> On 2 Feb 2019, at 22:44, David Kastrup <d...@gnu.org> wrote: > > 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.
The one of your choice. >> 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. Apparently, one does not distinguish between those in classical harmony, only the pitch classes, thus. _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
