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. ;-)
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:
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
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
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
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
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
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?
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
"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
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
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
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
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,
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
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
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
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
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
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
"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
21 matches
Mail list logo
