Re: [abcusers] Chord notation
"Robert" == Robert Bley-Vroman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Robert (I've used "f#" rather than "^f".) We've discussed this many times before. The advantage of F# is that it looks more like the printed music than ^F. The disadvantage is that there isn't a corresponding character for natural. And the ascii # character is pretty close to a typeset sharp, but the ascii lower case b isn't really, although it's better than anything we have for natural. So unless we're going to add to the standard that it accepts a text notation for natural (e.g. the TeX \natural), I think we should at least allow =f, ^f, and _f as an option. -- 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
"Robert" == Robert Bley-Vroman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Robert A suggestion: When we consider an option, let's see what Robert it would look like in an actual tune that would use it. I Robert propose we take something from the Nottingham Music Robert Database, which makes relatively extensive use of chords Robert with bass notes and just single bass notes. You can see a Robert particularly clear case in this example of "Dashing White Robert Sergeant", in the abc version here. Below, I've adapted Robert the Nottingham system--not originally abc, of Robert course--which uses single lower-case letters for bass Robert notes, preceded by a slash when there is also a chord, and Robert (usually) with no slash when they are alone. I certainly wouldn't guess that a lower case letter meant a bass note without a chord unless someone told me, whereas Laurie's suggestion makes immediate sense to me. That is, Robert "E7"g2f2 "f#" e2 "g#" d2 |"A7"c2 "g" B2 "f#" A2 "e" G2 | I wouldn't know from looking at this to play only f# and not some chord based on f#, Robert "E7"g2f2 "/F#" e2 "/G#" d2 |"A7"c2 "g" B2 "/F#" A2 "/E" G2 | But I would guess that this meant to play only f#. -- 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
(I'm still wading through version 2 of the Rocky grammar).
I'll begin by admitting a bias (Jazz guitar makes me reach for the off
switch).
I don't want to exclude these guys from using ABC but I also feel that I
don't want ABC cluttered up with very complicated descriptions of chords.
I'd rather have simple chords simply defined and an extension mechanism to
allow those who need it to define complicated [dis-]chords or to express
more control over inversions etc.
As an example "A" could mean [Aeae'] (a common mandolin version - perhaps a
better name would be "A5", but mandolinists will often play that for "A"),
or [Ae^c'a'] (another mandolin version) or [E,,A,,E,A,^CE] (guitar),
[E,,A,,E,A,^CA] (guitar, half bar on fret 2), [A,,E,A,^CEA] (guitar, bar on
5), and so on, not forgetting blue grass banjo chords where there are liable
to be unisons coming from the short string.
Even though there is this ambiguity, there is a remarkable concensus between
musicians as to what it means - so that, for instance, a group of mutually
unaquainted musicians can play from the same music and sound OK.
Discussion here seems to suggest that A-3+5, A+9, Aadd8, Asus9 and so forth
cause confusion, and although it would be possible to define a grammar and a
semantics that would be natural to some, it would be unnatural to others and
possibly quite "wrong" to some.
I would rather have an extension mechanism so that the definition of C#5b3
(or whatever) was contained in the file rather than somewhere less
immediately accessible (such as the ABC standard).
This serves two other purposes. Firstly different groups of musicians (who,
I guess would rarely play together) can use their own "standard" notations.
Secondly, different notations can compete in a Darwinian sense and the best
will perhaps eventually prevail and become a de facto standard without the
need of ABCUsers to reach a concensus or ABC developers to reach agreement.
The question is then "what chords form the basic core"? Jazz players might
want about a million, and mouth-organ players might want about two.
My own choice is not far from where I started:
Major,
Seventh (so far that deals with most of folk music),
Minor (now we have almost all the rest),
Single note only (and now we are just about done)
Root+fifth only
Diminished,
Minor seventh,
6th (which is an inversion of a minor seventh),
Major seventh,
Fourth ("sus") root, 4th 5th
Augmented (root, major 3rd, sharpened 5th)
I'm quite happy to add a bass note as a guide to inversion.
I'd be not unhappy to add
Root+Octave only,
I'm open to convincing about 9th - the standard definition seems to be root,
3rd, 5th, 7th, 9th, but that's pretty much unplayable on guitar, so I think
that what passes for "G9" is probably quite difference.
11ths, 13ths, minor 9ths with augmented 5ths etc.etc. I don't want in the
standard at all. I'm dead against them, but I *do* want an extension
mechanism so that by doing no more than including a standard insert in the
file that only needs to be worked out once by one writer in that idiom, a
user can have their own jargon in a way that can be printed, played,
transposed, tempered and so on.
I'm not very keen on #include mecanisms because it complicates passing a
file is passed around the network. The set of files need to be marshalled
first.
Laurie
To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html
Re: [abcusers] Chord notation
(I'm still wading through version 2 of the Rocky grammar).
