On Jun 15, 2009, at 2:00 PM, Kieren MacMillan wrote:
Wol et al:
Let's take the notes C, Eb, F, Ab. Which chord is that? What's the
root?
You can easily go from the name to the notes, but not the other
way round.
We *could* parse it from the first note, i.e. in relative mode
<F C Eb Ab>
and
<Ab C, Eb F>
would display as the same chord (close harmony), but generate two
different chord names (e.g., Fmin7 and Ab6, respectively) based on
the first-chord-pitch-is-"root" system.
Not sure if it's enforceable, but it's one way of getting the cake
and eating it too. =)
Unless you want Ab6/Eb from < Eb Ab C F >. The problem here, of
course, is that human interpretation is much more flexible and is
able to take intent into account, whereas machine algorithms are
challenged by this sort of thing and typically fall short. Also, if
the voicing leaves out the 5th (common in jazz) then what does that
do to the ability to parse the chord into chord names?
How many users are wanting to write out chord entries by note ( <c e
g b>2 <b d fis a>2 <d fis a c>2 etc. ) into .ly files and have
LilyPond parse them into chord names above the staff? I don't do
that- I am just writing out Real Book-stye lead sheets and use the
chord naming method ( c2:maj7 b2:m7 d2:7 )- so I have no idea how
usual this is. Would it be reasonable to separate the functions of
putting notes on the staff and chord names above the staff, and let
the user spell out the chord names separately from the notes on the
staff? Doing so might really simplify this discussion and result in
better control of the final output.
_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user