> 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?)
It's a bit dodgy, but it works. Really, it isn't all that bad once you get
used to it... ;-p As far as I know, it's handled in chord.cc.
> 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?
Yes, from a typesetting point of view they are one and the same (but not
from an analytical POV, mind you!). Once upon a time, however, that
distinction was important in order to get the feature implemented in the
first place!
> 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.
This is how it's implemented (more or less) now. To get a bass note, you
have to add /+notename or /notename to your chord designation (the "+"
signifies a non-chordal tone, though I would drop the distinction and make
them all appear to be non-chordal). So, if you want a quarter note C/E you
would use c4/e and for C/D you would use c4/+d. Works quite well (kudos to
Jan and Han-Wen)! The only problem at the moment is that the \translator
\ChordNameContext chordNameWordSpace = #nnn } doesn't seem to work any more
while the \translator { \LyricsContext textScriptWordSpace = #nnn } does; so
while chord symbols don't collide anymore (great!) they don't seem to pay
any attention to the spacing I've specified in my \paper block (drat!). Of
course, this was with 1.3.50, so YMMV...
-- Shamus
