Hi Blöchl (et al.), I agree that it would be interesting to know whether/how one can redefine the input such that (e.g.) c:5 gives <c g> (or <c bf> or whatever one wants) rather than <c e g> (current implementation).
However, modulo a language/communication barrier, I’d like to answer your other impliciit questions: > What should happen with a chord without a 3? A powerchord. […] What else? I would expect c:sus to give <c f g>, equivalent to c:sus4. > The question why c:5 only just gets a "normal" c chord instead of a power > chord It’s a good question. Certainly, composers (like me) who work in musical theatre write C5 to mean <c g>… so it would be nice to enter the same in Lilypond. > And why to use c^3 instead of c:5. Why c:5 does not work Analogously, c:6 would be <c a>?? Hmmm… I don’t think that’s quite right… Cheers, Kieren. ________________________________ Kieren MacMillan, composer ‣ website: www.kierenmacmillan.info ‣ email: i...@kierenmacmillan.info _______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
