Re: 13th chord?

[Thomas Morley]

2017-02-26 0:20 GMT+01:00 Noeck <address@hidden>:
> Hi Harm,
>
> Am 25.02.2017 um 23:47 schrieb Thomas Morley:
>> So no bug, but a design decision.
>>
>> To have the 11th included, one needs to explicitely state it:
>>
>> \chords { e:11.13 }
>>
>> If this is not done, the printing as E⁹ ¹¹ is ok, imho.
>
> As far as I understood Rob, the question is not so much about the 11 but
> about the 9 in the printed chord name.
>
> Wouldn't E¹³ be enough to name that chord?

The question remains is 11th in or not?

> What does the ⁹ tell?

The ⁹ _and_ ¹³ tells the 11th is missing, as far as I understood.

> I am exaggerating a bit, but if
> e:13   is   E⁹ ¹¹
> we could also label
> e:7    as   E¹ ³ ⁵ ⁷.

Sure, but the tonic-pitch is always in, no need for ¹
The third as well, the absence of a minor-modifier tells us about a
major-chord, no need for ³
The 5th may be in or not, it is that frequently omitted that
explicitely stating ⁵ makes sense only for power-chords.
So as the only interesting addition the ⁷ remains.

> It might of course be, that I am misunderstanding
> the issue.
>
> Cheers,
> Joram


\chords {
%% from
%% http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.19/Documentation/notation/chord-name-chart
    <c e g bes d' f' a'>
%% or
    c:11.13
%% or unnecessarily verbose:
    c:1.3.5.7.9.11.13
}

all inputs print c¹³

This should solve the OP's issue.

But thinking about common usage, i.e. omitting the 11th...
How to print it?
C⁹ ¹³ looks reasonable to me.


Though, ofcourse I may misunderstand the issue as well...

Cheers,
  Harm