Re: Chord names broken since 2.16
On Tue, 17 Mar 2015 01:33:52 +0100 Jan Kohnert j...@jankoh.mooo.com wrote: Version 2 whould probably be read more quickly and correct by Jazz musicians, version 1 is more correct for a non-expert, I doubt this. Even a non-expert needs to know a few basic things. E.g., C is a major triad. Cm is minor triad. 7 is a dominant 7th. 9 implies 7. 11 implies 7 and 9. Sus4 implies no 3rd. That's about it. A real non-expert would go for c e g and so on. A bottom line for me is that different combinations of notes should not collapse into the same chord symbol, and that established conventions should be followed as much as possible. See e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ninth_chord -- Johan ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Chord names broken since 2.16
Dear Elaine, In terms of the latter musical context, the add9 is ambiguous, since it leaves open the question of whether the chord functions as a dominant or not. Yes, we all understand that when you write add9 you don't want to hear a 7th. But that does not mean that in the tonal musical context the 7th somehow disappears. If a melodic player wanted to play a 7th while this chord occurs, even as a passing tone, which one would he or she choose? This is why add9 chords are virtually nonexistent in Jazz charts, since they do not supply musicians what they need to know to do their job. I beg to disagree. I don't think the reason add9 chords aren't very common in jazz is because the symbol doesn't supply enough information. Improvisers at any level should be able to infer where the 4th, 6th and 7th should be placed and play accordingly. I think the main reason is that the major 9th is the chord addition that least discolors a major or minor chord. Any add9 functions in the same way as a regular major or minor, without any addition, it just sounds fuller and more interesting. This is why on piano, you encounter it frequently in pop music and modern gospel, on guitar in rock (Jimi Hendrix's ballad style!) or country music (think: open string voicings). The X note is not so much a part of the chord proper, but an artifact of the melody. I agree that add9 has no bearing on the chord's function, but do insist it adds a specific, unique and readily recognizable sound. So there must be a way to specify that sound if it's a crucial element of the composition. Kind regards, Amy ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Chord names broken since 2.16
Hi all, you might be true in this special case, but I (in my personal view) consider this to be inconsistent. And that is why: Csus2 = c d g Cadd9 = c e g d Csus4 = c f g Cadd11 = c e g f I think you misread Kieren's comment. He was suggesting add2 as a clearer alternative to add9. Not sus2, but add2. Yes. For starters, the 2nd and 9th are synonymous, so there is no lack of clarity about which notes are in the chord in either case. And with a 2, you don't introduce the concept of but what about the 7th? that naturally pops into one's head when you see a chord with a 9th. Correct. The 9 is always reserved for a chord with a 7 in it; the 2 is reserved for chords without the 7th. This makes for quick differentiation at sight. By the way: while I agree 100% with the notation c d g = Csus2 / Cadd2 in the musical theatre world, that has now (thankfully!) been short-handed to just C2, because it is oh-so-very-common (far more than in the jazz world, in my experience). Another common short-hand is C5, which would otherwise be written as C(no3); again, the compactness and sight-readability is appreciated by those of us “in the trenches”. Cheers, Kieren. ___ Kieren MacMillan, composer www: http://www.kierenmacmillan.info email: i...@kierenmacmillan.info ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Chord names broken since 2.16
Hi, Am , schrieb Johan Vromans: On Tue, 17 Mar 2015 01:33:52 +0100 Jan Kohnert j...@jankoh.mooo.com wrote: Version 2 whould probably be read more quickly and correct by Jazz musicians, version 1 is more correct for a non-expert, I doubt this. Even a non-expert needs to know a few basic things. E.g., C is a major triad. Cm is minor triad. 7 is a dominant 7th. 9 implies 7. 11 implies 7 and 9. Sus4 implies no 3rd. That's about it. This is why I put 'probably' in the sentence above. I can only speak for myself an the things I read in the past. I'd personally prefer version 2; but I also saw version 1, and there's probably more in the wild. :) I totally agree basic knowledge is needed, but I doubt, a non-(jazz)-expert knows that 13 implies the 7th and the 9th, but not the 11th, a.s.o.; so there _might_ be reasons for putting them into the printout. And this is why I thought about different standard layouts for different intended readers; again: this is just a thought, nothing more, since I personally like the default Lily-style (except for the missing add in some rare cases). A bottom line for me is that different combinations of notes should not collapse into the same chord symbol, and that established conventions should be followed as much as possible. The thing is: Some chords do in the default Lily-notation. That's the point in this whole issue, and that is why a bug has been opened in the tracker (I posted the link earlier in the thread). The (new; read as: since v2.16) default makes c e g d and c e g b d printed the same way as C9, and that simply is wrong in my optinion, since the two chords are used in completly different cicumstances and the intention of the composer/arranger to use the one or the other should be readable by the musician in the score (and I gues, we already agree in this point). Best regards, Jan ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Chord names broken since 2.16
