Re: [abcusers] Chord notation

[James Berriman]

At 2:41 pm + 28/2/01, Mike Whitaker wrote:

>*sounds of faint weeping*

That would be your guitar gently weeping, I take it?

I just resubscribed to the list. What's that url again?

( :-])  James

To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html

Re: [abcusers] Chord notation

[Laurie Griffiths]

If I wasn't in the middle of moving house I'd have studied your proposal
better.  It's still in the "in" tray.  I printed it out to study it more
easily, but that print out is now in one of 23 poorly labelled boxes which
will get opened only after a larger number of other (better labelled and
more urgent) things are done first.  I am just about to uproot this computer
(still in the old house) and transport that to see if it will still work).
As captain Oakes said "I may be some time".
L.
- Original Message -
From: Mike Whitaker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
...
*sounds of faint weeping*
...

To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html

Re: [abcusers] Chord notation

[Phil Taylor]

Mike Whitaker wrote:
>On Wed, Feb 28, 2001 at 07:19:06AM -0600, Richard L Walker wrote:
>> Why not use everything?  If you pick up a book of chords it can be daunting,
>> but allowing a program to build any chord should be very straightforward.
>
>*sounds of faint weeping*
>I've done this.
>I posted the semi-formal grammar to the list.
>I put a CGI up on the web which follows this grammar and parses almost
>any chord you can name.
>I've been trying to advance this whole argument for two weeks.
>*shuffles off, stage left, to mass indifferemce*

Don't despair, Mike.  A large proportion of people reading this list
won't want to comment on your proposal, either because they are not
into complex chord symbols or don't understand the formal grammar or
whatever.  Give us the proposal again in English, styled as in the
draft standard and let's see what comment that generates.

Phil Taylor


To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html

Re: [abcusers] Chord notation

[Frank Nordberg]

Laurie Griffiths wrote:
> 
> I don't know whether C7(9)+13 is gibberish or meaningful or, if meaningful,
> what it might mean.

I'd say C7 with an added augmented 13 - and throw in the ninth too if
you like)

In other words:
C-G-E-Bb-A# with an optional D
(Of course you have to be really concerned about details to
differentiate between Bb and A#, but it *does* make sense)

> 
> FRANK ARE YOU THERE???



Sure. The reason why I haven't posted anything on this thread recently
is simply that Mike's proposition seems to me to cover all
eventualities. There are a few details I disagree about, but nothing
really important.



Frank


---
To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html

Re: [abcusers] Chord notation

[Mike Whitaker]

On Wed, Feb 28, 2001 at 07:19:06AM -0600, Richard L Walker wrote:
> Why not use everything?  If you pick up a book of chords it can be daunting,
> but allowing a program to build any chord should be very straightforward.

*sounds of faint weeping*
I've done this.
I posted the semi-formal grammar to the list.
I put a CGI up on the web which follows this grammar and parses almost
any chord you can name.
I've been trying to advance this whole argument for two weeks.
*shuffles off, stage left, to mass indifferemce*
-- 
Mike Whitaker | Work: +44 1733 766619 | Work: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
System Architext  | Fax:  +44 1733 348287 | Home: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
CricInfo Ltd  | GSM:  +44 7971 977375 | Web: http://www.cricinfo.com/
To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html

RE: [abcusers] Chord notation

[Richard L Walker]

Why not use everything?  If you pick up a book of chords it can be daunting,
but allowing a program to build any chord should be very straightforward.
Different scales might use different notes (my knowledge isn't horribly
strong here) but it seems the concept of the "starter set" could be done
away with for allowing almost anything chord related.

You start with an R,3,5 root (like C-E-G where C=R, E=3 and G=5).

Using the 3, you use 3b for a minor or 3# (or 4) for a suspended.
Using the 5, you use 5b for a flat or 5# for an augmented.
Using the R, you add a 7 for a major 7th, a 7b for a dominant 7th or a 6 for
a 6th.

For dominant:
The 7 is R,3,5,7b
The 9 is R,3,5,7b,9
The 11 is R,3,5,7b,(9),11
The 13 is R,3,5,7b,(9,11),13

For Major:
The M7 is R,3,5,7
The M9 is R,3,5,7.9
The M11 is R,3,5,7,(9),11
The M13 is R,3,5,7,(9,,11),13

For Diminished 7th use R,3b,5b,7bb
For Half Diminished use R,3b,5b

The chords might look daunting, but the programming to allow them all should
not require that much programming (Warning, I neither program nor am I a
musician - although I have started lessons.  Also, there might be errors in
the above.  It was hastily typed.).

"Richard L Walker"<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Pensacola, FL 32504-7726 USA

-Original Message-
From: On Behalf Of Laurie Griffiths
...The question is "what's in the standard set?".  I had (from memory)
major,
minor, diminished, augmented, 6th, seventh, major seventh, ninth, just (the
root), just (root and fifth) and a mechanism for adding an extra bass note.
I also suggested a mechanism to allow people to define extra chords...

...I don't know whether C7(9)+13 is gibberish or meaningful or, if
meaningful,
what it might mean.  I just know that there are people (including Frank) who
need things which (to my eye) look like that and I think BUT DON'T KNOW (I
floated it here and Frank didn't reply) that the extension mechanism that I
had proposed was inadequate because it would in effect have meant either
including a "boiler plate" of thousands of chords at the start of every jazz
guitar file or else writing out a definition of (almost) every chord to be
used.  So I think he wanted a language which in effect put just about
anything one could dream of in the starter set.  I hope some time tomorrow
to look through Mike Whitaker's the language proposal again, but I am in no
position to judge it...

To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html

[abcusers] Chord notation

[Jack Campin]

> [someday we may standardize the syntax for defining chords and assigning
> synonyms, but that can wait]

No it can't wait.  The current proposals are tending towards minuscule
tinkering with the existing spec, adding no new functionality.  Frank's
tirade about ABC being mired in the idioms of British Isles folk music
was dead on target; the one genre where a much more expressive chord
system would help is jazz, and there is *no point whatever* in fidgety
little tweaks if they don't *fully* support its harmonic idioms.  The
only remotely plausible way to do it is by allowing user extensibility.
Get this right and a whole new user community can make use of ABC.  In
comparison with something like the V: or w: fields this is trivial, so
why standardize a half-arsed modificaltion?


: To be honest, I wouldn't feel bad if, at this stage in the development
: of abc, there were no notation for chords with missing notes.

Nowadays, the most popular button boxes for Irish music omit the thirds
in the bass chords (and some other designs let you switch them in and
out).  It's crazy not to support one of the central instruments of the
most popular genre ABC is used for.

===  ===


To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html

Re: [abcusers] Chord notation

[Laurie Griffiths]

That's somewhere near where I was a week or few ago.  I'm not sure it's
enough.

The question is "what's in the standard set?".  I had (from memory) major,
minor, diminished, augmented, 6th, seventh, major seventh, ninth, just (the
root), just (root and fifth) and a mechanism for adding an extra bass note.
I also suggested a mechanism to allow people to define extra chords.

Frank Nordberg replied to the effect that I was disabling ABC for all jazz
guitarists. (Now as it happens I don't like listening to jazz guitar, but
sssh!  Don't tell).  I very definitely don't want to do anything to stop
them from doing their thing, and that includes doing it with ABC.  (The
Internet is a big place.  None of them have said that I have to listen to
their music, so I wanna be friends).

As you may gather from the above I am not a jazz guitarist.
I don't know whether C7(9)+13 is gibberish or meaningful or, if meaningful,
what it might mean.  I just know that there are people (including Frank) who
need things which (to my eye) look like that and I think BUT DON'T KNOW (I
floated it here and Frank didn't reply) that the extension mechanism that I
had proposed was inadequate because it would in effect have meant either
including a "boiler plate" of thousands of chords at the start of every jazz
guitar file or else writing out a definition of (almost) every chord to be
used.  So I think he wanted a language which in effect put just about
anything one could dream of in the starter set.  I hope some time tomorrow
to look through Mike Whitaker's the language proposal again, but I am in no
position to judge it.

FRANK ARE YOU THERE???  Neither I nor any other non-jazz guitarist can speak
for you.  I *did* read what you said.  I think I see your point.  I can
*not* do anything about it on my own.  If neither you nor anyone else who is
into jazz speaks up then we *will* get something that will work for the rest
of us and whether it will work for you will be a matter of luck.

Laurie
- Original Message -
From: Wil Macaulay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 27, 2001 4:45 PM
Subject: Re: [abcusers] Chord notation


How's this?

- People can, and will put anything in between quotes.  A notation program
will at a minimum place exactly what was written in between the quotes in
the standard
place
for guitar chords for that program.
- Programs which support placement modifiers ("_","^","<",">") will use them
consistently
to mean
below, above, to the left and to the right of the staff symbol.
- Programs which support transposition of chords will clearly document the
chords that
can
be transposed (so people can clean up afterwards)
- programs which support sound output will support a standard set of chords
that can be unambiguously documented. At a minimum a chord which is not
recognized can be played as the root (or silence?)
- programs may support other syntaxes of chords (not in the standard set) by
assigning documented synonyms to the standard set. [someday we may
standardize the syntax

for defining chords and assigning synonyms, but that can wait]

Mike Whitaker wrote:

> On Sat, Feb 24, 2001 at 05:34:23PM +0100, Frank Nordberg wrote:
> > Example:
> > The chord C E G Bb D
> > is notated:
> > C9
> >
> > If we want to sharpen the 9th, we can just add a + in front of it:
> > C+9
>
> I';d further note that I just showed my wife this mail, without
> any prompting bar 'what's that chord' and her reaction (she's a
> keys player) was "C augmented 9th", i.e C E *G#* Bb D".
>
> Can we just abandon the idea of "+" and "-", please? It is TOO ambiguous,
> as I keep saying. There are no problems with # and b that cannot
demonstrably
> be resolved with judicious use of brackets.
>
> >From my test harness for parsechord:
>
> mike@andor:~$ ./parsechord 'C(#9)'
> C E G Bb D#
> mike@andor:~$ ./parsechord 'C#9'
> C# E# G# B D#
> mike@andor:~$ ./parsechord 'Caug9'
> C E G# Bb D
> --
> Mike Whitaker | Work: +44 1733 766619 | Work: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> System Architext  | Fax:  +44 1733 348287 | Home: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> CricInfo Ltd  | GSM:  +44 7971 977375 | Web: http://www.cricinfo.com/
> To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to:
http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html

--
Wil Macaulay email:   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
voice:  +1-(905)-886-7818  xt2253FAX: +1-(905)-886-7824
Syndesis Ltd. 28 Fulton Way Richmond Hill, Ont Canada L4B 1J5
"... pay no attention to the man behind the curtain ..."


To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to:
http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html


To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html

Re: [abcusers] Chord notation

[Wil Macaulay]

How's this?

- People can, and will put anything in between quotes.  A notation program
will at a minimum place exactly what was written in between the quotes in the standard
place
for guitar chords for that program.
- Programs which support placement modifiers ("_","^","<",">") will use them 
consistently
to mean
below, above, to the left and to the right of the staff symbol.
- Programs which support transposition of chords will clearly document the chords that
can
be transposed (so people can clean up afterwards)
- programs which support sound output will support a standard set of chords
that can be unambiguously documented. At a minimum a chord which is not
recognized can be played as the root (or silence?)
- programs may support other syntaxes of chords (not in the standard set) by
assigning documented synonyms to the standard set. [someday we may standardize the 
syntax

for defining chords and assigning synonyms, but that can wait]

Mike Whitaker wrote:

> On Sat, Feb 24, 2001 at 05:34:23PM +0100, Frank Nordberg wrote:
> > Example:
> > The chord C E G Bb D
> > is notated:
> > C9
> >
> > If we want to sharpen the 9th, we can just add a + in front of it:
> > C+9
>
> I';d further note that I just showed my wife this mail, without
> any prompting bar 'what's that chord' and her reaction (she's a
> keys player) was "C augmented 9th", i.e C E *G#* Bb D".
>
> Can we just abandon the idea of "+" and "-", please? It is TOO ambiguous,
> as I keep saying. There are no problems with # and b that cannot demonstrably
> be resolved with judicious use of brackets.
>
> >From my test harness for parsechord:
>
> mike@andor:~$ ./parsechord 'C(#9)'
> C E G Bb D#
> mike@andor:~$ ./parsechord 'C#9'
> C# E# G# B D#
> mike@andor:~$ ./parsechord 'Caug9'
> C E G# Bb D
> --
> Mike Whitaker | Work: +44 1733 766619 | Work: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> System Architext  | Fax:  +44 1733 348287 | Home: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> CricInfo Ltd  | GSM:  +44 7971 977375 | Web: http://www.cricinfo.com/
> To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: 
>http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html

--
Wil Macaulay email:   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
voice:  +1-(905)-886-7818  xt2253FAX: +1-(905)-886-7824
Syndesis Ltd. 28 Fulton Way Richmond Hill, Ont Canada L4B 1J5
"... pay no attention to the man behind the curtain ..."


To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html

Re: [abcusers] Chord notation

[Robert Bley-Vroman]

Phil Taylor wrote:

>The main ambiguity seems to lie with the use of + and - symbols.  "+"
>can mean augmented, sharpened or added, and there's really no way a
>program can determine which is correct.  Even human readers have to be
>expert musicians and familiar with the harmony rules for this particular
>genre of music to interpret this correctly.  I suggest, therefore, that
>we eliminate + and - from the standard and admit only the explicit
>namings, aug, #, add, dim, b and whatever we decide should mean "omit
>this note".

I agree (1) that there is a reasonable consensus on all core cases; (2)
Phil's suggestion is sensible

While I suppose there might be some reason to have a way of writing "omit
this note", it's also possible that it won't be used much in practice.
Therefore, the main consideration in deciding on a notation should be
careful not to mess up something else. In particular, if there is some
amount of consensus that the slash notation is a good one for bass notes
(that is, "G/b" means a G chord with a B in the bass), then we shouldn't
sacrifice bass note system to get a notation for chords with missing notes.

To be honest, I wouldn't feel bad if, at this stage in the development of
abc, there were no notation for chords with missing notes.

--

A new idea next (or maybe someone already said this. Is anything really new
on this list?)

Just occurred to me. Of course, for chords missing notes, one can always
write out several notes played simultaneously using square brackets, e.g.
[G,,D,] independent of the quoted chord notation; but what is also desired
is a notation that abstracts away from particular notes in particular
octaves: one wants to notate a chord with the notes G and D and no B, for
example, without saying explicitly what octave these notes are in. How
about this:

When bracketed notes are included in quotation marks, then they are
interpreted as chord-notes, abstracted from octaves. In that case, "[gb]"
means  a chord with a G and B note. [gb], with no quotation marks, means
the g and b of the octave above middle C, played simultaneously. "[gbd]"
would be (approximately?) equivalent to "G". I've used lower-case letters
here following the principle that in the chord notation (within quotation
marks), lower-case would refer to individual notes and upper case would
refer to chords.

(Aside: I say "approximately?" since one _might_ make the order significant
in this proposed bracketed chord notation, thus inversions could be
specified if needed. "G" would be therefore more abstract that "[gbd]"; and
"[gbd]" would be different from "[bdg]". Left-to-right would be
low-to-high.)

 So:

  "G" is a G chord, abstractly
  "[gd]" is a fifth, abstractly

and, adopting the slash notation for bass notes:
  "G/d" is a G chord with a bass note of D
  "/b" is a bass note of B

In none of the above is there any implication of octave. That is, the chord
notation consistently abstracts away from octave.

Any takers?

Robert Bley-Vroman


To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html

Re: [abcusers] Chord notation

[Mike Whitaker]

On Sat, Feb 24, 2001 at 05:34:23PM +0100, Frank Nordberg wrote:
> Example:
> The chord C E G Bb D
> is notated:
> C9
> 
> If we want to sharpen the 9th, we can just add a + in front of it:
> C+9

I';d further note that I just showed my wife this mail, without
any prompting bar 'what's that chord' and her reaction (she's a 
keys player) was "C augmented 9th", i.e C E *G#* Bb D".

Can we just abandon the idea of "+" and "-", please? It is TOO ambiguous, 
as I keep saying. There are no problems with # and b that cannot demonstrably
be resolved with judicious use of brackets.

