dim and half-diminished chord short hands
Hi, not a priority but how about adding "o7" in the glossary for dimished chords.
and the o with a slash accross for 1/2 dimished (m7b5).
thanks
James
Do you still have an unanswered question? Please log in first to post your question.
Comments
This has been solved, there is a customizable XML file available. See http://musescore.org/en/node/9772.
In reply to This has been solved by JoachimKruyswijk
FWIW, I plan to make available several different pre-configured versions of that file when 1.1 comes out to cover the most popular variations. The problem with everyone customizing their own version is that the customizations are lost when sharing scores between users or posting to musescore.com. So we're hoping people will find the pre-configured versions useful enough to not need to customize. Nothing wrong with creating your own customized versions for your own use, of course, but having the pre-configured versions will hopefully at least give you reasonable options to switch to before posting.
In reply to FWIW, I plan to make by Marc Sabatella
Marc.
Personally, I prefer to see "m7b5" written out as such.
-- J.S.
In reply to Personally, I prefer to see "m7b5" written out as such. by John Sprung
Me too. But everyone has their own quirks when it comes to chord symbols. I like my half diminished chords written as minor seventh flat five, but I prefer to abbreviate minor as "mi" rather than "m". That's consistent with the New Real Book, but the original RB used "-" for minor, which works for me too. I've seen too many charts using "m" where I couldn't tell if it was capital or lower case to want to go with that, though. Yet that's pretty common in the pop world, I admit. Luckily, stdchords.xml provides that method, and it won't be changing.
Anyhow, I know the handful of pre-configured options I chose cannot possibly fit everyone's needs, and I apologize in advance if anyone's favorite variation didn't make the list. I do think I picked a good set of choices, though. And remember, while we want to limit the number of pre-configured options we support, customization will remain possible. As I said, the customizations won't be shareable in scores made with 1.1, but it sounds like there's a good chance that will change in 2.0, if I'm understanding Werner correctly. Unfortunately, there's never any guarantees about what future versions hold, which is one reason I want to limit the number of pre-configred options. It's not out of the question that I'll have to redo these files for 2.0. That could also be a reason to just go with one of the pre-configured options unless you are completely married to a different system.