Hi Ivan, Thanks for your input on this important thread.
> This "every chord can/should be given a name" hypothesis > is a popular/amateur musician idea that does not exist > in the concert/conservatory musician world. Not every chord can or should be given a name, of course. That being said, I must disagree with your implication that there is no room for improvement in the way Lilypond handles chords and their naming — and I say that as a full-time professional composer, arranger, and performer who makes most of my income from the "concert" world. > Having lilypond chord structures contain this information will > burden lilypond with a lot of useless and even _wrong_ information. How is it "wrong" for the chord <c e g a> to [additionally] include the information 'root = a'? > Ultimately, giving a chord a name is "analysis" of music, > it is not a part of music notation. Again, I must disagree: I included chord names in much of the score and piano part of my most recent full-length concert drama (commissioned by a leading new music ensemble in the United States), and both the conductor and pianist were deeply appreciative of their presence in the places I chose to include them. Even if you are correct, why should Lilypond be artificially limited to pre-hoc notation only? Why shouldn't we expand Lilypond's power to support and encourage musical analysis? > What you are suggesting is "naive" musical analysis which > should not be a part of such a powerful notation program as lilypond. So having additional power in the form of expanded analysis functions would somehow make Lilypond *less* powerful as a notation program? I'm not sure I see how that follows… Best regards, Kieren. ________________________________ Kieren MacMillan, composer ‣ website: www.kierenmacmillan.info ‣ email: i...@kierenmacmillan.info _______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
