"James Hammons" wrote:
>
> > ... (at the moment I can't really use /chords mode because
> > I have to specify accurately which notes are in my chord so that my
> > chord-names.scm works).
>
> Why not? The examples in the file I sent show that it can be done (of
> course, this was with lily 1.3.50, I haven't been able to test .71 yet)...
> It seems to me that it would be a whole lot easier to type c:7+.9 for a
> Cmaj9 than to type <c e g b d> (of course, it would be even easier to type
> 'Cmaj9', but I digress)! I think what you want already exists. ;-)
Ok...I suppose I'm just suspicious of \chords mode, because I can't see
exactly what I'm getting.
(I take it this is handled (mostly) in chord.cc?)
>
> At the moment, I don't think so. As for the difference between an inversion
> and a bass note, well... Basically, when writing out chord symbols, you can
> have a note in the bass which is not a part of the chord--for example, a
> pedal tone or a tone that has only a distant relationship like a IV/V (e.g.,
> A/B). In an inversion, the bottom tone is an actual part of the chord (but
> then, you knew that ;-).
Yeah, I knew that... but, so basically an inversion is a bottom note
that is in the chord, and a bass note is a bottom note that isn't in the
chord.
Isn't the inversion redundant here? I mean why not just call it a bass
note? Would the following data be a reasonable specification of a chord:
1) A tonic
2) A collection of intervals above the tonic, specified in semitones
(this may or may not include 0).
3) A bass note.
gav.
