Thomas Morley <[email protected]> writes: > 2015-09-17 10:47 GMT+02:00 Simon Albrecht <[email protected]>: >> Hello Kaj, >> >> On 17.09.2015 09:27, [email protected] wrote: >>> >>> First I will declare, that I am not 100 percent sure this is a bug, but >>> friends of mine, musicians, say it probably is. Also, as I am not an expert, >>> I have tried to learn by searching on among others Wikipedia. >>> >>> It is about chords, a few of them. It started when I should clean write a >>> score from a manuscript. In one measure there were noted two chords, C5 and >>> C. Obviously not the same, as they stood just beside of each other. A search >>> on Wikipedia also told me, and this was also confirmed, the author's >>> intention, that C5 means C(no 3), hence <c g>, while the chord C means <c e >>> g>. But LilyPond treats these two the same and produces the same notes. This >>> is also clearly said e.g. in Appendices A.1 and A.2 of Notation Reference, >>> as well as in the text part. However even if possibly a correct procedure, >>> is it a correct practise? >>> >>> Another such discrepancy is about Csus, which Wikipedia (and my friends) >>> says is equivalent to Csus4, hence <c f g>. But LilyPond produces <c g>, >>> hence what should come from the notation C5 as in the previous paragraph. >>> >>> So, what is the truth? >> >> There are others who are more into the subject, but I may say: >> There is no ‘truth’. With chord names, there are so many different >> conventions and fiercely defended convictions that it’s impossible to define >> a single ‘standard’ naming scheme. (Edit: just like the NR says) > > Very true. > It's a mess, but LilyPond can handle it. ;) > >> >> Many things in the chords rendering may be overridden in LilyPond. In case >> you’re not aware yet, check out >> <http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.18/Documentation/notation/displaying-chords#customizing-chord-names> >> and perhaps the LSR <http://lsr.di.unimi.it>. If that doesn’t cover your >> wishes, you may come back with a code example, I’d suggest. >> >> HTH, Simon > > chrds = > \chordmode { > \set chordNameExceptions = > #(append > powerChordExceptions > ignatzekExceptions) > c:1.4.5 > c:1.5 > \notemode { > <c' f' g'> > <c' g'> > } > } > > << > \new Staff \chrds > \new ChordNames \chrds >>> > > If it's not sufficient you can set your own 'exceptions' for > chord-naming, see the links Simon provided.
I think you are talking past each other. Kaj complained about how LilyPond converts \chordmode input into notes, you explain how to change LilyPond's conversion of notes to markups in a ChordNames context. We could create an exception for c:5 (like we do for c:13 which drops the 11th step). I think that's a reasonable suggestion on its surface and c:5 is not likely to be in much use exactly because it is equal to c on its own. However, it would beg the question of how to interpret c:5+ and c:5- then. Those aren't redundant. -- David Kastrup _______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list [email protected] https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
