Quoting [EMAIL PROTECTED]: > > FYI, I find the midi output of chords useful, for the purpose of proof > > listening. Though the midi output isn't very pleasant to listen to, it's > > certainly good enough to decide whether the typeset chords fit fairly > well > > with the rest of the music. > > > > Erik > > > > I'd have to take issue with that, too. This is again, Lilypond forcing > certain conventions onto the musician that should not be enforced. > Unless you're playing very standard music with very simple chords, > block chords do not adequately describe at all the harmony that is > being said. One chord symbol can mean 10 different things to people > depending on the context of the music and its style, and for Lilypond > to play those awful-sounding block chords just because of a symbol > that may or may not reflect that tonal texture at all is simply bad > practice. When I typeset a lead sheet with chord symbols and do a test > listening I only want Lilypond outputting the notes I put in. Chord > symbols should be graphical objects and nothing more.
By now, it is clear to everybody that you consider chord symbols to be graphical objects and nothing more. Since Lilypond allows that - with perhaps some tweaking here and there, and perhaps some minor syntactic sugar to make the process more comfortable - I guess you must be happy. Then, what is the point of a statement such as the one above ? Myself, as well as a number of others believe that Lilypond's system ain't all that bad. Support for transposition is useful. We don't force you - or anyone, for that matter - to like it or to use it. You can do without it, that's ok with us. But please, don't feel as if you had the only truth in hand about what is or what is not useful, appropriate, correct, standard, good practice, etc. Darius. _______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
