I wouldn't call the added 6th a colour note, rather Polyfiller to bridge the
gap when the maj7th ain't there.

..........................
Now, maybe.  But in many popular styles through the middle half of the last
century it was ubiquitous.  Rather as the add9 (or add6/9) has become in
today's pop ballads.

Adrian wrote:

>> Regarding more complex voicing, I have a simple rule:  4-part,
>> drop-2 blocks
>> in which the bottom note goes no lower than the D string.  Root and
>> 5th can
>> be added on the bottom two strings, if needed.

So maybe I'm missing the concept here Adrian. Sorry if I'm being
thick here.
The chord name Cmaj13(#11).

I need to  hear the third.  Using your formula, what are the notes?

The best guitar voicing I could think of  was (from the bottom) C
(unecessary)EABF#. And way too much thought to work it out.

Trying to learn,

Steven

Hi Listers!

Although I have expressed my thanks to all of you, individually, who
tried to help me with my HP 6.1 problem,
I want to tell you, collectively, how much I appreciate being on this
list of colleagues and friends.

One friend sent me a long, detailed list of directions.  Because,
after remembering that I am, "computer challenged,"
he called me on the phone to walk me through the entire list.  We
spent at least an hour in discussion and in
"watching paint dry."

As we proceeded, item-by-item, it became clear to both of us that I,
alone, would NEVER have been able to
follow all of the directions without a constant advisor.  There were
points where both of us wondered what
to do!  My friend and I took a deep breath before "the moment of
truth"; a key stabbed the computer and...
WE WON!

To say that I am grateful to you all, and especially to my
"supervisor," would be a gross understatement.  At last, I'm
back in business...and, at last, RELAXED.

Have a TERRIFIC week!


Walli

On Nov 9, 2009, at 9:01 AM, Steven Schuster wrote:

>
>> In the time it takes to edit them, it is just as quick to write them
>> yourself from scratch.
>
> I guess you are faster than I am, Adrian.

And when you wrote:

"Whenever I feel the need to include guitar playback I find it easy
to play
in simple notation, usually just 3rd and 7th are all that are needed in
conjunction with the bass part to provide a satisfactory background."

I agree totally, and I wish  real guitarists would use the same
minimalism and taste.  Usually they don't.


> Regarding more complex voicing, I have a simple rule:  4-part,
> drop-2 blocks
> in which the bottom note goes no lower than the D string.  Root and
> 5th can
> be added on the bottom two strings, if needed.  God knows what rule
> the
> plug-in uses.

A good general purpose solution I'd guess.  Is it congruent with the
way a guitar is laid out? The time necessary for me to visualize
fingers on a fret board is too great for the quick sketches I use the
plug in for.  Mysterious instrument.
I just assume that the plug-in solutions are at least possible though
not necessarily desirable on a guitar.

>>
>>
>>> I tried "explode" at your suggestion, having no problem with
>>> letting the computer make such relatively mechanical decisions.  It
>>> too needed editing, and didn't save time for me.
>>
>>
>> You don't have to let Sibelius make *any* decisions about note
>> distribution.
>> When I use Explode I alone make all the decisions on what goes
>> where.

I realize this.  Am I wrong in thinking you use this as way of
converting midi-ed in grand staff stuff?

>>   I use Sib
>> as a
>> tool, not a crutch.


I too.  Sometimes I am a mason building a wall to get rid of field
stones, and sometimes I am (delusionally) building Chartes
cathedral.  Same tools, different degrees of time commitment, care,
and use of tools.

Steven

>>
>> A.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------
>>
>> Sponsored by Kelly's Music & Computers - http://
>> kellysmusic.netYahoo! Groups Links
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Sponsored by Kelly's Music & Computers - http://
> kellysmusic.netYahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

At 5:14 PM +0000 11/9/09, Adrian Drover wrote:
>From: Laurence Payne
>>
>Or, very often, just stay there as a colour note with no harmonic function
>or feeling of tension.  Like the added 6th did for much of the last century.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>
>
>I wouldn't call the added 6th a colour note, rather Polyfiller to bridge the
>gap when the maj7th ain't there.

Not at mid-century, roughly 1930s-60s.  It was the default tonic
chord and the default subdominant chord.  Uninflected triads were
pretty rare.  Moreso in vocal group voicings than in big band, of
course.  Passing chords leaned heavily on minor 7ths and diminished
7ths, unless the style was deliberately parallel voicings.  The Four
Freshmen and Hi-Los were really the first vocal groups to exploit
major 7ths (1950s).  The preceding big band vocal groups, not nearly
as much.  Country and traditional were basically triadic, of course,
and still are.

