Re: chord names [was: Ligature brackets]

[Jan Nieuwenhuizen]

"Robin Davies" <address@hidden> writes:

[to the list this time]

>> > 6) Stacked 2xN (Jazz) or "/" sepearated alterations.
>>
>> What do you mean by this?

> I suspect this is what the Jazz style is supposed to do, but
> doesn't.

Ok, thanks.

> k. i guess it's not too hard to implement never showing noX, but I do think
> that if someone were to provide a chord with a noX, even in Jazz or
> American, that they lily should show what they actually input. I can't see
> much harm in requiring all notes in the chord.

Ok.

>> What would you suggest?  I do think we need both, ie, a chord with an
>> extra added base note (/+), and an inversion (/)?
>>
> I think what disturbs me about the function as implemented is that the
> inversion notation drops tones from the chord.

I think it's just a musical theory vs (guitar) chord name convention
thing.  AFAIK, an inversion is just that, it inverses the layout of
the chord.

But I don't have a clue whether this is useful to anyone, and I would
be fine with:

> Suggestion for discussion:     support /+ as given for backward
> compatibility,

[No, we don't do backward compatibility,] but

> change "/" to work the same as "/+" and provide "/-" for
> people who *really* want to do that.

this would be fine, esp. if it's more useful.  Having said that, this
is a minor issue, whether to type /+ or /?

>> [banter examples]
>
> Yes. That makes perfect sense. Thanks.

Ok.

Greetings,
Jan.

-- 
Jan Nieuwenhuizen <address@hidden> | GNU LilyPond - The music typesetter
http://www.xs4all.nl/~jantien       | http://www.lilypond.org