On 2/2/19, Dan Eble <d...@faithful.be> wrote: > Isn’t the salient property of an inversion simply which note is lowest in > pitch? (It has been a long time since I studied music theory.) If so, both > of those fit, as does the chord resulting from lowering the e' by an octave.
David was more specifically referring to the 5th inversion of an 11th chord, and I *think* I’m starting to get his point: even if <e' g' b' c'' d'' f''> is acceptable, then you get to <g' b' c'' d'' e'' f''> and <b' c'' d'' e'' f'' g''> and this is where things start to get weird: <c'' e'' e'' f'' g'' b''> If the algorithm continues blindly by only taking into account the previous state rather than the initial state, you then find yourself with a so-called inversion where the bass note is actually the root note again, i.e. not an inversion, and you’ll never get to a point where either d'' or f'' can become the bass note. Instead we should be aiming for something aikin to <d'' e'' f'' g'' b'' c'''> which means that the c'' has to be moved again. (IIUC, again.) > Speaking as a software designer, if you have implemented a useful function > that is more limited than the conventional musical concept of inversion, > consider giving it a different name Sure, but that’s not the point at all. We certainly do want proper inversions here. Thanks for the input, that was helpful! And I think I get David’s point after all… Cheers, V. _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
