> -----Original Message----- > From: Erlend Aasland [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Sunday, May 18, 2008 3:03 AM > To: Graham Percival > Cc: lily-devel; Carl D. Sorensen > Subject: Re: c:maj inconsistency > > Hmmm, since c:maj is ambiguous, I think it's better to just > disallow c:maj without the 7. > > E
This proposed solution gets a little tricky when we talk about a c:maj9, which creates a five-note chord with a raised 7th step. The original documentation said that :maj raises the 7th step *if present*. Can we get the performance to match that? Also, I can't see why c:maj is ambiguous as a chord name. Wouldn't c:maj just be a c major chord, which is the same as c? Carl _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
