> On Jan 17, 2016, at 4:18 PM, Kieren MacMillan <kieren_macmil...@sympatico.ca> > wrote: > > Hi Tim, > >> that is a matter of individual preferences. > > Agreed. > >> Cmaj7#4 is less trouble to read than Cmaj7(#4) on the bandstand in an >> unfamiliar tune. > > Disagreed. > >> 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. > > Agreed. > >> Composers should generally save themselves the bother. > > If you mean composers (or, really, engravers) should save themselves the > bother of writing chord names, I disagree. > > If you mean there is a point of diminishing marginal utility on the number of > “extras” that are useful in chord naming, I agree.
That is my point- at least in jazz performance. The needs of academics may be different (although I would argue that it would often be simpler and more accurate to define many of the chords with lots of tensions and extensions as polychords rather than cobbling together a numerical stew of a tetrad with six modifiers following. That said, I am not sure that Lilypond handles polychords gracefully either). > But then we are, to some extent, back to "individual preference” (cf. the top > of your email). Yep- and perhaps the context of intended use as well. An doctoral candidate submitting an analysis of jazz performance or a theoretical composition is paddling a different boat than the jazz musician on stage. _______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
