Kenneth Teh wrote:
It seems to me that based on these observations, what
Lilypond needs is a context for creating chord names
that
(1) does not try to actually build chords, ie, the
MIDI output produces nothing. This way you avoid all
the problems associated with trying to describe a
voicing which a jazz player is free to change anyway.
(2) treats only the chord root (and duration) as
significant, thus allowing one to transpose the chord
names.
(3) leaves the chord alterations as pure text markup.
Most chord alterations are pitch indepedent anyway.
That is, you say m7 for a minor 7th chord, 5- to flat
the fifth, and so on.
Comments?
I suppose you want
(4) base/inversion to be transposabl
too.
I agree that it would be a good idea. I guess one reason for our
resistance has been that this would effectively make our own code
superfluous, and perpetuates the lack of standards in chord naming. But
such is life, I guess.
Would it be useful to be able to mix standard Lily chords with these
free form ones, or is it better to have a separate (possibly more
ergonomic mode?)
I could add this as a sponsored feature for 130 EUR (inc VAT for EU
individuals).
--
Han-Wen Nienhuys - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://www.xs4all.nl/~hanwen
LilyPond Software Design
-- Code for Music Notation
http://www.lilypond-design.com
_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
