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
ECTED]
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 progr
[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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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. +/-
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
#
"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
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
"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.
"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
(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
(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
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
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
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
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
Phil Taylor wrote:
(I have a deep suspicion of the ambiguities inherent in text-based
guitar chord symbols. I'd really rather write them out in abc.)
And quite right you are, too. Not all chords can be played on the guitar
as they should be. There's only six strings and four fingers. ;-)
On Fri, Feb 16, 2001 at 09:18:57AM +0100, Bert Van Vreckem wrote:
Frank's Woodchopper ball arrangement snipped
There are ambiguities here. Does G+11 mean G with added 11, G aug 11, or
G11 with the 11th sharpened?
From the chord faq http://guitarnotes.com/notes/noteget.cgi?chord_faq:
I'm going to take the liberty of reposting my suggestion for chord syntax,
since it seems to have got rather lost amid discussions on MUSE's, abc2midi;s
and the draft standard.
Hey, Rocky - watch me pull a formal grammer out of this hat!
Note
* = zero or more of...
[] = optional
'' = literal
Bert Van Vreckem wrote:
About the definition of 11 and 13 chords, see one of my previous mails.
I agree with the KISS thing, though. If you want to be able to parse
every possible chord, the modifier part in your regular language will
become too complicated to be good. If you have a way
Regarding my proposal for chord notation:
Jack Campin said:
...it allows no way to write a bare octave...
Fair enough - I'm happy to add "8" to the list.
This begs a question though. How precise should the
chord notation be? One expects the same chord notation
to be interpretable by (at
On Fri, Feb 16, 2001 at 10:26:33AM +, Mike Whitaker wrote:
I'm going to take the liberty of reposting my suggestion for chord syntax,
since it seems to have got rather lost amid discussions on MUSE's, abc2midi;s
and the draft standard.
Hey, Rocky - watch me pull a formal grammer out of
I'm going to take the liberty of reposting my suggestion for chord syntax,
since it seems to have got rather lost amid discussions on MUSE's, abc2midi;s
and the draft standard.
Hey, Rocky - watch me pull a formal grammer out of this hat!
We have a choice of two possible routes here. We can try
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:
Frank's Woodchopper ball arrangeme
On Fri, Feb 16, 2001 at 12:04:19PM +, Phil Taylor wrote:
(However, it will have to be written out in English, or most abc users
won't even bother to read it.)
Agreed. THat was as much an exervise to satisfy myself I could write a
grammer that *could* be parsed as anything else.
--
Mike
"Laurie" == Laurie Griffiths [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
...Is this an appropriate moment to suggest throwing
in roman-numeral and figured-bass notations as well?
Laurie Yes, it's the right moment, but I vote against it.
I would have said, no, it's not the right moment, but I
Wouldn't you just use the G note for that? or are you maybe thinking of a
situation where you are creating backup music only using chords?
"Richard L Walker"[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Pensacola, FL 32504-7726 USA
To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html
If it ain't text, it ain't abc. (going back into the lurk mode)
"Richard L Walker"[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Pensacola, FL 32504-7726 USA
-Original Message-
From: Phil Taylor [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
...(However, it will have to be written out in English, or most abc users
won't even bother
Laurie writes:
|
| Incidentally, it occurred to me that "/G" would be a logical name for the
| degenerate single-note chord which has G in the bass and nothing else. Any
| takers?
Well, as an accordion player, my response would be "What's the
difference?" That's pretty much a
Laurie Griffiths wrote:
Frank Nordberg wants the modifier list to include...
No, I don't. I want the entire modifier list replaced with a set of
fairly simple rules defining the syntax of the modifier.
If I understand Mike Whitaker's proposal (which I'm not absolutely sure
I do) correctly,
Just two short apologizes - quite malapropos everything.
I've struggled with some annoying time delays during this entire
discussion. My own postings has sometimes taken ages to appear, and I've
received other peoples posting in the wrong order (frequently getting
somebody's reply before
Laura Conrad wrote:
"Laurie" == Laurie Griffiths [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
...Is this an appropriate moment to suggest throwing
in roman-numeral and figured-bass notations as well?
Laurie Yes, it's the right moment, but I vote against it.
I would have said, no, it's not
" 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]
Laurie Griffiths [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This begs a question though. How precise should the
chord notation be? One expects the same chord notation
to be interpretable by (at least!) banjo, guitar, mandolin
or keyboard and they will typically play the notes in
different octaves and quite
On Fri, Feb 16, 2001 at 02:25:42PM -0800, Robert Bley-Vroman wrote:
Laurie is right to ask this question. In the spirit of "KISS," consider how
the typical abc user uses chord notation. It is NOT used to indicate
precisely what notes are to be played. Rather, it is deliberately kept
"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
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
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
al 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 n
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
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
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
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
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 =
Since we are trying to get a new standard out:
Are we happy with the existing draft?
The chord has the format noteaccidentaltype/bass, where note
can be A-G, the optional accidental can be b, #, the optional type
is one or more of
m or minminor
maj major
dim
guitar chord = silence|chord
silence = X
chord = root[modifier][/bass]
root = note
bass = note
note = note letter[accid]
note letter = A|B|C|D|E|F|G
accid = #|b
modifier = 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
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
ECTED]
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
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
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"
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
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".
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
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
67 matches
Mail list logo
