2017-02-26 1:53 GMT+01:00 David Kastrup <d...@gnu.org>: > Thomas Morley <thomasmorle...@gmail.com> writes: > >> 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. > > The printed output for all of the first is C13 (so we have c:11.13 -> > C13). The printed output for all of the second is C9 13 (so we have > c:13 -> C9 13). > > As a user interface, that's peculiar. The question is why we have > different defaults for input and output of chords.
The most common use-case for a 13-chord is to _omit_ the 11th, so we make an exception for it. And it's even documented: NR Extended and altered chords "Since an unaltered 11 does not sound good when combined with an unaltered 13, the 11 is removed from a :13 chord (unless it is added explicitly)." and NR A.2 Common chord modifiers Dominant thirteenth Dominant ninth, major thirteenth c1:13 <image> Dominant thirteenth Dominant eleventh, major thirteenth 13.11 c1:13.11 <image> > >> Obviously it's _me_ not understanding the issue. > > Does this make it clearer? You explained the issue sufficiently, thanks! Though, as said before, it's a design-decision and ofcourse we could do it the other way round, i.e.: c:13 -> c 13 c:13^11 -> c 9 13 but no bug. Cheers, Harm _______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user