Re: Why don't we get rid of \chordmode?

[Carl Sorensen]

On 4/29/10 3:12 PM, "Graham Percival" <address@hidden> wrote:

> On Thu, Apr 29, 2010 at 02:51:59PM -0600, Carl Sorensen wrote:
>> On 4/29/10 2:42 PM, "Graham Percival" <address@hidden> wrote:
>> 
>>>> c\chord #'(4 1 3 5)
>>> 
>>> I'm not entirely comfortable about have 4 1.
>> 
>> I'm totally comfortable with #'(4 1 3 5).  I can easily parse that so that
>> steps that come before 1 in the list are an octave down from the current
>> pitch.
> 
> Huh.  I thought 4 1 3 5 was supposed to be a first-inversion
> chord, but instead you were thinking of
>   F C E G
> ?  on first glance, that seems like an odd chord, but as a string
> player I get nervous when there's only two notes at once, let
> alone four.

C/F, i.e. a C major chord with an F added in the bass.

> 
> How would you indicate a highly-separated chord?  Such as
> (absolute mode)
> 
>   d f' d'' a'''
 
<d f' d' a'> in relative mode, or

d\chord #(1 10 15 19)

> 
>> I'd prefer, if we need to do something, to do
>> 
>> #'(4, 1 3 5), i.e. use the octave indicators we already have.
> 
> Hmm.  I don't know... mixing apostrophies and commas with numbers
> seems odd.

Well, my preference was to not do anything.  I don't think that apostrophes
are needed, because we can make steps be 8, 15, etc.

I suppose we could make an F in the bass (of a C chord) be notated as
-4, and the next octave below as -11, but that requires the user to think
beyond the scale degree.  I much prefer 4, (for the fourth scale degree down
one octave) and 4,, (scale degree 4 down two octaves).

Thanks,

Carl