Hi all, >> you might be true in this special case, but I (in my personal view) >> consider this to be inconsistent. And that is why: >> Csus2 = <c d g> >> Cadd9 = <c e g d> >> Csus4 = <c f g> >> Cadd11 = <c e g f>
> I think you misread Kieren's comment. > He was suggesting add2 as a clearer alternative to add9. > Not sus2, but add2. Yes. > For starters, the 2nd and 9th are synonymous, so there is no lack of clarity > about which notes are in the chord in either case. > And with a 2, you don't introduce the concept of "but what about the 7th?" > that naturally pops into one's head when you see a chord with a 9th. Correct. The 9 is always reserved for a chord with a 7 in it; the 2 is reserved for chords without the 7th. This makes for quick differentiation at sight. By the way: while I agree 100% with the notation <c d g> = Csus2 / Cadd2 in the musical theatre world, that has now (thankfully!) been short-handed to just C2, because it is oh-so-very-common (far more than in the jazz world, in my experience). Another common short-hand is C5, which would otherwise be written as C(no3); again, the compactness and sight-readability is appreciated by those of us “in the trenches”. Cheers, Kieren. _______________________ Kieren MacMillan, composer www: <http://www.kierenmacmillan.info> email: i...@kierenmacmillan.info _______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
