| Re: [tablatures] Power chords |
[ Thread Index |
Date Index
| More lilynet.net/tablatures Archives
]
Am 16.09.2010 um 16:13 schrieb Carl Sorensen:
On 9/16/10 6:00 AM, "Patrick Schmidt" <p.l.schmidt@xxxxxx> wrote:
Am 12.09.2010 um 23:09 schrieb Carl Sorensen:
On 9/12/10 2:21 PM, "Patrick Schmidt" <p.l.schmidt@xxxxxx> wrote:
Hi all,
here is a solution for typesetting power chords and their symbols.
The solution is not new and I didn't invent it but including the
little file makes life a tiny bit easier. Maybe these few lines of
code could become part of the lilypond bundle thus making it
unnecessary to have to include them in each and every file
containing
power chords??? Where would they have to go?
I think they could be added to ly/chord-modifiers-init.ly
Is there anything wrong with adding the following lines to ly/chord-
modifiers-init.ly?
powerChordSymbol = {
<c g>-\markup { \normal-size-super "5" }
<c g c'>1-\markup { \normal-size-super "5" }
}
powerChords =
#(sequential-music-to-chord-exceptions powerChordSymbol #t)
Adding these to ly/chord-modifiers-init.ly would be fine.
I also would like to have a command like \powerChords to avoid to
have to write "\set chordNameExceptions = #powerChords". So far I use
this command in my .ly-files.
powerChords = {
\set chordNameExceptions = #powerChords
}
Where do I have to put this command and what do I have to do/change
to make it an "official/executable" command without having to define
it "manually" in my .ly-files?
This command should probably be added to ly/property-init.ly.
However, it's
possible that it will be moved during patch review.
I think that the way you've currently written this could be
improved. The
way it's written, your second definition of powerChords will
replace the
first when the code is parsed, even if it's not used in your ly file.
It would probably be better to define something like
powerChordExceptions =
#(sequential-music-to-chord-exceptions powerChordSymbol #t)
and then
powerChords = {
\set chordNameExceptions = #powerChordExceptions
}
This way, powerChordExceptions is still available in case somebody
wants to
combine powerChordExceptions with their own personal list of chord
exceptions, by doing something like
myExceptions =
#(append (sequential-music-to-chord-exceptions myExceptionMusic #t)
powerChordExceptions)
Ah, OK. When I first thought about it I didn't like the term
powerChordExceptions because it's a bit ambiguous but I understand
the problem. I will change it. Thanks!
I concur with the c:1.5 and c:1.5.8 I prefer these to c:5^3 and c:
5^3.8
These should be added to Appendix A.2 Common chord modifiers.
I guess there should be only one additional entry showing both
versions in half notes?
c2:1.5 c2:1.5.8
I think two entries -- one for two-voiced power chord, one for
three-voiced
power chord.
ok.
If no one objects I could offer
to add a few lines of text to the manual concerning power
chords??!!
Is it worth adding this example to the snippet repository?
Since this uses \set, it belongs in the manual in the form of a
snippet.
Write the documentation right into the texidoc for the snippet, and
make
sure it gets added to the LSR with a docs tag and a fretted strings
tag.
I haven't done that before so I'll first have to find an example for
that.
If you use the definition of \powerChords, then \powerChords can be
used in
the body of the documentation. But there should still be a snippet
showing
how to combine powerChords with other exceptions.
ok
Then, we'll need to modify the Selected Snippets section of NR
2.4.2 to
include your snippet.
Ok, but what about the sections "Extended and altered chords" and
"Printing chord names"? Shouldn't it be mentioned there as well?
Add a chords tag to the snippet as well. A @seealso reference in
each of
these sections would be appropriate.
When I search for "power chord" in google, it is clear that this is
primarily a guitar term, so I think it's appropriate to have the
primary
documentation section in the Guitar music.
ok
Also, I'd recommend that we consider adding the power chords to
ly/predefined-guitar-fretboards.ly. Currently, the manual shows
how they
could be added as alternate voicings of regular major chords. But
now that
you have specific chord modifier sequences for power chords, I
think it
makes great sense to add them to the predefineds. If we do that,
then we
don't need to worry about adjusting minimumFret when transposing
(and the
predefined fretboard will automatically be transferred to the
tablature).
I'll do that first. But unfortunately it's not possible to define
different diagrams for the same pitches on different strings (unless
we use different octaves for the chords which leads to wrong octaves
in note mode.
My take is that predefined fretboards aren't really used in note
mode. I've
never seen a fret diagram used when the exact notes to be played
are shown
in the music below the fret diagram.
True, neither have I to be honest! But it might be useful from a
pedagogical point of view and there is one place in the docs where
this would make sense: A.3 Predefined fretboard diagrams. I'm always
irritated when I look at this chart because fretboard diagrams and
notation have got little in common. The standard notation shows the
root position of 3-voiced chords whereas the chords in the diagrams
include four to six voices and many inversions!
So I'm not particularly concerned
about this issue. At the same time, I don't feel strongly about going
forward with different voicings in different octaves. Any user who
wants to
can easily define their own predefined fretboards.
I see your point. On the other hand I would be willing and able to
contribute loads of predefined fretboards but it would be impossible
for me and other users to remember the octave that represents a
specific voicing. I'd rather prefer to be able to use string number
indications in the definition of fretboard diagrams (the way you
implemented it in the automatic fretboard calculation), something
like this:
\addChordShape #'a:dim_g-shape #guitar-tuning #"5-4;3-2;1-1;x;x;x;"
\addChordShape #'d:dim_c-shape #guitar-tuning #"x;5-4;3-2;1-1;x;x;"
\addChordShape #'fis:dim_e-shape #guitar-tuning #"x;x;4-4;2-2;1-1;x;"
\addChordShape #'b:dim_a-shape #guitar-tuning #"x;x;x;4-4;3-3;1-1;"
\storePredefinedDiagram <c\6 es ges>
#guitar-tuning
#(offset-fret 3 (chord-shape 'a:dim_g-shape
guitar-tuning))
\storePredefinedDiagram <c'\5 es' ges'>
#guitar-tuning
#(offset-fret 10 (chord-shape 'd:dim_c-shape
guitar-tuning))
\storePredefinedDiagram <c'\4 es' ges'>
#guitar-tuning
#(offset-fret 6 (chord-shape 'fis:dim_e-
shape guitar-tuning))
\storePredefinedDiagram <c'\3 es' ges'>
#guitar-tuning
#(offset-fret 1 (chord-shape 'b:dim_a-shape
guitar-tuning))
I think this would be useful as users could fall back on a growing
(WYMIWYG) chord library.
But I guess you would not second this proposition and it would
probably involve too much work to implement this feature. If I'm
wrong I'd be glad if you were willing to light the way for me...
So I don't think this is a good idea. I have some ideas
and questions concerning chord mode but I'll post them separately)
This means that I can only add a few diagrams to the predefineds,
e.g. maybe some sort of compromise: 3-voiced power chords on the 6th
string from e, to d and 2-voiced power chords on the 5th string from
a to g?
IF you don't think we ought to add power chords to the predefined
diagrams,
I'm fine with that. If you think that the set you proposed makes
sense to
add, I'm fine with that. You're much more of an expert on power
chords than
I am, so I'm perfectly willing to defer to your judgment. That's
why I said
"we should consider adding" the predefined fretboards, not "we
should add"
the predefined fretboards. Your choice -- do what you think is best.
To be honest I think at the moment it's a lot easier and much more
flexible to use the automatic fretboards for power chords on
different strings.
Is this of any use?
I think it's of great use!
Thank you very much for your help!
patrick
Thanks,
Carl