Hi again,
please always reply to all ;)
2015-03-15 14:19 GMT+01:00 Amelie Zapf <a...@ameliezapf.com>:
> Hi Thomas,
>
> > Though, I can easily imagine situations where <c e g d> is dominant or
> > subdominant or tonic, depends on the surrounding circumstances.
>
> True. But the reverse doesn't hold.
>
So far, I'd agree
>
> > Again, I disagree here. Correct ChordNames (together with some common
> > agreements) will show only which pitches are present, not their harmonic
> > function.
>
> And that's precisely what C9 for <c e g d'> doesn't do. It implies the
> minor 7th that just isn't there, but, if present, would drastically
> change the chord type. Let's put it like that: two vastly different
> chords would become synonymous.
>
Agreed as well. (My point was to emphasize the absence of any functional
harmonic meaning with ChordNames.)
>
> > Though this will have the above already mentioned disadvantage, see the
> > following example, last chord.
> >
> > \new ChordNames
> > \chordmode {
> > \set additionalPitchPrefix = #"add"
> > <c' e' g' bes' d''>
> > <c' e' g' d''>
> > c:7.9
> > c:5.9
> > c:5.7+.11+.13
>
> In practical jazz improvisation you'd just omit a few tones from a 6 or
> 7 note chord. I don't know anybody who'd write a double "add" there.
> Everybody would call it a C [triangle] #11 13.
And that's the reason why 'additionalPitchPrefix' was changed.
> Plus, the presence or
> absence of the d in said chord wouldn't nearly make as much of a
> difference as the b flat in the 9th chord.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Amy
>
All in all I'd go for adding <c e g d> to 'chordNameExceptions', see my
previous mail.
I'll likely put up a patch for it.
Cheers,
Harm
_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
