On Monday 15 March 2004 19:16, Tiffany Weisman wrote:
> I'm not disagreeing with your logic on jazz chord notation. I'm sure
> that traditionally it would be the right system, and perhaps we could
> highlight the "proper" chords in the documentation. I'm merely saying
> Lilypond should accomodate those who want strange chord symbols and
> other weird things. After all, it is a typesetting program, not a
> bandleader.
True. But Why make a bandleader unattainable because of clutter? I
wouln't mind chords being played on acoustic guitar and acoustic bass by
default. The chord names, like \ch{Cm7}, could be on a percussion staff
or a jazzchord staff or even attached to notes as tab is, in which case
it could print three (including jazzchord name staff) additional staves,
or two or one. Adding bass notes would make a simple list much too
large, so if a bass note other than the root were wanted, then the /3 or
/gis part of the chord name could be written unchanged and a second
argument could supply the note to be substituted for the root.
\ch{C7/3 e}
A similar strategy could do add|omit:
\ch{Ab7(b5)omit" ab, the root of the chord"add" c#"/"cb bass note" aes c
ces}
That last example is far from reasonable, but if someone wanted such
verbosity they could get it with ease. My prediction is that none
of it will happen. daveA
--
It's not that hard to understand the lesson of Viet Nam. Never never
never never defend one tyrant against another, because The worst thing
that can happen is you might win. The *Gulf* war was worse than Nam.
D. Raleigh Arnold dra@ (http://www.) openguitar.com [EMAIL PROTECTED]
_______________________________________________
Lilypond-user mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
