Hi Kaj, Kieren, Am 18.09.2015 um 22:47 schrieb Kieren MacMillan: >> 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.
Answering why is easy: The number indicates the step up to which thirds are added [1] and between c and g you can put the usual 2 thirds. The question is more whether that is a desirable logic, because this standard C chord is already entered as c and – as posted several times – C5 usually/often indicates <c g> in scores. So this could qualify for an exception. Back to the question by Kaj whether the input language could be adaptable: I would say, flexible ways of specifying the *output* is a design goal of LilyPond and you can tweak almost everything to your liking in the output on paper. Like the chord exceptions others posted. Having different *input* syntax for different people according to their taste is more complicated and it's doubtable that this is a good aim for LilyPond. Exchanging code gets more complicated and small snippets are not necessarily self-consistent. You always would have to specify the definitions. One example where it is possible is the input language of notes (e.g. \language english): In my German (\language deutsch) code <c e g b> is a C7 chord not a Cmaj7. For note names I like that. What I am trying to say: Adjustable input syntax also makes life more complicated in other circumstances. Cheers, Joram [1]: http://www.lilypond.org/doc/v2.19/Documentation/notation/chord-mode.html#extended-and-altered-chords _______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user