Hi, (all examples in C major for reading purposes, and German notation, so h(German)=b(English), and b(German)=(b-flat(English)) Am , schrieb Kieren MacMillan: Hi all, add9 is different from sus2, as add11 is different from sus4 Really? In the musical theatre world, add9” rarely (if ever) appears; the preferred notation is “add2” (which, as a side benefit, makes sight reading things like “C9” even faster and less error-prone). you might be true in this special case, but I (in my personal view) consider this to be inconsistent. And that is why: Csus2 = c d g Cadd9 = c e g d Csus4 = c f g Cadd11 = c e g f You see, there's a different meaning in the chords, since there's another musicional intention behind it: either I want the 3rd (whether minor or major) to be played (regardless of the instrumentalist beeing able to play it (again: Guitarist)), or not. And the chords sound different, as they should… :) I confess, the only two chords I can imagine right now beeing displayed with an add is add9 and add11 in cases (like Jazz notation), when someone reading C9 or C11 assumes the chord is C7/9 or C7/9/11, respectivly. But again, this is only my personal experience, YMMV. And this is also, why I introduced the example C13 vs. C6: For C13 I whould read C7/9/13, whereas a C6 whould just be a plain C with an added 6th. If one needs more complicated stuff, like #9, b13 a.s.o. I'd emphasize to write and print that special one down; Realbook-Style… Nothing I ever saw displayed Cadd6add9 +1 I have started to write things like “add6,9” for multi-adds. I never saw that, but ok… I'd write that as C6/9 to be able to distiguish between a plain C9 (read as C7/9). I've never seen that add stuff in other cases than I said earlier. Could you provide an example for such a notation? I would be very interested in seeing such a notation. The best solution is probably to have different defaults, but in any way: if chords are intented musically different, they should display in different ways… **All other things being equal**, I would concur. However, I’ve found (through much trial and error, in both jazz and musical theatre pit orchestra contexts) that the chord symbols should always err on the side of sight-readable if the “theoretically correct” version requires any second thought. Agreed. I'd suggest a notation where one can select different defaults, varying by the the intended musicians to read the score. What I've seen so far is (not a complete list, of course): Version 1: C = c e g Csus2 = c d g Csus4 = c f g C6 = c e g a C7 = c e g b C7/9 = c e g b d C6/9 = c e g a d C9 = c e g d C7/#9 = c e g b dis C7/9/11 = c e g b d f C11 = c e g f C7/9/13 = c e g b d a C7/#9/b13 = c e g b dis as Version 2: C = c e g Csus2 = c d g Csus4 = c f g C6 = c e g a C7 = c e g b C9 = c e g b d C6/9 = c e g a d Cadd9 = c e g d C7/#9 = c e g b dis C11 = c e g b d f Cadd11 = c e g f C13 = c e g b d a C7/#9/b13 = c e g b dis as Version 3: [please continue] Version 2 whould probably be read more quickly and correct by Jazz musicians, version 1 is more correct for a non-expert, but harder to read (since notated more complicated) for everyone else. I'd be interested in version 3, or 4, or… -- Mit freundlichen Grüßen Jan Kohnert ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Chord names broken since 2.16
Hi all, add9 is different from sus2, as add11 is different from sus4 Really? In the musical theatre world, add9” rarely (if ever) appears; the preferred notation is “add2” (which, as a side benefit, makes sight reading things like “C9” even faster and less error-prone). Nothing I ever saw displayed Cadd6add9 +1 I have started to write things like “add6,9” for multi-adds. The best solution is probably to have different defaults, but in any way: if chords are intented musically different, they should display in different ways… **All other things being equal**, I would concur. However, I’ve found (through much trial and error, in both jazz and musical theatre pit orchestra contexts) that the chord symbols should always err on the side of sight-readable if the “theoretically correct” version requires any second thought. Cheers, Kieren. ___ Kieren MacMillan, composer www: http://www.kierenmacmillan.info email: i...@kierenmacmillan.info ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Chord names broken since 2.16
