Create or change chord name to ˙/.(repeat)

Is it posible to convert a chord name or to put directly when using
Shift +Q with the
Snag_1b36ac
chords

See this thread for a workaround and much discussion, going back 6½ years.

@Mark_Johnson
Great thanks! it’s getting old
as you participated in this old post and this wokaround…if you have the time to help me gain some (or perhaps not lose some)
I have a feeling the order when using to select several chords
Ctrl+ Shift+ A
will not include the symbol? And will not be able to to treat it as chords.
Best regards

Surely this type of notation came about as a short-cut way to avoid writing out chord symbols by hand. As such, I see it as something useful for an individual to jot down as they are composing. But for final (standard) output, I believe all chords should be written out in cases where there is more than one chord in a measure. And if there is only one chord in a measure, nothing needs to occur in following measures to show that the chord continues.

I’m not saying that an individual shouldn’t be able to write out a part and use symbology as they see fit, but if things are going to be put out for public consumption, I would steer away from short-cuts to visually show the music. A crazy off topic example: an individual could exchange the heating knob with the radio knob in their car if they wanted to. But when they go to sell the car they probably want to “un-do” this. The previous thread mentioned by @Mark_Johnson is interesting to read, b.t.w. Good luck with whatever you choose! :grinning:

1 Like

P.S. The use case above, with a repeating sequence instead of just one chord, is interesting and was only barely mentioned in the older thread (in post #22). I can see more use for it in this case, as it’s much more like the bar-repeat in the staff. The abbreviation takes the burden off reading the same pattern over and over, and reduces clutter.

1 Like

In the older thread that @Mark_Johnson references, there’s an interesting example that caught my eye:

I would actually say that it’s poorly done. The alternate Db7 is (correctly) written in smaller size, parenthesized, shifted up. I would much prefer to see:

(C7 Db7 C7)
C7

in bars 1–3, 5–7, and 9–11. It obviates the need for repeat symbols, which to my eye just clutter things up and possibly even confuse the reader. And in this instance, to be really clear, I think the “main” C7 should be reiterated in bars 5 and 9 (perhaps in parentheses?).

(I also think this is a case where casting off four bars to a system would be helpful, though I realize that the RBs are trying to cram a lot of music in.)

Thoughts? I really appreciate @Mark_Johnson 's observation about harmonic-pattern repeats. I’m always — as an occasional jazz piano player — thinking about what will be visually clearest on the bandstand, which for me, in a case like Tizol’s tune, includes communicating 4-bar phrase organization.