I don't want to exclude Jazz guitarists from using ABC but I also feel that
I don't want ABC cluttered up with very complicated descriptions of chords.
I'd rather have simple chords simply defined and an extension mechanism to
allow those who need it to define complicated [dis-]chords or to express
more control over inversions etc.
As an example "A" could mean [Aeae'] (a common mandolin version - perhaps a
better name would be "A5", but mandolinists will often play that for "A"),
or [Ae^c'a'] (another mandolin version) or [E,,A,,E,A,^CE] (guitar),
[E,,A,,E,A,^CA] (guitar, half bar on fret 2), [A,,E,A,^CEA] (guitar, bar on
5), and so on, not forgetting blue grass banjo chords where there are liable
to be unisons coming from the short string.
Even though there is this ambiguity, there is a remarkable consensus between
musicians as to what it means - so that, for instance, a group of mutually
unacquainted musicians can play from the same music and sound OK.
Discussion here seems to suggest that A-3+5, A+9, Aadd8, Asus9 and so forth
cause confusion, and although it would be possible to define a grammar and a
semantics that would be natural to some, it would be unnatural to others and
possibly quite "wrong" to some.
I would rather have an extension mechanism so that the definition of C#5b3
(or whatever) was contained in the file rather than somewhere less
immediately accessible (such as the ABC standard).
This serves two other purposes. Firstly different groups of musicians (who,
I guess would rarely play together) can use their own "standard" notations.
Secondly, different notations can compete in a Darwinian sense and the best
will perhaps eventually prevail and become a de facto standard without the
need of ABCUsers to reach a consensus or ABC developers to reach agreement.
The question is then "what chords form the basic core"? Jazz players might
want about a million, and mouth-organ players might want about two.
My own choice is not far from where I started:
Major,
Seventh (and those two cover most of folk music),
Minor (now we have almost done),
Single note only (and now we can do fancy bass runs)
Root+fifth only
Diminished,
Minor seventh,
6th (which is an inversion of a minor seventh),
Major seventh,
Fourth ("sus"), meaning root, 4th 5th
Augmented, meaning root, major 3rd, sharpened 5th
I'm quite happy to add a bass note as a guide to inversion.
I'd be not unhappy to add
Root+Octave only,
I'm open to convincing about 9th - the standard definition seems to be root,
3rd, 5th, 7th, 9th, but that's pretty much unplayable on guitar, so I think
that what passes for "G9" is probably quite different.
11ths, 13ths, minor 9ths with augmented 5ths etc.etc. I don't want in the
core set at all. However, although I'm dead against them being in the core
set, I *do* want an extension mechanism so that by doing no more than
including a "standard" insert in the file that only needs to be worked out
once by one writer in that idiom, a user can have their own jargon in a way
that can be printed, played, transposed, tempered and so on. Of course the
hot jazz "standard" set might be quite different from the flamenco
"standard" set (F-- = [F,,C,F,A,B,E] and so forth).
I'm not very keen on #include mechanisms because it complicates passing a
file is passed around the network.
Laurie
To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html
Re: [abcusers] Chord notation
Laurie Griffiths wrote: (I'm still wading through version 2 of the Rocky grammar). I don't want to exclude Jazz guitarists from using ABC but I also feel that I don't want ABC cluttered up with very complicated descriptions of chords. Oh well, time for the big showdown then :-| Chris Walshaw's introduction to abc ( http://www.gre.ac.uk/~c.walshaw/abc/ ) says among other things: abc is a language designed to notate tunes in an ascii format. It was designed primarily for folk and traditional tunes of Western European origin (such as English, Irish and Scottish) which can be written on one stave in standard classical notation. However, it is extendible to many other types of music... What does that mean? Does it mean "abc started off in the brit-trad circuit, but we'd like to extend it to fit other styles too", or "abc is for notating brit-trad music, but people can use it for other styles too as long as they don't make too much noise about it"? Today abc is used for many different kinds of music. Sometimes it works quite well (most European traditional music), sometimes you need to make a couple of annoying, but acceptable compromises (early music), sometimes it's quite messy, but more or less possible (17th and 18th C. "classical" music). Sometimes abc is completely useless. I discovered abc more or less by accident almost two years ago. I was immediately taken in by the prospect of having an easy, compact and compatible-with-everything standard for storing and transfering music electornically. Nobody said to me: "oh, but remember it only really works for European traditional music!" If I remember correctly (and I think I do) the paragraph I quoted from Walshaw's site was slightly different at that time. Something about abc originating in British traditonal music, but the plan was to develop it to fit other musical styles too. Anyway, I downloaded BarFly immediately and started transcribing music into abc. By now very few paople can claim to have transcribed more music into abc than I have. And