Hi Carl
On 18. mai. 2008, at 11:56, Carl D. Sorensen wrote:
Hmmm, since c:maj is ambiguous, I think it's better to just
disallow c:maj without the 7.
[…]
This proposed solution gets a little tricky when we talk about a
c:maj9, which creates a five-note chord with a raised 7th step.
No problem, just disallow c:maj without any number...
The original documentation said that :maj raises the 7th step *if
present*. Can we get the performance to match that?
Huh? Perhaps I misunderstand you, but this is the way things work
right now: c:maj7 will produce <c e g b> and c:maj9 will produce <c e
g b d>.
Also, I can't see why c:maj is ambiguous as a chord name.
My mistake - I meant c:maj7: If we change c:maj to mean <c e g>, then
what should c:maj7 mean? <c e g bes> or <c e g b>?
IMHO, by making c:maj equal to c, we would make c:maj7 (and friends)
less clear. By just disallowing c:maj (without a 7, 9, 11, ...) we get
rid of the "problem".
E
_______________________________________________
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
