On 2015-09-19 05:06, Brett Duncan wrote:
On 19/09/15 8:49 AM, Kaj Persson wrote:
As you wrote Csus ought to mean that the first third is removed, and
nothing else. Among professional musicians, which I am not, but I
have friends who are, this is not the whole truth, there exists a de
facto standard which does not exactly coincide with the pure logical.
Not exactly - there are several conventions used by musicians, with a
wide range of similarities and differences, but there is no one
standard, de facto or otherwise.
Csus is one example, C5 another. So when I work with these people i
will use their methods and system, not trying to introduce something
else (more "clever"). Therefore it would be fine if one could adapt
LP to the current situation.
Well, in this instance that might seem reasonable, where we are only
talking about simple chords, but where the chords are more complex or
follow some other convention, adapting LP might prove a lot more
difficult. For example, a lot of jazz charts follow a widely used
convention where minor chords are denoted with a minus sign and
augmented chords are denoted with a plus sign, i.e. F-7, G+. But LP
uses these symbols in \chordmode for alterations.
But this all just points to the fact that there is a distinction
between how chords are entered and how they are displayed. And given
that the same chord can be displayed several different ways, that
distinction cannot really be avoided. For my own purposes, the default
chord names generated by LP are far from ideal, so like many I have a
separate file of chord exceptions that I include when I need it. So
long as the input method allows me to create the chords I need in a
reasonably way and I can get the output to appear as I need it to,
there is no need to make the input take the same form as the output.
Brett
Yes, you are completely right, Brett and David. Also, I myself was
wrong, when I used the term de facto standard. I should have developed
my discussion a wee more. You might say that the world of music and
musicians is like an archipelago, with a lot islands. On every of these
islands they speak their own language, or at least dialect, and
everybody there understands everyting, as they have common way of
talking. You might say there is a de facto standard of how to
communicate. But if you come to another of the islands, you will find
another vocabulary, which everybody on that island understands. They too
have a de facto standard, but another one. The standard is not global,
so some of you would say there is no standard. But such is life
elsewhere too. Do not tell an American that he/she does not follow a
standard because he/she measures in inches while most of we others use
meters. So there are de facto standards in the music world too, and as
long as you are in one of these islands, which some of us call contexts,
it is practical to use adapted tools. That makes life easier.
On the other hand, when you are skilled enough, you can use the global
standard, almost as quickly as the local one, and you make the
transformations in your head, like American scientists who hardly use
inches and gallons in their job, but instead the established SI-units.
As you might understand, I here consider the LP way of interpreting the
symbols the "global" standard (we forget Sibelius and the others), while
many of us live on our own island, where it might being an aid to use an
adapted tool. However skilled people like Brett do not need them, they
fix that in their brains.
Much of my thoughts came from the happiness I felt, and this is not a
very long time ago, when I first discovered that I can put chord symbols
direct into LP in chordmode, but also the disappointment I felt when I
found the deviations. I guess that once in the future, with even more
experience, I can talk like Brett, and say: I do not need the adaptions
any more.
/Kaj
_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user