I think you are confusing the printed chord names with the lilypond chord representations.
Get rid of the notion that there is equivalence between groups of notes and the chord names. Rather, there is a mapping from the note groups to chord names. Just because two groups of notes map to the same name (in this case, to C11 or C9) does not mean that lilypond thinks the groups of notes are the same. This is just a non-identity mapping and these two groups of notes map to the same name. Maybe the default representation should make these differentiations? But that is not a bug, it is just a matter of taste. I consider it a normal matter to have to customize a chord name here or there (at least), so just add this exception framework to your house style and move on. And then, there is the matter of the best way to specify the chords using the \chordmode syntax. I suggest that it helps to just specify the notes you want, rather than starting with something bigger and trying to remove notes: See the examples below, HTH On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 7:32 PM, <lilypond-user-requ...@gnu.org> wrote: > From: Jan Kohnert <nospam001-li...@jankoh.mooo.com> > To: lilypond-user@gnu.org > Subject: Re: Displaying add9 > Message-ID: <1796182.PmaPqyeAAc@kohni> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > Hi, > > Am Donnerstag, 4. Dezember 2014, 23:14:14 schrieb Big Noise: > > there's a snippet that can help: > > http://lsr.di.unimi.it/LSR/Item?id=459 > > [?] > > > Does that help your issue? > > that one helped to get the stuff out to the colleagues, so thanks! But > still, > looking at the sourcecode, it seems more like a workaround than a real > solution. I consider it to be a bug. > > Personally, I know of two major versions of displaying that stuff: > 1.: <c e g d'> == Cadd9 and <c e g b d> == C9 > 2.: <c e g d'> == C9 and <c e g b d> == C7/9 > > Nothing I ever read, made <c e g d'> == <c e g h d>, simply because it's > just > wrong. > > There was another chord, which I couldn't make print the right way: > Cadd11. It > whould be <c e g f'> but neither c1:11^7^9 (which I considered to be right > Lilypond-Syntax), nor c11^7.9 (which was my second chance input) gave the > correct result. And C11 (what was displayed in both trials) is just wrong, > since it whould be <c e g b d f>, which is a totally different chord. > > Any of the devs there, who can clearify this one? > > -- > MfG Jan > \version "2.18.2" myChordExceptions = { <c e g d'>1-\markup { \raise #0.7 { \tiny " add" } \raise #0.7 { \normalsize 9 } } <c e g f'>1-\markup { \raise #0.7 { \tiny " add" } \raise #0.7 { \normalsize 11 } } } chExceptions = #(append (sequential-music-to-chord-exceptions myChordExceptions #t) ignatzekExceptions) % No big ideological crises here in terms of notes rawChordSequence = \chordmode { \set chordChanges = ##t c1:5.9 c:9 c:5.11 c:7.11 c:11 } % Just rename the ones you want to distinguish myChordSequence = \chordmode { \set chordChanges = ##t \set chordNameExceptions = #chExceptions \rawChordSequence } << \new ChordNames { \set chordChanges = ##t \rawChordSequence } \new Staff { \relative c' { \rawChordSequence } } >> << \new ChordNames { \set chordChanges = ##t \myChordSequence } \new Staff { \relative c' { \myChordSequence } } >> David Elaine Alt 415 . 341 .4954 "*Confusion is highly underrated*" ela...@flaminghakama.com self-immolation.info skype: flaming_hakama Producer ~ Composer ~ Instrumentalist -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
_______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
