Re: Chord names broken since 2.16

[Jan Kohnert]

Am , schrieb Thomas Morley:
> 2015-03-15 14:19 GMT+01:00 Amelie Zapf <address@hidden>:
> > > Though, I can easily imagine situations where <c e g d> is
> > dominant or
> > > subdominant or tonic, depends on the surrounding circumstances.
> >
> > True. But the reverse doesn't hold.
>
> So far, I'd agree
>
> > > Again, I disagree here. Correct ChordNames (together with some
> > common
> > > agreements) will show only which pitches are present, not their
> > harmonic
> > > function.
> >
> > And that's precisely what C9 for <c e g d'> doesn't do. It implies
> > the
> > minor 7th that just isn't there, but, if present, would drastically
> > change the chord type. Let's put it like that: two vastly different
> > chords would become synonymous.
>
> Agreed as well. (My point was to emphasize the absence of any
> functional harmonic meaning with ChordNames.)

That's the point I was also emphasizing. As a Guitarist, I only have 
four fingers to play a chord, and I'll never be aber to play something 
like C13 with all of the notes, as long as Biology will not give me more 
fingers. ;) But theres a difference between C6 and C13, and even if I 
play C6, a piano player will make the difference, and that sould be 
readable in the score…

And there's a difference between Cadd9 and C9 with a (probably not 
playable or omitted) 7th.

> > > Though this will have the above already mentioned disadvantage,
> > > see the following example, last chord.
> > >
> > > new ChordNames
> > > chordmode {
> > > set additionalPitchPrefix = #"add"
> > > <c' e' g' bes' d''>
> > > <c' e' g' d''>
> > > c:7.9
> > > c:5.9
> > > c:5.7+.11+.13
> >
> > In practical jazz improvisation you'd just omit a few tones from a
> > 6 or
> > 7 note chord. I don't know anybody who'd write a double "add"
> > there.
> > Everybody would call it a C [triangle] #11 13.
>
> And that's the reason why 'additionalPitchPrefix' was changed.

Well, the point is: It was changed the wrong way: Nothing I ever saw 
displayed Cadd6add9, and in that point I'm fine with the change, as we 
(probably) (all?) whould write C6/9 in such a case, and then everyone(?) 
would know, there's no 7th in the chord. (And I agree with Amy's 
example.) Again: as a guitarist, many on the "add9" chords are played as 
sus2 (lack of fingers, again); but still add9 is different from sus2, as 
add11 is different from sus4.

The best solution is probably to have different defaults, but in any 
way: if chords are intented musically different, they should display in 
different ways…

--
Mit freundlichen Grüßen

Jan Kohnert