>From my test harness for parsechord:

mike@andor:~$ ./parsechord 'C(#9)' 
C E G Bb D#
mike@andor:~$ ./parsechord 'C#9'
C# E# G# B D#
mike@andor:~$ ./parsechord 'Caug9'
C E G# Bb D 
-- 
Mike Whitaker | Work: +44 1733 766619 | Work: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
System Architext  | Fax:  +44 1733 348287 | Home: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
CricInfo Ltd  | GSM:  +44 7971 977375 | Web: http://www.cricinfo.com/
To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html

Re: [abcusers] Chord notation

[Mike Whitaker]

On Sat, Feb 24, 2001 at 05:34:23PM +0100, Frank Nordberg wrote:
> Example:
> The chord C E G Bb D
> is notated:
> C9
> 
> If we want to sharpen the 9th, we can just add a + in front of it:
> C+9

I will repeat, for about the fifth time, that I and many others would
read thatr as CADD9, C E G D. +/- 

> That simply won't work with the #/b system. C#9 is a completely
> different chord. The usual solution is to add a 7:
> C7#9

Or to use brackets, which disambiguate nicely.
C(#9).

> That's fair enough, of course, but it requires slightly more complex
> rules for the poor computer.

You'll find my parser handles C#9 and C(#9) correctly.
It's not hard.
-- 
Mike Whitaker | Work: +44 1733 766619 | Work: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
System Architext  | Fax:  +44 1733 348287 | Home: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
CricInfo Ltd  | GSM:  +44 7971 977375 | Web: http://www.cricinfo.com/
To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html

Re: [abcusers] Chord notation

[Frank Nordberg]

Mike Whitaker wrote:
...
> 
> As far as I see it, if we *want* abc to require a standard for chord names,
> we have three choices:
> 
> 1) don't
> 2) pick one and stick with it, either by democratic vote or the old "I wrote
> the code so I get to choose" argument *grin*
> 3) allow chord 'dialects' so that folks who do it different ways can load up
> the dialect they're used to with a %% directive.

An important point here: this entire discussion has been about
establishing a standard for how abc *playback* programs that tries to
interpret chord symbols. ABC viewers and players that do not add
automatic accompagniment shouldn't be affected at all.

If we want to introduce such a standard at all, we have to find one that is:
   a) consequent
   b) as simply defined as possible
   c) able to express any combination of notes
   d) as close as possible to common chord notation

There are definitely some conflicts between those four requirements, but
we can handle that.

I think the main problem is notating chord note alterations. I've been
advocating the use of + and - rather than # and b because that
simplifies the definition considerably.

Example:
The chord C E G Bb D
is notated:
C9

If we want to sharpen the 9th, we can just add a + in front of it:
C+9

That simply won't work with the #/b system. C#9 is a completely
different chord. The usual solution is to add a 7:
C7#9
That's fair enough, of course, but it requires slightly more complex
rules for the poor computer.

In my first posting to this discussion I simply said that the idea was
impossible. I still think it is. That is, it's impossible to define a
set of rules that covers all the major systems for notating chords.
But we don't have to do that. We can just define one particular system
and say "this is what ABC uses".

Then of course we have to allow for local definitons to override the
defaults, such as adding the header field

c: c- = Cm

or

c: c- = [C_EG]

causes the chord "c-" to be interpreted as c minor in that particular tune.

I'm sure there'll be hot debates about the exact syntax for this ;-) but
the general principles shouldn't be too controvertial, should it?


Frank Nordberg

To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html

Re: [abcusers] Chord notation

[Mike Whitaker]

On Sat, Feb 24, 2001 at 02:00:00PM +0100, Jack Campin wrote:
> You missed the point.  A user should not be constrained by a programmer's
> idea of how to print chord names.  This should be a display option.  (My
> preference for this particular chord would be a lower-case f followed by
> a sharp sign, *not* a hash symbol).

I think we need to be clear on what we're discussing here.

The way I see it there are THREE different things under discussion
here:

1) the format in what the user enters the chords
2) the format of chord names in an ABC file
3) the manner in which ABC outputs the chord 

1) is dependent on the program: there is NOTHING to stop MacTune, or
whatever the program happens to be called, defining its own chord entry
format (as MUSE has), or even multiple dialects of same for German users
who prefer - for minor, etc. For straight text entry of ABC files, this
format is equivalent to 2). For other methods, it need not be, BUT the
program must convert to 2) when it exports to ABC.

2) is what goes in the ABC standard. IMHO there should be precisely one of
of these, and it really doesn't matter what it is as long as it's 
clearly defined and reasonably easy to enter with a text editor. We
don't allow H for Bnatural in ABC, nor should we allow multiple ways
of specifying 'minor'.
As to how comprehensive it should be, that appears to be where we're arguing: 
my opinion is it should be able to handle any cenventionbally accepted chord
type we can come up with, preferably using one of its conventional names.
(By which I do not mean we should (say) allow both Aaug and A+, but that we
should pick one consistent naming convention from those available and stick
to it.)
NOTE: format 2) is COMPLETELY independent of the program in use: it's an
aspect of the definition of the ABC language, nothing more.

3) is actually dependant on what the ABC-to-whatever program is trying to
produce. If it's ABC2MIDI, then it's parsing the chord to a set of
notes. if it's an abc2ps variant, then it's printing the chord name,
*quite* *possibly* in a manner specified by the user with command line
ot program-specific directives. over/under the music, it can look it
up in a dictionary of guitar chord boxes, or programmatically work
out a set of fingerings for cittern tuned DGDAD, etc etc etc. It can
do any and/or all of the above and more, provided that the format in 2)
is rich enough to allow it to draw out the necessary information.

The point is, these are three different issues, and the key one, *IF* we
think that it is a needed feature of the language, is that the chord naming
in *ABC* be rich enough to support the needs of the programs that read it
and generate output from it.

> The problem with the present staff display options for chords in ABC is
> that are driven by their crappy ASCII approximations.  Using a "b" for
> a flat in the staff notation looks amateurish, but the present design
> encourages implementers to do exactly that by just printing the user's
> ABC notation for the chord verbatim.  A design that decouples input
> notation from displayed notation would avoid that mistake.  (The only
> occasion I can think of when displaying flats and sharps in ASCII would
> have any positive benefit is when generating a chord chart in Braille
> for a blind guitarist).

Or perhaps for fast creation of a lead sheet (words plus chord) for import
into a wordprocessor or song database (I'd find abc2leadhseet handy sometime -
my songbook is moving over to ABC)
-- 
Mike Whitaker | Work: +44 1733 766619 | Work: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
System Architext  | Fax:  +44 1733 348287 | Home: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
CricInfo Ltd  | GSM:  +44 7971 977375 | Web: http://www.cricinfo.com/
To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html

Re: [abcusers] Chord notation

[Phil Taylor]

Laurie wrote:
>Mike Whitaker said:
>> ...we have three choices:
>>
>> 1) don't
>> 2) pick one and stick with it...
>> 3) allow chord 'dialects'...
>
>I would vote heavily for 2
>
>Option 1 obviously means chaos.  Option 3 means chaos too.
>As an implementer I just don't see myself supporting multiple different and
>incompatible dialects.  Writing the code would be OK - just have a pile of
>tables.  Supporting it and answering the questions from completely confused
>customers would be a nightmare.

I agree wholeheartedly.

>There is in fact a high degree of consensus regarding all the simpler
>chords.  I really wish that Frank Nordberg hadn't shot himself in the foot.
>(Frank - what you did was to give an example of a whole load of notation
>with no explanation.  I simply have no idea what most of the chords you
>named are.  I have no idea whether what you described was systematic or
>chaotic, whether you mixed multiple 'dialects' or just one, and so on.
>there was therefore no way that I could follow your lead.  So we went of in
>various other directions).
>

The main ambiguity seems to lie with the use of + and - symbols.  "+"
can mean augmented, sharpened or added, and there's really no way a
program can determine which is correct.  Even human readers have to be
expert musicians and familiar with the harmony rules for this particular
genre of music to interpret this correctly.  I suggest, therefore, that
we eliminate + and - from the standard and admit only the explicit
namings, aug, #, add, dim, b and whatever we decide should mean "omit
this note".

Phil Taylor


To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html

Re: [abcusers] Chord notation

[Jack Campin]

>> 3) allow chord 'dialects'...
> Option 1 obviously means chaos.  Option 3 means chaos too.
> As an implementer I just don't see myself supporting multiple different
> and incompatible dialects.  Writing the code would be OK - just have a
> pile of tables.  Supporting it and answering the questions from completely
> confused customers would be a nightmare.

The tables don't need to be in the application, they can be in the ABC
files.  BarFly already allows for something like that with its macro
mechanism: I can write the macro

   m:Mn = [npr]

in the header to define to get a major chord, so that if I later write MC,
in the tune body it will be expanded to [C,E,G,] .  This isn't yet enough
for a guitar chord mechanism, as a particular macro only applies to notes
of one length, but an analogous syntax ought to work for an extensible
chord mechanism; it only has to give the user access to functionality
that's already there in the ABC application.  A possible syntax might be
to give the relative pitches by specifying one case:

  g:A dim = [A c _e]

in the header, and then "G dim" in the tune body would represent a chord
containing the pitch classes G, B flat and D flat.  (I'm assuming the
program can do implicit transposition; there are other ways to notate
the same information, like that of the BarFly macro system used above -
I don't think there would be much difference in usability).

If the meaning of the chord symbols is right there in the tune file,
using the same notation already used in ABC, the user isn't likely to
get confused.


>>...Parsing "F sharp minor" to print "F#m" should be easy.
> No, it's impossible - because the range of things that
> might mean F#m is unlimited.

You missed the point.  A user should not be constrained by a programmer's
idea of how to print chord names.  This should be a display option.  (My
preference for this particular chord would be a lower-case f followed by
a sharp sign, *not* a hash symbol).

The problem with the present staff display options for chords in ABC is
that are driven by their crappy ASCII approximations.  Using a "b" for
a flat in the staff notation looks amateurish, but the present design
encourages implementers to do exactly that by just printing the user's
ABC notation for the chord verbatim.  A design that decouples input
notation from displayed notation would avoid that mistake.  (The only
occasion I can think of when displaying flats and sharps in ASCII would
have any positive benefit is when generating a chord chart in Braille
for a blind guitarist).

One particularly useful display format for guitar chords would be to
expand them into left-hand piano chords and put them on a different
stave.  This could be a handy starting point for somebody doing a
keyboard arrangement.


===  ===


To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html

Re: [abcusers] Chord notation

[Laurie Griffiths]

Mike Whitaker said:
> ...we have three choices:
>
> 1) don't
> 2) pick one and stick with it...
> 3) allow chord 'dialects'...

I would vote heavily for 2

Option 1 obviously means chaos.  Option 3 means chaos too.
As an implementer I just don't see myself supporting multiple different and
incompatible dialects.  Writing the code would be OK - just have a pile of
tables.  Supporting it and answering the questions from completely confused
customers would be a nightmare.

There is in fact a high degree of consensus regarding all the simpler
chords.  I really wish that Frank Nordberg hadn't shot himself in the foot.
(Frank - what you did was to give an example of a whole load of notation
with no explanation.  I simply have no idea what most of the chords you
named are.  I have no idea whether what you described was systematic or
chaotic, whether you mixed multiple 'dialects' or just one, and so on.
there was therefore no way that I could follow your lead.  So we went of in
various other directions).



To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html

RE: [abcusers] Chord notation

[Richard L Walker]

Any hope for running option 3 through a filter that could produce option 2?

"Richard L Walker"<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Pensacola, FL 32504-7726 USA

-Original Message-
From: Precedence: bulk [mailto:Precedence: bulk]On Behalf Of Mike
Whitaker
1) don't
2) pick one and stick with it, either by democratic vote or the old "I wrote
the code so I get to choose" argument *grin*
3) allow chord 'dialects' so that folks who do it different ways can load up
the dialect they're used to with a %% directive.

To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html

Re: [abcusers] Chord notation

[Mike Whitaker]

On Fri, Feb 23, 2001 at 07:31:54PM +0100, Markus Lutz wrote:
> Hello,
> looks really good.
> But I would prefer using maj or simply j for a Major7-chord.
> That would be nearer to guitar chords and would protect messing up with Cminor.
Except that it isn't nearer to *everyone*'s guitar chords.

Part of the whole problem with this disccssion is that there IS no standard
for guitar chords. We have:

aug or + for augmented
dim or - or o or o-with-a-line-through for diminished
m, min or - for minor
M maj or norhing for major
M, maj or j for major 7th (and yes, I've seen Cmaj7 mean C7)
+ or 'add' for added notes
- or 'no' for omitted notes
+ or # for sharpened notes
- or b for flattened notes

And that's just without trying: I have SEEN all of these in various charts,
and had to work out from context and piano parts which they meant.

As far as I see it, if we *want* abc to require a standard for chord names,
we have three choices:

1) don't
2) pick one and stick with it, either by democratic vote or the old "I wrote
the code so I get to choose" argument *grin*
3) allow chord 'dialects' so that folks who do it different ways can load up
the dialect they're used to with a %% directive.
-- 
Mike Whitaker | Work: +44 1733 766619 | Work: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
System Architext  | Fax:  +44 1733 348287 | Home: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
CricInfo Ltd  | GSM:  +44 7971 977375 | Web: http://www.cricinfo.com/
To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html

Re: [abcusers] Chord notation

[Mike Whitaker]

On Fri, Feb 23, 2001 at 05:42:58PM +, John Chambers wrote:
> "Richard L Walker"<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  writes:
> | Cool
> 
> Yeah.  But a suggestion:  It really should have a comment at the  top
> identifying the author, preferably with email address. That way, when
> someone modifies  it  (perhaps  because  the  official  ABC  standard
> settles  on a slightly different syntax), you'll be more likely to be
> told about the changes, and we will have a better chance  of  keeping
> the copies somewhat in sync.

You are oif course, right.
Code duly marked up with the Artistic License.
-- 
Mike Whitaker | Work: +44 1733 766619 | Work: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
System Architext  | Fax:  +44 1733 348287 | Home: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
CricInfo Ltd  | GSM:  +44 7971 977375 | Web: http://www.cricinfo.com/
To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html

Re: [abcusers] Chord notation

[Mike Whitaker]

On Fri, Feb 23, 2001 at 05:21:56PM +0100, Bert Van Vreckem wrote:
> After playing around with some examples from the chord discussion I 
> have the following remarks:
> - C5 yields C E G instead of C G.

That's a known bug. When I get a chance I'll fix it.

> - Multiple modifiers seem to be impossible? e.g. Frank Nordberg's 
> Dmmaj13+11 (or Dm7add6add+11/C).

use 'add' or '#', depending on whether you think + means 'add' or 'sharpen'
There is a minor bug in there, though for some modifiers.

> - + and maj don't seem t be accepted?
> - "E7#9 is E G# B D Fx" -> what's Fx?

x - double sharp
-- 
Mike Whitaker | Work: +44 1733 766619 | Work: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
System Architext  | Fax:  +44 1733 348287 | Home: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
CricInfo Ltd  | GSM:  +44 7971 977375 | Web: http://www.cricinfo.com/
To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html

Re: [abcusers] Chord notation

[Markus Lutz]

Hello,
looks really good.
But I would prefer using maj or simply j for a Major7-chord.
That would be nearer to guitar chords and would protect messing up with Cminor.

Greetings, Markus

On Fri, 23 Feb 2001 14:27:48 +, Mike Whitaker wrote:

MW> On Fri, Feb 16, 2001 at 12:30:07PM +, Mike Whitaker wrote:
MW> I spent a chunk of yesterday evening writing a little chordname parser in
MW> perl, working to a rough version of the standard I proposed.
MW>
MW> If you want to see it in action, check out
MW> http://www.altrion.org/cgi-bin/parsechord.cgi
MW>
MW> The details of what it'll accept are on the page, and there's a link
MW> to the code itself.
MW> --
MW> Mike Whitaker | Work: +44 1733 766619 | Work: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
MW> System Architext  | Fax:  +44 1733 348287 | Home: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
MW> CricInfo Ltd  | GSM:  +44 7971 977375 | Web: http://www.cricinfo.com/
MW> To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: 
http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html
MW>


To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html

Re: [abcusers] Chord notation

[John Chambers]

"Richard L Walker"<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  writes:
| Cool

Yeah.  But a suggestion:  It really should have a comment at the  top
identifying the author, preferably with email address. That way, when
someone modifies  it  (perhaps  because  the  official  ABC  standard
settles  on a slightly different syntax), you'll be more likely to be
told about the changes, and we will have a better chance  of  keeping
the copies somewhat in sync.

