Re: 13th chord?

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

Re: 13th chord?

On 26/02/17 16:04, msk...@ansuz.sooke.bc.ca wrote: > I've said it clearly enough times already, but I'll say it again: I think > there should be a feature to print what was typed, in the visual format of > chord names, without interpreting it as music. No more or less. And this > is proposed as

Re: 13th chord?

On Sun, 26 Feb 2017, Wols Lists wrote: > The OP complained that when he asked for "C13" he got "C 9 13". Sounds > to me like now, if he asks for "C13" that's what he'll get, but if he > asks for "C13 (A13)" he's going to get "C 9 13 (A 9 13)". That's almost > worse!!! What do you mean by "now"?

Re: 13th chord?

On 26/02/17 14:47, msk...@ansuz.sooke.bc.ca wrote: > On Sun, 26 Feb 2017, Wols Lists wrote: >>> I don't know what that refers to. Are you confusing me with someone else? >>> >> "I imagine it would make sense for most of its code to derive from the >> code currently used for lyrics, but that fact

Re: 13th chord?

On 26/02/17 14:05, Thomas Morley wrote: > 2017-02-26 14:34 GMT+01:00 Anthony Youngman : >> >> >> On 26/02/17 11:32, Thomas Morley wrote: >>> >>> 2017-02-26 12:12 GMT+01:00 Anthony Youngman : > I wrote some code which I submitted to lilypond

Re: 13th chord?

On Sun, 26 Feb 2017, Wols Lists wrote: > > I don't know what that refers to. Are you confusing me with someone else? > > > "I imagine it would make sense for most of its code to derive from the > code currently used for lyrics, but that fact would preferably NOT be > visible to users." The

Re: 13th chord?

On 26/02/17 14:21, msk...@ansuz.sooke.bc.ca wrote: > On Sun, 26 Feb 2017, Anthony Youngman wrote: >> Replying to myself - remember, you said the user shouldn't notice any >> difference. With my code, if you want to change the capo key, it's a > > I don't know what that refers to. Are you

Re: 13th chord?

On Sun, 26 Feb 2017, Anthony Youngman wrote: > Replying to myself - remember, you said the user shouldn't notice any > difference. With my code, if you want to change the capo key, it's a I don't know what that refers to. Are you confusing me with someone else? -- Matthew Skala

Re: 13th chord?

On 26/02/17 13:55, Anthony Youngman wrote: On 26/02/17 13:38, msk...@ansuz.sooke.bc.ca wrote: On Sun, 26 Feb 2017, Anthony Youngman wrote: EXCEPT. This is *exactly* the scenario in which you will want my chord transposition code, and that doesn't make sense in a lyrics scenario. Then they

Re: 13th chord?

2017-02-26 14:34 GMT+01:00 Anthony Youngman : > > > On 26/02/17 11:32, Thomas Morley wrote: >> >> 2017-02-26 12:12 GMT+01:00 Anthony Youngman : >>> I wrote some code which I submitted to lilypond to handle guitar capos. >> Do we have a

Re: 13th chord?

On 26/02/17 13:38, msk...@ansuz.sooke.bc.ca wrote: On Sun, 26 Feb 2017, Anthony Youngman wrote: EXCEPT. This is *exactly* the scenario in which you will want my chord transposition code, and that doesn't make sense in a lyrics scenario. Then they can use the existing code. In which case,

Re: 13th chord?

On Sun, 26 Feb 2017, Anthony Youngman wrote: > EXCEPT. > > This is *exactly* the scenario in which you will want my chord transposition > code, and that doesn't make sense in a lyrics scenario. Then they can use the existing code. -- Matthew Skala msk...@ansuz.sooke.bc.ca People

Re: 13th chord?

On 26/02/17 11:32, Thomas Morley wrote: 2017-02-26 12:12 GMT+01:00 Anthony Youngman : On 26/02/17 10:52, Thomas Morley wrote: If the chordNameFunction (ignatzek-chord-names) does not do what we want, we should improve it, but not drop a plethora of

Re: 13th chord?

