2017-02-26 0:38 GMT+01:00 David Kastrup <d...@gnu.org>: > Thomas Morley <thomasmorle...@gmail.com> writes: > >> 2017-02-25 23:08 GMT+01:00 David Kastrup <d...@gnu.org>: >>> Rob Torop <rob.to...@gmail.com> writes: >>> >>>> When I enter a 13th chord like this e:13, it renders with a 9 as well. >>>> I know a 13 chord officially contains the 9 and 11, and that lilypond >>>> by convention will omit the 11. But I don't really want to have the 9 >>>> showing. Do I inadvertently have some setting on that is giving me >>>> this? >>> >>> Minimal example: >>> >>> >>> >>> The default chord printer is Ignatzek. No idea whether this would count >>> as a bug with the Ignatzek naming framework or not, and how the other >>> chord printers would behave in comparison. >>> >>> As a default, the mismatch between input and output seems weird. >> >> >> Well, we omit the 11 by purpose, >> See the comment in construct-chord-elements from chord-entry.scm and >> regtest chord-name-entry-11.ly. > > Huh? Have you taken a look at the output? > >> Also quoting "Standardized Chord Symbol Notation" by Brandt/Roemer in >> section "Dominant Thirteenths": >> "In accepted usage, the 9th is included but the 11th is omitted. Quite >> frequently the unaltered 5th is also left out." >> >> So no bug, but a design decision. > > The problem is not with the conversion of the input to a chord but with > the conversion of a chord to a ChordName. > >> 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. > > \chords { e:13 } is printed as E9 13 rather than E13 . So the question > is why the rationale for converting e:13 to chord notes differs from the > rationale converting the chord notes to a chord name. > > -- > David Kastrup
Well, the printed output of m = \chordmode { <c' e' g' bes' d'' f'' a''> c:11.13 %% unnecessarily verbose: c:1.3.5.7.9.11.13 } mII = \chordmode { <c' e' g' bes' d'' a''> c:13 %% unnecessarily verbose: c:1.3.5.7.9.13 } << \new ChordNames { \m \mII } \new Staff { \m \mII } >> looks perfectly fine to me. Obviously it's _me_ not understanding the issue. Thus I'll be silent here. Cheers, Harm _______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user