> On my end, modifying "e,:1.7.10^3" to "e,:m1.7.10^3" in the supplied example
> has no effect on the output. :/ At least one of the two variation should
> produce a natural G above the fifth line, or am I overlooking something
> here? (/me amateur-self-taught-hobbyist guitar player.)
>
> Moreover, replacing the chord definition in the example code with one of the
> two snippets below, should produce the same results (but it does not):
>
> e,:m3 — G on the second line.
> e,:m1.3 — G# on the second line.
>
> Specifying "m" in the definition should indicate to LilyPond that I'm trying
> to create a minor chord, with a minor third. Is this a bug? Is this known?
> Should I create an issue for it?
>
> On Sun, Dec 18, 2011 at 9:13 PM, David Kastrup <
address@hidden> wrote:
>>
>> Róbert Kohányi <
address@hidden> writes:
>>
>> > I'm trying to typeset an E minor seventh chord where the third is an
>> > octave higher and the fifth is omitted in the key of E minor
>> >
>> > Given the example below, I would expect that three notes are printed
>> > on the staff: E–first line, D–fourth line, G–above the fifth line.
>> > However instead of a G a G# is printed above the fifth line.
>> >
>> > If I change "e,:1.7.10^3" to "e,:1.7.10-^3" I get the desired output.
>> >
>> > Can I tell LilyPond somehow to "figure out" that I'm in E minor and
>> > the tenth of the chord is actually a G and not a G#? It seems to me
>> > that it builds the chord like the key was E major.
>> >
>> > \version "2.14.1"
>> > \relative c {
>> > \clef "treble_8"
>> > \key e \minor
>> > \chordmode {
>> > e,:1.7.10^3
>> > }
>> > }