I've often wanted to send patches to the authors of  code  that  I've
fetched  from the Net, only to find that I can't figure out who wrote
it or how to get in touch with them.

Also, you should take credit for your work.  This is considered  part
of the protocol in the "Open Source" community.

| -Original Message-
| From: Mike Whitaker [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
| If you want to see it in action, check out
| http://www.altrion.org/cgi-bin/parsechord.cgi
| The details of what it'll accept are on the page, and there's a link
| to the code itself.
To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html

Re: [abcusers] Chord notation

[Bert Van Vreckem]

Mike Whitaker wrote:

> I spent a chunk of yesterday evening writing a little chordname parser in
> perl, working to a rough version of the standard I proposed.
> 
> If you want to see it in action, check out
> http://www.altrion.org/cgi-bin/parsechord.cgi
> 
> The details of what it'll accept are on the page, and there's a link
> to the code itself.

Cool, indeed!

After playing around with some examples from the chord discussion I 
have the following remarks:
- C5 yields C E G instead of C G.
- Multiple modifiers seem to be impossible? e.g. Frank Nordberg's 
Dmmaj13+11 (or Dm7add6add+11/C).
- + and maj don't seem t be accepted?
- "E7#9 is E G# B D Fx" -> what's Fx?

-- 
bert van vreckem
  echo bexryt.vzaxnvrexckyemqxadvyaxlvasz.bxe|sed -e "s/[x-z]//g;s/q/@/"
The trouble with computers is that they do what you tell them, not what
you want.
 -- D. Cohen

To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html

RE: [abcusers] Chord notation

[Richard L Walker]

Cool

"Richard L Walker"<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Pensacola, FL 32504-7726 USA

-Original Message-
From: Mike Whitaker [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
If you want to see it in action, check out
http://www.altrion.org/cgi-bin/parsechord.cgi
The details of what it'll accept are on the page, and there's a link
to the code itself.

To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html

Re: [abcusers] Chord notation

[Mike Whitaker]

On Fri, Feb 16, 2001 at 12:30:07PM +, Mike Whitaker wrote:
> 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 this hat!
> 
> Hey, Rocky: watch me louse up.

I spent a chunk of yesterday evening writing a little chordname parser in
perl, working to a rough version of the standard I proposed.

If you want to see it in action, check out
http://www.altrion.org/cgi-bin/parsechord.cgi

The details of what it'll accept are on the page, and there's a link
to the code itself.
-- 
Mike Whitaker | Work: +44 1733 766619 | Work: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
System Architext  | Fax:  +44 1733 348287 | Home: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
CricInfo Ltd  | GSM:  +44 7971 977375 | Web: http://www.cricinfo.com/
To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html

Re: [abcusers] Chord notation

[Robert Bley-Vroman]

"Bob Archer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>I like this. I'm just not sure that I like it for the same thing that
>Laurie does. I quite often want to put in little bass lines as
>transitions between chords. Assuming the '/' mechanism is for
>specifying the bass note of a chord it seems to me to make sense
>to be able to write:
>
>"G/g" "/f#" "/e" "/d"
>
>(or something similar depending on what exact rules we end up
>with for case & accidental).

I was thinking of the same use that Bob was (probably not what Laurie was
thinking of, I admit). I'd add my vote to lower-case letters preceded by
slash for single bass-line notes. It differs from the Nottingham Database
system I illustrated earlier in that the NMD system doesn't require a slash
unless there is also a chord given. Requiring a slash is an advantage: it
is more fail-safe than relying on lower-case alone and it doesn't preclude
using ^f rather than f# for a bass note (as the slashless notation does,
since slashless "^f" will collide with the over-staff comment syntax.)

(Developers' note: the syntax might require a slash followed by a
lower-case note; however, some users will use a lower-case note, omitting
the slash and some will use an upper-case note with a slash. These would
both be errors, of course, but one might be tolerant to some extent--at
least one could give an informative warning message, perhaps making a guess
at what was intended.

Likewise, I think the chord and bass-note notation should use the f# style
rather than the ^f style, just to avoid colliding with the above-staff text
syntax when the user mistakenly omits a slash, but here, too, one might be
a little accepting of error, especially since the intent is often clear in
intent: "D/^f" could hardly mean anything else but "D/f#".)

The only problem is that some people are accustomed to using slash notation
for alternate chords. But, we already have the parenthesis notation (in the
proposed revision) for this case. It would probably be best to reserve the
slash notation for bass notes.

Robert Bley-Vroman


To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html

Re: [abcusers] Chord notation

[Robert Bley-Vroman]

I wrote:

>
>Robert> (I've used "f#" rather than "^f".)

Laura Conrad wrote:

>
>We've discussed this many times before.  The advantage of F# is that
>it looks more like the printed music than ^F.  The disadvantage is
>that there isn't a corresponding character for natural.  And the ascii
># character is pretty close to a typeset sharp, but the ascii lower
>case b isn't really, although it's better than anything we have for
>natural.

Actually, we can't use ^f if we enclose it in quotation marks and use it as
a single bass note (as in my Dashing White Sergeant example), since "^f"
will be interpreted as a text notation to be placed above the staff.

Robert


To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html

Re: [abcusers] Chord notation

[Laurie Griffiths]

I think we're talking about the same thing.
The instruments that I play on the whole don't do bass lines (with the
exception of bass guitar that does nothing else) but many accordions have a
row or two of buttons on the left hand that do a single note.  These seem to
be used to either add a note to a chord (so one might add an A to a C to
make a C6 - and whether that could be written C/A seems to be open to
debate) or to play a tune in the bass - often a bass run as suggested (...
"D7" "/D"  "/E"  "/F#" "G" ...)

[Note the awkwardness of writing chords that don't match the melody
rhythmically which (I think) Laura mentioned.  I'd like to keep these two
debates separate so I'm not going to suggest remedies here, only that at
present you'd have to split up the melody note into a bunch of tied notes
and write something like:
... "D7"A5/2- "/D"A-  "/E"A-  "/F#"A- "G"G2 ...


- Original Message -
From: Richard L Walker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, February 18, 2001 12:53 AM
Subject: RE: [abcusers] Chord notation


I think the slash chord is used to specify an additional note to be played
with the normal chord.   C/A would mean to play the C chord but at the same
time play an A in the base region.
Question:
Since an e or d can be specified just as notes, is the desire to have a /e
or /d simply to keep the focus on the base part of a tune whether dealing
with chords or notes?

"Richard L Walker"<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Pensacola, FL 32504-7726 USA

-Original Message-
From: Bob Archer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
...I like this. I'm just not sure that I like it for the same thing that
Laurie does. I quite often want to put in little bass lines as
transitions between chords. Assuming the '/' mechanism is for
specifying the bass note of a chord it seems to me to make sense
to be able to write:

"G/g" "/f#" "/e" "/d"

(or something similar depending on what exact rules we end up
with for case & accidental).

To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to:
http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html


To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html

RE: [abcusers] Chord notation

[Richard L Walker]

Opps.  I missed the part that IF the specified /note is part of the chord
named on the left of the slash, the note on the right is specifying the
inversion of the chord beginning with the /note on the bottom.  You probably
already knew all this, but I hate type up errors.
I'm definitely going back into lurk mode.
"Richard L Walker"<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Pensacola, FL 32504-7726 USA

-Original Message-
From: Richard L Walker [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
I think the slash chord is used to specify an additional note to be played
with the normal chord.   C/A would mean to play the C chord but at the same
time play an A in the base region.

To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html

RE: [abcusers] Chord notation

[Richard L Walker]

I think the slash chord is used to specify an additional note to be played
with the normal chord.   C/A would mean to play the C chord but at the same
time play an A in the base region.
Question:
Since an e or d can be specified just as notes, is the desire to have a /e
or /d simply to keep the focus on the base part of a tune whether dealing
with chords or notes?

"Richard L Walker"<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Pensacola, FL 32504-7726 USA

-Original Message-
From: Bob Archer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
...I like this. I'm just not sure that I like it for the same thing that
Laurie does. I quite often want to put in little bass lines as
transitions between chords. Assuming the '/' mechanism is for
specifying the bass note of a chord it seems to me to make sense
to be able to write:

"G/g" "/f#" "/e" "/d"

(or something similar depending on what exact rules we end up
with for case & accidental).

To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html

Re: [abcusers] Chord notation

[Bob Archer]

"Laurie Griffiths" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> 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?

I like this. I'm just not sure that I like it for the same thing that 
Laurie does. I quite often want to put in little bass lines as 
transitions between chords. Assuming the '/' mechanism is for 
specifying the bass note of a chord it seems to me to make sense 
to be able to write:

"G/g" "/f#" "/e" "/d"

(or something similar depending on what exact rules we end up 
with for case & accidental).

Bob


--
-- Bob Archer  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html

Re: [abcusers] Chord notation

[Laurie Griffiths]

No, Frank. KISS means Keep It Simple.  Actually it's a well known
engineering maxim - the full version is "Keep It Simple, Stupid!", and it is
very good advice for programmers! Actually I don't want to call people here
stupid.  They're not.  Einstein said "Everything should be made as simple as
possible, but no simpler".  That applies too.

The problem I see is that music is so diverse that there is no way that we
can allow everything to be written in the most natural way for each style
and at the same time have a hope in hell's chance of providing software
support for it all.

I *thought* that an extension mechanism might be the answer.  Perhaps my
mistake was to underestimate the number of chords that jazz guitarists use.
If it requires 40,000 "standard" chords to be written out as extensions or,
alternatively, a different 20 chords to be written out for each and every
tune, then that's a problem and I can see why you'd want an algorithm
instead.

I failed to understand what may well have been a systematic naming
convention used by Frank.  (The chord names appeared to include A6, Am-6,
Am6, A69, A7, A7+, Amaj7, Am7, Adim7, A9, A-9, A9-5, A11, A+11, Am13,
Ammaj13+11, A13-9).  It looked complicated.

For instance, is A9-5 a ninth with a missing fifth or a 9th with a flattened
fifth?
Is A7+ a sharpened 7th - but then what's Amaj7?
Or is it A with a 7th added - but then what's A7?
A7+ appears to use postfix notation, A+11 appears to use prefix notation.
Do prefix and postfix +s mean different things?  Or is that an A# chord?  Or
is A+11 a chord of A with an augmented 5th and an 11th?

I'm afraid I haven't the faintest idea what most of it means - and it looks
complicated - and Richard Walker's recent mail doesn't explain much of it
(in fact only the bit I already knew) - so I wanted to give the *user* the
chance to define the notation rather than build it into the language and
therefore have to rely on whatever bits we had built in, and have a tough
time wherever we'd missed something.

"Rocky's formal grammar" (yes, I know Rocky was only the one who had to
watch) was an attempt to go the other way.  Does Frank support that
approach?  Do others?

I am actually trying to find a way to INCLUDE many styles.  If we wanted
single style only then we wouldn't need to bother with either the extension
mechanism or any fancy grammar!

Laurie

P.S. Apologies for my previous post appearing twice.  Mailer glitch on this
end.

To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html

RE: [abcusers] Chord notation

[Richard L Walker]

Complicated?

You start with an R,3,5 root.

Using the 3, you use 3b for a minor or 3# (or 4) for a suspended.
Using the 5, you use 5b for a flat or 5# for an augmented.
Using the R, you add a 7 for a major 7th, a 7b for a dominant 7th or a 6 for
a 6th.

For dominant:
The 7 is R,3,5,7b
The 9 is R,3,5,7b,9
The 11 is R,3,5,7b,(9),11
The 13 is R,3,5,7b,(9,11),13

For Major:
The M7 is R,3,5,7
The M9 is R,3,5,7.9
The M11 is R,3,5,7,(9),11
The M13 is R,3,5,7,(9,,11),13

For Diminished 7th use R,3b,5b,7bb
For Half Diminished use R,3b,5b

"Richard L Walker"<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Pensacola, FL 32504-7726 USA

-Original Message-
From: Laurie Griffiths [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
...I don't want to exclude these guys from using ABC but I also feel that I
don't want ABC cluttered up with very complicated descriptions of chords.
I'd rather have simple chords simply defined and an extension mechanism to
allow those who need it to define complicated [dis-]chords or to express
more control over inversions etc...


To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html

Re: [abcusers] Chord notation

[Frank Nordberg]

Laurie Griffiths wrote:
> 
> (I'm still wading through version 2 of the Rocky grammar).
> 
> I don't want to exclude Jazz guitarists from using ABC but I also feel that
> I don't want ABC cluttered up with very complicated descriptions of chords.

Oh well, time for the big showdown then  :-|


Chris Walshaw's introduction to abc (
http://www.gre.ac.uk/~c.walshaw/abc/ ) says among other things:

   abc is a language designed to notate tunes in an ascii format. It was
   designed primarily for folk and traditional tunes of Western European
   origin (such as English, Irish and Scottish) which can be written on
   one stave in standard classical notation. However, it is extendible to
   many other types of music...

What does that mean? Does it mean "abc started off in the brit-trad
circuit, but we'd like to extend it to fit other styles too", or "abc is
for notating brit-trad music, but people can use it for other styles too
as long as they don't make too much noise about it"?

Today abc is used for many different kinds of music. Sometimes it works
quite well (most European traditional music), sometimes you need to make
a couple of annoying, but acceptable compromises (early music),
sometimes it's quite messy, but more or less possible (17th and 18th C.
"classical" music). Sometimes abc is completely useless.

I discovered abc more or less by accident almost two years ago. I was
immediately taken in by the prospect of having an easy, compact and
compatible-with-everything standard for storing and transfering music
electornically. Nobody said to me: "oh, but remember it only really
works for European traditional music!"

If I remember correctly (and I think I do) the paragraph I quoted from
Walshaw's site was slightly different at that time. Something about abc
originating in British traditonal music, but the plan was to develop it
to fit other musical styles too.

Anyway, I downloaded BarFly immediately and started transcribing music
into abc. By now very few paople can claim to have transcribed more
music into abc than I have. And nobody can claim to have used abc for as
many different musical styles.
I didn't do this work to be able to post music on Internet - I already
had a sheet music site far more popular than any abc site. Nor was it
because working with abc saved me time - it certainly doesn't. I did it
because I *believed* in the idea of a simple, standardized, *universal*
system for notating music.

But abc is far from universal. Hell, you can't even depend on an abc
application being able to deal with the abc you've written. More to the
point, there are still to many people with an "if I don't need it
personally, we shouldn't bother" attitude hiding inside their own little
pigeon holes flatly refusing to look at the huge, wide landscape that is MUSIC.

I'm quite fed up with the whole thing right now, and before I do
anything more with abc, I want a straight an honest answer. No
digressions, no foggy evasive talk, no excuses:

Does KISS really mean "Keep It Single Style" here at abcusers?



Frank


---
To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html

Re: [abcusers] Chord notation

[Laurie Griffiths]

(I'm still wading through version 2 of the Rocky grammar).

I don't want to exclude Jazz guitarists from using ABC but I also feel that
I don't want ABC cluttered up with very complicated descriptions of chords.

I'd rather have simple chords simply defined and an extension mechanism to
allow those who need it to define complicated [dis-]chords or to express
more control over inversions etc.

As an example "A" could mean [Aeae'] (a common mandolin version - perhaps a
better name would be "A5", but mandolinists will often play that for "A"),
or [Ae^c'a'] (another mandolin version) or [E,,A,,E,A,^CE] (guitar),
[E,,A,,E,A,^CA] (guitar, half bar on fret 2), [A,,E,A,^CEA] (guitar, bar on
5), and so on, not forgetting blue grass banjo chords where there are liable
to be unisons coming from the short string.

Even though there is this ambiguity, there is a remarkable consensus between
musicians as to what it means - so that, for instance, a group of mutually
unacquainted musicians can play from the same music and sound OK.

Discussion here seems to suggest that A-3+5, A+9, Aadd8, Asus9 and so forth
cause confusion, and although it would be possible to define a grammar and a
semantics that would be natural to some, it would be unnatural to others and
possibly quite "wrong" to some.

I would rather have an extension mechanism so that the definition of C#5b3
(or whatever) was contained in the file rather than somewhere less
immediately accessible (such as the ABC standard).

This serves two other purposes.  Firstly different groups of musicians (who,
I guess would rarely play together) can use their own "standard" notations.
Secondly, different notations can compete in a Darwinian sense and the best
will perhaps eventually prevail and become a de facto standard without the
need of ABCUsers to reach a consensus or ABC developers to reach agreement.

