Mike Whitaker said:
> ...we have three choices:
>
> 1) don't
> 2) pick one and stick with it...
> 3) allow chord 'dialects'...
I would vote heavily for 2
Option 1 obviously means chaos. Option 3 means chaos too.
As an implementer I just don't see myself supporting multiple different and
incompatible dialects. Writing the code would be OK - just have a pile of
tables. Supporting it and answering the questions from completely confused
customers would be a nightmare.
There is in fact a high degree of consensus regarding all the simpler
chords. I really wish that Frank Nordberg hadn't shot himself in the foot.
(Frank - what you did was to give an example of a whole load of notation
with no explanation. I simply have no idea what most of the chords you
named are. I have no idea whether what you described was systematic or
chaotic, whether you mixed multiple 'dialects' or just one, and so on.
there was therefore no way that I could follow your lead. So we went of in
various other directions).
To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html
