Re: key and chordmode

[Carl Sorensen]

On 12/18/11 3:18 PM, "Róbert Kohányi" <address@hidden> wrote:

>> you should have read more carefully what David wrote (and thought about
>>it):
>
>
>In my first message I wrote that "If I change "e,:1.7.10^3" to
>"e,:1.7.10-^3" I get the desired output." So this isn't *exactly* the
>issue, but David's solution isn't exactly right too, as "e,:m1.7.10^3"
>=/= "e,:1.7.10-^3". (At least my impression was that he tells me that the
>two definition should be "equal".)
>
>David said, that "Chord specifications are completely independent from
>the current key", which doesn't mean that it also completely independent
>of the specification *itself*. If I specify that I'm building a minor
>chord with "e:m<whatever>", then in the "<whatever>" part if I insert a
>third note (into a minor chord) that note should be a minor third. If I'm
>totally wrong, then what's the point of the "m" specifier?

The m specifier specifies a minor triad. e:m is *exactly* equivalent to
e:1.3-.5.  When you do e:m1.7.10 you override the minor triad, by saying
the highest note you want is the root.  Then you add in (by yourself, and
independently from the m specifier) the 7 and the 10.  And you are
responsible for the pitches of your added  notes.


>
>Also "e:m3" and "e:m1.3" should result in the same output, but in the
>latter case a major third will be used (independent of the key).

Why do you believe these should result in the same output?  e:m3 is a
minor triad with the 3rd step being the highest note in the triad.  Since
it's a minor triad it has a minor 3rd.  e:m1. is a minor triad, with the
root being the highest note in the triad, plus an added major 3.

>So its behaviour is inconsistent in my book.

It is exactly consistent.  As quoted in the Notation Reference:

"The first number following the : is taken to be the extent of the chord.
The chord is constructed by sequentially adding thirds to the root until
the specified number has been reached. Note that the seventh step added as
part of an extended chord will be the minor or flatted seventh, not the
major seventh. If the extent is not a third (e.g., 6), thirds are added up
to the highest third below the extent, and then the step of the extent is
added. The largest possible value for the extent is 13. Any larger value
is interpreted as 13."


The first number following the : is *not* an element of the chord, it is
the extent of the chord.

>
>I've also observed, that the following definitions generate a chord with
>a natural G (or Gs): e:m3, e:m5, e:m7, e:m9, e:m11, while e:m10 doesn't:
>the first G on the second line is natural, but the G on the fifth is
>sharp. The tenth note is the octave of the third, is it not? So why it
>sharp if the third isn't? I'm an amateur in music theory, but this seems
>off to me. If this is totally planned and intentional then this behaviour
>should be mentioned in the manual.

I think it *is* mentioned in the manual.  e:m10 adds thirds up to the 9th,
then adds a 10th.  And the 10th is not part of the structure of thirds.
So the step gets added just as you put it.  e:m10- will get the chord you
want.

HTH,

Carl