lilypond-user
[Top][All Lists]

## Re: "repeat" slashes and the nature of lilypond

 From: wintryblue Subject: Re: "repeat" slashes and the nature of lilypond Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2005 14:05:55 -0500

> It's because they're actual content. Consider printing a part with
> your style of chord naming, and then having to give the same part to
> someone used to ignatzek, with Danish notenames. With a neat
> representation like the pitches that would be replacing
>
>   \set chordNameFunction = #real-book-chord-names
>
> with
>
>   \set chordNameFunction = #ignatzek-chord-names
>   \set chordNoteNamer = #note-name->german-markup
>
> How do you go about that, when all you have is a sequence of letters,
> numbers and symbols? Also, in a far future, I could imagine a
> Band-in-a-Box functionality, which would also need to know about chord
> pitches.

Oh, I see now. Very interesting.

While I can see the functionality of translating notenames, I do not
see the same for the actual chord symbols. You are right in that
people have different ways of writing +5, 7, -9, etc. But for Lilypond
to make assumptions in "translating" these symbols is wrong, because
what one person means by his symbol may be completely different from
another! In contemporary styles like jazz there is no fixed system.

So while I see the utility of translating notenames, I don't see the
same for the symbols themselves. And the two that you have up
(Ignatzek and alternative), are quite obscure and I've never actually
seen them in use. Like the argument given in the link I gave before:
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/gnu-music-discuss/2001-03/msg00327.html
translating symbols doesn't really make any sense.

I will look at some examples and see what I can get to you.

Thank you.