Hi Simon (et al.), >> C4/3 / Db > Corresponding to <des g bes c' e’>?
Correct. > Adhering to standards would result in C7/Db, wouldn’t it? *Which* standards? 1. In my musical theatre and jazz charts, you are correct: I would want C7/Db to be written to the chord symbol line. 2. In my new “classical”/“art” music, it’s a different story. To great relief from [at least some] new-music colleagues, I’ve begun including chord symbols in my scores — either in the score only (for conductor study) or in parts only (for pianists, marimba players, etc.) or both. In those contexts, I would want the chord symbol line to contain C4/3 / Db (where the 4/3 is written “4 over 3”, like figured bass). > Nor can it be output, as far as I know. What you mention, is a specific > voicing of a C7/E, and doesn’t chord notation by design leave exact voicings > unspecified? Yes — that’s precisely my point. In a perfect world, we would be able to (though not forced to) indicate a voicing in the input — be that chordmode or <> or something entirely new — and then choose at output time what to do with that [extra] information: in a jazz chord chart, output the standard jazz chord symbol; in a musical theatre P/C score, output the standard MT chord symbol in the symbols, *but write out the voicing explicitly in the piano staff*; etc. I have no idea whether this is possible, or if anyone else is trying (and hoping) to use chord input/throughput/output in the same way(s) as me. I’m just throwing my thoughts into the discussion, because Charles wants input. Thanks, Kieren. ________________________________ Kieren MacMillan, composer ‣ website: www.kierenmacmillan.info ‣ email: i...@kierenmacmillan.info _______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user