[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: polychords: what's the current state-of-the-art?
From: |
Kieren MacMillan |
Subject: |
Re: polychords: what's the current state-of-the-art? |
Date: |
Tue, 9 Aug 2022 08:03:16 -0400 |
Hi Valentin,
> Suppose we had a different way of specifying chords not as a bunch of notes,
> but in a representation that preserves the theoretical meaning of such a
> chord.
The GSoC work was working towards exactly that.
> This way we could have a transposable syntax to say e.g. des|c to specify Db
> major over C major or even g|dis:m|cis:m or something and would be able to
> quickly get the chord specification we actually want, instead of having to do
> something like c:3.5.9-.11.13- or even something like this
> cis,:m3.5.9.11.13.19-.21.23-.
We really need something like this.
Kieren.
Re: polychords: what's the current state-of-the-art?, Valentin Petzel, 2022/08/09
- Re: polychords: what's the current state-of-the-art?,
Kieren MacMillan <=
Re: polychords: what's the current state-of-the-art?, Lukas-Fabian Moser, 2022/08/09
Re: polychords: what's the current state-of-the-art?, Thomas Morley, 2022/08/14