The question is then "what chords form the basic core"?  Jazz players might
want about a million, and mouth-organ players might want about two.

My own choice is not far from where I started:
Major,
Seventh (and those two cover most of folk music),
Minor (now we have almost done),
Single note only (and now we can do fancy bass runs)
Root+fifth only
Diminished,
Minor seventh,
6th (which is an inversion of a minor seventh),
Major seventh,
Fourth ("sus"), meaning root, 4th 5th
Augmented, meaning root, major 3rd, sharpened 5th

I'm quite happy to add a bass note as a guide to inversion.

I'd be not unhappy to add
Root+Octave only,

I'm open to convincing about 9th - the standard definition seems to be root,
3rd, 5th, 7th, 9th, but that's pretty much unplayable on guitar, so I think
that what passes for "G9" is probably quite different.

11ths, 13ths, minor 9ths with augmented 5ths etc.etc. I don't want in the
core set at all.  However, although I'm dead against them being in the core
set, I *do* want an extension mechanism so that by doing no more than
including a "standard" insert in the file that only needs to be worked out
once by one writer in that idiom, a user can have their own jargon in a way
that can be printed, played, transposed, tempered and so on.  Of course the
hot jazz "standard" set might be quite different from the flamenco
"standard" set (F-- = [F,,C,F,A,B,E] and so forth).

I'm not very keen on #include mechanisms because it complicates passing a
file is passed around the network.

Laurie

To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html

Re: [abcusers] Chord notation

[Laurie Griffiths]

(I'm still wading through version 2 of the Rocky grammar).

I'll begin by admitting a bias (Jazz guitar makes me reach for the off
switch).

I don't want to exclude these guys from using ABC but I also feel that I
don't want ABC cluttered up with very complicated descriptions of chords.
I'd rather have simple chords simply defined and an extension mechanism to
allow those who need it to define complicated [dis-]chords or to express
more control over inversions etc.

As an example "A" could mean [Aeae'] (a common mandolin version - perhaps a
better name would be "A5", but mandolinists will often play that for "A"),
or [Ae^c'a'] (another mandolin version) or [E,,A,,E,A,^CE] (guitar),
[E,,A,,E,A,^CA] (guitar, half bar on fret 2), [A,,E,A,^CEA] (guitar, bar on
5), and so on, not forgetting blue grass banjo chords where there are liable
to be unisons coming from the short string.

Even though there is this ambiguity, there is a remarkable concensus between
musicians as to what it means - so that, for instance, a group of mutually
unaquainted musicians can play from the same music and sound OK.

Discussion here seems to suggest that A-3+5, A+9, Aadd8, Asus9 and so forth
cause confusion, and although it would be possible to define a grammar and a
semantics that would be natural to some, it would be unnatural to others and
possibly quite "wrong" to some.

I would rather have an extension mechanism so that the definition of C#5b3
(or whatever) was contained in the file rather than somewhere less
immediately accessible (such as the ABC standard).

This serves two other purposes.  Firstly different groups of musicians (who,
I guess would rarely play together) can use their own "standard" notations.
Secondly, different notations can compete in a Darwinian sense and the best
will perhaps eventually prevail and become a de facto standard without the
need of ABCUsers to reach a concensus or ABC developers to reach agreement.

The question is then "what chords form the basic core"?  Jazz players might
want about a million, and mouth-organ players might want about two.

My own choice is not far from where I started:
Major,
Seventh (so far that deals with most of folk music),
Minor (now we have almost all the rest),
Single note only (and now we are just about done)
Root+fifth only
Diminished,
Minor seventh,
6th (which is an inversion of a minor seventh),
Major seventh,
Fourth ("sus") root, 4th 5th
Augmented (root, major 3rd, sharpened 5th)

I'm quite happy to add a bass note as a guide to inversion.

I'd be not unhappy to add
Root+Octave only,

I'm open to convincing about 9th - the standard definition seems to be root,
3rd, 5th, 7th, 9th, but that's pretty much unplayable on guitar, so I think
that what passes for "G9" is probably quite difference.

11ths, 13ths, minor 9ths with augmented 5ths etc.etc. I don't want in the
standard at all.  I'm dead against them, but I *do* want an extension
mechanism so that by doing no more than including a standard insert in the
file that only needs to be worked out once by one writer in that idiom, a
user can have their own jargon in a way that can be printed, played,
transposed, tempered and so on.

I'm not very keen on #include mecanisms because it complicates passing a
file is passed around the network.  The set of files need to be marshalled
first.

Laurie

To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html

Re: [abcusers] Chord notation

[Laura Conrad]

> "Robert" == Robert Bley-Vroman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

Robert> A suggestion: When we consider an option, let's see what
Robert> it would look like in an actual tune that would use it. I
Robert> propose we take something from the Nottingham Music
Robert> Database, which makes relatively extensive use of chords
Robert> with bass notes and just single bass notes. You can see a
Robert> particularly clear case in this example of "Dashing White
Robert> Sergeant", in the abc version here. Below, I've adapted
Robert> the Nottingham system--not originally abc, of
Robert> course--which uses single lower-case letters for bass
Robert> notes, preceded by a slash when there is also a chord, and
Robert> (usually) with no slash when they are alone.

I certainly wouldn't guess that a lower case letter meant a bass note
without a chord unless someone told me, whereas Laurie's suggestion
makes immediate sense to me.

That is, 
Robert> "E7"g2f2 "f#" e2 "g#" d2 |"A7"c2 "g" B2 "f#" A2 "e" G2 |

I wouldn't know from looking at this to play only f# and not some
chord based on f#,

Robert> "E7"g2f2 "/F#" e2 "/G#" d2 |"A7"c2 "g" B2 "/F#" A2 "/E" G2 |

But I would guess that this meant to play only f#.

-- 
Laura (mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] , http://www.laymusic.org/ )
(617) 661-8097  fax: (801) 365-6574 
233 Broadway, Cambridge, MA 02139
To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html

Re: [abcusers] Chord notation

[Laura Conrad]

> "Robert" == Robert Bley-Vroman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

Robert> (I've used "f#" rather than "^f".)

We've discussed this many times before.  The advantage of F# is that
it looks more like the printed music than ^F.  The disadvantage is
that there isn't a corresponding character for natural.  And the ascii
# character is pretty close to a typeset sharp, but the ascii lower
case b isn't really, although it's better than anything we have for
natural.

So unless we're going to add to the standard that it accepts a text
notation for natural (e.g. the TeX \natural), I think we should at
least allow =f, ^f, and _f as an option.

-- 
Laura (mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] , http://www.laymusic.org/ )
(617) 661-8097  fax: (801) 365-6574 
233 Broadway, Cambridge, MA 02139
To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html

Re: [abcusers] Chord notation

[Robert Bley-Vroman]

"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
like in an actual tune that would use it. I propose we take something from
the  Nottingham Music Database, which makes relatively extensive use of
chords with bass notes and just single bass notes. You can see a
particularly clear case in this example of "Dashing White Sergeant", in the
abc version here. Below, I've adapted the Nottingham system--not originally
abc, of course--which uses single lower-case letters for bass notes,
preceded by a slash when there is also a chord, and (usually) with no slash
when they are alone. (I've used "f#" rather than "^f".)

X: 1
T: Dashing White Sergeant
%  Nottingham Music Database
C: Trad, via EF
M: 4/4
L: 1/8
K: D
FE|\
"D" D2D2 DEFG |"D" A2A2  A2fe |"G" d2B2 "D" A2F2 |"Em" B2E2 "A7"EGFE |
"D" D2D2 DEFG |"D" A2A2  A2f2 |"E7"e2d2 c2B2 |"A7"A^GAB AGFE |
"D" D2D2 DEFG |"D" A^GAB A2fe |"G" d2B2 "D" A2F2 |"Em"B2E2 "A7"EGFE |
"D" DCDE DEFG |"D" A^GAB A2f2 |"E7"e2d2 c2B2 |"A" A6E2 ||
"A" A2AB c2cd |"A" e2ec   A4  |"Bm" B2Bc d2de |"Bm"f2fd  B4 |
"A" c2AA "E7/b" d2AA |"A/c#" e2AA "D" f2AA |\
"E7"g2f2 "f#" e2 "g#" d2 |"A7"c2 "g" B2 "f#" A2 "e" G2 |
"D" F2d2 dcde |"D" d2A2  A4  |"Em"B2e2 edef |"A7"e2B2  B4 |
"D" A2d2 dcde |"Bm"f2d2 dcde |"D" f4 "A7" a4|"D" d2cB AG ||

I guess Laurie's suggestion would look like this, for the corresponding
lines, right?

"A" c2AA "E7/b" d2AA |"A/c#" e2AA "D" f2AA |\
"E7"g2f2 "/F#" e2 "/G#" d2 |"A7"c2 "g" B2 "/F#" A2 "/E" G2 |

As someone reading abc (and I do read chords directly from the abc when I
practice), I _think_ I prefer the NMD-style notation. (But, I'm not really
sure--maybe it's just more familiar.)

Robert Bley-Vroman
Honolulu


To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html

Re: [abcusers] Chord notation

[John Chambers]

Robert Bley-Vroman  writes:

| (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.)

And, of course, a number of us have  loudly  objected  to  even  that
amount  of  specificity.   I'd  prefer that ABC merely says that A is
higher than C and lower than c, and say  nothing  at  all  about  the
pitch.   I  play instruments in several octaves, and my accordion has
stops that change the octave of the keys.  Terms like "middle C" just
get in the way for people like me. (Let's see, on my soprano recorder
there are three C's, so it's obvious which one is "middle C". ;-)

Staff notation has survived quite  well  for  centuries  without  any
well-defined pitch standard.  Musicians to say A=440 true, but if you
play that pitch, they will happily tune instruments in any octave  to
it, and not be much aware that they are off by N octaves.

Anyway, one of the things I've found very useful about  ABC  is  that
the "guitar chord" notation is exactly like fake-book notation. There
are good reasons that people use this notation even though the chords
could  be written out.  The value is in its simplicity.  Making ABC's
chord notation more complex isn't an improvement.  The  only  way  we
really  can  improve  it is by having a somewhat better definition of
how to write various chords. The "standard" notation is somewhat of a
mess, as others have hinted.

To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html

Re: [abcusers] Chord notation

[Mike Whitaker]

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
> 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.

I beg to differ a little.
The standard should say that "Gm" means a chord containing G Bb and D,
it should *not* give any indication of voicing, inversion, repeated notes,
rhythm, etc etc etc. That's down to the player program. (A thought:
a version of abc2ps that generates guitar chord *boxes* would be sweet - 
just a light hearted-thought, that's all... *grin*)

Bear in mind that a folk musician's 'sketch' of harmony can be a three chord
trick, a rock musician's often includes suggestions of bass lines, and a
jazzer's can be a whole bunch of altered ninths and 13ths.

I'm aware that abc's *primary* intent was to transcribe folk tunes, but
it clearly lends itself to lead-line-plus-chords music, anf folk musicans
don't have a monopoly on that: it seems a shame to restrict its use for
want of a tighter spec on chords.

This all started from me wanting to know if abc2midi handled slash chords. 
The reason why is that I'm using abc2midi to help me *write* a song, 
and having the chordal backing is proving *really* useful, as is/will be
the ability to teach it to friends in the States by sending them a file several
orders of magnitude smaller than an MP3...

>From little acorns...
-- 
Mike Whitaker | Work: +44 1733 766619 | Work: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
System Architext  | Fax:  +44 1733 348287 | Home: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
CricInfo Ltd  | GSM:  +44 7971 977375 | Web: http://www.cricinfo.com/
To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html

Re: [abcusers] Chord notation

[Robert Bley-Vroman]

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

Re: [abcusers] Chord notation

[Laurie Griffiths]

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 fancied
parsing "F sharp minor".  So what do we write?
One suggestion was "G!" another was "g".
Given that "F#/G" means 'the chord "F#" with a
G bass note added', I wondered whether "/G"
meant 'the chord "" with a G bass note added"
and as the chord "" has no notes in it (but I'm
labouring the point).  Having invented it, I'm not
sure that I like it.  So I repeat, "any takers?"
Laurie


- Original Message -
From: John Chambers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, February 16, 2001 6:11 PM
Subject: Re: [abcusers] Chord notation


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 description of the first two rows
of "chords" on the left side of an accordion.  Though players tend to
call them "bass notes", they are usually made up of two or more reeds
that sound in  different  octaves,  so  they  are  "chords"  in  this
degenerate  sense.   And,  of  course,  organs  and harpsichords have
similar multi-octave coupling mechanisms.

To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to:
http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html


To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html

Re: [abcusers] Chord notation

[Mike Whitaker]

On Fri, Feb 16, 2001 at 07:48:38PM +0100, Frank Nordberg wrote:
> 
 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, it ought to cover almost everything. Just a few slight
> modifications and it'd be perfect.
> 
> ---
> 
> I'm not at all familiar with the formal language Mike used, and I
> suppose a few list subscribers would have slight problems with straight
> Norwegian, so I'll try to do my best defining a set of rules in my
> rather clumsy English.

If I spoke Norwegian as well as you do English

> These 12 rules ought to cover every possible combination of scale and
> non-scale notes an confirms to common chord notation standard as far as
> it's possible to confirm to a standard that strictly speaking doesn't
> exist ;)

This is actually very close to what I propose, although some of teh literals are
different (+/- for #/b)
> 
>  1. No chord suffix implies a major triad%step 1, 3 and 5 of the
> major scale.
>  2. m implies a minor triad  %step 1, 3 and 5 of the
> minor scale.
>  3. The main series are based oon thirds in the mixolydian/dorian scale
> (with major 6th and minor 7th): 7 - 9 - 11 - 13. Any of these
> numbers implies that
> all the steps up to and including the specified one are added to the chord.
>  4. "6" specifies the (major) 6th to be added to the triad.
>  5. A + (or # if you like) in front of a number specifies that that note is
> raised a semitone.
>  6. A - (or b) in front of a number specifies that that note is lowered
> a semitone.
> %Note: I prefer +/- rather than #/b to avoid any possible confusion
> %with accidentals connected to the root note. I consider the problems
> %of "-" being confused with the old fashioned minor symbol and
> "+" with
> %"add" to be of much less importance.

Two points here:
- the use of + is also a notation for an augmented triad (1 3 #5) in a LOT
of songbooks and other guitar notation: it's actually THREE ways ambiguous.
Similary, some of my German friends use C- to mean Cminor,
- The only ambiguity I can see with sharps/flats is (for example) C#9 being
interpreted as either a C9 with a sharpened 9th or a C# *ninth* chord.
This is resolvable by declaring that ambiguous accidentals belong to
the NOTE, not the scale degree, and allowing for brackets, so that our
two chords become C(#9) and C#9, the LATTER being the C# ninth, which would 
be my first reaction when I tried to play it.

>  7. "maj" specifies a major 7th. It is laways followed by a number from
> the main
> series.
> %Note: Ideally, I'd prefer +7/#7 instead, but "maj" is far too common
> %a term to be ignored.

Actually, M is almost as common and fewer characters.

>  8. "sus" before a number implies that that note is to replace the third
> of the
> chord. Only two alternatives are allowed: sus2 and sus4.
>  9. "x" before a number specifies that that note is to be omitted from
> the chord.
> %Note: It seems the most usual term for this is "omit", but I like
> %"x" far better ;)

I'm used to 'no', e.g. C7no3

> 10. "x" not followed by a number specifies root only
> 11. "add" before a number specifies that only that note and no others (unless
> otherwise specified) are added.
> %Note: "add" overrides "x", which means you can cut down to the
> root and
> %then add anything you like (e.g. Cxadd8). This is a kind of a catch-all.
> 12. The following common alternative suffixes are allowed:
>  a) dim = m-7-5

Problem here, is that some folks use Ddim to mean Dmb5, and some to mean
Dmb7b5. This latter is also bad, since in that notation. 'b7' actually
means 'bb7', which is confusing. I'm still unsure how to distinguish these.
Some chord charts use o for diminished, but again its ambiguous.
Perhaps we should make a special case for dim (1 b3 5) and dim7 
(1 b3 5 bb7), and also allow dimaddb7 for the half-diminished
seventh (1 b3 5 b7) which also pops up from time to time.

>  b) 5   = x3   %the root-fifth power chord
>  c) 69  = 6add9

Good man. I'd forgotten that one.

