Re: m7.5- transposed to sus#4 b3 ??
Am 12.11.19 um 09:56 schrieb Sandro Santilli: On Mon, Nov 11, 2019 at 10:08:07PM +0100, Thomas Morley wrote: Am Mo., 11. Nov. 2019 um 21:38 Uhr schrieb Sandro Santilli : I transcribed an A major song with this chords snippet: ees:m7.5- | aes:7 | aes:m7.5- | des:7 | When transposing it to Eb major it is rendered as: Bbbø | Ebb7 | Ebb7sus#4 b3 | Abb7 If you transpose the note eeses down an augmented 4th the note beseses results. I did not transpose eeses, but ees. If you let the chords display in \new Staff you get a warning: 2.18.2: warning: Transposing eeses'' by ges makes alteration larger than double Indeed I do get that warning, but I was not transposing eeses ?? Where does 'eeses' come from ? It comes from the aes:m7.5- chord. LilyPond represents chords as pitches internally, so that is represented as . To circumvent, you could do \transpose a dis instead. Yup, this one fixes the warning and the weird rendering. Still uses double-alterations (double-sharps) but that's a separate issue (does lilypond have any support to automatically simpmlify those notes and/or chords?). Vanilla LilyPond doesn’t have such an automatism but I think there are functions for that in the LilyPond Snippet Repository. But after writing down my findings below I’d go for the harmonically correct sharps even in the untransposed version. Though, tbh I doubt chords based on ees, aes, des _in_ a-major are correct at all. Probably some modulation/key-change before? Or copy from a weird source? It's "The Shadow Of Your Smile" from the Real Book. I'm not sure what's going on there, harmonically. You seem to use the Bb version of The Real Book (vol. 1): Eb-7b5 Ab7 Ab-7 Db7 The C version of The Real Book uses the harmonically more correct sharps: C#-7b5 F#7 F#-7 B7 The Bb version of The New Real Book (vol. 3) uses the sharp version: D#mi7(b5) G#7 G#mi7(b5) C#7 Note that you wrote a half diminished chord (m7b5) on Ab where the Real Book (at least the 5th edition) writes a minor 7 chord (m7). If you have a close look at the melody in these measures (13–16) you’ll see that The Real Book in Bb uses the sharp version too: a'2. cis'4 bis2. a'4 gis1~ gis4 …
Re: m7.5- transposed to sus#4 b3 ??
On Mon, Nov 11, 2019 at 10:08:07PM +0100, Thomas Morley wrote: > Am Mo., 11. Nov. 2019 um 21:38 Uhr schrieb Sandro Santilli : > > > > I transcribed an A major song with this chords snippet: > > > > ees:m7.5- | aes:7 | aes:m7.5- | des:7 | > > > > When transposing it to Eb major it is rendered as: > > > > Bbbø | Ebb7 | Ebb7sus#4 b3 | Abb7 > If you transpose the note eeses down an augmented 4th the note beseses > results. I did not transpose eeses, but ees. > If you let the chords display in \new Staff you get a warning: > 2.18.2: > warning: Transposing eeses'' by ges makes alteration larger than double Indeed I do get that warning, but I was not transposing eeses ?? Where does 'eeses' come from ? > To circumvent, you could do \transpose a dis instead. Yup, this one fixes the warning and the weird rendering. Still uses double-alterations (double-sharps) but that's a separate issue (does lilypond have any support to automatically simpmlify those notes and/or chords?). > Though, tbh I doubt chords based on ees, aes, des _in_ a-major are > correct at all. > Probably some modulation/key-change before? Or copy from a weird source? It's "The Shadow Of Your Smile" from the Real Book. I'm not sure what's going on there, harmonically. --strk;
Re: m7.5- transposed to sus#4 b3 ??
Am Mo., 11. Nov. 2019 um 21:38 Uhr schrieb Sandro Santilli : > > I transcribed an A major song with this chords snippet: > > ees:m7.5- | aes:7 | aes:m7.5- | des:7 | > > When transposing it to Eb major it is rendered as: > > Bbbø | Ebb7 | Ebb7sus#4 b3 | Abb7 > > I don't understand why the third chord (m7.5-) > gets rendered as a "7sus#4 b3" chord, very hard > to read ... > > Ideally I'd also like to avoid the double flats, > but what strikes me is the "sus#4 b3" part, is it > a bug ? I'm using GNU LilyPond 2.18.2 and the > .ly file has a \version "2.18.2" header. > > --strk; > If you transpose the note eeses down an augmented 4th the note beseses results. If you let the chords display in \new Staff you get a warning: 2.18.2: warning: Transposing eeses'' by ges makes alteration larger than double 2.19.83: warning: Could not find glyph-name for alteration -3/2 2.18.2 uses aes instead of beseses, thus the strange chord-name. To circumvent, you could do \transpose a dis instead. Though, tbh I doubt chords based on ees, aes, des _in_ a-major are correct at all. Probably some modulation/key-change before? Or copy from a weird source? Cheers, Harm
Re: m7.5- transposed to sus#4 b3 ??
Am 11.11.19 um 21:38 schrieb Sandro Santilli:
I transcribed an A major song with this chords snippet:
ees:m7.5- | aes:7 | aes:m7.5- | des:7 |
Are you sure you want those chords instead of
dis:m7.5- gis:7 gis:m7.5- cis:7
? Who wants to read a a-flat half-diminished chord (a-flat c-flat
e-doubleflat g-flat)?
When transposing it to Eb major it is rendered as:
Bbbø | Ebb7 | Ebb7sus#4 b3 | Abb7
I don't understand why the third chord (m7.5-)
gets rendered as a "7sus#4 b3" chord, very hard
to read ...
The bigger problem is that while a-flat half-diminished is at least hard
to read, e-doubleflat half-diminished is just insane.
LilyPond 2.18.2 did the most sane thing it could do and changed the
b-tripleflat to a a-flat in that chord. You can see this if you output
not only as ChordNames but also as regular notes:
%%
\version "2.18.2"
C = \chordmode {
ees:m7.5- aes:7 aes:m7.5- des:7
}
<<
\new Staff \C
\new ChordNames \C
\new Staff \transpose a es \C
\new ChordNames \transpose a es \C
>>
%%
Ideally I'd also like to avoid the double flats,
You definitely should do that. Ideally by not using the single flat
chords in the a major version in the first place … But if you really
want to keep them, try transposing to d-sharp instead of e-flat.
but what strikes me is the "sus#4 b3" part, is it
a bug ? I'm using GNU LilyPond 2.18.2 and the
.ly file has a \version "2.18.2" header.
LilyPond 2.19.83 can handle triple flats (but cannot show them as notes
because it doesn’t really know how a triple flat accidental should look
like) so the output of the snippet above is “correct” with that version.
