Re: This is what's missing from LilyPond....

[David Raleigh Arnold]

Han-Wen Nienhuys wrote:
> 
> address@hidden writes:
> >   I re-read my message and I realized I said "we" a lot when I
> >   haven't put a single line of code into the project.  I really need
> >   to say something. Thank you all for writing such a quality piece
> >   of software.  I love it!

Yes!
 
> Thanks for the compliment! I love working on Lily (although my new
> synthesizer-toy is definitely also neat). Unfortunately, if you leave
> fret diagrams to me, they won't happen until I take guitar-lessons
> (i.e. never), so maybe you should try to put in some lines of code
> into the project yourself?

If the framework or xfig template and instructions exist, people
can draw their own
guitar, ukulele, banjo, or other chords, and then hopefully
contribute them.  That is why it would be good to have each chord
a separate file.  There are a large number of possible diagrams
for every chord name including added /basses and capo positions
and barring, and variant tunings, so the chord library easily
could become so large
that it might be quicker for one to draw his own than search in
the ./chddiags subdirectory if he needed
anything unusual.  You do not need guitar lessons, and that
wouldn't help you with banjo chords anyway, but Jan ought to be
able to do mandolin chords because that is a violin with frets.

Just kidding. :-)

I always tell my beginning students to be very skeptical of the
diagrams that come with sheet music, because they are often bad or
even
wrong.  For example, the stock arrangement of Dr. Zhivago gives an
Am7 chord with diagram when the piano score gives a D7, and the
stock arrangement of "If You Could Read My Mind" has absolutely
horrible chord voicings in the diagrams.  In spite of the latter,
the diagrams that are drawn specifically for the piece are usually
much better than the ones cut out of an array of ``standard''
chords.

It is also not unusual to have only the chord names in the piece
and then give an array of diagrams for reference at the beginning
or the end of the piece.  Many might prefer that, because the
diagrams can be large enough to include LH fingering numbers
instead of just black spots, and they can be taller without adding
to the height of the systems.

Large:

  C
   0 0
======
||||1|
++++++
||2|||
++++++
|3||||
++++++

Small:

  C
   0 0
======
||||*|
++++++
||*|||
++++++
|*||||
++++++

In an intermediate size, this is a possiblilty:

  C
   0 0
======
||||*|
++++++
||*|||
++++++
|*||||
++++++
 32 1 

Tall:

Gm @10.

   0
++++++ 
|1||||
++++++
||||2|
++++++
||3|||
++++++
||||||
++++++
||||||
++++++
|||||4
++++++

Again, I think it would be better if you did not do the finished
diagrams, just make it not too hard to put them in.

You might consider redoing chords altogether in a similar way, or
at least making it an option, because you can have chords that
reflect the sound of particular instruments and avoid all flak
about pop chord names, Berklee jazz names, realbook jazz names,
old realbook jazz names, (and what I like, which is the original
jazz chord names from the early fifties without such nonsense as
sus4's and the flat 13th.)  With a simple default set to use as a
toy you have everything you have now, but it can be more flexible
and more easily built on.

-- 
Peace, understanding, health and happiness to all beings!
       ars sine scientia nihil
              David Raleigh Arnold   address@hidden