That being said, I feel compelled to clarify something. While I completely acknowledge that many people may find the Nashville Number System unhelpful, I’ve also encountered many who, like me, find it incredibly useful. In my personal experience within the North American music community, when I’ve discussed or demonstrated the system, reactions were indeed varied. Some dismissed it outright, but others immediately saw its potential, especially in the context of songwriting, chord transposition, and learning relative pitch.
I’d also like to point out an example from within the existing LilyPond system: the *chord grids* feature (as documented here <https://lilypond.org/doc/v2.25/Documentation/notation/chord-grids>). I imagine that classical pianists or those focused on traditional piano performance and training likely wouldn’t use this feature. However, this doesn’t mean that it lacks utility. Jazz musicians, for instance, would almost certainly find chord grids to be extremely valuable for their work. The perceived usefulness of a feature often depends on one’s area of expertise or musical focus. Dismissing a feature based on personal experience alone may overlook its relevance to a broader or different community of musicians. On Thu, Nov 21, 2024 at 3:35 PM David Kastrup <d...@gnu.org> wrote: > Peter X <peterandu...@gmail.com> writes: > > > *Subject*: Feature Request: Supporting Numbered Notation (Nashville > Number > > System) in LilyPond > > > > > > Dear LilyPond Development Team, > > > > > > I hope this message finds you well. I would like to propose a new > > feature for LilyPond: support for *numbered notation (*Nashville > > Number System*)*. Over the years, numbered notation has been a tool > > of great utility for specific musical contexts, yet it has often been > > overlooked or underappreciated due to its perceived limitations in > > polyphonic (harmonic) music. However, I believe that, given its unique > > strengths, it deserves reconsideration, especially in the context of > > monophonic instruments and melody-driven music education. > > I think you misunderstand LilyPond's mode of development. Features are > not magically tackled by promoting them but by someone feeling strong > enough about them that they are doing the heavy lifting. > > For small tasks, you can often find people on the mailing lists doing > them as kind of finger exercises. Large projects involving user > interface design and working out coherent semantics tend to be in a > different league. > > The Nashville Number System was not, as you seem to believe, at one time > considered for implementation and then judged unworthy of > implementation, as your call for "reconsideration" suggests. > > We have no central authority making such decisions. LilyPond is > flexible enough to support a host of different typesetting tasks, but > someone™ has to do the work for any of them. That is not the choice of > a central project managing authority but of someone invested enough in a > specific task that they will gear up to doing the involved work. > > -- > David Kastrup >
