2017-02-26 0:20 GMT+01:00 Noeck <noeck.marb...@gmx.de>:
> 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
_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