John


--
John R. Howell, Assoc. Prof. of Music
Virginia Tech Department of Music
College of Liberal Arts & Human Sciences
Blacksburg, Virginia, U.S.A. 24061-0240
Vox (540) 231-8411  Fax (540) 231-5034
(mailto:John.Howell@...)
http://www.music.vt.edu/faculty/howell/howell.html

"We never play anything the same way once."  Shelly Manne's definition
of jazz musicians.

From: Laurence Payne
>
Or, very often, just stay there as a colour note with no harmonic function
or feeling of tension.  Like the added 6th did for much of the last century.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>


I wouldn't call the added 6th a colour note, rather Polyfiller to bridge the
gap when the maj7th ain't there.

A.

> From: Nigel Stanley
>
> And generating good playable guitar voicings for every possible jazz
> chord is no trivial task - especially for a plug in.


4-part, drop-2 blocks in which the bottom note is playable on the D string,
extensions on the two top strings, 3rd & 7th on the middle strings, added
root and 5th on the two lowest strings if required (usually not when they
get in the way of the walking bass part).  Eazy-peazy.  In fact I learned
that out of curiosity from investigating Sib's guitar TAB staves to see how
the fingers lie on the fretboard.

A.

On Nov 9, 2009, at 8:57 AM, Laurence Payne wrote:
> Sure, if you’re thinking pile-of-thirds dominant 7th chord
> extensions.  But most of the world didn’t do a jazz course at
> Berklee J
>
> In real life Bb11 very often means Eb/Bb, Fm7/Bb or just plain
> Bb7sus4.
>

Or, apparently, Ab/Bb

2009/11/9 Paul Clark <pclark@...>:
>
> On Nov 9, 2009, at 10:13 AM, John Howell wrote:
>>  Isn't the usual
>> rule of thumb #11 for a major chord, lowered 11
>> for a minor chord?  A #11 chord is actually a II
>> major triad over a I7.)
>
> Yes - but some think the 5th shouldn't be used.
> Think it depends on where you put it.
> Paul
>

I think using 11 on a chord should be discouraged. It's ambiguous
(otherwise we wouldn't be trading emails about what it means). It's
most common use I suspect is as 7(sus) - so write that.




--
Nigel Stanley

On Nov 9, 2009, at 8:44 AM, Adrian Drover wrote:

>
>
>> From: Steven Schuster
>>
>> I don't feel I need any excuses for using what is useful to me.  I
>> realize it is not useful for you.  It might be useful to someone
>> else.
>
>
> Steven, the results I have seen from the chord realization plug-in
> are only
> useful to someone who doesn't give a shit whether or not they sound
> right.
> In the time it takes to edit them, it is just as quick to write them
> yourself from scratch.

I guess you are faster than I am, Adrian.

You have developed
>
>
>> I'm enjoying
>> being able to work out of my head, not my fingers. I even feel
>> embarrassed at having to occasionally use my piano when imagination
>> fails.
>
>
> I write all my charts by ear.  In fact I do most of my sketching
> away from
> the computer and piano with pencil on paper.  I only use the keyboard
> because it is a quick and convenient way of transferring notes from
> my head
> to the score.
>
>
>> I tried "explode" at your suggestion, having no problem with
>> letting the computer make such relatively mechanical decisions.  It
>> too needed editing, and didn't save time for me.
>
>
> You don't have to let Sibelius make *any* decisions about note
> distribution.
> When I use Explode I alone make all the decisions on what goes
> where.  That
> is why I have spent much valuable time in the past editing the
> restrictive
> ranges Sib imposes on its instruments.  Once you have everything
> set up
> correctly and saved in your template, Explode will deliver the
> notes you
> want to the staves you want.  It's a pity that the manual doesn't
> tell you
> that instead of telling everyone that it has built in
> intelligence.  It has
> the intelligence of the aforementioned deaf chimpanzee.  I use Sib
> as a
> tool, not a crutch.
>
> A.
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Sponsored by Kelly's Music & Computers - http://
> kellysmusic.netYahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

> From: Steven Schuster
>
> I don't feel I need any excuses for using what is useful to me.  I
> realize it is not useful for you.  It might be useful to someone
> else.


Steven, the results I have seen from the chord realization plug-in are only
useful to someone who doesn't give a shit whether or not they sound right.
In the time it takes to edit them, it is just as quick to write them
yourself from scratch.


> I'm enjoying
> being able to work out of my head, not my fingers. I even feel
> embarrassed at having to occasionally use my piano when imagination
> fails.


I write all my charts by ear.  In fact I do most of my sketching away from
the computer and piano with pencil on paper.  I only use the keyboard
because it is a quick and convenient way of transferring notes from my head
to the score.


