Carl Sorensen <c_soren...@byu.edu> writes: > On 4/2/17 1:13 AM, "lilypond-devel on behalf of Renato Fabbri" > <lilypond-devel-bounces+c_sorensen=byu....@gnu.org on behalf of > renato.fab...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>Ok, I looked through the LilyPond code. >> >>Notes: >>*) There seems to be some emphasis on the perspective given in the book >>Die Jazzmethode fuer Klavier 1 (Klaus Ignatzek). >>Can someone send me a PDF of this book or know how can I find >>an online copy at least of the most important parts for this case? > > I do not have a PDF or a reference. But I think that the emphasis on > Ignatzek need not be exclusive. That is, Ignatzek has a point of view on > chords. So do Brandt and Roemer. Lilypond should be able to support > anybody's view, not just one person's. > >> >>*) Just so I (and other proponents) get it very clear, what do we need >>beyond our current capability exposed in the snippet: >>http://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/lilypond.git/tree/ >>Documentation/snippets/chord-name-exceptions.ly > > This capability reflects the current state of LilyPond's chord naming > structure, which is to try to guess the name of the chord by analyzing > pitches. So if you want to define a new chord name, you do it by > defining the list of pitches in the chord. It's doable, but the chord > itself doesn't carry any semantic information.
Except when it does. Music properties "inversion", "octavation", "bass" carry semantic information beyond the chord pitch. > The proposal is to put the necessary information describing the > semantics of the chord in the chord itself, rather than trying to > recreate it from the notes present in the chord. I am not saying that the current semantic information attached to chords by the \chordmode parser is suitable for all purposes and/or defined/utilized/documented to the best possible degree. But ignoring it would make for an awkward start. > Here's an old proposal that never made it to application: > https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-user/2009-01/msg00897.html > > Here's an interesting discussion on chord names that addresses a suspended > chord: > https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-user/2015-11/msg00864.html > > Here's another thread that shows problems with chord naming: > https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-user/2008-02/msg00391.html > > Here's an email discussing another possible benefit of the approach: > https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-devel/2014-11/msg00155.html > > And another discussion of some of the challenges: > https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-devel/2002-05/msg00069.html > > Here's one that actually started the thinking for the GSOC project: > https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-user/2014-12/msg00617.html > > Somehow the last thread got broken; here's the follow up: > https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-user/2015-01/msg00065.html > > I hope this is helpful. Certainly something to look through. -- David Kastrup _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel