You are very focused on notation - but one of the base ideas of lilypond > is that the input should contain not just enough information for the > music to be typeset but also for the music to be correctly performed. > I think that the idea of having inverted chords (I don't know wheter I > think it is a good idea, well) is that the chord scheme should also > contain enough information to make it possible to make the midi-output > control the auto-accomp. of a midi keyboard.
Fair enough. Commendable. Definitely useful for proofing. And definitely a feature that shouldn't be broken. But why would you drop a note from the main chord in an inversion? Maybe this is just a misinterpretation in the current implementation of the chord name package. On the other hand, if you don't drop the note from the chord, then there really isn't much functional difference between "/" and "/+", except that the former gives an error message if you try to use a note as a bass that's not in the chord. "c/bes" is an error (or a warning, I can't remember. Either way, it doesn't product C/Bb). and "c/e" producing "C5/E" is... well... I don't get it. Which is why I'm asking. Anyway. I guess the correct answer for me, is probably to deal with what chord-name.scm is handed, feature and let somebody fix the chord-name context code if they see fit to modify the feature. But I would like to confirm that inversion tones should be dropped from the main chord when generating chord names. _______________________________________________ Lilypond-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
