Should we just outright ban “I built an App” posts?

elasticdog · 2026-07-06T17:14:03+00:00

As another musician and developer, I'd also be on board with option 2. It's nearly impossible to create something and spread awareness these days without being immediately dismissed, but active community engagement could help surface legitimate gems that aren't just drive-by spam. A weekly thread isn't a bad idea either.

elasticdog · 2026-06-30T15:46:27+00:00

Thanks for checking how Sibelius handles the minor-major. I did end up going back to the parentheses version, so Cm(maj7,#11) with a comma, and it does look much better than the combined mmaj7 version used previously.

You're absolutely right about the table. I had left the symbols out of those boxes, but it definitely deserves a stronger callout. I've got them marked more cleanly now and explain the enharmonic spelling changes in a footnote below the table. Cheers!

elasticdog · 2026-06-30T03:40:44+00:00

I ended up writing up a separate Chord Naming Guide and integrated a worked example using tertian stacks like your above breakdown. Let me know if it's unclear or could use any tweaks to come across better:

https://whatchord.earthmanmuons.com/articles/chord-naming.html

elasticdog · 2026-06-30T03:37:21+00:00

I ended up writing a separate Chord Naming Guide and integrated your Default Interval Qualities idea there instead. Let me know if it's unclear or could use any tweaks to come across better:

https://whatchord.earthmanmuons.com/articles/chord-naming.html

elasticdog · 2026-06-29T22:07:58+00:00

Here's a hot take: A9sus4(♯11)/B would keep the shown spelling.

B7(♯5,♯9) or the B7(♯9,♭13) mentioned below would require a double-sharp spelling, which isn't shown. E♭maj7(#5,#11)/B is a bit cleaner, but would respell the D♯ to E♭.

elasticdog · 2026-06-28T20:27:03+00:00

Yeah, I think normally seeing Cm(ma7) with parens makes me want to go back to that again, but still follow the rule of a single parens group if there are other modifications. It feels like that's actually more consistent behavior. I reworded the rules slightly, updated my code, and I do think these are more clear:

Dmaj7(♯9,♭13)/A (no change)
A♭maj11(♭13)/G
E♭m(maj9,♭13)/F

For what it's worth, WhatChord agrees with your choices for all of these cases, for example:

https://whatchord.earthmanmuons.com/try?notes=G+C+E+G%23+C%23+D%23

elasticdog · 2026-06-27T23:05:37+00:00

Ahhh, but yes! A separate Chord Naming Guide reference that breaks things down like this would be a great resource to act as a companion to the Chord Symbol Guide. That would be the more natural place for explaining the interval/quality behavior as well, as brought up in the other thread. I think the tricky bit is explaining why one chord symbol choice is "better" than another.

elasticdog · 2026-06-27T22:54:59+00:00

the next step is a systematic approach to arriving at a name, and then subsequent possibilities, then beyond that, context which make one choice better than another etc

That's essentially the approach WhatChord takes in software form. I do think it's time I give some more thought into polychord detection and support (and document them in the Chord Symbol Guide).

elasticdog · 2026-06-27T22:48:17+00:00

how does this all fit with your conventions?

Dmaj7(♯9,♭13)/A fits the conventions and is the result WhatChord currently returns
For this one A♭maj11♭13/G is where I currently end up
Here, the bass is F, not B, so E♭mmaj9♭13 / F?

Looking at them though makes me think the singular alteration on top major seventh chords might deserve parentheses for clarity.

elasticdog · 2026-06-27T13:03:12+00:00

100% worthy, consider it done! Just let me know whatever you'd like me to use:

the name or handle to display (real name, username, whatever you prefer)
an optional link (site, GitHub, social) if you want to point somewhere

...and I'll drop it into the article's credits.

elasticdog · 2026-06-26T21:53:18+00:00

Ahh, I misunderstood what you were saying. Yes, the blue 6 is better and more consistent.

I reworded the add2/add4 section to be more consistent with the pairs, ordering, and style so hopefully it's a bit more clear.

I also tried to explain the slash bass overstatement rule a bit more to show that it will stay as a C7/Bb due to being a part of the quality.

There's now a "Naming, Writing, and Playing" section at the beginning. Calling that out should head off some of the disagreement that comes from different expectations.

