> > Would this be acceptable/good enough/convenient for entry?
> >
> > Convention/Standard Logical/Lily(?)
> >
> > C# cis
> > Cb ces
> > Cm/Cmin c3-
> > Caug c5+
> > Cdim c5-
> > Cmaj7 c7
> > C7 c7-
> > Csus/Csus4 c4^3
>
> Depends. If the goal is "I want to have a way to enter a chord to
> Lily", the answer is yes. But when adding the (reasonable!)
>
So i thought. Except for the Csus and C7 issue,
this is exactly what Harald Banter proposes.
Most importantly, the mechanism is now in place.
> requirement that it must bear some logic relation to current
> conventions, this will not do.
> For example: since durations of notes are always powers of two, Lily
> could use c-2 for a 1/4, c-3 for a 1/8, etc. But instead it is
> much better to use the more intuitive c4 and c8.
> I think the same should be true for chord names. It should stick as
> close as possible to current conventions. It is, however, perfectly
> okay to support only one (or just very few) of the possible formats.
>
Ok, we'll have to see what we can do, making it
more intuitive.
> > C# cis
> > Cb ces
>
We might be adding C# C@, but then for note names
in general, of course.
> > Cm/Cmin c3-
> > Caug c5+
> Cdim c5-
> Csus/Csus4 c4^3
> If Cm is problematic, C- would be a good alternative.
> If Caug is a problem, C+ would be a good alternative.
If Cdim is a problem, C0 (zero) would be a good alternative.
I could live with c4 denoting a Csus4 and c2 denoting a Csus2.
I think we can add modifiers, and parse
"m", "min", "aug", and "dim". We'll get
"C m", "C aug" with spaces, of course.
> C7 c7-
Only C7 is acceptable, I think.
Ok, this can be hacked: if (7) accidental--;
Still, it doesn't really make sense, logically
it's plain wrong. I'm not sure whats Right here.
> Cmaj7 c7
No way. Can we use C^ (since ^ looks a little like a delta)?
We might hack this, adding "maj" as a chord-modifier.
"maj" would add a '7', other '7' would be ignored:
c maj == Cmaj7
c 9maj11 == Cmaj7.9.11
> For additions: just use the number, and prepend a `+' or `-' if it
> must be raised/lowered. Sometimes you see a `.' as a separator, e.g.
> C6.9 (actually, it is a raised dot).
>
> For exclusions: Can we use `!'? E.g. c11+7!5 c++9!1 (all
> hypothetical).
>
Optional (?) dot separator looks nice, don't know
if it's possible.
I think so. Perhaps ! is better...
Jan.
