is to have a certain set of notations (the new standard) which is guaranteed to be OK and then whatever else any particular package can make work (no guarantees). I know someone who notates minor chords in lower case, so he'd write it as f#. Frank Nordberg wants the modifier list to include (I think) 6 m-6 m6 69 7 7+ maj7 m7 dim7 9 -9 9-5 11 +11 m13 mmaj13+11 13-9 but he didn't explain what they meant and until someone does we can't really consider them. (I would hope that there will never be anything to prevent these things being written, but they won't be playable, transposable, etc. unless and until they are well defined). Bert Van Vreckem said: ...Aren't `5' chords root+fifth?... Yes, but they were what I added, not in the original draft standard. [paraphrased by me]...I would like a way to define other chords at the start of the file or song, e.g. [insert unassigned letter here]:m13 = [1 b3 5 b7 9 11 13] Hence, Dm13 = D F A c e g b; Gm13 = G Bb d f a c' e'; etc. The last line in the chord regular language then becomes modifier = m|m7||maj7|dim|aug|!|4|5|6|7|9|predefined chord predefined chord = string So how about: guitar chord = silence|chord silence = X chord = root[modifier][/bass] root = note bass = note note = note letter[accid] note letter = A|B|C|D|E|F|G accid = #|b modifier = m|m7||maj7|dim|aug|!|4|5|6|7|8|9|predefined chord predefined chord = string together with something (which Bert sketched) for the header to define any of the predefined chord strings. Laurie To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html
Re: [abcusers] Chord notation
On Fri, Feb 16, 2001 at 10:26:33AM +, Mike Whitaker wrote: I'm going to take the liberty of reposting my suggestion for chord syntax, since it seems to have got rather lost amid discussions on MUSE's, abc2midi;s and the draft standard. Hey, Rocky - watch me pull a formal grammer out of this hat! Hey, Rocky: watch me louse up. extension :== '6'|complexext complexext :== alteredext1|alteredext2 alteredext1 :== ['maj']ext7th[alterationlist] alteredext1 :== ['maj']accidentalext7th ext7th :== '7'|'9'|'11'|'13' alterationlist :== alteration* alteration :== accidentaldegree Lets try THAT again: extension :== extensiontypealterationlist extensiontype :== extended6th|extended7th extended6th :== [accidental]'6' extended7th :== ['maj'][accidental]base7th base7th :== '7'|'9'|'11'|'13' alterationlist :== alteration* alteration :== accidentaldegree -- Mike Whitaker | Work: +44 1733 766619 | Work: [EMAIL PROTECTED] System Architext | Fax: +44 1733 348287 | Home: [EMAIL PROTECTED] CricInfo Ltd | GSM: +44 7971 977375 | Web: http://www.cricinfo.com/ To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html
Re: [abcusers] Chord notation
I'm going to take the liberty of reposting my suggestion for chord syntax, since it seems to have got rather lost amid discussions on MUSE's, abc2midi;s and the draft standard. Hey, Rocky - watch me pull a formal grammer out of this hat! We have a choice of two possible routes here. We can try to accommodate the vagaries of current musical useage, or we can follow a strict set of definitions as proposed here. The first option will never be entirely correct because current musical useage is ambiguous (but it probably would suit most users most of the time). The second option will give the programmers something concrete to work with, and personally I much prefer it. (However, it will have to be written out in English, or most abc users won't even bother to read it.) Phil Taylor To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html
Re: [abcusers] Chord notation
Which is why I am coming more and more to like the recent suggestion of a mechanism to define chords beyond a reasonable standard set. Incidentally, it occurred to me that "/G" would be a logical name for the degenerate single-note chord which has G in the bass and nothing else. Any takers? Laurie - Original Message - From: Mike Whitaker [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, February 16, 2001 9:46 AM Subject: Re: [abcusers] Chord notation On Fri, Feb 16, 2001 at 09:18:57AM +0100, Bert Van Vreckem wrote: Frank's Woodchopper ball arrangement snipped There are ambiguities here. Does G+11 mean G with added 11, G aug 11, or G11 with the 11th sharpened? From the chord faq http://guitarnotes.com/notes/noteget.cgi?chord_faq: There are a few different ways to write these chords. '-' and '+' signs are sometimes used to mean 'flat' and 'sharp' respectively, but 