2017-02-26 0:20 GMT+01:00 Noeck <noeck.marb...@gmx.de>: > Hi Harm, > > Am 25.02.2017 um 23:47 schrieb Thomas Morley: >> So no bug, but a design decision. >> >> To have the 11th included, one needs to explicitely state it: >> >> \chords { e:11.13 } >> >> If this is not done, the printing as E⁹ ¹¹ is ok, imho. > > As far as I understood Rob, the question is not so much about the 11 but > about the 9 in the printed chord name. > > Wouldn't E¹³ be enough to name that chord?
The question remains is 11th in or not? > What does the ⁹ tell? The ⁹ _and_ ¹³ tells the 11th is missing, as far as I understood. > I am exaggerating a bit, but if > e:13 is E⁹ ¹¹ > we could also label > e:7 as E¹ ³ ⁵ ⁷. Sure, but the tonic-pitch is always in, no need for ¹ The third as well, the absence of a minor-modifier tells us about a major-chord, no need for ³ The 5th may be in or not, it is that frequently omitted that explicitely stating ⁵ makes sense only for power-chords. So as the only interesting addition the ⁷ remains. > It might of course be, that I am misunderstanding > the issue. > > Cheers, > Joram \chords { %% from %% http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.19/Documentation/notation/chord-name-chart <c e g bes d' f' a'> %% or c:11.13 %% or unnecessarily verbose: c:1.3.5.7.9.11.13 } all inputs print c¹³ This should solve the OP's issue. But thinking about common usage, i.e. omitting the 11th... How to print it? C⁹ ¹³ looks reasonable to me. Though, ofcourse I may misunderstand the issue as well... Cheers, Harm _______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user