>  d) 8   = xadd8
> %Note: The list in #12 is definitely open to discussions

I'm not hugely convinced by the x notation: I kinda prefer a lowercase note 
letter.
-- 
Mike Whitaker | Work: +44 1733 766619 | Work: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
System Architext  | Fax:  +44 1733 348287 | Home: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
CricInfo Ltd  | GSM:  +44 7971 977375 | Web: http://www.cricinfo.com/
To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html

Re: [abcusers] Chord notation

[Frank Nordberg]

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 the right moment, but I vote for it
> when it is.

I agree with Laura.
The roman numerals question is simple enough that it can wait.
Basso continuo is defnitely the father of modern chord notation
(alfabeto notation is the mother in case anybody wonders), but it's
based on a slightly different understanding of chords and poses
completely different and really serius problems. So let's deal with that later.



Frank


---
To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html

Re: [abcusers] Chord notation

[Frank Nordberg]

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 whatever they replied to). So I'm afraid my
arguments have been a bit out of sync with the discussion now and then :(

Also, I noticed that some d*mn mail mangler messed up the carefully
constructed layout of my list of chord suffix rules. I hope it's still readable.


Frank


---
To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html

Re: [abcusers] Chord notation

[Frank Nordberg]

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, it ought to cover almost everything. Just a few slight
modifications and it'd be perfect.

---

I'm not at all familiar with the formal language Mike used, and I
suppose a few list subscribers would have slight problems with straight
Norwegian, so I'll try to do my best defining a set of rules in my
rather clumsy English.
These 12 rules ought to cover every possible combination of scale and
non-scale notes an confirms to common chord notation standard as far as
it's possible to confirm to a standard that strictly speaking doesn't
exist ;)

 1. No chord suffix implies a major triad%step 1, 3 and 5 of the
major scale.
 2. m implies a minor triad  %step 1, 3 and 5 of the
minor scale.
 3. The main series are based oon thirds in the mixolydian/dorian scale
(with major 6th and minor 7th): 7 - 9 - 11 - 13. Any of these
numbers implies that
all the steps up to and including the specified one are added to the chord.
 4. "6" specifies the (major) 6th to be added to the triad.
 5. A + (or # if you like) in front of a number specifies that that note is
raised a semitone.
 6. A - (or b) in front of a number specifies that that note is lowered
a semitone.
%Note: I prefer +/- rather than #/b to avoid any possible confusion
%with accidentals connected to the root note. I consider the problems
%of "-" being confused with the old fashioned minor symbol and
"+" with
%"add" to be of much less importance.
 7. "maj" specifies a major 7th. It is laways followed by a number from
the main
series.
%Note: Ideally, I'd prefer +7/#7 instead, but "maj" is far too common
%a term to be ignored.
 8. "sus" before a number implies that that note is to replace the third
of the
chord. Only two alternatives are allowed: sus2 and sus4.
 9. "x" before a number specifies that that note is to be omitted from
the chord.
%Note: It seems the most usual term for this is "omit", but I like
%"x" far better ;)
10. "x" not followed by a number specifies root only
11. "add" before a number specifies that only that note and no others (unless
otherwise specified) are added.
%Note: "add" overrides "x", which means you can cut down to the
root and
%then add anything you like (e.g. Cxadd8). This is a kind of a catch-all.
12. The following common alternative suffixes are allowed:
 a) dim = m-7-5
 b) 5   = x3   %the root-fifth power chord
 c) 69  = 6add9
 d) 8   = xadd8
%Note: The list in #12 is definitely open to discussions



Frank

---
To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html

Re: [abcusers] Chord notation

[John Chambers]

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 description of the first two rows
of "chords" on the left side of an accordion.  Though players tend to
call them "bass notes", they are usually made up of two or more reeds
that sound in  different  octaves,  so  they  are  "chords"  in  this
degenerate  sense.   And,  of  course,  organs  and harpsichords have
similar multi-octave coupling mechanisms.

To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html

RE: [abcusers] Chord notation

[Richard L Walker]

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 to read it.)...

To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html

RE: [abcusers] Chord notation

[Richard L Walker]

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

Re: [abcusers] Chord notation

[Laura Conrad]

> "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 vote for it
when it is.

I think the roman numerals can easily be a display type for chords
once we have a standard for entering the chords (which if an
implementer wants to implement it now, could be done with a %%
directive). 

The figured bass is a little more complicated, because of needing to
be able to stack several figures, but otherwise presents the same
problems as chords.  For instance, they need to be able to change
"between" melody notes, they need to be able to display accidentals,
etc.

Laurie> I want to reduce the number of ways to write it.  I just
Laurie> think that they are not ABC.  On the same grounds, I don't
Laurie> want to allow writing f in the melody as (1,1) - that's
Laurie> fret 1 on the first string.  It's a valid idea, but it's
Laurie> not ABC

I agree that this kind of tablature isn't ABC, but I disagree that
figured bass and roman numerals are any less ABC than chords.  And
they seem like a similar enough problems to the chords that they
should be implemented some time.

For people who are interested in extending ABC to deal with tablature,
look at abctab2ps at
http://www.emsland-aktuell.com/lautengesellschaft/cdmm/index.html 

-- 
Laura (mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] , http://www.laymusic.org/ )
(617) 661-8097  fax: (801) 365-6574 
233 Broadway, Cambridge, MA 02139
To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html

Re: [abcusers] Chord notation

[Mike Whitaker]

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 Whitaker | Work: +44 1733 766619 | Work: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
System Architext  | Fax:  +44 1733 348287 | Home: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
CricInfo Ltd  | GSM:  +44 7971 977375 | Web: http://www.cricinfo.com/
To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html

Re: [abcusers] Chord notation

[Laurie Griffiths]

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?

Laurie

- Original Message -
From: Mike Whitaker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, February 16, 2001 9:46 AM
Subject: Re: [abcusers] Chord notation


On Fri, Feb 16, 2001 at 09:18:57AM +0100, Bert Van Vreckem wrote:
> 
> > 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>:
>
>  There are a few different ways to write these chords.
>
>  '-' and '+' signs are sometimes used to mean 'flat' and
>  'sharp' respectively, but 'b' and '#' are used as well.
>
>  You might even see 'dim' and 'aug' (diminished and augmented)
>  used too for the same thing.
>
>  So E7#9 could be written as E7+9 or E7aug9
>  and E7b9 could be written as E7-9 or E7dim9
>
> So, G+11 would be a synonym of Gaug11.

Which doesn't answer my question, since it's still unclear!
Is Gaug11 meant to be (Gaug)11 (G B D# F A C) or G(aug11) (G B D F A C#)?
*grin* And if we go back to G+11, it's perfectly understandable to
interpret G+11 as Gadd11, i.e G B D C. (Gotta watch these jazzers,
they get wierd...)

It's all very well pointing at one FAQ that defines it one way, but
it's not the only FAQ or the only interprotation.
--
Mike Whitaker | Work: +44 1733 766619 | Work: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
System Architext  | Fax:  +44 1733 348287 | Home: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
CricInfo Ltd  | GSM:  +44 7971 977375 | Web: http://www.cricinfo.com/
To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to:
http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html


To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html

Re: [abcusers] Chord notation

[Phil Taylor]

>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 to accommodate
the vagaries of current musical useage, or we can follow a strict set
of definitions as proposed here.  The first option will never be entirely
correct because current musical useage is ambiguous (but it probably
would suit most users most of the time).  The second option will give
the programmers something concrete to work with, and personally I much
prefer it.

(However, it will have to be written out in English, or most abc users
won't even bother to read it.)

Phil Taylor


To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html

Re: [abcusers] Chord notation

[Mike Whitaker]

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 this hat!

Hey, Rocky: watch me louse up.

>  :== '6'|
>  :== |
>  :== ['maj'][]
>  :== ['maj']
>  :== '7'|'9'|'11'|'13'
>  :== *
>  :== 

Lets try THAT again:

 :== 
 :== |
 :== []'6'
 :== ['maj'][]
 :== '7'|'9'|'11'|'13'
 :== *
 :== 
-- 
Mike Whitaker | Work: +44 1733 766619 | Work: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
System Architext  | Fax:  +44 1733 348287 | Home: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
CricInfo Ltd  | GSM:  +44 7971 977375 | Web: http://www.cricinfo.com/
To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html

Re: [abcusers] Chord notation

[Laurie Griffiths]

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 least!) banjo, guitar, mandolin
or keyboard and they will typically play the notes in
different octaves and quite likely in different inversions.

Bert Van Vreckem seemed to agree when he said:
> ..There's only six strings and four fingers. ;-) Chords
> are approximated by dropping some notes...

>...Why are the accidentals given that way?...
For histerical (sic) reasons.  Even though it is possible
to translate the chord names between tadpole and ABC
I would rather it were not necessary.  It's one more
thing to go wrong, so I like it the way it is.

>...Is this an appropriate moment to suggest throwing
> in roman-numeral and figured-bass notations as well?
Yes, it's the right moment, but I vote against it.  I want
to reduce the number of ways to write it.  I just think
that they are not ABC.  On the same grounds, I don't
want to allow writing f in the melody  as (1,1) - that's
fret 1 on the first string.  It's a valid idea, but it's not ABC

>...Parsing "F sharp minor" to print "F#m" should be easy.
No, it's impossible - because the range of things that
might mean F#m is unlimited.  Would FSM be the same?
How about the same but in Italian? All one can do is to
have a certain set of notations (the new standard) which
is guaranteed to be OK and then whatever else any
particular package can make work (no guarantees).
I know someone who notates minor chords in lower
case, so he'd write it as f#.

Frank Nordberg wants the modifier list to include
(I think)
6
m-6
m6
69
7
7+
maj7
m7
dim7
9
-9
9-5
11
+11
m13
mmaj13+11
13-9

but he didn't explain what they meant and until someone does we can't really
consider them.  (I would hope that there will never be anything to prevent
these things being written, but they won't be playable, transposable, etc.
unless and until they are well defined).

Bert Van Vreckem said:
>...Aren't `5' chords root+fifth?...
Yes, but they were what I added, not in the original draft standard.

>[paraphrased by me]...I would like a way to define other chords
> at the start of the file or song, e.g.
> [insert unassigned letter here]:m13 = [1 b3 5 b7 9 11 13]
> Hence, Dm13 = D F A c e g b; Gm13 = G Bb d f a c' e'; etc.

> The last line in the chord regular language then becomes
>  = m|m7||maj7|dim|aug|!|4|5|6|7|9|
>  = string


So how about:

 = |
 = X
 = [][/]
 = 
 = 
 = []
 = A|B|C|D|E|F|G
 = #|b
 = m|m7||maj7|dim|aug|!|4|5|6|7|8|9|
 = string

together with something (which Bert sketched) for the header to define any
of the  strings.

Laurie

To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html

Re: [abcusers] Chord notation

[Frank Nordberg]

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  part in your regular language will
> become too complicated to be good. If you have a way of defining
> uncommon chords, I really see no need to make the parser handle stuff
> like `mmaj13+11' (I'd like to see the definition of this one...).

Dmmaj13+11:  D-F-A-C-E-G#-B
(The actual voicing for that chord in my arrangement was:
[^C,,D,F,_A,B,CFA] so Dm7add6add+11/C would have been more correct)

>
> What I
> _would_ like in that case is a way to define it, e.g. at the start of
> the file or song, e.g...

Yep, I think that's a far better approach.

It seems obvious that a static list of chord suffixes won't be
sufficient, but there are three possible solutions to that:
  a) chord suffix definitons as a part of the tune as Bert suggests
  b) chord suffixes defined in a separate file (like BarFly's stress programs)
  c) include a set of rules for how suffixes are constructed rather than a
 list of chord suffixes in the abc standard.

I see no problem implementing all three alternatives.

> 
> And then, Frank Nordberg wrote:
>  > Laurie Griffiths wrote:
>  > [...] for instance minmaj is crazy
>  >
>  > Do you mean the name is crazy or that nobody would ever use such a
>  > chord? I can agree to the former, but a minor chord with a major 7th
>  > added isn't unusual.
> 
> The name is crazy, TMHO. I'd call such a chord `madd7'. `minmaj'
> suggests that the notes of both the maj and the min chords are part of
> it. 1, 3b, 3, 5, 7? I think this one may sound a little odd ;-)

Mixing major and minor thirds is bread and butter for anybody who plays
blues and blues inspired music.

See if you can find a recording of Blood Sweat and Tears' "Spinning
wheel". They're doing some wonderful things with that chord there. I'd
use the suffix "+9" for that chord, though (US educated jazz musicians
would probably call it "7#9")

The spinning wheel progression is:

E+9 - A7add13 - D+9 - G7add13
Guitarist Steve Katz plays:
  XX678X
  XX567X
  XX456X
  XX345X


[sus7]
> I never encountered this notation: only sus = sus4 and sus2. The chord
> you cite here is G7sus4. Remark that a sus chord doesn't add a note to a
>   chord, it only _replaces_ one (the 2nd or the 4th). Ergo, sus4 has
> three notes, 7sus4 four.

I agree to that. "sus7" seems to be a fairly common abbreviation to
"7sus4", though


[sus]
> sus is definitely a short notation for sus4.

Glad to hear that, since I use it myself quite often :)

[G+11]
> 
> So, G+11 would be a synonym of Gaug11.

Err... probably yes. In the part of the world where I live, the term
"aug" tends to refer to the 5th no matter what context it is in.

There are three different conventions for indicating altered notes in a
chord: #/b, +/- and (less common) aug/dim. All poses some syntax
problems, especially since any people tend to use different conventions
for different chords. I decided to stick firmly to the +/- convention
since that seemed to be that one that caused the least confusion
To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html

Re: [abcusers] Chord notation

[Mike Whitaker]

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 string
.. = range of numbers

 :== '"''"'
 :== |
 :== []
 :== 'a'|'b'|'c'|'d'|'e'|'f'|'g'
 :== '#'|'b'

 :== []['/']

 :== []
 :== 'A'|'B'|'C'|'D'|'E'|'F'|'G'

 :== |'m'|'dim'|'aug'
 :== ''

 :== *
 :== |()
 :== ||| 

 :== 'sus2'|'sus4'

 := '5'|'no'
 :== '2'..'13'

 :== 'add'
]

 :== '6'|
 :== |
 :== ['maj'][]
 :== ['maj']
 :== '7'|'9'|'11'|'13'
 :== *
 :== 

NB

noX remove degree X from the chord (e.g, C7(no3)
5   same as 'no3'
6   add 6th
[maj]7  add b7th (7th if 'maj') 
[maj]9  add b7th (7th if 'maj') + 9th
[maj]11 add b7th (7th if 'maj') + 9th + 11th
[maj]13 add b7th (7th if 'maj') + 9th + 11th + 13th
[add]X  add the Xth note of the scale 
sus2drop the 3rd to the second
sus4raise the 3rd to the fourth
X   apply the accidental to the X degree 
-- 
Mike Whitaker | Work: +44 1733 766619 | Work: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
System Architext  | Fax:  +44 1733 348287 | Home: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
CricInfo Ltd  | GSM:  +44 7971 977375 | Web: http://www.cricinfo.com/
To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html

Re: [abcusers] Chord notation

[Mike Whitaker]

On Fri, Feb 16, 2001 at 09:18:57AM +0100, Bert Van Vreckem wrote:
> 
> > 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 :
> 
>  There are a few different ways to write these chords.
> 
>  '-' and '+' signs are sometimes used to mean 'flat' and
>  'sharp' respectively, but 'b' and '#' are used as well.
> 
>  You might even see 'dim' and 'aug' (diminished and augmented)
>  used too for the same thing.
> 
>  So E7#9 could be written as E7+9 or E7aug9
>  and E7b9 could be written as E7-9 or E7dim9
> 
> So, G+11 would be a synonym of Gaug11.

Which doesn't answer my question, since it's still unclear!
Is Gaug11 meant to be (Gaug)11 (G B D# F A C) or G(aug11) (G B D F A C#)?
*grin* And if we go back to G+11, it's perfectly understandable to
interpret G+11 as Gadd11, i.e G B D C. (Gotta watch these jazzers,
they get wierd...)

It's all very well pointing at one FAQ that defines it one way, but
it's not the only FAQ or the only interprotation.
-- 
Mike Whitaker | Work: +44 1733 766619 | Work: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
System Architext  | Fax:  +44 1733 348287 | Home: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
CricInfo Ltd  | GSM:  +44 7971 977375 | Web: http://www.cricinfo.com/
To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html

Re: [abcusers] Chord notation

[Bert Van Vreckem]

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. ;-) Chords 
are approximated by dropping some notes (e.g. the 5th, 9th and 11th in a 
13 chord) and I believe sometimes notes are replaced with their 
counterparts of the higher or lower octave.

