Brett Duncan <bdd1...@bigpond.net.au> writes: > On 21/09/15 7:48 AM, Flaming Hakama by Elaine wrote: >> Modifying the input syntax such that c:5 means <c g> seems ill-advised. > > I was thinking much the same, until I read something that David > Kastrup wrote: >> I think it is not an outlandish expectation, once you see how a:maj and >> a:dim and a:min work, to have c:sus turn out a recognizable suspended >> chord rather than a power chord (which is anything but a suspended >> chord). It's not hard to learn c:sus4 for sure. But anything that >> works according to naive expectations without causing other problems >> leaves more time to learn more important things. > > Given that sus and power chords are fairly commonly used, removing a > potential stumbling block for the 'naive' user does not seem > unreasonable. > > This does raise the question of other "naive" constructions. I have > seen on some contemporary music charts notations like C2 and C4, which > apparently meant Cadd2 and Cadd4 respectively (except in one case, > where Cadd4 did not sound right, and only after hearing a recording > did it become clear that the chord was a Csus4). > > Currently, LP's \chordmode interprets c:2 to be the chord <c d>, and > outputs a chord name of Csus2. It interprets c:4 as <c e f> and > outputs a chord name of C4 sus4 3 (!) > > But to what extent should the the "naive" user be catered for?
It's really a case of diminuishing returns. The change for x:5 is definitely affecting the logic of LilyPond, but arguably that can of worms has been opened with x:13 already. x:5 is more important, but it's also a lot more likely to be used as basic building block, like in x:5.8. About x:5, I definitely feel ambiguous. In contrast, x:sus does not have all that much logic hinging on it: it's previous behavior is really "cute" in a programmer's sense of the word more than anything else. Other modifiers also introduce "personalized" behavior (cf c:dim7) and people are unlikely to have used it much, exactly because x:sus is musically not anything suggesting a powerchord. Maybe x:1.5 is tolerable enough. At any rate, the proposed x:5 is quite analogous to the existing x:13. Your proposals for c:4 and c:2 would require opening yet another scheme while the chords already have a musically sound name x:sus4 (now also x:sus) and x:sus2. So the threshold for x:2 and x:4 seems yet higher than that for x:5. -- David Kastrup _______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
