Re: jazz chords

[David Raleigh Arnold]

On Wednesday 14 December 2005 09:39 pm, Kenneth Teh wrote:
> I know this is an old topic and various folks have
> discussed this at length on this list.  Nonetheless,
> I'd like to throw in a few more remarks on the
> subject.
> 
> It's true that the jazz chord names printed by
> lilypond are weird from a jazz perspective and it is
> also true that there is a mechanism via
> chordNameExceptions to tweak the output or one could
> always use text markup to do it exactly as one wishes.
>  However, some observations:
> 
> (1) Text markup for chords don't allow you to
> transpose chords.  So, when I am writing out parts,
> the chordmode has a clear advantage since you can
> transpose the chord names via \tranpose.
> 
> (2) \chordmode actually tries to build chords from its
> input.  So, when you produce MIDI output, you will
> actually hear the chords played.
> 
> (3) Chords on jazz charts are really indications.  The
> actual voicing of a chord is left to the player.
> 
> It seems to me that based on these observations, what
> Lilypond needs is a context for creating chord names
> that
> 
> (1) does not try to actually build chords, ie, the
> MIDI output produces nothing.

Good as an option, but defeatist.  If only lilypond used the standard
jazz chord indications of the 50's, with the sole addition of the
/bassnote from the 60's, and simply built the chord from the root
without concern for nonsense like avoiding doubling or including other
voices, it would work fine as long as you could easily define your own
chords.  If chords were defined with a "g" assumed as root, any
similar chord names could simply be transpositions.  In the 50's there
was a reform to eliminate all but \flat, \sharp, (, and ), from chord
names, and the only thing worth adding is / for bass note.  By using
that system, there is no reason for special syntax for chord names.
Bob van der Poel does without special syntax in his 'mma'.  I think a
'g' root assuming key of C is a much easier way than numbering half
steps.  It would be nice to be able to have chord names simply print
the way they are typed, and using 'b' for flat and 's' or '#' for
sharp, that would be very easy to do.

  This way you avoid all
> the problems associated with trying to describe a
> voicing which a jazz player is free to change anyway.

A jazz player is concerned with grabbing something right away.
Defaults exist, but a chord name doesn't describe an exact
voicing to change.
> 
> (2) treats only the chord root (and duration) as
> significant, thus allowing one to transpose the chord
> names.

for example \chorddef {{ G7 = g, g b d' f' }{ G7(b5) = etc.}{...}}
would define D7, Eb7b5 or Eb7(b5), etc. also.  Basses would be 
transposed
with the other notes, and they would be lower case.  Parentheses
optional for the definitions would be printed if present, otherwise not.
There is no ambiguity there at all.  There is no such thing as a b7, 
it's
dim7. 
> 
> (3) leaves the chord alterations as pure text markup. 
> Most chord alterations are pitch indepedent anyway. 
> That is, you say m7 for a minor 7th chord, 5-

b5 is flat 5th.  Minuses are unacceptable in chord names.  daveA

-- 
Free download of technical exercises worth a lifetime of practice:
"Dynamic Guitar Technique": http://www.openguitar.com/instruction.html
email: "David Raleigh Arnold" <address@hidden>|<address@hidden>
(Full name in address field is needed to pass filter)