Re: ChordNames: Brandt & Roemer exceptions

[Thomas Morley]

2015-11-30 0:04 GMT+01:00 Noeck <address@hidden>:
> Hi Kieren,
>
> as a guitar player, I am used to not having standards in chord notation
> (the German note names confusion (H=B) being one of the constant issues
> with that). So please forgive my ignorance when talking about consistent
> systems of chord notation like Brandt-Roemer.
>
> I was interested in a direct comparison to the current style. That's why
> I created the attachment from your testing code.
>   red = Lilypond's default style
>   black = your Brandt-Roemer style
>   green = differences I noticed (only once)
>
> My personal take is: nice and understandable. I like the sizes of
> accidentals and the consistent font size for numbers. I am not used to
> these diminished chords, the minor and the major 7 notation.
>
> Two questions:
> 1. Why is Cm69 (ly) = C6/9 (BR)? Where is the "MI" gone? Is it kind of
> implied? I don't see it.
>
> 2. (I almost don't dare to ask, but) in your code, could the "MI" for
> minor be configurable such that the BR style can be used but with 'm'
> for minor? (For ignorants who want to break with a standard.)
>
> Thanks for your work in any case!
>
> Cheers,
> Joram


Well, I really have no time atm, but is Joram's pdf really what
Brandt&Roemer propose??
Looking at the chord no 5 and 6 of this pdf I'd read the symbol's as
e-major with added lowered 6th and f-major with added sharpened 6th.

-Harm