Re: polychords: what's the current state-of-the-art?

[Kieren MacMillan]

Hi Valentin,

> In my opinion the main issue here is that the chord naming strategy
> of first transforming theoretical respesentation of a chord into
> a bunch of notes to then have some function try to make sense
> of that and turn in again into a theoretical representation of a chord
> is absolute madness if we do actually already know how this chord should look.
> 
> Suppose we had a different way of specifying chords not as a bunch of notes, 
> but in a representation that preserves the theoretical meaning of such a  
> chord.

The GSoC chord work was moving in exactly that direction!

> This way we could have a transposable syntax to say e.g. des|c

Well, we wouldn't want to overload the bar-check feature, of course!  ;)

Maybe you're interested in picking up the GSoC chord ball and taking it across 
the goal line? In mid-September, I might have a little more bandwidth to sit 
down with Carl again and try it myself… but given my track record, I'd be more 
optimistic about the outcome if there were multiple developers working with me.

Cheers,
Kieren.