Re: Improve internal chord structure

[lilypond]

> > > I hope to send something more specifically about chords after some rest.
> >
> > Here are my 2cents:
> > Defining the chords by a list of notes for jazz tunes can't  ever
> > cover all sorts of voicings.
>
> Are you confusing "pitch" and "note" here?  Notes are a LilyPond data
> structure that have more properties than just a pitch.  Several are
> already used for disambiguating chords entered in chord mode.

Very likely, i don't know much of the lilypond internals.

> > Fortunately, this isn't at all needed for typesetting e.g. a
> > jazz-tune.  It is sufficient to only have the root note, e.g. C from
> > C:m7, in a musical/transposeable context, the rest of the chord(here
> > m7) could just be represented as text as-it-is.
> >
> > Maybe, from this point of view, there could be an alternative method
> > for typestting chords be implemented?
>
> I don't see what you are trying to achieve here.

English is not my native language, but i try:
I wanted to point out, that the idea to get e.g.
c' e' g' a' from the chord c:6 is not really correct/complete and not of 
much use, for various reasons:
-unclear in which octave
-unclear which voicing
-Not all pitches needed to be there(may be too much/dense) to make the 
chord clear
-c' e' g' a' could be interpreded as chord a:m7
...

In a reallife jazz context, it's up to the player/band what to do with 
chords. Lilypond is not a playalong-generator, but lilypond should 
typeset chords. Lilypond can do this in most cases, but in my opinion
the mapping to single pitches/notenames is an unneeded, complicated and 
errorprone overhead.

So, reducing the lilypond chord-handling to a singel pitch/root-note + 
text/chord-description would be sufficient to typeset.
This way, all sorts of chord-types. e.g. c7/b9/#9/b5/whatever are 
possible, without worrying about implementing all possibilities how a 
chord could be interpreted.

I hope something is more clear now ;-)

Johannes