From: Jan Kohnert j...@jankoh.mooo.com To: Lilypond-User Mailing List lilypond-user@gnu.org Subject: Re: Chord names broken since 2.16 Am , schrieb Kieren MacMillan: Hi all, add9 is different from sus2, as add11 is different from sus4 Really? In the musical theatre world, add9? rarely (if ever) appears; the preferred notation is ?add2? (which, as a side benefit, makes sight reading things like ?C9? even faster and less error-prone). you might be true in this special case, but I (in my personal view) consider this to be inconsistent. And that is why: Csus2 = c d g Cadd9 = c e g d Csus4 = c f g Cadd11 = c e g f I think you misread Kieren's comment. He was suggesting add2 as a clearer alternative to add9. Not sus2, but add2. For starters, the 2nd and 9th are synonymous, so there is no lack of clarity about which notes are in the chord in either case. And with a 2, you don't introduce the concept of but what about the 7th? that naturally pops into one's head when you see a chord with a 9th. You see, there's a different meaning in the chords, since there's another musicional intention behind it: either I want the 3rd (whether minor or major) to be played (regardless of the instrumentalist beeing able to play it (again: Guitarist)), or not. And the chords sound different, as they should? :) I would say that the biggest theoretical/ideological difference when discussing chords is whether you are using the chord symbol to specify/analyze a specific voicing, or whether you are using it to indicate the musical context--for example, chordal players who comp notes of their own choosing, or melodic players who are improvising. In the first context, it is a tautology to say that non-identical chords sharing the same chord symbol is problematic. In terms of the latter musical context, the add9 is ambiguous, since it leaves open the question of whether the chord functions as a dominant or not. Yes, we all understand that when you write add9 you don't want to hear a 7th. But that does not mean that in the tonal musical context the 7th somehow disappears. If a melodic player wanted to play a 7th while this chord occurs, even as a passing tone, which one would he or she choose? This is why add9 chords are virtually nonexistent in Jazz charts, since they do not supply musicians what they need to know to do their job. Not to say that there aren't sublime examples of using addX chords. But honestly, most of the time I've seen addX chords, the sole reason for the addX is that there is a melody note X that doesn't fit into the chord, and its presence is made known by specifying addX to the chord. The X note is not so much a part of the chord proper, but an artifact of the melody. (And in my opinion, in these cases, it probably sounds best to have the chordal player play the basic chord and not attempt to voice the X pitch, and let the melody player have free reign to phrase the X without collision. Unless of course, the reason for adding that note to the chord is to support singers who can't carry a pitch unless it is being sounded by someone else.) To be clear, I fully support lilypond being able to distinguish add9 chord from a dominant 9th chord (which it does already, by the way, even if it prints the same chord symbol for both of them as a default behavior.) But, let's not raise this edge case to some pedestal of chordal juju. It should be sufficient to modify the chord symbol used for add9 to say add9 rather than 9. (I'm not just ranting, see below for how to do this.) Agreed. I'd suggest a notation where one can select different defaults, varying by the the intended musicians to read the score. While I agree with this sentiment, I think that it is important to recognize that chord notation has many more variations than most other aspects of music notation. Both in terms of syntax ( M, maj, triangle, nothing, etc. to represent major) as well as intention (literal voicings, harmonic function, tabulature), there is still quite a bit of variation. Moreover, it is sometimes desirable to write the same chord in different ways, depending on the context. The notion that there is only one right spelling for a given chord is, in my opinion, a slightly misguided notion. As a result, I suspect that anyone who is doing anything moderately complicated for any length of time will run into a case where he/she need to learn how to modify the chord syntax. I agree that it would be helpful to have a few options for chord sytle sheets. Then again, there already are a few, such as the current default, the ubiquitous Jazz chords and Pop chords, and the forthcoming B+R stylesheet. How about we start with making these easy to find, and include clear instructions for how to use them? Next up would be instructions on how to add your own variations beyond these common stylesheets. Here are my notes on this topic: http://flaminghakama.com/flaming-lilypond-chords Here is one
Re: Chord names broken since 2.16
Hi again,
please always reply to all ;)
2015-03-15 14:19 GMT+01:00 Amelie Zapf a...@ameliezapf.com:
Hi Thomas,
Though, I can easily imagine situations where c e g d is dominant or
subdominant or tonic, depends on the surrounding circumstances.
