|
From: | Patrick Schmidt |
Subject: | Re: TabStaff feature requests |
Date: | Wed, 24 Nov 2010 11:40:51 +0100 |
Am 24.11.2010 um 07:13 schrieb Steve Yegge: Hi Patrick, this sounds awesome. I think it will be very useful.No, all thirds on the fourth and fifth strings would/could be covered by the c-shape definitions. The major thirds are part of the c-major-shape, the minor thirds belong to the c-minor-shape. (All shapes work in 17 keys.) So you'd just have to write: \cShape <c e> <d f> <e g> <f a> <g b> <a c> <b d> <c e> This is probably true. On the other hand the chord shape is pretty obvious when you fret the root of a chord on a particular string. In most cases you only have two alternatives. If the root is e.g. on the fifth string, you have to decide whether your interval/chord rather belongs to the c-shape or to the a-shape. I see you point in this particular example. On the other hand consider this: <c e> <c g> <c c'> <c e'> If you wanted to play this in first position you would have to use four useStrings-commands: <pseudo-code> \useStrings #'(4 5) <c e> \useStrings #'(3 5) <c g> useStrings #'(2 5) <c c'> useStrings #'(1 5) <c e'> </pseudo-code> With the chord shape system you'd just enter \cShape <c e> <c g> <c c'> <c e'> and that's it, provided that all possible intervals/chords will have been defined in the chord shape files one lucky day. (BTW the chord shapes *are* user-extensible). The manual definition of intervals/chords is interesting but time-consuming and probably error-prone. I see this as the main drawback of the chord shape system. It all depends on the completeness of the chord shape files and some technical aspects. +1 Thanks, patrick
|
[Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |