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 likely in different inversions.
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
non-specific, suggesting something about the harmony-structure of the
piece, but deliberately omitting many details of realization. If the abc
transcriber wants to specify particular notes, then the notation permits
the explicit statement of notes in square brackets. I think it would be a
definite error to build definitions of chords in terms of notes into the
abc notation. The standard should say that "Gm" means G minor. The standard
should not say what G minor means.
An abc playback or printout program may have a great deal of flexibility in
it. It may be most appropriate to include information about how chords are
to be played as instructions to that program (on pseudocomment lines, say),
or on options settable directly in the program. One needn't press the
appropriately simply chord notation of abc into service to do this. For
example, abc2midi has quite a bit of flexbility in playing guitar chords.
This is best controlled at the playback level, rather than at the notation
level.
Robert Bley-Vroman
Honolulu
(There is a kind of weak analogy between this and something we were
discussing a while back. The abc notation system should say that A means
"the A above middle C". It need not (must not) define A as 440 Hz. This
lack of specificity is a virtue, not a defect.)
To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html