> I tried "explode" at your suggestion, having no problem with
> letting the computer make such relatively mechanical decisions.  It
> too needed editing, and didn't save time for me.


You don't have to let Sibelius make *any* decisions about note distribution.
When I use Explode I alone make all the decisions on what goes where.  That
is why I have spent much valuable time in the past editing the restrictive
ranges Sib imposes on its instruments.  Once you have everything set up
correctly and saved in your template, Explode will deliver the notes you
want to the staves you want.  It's a pity that the manual doesn't tell you
that instead of telling everyone that it has built in intelligence.  It has
the intelligence of the aforementioned deaf chimpanzee.  I use Sib as a
tool, not a crutch.

A.

On Nov 9, 2009, at 10:13 AM, John Howell wrote:
>  Isn't the usual
> rule of thumb #11 for a major chord, lowered 11
> for a minor chord?  A #11 chord is actually a II
> major triad over a I7.)

Yes - but some think the 5th shouldn't be used.
Think it depends on where you put it.
Paul

At 11:15 AM +0000 11/9/09, Laurence Payne wrote:
>Now, shall we investigate figured bass, 17th
>century ornamentation and when to play notes
>inégales?

Oh goody!  Sure; let's!!  Although there's a lot
more available on 16th and 18th century
ornamentation than on 17th.

(I wondered about the Bb11, too.  Isn't the usual
rule of thumb #11 for a major chord, lowered 11
for a minor chord?  A #11 chord is actually a II
major triad over a I7.)

John


--
John R. Howell, Assoc. Prof. of Music
Virginia Tech Department of Music
College of Liberal Arts & Human Sciences
Blacksburg, Virginia, U.S.A. 24061-0240
Vox (540) 231-8411  Fax (540) 231-5034
(mailto:John.Howell@...)
http://www.music.vt.edu/faculty/howell/howell.html

"We never play anything the same way once."  Shelly Manne's definition
of jazz musicians.

On Nov 9, 2009, at 12:13 AM, Adrian Drover wrote:

>
>
>> From: Steven Schuster
>>
>> Patronize away mon frer.
>> It's a quick workaround.  Useful for me.  Not for you.
>
>
> I wasn't patronizing at all, Steven.  You yourself admitted that your
> editing sounded like crap.
Actually I meant the parts were crap.  My edits sounding pretty much
like the non edited parts, which sound like crap.  If I spent
(wasted) more time making my edited material sound better than the
untouched stuff, it would have called attention to itself.  I just
put in similar bad voicings (but the right chords) so they wouldn't
stand out from the offal around them. The render chords plugins
(sounds presciently like a meatpacking metaphor, I admit)
aren't renderings of the parts, nor intended to be, just a harmonic
pad to hear other parts against.
> I was just pointing out *why* it sounded like
> crap, but I'm sure you know that.  Others may not.  I realize that
> you have
> limited hardware for the input of notated chords, but that's hardly an
> excuse for making do.
I don't feel I need any excuses for using what is useful to me.  I
realize it is not useful for you.  It might be useful to someone
else.  I actually have the hardware to input by midi if I were to
chose to do it that way (and learn Sibelius' process of doing so).
It would mean working in one location, in my house. I'm enjoying
being able to work out of my head, not my fingers. I even feel
embarrassed at having to occasionally use my piano when imagination
fails.

> Regarding the realization plug-in, I wouldn't touch
> it with a barge pole.  It's absolutely dreadful.  Voicing from
> hell.  Are
> these chords computer generated or thought up by a deaf chimpanzee?
How do you really feel?

To understand why some plugins are valuable to some, and not to
others:  I would suggest that the arrange-explode plugins are
absolutely useless to me, using the way I enter music.  It is no
easier to put music on a grand staff and then assign that staff's
notes to multiple staves than to do it on all staves at the same
time.  I tried "explode" at your suggestion, having no problem with
letting the computer make such relatively mechanical decisions.  It
too needed editing, and didn't save time for me.  Not the plugins
fault that I have no use for it. If I inputted by midi, I'm pretty
sure it would have value for me.  I'm also pretty sure that I'd have
to override some of its decisions.

Steven
>
> A.
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Sponsored by Kelly's Music & Computers - http://
> kellysmusic.netYahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

This is one of those "horses for courses" discussions.

Sometimes the plug-in is useful  It's good when I'm doing a ska chart
and just want simple chords on every 'and'.

But it's not compulsory.

And generating good playable guitar voicings for every possible jazz
chord is no trivial task - especially for a plug in.

I wouldn't use if for more demanding jazz - where I might do it myself
or use Band in a Box to generate a rhythm section part if it's mostly
left to the rhythm section rather than written out by note.

