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

[Carl Sorensen]

On 4/29/10 9:29 AM, "David Kastrup" <address@hidden> wrote:

> Werner LEMBERG <address@hidden> writes:
> 
>>>> <c 3 5>
>> 
>> I like this
>> 
>>>   c\chord #'(1 3 5 7 11)
>> 
>> I like this too.
> 
> It is not clear to me how this would extend to
> 
>      \chordmode {
>        c1:7+ c:5+.3- c:3-.5-.7-
>      }

\relative c' {
  c1\chord #'(1 3 5 7+)
  c\chord #'(1 3- 5+)
  c\chord #'(1 3- 5- 7-)
}
> 
>      \chordmode {
>        c1:sus c:sus2 c:sus4 c:5.4^3
>      }

\relative c' {
 c1\chord #'(1 4 5)
 c\chord #'(1 2 5)
 c\chord #'(1 4 5)
 c\chord #'(1 4 5)
}

Or, when we define \sus4 to be equivalent to \chord #'(1 4 5), etc.,

\relative c' {
  c1\sus4
  c1\sus2
  c1\sus4
  c1\sus4
}

> 
>      \chordmode {
>        c1 c/g c/+g
>      }

\relative c' {
 c1\chord
 c1\chord #'(5 1 3)
 c1\chord #'(5 1 3 5)
}

Or one could define  \sixFour or \inversionTwo to be \chord #'(3 5 1)

I don't know what shortcut one could do for an added bass, because they can
be any pitch.


> 
>      c:dim7^5

c\chord #'(1 3 7--)

which could be defined as

c\dimSevenNoFive


> 
> and similar.  It's nice, but a single mode where the full power of
> voicing _and_ chords is available similarly convenient would be
> preferable to me.  Making chordmode and musicmode less compatible by
> extending them in disparate ways is just not good strategy.
> 

I understood this proposal as one that would involve eliminating \chordmode,
and replacing it with \chord #'() as part of a regular music stream.  That's
what I was responding to.  If we're talking about keeping chordmode, with
another syntax for note mode, I wouldn't be in favor of that.

Carl