True. But the reverse doesn't hold.
So far, I'd agree
Again, I disagree here. Correct ChordNames (together with some common
agreements) will show only which pitches are present, not their harmonic
function.
And that's precisely what C9 for c e g d' doesn't do. It implies the
minor 7th that just isn't there, but, if present, would drastically
change the chord type. Let's put it like that: two vastly different
chords would become synonymous.
Agreed as well. (My point was to emphasize the absence of any functional
harmonic meaning with ChordNames.)
Though this will have the above already mentioned disadvantage, see the
following example, last chord.
\new ChordNames
\chordmode {
\set additionalPitchPrefix = #add
c' e' g' bes' d''
c' e' g' d''
c:7.9
c:5.9
c:5.7+.11+.13
In practical jazz improvisation you'd just omit a few tones from a 6 or
7 note chord. I don't know anybody who'd write a double add there.
Everybody would call it a C [triangle] #11 13.
And that's the reason why 'additionalPitchPrefix' was changed.
Plus, the presence or
absence of the d in said chord wouldn't nearly make as much of a
difference as the b flat in the 9th chord.
Kind regards,
Amy
All in all I'd go for adding c e g d to 'chordNameExceptions', see my
previous mail.
I'll likely put up a patch for it.
Cheers,
Harm
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Chord names broken since 2.16
Hello, Am , schrieb Amelie Zapf: problem solved: \set Score.additionalPitchPrefix = add does the trick. However, this should be default behavior, because C9 and Cadd9 are just not the same thing, but describe chords with vastly different harmonic function. seems we all stumble about that one. :) At least it's asked regulary since the change. And there's already an issue for that one: https://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=4222 -- Mit freundlichen Grüßen Jan Kohnert ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Chord names broken since 2.16
Hi Amelie,
2015-03-15 10:57 GMT+01:00 Amelie Zapf a...@ameliezapf.com:
Dear lilypond-user team,
starting with LilyPond 2.16, and on into 2.18, the chord naming
algorithm does not distinguish between a chord c e g bes d and c e g
d' in relative notation. Both are named C9.
Yep.
The 'additionalPitchPrefix' was changed to , to get rid of too many add
in certain names.
This is wrong, since
functionally, the former is a dominant, the latter a tonic, so there
must be a distinction between the two.
I slightly disagree.
Yes, LilyPond should distinguish between those two chords per default.
Though, I can easily imagine situations where c e g d is dominant or
subdominant or tonic, depends on the surrounding circumstances.
The behavior up until 2.14 (which
I used until recently) was correct, in which the former was called C9,
the latter Cadd9.
Is there a script file I can modify so I can get the system to behave
correctly?
Kind regards,
Amy
2015-03-15 12:12 GMT+01:00 Amelie Zapf a...@ameliezapf.com:
Dear lilypond-user team,
problem solved: \set Score.additionalPitchPrefix = add does the trick.
However, this should be default behavior, because C9 and Cadd9 are just
not the same thing, but describe chords with vastly different harmonic
function.
Again, I disagree here. Correct ChordNames [?](together with some common
agreements) will show only which pitches are present, not their harmonic
function.
Look at c a c e (rendered as C6)
Is it C-major with 6th replacing 5 or is it an inversion of a-minor?
I'd say, depends ...
Anyway, you already found
\set additionalPitchPrefix = #add
Though this will have the above already mentioned disadvantage, see the
following example, last chord.
