On 2/3/19, Lukas-Fabian Moser <l...@gmx.de> wrote: > This statement surprises me. I always thought of 'drop n' (with 'drop 2' > being the most common one) as a means to transform closed-harmony > _upper_ voices into open harmony _upper_ voices, without changing the > bass at all.
I see what you mean (and I did share your surprise when, also coming from a classical/baroque background, I first started hanging out with jazzmen: for example referring to `drop n’ voicings by counting notes from the _uppermost_ remains absolutely baffling to me). Much like continued bass, what we’re dealing with here is the "right hand" positions, which most certainly does not affect the bass line, except in jazz music it will typically be played by the _left_ hand (or with both hands) whilst the actual bass line (often heavily anchored in root notes, much more so than in baroque music) is left to the bass player. In this regard, what I referred to as "changing the bass note" would actually be better phrased as "changing the lowest note played by the guy in charge of chords, regardless of what the global bass note will be". At least, that’s my understanding of how jazz music is conceptualized, which YMMV with. BTW, there’s no proper notion of inversions as such in jazz music (AFAICT); so the purpose of an \invertChords function here is left to our appreciation, with the minimal requirement being that the lowest note of the chord changes each time -- but traditionally, I think the lowest note of the previous inversion *should* become the highest note of the next inversion (and reciprocally when proceeding in reverse). If that means moving said note by two octaves instead of just one, then so be it (IMO). (And yes, I need to stop using acronyms in every sentence :-) Regards, V. _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
