[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Mixed chord/note mode
From: |
David Kastrup |
Subject: |
Re: Mixed chord/note mode |
Date: |
Sun, 14 Aug 2022 10:50:55 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/29.0.50 (gnu/linux) |
Jean Abou Samra <jean@abou-samra.fr> writes:
> Le 14/08/2022 à 09:48, David Kastrup a écrit :
>> Jean Abou Samra <jean@abou-samra.fr> writes:
>>
>>> Le 14/08/2022 à 01:15, David Kastrup a écrit :
>>>
>>> If it becomes one, I will have to remember that I need
>>> to use chord bracket for any chord, even if it's not
>>> a polychord. That's all.
>> Uh why? We are not talking about changing \chordmode here. This
>> proposal is about using chords as constituents within chord brackets in
>> \notemode .
>>
>> There is no valid (more exactly, no sensible valid) input that would
>> change meaning.
>
>
>
> Sorry for the imprecision: I will need to use chord angle brackets
> for any chord _in notes mode_, even if it's not a polychord.
>
> The problem is not with backwards compatibility but with cognitive
> dissonance from whatI perceive as an inconsistency.
>
> {
> <c> % I can do this
> c % but might as well shorten it as this.
Those are different things with different representations. This may be
more obvious when writing c-1 instead of c here.
> <c:> % I can also do this
Which is something completely different.
> c: % uh what?
> }
Not as much "uh what?" as a tremolo.
As a mnemonic, to make chords without chord brackets, you have to use
\chordmode .
If we allow <a:m c:> as polychord notation in \notemode, it would make
sense to also allow this in \chordmode since it should ultimately differ
from <<a:m c>> in octave resolution and duplicate removal.
But of course for this to happen, actual polychord semantics need to be
implemented, and hopefully a printable representation for the ChordNamer
established.
> As I said: I don't have a strong opinion. I just figured I'd
> voice my gut feeling on this.
I don't think it's bad. My original desire was to obsolete \chordmode
but it does have a bit of a point compared to in-\notemode chords since
the latter really should be written "at pitch" rather than taken from
some default chord octave.
Yes, the overlap with chord notation is a nuisance. And strictly
speaking, we should have chord tremoli like
\chordmode
{
c:: a:m:
}
which are currently a syntax error (because : is lexed as chord-colon in
chord-mode, which might be desirable to change if the grammar can be
made to deal with it).
--
David Kastrup
- Mixed chord/note mode, David Kastrup, 2022/08/13
- Re: Mixed chord/note mode, Kieren MacMillan, 2022/08/13
- Re: Mixed chord/note mode, Jean Abou Samra, 2022/08/13
- Re: Mixed chord/note mode, David Kastrup, 2022/08/13
- Re: Mixed chord/note mode, Jean Abou Samra, 2022/08/13
- Re: Mixed chord/note mode, David Kastrup, 2022/08/13
- Re: Mixed chord/note mode, Jean Abou Samra, 2022/08/14
- Re: Mixed chord/note mode, David Kastrup, 2022/08/14
- Re: Mixed chord/note mode, Jean Abou Samra, 2022/08/14
- Re: Mixed chord/note mode,
David Kastrup <=
- Re: Mixed chord/note mode, David Kastrup, 2022/08/14
- Re: Mixed chord/note mode, Jean Abou Samra, 2022/08/14
- Re: Mixed chord/note mode, Dan Eble, 2022/08/14
Re: Mixed chord/note mode, Mats Bengtsson, 2022/08/14
Re: Mixed chord/note mode, Lukas-Fabian Moser, 2022/08/22