\new ChordNames
\chordmode {
\set additionalPitchPrefix = #add
c' e' g' bes' d''
c' e' g' d''
c:7.9
c:5.9
c:5.7+.11+.13
}
Another possibility would be to add c e g d' to 'chordNameExceptions':
chExceptionMusic = {
c e g d'1-\markup { \super add9 }
}
chExceptions =
#(append
(sequential-music-to-chord-exceptions chExceptionMusic #t)
ignatzekExceptions)
\new ChordNames
\chordmode {
\set chordNameExceptions = #chExceptions
c' e' g' bes' d''
c' e' g' d''
c:7.9
c:5.9
c:5.7+.11-.13
}
See:
http://www.lilypond.org/doc/v2.18/Documentation/notation/displaying-chords#customizing-chord-names
It may be discussable to add it to 'ignatzekExceptionMusic' from
chord-modifiers-init.ly as default.
Cheers,
Harm
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Chord names broken since 2.16
Dear lilypond-user team, problem solved: \set Score.additionalPitchPrefix = add does the trick. However, this should be default behavior, because C9 and Cadd9 are just not the same thing, but describe chords with vastly different harmonic function. Regards, Amy -- Dr. Amelie Zapf (a...@ameliezapf.com) Pianist, Bassist, Guitarist, Composer, Friedrich-Ebert-Str. 25, 14548 Caputh, Germany http://www.ameliezapf.com/ PGP public key ID: 4E0A7F00 When the power of love overcomes the love of power, the world will know peace. - Jimi Hendrix ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Chord names broken since 2.16
On Sun, 15 Mar 2015 14:39:23 +0100 Thomas Morley thomasmorle...@gmail.com wrote: And that's the reason why 'additionalPitchPrefix' was changed. Sounds fair. But the bottom line is that two different ordinary chords c e g bes d and c e g d' are both named C9 and hence loose the distinction. c:7.9 and c:5.9 are much more common than c:5.7+.11+.13 so I'd say the last chord should be added to chordNameExceptions. -- Johan ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Chord names broken since 2.16
Am , schrieb Thomas Morley:
2015-03-15 14:19 GMT+01:00 Amelie Zapf a...@ameliezapf.com:
Though, I can easily imagine situations where c e g d is
dominant or
subdominant or tonic, depends on the surrounding circumstances.
True. But the reverse doesn't hold.
So far, I'd agree
Again, I disagree here. Correct ChordNames (together with some
common
agreements) will show only which pitches are present, not their
harmonic
function.
And that's precisely what C9 for c e g d' doesn't do. It implies
the
minor 7th that just isn't there, but, if present, would drastically
change the chord type. Let's put it like that: two vastly different
chords would become synonymous.
Agreed as well. (My point was to emphasize the absence of any
functional harmonic meaning with ChordNames.)
That's the point I was also emphasizing. As a Guitarist, I only have
four fingers to play a chord, and I'll never be aber to play something
like C13 with all of the notes, as long as Biology will not give me more
fingers. ;) But theres a difference between C6 and C13, and even if I
play C6, a piano player will make the difference, and that sould be
readable in the score…
And there's a difference between Cadd9 and C9 with a (probably not
playable or omitted) 7th.
Though this will have the above already mentioned disadvantage,
see the following example, last chord.
new ChordNames
chordmode {
set additionalPitchPrefix = #add
c' e' g' bes' d''
c' e' g' d''
c:7.9
c:5.9
c:5.7+.11+.13
In practical jazz improvisation you'd just omit a few tones from a
6 or
7 note chord. I don't know anybody who'd write a double add
there.
Everybody would call it a C [triangle] #11 13.
And that's the reason why 'additionalPitchPrefix' was changed.
Well, the point is: It was changed the wrong way: Nothing I ever saw
displayed Cadd6add9, and in that point I'm fine with the change, as we
(probably) (all?) whould write C6/9 in such a case, and then everyone(?)
would know, there's no 7th in the chord. (And I agree with Amy's
example.) Again: as a guitarist, many on the add9 chords are played as
sus2 (lack of fingers, again); but still add9 is different from sus2, as
add11 is different from sus4.
The best solution is probably to have different defaults, but in any
way: if chords are intented musically different, they should display in
different ways…
--
Mit freundlichen Grüßen
Jan Kohnert
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
