--- Han-Wen Nienhuys <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > 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 > > I actually thought about adding your item 4 in my post, but decided against it. Yes, a transposable inversion would be nice. And for another 20 EUR, would you do transposable bass notes since not all bass notes are inversions. Then, there is the matter of polychords... Seriously though, I think a separate context would be easier than trying to merge Lily's existing structure. I must admit that I have found it useful to generate MIDI for both melody and chords to verify my input. So it is not superfluous. But, this is only something I do at the beginning. And, of the two, verifying the melody input is more important than the chords since the chance of making a wrong entry is greater with notes. The MIDI chords are pretty horrible. If I wanted a specific voicing, I would code the voicing note-wise instead of with a chord name. The lack of a standard chord notation will exist till you and I are no longer around. I would not worry about it. When I write g:7, I don't mean <g b d f>. It is only a indication. If I played with a bass player and saw a G7, I'd probably do <f b e a>. Not very g:7, is it? The whole point of jazz is improvisation and that includes improvising the harmony as well. With respect to David Arnold comments, I will defer to his greater knowledge about chord notation. I was merely thinking that it would be more practical to add a context instead of reworking an existing context that would probably break a lot of people's stuff. You have a mechanism for defining new contexts. Would it be possible to use this mechanism for this purpose? Ken _______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
