2015-11-30 0:04 GMT+01:00 Noeck <noeck.marb...@gmx.de>: > Hi Kieren, > > as a guitar player, I am used to not having standards in chord notation > (the German note names confusion (H=B) being one of the constant issues > with that). So please forgive my ignorance when talking about consistent > systems of chord notation like Brandt-Roemer. > > I was interested in a direct comparison to the current style. That's why > I created the attachment from your testing code. > red = Lilypond's default style > black = your Brandt-Roemer style > green = differences I noticed (only once) > > My personal take is: nice and understandable. I like the sizes of > accidentals and the consistent font size for numbers. I am not used to > these diminished chords, the minor and the major 7 notation. > > Two questions: > 1. Why is Cm69 (ly) = C6/9 (BR)? Where is the "MI" gone? Is it kind of > implied? I don't see it. > > 2. (I almost don't dare to ask, but) in your code, could the "MI" for > minor be configurable such that the BR style can be used but with 'm' > for minor? (For ignorants who want to break with a standard.) > > Thanks for your work in any case! > > Cheers, > Joram
Well, I really have no time atm, but is Joram's pdf really what Brandt&Roemer propose?? Looking at the chord no 5 and 6 of this pdf I'd read the symbol's as e-major with added lowered 6th and f-major with added sharpened 6th. -Harm _______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
