Kieren MacMillan <kieren_macmil...@sympatico.ca> writes: > Hi Blöchl (et al.), > > I agree that it would be interesting to know whether/how one can > redefine the input such that (e.g.) c:5 gives <c g> (or <c bf> or > whatever one wants) rather than <c e g> (current implementation). > > However, modulo a language/communication barrier, I’d like to answer > your other impliciit questions: > >> What should happen with a chord without a 3? A powerchord. […] What else? > > I would expect c:sus to give <c f g>, equivalent to c:sus4. > >> The question why c:5 only just gets a "normal" c chord instead of a >> power chord > > It’s a good question. > Certainly, composers (like me) who work in musical theatre write C5 to > mean <c g>… so it would be nice to enter the same in Lilypond. > >> And why to use c^3 instead of c:5. Why c:5 does not work > > Analogously, c:6 would be <c a>?? > Hmmm… I don’t think that’s quite right…
We have an exception for c:13 already (it leaves off the 11). For me the main question is if c:5 is <c g>, what should c:5- and c:5+ be? If we find a satisfactory answer for that (I'm pretty much convinced that they should stay <c e ges> and <c e gis> respectively and that basically anything not starting with 5 should also stay the same, like c:m5 or c:dim5 or c:sus5), it should not be hard to implement this input exception. I also don't see a point in needing a \powerchords command or similar in order to have <c g> be output as C5 rather than C. -- David Kastrup _______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