2009/11/9 Steven Schuster <realityschuster@...>:
>>
>> It would take me less than one minute to play much nicer sounding
>> guitar
>> voicings into the score.
> Inputting off a keypadless keyboard?
>>
>>
>>> It sounds like crap, but
>>> it does give me the basic sounds of an accompaniment.
>>
>>
>> The reason it sounds like crap, Steven, is because you still have
>> some very
>> muddy voicings even after editing the plug-in mess.  I suppose you
>> know that
>> these chords sound an octave lower than the written part.
>
> Patronize away mon frer.
>
> It's a quick workaround.  Useful for me.  Not for you.
>
> Steven
>>
>> A.
>>
>>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Sponsored by Kelly's Music & Computers - http://kellysmusic.netYahoo! Groups
Links
>
>
>
>



--
Nigel Stanley

From: Laurence Payne
>
And there's an orangeorilla plugin available from Sibelius Australia.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>


I think that's the Skippy plug-in, tho' you may be right, Laurence, some of
those realizations do look as if they're upside-down.

A.

From: Laurence Payne
>
Now, shall we investigate figured bass, 17th century ornamentation and when
to play notes inégales? 


Would that be Julio Inégales?

A.

> From: Gerhard Torges
>
> I simply don't understand why a A9 is any different from an A2,

I would say that the 2nd is a suspension, could resolve downward to the root
(intro to Bacharach's "Close to You") or upward to the 3rd (motif from
Bernstein's "Somewhere"), whereas the 9th is a chord extension (ideally
progressing smoothly to the 5th or 13th in the next chord of a cycle).


> why the 3rd shoukd be omitted in Bb11 etc. etc.


Because the 11th in a dominant chord functions as a suspended 4th.  It's not
normal practice to have suspension and resolution sounding simultaneously.

A.

Daniel,

Good morning. I've resent the email. The Yahoo list is making me send the emails
through Yahoo's form rather than through my mail client. It is also changing
your email address to appear as <daniel.spreadbury@...> so I can't see your full
email address. I believe this is to prevent spam. If you don't receive the email
this time please let me know the domain name following the @ in your email and
I'll try to email you directly. Thanks.

--- In sibelius-list@yahoogroups.com, Daniel Spreadbury <daniel.spreadbury@...>
wrote:
>
>
> I've not received this email yet.  Would you like to re-send?
>
> --
> Daniel Spreadbury
> Senior Product Manager | Sibelius R & D
>
> Avid
> Unit 20-23 City North
> Fonthill Road
> London N4 3HF
> United Kingdom
> daniel.spreadbury@...

Hello Adrian!

Am 08.11.2009 um 14:13 schrieb Adrian Drover:

> It didn't recognize any "7b9" type chord which I believe is Sib's
> recommended way of typing it.
> The Am9 is badly voiced.
> The Gmaj7 unbelievably has the 9th on the 5th string (just a 2nd
> apart from
> the root on the 6th string).
> The Fmaj7 has the 3rd in a very muddy 5th string register.
> It fails to omit the 3rd in a Dom11th (Bb11) chord.
> In the Am7b5 the b5 is in the muddy 5th string register.
> A rather muddy E+7 voicing, barely passable.

Would you enlighten me about all the mystery of jazz voicings?
I simply don't understand why a A9 is any different from an A2, why
the 3rd shoukd be omitted in Bb11 etc. etc.

Regards,


Gerhard

Adrian Drover wrote:
> Are these chords computer generated or thought up by a deaf chimpanzee?

Yet another undocumented preference.
--
Frank Wales [frank@...]

> From: Steven Schuster
>
> Patronize away mon frer.
> It's a quick workaround.  Useful for me.  Not for you.


I wasn't patronizing at all, Steven.  You yourself admitted that your
editing sounded like crap.  I was just pointing out *why* it sounded like
crap, but I'm sure you know that.  Others may not.  I realize that you have
limited hardware for the input of notated chords, but that's hardly an
excuse for making do.  Regarding the realization plug-in, I wouldn't touch
it with a barge pole.  It's absolutely dreadful.  Voicing from hell.  Are
these chords computer generated or thought up by a deaf chimpanzee?

A.

>
> It would take me less than one minute to play much nicer sounding
> guitar
> voicings into the score.
Inputting off a keypadless keyboard?
>
>
>> It sounds like crap, but
>> it does give me the basic sounds of an accompaniment.
>
>
> The reason it sounds like crap, Steven, is because you still have
> some very
> muddy voicings even after editing the plug-in mess.  I suppose you
> know that
> these chords sound an octave lower than the written part.

Patronize away mon frer.

It's a quick workaround.  Useful for me.  Not for you.

Steven
>
> A.
>
>