On 2019/02/03 14:59:03, dan_faithful.be wrote:
While it is true that this algorithm yields chords that people call
inversions,
it does not yield every chord that might be so called.
Huh. Not having learned music theory in an English-speaking environment, I must say I’m at a bit of a loss when I see these referred to as "inversions" anyway (which they’re really not). However, it’s my understanding that this is their sort-of-official name; whereas "chord rotations", whilst making sense in a way, doesn’t seem to register as usual musical lingo (a cursory DuckDuckGo search mainly returns engineering and seismology results). Also, please note that the command we’re discussing here isn’t \inversion (that’s an already-existing, and aptly-named, LilyPond command), but \invertChords. And somehow, \rotateChords would sound a bit like a misnomer to me (I’d expect it to change the order of the intervals *inside* the chord, whilst preserving the same lowest and highest note -- perhaps it’s because I’m used to literally "rotating" chords in a 2D-plane when representing pitches in a Tonnetz). That being said, no problem for adding index entries no matter what we end up choosing. Would anyone else have thoughts on the subject of \invertChords vs \rotateChords? Thanks! V. https://codereview.appspot.com/365840043/ _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
