Re: New feature: automatically invert chords or drop/rise chord notes (issue 365840043 by v.villen...@gmail.com)
On Feb 3, 2019, at 05:36, Valentin Villenave wrote: > > BTW, there’s no proper notion of inversions as such in jazz music > (AFAICT); so the purpose of an \invertChords function here is left to > our appreciation, with the minimal requirement being that the lowest > note of the chord changes each time -- but traditionally, I think the > lowest note of the previous inversion *should* become the highest note > of the next inversion (and reciprocally when proceeding in reverse). > If that means moving said note by two octaves instead of just one, > then so be it (IMO). As a LilyPond function, are there disadvantages to calling this “rotation” rather than “inversion”? While it is true that this algorithm yields chords that people call inversions, it does not yield every chord that might be so called. You could have an index entry for “inversion” which refers to the rotation command, and you will avoid questions from users assuming that an inversion command ought to do more it does. Regards, — Dan ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: Please test new lilypond installers
Hi Karlin! Maybe, installing compat6x package is required. # pkg install compat6x-amd64 ...and it did indeed fix the issue. LilyPond seems fully functional. Next, I want to make a FreeBSD 32-bit VM, and see about reviving an iMac G5 to test the PowerPC installers. Although I doubt there's a very big user base for those. Thanks for your help! Yes, some of the installers target somewhat aged platforms ... but as long as the installers are functional and don't cause too much work to maintain there's no reason not to keep them around. Knut ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: New feature: automatically invert chords or drop/rise chord notes (issue 365840043 by v.villen...@gmail.com)
This statement surprises me. I always thought of 'drop n' (with 'drop 2' being the most common one) as a means to transform closed-harmony _upper_ voices into open harmony _upper_ voices, without changing the bass at all. [...] Much like continued bass, what we’re dealing with here is the "right hand" positions, which most certainly does not affect the bass line, except in jazz music it will typically be played by the _left_ hand (or with both hands) whilst the actual bass line (often heavily anchored in root notes, much more so than in baroque music) is left to the bass player. In this regard, what I referred to as "changing the bass note" would actually be better phrased as "changing the lowest note played by the guy in charge of chords, regardless of what the global bass note will be". At least, that’s my understanding of how jazz music is conceptualized, which YMMV with. Yep, I think we can absolutely agree on that. (This reminds me of the famous virtual sing-post that some teachers like to attach to everything below c on the piano: "Keep off here - there's a bass player around!") I just wanted to point out that IMO it's not helpful to call the lowest sounding pitch played by one specific non-bass instrument (i.e. the piano) the "bass" note. BTW, there’s no proper notion of inversions as such in jazz music (AFAICT); so the purpose of an \invertChords function here is left to our appreciation, with the minimal requirement being that the lowest note of the chord changes each time -- but traditionally, I think the lowest note of the previous inversion *should* become the highest note of the next inversion (and reciprocally when proceeding in reverse). If that means moving said note by two octaves instead of just one, then so be it (IMO). Agreed - I just might add that, IMHO, as I tried to point out, the concept of chord positions arising "by inversion" is not that helpful in a classical context, either. By this, I do not mean that a 6-chord shouldn't be derived from a root-position chord containing the same pitch classes (even if that notion came up comparatively late in the history of music theory - probably as late as Rameau). Rather, even if one considers as being derived from an abstract c major chord, which of course is absolutely adequate in most situations[1] at least for everything from Baroque and later ages, I do not think that one should think of it as having arisen from some actual chord voicing by a procedure like "inversion". Lukas [1] More specifically, situations where chords do not arise by contrapuntal voice-leading patterns. ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: New feature: automatically invert chords or drop/rise chord notes (issue 365840043 by v.villen...@gmail.com)
On 2/3/19, Lukas-Fabian Moser wrote: > This statement surprises me. I always thought of 'drop n' (with 'drop 2' > being the most common one) as a means to transform closed-harmony > _upper_ voices into open harmony _upper_ voices, without changing the > bass at all. I see what you mean (and I did share your surprise when, also coming from a classical/baroque background, I first started hanging out with jazzmen: for example referring to `drop n’ voicings by counting notes from the _uppermost_ remains absolutely baffling to me). Much like continued bass, what we’re dealing with here is the "right hand" positions, which most certainly does not affect the bass line, except in jazz music it will typically be played by the _left_ hand (or with both hands) whilst the actual bass line (often heavily anchored in root notes, much more so than in baroque music) is left to the bass player. In this regard, what I referred to as "changing the bass note" would actually be better phrased as "changing the lowest note played by the guy in charge of chords, regardless of what the global bass note will be". At least, that’s my understanding of how jazz music is conceptualized, which YMMV with. BTW, there’s no proper notion of inversions as such in jazz music (AFAICT); so the purpose of an \invertChords function here is left to our appreciation, with the minimal requirement being that the lowest note of the chord changes each time -- but traditionally, I think the lowest note of the previous inversion *should* become the highest note of the next inversion (and reciprocally when proceeding in reverse). If that means moving said note by two octaves instead of just one, then so be it (IMO). (And yes, I need to stop using acronyms in every sentence :-) Regards, V. ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: New feature: automatically invert chords or drop/rise chord notes (issue 365840043 by v.villen...@gmail.com)
> On 2 Feb 2019, at 21:37, Dan Eble wrote: > > Isn’t the salient property of an inversion simply which note is lowest in > pitch? A formal description might be: A chord is a set of pitch classes numbered 0, 1, 2, …, for the root 0 and inversions 1, 2, …. A realization of an inversion in pitches selects as representative the lowest note; there might preferences for the others pitch classes in the chord, but in principle, they could be put in any octave if only above the inversion pitch. So the chord might be numbered 0 3 1 2 and then it is C9 with the 7th removed, or 0 1 2 3 which is C with the 2nd added. An inversion might renumbered and then becomes another chord. ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: New feature: automatically invert chords or drop/rise chord notes (issue 365840043 by v.villen...@gmail.com)
much like a suspended chord (the whole point of `drop n’ transformations being to change the bass note). This statement surprises me. I always thought of 'drop n' (with 'drop 2' being the most common one) as a means to transform closed-harmony _upper_ voices into open harmony _upper_ voices, without changing the bass at all. (Which is consistent with the notion that the differentiation between closed vs. open harmony only is concerned with the upper voices, so is a closed harmony voicing with drop-2 variant .) But it might be that it's just different stylistic 'homelands' showing up here, in my case, a mostly classical basso continuo-background. Lukas ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: New feature: automatically invert chords or drop/rise chord notes (issue 365840043 by v.villen...@gmail.com)
On 2019/02/02 20:37:16, dan_faithful.be wrote: Isn’t the salient property of an inversion simply which note is lowest in pitch? I think the point of inversions is not to rearrange pitches inside a chord, but to change the limits of the chord by changing *both* the highest and the lowest note. (I’m siding with Lukas’s #1 definition.) Which could also be said of so-called `voicings’, in a way: the point of \dropNote 2 would hardly be to get in return, but rather much like a suspended chord (the whole point of `drop n’ transformations being to change the bass note). Hence my latest proposal, that does exactly that (and therefore comes back to the UP/DOWN direction arg that David wanted to do away with). Cheers, V. https://codereview.appspot.com/365840043/ ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