'b' and '#' are used as well. You might even see 'dim' and 'aug' (diminished and augmented) used too for the same thing. So E7#9 could be written as E7+9 or E7aug9 and E7b9 could be written as E7-9 or E7dim9 So, G+11 would be a synonym of Gaug11. Which doesn't answer my question, since it's still unclear! Is Gaug11 meant to be (Gaug)11 (G B D# F A C) or G(aug11) (G B D F A C#)? *grin* And if we go back to G+11, it's perfectly understandable to interpret G+11 as Gadd11, i.e G B D C. (Gotta watch these jazzers, they get wierd...) It's all very well pointing at one FAQ that defines it one way, but it's not the only FAQ or the only interprotation. -- Mike Whitaker | Work: +44 1733 766619 | Work: [EMAIL PROTECTED] System Architext | Fax: +44 1733 348287 | Home: [EMAIL PROTECTED] CricInfo Ltd | GSM: +44 7971 977375 | Web: http://www.cricinfo.com/ To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html
Re: [abcusers] Chord notation
On Fri, Feb 16, 2001 at 12:04:19PM +, Phil Taylor wrote: (However, it will have to be written out in English, or most abc users won't even bother to read it.) Agreed. THat was as much an exervise to satisfy myself I could write a grammer that *could* be parsed as anything else. -- Mike Whitaker | Work: +44 1733 766619 | Work: [EMAIL PROTECTED] System Architext | Fax: +44 1733 348287 | Home: [EMAIL PROTECTED] CricInfo Ltd | GSM: +44 7971 977375 | Web: http://www.cricinfo.com/ To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html
Re: [abcusers] Chord notation
"Laurie" == Laurie Griffiths [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: ...Is this an appropriate moment to suggest throwing in roman-numeral and figured-bass notations as well? Laurie Yes, it's the right moment, but I vote against it. I would have said, no, it's not the right moment, but I vote for it when it is. I think the roman numerals can easily be a display type for chords once we have a standard for entering the chords (which if an implementer wants to implement it now, could be done with a %% directive). The figured bass is a little more complicated, because of needing to be able to stack several figures, but otherwise presents the same problems as chords. For instance, they need to be able to change "between" melody notes, they need to be able to display accidentals, etc. Laurie I want to reduce the number of ways to write it. I just Laurie think that they are not ABC. On the same grounds, I don't Laurie want to allow writing f in the melody as (1,1) - that's Laurie fret 1 on the first string. It's a valid idea, but it's Laurie not ABC I agree that this kind of tablature isn't ABC, but I disagree that figured bass and roman numerals are any less ABC than chords. And they seem like a similar enough problems to the chords that they should be implemented some time. For people who are interested in extending ABC to deal with tablature, look at abctab2ps at http://www.emsland-aktuell.com/lautengesellschaft/cdmm/index.html -- Laura (mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] , http://www.laymusic.org/ ) (617) 661-8097 fax: (801) 365-6574 233 Broadway, Cambridge, MA 02139 To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html
RE: [abcusers] Chord notation
Wouldn't you just use the G note for that? or are you maybe thinking of a situation where you are creating backup music only using chords? "Richard L Walker"[EMAIL PROTECTED] Pensacola, FL 32504-7726 USA To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html
RE: [abcusers] Chord notation
If it ain't text, it ain't abc. (going back into the lurk mode) "Richard L Walker"[EMAIL PROTECTED] Pensacola, FL 32504-7726 USA -Original Message- From: Phil Taylor [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] ...(However, it will have to be written out in English, or most abc users won't even bother to read it.)... To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html
Re: [abcusers] Chord notation
Laurie writes: | | Incidentally, it occurred to me that "/G" would be a logical name for the | degenerate single-note chord which has G in the bass and nothing else. Any | takers? Well, as an accordion player, my response would be "What's the difference?" That's pretty much a description of the first two rows of "chords" on the left side of an accordion. Though players tend to call them "bass notes", they are usually made up of two or more reeds that sound in different octaves, so they are "chords" in this degenerate sense. And, of course, organs and harpsichords have similar multi-octave coupling mechanisms. To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html