In another mail, Laurie Griffiths wrote:
 > There is no way to indicate root+fifth only

Aren't `5' chords root+fifth?

 > I'm prepared to add |11|13 if someone would like to define what these
 > mean (but one rapidly gets to the chord which has every note in it.
 > There is after all already a way in ABC to write explicit chords
 > [CGceg_b] for instance and I would like to "KISS").

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  part in your regular language will 
become too complicated to be good. If you have a way of defining 
uncommon chords, I really see no need to make the parser handle stuff 
like `mmaj13+11' (I'd like to see the definition of this one...). What I 
_would_ like in that case is a way to define it, e.g. at the start of 
the file or song, e.g.

[insert unassigned letter here]:m13 = [1 b3 5 b7 9 11 13]

Hence, Dm13 = D F A c e g b; Gm13 = G Bb d f a c' e'; etc.

The last line in the chord regular language then becomes

 = m|m7||maj7|dim|aug|!|4|5|6|7|9|
 = string

I don't think that [CGceg_b] is enough: It will be written as notes, not 
as a guitar chord above the staff. I realise my proposal gives rise to 
some problems, but I hope discussing them can clear things up.

And then, Frank Nordberg wrote:
 > Laurie Griffiths wrote:
 > [...] for instance minmaj is crazy
 >
 > Do you mean the name is crazy or that nobody would ever use such a
 > chord? I can agree to the former, but a minor chord with a major 7th
 > added isn't unusual.

The name is crazy, TMHO. I'd call such a chord `madd7'. `minmaj' 
suggests that the notes of both the maj and the min chords are part of 
it. 1, 3b, 3, 5, 7? I think this one may sound a little odd ;-)

Frank Nordberg also wrote:
 > Laurie Griffiths wrote:
 >> what "sus" would add to "sus7".
 >
 > Shouldn't that be "sus4" rather than "sus7". The sus7 chord is a
 > different thing altogether - and definitely *very* common:
 > Gsus7: G-C-D-F

I never encountered this notation: only sus = sus4 and sus2. The chord 
you cite here is G7sus4. Remark that a sus chord doesn't add a note to a
  chord, it only _replaces_ one (the 2nd or the 4th). Ergo, sus4 has 
three notes, 7sus4 four.

 > But the difference between "sus" and "sus4" - I'd say "sus" is either
 > sloppy writing or a short form of "sus4".

sus is definitely a short notation for sus4.

In yet another mail, Mike Whitaker wrote:


> 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 :

 There are a few different ways to write these chords.

 '-' and '+' signs are sometimes used to mean 'flat' and
 'sharp' respectively, but 'b' and '#' are used as well.

 You might even see 'dim' and 'aug' (diminished and augmented)
 used too for the same thing.

 So E7#9 could be written as E7+9 or E7aug9
 and E7b9 could be written as E7-9 or E7dim9

So, G+11 would be a synonym of Gaug11.



-- 
bert van vreckem
  echo bexryt.vzaxnvrexckyemqxadvyaxlvasz.bxe|sed -e "s/[x-z]//g;s/q/@/"
If you have a procedure with 10 parameters, you probably missed some.

To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html

Re: [abcusers] Chord notation

[Mike Whitaker]

On Thu, Feb 15, 2001 at 11:11:28PM +0100, Frank Nordberg wrote:
> D6 Dmaj7 D7 / | D6 / D7 D6 | D6 Dmaj7 D7 / | D6 / D7 G9 |
> G9 G11 G+11 / | G7 / G11 D6 |D6 Dmaj7 D6 / | D6 / D7 Em7 |
> Em7 Em13 Em-6 / | Em7 / / Em-6 | D6 / / / | D6 / / / ||
> D6 / / / | D6 / / / | D6 / / / | D9 / / / |
> G7 / / / | G7 / / / | D6 / / / | D6 / Fm6 / |
> Em7 / / / | A7+ / / / | D6 / / / | Em7 / Fdim7 / ||
> D69 / Dmmaj13+11 / | D9-5 / D13-9 / | D-9 / Ddim7 / |
> G9 / / / | G9 / / / | D6 / / / | D6 / Fm6 / |
> Em7 / / / | A7+ / / / | D6 / / / | Em7 / / A7+ ||

There are ambiguities here. Does G+11 mean G with added 11, G aug 11, or
G11 with the 11th sharpened?

The set I attempted to propose at the end of my mail *after* I summarised
the abc draft spec seems to cope with this chord sequence.
-- 
Mike Whitaker | Work: +44 1733 766619 | Work: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
System Architext  | Fax:  +44 1733 348287 | Home: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
CricInfo Ltd  | GSM:  +44 7971 977375 | Web: http://www.cricinfo.com/
To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html

Re: [abcusers] Chord notation

[Frank Nordberg]

Laurie Griffiths wrote:
> 
> I am not.
> I am not happy with the ambiguity of "one or more of" when in fact there are
> strong context conditions, for instance minmaj is crazy

Do you mean the name is crazy or that nobody would ever use such a
chord? I can agree to the former, but a minor chord with a major 7th
added isn't unusual.

>
> and I don't know
> what "sus" would add to "sus7".

Shouldn't that be "sus4" rather than "sus7". The sus7 chord is a
different thing altogether - and definitely *very* common:
Gsus7:  G-C-D-F

But the difference between "sus" and "sus4" - I'd say "sus" is either
sloppy writing or a short form of "sus4". Which depends on your personal
view of the transcriber, of course ;)


> There is no way to indicate a single note alone.

That's certainly missing. There isn't any way to indicate no chord
either, btw.

>
> There is no way to
> indicate root+fifth only (important to heavy metal - if you feed into a
> heavily distorting amp, then root+fifth is OK, but not much else! I think
> they call them "power chords").

We oguht to add "5" to the list of chord suffixes then.

> 
> I offered an alternative a few posts back.  The discussion has rambled and
> various points made.  Let's get concrete.
> 
> If you are not happy with mine, then propose an alternative.  To recap, I
> suggested:
> 
>  = |
>  = X
>  = [][/]
>  = 
>  = 
>  = []
>  = A|B|C|D|E|F|G
>  = #|b
>  = m|m7||maj7|dim|aug|!|4|5|6|7|9

The basic idea seems very good, but the suffix (modifier) list needs to
be extended. I started making a list, but then I decided to post a (more
or less random) example instead. Here's the chord progression to bars
9-44 of a big band arrangement of Woodchopper's ball - a fairly
straightforward twelve bar blues - I made a couple of years ago (the
arrangement that is - not the tune):

D6 Dmaj7 D7 / | D6 / D7 D6 | D6 Dmaj7 D7 / | D6 / D7 G9 |
G9 G11 G+11 / | G7 / G11 D6 |D6 Dmaj7 D6 / | D6 / D7 Em7 |
Em7 Em13 Em-6 / | Em7 / / Em-6 | D6 / / / | D6 / / / ||
D6 / / / | D6 / / / | D6 / / / | D9 / / / |
G7 / / / | G7 / / / | D6 / / / | D6 / Fm6 / |
Em7 / / / | A7+ / / / | D6 / / / | Em7 / Fdim7 / ||
D69 / Dmmaj13+11 / | D9-5 / D13-9 / | D-9 / Ddim7 / |
G9 / / / | G9 / / / | D6 / / / | D6 / Fm6 / |
Em7 / / / | A7+ / / / | D6 / / / | Em7 / / A7+ ||

I've left the bass notes out for simplicity.

For the record:
  +I've never been too fond of those fancy jazz harmonisations. That's
why I keep my
   chord progressions this simple, especially when I arrange pre-war
swing like this.
  +There isn't a single typo in this chord progression
  +There isn't a single superfluous chord there.
  +In case anybody wants to try it out, the first twelve bars are the
theme, the next
   24 are the clarinet solo - which I played almost exactly like Woody
Herman did.

Frank Nordberg

---
To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html

Re: [abcusers] Chord notation

[Jack Campin]

> = |
> = X
> = [][/]
> = 
> = 
> = []
> = A|B|C|D|E|F|G
> = #|b
> = m|m7||maj7|dim|aug|!|4|5|6|7|9

This looks reasonable, but it allows no way to write a bare octave (the
commonest kind of chord in bass lines for 18th century Scottish music).
Add 8 as another modifier?

This is a cello or harpsi chord rather than a guitar chord, though.  But
shouldn't the chord mechanism support other chordal instruments too, like
mandolin or 5-string banjo?  (Laurie's suggestion is fine for Stradella-
bass accordion, so that's one extra covered already).  What if anything
would you want to be different for other string things?


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 uniform notation (^ and _
prefixed everywhere) be supported?


Is this an appropriate moment to suggest throwing in roman-numeral and
figured-bass notations as well?


> I prefer "F#m" to be the canonical way to write the chord of F sharp
> minor because it fits into tadpoles notation more briefly.  Long chord
> names just take up too much room, especially if there are several per bar.

How the chords are printed in tadpoles doesn't have to be determined by
how they're represented in the ABC source, does it?  A sufficiently
intelligent program, seeing this in a piece in A, could have an option
to print "VI" instead, or write the whole chord part out explicitly on
a separate bass stave.  Parsing "F sharp minor" to print "F#m" should
be easy.

===  ===


To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html

Re: [abcusers] Chord notation

[Laurie Griffiths]

Since we are trying to get a new standard out:
Are we happy with the existing draft?
> The chord has the format /, where 
> can be A-G, the optional  can be b, #, the optional 
> is one or more of
>   m or minminor
>   maj major
>   dim diminished
>   aug or +augmented
>   sus sustained
>   7, 9 ...7th, 9th, etc.
> and / is an optional bass note.

I am not.
I am not happy with the ambiguity of "one or more of" when in fact there are
strong context conditions, for instance minmaj is crazy and I don't know
what "sus" would add to "sus7".
There is no way to indicate a single note alone.  There is no way to
indicate root+fifth only (important to heavy metal - if you feed into a
heavily distorting amp, then root+fifth is OK, but not much else! I think
they call them "power chords").

I offered an alternative a few posts back.  The discussion has rambled and
various points made.  Let's get concrete.

If you are not happy with mine, then propose an alternative.  To recap, I
suggested:

 = |
 = X
 = [][/]
 = 
 = 
 = []
 = A|B|C|D|E|F|G
 = #|b
 = m|m7||maj7|dim|aug|!|4|5|6|7|9

I'm prepared to add |11|13 if someone would like to define what these mean
(but one rapidly gets to the chord which has every note in it.  There is
after all already a way in ABC to write explicit chords [CGceg_b] for
instance and I would like to "KISS").

Laurie

To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html

Re: [abcusers] Chord notation

[Phil Taylor]

Bert Van Vreckem wrote:
>Phil Taylor wrote:
>
>> Bert Van Vreckem wrote:
>> I always thought that chord was D11, but then I never was very good
>> at figuring out the names for these things.
>
>An 11th chord consists of 1, 3, (5), b7, (9), 11; a sus4 chord of 1, 4, 5.
>Hence, D11 = D F# (A) C (E) G, Dsus4 = D G A

Since the original chord was given as x00233, or [A,,D,Adg] in abc the
g is more than an octave above the root D, and therefore 11 rather than 4
surely?  Or is it only called 11 if you have the 7th and 9th below it?

(I have a deep suspicion of the ambiguities inherent in text-based
guitar chord symbols.  I'd really rather write them out in abc.)

Phil Taylor


To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html

Re: [abcusers] Chord notation

[Bert Van Vreckem]

Phil Taylor wrote:

> Bert Van Vreckem wrote:
> I always thought that chord was D11, but then I never was very good
> at figuring out the names for these things.

An 11th chord consists of 1, 3, (5), b7, (9), 11; a sus4 chord of 1, 4, 5.
Hence, D11 = D F# (A) C (E) G, Dsus4 = D G A

> And that one I've always called D9.

A 9th chord consists of 1, 3, (5), b7, 9; a sus2 chord of 1, 2, 5
Hence, D9 = D F# (A) C E, Dsus2 = D E A

See http://www.jmdl.com/howard/music/quick_crd_ref.html

-- 
bert van vreckem
  echo bexryt.vzaxnvrexckyemqxadvyaxlvasz.bxe|sed -e "s/[x-z]//g;s/q/@/"
Computers are not intelligent.  They only think they are.

To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html

Re: [abcusers] Chord notation

[Phil Taylor]

Bert Van Vreckem wrote:

>It's suspended (fours), actually, notated as `sus' or `sus4'. Quite
>frequently used guitar chord too. The trick is to replace the third by
>the fourth, e.g. D = D F# A becomes Dsus4 = D G A
>
>E.g.
>   EADGBE -> guitar tuning
>Dsus(4) = D G A = x00233  (E,,A,,D,G,B,E in abc-notation ;-))
>Asus(4) = A D E = x02230
>etc.

I always thought that chord was D11, but then I never was very good
at figuring out the names for these things.

>For info on the chord notation, see
>http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~desmith/guitar/chords/notate.htm
>
>There's also a suspended second chord, in which the third is replaced
>with the second, e.g. Dsus2 = D E A (= 000230 on the guitar), Asus2 = A
>B E = 002200.

And that one I've always called D9.

Phil Taylor


To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html

Re: [abcusers] Chord notation

[Frank Nordberg]

Personal & non-commercial wrote:
> 
> On Wednesday 14 February 2001 15:11, you wrote:
> 
> > > "... what Muse does isn't compatible with what abc2midi does..."
> >
> > This is true in principal, but actually what abc2midi does is very
> > flexible and can easily changed by the user or in the source.
> 
> Yes exactly one can either:
> 1. Use & pay for a finished product.
> 2. Make do with (excellent IMO) freeware.
> 3. Expend (far less) time and effort to make desired modifications than it
> took some altruist to write the software in the first place.
> 
> [3] If this results in `non standard' abc , well  then fix the script with vi
> (or whatever) until it does work on your setup. I have to do this already
> for quite a few examples that i get.
> After all, the whole point of abc appears to be that it is not a `closed
> package' - one is evidently  EXPECTED to do this.
> 
> If one can't repair a car - it has to go to the garage. this is the same
> thing.


Well said, RJP. Unfortunately:
  a) I don't have the programming skills needed to modify the source code
 of an application.
  b) I haven't got time to learn it.
  c) I don't know anybody who would do it for me for free.
  d) *Paying* somebody to do the job would be far more expensive than
 buying a commercial package. (Never mind that I have to have a
 professional music noation appliaction in any case.)

I liked your car metaphor. My skills in that field is at about the same
level as my programming skills, and I do take my car to a garage
whenever I need something fixed. But I can assure you that no matter how
attached I am to my trusty old Starlet: the moment repairing it costs
more than buying a new one, it goes straight to the Great Car Park in
the Sky.

So I guess I'll keep on doing the bulk of my music transcription work
with some other non-abc program package.


Frank Nordberg
To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html

Re: [abcusers] Chord notation

[Bert Van Vreckem]

Laurie Griffiths wrote:

> He calls xx0233 (notes are xxDADG) "Dsus4" presumably because there is a 4th
> but no third.
> Alas, he doesn't quote x32011 as a chord at all (notes xCEGCF)
> Would he call it Cadd11 (because it has both a third and a fourth) or would
> he call it Csus4.

My guess would be Cadd11, since a suspended chord consists of only three notes (CFG in 
the case of C - x33011)

> My confidence that he knows his stuff is eroded a little by the absence of
> 076700 as a version of E7. (If you have a guitar, try it.  It's the best
> seventh on the instrument).  He quotes only 020100 or 022130.

Will do. Got any other stuff like this? I never really got to checking out the 
possibilities of the higher frets, apart from the basic barre chords.

bert
-- 
bert van vreckem
  echo bexryt.vzaxnvrexckyemqxadvyaxlvasz.bxe|sed -e "s/[x-z]//g;s/q/@/"
Computers are not intelligent.  They only think they are.

To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html

Re: [abcusers] Chord notation

[Frank Nordberg]

Laurie Griffiths wrote:
> 
> Thanks.  So Gsus would be G with an augmented third.
> 
> I had understood that a "suspended" chord was one where
> a note from the previous chord (very often the 4th) was
> made to continue sounding in the new chord.

Yes and no. The "sus" term originally meant that the fourth was held
over from the previous chord, but people tend to have a far more relaxed
attitude towards chord voicing nowadays.