On 26/02/17 12:24, msk...@ansuz.sooke.bc.ca wrote: On Sun, 26 Feb 2017, Thomas Morley wrote: If the chordNameFunction (ignatzek-chord-names) does not do what we want, we should improve it, but not drop a plethora of lily-functionality. I'm not proposing to "drop a plethora of

Re: 13th chord?

On Sun, 26 Feb 2017, Thomas Morley wrote: > If the chordNameFunction (ignatzek-chord-names) does not do what we > want, we should improve it, but not drop a plethora of > lily-functionality. I'm not proposing to "drop a plethora of lily-functionality" but only to provide something that will be

Re: 13th chord?

2017-02-26 12:12 GMT+01:00 Anthony Youngman : > On 26/02/17 10:52, Thomas Morley wrote: >> If the chordNameFunction (ignatzek-chord-names) does not do what we >> want, we should improve it, but not drop a plethora of >> lily-functionality. >> >> And yes,

Re: 13th chord?

On 26/02/17 10:52, Thomas Morley wrote: 2017-02-26 2:16 GMT+01:00 : On Sun, 26 Feb 2017, David Kastrup wrote: To me it would seem that the default mode of operation should be for them to have matched rules where feasible, in order to have least element of surprise.

Re: 13th chord?

2017-02-26 2:16 GMT+01:00 : > On Sun, 26 Feb 2017, David Kastrup wrote: >> To me it would seem that the default mode of operation should be for >> them to have matched rules where feasible, in order to have least >> element of surprise. > > I agree, but A. it may not be

Re: 13th chord?

msk...@ansuz.sooke.bc.ca writes: > On Sun, 26 Feb 2017, David Kastrup wrote: >> To me it would seem that the default mode of operation should be for >> them to have matched rules where feasible, in order to have least >> element of surprise. > > I agree, but A. it may not be feasible in some

Re: 13th chord?

2017-02-26 1:53 GMT+01:00 David Kastrup : > Thomas Morley writes: > >> Well, >> the printed output of >> >> m = >> \chordmode { >> >> c:11.13 >> %% unnecessarily verbose: >> c:1.3.5.7.9.11.13 >> } >> >> mII = >>

Re: 13th chord?

On Sun, 26 Feb 2017, David Kastrup wrote: > To me it would seem that the default mode of operation should be for > them to have matched rules where feasible, in order to have least > element of surprise. I agree, but A. it may not be feasible in some important cases, and B. even matched rules

Re: 13th chord?

msk...@ansuz.sooke.bc.ca writes: > On Sun, 26 Feb 2017, Wols Lists wrote: >> I'm guessing lily is taking *in* his request for "C 13", converting it >> into the chord, and then converting that chord *back* into what it >> thinks is called "C 9 13". With the result that lily's output does *not* >>

Re: 13th chord?

Thomas Morley writes: > Well, > the printed output of > > m = > \chordmode { > > c:11.13 > %% unnecessarily verbose: > c:1.3.5.7.9.11.13 > } > > mII = > \chordmode { > > c:13 > %%

Re: 13th chord?

On Sun, 26 Feb 2017, Wols Lists wrote: > I'm guessing lily is taking *in* his request for "C 13", converting it > into the chord, and then converting that chord *back* into what it > thinks is called "C 9 13". With the result that lily's output does *not* > match the user's input. Frustrating!

Re: 13th chord?

On 25/02/17 23:47, Thomas Morley wrote: > Obviously it's _me_ not understanding the issue. As a complete outsider, I read it extremely simply ... The OP asked lilypond to print the chord name as "C 13". Lilypond ignored him and printed the name as "C 9 13". Everybody seems to have got fixated

Re: 13th chord?

On Sat, 25 Feb 2017, Rob Torop wrote: > 13 chord would be rendered as C13 in Ignatzek notation. My question is - is > there a way for me to omit the "9" in the chord name?  My experience is There's no "9" in the chord name "C13", so what are you really asking? Do you want to enter a chord name

Re: 13th chord?

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: >>> >>>> Whe

Re: 13th chord?

2017-02-26 0:20 GMT+01:00 Noeck : > 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

Re: 13th chord?

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. >>>

Re: 13th chord?

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

Re: 13th chord?

op <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

Re: 13th chord?

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 conve

Re: 13th chord?

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

13th chord?

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? [image