Re: Typesetting chord symbols

[Carl Sorensen]

On 1/5/15 8:25 PM, "Flaming Hakama by Elaine" <address@hidden>
wrote:

>>
>I'm glad that effort is going into chord symbols!
>
>I'm no Carl.  But here are some observations I hope might be useful.

Carl is no Carl, either, I think.

>
>
> 
>
>
>> As a starter, we could have things like the following (taken from
>>Brandt and Roemer):
>
>
>I admit to not being familiar with this seminal work.  I wonder how much
>it reflects common practice?
>In any case, I am simply going to speak from my own experience writing
>and reading chord charts.
>>root
>
>
>A root like "Ab" will be constructed out of more than one font:  the "A"
>from a text font, and the flat from a music font.

Yes, but this is part of the *display*, not part of the structure.  Once
we have identified the things we need in the structure, we can then
develop formatting routines to properly display the structural elements
(including proper handling of the accidentals in the root).

>( I've also found that, when transposing chord charts I often need to
>tweak them so that, for example, ii-V-I cadences all have the same
>sharp/flat enharmonicity.
>
>
>I don't have a well-formed request at the moment, but just throwing out
>the idea that it might be fruitful to consider transposition not just of
>single notes (chord roots), but of sequences of chords. )

Proper structures will allow doing things like transposition, I believe.

>
>
>
>
>> mode (major or minor)?
>
>
>I would argue that the basic types of chords represented by chord symbols
>might include:
>   major
>   minor 
>   dominant
>   diminished
>   augmented
>   half-diminished

I would certainly not disagree with this list.

>
>
>Of course this list could get arbitrarily long.  But my motivation for
>listing these, and not others, is threefold.
>
>
>1) These are all diatonic 7th chords--at least, if you count the harmonic
>minor scale as diatonic.  ( On this basis, you could also say that minor
>with a major 7 is also diatonic.  Except no one uses non-compound symbols
>for that chord, so it does not add uniquely
> to the chord symbol lexicon. )
>
>2) For each of these chords types, there are at least 2 common styles for
>notating them. 
>
>Some of these styles follow patterns, and could be grouped as such.
>It might make sense to offer configuration that let you choose a
>preferred style, which applies for all chord types for which your style
>defines a treatement.
>Since not every style has distinct symbols for each of these chord types,
>ideally there could be a cascade to resolve treatments that are not in
>your preferred style.
>
>
>3) I find that in practical use, it is far more important that the the
>chord type be easier to parse visually than extensions and alterations.
>in practical terms, this means that I like to format the 7 for a dominant
>chord larger than
> any extensions (like b9, #9).
>Similarly, the desired formatting of the symbols or letters that
>represent that chord type may generally be different than either the
>size/alignment of either the root, or the extensions.
>
>
>Therefore, I would suggest we think in terms of "chord type" rather than
>just "mode" to describe what goes in between the root and the extensions.

Chord type, rather than mode, would be fine with me.

>
>
>
>Here are the categories of chord symbol treatment I am thinking of:
>
>   symbols: triangle, dash, seven, circle, plus, empty set
>
>   three-letters: maj, min, dim, aug
>
>   single letters: M, m
>
>   minimal: nothing for major, treat everything that isn't major or minor
>as a dominant with extensions: 7 #5 for augmented, m7b5 for
>half-diminished

Chord symbols are methods of displaying the chord structure.  And there
can be lots of different display methods.  For now, let's focus on the the
structure.

>
>
>
>> added-bass
>
>
>Does this refer to slash chords?

Yes.

>
>
>
>> modifiers (maybe a list -- I.e. sharp9, flat5)
>
>
>There should be a difference between considering modifiers in chord
>definitions versus symbolic representation.
>In some cases, you can't spell a chord without using modifiers (like a 7
>b9 #9) . 
>
>Whereas in other cases, use of modifiers is a stylistic choice of
>notating a chord using modifiers rather than more compact symbols.  For
>example, writing m7b5 and 7+5 rather than half-diminished or aug7, where
>the modified 5ths might be called out as an extension,
> or not, depending on the choice of chord symbol style.
>
>
>> polychord
>
>
>Not sure how this differs in notation from a slash chord, except that you
>have two full chords notated, rather than a chord and a bass note.

In Brandt and Roemer, a polychord is stacked with a horizontal line
between the two chords.

>
>
>Probably has implications for how lilypond internally represents chords
>as a group of notes, which I have not thought about.
>
>
>
>> omissions
>
>
>I have literally never seen a chord symbol (in actual musical context)
>that refer to omissions.
>
>I'm sure some people would actually write chord symbols with omissions
>(rather than using things like "add 9").
>
>If so, more power to them.  But from my standpoint, this does not fall
>under core chord symbol practice.

Brandt and Roemer have omissions as a significant part of their notation.
So since they use it, it seems like it ought to be supported, even if only
they would use it.

>
>
>I realize lilypond lets you define chords using omissions.  And you can
>certainly conceive of chords in that way.
>But I think that is more of a conceptual choice, and not in the domain of
>how you notate the symbol.
>
>
>
>
>> inversion? (not strictly necessary for printing a chord symbol, but
>>probably useful for defining a chord structure -- and  I think that the
>>alist should be used to define the chord structure).
>
>
>I agree.  And I tend to view this in the same way as omissions:  not part
>of the typical chord symbol language.  I suppose this is accomplished
>using slash chords to indicate an inversion.

The translation from structure to symbols should be relatively
straightforward to define (even if there are multiple translations) once
we have the structure properly defined.

Thanks for your input.

Carl