Re: [abcusers] Chord notation
Laurie Griffiths wrote: Frank Nordberg wants the modifier list to include... No, I don't. I want the entire modifier list replaced with a set of fairly simple rules defining the syntax of the modifier. If I understand Mike Whitaker's proposal (which I'm not absolutely sure I do) correctly, it ought to cover almost everything. Just a few slight modifications and it'd be perfect. --- I'm not at all familiar with the formal language Mike used, and I suppose a few list subscribers would have slight problems with straight Norwegian, so I'll try to do my best defining a set of rules in my rather clumsy English. These 12 rules ought to cover every possible combination of scale and non-scale notes an confirms to common chord notation standard as far as it's possible to confirm to a standard that strictly speaking doesn't exist ;) 1. No chord suffix implies a major triad%step 1, 3 and 5 of the major scale. 2. m implies a minor triad %step 1, 3 and 5 of the minor scale. 3. The main series are based oon thirds in the mixolydian/dorian scale (with major 6th and minor 7th): 7 - 9 - 11 - 13. Any of these numbers implies that all the steps up to and including the specified one are added to the chord. 4. "6" specifies the (major) 6th to be added to the triad. 5. A + (or # if you like) in front of a number specifies that that note is raised a semitone. 6. A - (or b) in front of a number specifies that that note is lowered a semitone. %Note: I prefer +/- rather than #/b to avoid any possible confusion %with accidentals connected to the root note. I consider the problems %of "-" being confused with the old fashioned minor symbol and "+" with %"add" to be of much less importance. 7. "maj" specifies a major 7th. It is laways followed by a number from the main series. %Note: Ideally, I'd prefer +7/#7 instead, but "maj" is far too common %a term to be ignored. 8. "sus" before a number implies that that note is to replace the third of the chord. Only two alternatives are allowed: sus2 and sus4. 9. "x" before a number specifies that that note is to be omitted from the chord. %Note: It seems the most usual term for this is "omit", but I like %"x" far better ;) 10. "x" not followed by a number specifies root only 11. "add" before a number specifies that only that note and no others (unless otherwise specified) are added. %Note: "add" overrides "x", which means you can cut down to the root and %then add anything you like (e.g. Cxadd8). This is a kind of a catch-all. 12. The following common alternative suffixes are allowed: a) dim = m-7-5 b) 5 = x3 %the root-fifth power chord c) 69 = 6add9 d) 8 = xadd8 %Note: The list in #12 is definitely open to discussions Frank --- To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html
Re: [abcusers] Chord notation
Just two short apologizes - quite malapropos everything. I've struggled with some annoying time delays during this entire discussion. My own postings has sometimes taken ages to appear, and I've received other peoples posting in the wrong order (frequently getting somebody's reply before whatever they replied to). So I'm afraid my arguments have been a bit out of sync with the discussion now and then :( Also, I noticed that some d*mn mail mangler messed up the carefully constructed layout of my list of chord suffix rules. I hope it's still readable. Frank --- To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html
Re: [abcusers] Chord notation
Laura Conrad wrote: "Laurie" == Laurie Griffiths [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: ...Is this an appropriate moment to suggest throwing in roman-numeral and figured-bass notations as well? Laurie Yes, it's the right moment, but I vote against it. I would have said, no, it's not the right moment, but I vote for it when it is. I agree with Laura. The roman numerals question is simple enough that it can wait. Basso continuo is defnitely the father of modern chord notation (alfabeto notation is the mother in case anybody wonders), but it's based on a slightly different understanding of chords and poses completely different and really serius problems. So let's deal with that later. Frank --- To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html
Re: [abcusers] Chord notation
Maybe I was too cryptic. I know what the note is, it's G - but if I write "G" then I'd expect a guitarist (accordionist, mandolinist,...) to play a chord of G major. So how do we write "just the G by itself". I don't fancy writing something to parse "just the G by itself" any more than I fancied parsing "F sharp minor". So what do we write? One suggestion was "G!" another was "g". Given that "F#/G" means 'the chord "F#" with a G bass note added', I wondered whether "/G" meant 'the chord "" with a G bass note added" and as the chord "" has no notes in it (but I'm labouring the point). Having invented it, I'm not sure that I like it. So I repeat, "any takers?" Laurie - Original Message - From: John Chambers [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, February 16, 2001 6:11 PM Subject: Re: [abcusers] Chord notation Laurie writes: | | Incidentally, it occurred to me that "/G" would be a logical name for the | degenerate single-note chord which has G in the bass and nothing else. Any | takers? Well, as an accordion player, my response would be "What's the difference?" That's pretty much a description of the first two rows of "chords" on the left side of an accordion. Though players tend to call them "bass notes", they are usually made up of two or more reeds that sound in different octaves, so they are "chords" in this degenerate sense. And, of course, organs and harpsichords have similar multi-octave coupling mechanisms. To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html
Re: [abcusers] Chord notation
Laurie Griffiths [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This begs a question though. How precise should the chord notation be? One expects the same chord notation to be interpretable by (at least!) banjo, guitar, mandolin or keyboard and they will typically play the notes in different octaves and quite likely in different inversions. Laurie is right to ask this question. In the spirit of "KISS," consider how the typical abc user uses chord notation. It is NOT used to indicate precisely what notes are to be played. Rather, it is deliberately kept non-specific, suggesting something about the harmony-structure of the piece, but deliberately omitting many details of realization. If the abc transcriber wants to specify particular notes, then the notation permits the explicit statement of notes in square brackets. I think it would be a definite error to build definitions of chords in terms of notes into the abc notation. The standard should say that "Gm" means G minor. The standard should not say what G minor means. An abc playback or printout program may have a great deal of flexibility in it. It may be most appropriate to include information about how chords are to be played as instructions to that program (on pseudocomment lines, say), or on options settable directly in the program. One needn't press the appropriately simply chord notation of abc into service to do this. For example, abc2midi has quite a bit of flexbility in playing guitar chords. This is best controlled at the playback level, rather than at the notation level. Robert Bley-Vroman Honolulu (There is a kind of weak analogy between this and something we were discussing a while back. The abc notation system should say that A means "the A above middle C". It need not (must not) define A as 440 Hz. This lack of specificity is a virtue, not a defect.) To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html
Re: [abcusers] Chord notation
On Fri, Feb 16, 2001 at 02:25:42PM -0800, Robert Bley-Vroman wrote: Laurie is right to ask this question. In the spirit of "KISS," consider how the typical abc user uses chord notation. It is NOT used to indicate precisely what notes are to be played. Rather, it is deliberately kept non-specific, suggesting something about the harmony-structure of the piece, but deliberately omitting many details of realization. If the abc transcriber wants to specify particular notes, then the notation permits the explicit statement of notes in square brackets. I think it would be a definite error to build definitions of chords in terms of notes into the abc notation. The standard should say that "Gm" means G minor. The standard should not say what G minor means. I beg to differ a little. The standard should say that "Gm" means a chord containing G Bb and D, it should *not* give any indication of voicing, inversion, repeated notes, rhythm, etc etc etc. That's down to the player program. (A thought: a version of abc2ps that generates guitar chord *boxes* would be sweet - just a light