On 4/29/10 2:42 PM, "Graham Percival" <gra...@percival-music.ca> wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 29, 2010 at 08:55:13AM -0600, Carl Sorensen wrote: >> But we'll need to be sure it handles things like >> >> c\chord #'(1 3- 5-) > > Hmm. Might we need > c\chord #'(1 3++ 7--) > ? I'm not prepared to claim that there's no theory of chords that > includes doubly-augmented intervals relative to the base note. There is at least one common chord that uses doubly altered steps: the dim7 chord, which uses a double-flatted 7th., along with a minor thrd and a diminished fifth. So yes, we do need to allow at least --. I don't think we need to go more than two deep on the modifiers, do we? > >> We could even do bass notes >> >> c\chord #'(4 1 3 5) > > I'm not entirely comfortable about have 4 1. I'm totally comfortable with #'(4 1 3 5). I can easily parse that so that steps that come before 1 in the list are an octave down from the current pitch. > OTOH, I'm not overly > eager to have things like > c\chord #'(-4 1 3- 5-) > > An alternate that makes sense to me would be > c\chord #'(-4 1 3es 5es) > but then we're dragging language-specific definitions into this > construct, which would be bad. I think -4 is confusing, because it sounds like it is 4 steps *below* the root, instead of step 4 an octave lower. I'd prefer, if we need to do something, to do #'(4, 1 3 5), i.e. use the octave indicators we already have. Thanks, Carl _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
