On Friday 23 January 2009, Carl D. Sorensen wrote: > We currently have issues with the chord naming functions of LilyPond. If we > pass a \chordmode chord to the the ChordNames construct, we very seldom get > out what we put in (i.e. c:maj13 will give Cmaj7/9/add13). This is because > we currently try to do the chord naming algorithmically. > > I'd like to add a feature similar to the predefinedFretDiagrams feature. It > would be a simple means of modifying the chodNameExceptions data structure > (or perhaps a replacement of that structure) so that you could define a > chord name by giving a \chordmode chord specifier. Then, I'd have an init > file that would initialize all the chords specified in Dolmetsch online > <http://www.dolmetsch.com/musictheory16.htm> and > <http://www.dolmetsch.com/musictheory17.htm>.
Unfortunately, the chord names in this otherwise excellent theary series are terrible. For example, and this is only one, the idea that Cmi7 and Cma7 is an improvement over Cm7 and Cmaj7 is ill considered, since quick recognition is the only rational criterion. I guess CMm7 and CmM7 would be next. Why do this sort of thing? The system is extremely simple since its reform by bop arrangers copying lead sheets in the 1950's, when zeroes and plusses and all that garbage that had accumulated in published sheet music was disallowed. It was never intended for analysis. Why bury that simple and elegant system in unwelcome innovations? Of course the question is rhetorical. People like to invent new signs, such as "separators", and get credit for making what they mistakenly think are improvements. Any chord may be specified using that system. It requires only the sharp and flat and the slash for bass notes, and occasionally parentheses, as in F(#9) and F#9. It has become customary recently to write the slash bass notes in lower case. This usage seems to have suddenly sprung up from many sources (myself included) just as slash chords themselves suddenly appeared back in the 60's. I suppose that Dr. Blood's list of chords is reasonably complete. I gave up on lilypond's chords when I was unable to write an F#9(b5)/a#. (On guitar 6x4554.) It's easier to enter chords as text attached to silent rests. Far easier. I was ignored before and I expect to be ignored again. Been there, no worries. Highest regards, daveA -- Free download of technical exercises worth a lifetime of practice: http://www.openguitar.com/dynamic.html :::: You can play the cards you're dealt, or improve your hand with DGT. Very easy guitar music, solos, duets, exercises.., To contact, visit openguitar.com _______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