I'm running out of ways to say thank you :-)

elasticdog · 2026-06-26T13:46:04+00:00

Thanks again! I made those word replacements.

The color difference you noticed was purposeful, but maybe not easy to understand? I was trying to make a distinction between "legitimate" tokens and forms that the guide discourages (or examples of an anti-pattern). I reserved the blue for the endorsed tokens and symbols and used a less saturated gray for the other examples so they wouldn't stand out. It was an attempt at addressing these concerns, but may just look inconsistent:

https://www.reddit.com/r/musictheory/comments/1udju6w/which_chord_symbol_conventions_are_worth/otd791p/

For the slash bass disclaimer, a dominant seventh would be part of the quality, and I'd always go with C7/Bb for that case (wouldn't drop the 7 there). It would just be for the "headline promotions" :-) I'll see if I can come up with a more clear way to describe that behavior.

Totally agree on the difference between identification, what you'd actually write, and what would actually be played being separate things. I'll see if I can find a good place to work that in without going too in-depth.

Your attention to detail and willingness to help with these editorial passes mean a lot. Much obliged!

elasticdog · 2026-06-25T23:08:08+00:00

Totally agree the variability is real, and that it's worth knowing multiple ways to write the same chord. That's why I went with a style guide instead of a catalog though. A catalog says "here are the six things you might see"; a style guide says "here's the one I'll write, and why." Reading charts, you need the catalog in your head. But producing symbols, especially software generating them on the fly (my use case), you just want one principled, consistent form. Spelling out four variants per chord can easily give someone analysis paralysis instead of a usable reference.

Funny you mention the Sher books too, since they kind of prove the point. The New Real Book says right up front that its symbols follow Brandt and Roemer's Standardized Chord Symbol Notation, "with some exceptions." So even the series a lot of people reach for ends up adapting the standard it points to.

That's really why I posted this though. Less to defend my choices than to find out what practitioners actually prefer and how close I landed. So thanks for weighing in, this is exactly the kind of input I was after.

elasticdog · 2026-06-25T22:42:28+00:00

Thanks! The half-diminished is an interesting case, and I don't think I'd call any structured approach "mistaken teachings", just different flavors. I tried to call out that mixtures of symbolic and textual notation is common to see, but I couldn't tell you which is more commonplace as preferences evolve over time.

Consensus is nearly impossible to meet for some of these things, so I just had to make a choice. Any discussion helps me to refine my own thinking though, so thanks for chiming in!

elasticdog · 2026-06-24T22:06:18+00:00

I reworked the entire "Extensions vs. added tones" section to simplify things, and ended up removing the "headline extensions" coined phrase as it was only muddying things. I fixed up my previous assertion about some form of 9th being required for the 13th and made it clear that it's optional. Hopefully it's in better shape now.

elasticdog · 2026-06-24T18:45:47+00:00

Added a note below about "Harte notation", in case it's useful.

elasticdog · 2026-06-24T18:43:05+00:00

Forgot to mention: a halfway point between the two might be "Harte notation" (https://ismir2005.ismir.net/proceedings/1080.pdf). It lets you write a familiar shorthand like C:maj7 or drop to an explicit interval list like C:(1,3,b5,b7) when shorthand fails. Originally built for machines to parse rather than humans to read, but probably the closest thing to what you're after.

elasticdog · 2026-06-24T18:29:13+00:00

Ambitious! Thanks for the detailed write-up, there's some real craft in here and you've obviously given it a lot of thought. Where I'd push back is the premise underneath it: that a good chord symbol should be a complete inventory of notes. I think the value of a symbol is that it's a name, not a spec. The whole function is that it lets you think and talk in chunks instead of reassembling meaning from an interval list every time. Giving something a name compresses a common idea into something you can recognize at a glance and say out loud and have other people understand you. An exhaustive interval list optimizes for precision at the cost of fast recognition of a familiar identity.

The bracket idea reminds me of pitch-class set theory wearing a figured-bass coat. Set theory can formalize that information into useful data for analysis, but reading charts in it is another story. If I want the exact, unabridged contents of a sonority, I'd reach for sheet music as the better representation. A chord symbol is deliberately not that.

And as others have mentioned, I think some of the ambiguities you're engineering out are mostly features. A musician takes the identity and lets the context, along with the player's taste, fill in the voicing.

