On 23.05.2015, at 06:22, Carl Sorensen <c_soren...@byu.edu> wrote: > >> + some frequently used chords are missing, such as m7.5- and suspended >> chords. (I know of course from my own experience that predefined fret >> diagram tables unfortunately are never complete.) > > m7.5- is not commonly used in US consumer-grade pop charts, but I'd be > happy to add them.
Hm, m7.5- probably isn't used very often in pop music. But in jazz music it definitely is a very common chord. > Suspended chords are also not commonly used in US > consumer-grade pop charts. Hm, being a guitar teacher quite a few more or less popular songs containing suspended chords pop into my mind: + All Of Me (John Legend) + Fireflies (Owl City) + Wonderwall (Oasis) + Stairway To Heaven (Led Zeppelin) + Brothers In Arms (Dire Straits) + You Take My Breath Away (Eva Cassidy) + Dreamer (Ozzy Osbourne) + How You Remind Me (Nickelback) + Underneath Your Clothes (Shakira) + To Be With You (Mr. Big) + Come As You Are (Nirvana) + Behind Blue Eyes (The Who/Limp Biskit) + Bubbly (Colbie Caillat) + Dear Mr. President (Pink) + Sweet Home Alabama (Lynyrd Skynyrd) + Viva la Vida (Coldplay) + Wake Me Up When September Ends (Green Day) + When You Say Nothing At All (Garth Brooks/Ronan Keating/Allison Krauss) + You’re Beautiful (James Blunt) + Your Body Is A Wonderland (John Mayer) + Born To Run (Bruce Springsteen) I’d suspect that this list is not exhaustive and that these examples are not rare exceptions. ;) > >> + some rare ³unacceptable² diagrams which can be easily fixed by >> assigning note(s) to a string. >> + problems arising from trying to transpose/shift diagrams potentially >> containing fingerings and or string numbers (as discussed here) > > String numbers should be consistent as you transpose diagrams within a > given shape, I think. Have you found any case where they don't work? No, actually I haven’t. I thought string numbers would interfere with predefined diagrams. They don’t. LilyPond simply ignores them. In the case of transposing automatically-generated diagrams LilyPond might throw some warnings ‘Ignoring string request and recalculating’ but the resulting diagram is fine, e.g.: stringedA = <a,\5 e\4 a\3 cis'\2 e'\1>1 \new FretBoards { \stringedA \transpose a e { \stringedA } } > > Fingers should be OK as well, as long as you finger for the barre chord. Yes, they basically are. I alluded to the problem we already discussed: LilyPond can’t guess which fingers should be used in a chord, e.g.: fingeredA = <a, e-3 a-3 cis'-3 e'>1 \new FretBoards { \fingeredA \transpose a e { \fingeredA } %wrong fingering } >> >> These are basically the reasons why I started to make my own predefined >> fret diagram tables a few years ago (see >> https://github.com/Philomelos/lilypond-predefined-fretboards). I haven¹t >> found the time to document it yet and there are only just a few test >> files currently available. The definitions are spread over 6 files: >> + c-shape.ly <http://c-shape.ly> >> + a-shape.ly <http://a-shape.ly> >> + g-shape.ly <http://g-shape.ly> >> + e-shape.ly <http://e-shape.ly> >> + d-shape.ly <http://d-shape.ly> >> + alt-shape.ly <http://alt-shape.ly> (contains alternative chord shapes >> that cannot be included in the five basic shape files for technical >> reasons or due to their ambiguity) >> >> You can include these files as usual and then use 6 new commands >> (\cShape, \aShape, \gShape, \eShape, \dShape, and \altShape) to choose a >> diagram derived from one of the five basic chord shapes, so e.g. >> + \chordmode { \aShape c,:1.5.8.10 } or \notemode { <c g c¹ e¹> } >> returns a c major barre chord across the 3rd fret >> + \chordmode { \eShape c,:1.5.8.10 } or \notemode { <c g c¹ e¹> } >> returns a c major chord at the 8th fret (on the strings 6, 5, 4, and 3) >> + \chordmode { \dShape c:1.5.8.10 } or \notemode { <c¹ g¹ c¹¹ e¹¹> } >> returns a c major chord at the 10th fret (on the strings 4, 3, 2, and 1) >> >> You need to enter all the pitches you want to include in your diagram. >> If there is a definition for the chord you should get the expected >> diagram including fingerings and a barre indicator (if necessary). You >> don¹t need to manually add fingerings or string numbers. So there are no >> problems with shape shifting and transpositions. If you don¹t like a >> detail: don¹t use this definition or override it! >> You can use other definition files in combination. You can switch the >> definition files on and off by using \predefinedFretboardsOn and >> \predefinedFretboardsOff (as usual). If the tables don¹t contain a >> definition for a certain chord structure (or if the chord structure or >> the octave is impossible in standard tuning) LilyPond jumps in and tries >> to automatically generate a diagram. >> >> The tables already contain a couple of hundred transposable definitions >> (even some inversions) but of course the library is far from being >> complete. The reason why I started this thread here was to check whether >> it makes sense to continue the work on this library or maybe just use >> LilyPond¹s automatically generated diagramsŠ (But now I think my >> predefined diagrams are actually quite helpful ‹ well, at least to meŠ) > > I think it makes great sense to complete your library. And we should > certainly add the library to LilyPond, so people don't have to go > somewhere else to get it. Wow, that’s nice to hear and an incentive to continue! > >> Great! The barre chords look really good! Thank you so much! >> >> Sone minor issues: >> + the fret labels seem to have vanished. > > Hmm -- I don't think anything I did should have changed the fret labels. > Can you share an example. Hm, I can’t reproduce it. I probably got confused. Sorry for the noise! >> >> I can offer to add fingerings to all the (automatically generated) barre >> chords in the documentation as soon as your patch gets accepted (if you >> want me to). (So far I have found only 2 automatically-generated diagrams >> without fingering. ;) ) > > I don't think we want to have all of the diagrams with fingering. We want > to show the capability of making the diagrams both with and without > fingering. I did not mean to add fingering to *all* the diagrams in the manuals but only to those automatically-generated diagrams that look plain wrong without a barre indicator. If I’m not mistaken it’s actually only one chord that needs to be changed: the first f major chord in the first example under the heading Automatic fret diagrams (http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.19/Documentation/notation/common-notation-for-fretted-strings#automatic-fret-diagrams) It’s in a prominent place and to be honest: this example initially discouraged me to use automatic fret diagrams. > >> >> Thanks again >> patrick >> >> P.S.: On a related note: I think there is something wrong with the >> default vertical alignment of the fret labels in fret diagrams in >> general. It looks to me as if it is placed one fret above the lowest >> fret it is referring to (LP 2.19.20). I will try to post a proper bug >> report as soon as I can. > > Please do post a proper bug report. I will investigate. Will do. >> >> P.P.S.: On a different note: some day I would like to get to know the >> reason why in \chordmode the absolute pitches are one octave higher than >> in note mode. For chord names correct absolute pitches don¹t matter. But >> they do when also using \chordmode in a Staff context. Mixing both modes >> is rather error prone. > > I do not know the answer why, but I believe it is intentional. There are > comments in the code that indicate the original authors knew of the one > octave shift. I believe it was defined that way so that \chordmode c > would give <c' e' g'>, since lilypond staffs have treble clefs by default. > I believe it should probably be fixed. The code is probably not hard to > fix, but I think the convert-ly rule is nearly impossible (it's certainly > beyond *my* python regexp-fu). > Post a bug report, and let's get an issue created. Will do. Thanks, patrick _______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user