Re: Chords and what they mean

[Thomas Morley]

2015-09-17 11:13 GMT+02:00 David Kastrup <address@hidden>:
> Thomas Morley <address@hidden> writes:
>
>> 2015-09-17 10:47 GMT+02:00 Simon Albrecht <address@hidden>:
>>> Hello Kaj,
>>>
>>> On 17.09.2015 09:27, address@hidden wrote:
>>>>
>>>> First I will declare, that I am not 100 percent sure this is a bug, but
>>>> friends of mine, musicians, say it probably is. Also, as I am not an 
>>>> expert,
>>>> I have tried to learn by searching on among others Wikipedia.
>>>>
>>>> It is about chords, a few of them. It started when I should clean write a
>>>> score from a manuscript. In one measure there were noted two chords, C5 and
>>>> C. Obviously not the same, as they stood just beside of each other. A 
>>>> search
>>>> on Wikipedia also told me, and this was also confirmed, the author's
>>>> intention, that C5 means C(no 3), hence <c g>, while the chord C means <c e
>>>> g>. But LilyPond treats these two the same and produces the same notes. 
>>>> This
>>>> is also clearly said e.g. in Appendices A.1 and A.2 of Notation Reference,
>>>> as well as in the text part. However even if possibly a correct procedure,
>>>> is it a correct practise?
>>>>
>>>> Another such discrepancy is about Csus, which Wikipedia (and my friends)
>>>> says is equivalent to Csus4, hence <c f g>. But LilyPond produces <c g>,
>>>> hence what should come from the notation C5 as in the previous paragraph.
>>>>
>>>> So, what is the truth?
>>>
>>> There are others who are more into the subject, but I may say:
>>> There is no ‘truth’. With chord names, there are so many different
>>> conventions and fiercely defended convictions that it’s impossible to define
>>> a single ‘standard’ naming scheme. (Edit: just like the NR says)
>>
>> Very true.
>> It's a mess, but LilyPond can handle it. ;)
>>
>>>
>>> Many things in the chords rendering may be overridden in LilyPond. In case
>>> you’re not aware yet, check out
>>> <http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.18/Documentation/notation/displaying-chords#customizing-chord-names>
>>> and perhaps the LSR <http://lsr.di.unimi.it>. If that doesn’t cover your
>>> wishes, you may come back with a code example, I’d suggest.
>>>
>>> HTH, Simon
>>
>> chrds =
>> \chordmode {
>>     \set chordNameExceptions =
>>       #(append
>>              powerChordExceptions
>>              ignatzekExceptions)
>>     c:1.4.5
>>     c:1.5
>>     \notemode {
>>     <c' f' g'>
>>     <c' g'>
>>     }
>> }
>>
>> <<
>>     \new Staff \chrds
>>     \new ChordNames \chrds
>>>>
>>
>> If it's not sufficient you can set your own 'exceptions' for
>> chord-naming, see the links Simon provided.
>
> I think you are talking past each other.  Kaj complained about how
> LilyPond converts \chordmode input into notes, you explain how to change
> LilyPond's conversion of notes to markups in a ChordNames context.
>
> We could create an exception for c:5 (like we do for c:13 which drops
> the 11th step).  I think that's a reasonable suggestion on its surface
> and c:5 is not likely to be in much use exactly because it is equal to c
> on its own.  However, it would beg the question of how to interpret c:5+
> and c:5- then.  Those aren't redundant.
>
> --
> David Kastrup

Obviously I still don't understand.

For me the following looks as wished for Staff and ChordName context:


chrds =
\chordmode {
    \set chordNameExceptions =
      #(append
             powerChordExceptions
             ignatzekExceptions)
    c:1.5
    c^3
}

<<
    \new Staff \chrds
    \new ChordNames \chrds
>>


@Kaj
Could you provide an example to illustrade?

Cheers,
  Harm