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

[Carl Sorensen <c_sorensen@xxxxxxx>]

On 11/19/10 6:48 AM, "Patrick Schmidt" <p.l.schmidt@xxxxxx> wrote:

> 
> Am 19.11.2010 um 01:19 schrieb Carl Sorensen:
> Carl,
> 
> I hope I'm not getting on your nerves. As you said: we agree on the important
> bits. I just would like to make sure to understand some (probably) less
> important details...

It never gets on my nerves to have people asking questions and contributing
to LilyPond.  I appreciate your thoughtful input.

> [snip]
> 
>>>> 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.
>>>  
>> 
>> Currently you get a three-voiced chord in Staff contexts, but if you are
>> using predefined diagrams you get a voicing that corresponds to the
>> predefined diagram table in the TabStaff.
> I didn't understand the last sentence.

I hope you did by the time you got to the end of the email.  Using
predefined fretboards in a TabStaff will get you the tablature that
corresponds to the fretboard.

> 
> \score {
>     <<
>       \new ChordNames {
>        \chordmode{c1}
>       }
>       \new FretBoards {
>         \predefinedFretboardsOff
>         \chordmode{c1}
>       }
>       \new Staff <<
>         \clef "treble_8"
>         \chordmode{c1}
>>> 
>       \new TabStaff  <<
>         \chordmode{c1}
>>> 
>>> 
> }
> 
> This results in three-note chords in all contexts. Everything is
> fine/consistent/logical.
> 
> \score {
>     <<
>       \new ChordNames {
>        \chordmode{c1}
>       }
>       \new FretBoards {
>         \set predefinedDiagramTable = #xyz
>         \chordmode{c1}
>       }
>       \new Staff <<
>         \clef "treble_8"
>         \chordmode{c1}
>>> 
>       \new TabStaff  <<
>         \chordmode{c1}
>>> 
>>> 
> }
> 
> This results in three-note voicings in Staff and TabStaff and possibly a
> different voicing in the fretboard diagram depending on the definition in the
> predefined diagram table. I can't see any correspondence to what's going on in
> the TabStaff. Hold on, all of this would make sense if it were possible to use
> \set predefinedDiagramTable in a TabStaff to change tablature according to the
> definitions in the predefined diagram table. That would be brilliant and it
> would cure my brain hiccup! Blame me for not having tested your latest bug
> fix! ;-)

So you see how it works now, right?

[snip]

>>>> 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).
>>>  
>> 
>> Well, this is what the Brandt-Roemer chord naming scheme requests.  Doubled
>> pitches are supposed to be included in the chord name.
> Ok, I didn't know that. I don't have this book. I'm pretty sure that I have
> never ever seen a symbol like C add8 or C add10 in any real book or song book.
> Not even Sammy Nestico uses it even though he sticks to the chord naming
> scheme of Brandt-Roemer.

Oh, that was my mistake.  It's the Banter style that uses the add8 notation..

I've found a couple of occurrences of pitch doubling in Chapter 10 (Compound
Chords) of Brandt and Roemer; they're just labeled with the primary chord
name.

>>>> 
>>>> 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!
>>>  
>> 
>> Well, I'll see if I can make that work.  If we can get the Staff to go along
>> with the FretBoards and the TabStaff, then we won't disagree about much of
>> anything of substance.  If that funcionality works, you can use your
>> chordmode definitions that list each pitch and create custom tables.  I can
>> create custom tables that are listed by basic chords, and we can both be
>> happy.
> That would be brilliant!;-)

I'm not sure yet how to do it in specific, but maybe I can give it a try
over the Thanksgiving holiday or the Christmas holiday.

> 
> [snip]
>>  
>>>  If it is a pain to define chords in chordmode than this
>>> should be made easier. I see some room for improvements...
>>> 
> e.g. be able to choose the number of notes a voicing should contain in
> combination with the possibility to indicate the top note of a chord. This way
> the same chord symbols could be used for chords containing doubled notes and
> it would further reduce the need to list each pitch that should be part of a
> chord as there are certain rules concerning e.g. four-voiced chords (e.g. a
> ninth replaces the root; a thirteenth replaces the fifthS).
> 
> I could imagine something like that:
> 
> <pseudo code>
> \set voicing = #3 %three-note chord (default)
> c                            %meaning: <c e g>
> c;5                         % ""
> c;10                       %meaning: <c g e'>
> c;6                         %meaning: <c e a>
> \set voicing = #4 %four-note chord
> c                            %meaning: <c e g c'>
> c;8                         % ""
> c;10                       %meaning: <c g c' e'>
> c;12                       %meaning: <c c' e' g'>
> c:7;8                      %meaning: <c g bes c'>
> c:7;10                    %meaning: <c g bes e'>
> c:9;12/e                 %meaning: <e bes d' g'>
> S
> </pseudo code>
> 
> (it's just an ideaS)
> 

I can see this as an idea.  I'm not planning on going into this kind of
modification right now, at least.  But I'd be willing to have somebody else
do this if they want to.

This should probably be deferred to the GLISS discussion (Grand LilyPond
Input Syntax Survey) after 2.14 is out.


> [snip]
> 
> So if you think that my files might be useful for someone else I'll continue
> adding some diagrams but it might take a while until the files are ready to be
> presented on rietveld.

Well, if they're useful for you, they'll be useful for somebody like you.
Go ahead and work on them as you get the chance.

Thanks,

Carl