Talk:Chord symbol

Heading

Wahoofive, are you able to change the heading "Pop chord symbols" to reflect the "naming conventions first, then analytical tools" layout on Interval (music). Hyacinth 17:21, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean. Do you want the page reorganized somehow, or do you just want the phrase "pop chord symbol" replaced with something that doesn't imply what kind of music it describes? If the latter, I haven't been able to think of anything so far. That's what we called them when I was teaching music theory, even when we were using them for Classical music. Anyway, the pop chords are arguably more descriptive and the Roman numerals more analytical, so we're still following the general order of Interval (music). There aren't any really serious analytical tools on this page, since it's about symbols only, as opposed to Chord (music) (a page that's on my list for serious reorganization) and diatonic function (which is pretty impenetrable). —Wahoofive | Talk 22:41, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

German

(moved from User talk:Woodstone) Thank you for your changes to Chord symbol. The only beef I have is the inclusion of the German H. I've never seen a chord symbol like Hm7. However, Note (music) should describe this, as well as "Es" for E-flat, "Fis" for F-sharp, and so on. —Wahoofive | Talk 23:02, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

In some German music sheets you can indeed see Hm, H7 etc. I double checked in my library. I also found some examples with mixed mode: H (for B), but still Bb. I will add the Bes and Fis notation.−Woodstone 16:21, 2005 Apr 11 (UTC)

Flats

I don't know how to get rid of the extra space surrounding the flat sign. That's why I've continued to use b and #. —Wahoofive | Talk 17:35, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

How about italic b, like in Bb, so we get B# and Bb instead of Bb ? −Woodstone 18:42, 2005 Apr 11 (UTC)

Looks good to me. —Wahoofive | Talk 21:19, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Spacing in relative measures

The latest few edits have been replacing relative measures (%) by absolute ones (px). This is a bad idea, since it does not scale for users that have other font and/or screen sizes. Please use only relative measures like %, em, ex. −Woodstone 21:19, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yup good point I've changed it now Andeggs 13:50, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Integrating this page with chord (music)

Why is this page seperate from Chord (music)? It seems to me like the two topics naturally fit together and would not create an overly-long page. Many beginners know a few chord symbols but don't understand how chords are created or fit with one another. One page describing all this would be helpful. Any thoughts?Andeggs 13:35, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd vote to keep them separate. If we combine them we'll just end up splitting them again in six months or a year when the combined article gets too large. It's a big topic, especially since "chords" could go far beyond anything notated by these symbols: see Polychord, Quartal and quintal harmony, etc. —Wahoofive (talk) 18:03, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First off, I am happy to abide by what is agreed here. I do want to say however that the Chord (music) page needs a big shake-up. At the moment the wikipage of one of the foundational concepts of music is practically impenetrable to the beginner. It seems ludicrous that the triads and sevenths, for example, are listed here but not in the triad section of the chord page. One solution of course is to repeat the material on the two pages - but since 'chord symbol' really only requires one column in these tables - can't we just merge? To reiterate, I am happy to go along with the consensus - but I think these two pages could be much better and we need some debate on it. Tara Andeggs 22:13, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]