Hans Åberg <haber...@telia.com> writes: >> On 2 Feb 2019, at 20:36, v.villen...@gmail.com wrote: >> >> On 2019/02/01 16:18:10, dak wrote: >>> raising or lowering one chord note >>> by an octave does not guarantee that it ends up at the far end of the >> chord, >>> like when using invertChords on a c:11 chord for the fifth inversion. >> >> Oh. Then this becomes a whole other can of worms; what should be the >> correct inversion of an 11th chord? >> >> Should >> <c' e' g' b' d'' f''> >> become >> <e' g' b' d'' f'' c'''> (as you seem to suggest) >> or >> <e' g' b' c'' d'' f''> (as the current code produces)? >> >> I’ll ask on the list as well. > > A music dictionary says an inversion of a chord is done by raising the > lowest note to a higher octave.
The question was _which_ higher octave. > Thus, the chord has as many inversions as pitch classes, excluding the > root. The cases discussed concerned were exactly those where raising to _some_ higher octave did not retain circular pitch order and thus the number of inversions turned out _different_. Thus "Thus" is a non sequitur. -- David Kastrup _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
