While i might agree with you to some extent this is also a practial matter:
1) Whether or not you call it maj or *triangle*, m or MI is indeed a matter of culture and personal taste. But consider the following: A C7, a dominant, might tell a performing musician lots but when dealing with academic and analysis it is quite thin if the actual sounding timbre is a C13(b9), also a dominant, but allowed for when performing certain styles. What the composer/arranger chooses to do, is a different case than the needs of the academic (and specific composer/arranger). 2) There is also the matter of spacing. Cmaj7 #5 b9 #11/F# is stealing a whole system! That is insane (in the membrane!) and i stand by my statement that the default output of lilypond is undesirable. Both Sibelius and Finale have a comprehensive libraries of chords <http://i.imgur.com/t7torHR.png> and while not to everybodys taste, it does pave the way for a good default. The people of Sib and Fin have done theire homework. Sibelius perhaps even more so regarding chords. Perhaps it is possible to look what have already been done? > 17. jan. 2016 kl. 23.00 skrev Tim McNamara <tim...@bitstream.net>: > > >> On Jan 17, 2016, at 3:28 PM, Carl-Henrik Buschmann <p...@nordisk-lyd.no> >> wrote: >> >> A properly formatet complex chord stacks alterations in parenthesis. > > Hemmm, that is a matter of individual preferences. As a jazz musician I find > parentheses in chords add to the visual clutter and add no useful > information. More characters add more confusion. Cmaj7#4 is less trouble to > read than Cmaj7(#4) on the bandstand in an unfamiliar tune. > > Of course 90% of the extensions that are written on lead sheets are ignored > anyway in favor of what the musician’s ear tells him or her what to play. > Composers should generally save themselves the bother.
_______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
