Re: [tablatures] Re: \set predefinedDiagramTable in a TabStaff

[ Thread Index | Date Index | More lilynet.net/tablatures Archives ] 


Am 18.11.2010 um 16:38 schrieb Carl Sorensen:





On 11/18/10 3:19 AM, "Patrick Schmidt" <p.l.schmidt@xxxxxx> wrote:




Am 18.11.2010 um 05:36 schrieb Carl Sorensen:


I also wanted to show how I use your new
function of different predefined diagram tables. BTW I have defined
loads of "custom" chord shapes (not attached). Is there any chance
that these predefined-diagram-table-files could become part of the
LilyPond-package one day. They might reduce the need to define chord 
diagrams including fingering and barre indications for other users.


I've looked at your definitions, and they seem to me to be very
interesting.
I think they're also more complicated than I'd like them to be.

I've attached a revised version of your files that shows how I
think it
ought to work.  Of course it doesn't work now, because the notes in
the
regular staff don't match either the fretboard or the tablature.

You seem to have forgotten to attach your revised version?!
Oh, I hate it when I do that. It must be my advancing age (or maybe I'm 
just an absent-minded professor).

;-)




I think it should be possible to modify the note-head-engraver so
that it
does the same thing the tablature engraver does, that is, if there's a 
predefined fretboard for the chord in chordmode, it replaces the
notes that
came from the chord parser with the notes from the fretboard.  It
might be
difficult to do well, because of enharmonic spellings.  But it
would be
really nice in my opinion if we could just call it a C chord, and
let the
predefined fretboard in the desired table spit out the notes that
we need.

What do you think?

Hm, on the one hand this sounds very user-friendly. On the other hand
I am having difficulties to imagine how  LilyPond could possibly
choose the desired fretboard diagram from various alternatives. Most
chords (with the same pitches) can be fretted in at least two
(sometimes even three) different ways on the guitar, e.g.:

Chords = \chordmode {
   \set minimumFret = #2
   e,1:1.5.8.10
   \set minimumFret = #7
   e,1:1.5.8.10
   \set minimumFret = #12
   e,1:1.5.8.10
}

When I use fretboard diagrams I normally prefer to choose a specific
chord shape (in this case either a d-, a- or e-shape). My definitions
are based on the CAGED-system as all chords on the guitar can be
derived from these five chord shapes. I admit that in some cases it's
not always easy to "see" the underlying chord shape. So in the worst
case my definitions might result in someone having to try out up to
five chord shape commands to get the desired fret diagram. In the
best case the definitions could be useful for users being familiar
with the CAGED-system. [Of course this would mean brainless diligence
for me. I have already defined c-shape-diagrams for powerchords, the
four basic triads (in closed and open position, as well as inversions
with three to six notes) and diagrams for the ten seventh chords. The
c-shape-file is not finished, yet. I could add lots of alterations
and I would still have to define all these chords for the other chord
shapes as well.]
Right, but if you choose an a-shape C chord, it will be a five-note chord 
with a certain set of pitches.
Well, I totally disagree here. It can also be a four-note (e.g. c: 1.5.8.10) or a three-note chord (e.g. c:3.5.8^1). But when you enter \chordmode {c} you get a three-voiced chord in both Staff- and TabStaff-contexts. In my opinion it is neither logical nor desirable to get a five-note chord (or sometimes a four- or six-note chord) in a FretBoard-context with the same command. So if the default for \chordmode {c} is a three-note chord I believe LilyPond should produce a three-note chord in *all* contexts. The reason why I started to work on my CAGED-files was to be able to choose an exact fret board via \chordmode or via the simultaneous pitches method of entering chords. A while ago we talked about that and you argued that you had never seen a piano?-edition using exactly the same pitches for both the chords in a Staff and the fretboard diagrams. I'd agree here but on the other hand I have rarely seen a piano edition with convincing guitar chords. Sometimes I get the impression that the fretboards are chosen by accident in certain editions. In many cases five to six-voiced chords sound too heavy and would interfere with the piano voice. Very often it is more convincing to play three- to four-voiced chords even for seventh/extended and/or altered chords. I use exact chord diagrams when I want to show how a melody can be harmonized or to make it easier to read/remember an arpeggio study. So I don't see my CAGED-files as a substitution for the existing fretboard-files but as an alternative. If someone is not too fussy about chord diagrams than the existing predefined fret diagrams are a good start. The others could use the CAGED-files or would have to define their chord diagrams themselves. 
It's a pain to have to list all the pitches
(and remember them) when you're working on a particular chord.
I totally agree even though we are probably not of the same opinion ;-). I think the current \chordmode method is unnecessarily complicated. But on the other hand it allows to define even complex chords. Unfortunately even simple four- or five-note chords look very difficult. But then again it's possible to use different definitions for the same chord (e.g c:1.3.5.8.10 or c:8.10^7). 
Plus, the
set of pitches will mess up the chord namer.
Well, the chord namer is broken, anyway. In my opinion for example all basic triads in which three or more notes are sounded together should result in the same chord name no matter which of the three notes are doubled. But currently even a simple chord such as "c:8^7" produces a weird chord name (C add8). 

If we could make it go:

\aShape
c1
\cShape
c1
\gShape
c1
and have the ChordNames context produce "C", the FretBoards context produce the desired fret diagram, the Staff produce the pitches that correspond to the fret diagram, and the TabStaff produce the tablature that corresponds to 
the fret diagram, I think that would be the ideal.

I agree!
Right now, as you can see in my revised example (which *is* attached this time), we have that behavior for the ChordNames, the FretBoards, and the 
TabStaff.
I *think* that this behavior could be added to the Staff, but there may be some difficulties with getting the right enharmonic spelling. And before I 
jump into doing it, I'd like to see if it makes sense to you.
Hm, I see what you mean. I thought about it before I started to work on the CAGED-files but I just didn't like the idea that \chordmode{c} would represent four-note-chords as well as five- and six-note chords apart from the fact that it currently represents a three-note chord which is quite handy for the right hand of a piano voice. If \chordmode{c} represents for example a six-note chord it's not possible anymore to define a three-note voicing of the same chord (well, at least not in the same octave of pitches). Personally I prefer to list all the pitches I would like to have in a chord (what you mean is what you get). This ensures that I always get the correct voicing. If it is a pain to define chords in chordmode than this should be made easier. I see some room for improvements... 

Shrug

Maybe some sort of compromise???

Thanks

patrick


Thanks,

Carl

<fretboards-alternate-tables-cds.zip>

Mail converted by MHonArc 2.6.19+ http://listengine.tuxfamily.org/