I hope to send something more specifically about chords after some rest.
Here are my 2cents:
Defining the chords by a list of notes for jazz tunes can't ever
cover all sorts of voicings.
Are you confusing "pitch" and "note" here? Notes are a LilyPond data
structure that have more properties than just a pitch. Several are
already used for disambiguating chords entered in chord mode.
Very likely, i don't know much of the lilypond internals.
Fortunately, this isn't at all needed for typesetting e.g. a
jazz-tune. It is sufficient to only have the root note, e.g. C from
C:m7, in a musical/transposeable context, the rest of the chord(here
m7) could just be represented as text as-it-is.
Maybe, from this point of view, there could be an alternative method
for typestting chords be implemented?
I don't see what you are trying to achieve here.
English is not my native language, but i try:
I wanted to point out, that the idea to get e.g.
c' e' g' a' from the chord c:6 is not really correct/complete and not of
much use, for various reasons:
-unclear in which octave
-unclear which voicing
-Not all pitches needed to be there(may be too much/dense) to make the
chord clear
-c' e' g' a' could be interpreded as chord a:m7
...
In a reallife jazz context, it's up to the player/band what to do with
chords. Lilypond is not a playalong-generator, but lilypond should
typeset chords. Lilypond can do this in most cases, but in my opinion
the mapping to single pitches/notenames is an unneeded, complicated and
errorprone overhead.
So, reducing the lilypond chord-handling to a singel pitch/root-note +
text/chord-description would be sufficient to typeset.
This way, all sorts of chord-types. e.g. c7/b9/#9/b5/whatever are
possible, without worrying about implementing all possibilities how a
chord could be interpreted.
I hope something is more clear now ;-)
Johannes
_______________________________________________
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
