On Thursday, 3 December 1998, Johan Vromans writes:
> No. For fingerings, additional information is required (e.g. which
> finger to put on which string or key).
Aha, of course. Anyway, we'll leave that for later/a guitarist.
> I think `+' and `-' can be used for this. No need for `#' etc.
> Can lily handle "C +9 +11"?
I'll teach her. It seems the n+ n- is kind of a standard, so we'll
use that for entry, at least.
That standard says C5+ /C5- for Caug Cdim, resp. And thinking a bit
further, we could drop the min/m too: Cm -> C3-
> The 'maj' refers to the 7, not to the chord.
>
> C => <c e g>
> C7 => <c e g bes> ; dominant-7
> Cmaj7 => <c e g b>
Or one of these (urg):
C7j Cmaj7 Cj7 C7\neutral C7# C7+ C7\delta
It seems that 'maj7' has started to live a life of its own. It would
be good to drop 'maj' too.
> Half-diminished (o-slash) is shorthand for m7b5.
Ok, shorthands are for later, maybe.
> > 2,4,6,7,8... chord additions [c7, c2 44]
>
> Yes, and no. First, 7, 9, 11 and 13 only. 6 is permissible. But
> remember: C9 is not just C + 9, but C + 7 + 9.
Ok. I do see some C4 too (and indeed C6, but never C2.
> > 3,5 chord substractions [c5, c3 5]
>
> Although syntactically correct, I do not think this is acceptable
> since it is totally different from customary and confusing.
> Also, would `C 7 9' mean: CEG + 7 + 9, or CEG + 9 (implying a 7) - 7?
Ok, what about '^' iso 'no': 'c^3', 'c9^7'?
> sus == sus4 == 4 no 3. Don't know about sus2.
> Again, I think the syntax "c 3 4" to denote "subtract 3, add 4" is not
> good.
Another nasty shorthand. Would "C4^3" do?
Would this be acceptable/good enough/convenient for entry?
Convention/Standard Logical/Lily(?)
C# cis
Cb ces
Cm/Cmin c3-
Caug c5+
Cdim c5-
Cmaj7 c7
C7 c7-
Csus/Csus4 c4^3
> > Ah, i thought you had (example-) code that would produce the
> > non-asciified chord name, as in things like "C\delta$^7$".
>
> It does produce things like "C\delta$^7$", but in PostScript, not
> (La)TeX.
That'll do, translating perl->c++ will be harder than PS->TeX, i guess.
> BTW: I wonder if there are (pseudo-)official standards for naming and
> notating chords; I have my knowledge from text books and fellow
> musicians, and it may be based more on common practice than on
> official standards.
My idea exactly.
On my way home i bought:
Harald Banter
Akkord Lexikon
Schott's S"ohne, Mainz 1982.
ISBN 3-7957-2095-8
[At first glance it seems a] Comprehensive overview of commonly used
chords. Suggests (and uses) a unification for all different kinds
of chord names.
Jan.
Jan Nieuwenhuizen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | GNU LilyPond - The music typesetter
http://www.xs4all.nl/~jantien | http://www.xs4all.nl/~jantien/lilypond