hearted-thought, that's all... *grin*) Bear in mind that a folk musician's 'sketch' of harmony can be a three chord trick, a rock musician's often includes suggestions of bass lines, and a jazzer's can be a whole bunch of altered ninths and 13ths. I'm aware that abc's *primary* intent was to transcribe folk tunes, but it clearly lends itself to lead-line-plus-chords music, anf folk musicans don't have a monopoly on that: it seems a shame to restrict its use for want of a tighter spec on chords. This all started from me wanting to know if abc2midi handled slash chords. The reason why is that I'm using abc2midi to help me *write* a song, and having the chordal backing is proving *really* useful, as is/will be the ability to teach it to friends in the States by sending them a file several orders of magnitude smaller than an MP3... From little acorns... -- Mike Whitaker | Work: +44 1733 766619 | Work: [EMAIL PROTECTED] System Architext | Fax: +44 1733 348287 | Home: [EMAIL PROTECTED] CricInfo Ltd | GSM: +44 7971 977375 | Web: http://www.cricinfo.com/ To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html
[abcusers] Re: abcusers-digest V1 #441
Jack Campin wrote- One beef. Why are the accidentals given that way? ABC has an irritating non-uniformity here: you write flats and sharps prefixed with ^ and _ if they occur as accidentals in the melody line of a piece, b and # postfixed in the key signature and in chords. Couldn't a uniform notation (^ and _ prefixed everywhere) be supported? Printed music notation has this duality, and abc just followed suit (quite appropriately, to those of us who still believe that there should be a mapping between abc and printed music). Notes in the tune are represented by tadpoles with prefixed accidentals that are omitted if they're in the key signature and remain enabled throughout the measure, and chords are represented alphabetically with post fixed accidentals that aren't. Trying to fix it in abc without an analogous change in printed music will be asking for trouble. Laurie wrote- Incidentally, it occurred to me that "/G" would be a logical name for the degenerate single-note chord which has G in the bass and nothing else. Any takers? Right here, Laurie. I think it's brilliant. __ /\/\/\/\ __ | | | | | David Barnert __ | | | | | [EMAIL PROTECTED] __ | | | | | Albany, N.Y. __ \/\/\/\/ Ventilator Concertina Bellows Bellows (Vocation) (Avocation) To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html
Re: [abcusers] Chord notation
"Laurie Griffiths" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Incidentally, it occurred to me that "/G" would be a logical name for the degenerate single-note chord which has G in the bass and nothing else. Any takers? I rather like it. A suggestion: When we consider an option, let's see what it would look like in an actual tune that would use it. I propose we take something from the Nottingham Music Database, which makes relatively extensive use of chords with bass notes and just single bass notes. You can see a particularly clear case in this example of "Dashing White Sergeant", in the abc version here. Below, I've adapted the Nottingham system--not originally abc, of course--which uses single lower-case letters for bass notes, preceded by a slash when there is also a chord, and (usually) with no slash when they are alone. (I've used "f#" rather than "^f".) X: 1 T: Dashing White Sergeant % Nottingham Music Database C: Trad, via EF M: 4/4 L: 1/8 K: D FE|\ "D" D2D2 DEFG |"D" A2A2 A2fe |"G" d2B2 "D" A2F2 |"Em" B2E2 "A7"EGFE | "D" D2D2 DEFG |"D" A2A2 A2f2 |"E7"e2d2 c2B2 |"A7"A^GAB AGFE | "D" D2D2 DEFG |"D" A^GAB A2fe |"G" d2B2 "D" A2F2 |"Em"B2E2 "A7"EGFE | "D" DCDE DEFG |"D" A^GAB A2f2 |"E7"e2d2 c2B2 |"A" A6E2 || "A" A2AB c2cd |"A" e2ec A4 |"Bm" B2Bc d2de |"Bm"f2fd B4 | "A" c2AA "E7/b" d2AA |"A/c#" e2AA "D" f2AA |\ "E7"g2f2 "f#" e2 "g#" d2 |"A7"c2 "g" B2 "f#" A2 "e" G2 | "D" F2d2 dcde |"D" d2A2 A4 |"Em"B2e2 edef |"A7"e2B2 B4 | "D" A2d2 dcde |"Bm"f2d2 dcde |"D" f4 "A7" a4|"D" d2cB AG || I guess Laurie's suggestion would look like this, for the corresponding lines, right? "A" c2AA "E7/b" d2AA |"A/c#" e2AA "D" f2AA |\ "E7"g2f2 "/F#" e2 "/G#" d2 |"A7"c2 "g" B2 "/F#" A2 "/E" G2 | As someone reading abc (and I do read chords directly from the abc when I practice), I _think_ I prefer the NMD-style notation. (But, I'm not really sure--maybe it's just more familiar.) Robert Bley-Vroman Honolulu To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html
