Johan Vromans <jvrom...@squirrel.nl> writes: > On Sun, 20 Sep 2015 14:02:06 +0200 > David Kastrup <d...@gnu.org> wrote: > >> > On paper, we all write Am to designate an A-minor chord. However, in >> > LilyPond we write a:min. > >> Probably because it is usually written as a:m instead. "m" and "min" >> are aliases. > > True, although that was not what I intended to state. See below. > >> > So what is the big deal to write c:sus4 when you want to designate >> > your flavour of Csus? >> >> Well, your premise is faulty, so it's not really relevant for the c:sus >> interpretation. > > The point that I wanted to make was that you need to write chords > differently in LilyPond anyway, using colons and periods. So translating > c:sus into c:sus4 would hardly make sense.
I think it is not an outlandish expectation, once you see how a:maj and a:dim and a:min work, to have c:sus turn out a recognizable suspended chord rather than a power chord (which is anything but a suspended chord). It's not hard to learn c:sus4 for sure. But anything that works according to naive expectations without causing other problems leaves more time to learn more important things. > OTOH, a full translation of Am into a:m (and so on) would be interesting. That's not really much of an option because it's far outside of the lexical entities otherwise composing LilyPond input. -- David Kastrup _______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