Frank Nordberg
http://www.musicaviva.com
---
To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html

Re: [abcusers] Chord notation

[Frank Nordberg]

Laurie Griffiths wrote:
> 
> He calls xx0233 (notes are xxDADG) "Dsus4" presumably because there is a 4th
> but no third.
> Alas, he doesn't quote x32011 as a chord at all (notes xCEGCF)
> Would he call it Cadd11 (because it has both a third and a fourth) or would
> he call it Csus4.

Definitely Cadd11. The sus suffix specifically implies that the 3rd is
missing from the chord.

> 
> My confidence that he knows his stuff is eroded a little by the absence of
> 076700 as a version of E7. (If you have a guitar, try it.  It's the best
> seventh on the instrument).  He quotes only 020100 or 022130.

I agree, though I personally prefer 076750 or 0XX434 or even 0x6430. But
don't be to critical, Laurie. He calls the list a "Common Chord
Archive". There are dozens of ways to play every chord on a guitar, and
you can't expect him to list all alternatives.


Frank Nordberg
http://www.musicaviva.com
---
To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html

Re: [abcusers] Chord notation

[Laurie Griffiths]

Thanks.  So Gsus would be G with an augmented third.

I had understood that a "suspended" chord was one where
a note from the previous chord (very often the 4th) was
made to continue sounding in the new chord.

I'd prefer the notation G4 to be the canonical ABC.
Laurie

- Original Message -
From: Bert Van Vreckem <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2001 7:23 AM
Subject: Re: [abcusers] Chord notation


Laurie Griffiths wrote:

> Mike Whitaker said
> >   sus sustained
>
> What does this mean?  Muse doesn't allow it because I've never heard of
> "sustained" as the name of any chord.

It's suspended (fours), actually, notated as `sus' or `sus4'. Quite
frequently used guitar chord too. The trick is to replace the third by
the fourth, e.g. D = D F# A becomes Dsus4 = D G A

E.g.
   EADGBE -> guitar tuning
Dsus(4) = D G A = x00233  (E,,A,,D,G,B,E in abc-notation ;-))
Asus(4) = A D E = x02230
etc.

For info on the chord notation, see
http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~desmith/guitar/chords/notate.htm

There's also a suspended second chord, in which the third is replaced
with the second, e.g. Dsus2 = D E A (= 000230 on the guitar), Asus2 = A
B E = 002200.

(source: Dansm's guitar chord theory
http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~desmith/guitar/chords/susp.htm)

bert
--
bert van vreckem
  echo bexryt.vzaxnvrexckyemqxadvyaxlvasz.bxe|sed -e "s/[x-z]//g;s/q/@/"
Computers are not intelligent.  They only think they are.

To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to:
http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html


To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html

Re: [abcusers] Chord notation

[Laurie Griffiths]

John Chambers said:
> A  key signature looks remarkably like a chord, 
> but "min" is allowed for the one and not the other.
I thought a key signature had K: before it and a chord
had " " round it.  :-)

> Maybe, just to avoid this confusion, we  should  
> adopt  the general  rule  for  both  chords and modes 
> that they may be abbreviated to three characters, 
> and "m" is a special  case that is a synonym for 
> "min" and "minor".

I prefer "F#m" to be the canonical way to write 
the chord of F sharp minor because it fits into
tadpoles notation more briefly.  Long chord names
just take up too much room, especially if there are
several per bar.  I realise this is not a pure ABC
thing and is concerned with translation to another
form.  


To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html

Re: [abcusers] Chord notation

[Laurie Griffiths]

bert van vreckem wrote:

>For info on the chord notation, see
>http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~desmith/guitar/chords/notate.htm

Hm!  His notation seems very guitar-oriented (that's OK I've
played guitar for over 35 years).

He calls xx0233 (notes are xxDADG) "Dsus4" presumably because there is a 4th
but no third.
Alas, he doesn't quote x32011 as a chord at all (notes xCEGCF)
Would he call it Cadd11 (because it has both a third and a fourth) or would
he call it Csus4.

My confidence that he knows his stuff is eroded a little by the absence of
076700 as a version of E7. (If you have a guitar, try it.  It's the best
seventh on the instrument).  He quotes only 020100 or 022130.

Laurie

To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html

Re: [abcusers] Chord notation

[Bert Van Vreckem]

Laurie Griffiths wrote:

> Mike Whitaker said
> >   sus sustained
> 
> What does this mean?  Muse doesn't allow it because I've never heard of
> "sustained" as the name of any chord.

It's suspended (fours), actually, notated as `sus' or `sus4'. Quite 
frequently used guitar chord too. The trick is to replace the third by 
the fourth, e.g. D = D F# A becomes Dsus4 = D G A

E.g.
   EADGBE -> guitar tuning
Dsus(4) = D G A = x00233  (E,,A,,D,G,B,E in abc-notation ;-))
Asus(4) = A D E = x02230
etc.

For info on the chord notation, see 
http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~desmith/guitar/chords/notate.htm

There's also a suspended second chord, in which the third is replaced 
with the second, e.g. Dsus2 = D E A (= 000230 on the guitar), Asus2 = A 
B E = 002200.

(source: Dansm's guitar chord theory 
http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~desmith/guitar/chords/susp.htm)

bert
-- 
bert van vreckem
  echo bexryt.vzaxnvrexckyemqxadvyaxlvasz.bxe|sed -e "s/[x-z]//g;s/q/@/"
Computers are not intelligent.  They only think they are.

To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html

Re: [abcusers] Chord notation

[Personal & non-commercial]

On Wednesday 14 February 2001 15:11, you wrote:

> > "... what Muse does isn't compatible with what abc2midi does..."
>
> This is true in principal, but actually what abc2midi does is very
> flexible and can easily changed by the user or in the source.

Yes exactly one can either:
1. Use & pay for a finished product.
2. Make do with (excellent IMO) freeware.
3. Expend (far less) time and effort to make desired modifications than it
took some altruist to write the software in the first place.

[3] If this results in `non standard' abc , well  then fix the script with vi 
(or whatever) until it does work on your setup. I have to do this already
for quite a few examples that i get.
After all, the whole point of abc appears to be that it is not a `closed 
package' - one is evidently  EXPECTED to do this.

If one can't repair a car - it has to go to the garage. this is the same 
thing.

Regards, RJP

-- 
RJP - <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> .

To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html

Re: [abcusers] Chord notation

[John Chambers]

Mike Whitaker writes:
| > This means that there is only one true way to write
| > G minor, to wit Gm - Gmin may or may not work.
|
| This is, I think the philisophy several folk have agreed with in
| the recent discussion.

This does lead to one quirk  that  would  probably  confuse
lots  of  users:   A  key signature looks remarkably like a
chord, but "min" is allowed for the one and not the other.

Maybe, just to avoid this confusion, we  should  adopt  the
general  rule  for  both  chords and modes that they may be
abbreviated to three characters, and "m" is a special  case
that is a synonym for "min" and "minor".

One might make  an  argument  that  chords  and  modes  are
different beast.  But this isn't really true.  The key of D
minor is called that because its tonic  chord  is  a  minor
chord,  and  similarly  for  major.  This obviously doesn't
,arry much farther.  But it's no coincidence that the  same
terms  are used for both, and a lot of musicians are likely
to be confused by why "min" sometimes works  and  sometimes
gets an error message.

I wonder if there are any programs now that can't handle  a
"Gmin" chord?

To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html

Re: [abcusers] Chord notation

[Mike Whitaker]

On Wed, Feb 14, 2001 at 07:05:59PM -, Laurie Griffiths wrote:
> Let me be clear - I am NOT pushing for ABC to support
> precisely the set of things that Muse accepts.  I'd prefer
> it to be a smaller set.  I see no real virtue in having
> three (or more?) different ways to write "diminished".
 
Nor me!

> I was aware that the thing in Mike's mail wasn't the abc2midi
> spec - that's why I asked for it.
> 
> What I would like to see as ABC is as follows
> I hope the meta-syntax is obvious, here's a clue
> = A | B[c]
> would mean that a chord could be A or B or Bc
> with no other possibilities.   Here we go...
> 
>  = |
>  = X
>  = [][/]
>  = 
>  = 
>  = []
>  = A|B|C|D|E|F|G
>  = #|b
>  = m|m7||maj7|dim|aug|!|4|5|6|7|9
> 
> This means that there is only one true way to write
> G minor, to wit Gm - Gmin may or may not work.

This is, I think the philisophy several folk have agreed with in
the recent discussion.

> If a program accepts a superset, then it should
> ideally emit a warning diagnostic.

I would note that the (snipped) list is considerably less complete than the one
I proposed: I'm not being prima-donnish about it, just noting that 
splitting your  into my  +  does allow
for a number of chords which can *reasonably* occur that yours
doesn't. Now admittedly, a bunch of 'em are more likely to occur
when someone ABC's the jazzers' 'Real Book', but someone might
reasonably both want to and then take advantage of abc2midi or 
equivalent to *hear* what the A13b9 sounds like in the eighth bar
of Sweet Georgia Brown against the melody... *grin*

> Where the  option is used then
> If the  note is in the chord then the chord
> is inverted so as to make that note the lowest in
> the chord.  For instance,
> C/G => G C E
> D7/C => C D F# A
> If the bass note is not in the chord, then it is
> added.
> e.g. C/A => A C E G
> [Does it have to be added as the lowest note
> in the chord??
> Could C/A be another name for C6??]

Nope. C/A definitely means C with an A bass.
ANd it's subtly different from C6/A, too: I would expect someone playing
piano to play C/A as A (left hand) C E G (right hand) and C6/A as
A (left hand) C E G A (right hand)

> Laurie
> P.S. I've tried to be even handed.  This lot would
> give me some implementation work to do in Muse.
> I prefer F! to f because
> 1. it seems more consistent

Lower case letters are a common way of doing it, I've seen several charts
where a run between two chords is written G a g e C
-- 
Mike Whitaker | Work: +44 1733 766619 | Work: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
System Architext  | Fax:  +44 1733 348287 | Home: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
CricInfo Ltd  | GSM:  +44 7971 977375 | Web: http://www.cricinfo.com/
To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html

Re: [abcusers] Chord notation

[Laurie Griffiths]

Let me be clear - I am NOT pushing for ABC to support
precisely the set of things that Muse accepts.  I'd prefer
it to be a smaller set.  I see no real virtue in having
three (or more?) different ways to write "diminished".

I was aware that the thing in Mike's mail wasn't the abc2midi
spec - that's why I asked for it.

What I would like to see as ABC is as follows
I hope the meta-syntax is obvious, here's a clue
= A | B[c]
would mean that a chord could be A or B or Bc
with no other possibilities.   Here we go...

 = |
 = X
 = [][/]
 = 
 = 
 = []
 = A|B|C|D|E|F|G
 = #|b
 = m|m7||maj7|dim|aug|!|4|5|6|7|9

This means that there is only one true way to write
G minor, to wit Gm - Gmin may or may not work.
If a program accepts a superset, then it should
ideally emit a warning diagnostic.

Semantics (what it means).
If there is no / option:
The lowest note in the chord is given by the chord
letter, possibly sharpened or flattened in an obvious
way, in some octave not specified by ABC.
the notes of the chord are given below in
ascending order of pitch for the case of root note C.
For other root notes, all notes in the chord,
including the root are shifted by the same
number of semitones.
[no modifier] => C E G
m => C Eb G
m7 => C Eb G Bb
maj7 => C E G B
dim => C Eb F# A
aug => C E G#
! => C
4 => C F G
5 => C G
6 => C E G A
7 => C E G Bb
9 => C E G D or C E G C D (but not C D E G)

Where the  option is used then
If the  note is in the chord then the chord
is inverted so as to make that note the lowest in
the chord.  For instance,
C/G => G C E
D7/C => C D F# A
If the bass note is not in the chord, then it is
added.
e.g. C/A => A C E G
[Does it have to be added as the lowest note
in the chord??
Could C/A be another name for C6??]

Laurie
P.S. I've tried to be even handed.  This lot would
give me some implementation work to do in Muse.
I prefer F! to f because
1. it seems more consistent
2. it means that "fine" is not taken as an F chord,
even though it should be written "^fine".

- Original Message -
From: Mike Whitaker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2001 3:52 PM
Subject: Re: [abcusers] Chord notation


On Wed, Feb 14, 2001 at 12:52:44PM -, Laurie Griffiths wrote:
> Mike Whitaker said
> "... what Muse does isn't compatible with what abc2midi does..."
>
> Has someone got a description of what abc2midi does?

from abcguide.txt
-
Anything in quotes is a guitar chord e.g.

"A" "Gm" "B7" "Bm7" "D#aug" "Bbdim7"

Guitar chords must use upper case A-G followed by optional # or b, then
the name of a chord type e.g. "m", "aug", "7". abc2midi currently
recognizes the following chord names :

 m, 7, m7, maj7, M7, 6, m6, aug, +, aug7, dim, dim7, 9, m9, maj9, M9,

Lower case a-g followed by optional # or b will generate a single note,
the fundamental, only.
--

> I noticed someone say that abc2midi uses

me

> f where Muse uses F! to mean the single note.

See above.

> Is there more? Muse seems to me to implement something very close to a
> superset of the draft spec and I don't see any incompatibilities with it.
> To unpick Mike's mail a phrase at a time:

Hold it! That's not me you're quoting, that's the current abc draft.
See below that in my mail for my proposed changes.

> Muse allows in addition
> - or 0 to mean diminished

see my comments about '+' below. Also 'o' gets used for diminished

> ! to mean just the root note

see above

> 6 to mean 6th (was this part of "etc."?)
> +4 to mean root, fourth and fifth e.g. C+4 is C F G

that's usually sus4

> 5 to mean root and fifth only e.g. C5 is C G
> X as a chord name to mean silence.
> / as a chord name to mean "repeat the previous chord".  (This could be
> ambiguous where the flow of a song allows two different precursors for
> instance at the start of a repeat.  Bad idea to use this at the start of
any
> such section.)
>
> and Muse has a more explicit grammar for the "type", to wit
> [m|min|7|m7|min7|maj7|-|dim|0|+[4]|aug|!|6|5]
>
> or, in future
> [m|min|maj|7|m7|min7|maj7|-|dim|0|+[4]|aug|!|6|5]

I'm *very* twitchy about using "+" at all, since I've seen it mean
'sharpened' 'added' or 'augmented'

so C+9 could mean C(#9): C E G Bb D# (sharpened 9)
  Cadd9: C E G D (added 9)
   or Caug9: C E G# Bb D (augmented 9)
--
Mike Whitaker | Work: +44 1733 766619 | Work: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
System Architext  | Fax:  +44 1733 348287 | Home: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
CricInfo Ltd  | GSM:  +44 7971 977375 | Web: http://www.cricinfo.com/
To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to:
http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html


To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html

[abcusers] Chord notation

[bob]

At 07:24 AM 14-02-01 +, Steve Mansfield wrote:

>The following is just thinking aloud, rather than a fully-reasoned 
>thought, but ...
>
>It strikes me that we are up against the multiple uses that people put 
>abc to here. Which, then, is preferable :
>
>(a) we cater for those who either play directly from the abc, or from 
>notation generated by feeding the abc into Abc2Win, Barfly, abc2ps and 
>all its mutations, Skink, etc 
>
>If we take that route we can wrap up this debate here, because so long 
>as we don't break the convention that anything in the " " is (or should 
>be reproduced in the same position as) a chord, we're in the clear.
>
>or
>
>(b) we cater for those who feed abc into player programmes and make 
>their primary use of the notation that way, in which case we do need a 
>formalised standard of agreed chord notations.
>
>Personally I incline to (a). Chord notation is multifarious and varied, 
>and my gut feeling is that that any attempt to standardise will become 
>either over-prescriptive, in which case people will ignore it anyway, or 
>hideously complicated and self-contradictory.
>
>I do, however, refer anyone who disagrees with that, to my first 
>sentence :-)

First sentence duly noted - take this as my thinking aloud reply to your 
thinking aloud comments.

I'd tend to go for (b) rather than (a) because (b) preserves the meaning 
better. As you note, the meaning is important for player programs, but 
I'd also argue it's important for printing programs as well. If a printing 
program wants to transpose chords it has to have some concept of what 
the chords mean. If it wants to print nice looking sharp and flat 
symbols rather than 'b' and '#' it has to know what the chord means. 
If you want an option to print a raised circle for a diminished chord 
or a triangle for a 7th chord you have to know what the chord 
means.