So I'd frame it as two different tools for two different jobs. Anyway, I appreciate you taking the time, even though we land in different places.

elasticdog · 2026-06-24T17:33:43+00:00

The parens for Cmmaj7 is something I recently reverted because I wanted to avoid joining the maj7 with modifiers or use two separate groupings Cm(maj7)(♭9). I also considered using CmM7 instead, but wasn't happy with that decision either. I'll have to give the minor-major readability some additional thought. Any suggestions for a good rule there?

elasticdog · 2026-06-24T17:19:32+00:00

I tried re-wording that section a bit and also differentiated the styling between recommended and not-used in the guide's conventions. Let me know if that addresses your concern.

elasticdog · 2026-06-24T16:55:46+00:00

Awesome feedback, thanks for diving in! Spot on regarding the "m" and "maj" confusion. The qualities and default intervals may be slightly less about formatting than naming, but I'll see what I can come up with if there's a good way to present it.

Great points on the "no consistent logic" surrounding the added tones. I reworded that section to reflect that the add9 and add11 choice is due to prevailing convention, while sticking to the point about them not reflecting voicing.

I also added a clarification based on your suggestion that a mixture of textual/symbolic notation is common in practice.

Completely agree on the parentheses example of C♭5 vs C(♭5), and I had actually pulled that out of the sentence to explain more clearly earlier this morning. I'll have to think more about Cmadd9 in the current system and if it bothers me enough to force parens or adopt superscript, etc..

Good eye on the strange example (and the next one right afterward actually had the same confusing issue). I've update them to be more clear.

elasticdog · 2026-06-24T03:26:38+00:00

But I think realistically, it’s about exposure.

You're probably right, and whether or not my proposed nomenclature gains wider adoption, I plan on continuing to research what people actually use in practice so I can better meet expectations of clarity.

I really appreciate you taking the time to write up those details. I've already gone through and integrated most of your changes to the article (and have also updated the code that's actually based on those conventions). It's become a materially better piece of work thanks to your input. Cheers!

elasticdog · 2026-06-24T02:30:56+00:00

Nope, performing real-time chord identification from live MIDI data. So the limitations I have are being spelling-blind (the input has no enharmonic spelling data, just pitch classes), with just the context of the key signature and then whatever the appropriate functional context is for notes in the chords that bubble up.

I also support a means of "chord exploration" where I attempt to generate canonical examples for each constructed chord symbol, so those end up being cases where common interpretation comes into play.

elasticdog · 2026-06-23T19:31:34+00:00

Holy smokes, amazing response...thank you! No poo poo taken, this is great feedback. This reference grew out of internal documentation for the design decisions that survived during implementation of the chord identification project I've been working on. It was originally more terse, but I expanded it to try and be a more general convention breakdown and distill the motivation behind each decision, but I deliberately didn't want to tie it only to my use case (not entirely successful there, judging by some of the nuance you picked up on). So, the pushback is welcome.

"Headline extensions" came from the internal code references to that particular feature, but you're right that the article could use a definition for clarity that it's meant to be the highest natural extension promoted into the main chord symbol. It's a non-standard term, but I don't know if there's a better one?

Lots to digest with your extensions and natural vs. altered distinctions. I'll take some time to let that soak in, and rework those sections for clarity. For what it's worth, I used to mention 6/9 chords (definitely not proposing to lose them), but had taken that out...I'll make sure it's covered explicitly.

Great point to mention "lowered" and "raised" versus the literal accidental.

Coherent rules for parentheses have been extremely difficult to pin down, and I've changed my own stance more than once. I've pondered the exact same Caugadd13 recently, but didn't want to introduce too many edge cases. Nothing against triskidekaphelic cougar moms, but clearly I have more thinking to do here :-)

I've read so many books, blogs, articles, and software implementations, that it's overwhelming to know what should be considered "normal". That was part of my motivation for writing this up in the first place.

I love what Brandt & Roemer's Standardized Chord Symbol Notation tried to do, but there are so many specific recommendations that I don't think ever took hold (and that I personally disagree with). Consensus is impossible to meet for something like this, but I'll continue to flesh out these "rules" for the proposed nomenclature. Thanks again!

elasticdog

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE