Re: "repeat" slashes and the nature of lilypond

[Chuck Boody]

On Feb 20, 2005, at 9:05 PM, <address@hidden> wrote:

> > By now, it is clear to everybody that you consider chord symbols to be
> > graphical objects and nothing more. Since Lilypond allows that - with
> > perhaps some tweaking here and there, and perhaps some minor syntactic
> > sugar to make the process more comfortable - I guess you must be 
> > happy.
> >
> > Then, what is the point of a statement such as the one above ? Myself,
> > as well as a number of others believe that Lilypond's system ain't all
> > that bad. Support for transposition is useful. We don't force you - or
> > anyone, for that matter - to like it or to use it. You can do without
> > it, that's ok with us. But please, don't feel as if you had the only
> > truth in hand about what is or what is not useful, appropriate, 
> > correct,
> > standard, good practice, etc.
> >
> > Darius.
>
> I apologize if I've offended anyone. I have a tendency to repeat 
> myself.
>
> Support for transposition is indeed useful, but I don't see how you
> need the block chords to accomplish that. All you need is the base
> notename; the symbols could carry from whatever notename you
> specified.
I'm no great shakes as a lilypond user, but I do understand the need 
for transposable chord names.  Some of us (many of us?) may create 
leadsheets of one sort or another.  Essentially those are melody and 
chord names.  If there is a need to transpose the thing it is 
cumbersome at best to have to transpose the chord names.  As to the 
many methods of describing chords:  There really are only a couple in 
common usage and one that is extremely common.  If lilypond supports 
that, and it appears from this discussion that it does, I can see no 
real problem with creating the transposition or creating MIDI files 
(shich of course merely act as aural checks for right chords and don't 
imply anything at all about spacing or even inversion....

Chuck Boody