Re: Chords and what they mean

[Blöchl Bernhard]

I am just getting off but read your actual posting and your different 
interpretation.

For me it is logic to understand, that c:sus will suspend the 3. What 
should happen with a chord without a 3? A powerchord. Usually one would 
define a substitute for 3, that is not the case with c:sus. Why should 
one wonder about  the result - simply a power chord. What else?

The question why c:5 only just gets a "normal" c chord instead of a 
power chord is not meaningless (at lest for me - as you see). And why to 
use c^3 instead of c:5. Why c:5 does not work ... Lilypond developers 
might rethink?

I worked in computer science whole my life and know that syntax is not 
always logic in a "logical" sense in that so logical science as it is 
called. I think many contradictions are just a question of habituation 
(internalisation of TFM).




> Well, (re-)reading docs is always good advice, but I'm pretty sure
> from his other posts, he did already.
> More thoroughly than others.
>
> Though, yes, Kay could have provided some more code example(s).
>
> But, did you (re-)read his posts, trying to understand?

> Anyway, I understood him as follows:
>
> He tried
> % 1
> \chordmode {
>     c:sus
>     c:5
> }
> and was surprised by the printed output.
>
> Which actually can be achieved by entering
> % 2
> \chordmode {
>     c:sus4
>     c^3
> }
>
> And now he asks whether inputting % 1 can be made to return what % 2 
> does.
>
>
> And now I'm thinking about it ...
>
> -Harm
>
> _______________________________________________
> lilypond-user mailing list
> address@hidden
> https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user