I don't have a problem with there being a mechanism in ABC to print 
arbitrary text, but I don't want that to get caught up with the chord 
notation.

Any program looking to do analysis will want to know what the chords 
mean. By going with option (a) I think we'd be saying that abc is 
purely for printing programs, and not even terribly good at that.

Bob

--
-- Bob Archer  [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html

Re: [abcusers] Chord notation

[Mike Whitaker]

On Wed, Feb 14, 2001 at 12:52:44PM -, Laurie Griffiths wrote:
> Mike Whitaker said
> "... what Muse does isn't compatible with what abc2midi does..."
> 
> Has someone got a description of what abc2midi does?

from abcguide.txt
-
Anything in quotes is a guitar chord e.g.   
 
"A" "Gm" "B7" "Bm7" "D#aug" "Bbdim7"
 
Guitar chords must use upper case A-G followed by optional # or b, then
the name of a chord type e.g. "m", "aug", "7". abc2midi currently
recognizes the following chord names :
 
 m, 7, m7, maj7, M7, 6, m6, aug, +, aug7, dim, dim7, 9, m9, maj9, M9,

Lower case a-g followed by optional # or b will generate a single note,
the fundamental, only. 
--

> I noticed someone say that abc2midi uses

me

> f where Muse uses F! to mean the single note.

See above.

> Is there more? Muse seems to me to implement something very close to a
> superset of the draft spec and I don't see any incompatibilities with it.
> To unpick Mike's mail a phrase at a time:

Hold it! That's not me you're quoting, that's the current abc draft.
See below that in my mail for my proposed changes.

> Muse allows in addition
> - or 0 to mean diminished

see my comments about '+' below. Also 'o' gets used for diminished

> ! to mean just the root note

see above

> 6 to mean 6th (was this part of "etc."?)
> +4 to mean root, fourth and fifth e.g. C+4 is C F G

that's usually sus4

> 5 to mean root and fifth only e.g. C5 is C G
> X as a chord name to mean silence.
> / as a chord name to mean "repeat the previous chord".  (This could be
> ambiguous where the flow of a song allows two different precursors for
> instance at the start of a repeat.  Bad idea to use this at the start of any
> such section.)
> 
> and Muse has a more explicit grammar for the "type", to wit
> [m|min|7|m7|min7|maj7|-|dim|0|+[4]|aug|!|6|5]
> 
> or, in future
> [m|min|maj|7|m7|min7|maj7|-|dim|0|+[4]|aug|!|6|5]

I'm *very* twitchy about using "+" at all, since I've seen it mean
'sharpened' 'added' or 'augmented'

so C+9 could mean C(#9): C E G Bb D# (sharpened 9)
  Cadd9: C E G D (added 9)
   or Caug9: C E G# Bb D (augmented 9)
-- 
Mike Whitaker | Work: +44 1733 766619 | Work: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
System Architext  | Fax:  +44 1733 348287 | Home: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
CricInfo Ltd  | GSM:  +44 7971 977375 | Web: http://www.cricinfo.com/
To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html

Re: [abcusers] Chord notation

[James Allwright]

On Wed 14 Feb 2001 at 12:52PM -, Laurie Griffiths wrote:
> Mike Whitaker said
> "... what Muse does isn't compatible with what abc2midi does..."

This is true in principal, but actually what abc2midi does is very
flexible and can easily changed by the user or in the source.


> 
> Has someone got a description of what abc2midi does?
> 

Go to http://abc.sourceforge.net/abcMIDI/ and follow the link
for abcguide.txt.

James Allwright

To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html

Re: [abcusers] Chord notation

[Laurie Griffiths]

Mike Whitaker said
"... what Muse does isn't compatible with what abc2midi does..."

Has someone got a description of what abc2midi does?

I noticed someone say that abc2midi uses
f where Muse uses F! to mean the single note.

Is there more? Muse seems to me to implement something very close to a
superset of the draft spec and I don't see any incompatibilities with it.
To unpick Mike's mail a phrase at a time:

> The chord has the format /,
Muse doesn't do "/bass" at the moment - no problem to extend it
to do that.

> where  can be A-G,
OK.  That excludes a-g, so is Muse within spec and abc2midi outside?

> the optional  can be b, #,
OK.

> the optional  is one or more of
Oops!  Need more context conditions - "one or more" allows things like
C#minmajaugdim

>   m or minminor
OK Muse allows this

>   maj major
Muse will currently lplay this as a minor.
[Fixing... Done. OK, next release of Muse will allow this as a major]

>   dim diminished
OK

>   aug or +augmented
OK

>   sus sustained
What does this mean?  Muse doesn't allow it because I've never heard of
"sustained" as the name of any chord.

>   7, 9 ...7th, 9th, etc.
7, OK
9, No. Muse will play C9 as C, C79 as C7, Cetc. as C.

Muse allows
m7 or min7 to mean minor seventh.
Muse does not allow things like
m6, min9, maj13

Muse allows in addition
- or 0 to mean diminished
! to mean just the root note
6 to mean 6th (was this part of "etc."?)
+4 to mean root, fourth and fifth e.g. C+4 is C F G
5 to mean root and fifth only e.g. C5 is C G
X as a chord name to mean silence.
/ as a chord name to mean "repeat the previous chord".  (This could be
ambiguous where the flow of a song allows two different precursors for
instance at the start of a repeat.  Bad idea to use this at the start of any
such section.)

and Muse has a more explicit grammar for the "type", to wit
[m|min|7|m7|min7|maj7|-|dim|0|+[4]|aug|!|6|5]

or, in future
[m|min|maj|7|m7|min7|maj7|-|dim|0|+[4]|aug|!|6|5]

Laurie

To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html

Re: [abcusers] Chord notation

[Mike Whitaker]

On Wed, Feb 14, 2001 at 09:27:37AM -, Laurie Griffiths wrote:
> This is what Muse does.  It's been doing this for some years, so I have a
> lot of customers and incompatible changes may be unacceptable.  (I don't
> know what proportion of the customers use ABC. Theoretically translation
> between ABC version and displayed version might be possible.  With luck
> the final ABC version will be close enough that incompatibilities will be
> very few.)  Extending the grammar or using a subset is of course OK,
> and adding /note to the end falls into this category.

Of course, what Muse does isn't compatible with what abc2midi does (not
that I'm criticising: that's Just How It Is).

The idea of translating seems to work for me, should a standard be chosen
that isn't a LCM of all the current implentations. *grin*
-- 
Mike Whitaker | Work: +44 1733 766619 | Work: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
System Architext  | Fax:  +44 1733 348287 | Home: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
CricInfo Ltd  | GSM:  +44 7971 977375 | Web: http://www.cricinfo.com/
To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html

Re: [abcusers] Chord notation

[Laurie Griffiths]

This is what Muse does.  It's been doing this for some years, so I have a
lot of customers and incompatible changes may be unacceptable.  (I don't
know what proportion of the customers use ABC. Theoretically translation
between ABC version and displayed version might be possible.  With luck
the final ABC version will be close enough that incompatibilities will be
very few.)  Extending the grammar or using a subset is of course OK,
and adding /note to the end falls into this category.

What follows is verbatim from the Muse help file.  Note that the notes given
in parenthesis to explain a chord are not ABC.  They are given in ascending
order of pitch, so (A C# E) means maybe [A,^CE].  I apologise for the abuse
of the term "suspended".
  --

If it doesn't understand the chord it will not play it.  If it understands
the beginning of what's written, it will play that - so Fm7sus4 it will play
as F minor 7th.  If you pervert the chord into some other sort of writing
and write "Fine" to indicate that this is where the playing should stop, it
will play F major!  Here is a selection of what it understands.

A  play A major (A C# E)
Bbm play B flat minor(Bb  Db F)
C#7 play C sharp seventh (C# F G# B)
Dm7 play D minor seventh (D F A C)
Dmin7 play D minor seventh (D F A C)
 E#dim play F diminished  (F G# B D)
Fb- play E diminished   (E G Bb Db)
G0 play G diminished   (G A# C# E)
Abaug play A flat augmented(Ab C E)
B#+ play C augmented   (C E G#)
B! play the single note B  (B)
G6 play G sixth (like Em7) (G B D E)
Cmaj7   play C major seventh (C E G B)
X  play silence ( )
D+4  play  D suspended fourth (D G A)
E5Play E with no third (E B E')
/  play the same chord again - not saved in ABC format.

Note that it will not play chords written as lower case letters e.g. d7 or
fine.

for anyone who understands formal grammars:
 ::= [][]  | / | X
where
 ::= A|B|C|D|E|F|G
 ::= #|b
 ::= [m|min|7|m7|min7|maj7|-|dim|0|+[4]|aug|!|6|5]

I've seen some confusion as to whether G6 means that the sixth (E) is played
as well as the other notes, that is G B D E G (the same set of notes as Em7)
or instead of the fifth, that is G B E G (the same set of notes as Em).
Muse interprets it as the discordant one - G B D E G.  Note that G6 and Em7
will usually not sound the same.  G6 is (bass to treble) G B D E but Em7 is
(bass to treble) E G B D.  (Actually with  some sound cards they are hard to
tell apart).


- Original Message -
From: Mike Whitaker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2001 11:18 PM
Subject: Re: [abcusers] Chord notation


On Tue, Feb 13, 2001 at 01:41:25PM -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> We don't have to standardise existing musical notation (thank goodness).
> We just need a way of unambiguously expressing things in abc notation
> so that processing programs have enough information to make their own
> decisions about how to present things to the user.

Which is what I was trying to say, only much more lucidly put.

To quote the draft spec:

> The chord has the format /, where 
> can be A-G, the optional  can be b, #, the optional 
> is one or more of
>   m or minminor
>   maj major
>   dim diminished
>   aug or +augmented
>   sus sustained
>   7, 9 ...7th, 9th, etc.
> and / is an optional bass note.

This, to my mind, needs a little bit of tightening up to remove potential
ambiguities. Thinking aloud here, and I'll cope with being shot down in
flames.

/ needs to explicitly say "*with* any needed accidental"

 should be replaced by 
where  can be one of

 major (1 3 5)
m minor (1 b3 5)
dim or o diminished (1 b3 b5)
aug or + augmented (1 3 #5)
I *think* we only need these four.

 can be one OR more of:
noX remove degree X from the chord (e.g, C7(no3)
5 same as 'no3'
6 add 6th
[maj]7 add b7th (7th if 'maj')
[maj]9 add b7th (7th if 'maj') + 9th
[maj]11 add b7th (7th if 'maj') + 9th + 11th
[maj]13 add b7th (7th if 'maj') + 9th + 11th + 13th
[add]X add the Xth note of the scale
sus2 drop the 3rd to the second
sus4 raise the 3rd to the fourth
X apply the accidental to the X degree (must be present in
 the 'chord so far')

 can be bracketed to remove ambiguity, or we could make
ambiguous accidentals always bind to the left
XX can be shortened to X

Examples:

C C major
Cm/G C minor with G bass
Bb(b5)/D D Bb E (my favourite chord!)
A9sus4/E E A D G B E (*grin*)
E(#9) orthe 'Hendrix' chord: most guitarists would call it
E7add#9 E7#9, and I'm sure there's a formal way of making
that unambiguous

The only gotcha I can see here is the full diminished chord (1 b3 b5 bb7),
which we CAN not

Re: [abcusers] Chord notation

[Phil Taylor]

Bob Archer wrote:

>We don't have to standardise existing musical notation (thank goodness).
>We just need a way of unambiguously expressing things in abc notation
>so that processing programs have enough information to make their own
>decisions about how to present things to the user.
>

I agree.

Unless we are prepared to introduce an explicit natural sign for this
purpose we should treat the slash note as independant of the key
signature, so /F means F natural, and you need to write F# even if
there is an F sharp in the key signature.

(After all, this is the rule that we follow for the rest of the chord,
is it not?)

Phil Taylor


To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html

Re: [abcusers] Chord notation

[Mike Whitaker]

On Tue, Feb 13, 2001 at 01:41:25PM -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> We don't have to standardise existing musical notation (thank goodness). 
> We just need a way of unambiguously expressing things in abc notation 
> so that processing programs have enough information to make their own 
> decisions about how to present things to the user.

Which is what I was trying to say, only much more lucidly put.

To quote the draft spec:

> The chord has the format /, where 
> can be A-G, the optional  can be b, #, the optional 
> is one or more of
>   m or minminor
>   maj major
>   dim diminished
>   aug or +augmented
>   sus sustained
>   7, 9 ...7th, 9th, etc.
> and / is an optional bass note.

This, to my mind, needs a little bit of tightening up to remove potential
ambiguities. Thinking aloud here, and I'll cope with being shot down in
flames.

/ needs to explicitly say "*with* any needed accidental"

 should be replaced by 
where  can be one of

   major (1 3 5)
m   minor (1 b3 5)
dim or odiminished (1 b3 b5) 
aug or +augmented (1 3 #5)
I *think* we only need these four.

 can be one OR more of:
noX remove degree X from the chord (e.g, C7(no3)
5   same as 'no3'
6   add 6th
[maj]7  add b7th (7th if 'maj') 
[maj]9  add b7th (7th if 'maj') + 9th
[maj]11 add b7th (7th if 'maj') + 9th + 11th
[maj]13 add b7th (7th if 'maj') + 9th + 11th + 13th
[add]X  add the Xth note of the scale 
sus2drop the 3rd to the second
sus4raise the 3rd to the fourth
X   apply the accidental to the X degree (must be present in
 the 'chord so far')

 can be bracketed to remove ambiguity, or we could make
ambiguous accidentals always bind to the left
XX can be shortened to X

Examples:

C   C major
Cm/GC minor with G bass
Bb(b5)/DD Bb E (my favourite chord!)
A9sus4/EE A D G B E (*grin*)
E(#9) orthe 'Hendrix' chord: most guitarists would call it
E7add#9 E7#9, and I'm sure there's a formal way of making
that unambiguous

The only gotcha I can see here is the full diminished chord (1 b3 b5 bb7),
which we CAN notate as dim6, but feels wrong. We need to be able to
distinguish it from what I've seen called the 'half-diminished 7th'
(1 b3 b5 b7) and from the straight diminished triad (1 b3 b5)

Anyway: some thoughts: use or ignore to taste.
-- 
Mike Whitaker | Work: +44 1733 766619 | Work: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
System Architext  | Fax:  +44 1733 348287 | Home: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
CricInfo Ltd  | GSM:  +44 7971 977375 | Web: http://www.cricinfo.com/
To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html

[abcusers] Chord notation

[bob]

At 09:02 PM 13-02-01 +0100, Frank Nordberg wrote:

>I think the attempt to standardize chord notation is laudable, but I'm
>still not sure whether it's a good idea or not - or even if it's
>possible at all. We've already discussed the lack of standardisation in
>the field of "standard notation", but the rules for tadpoles are
>extremely rigid compared to the ones for hord notation.
>
>Here are a few examples:
>
>C minor might be notated:
>   Cmin
>   Cm
>   C-
>or c  (which might mean either C major or C minor)
>
>-
>
>Cmaj might either mean C major or C with a major 7th (C-E-G-B)
>
>-
>
>Cdim might either mean C-Eb-Gb  or C-Eb-Gb-A
>
>-
>
>A major with a C# in the bass might be notated
>   A/C#
>   A/3
>or A/C#  (according to John C.)
>or even:
>   C#mb6 (which might either mean C#-E-A or C#-E-G#-A)
>   C#m-6 (ditto)
>   C#m#5
>or C#m+5

I don't see this as a problem. This splits into two separate things - 
how we input the information into abc, and how an abc processing 
program chooses to display that information. The important thing is 
the information - the program internally needs to know its got a C 
minor chord. What the program chooses to do with that is another 
question that the program can have options to deal with.

E.g. a typesetting program might well have an option to display minor 
chords with an "m" after them, or a "-", or display 7th chords with a 
triangle after them (I might have misremembered the details of that 
example but I'm sure somebody was asking for it, or something like 
it recently).

If I'm writing a chord with a bass note on manuscript paper I write 
the chord on top and the bass note in small letters underneath. A 
friend of mine does it the other way around. A good transcription 
program would have an option so that he can select the option he 
wants and I can select the option I want. We can still use the same 
abc input.

We don't have to standardise existing musical notation (thank goodness). 
We just need a way of unambiguously expressing things in abc notation 
so that processing programs have enough information to make their own 
decisions about how to present things to the user.

Bob

--
-- Bob Archer  [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html