nobody can claim to have used abc for as many different musical styles. I didn't do this work to be able to post music on Internet - I already had a sheet music site far more popular than any abc site. Nor was it because working with abc saved me time - it certainly doesn't. I did it because I *believed* in the idea of a simple, standardized, *universal* system for notating music. But abc is far from universal. Hell, you can't even depend on an abc application being able to deal with the abc you've written. More to the point, there are still to many people with an "if I don't need it personally, we shouldn't bother" attitude hiding inside their own little pigeon holes flatly refusing to look at the huge, wide landscape that is MUSIC. I'm quite fed up with the whole thing right now, and before I do anything more with abc, I want a straight an honest answer. No digressions, no foggy evasive talk, no excuses: Does KISS really mean "Keep It Single Style" here at abcusers? Frank --- To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html
RE: [abcusers] Chord notation
Complicated? You start with an R,3,5 root. Using the 3, you use 3b for a minor or 3# (or 4) for a suspended. Using the 5, you use 5b for a flat or 5# for an augmented. Using the R, you add a 7 for a major 7th, a 7b for a dominant 7th or a 6 for a 6th. For dominant: The 7 is R,3,5,7b The 9 is R,3,5,7b,9 The 11 is R,3,5,7b,(9),11 The 13 is R,3,5,7b,(9,11),13 For Major: The M7 is R,3,5,7 The M9 is R,3,5,7.9 The M11 is R,3,5,7,(9),11 The M13 is R,3,5,7,(9,,11),13 For Diminished 7th use R,3b,5b,7bb For Half Diminished use R,3b,5b "Richard L Walker"[EMAIL PROTECTED] Pensacola, FL 32504-7726 USA -Original Message- From: Laurie Griffiths [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] ...I don't want to exclude these guys from using ABC but I also feel that I don't want ABC cluttered up with very complicated descriptions of chords. I'd rather have simple chords simply defined and an extension mechanism to allow those who need it to define complicated [dis-]chords or to express more control over inversions etc... To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html
Re: [abcusers] Chord notation
No, Frank. KISS means Keep It Simple. Actually it's a well known engineering maxim - the full version is "Keep It Simple, Stupid!", and it is very good advice for programmers! Actually I don't want to call people here stupid. They're not. Einstein said "Everything should be made as simple as possible, but no simpler". That applies too. The problem I see is that music is so diverse that there is no way that we can allow everything to be written in the most natural way for each style and at the same time have a hope in hell's chance of providing software support for it all. I *thought* that an extension mechanism might be the answer. Perhaps my mistake was to underestimate the number of chords that jazz guitarists use. If it requires 40,000 "standard" chords to be written out as extensions or, alternatively, a different 20 chords to be written out for each and every tune, then that's a problem and I can see why you'd want an algorithm instead. I failed to understand what may well have been a systematic naming convention used by Frank. (The chord names appeared to include A6, Am-6, Am6, A69, A7, A7+, Amaj7, Am7, Adim7, A9, A-9, A9-5, A11, A+11, Am13, Ammaj13+11, A13-9). It looked complicated. For instance, is A9-5 a ninth with a missing fifth or a 9th with a flattened fifth? Is A7+ a sharpened 7th - but then what's Amaj7? Or is it A with a 7th added - but then what's A7? A7+ appears to use postfix notation, A+11 appears to use prefix notation. Do prefix and postfix +s mean different things? Or is that an A# chord? Or is A+11 a chord of A with an augmented 5th and an 11th? I'm afraid I haven't the faintest idea what most of it means - and it looks complicated - and Richard Walker's recent mail doesn't explain much of it (in fact only the bit I already knew) - so I wanted to give the *user* the chance to define the notation rather than build it into the language and therefore have to rely on whatever bits we had built in, and have a tough time wherever we'd missed something. "Rocky's formal grammar" (yes, I know Rocky was only the one who had to watch) was an attempt to go the other way. Does Frank support that approach? Do others? I am actually trying to find a way to INCLUDE many styles. If we wanted single style only then we wouldn't need to bother with either the extension mechanism or any fancy grammar! Laurie P.S. Apologies for my previous post appearing twice. Mailer glitch on this end. To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html
RE: [abcusers] Chord notation
Opps. I missed the part that IF the specified /note is part of the chord named on the left of the slash, the note on the right is specifying the inversion of the chord beginning with the /note on the bottom. You probably already knew all this, but I hate type up errors. I'm definitely going back into lurk mode. "Richard L Walker"[EMAIL PROTECTED] Pensacola, FL 32504-7726 USA -Original Message- From: Richard L Walker [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] I think the slash chord is used to specify an additional note to be played with the normal chord. C/A would mean to play the C chord but at the same time play an A in the base region. To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html
