Re: Chord names broken since 2.16

[Jan Kohnert]

Hi,

Am , schrieb Johan Vromans:
> On Tue, 17 Mar 2015 01:33:52 +0100
> Jan Kohnert <address@hidden> wrote:
>
> > Version 2 whould probably be read more quickly and correct by Jazz
> > musicians, version 1 is more "correct" for a non-expert,
>
> I doubt this. Even a non-expert needs to know a few basic things. E.g., 
> C is
> a major triad. Cm is minor triad. 7 is a dominant 7th. 9 implies 7. 11
> implies 7 and 9. Sus4 implies no 3rd. That's about it.

This is why I put 'probably' in the sentence above. I can only speak for 
myself an the things I read in the past. I'd personally prefer version 
2; but I also saw version 1, and there's probably more in the wild. :) I 
totally agree basic knowledge is needed, but I doubt, a 
non-(jazz)-expert knows that 13 implies the 7th and the 9th, but not the 
11th, a.s.o.; so there _might_ be reasons for putting them into the 
printout. And this is why I thought about different standard layouts for 
different intended readers; again: this is just a thought, nothing more, 
since I personally like the default Lily-style (except for the missing 
"add" in some rare cases).

> A bottom line for me is that different combinations of notes should not
> collapse into the same chord symbol, and that established conventions
> should be followed as much as possible.

The thing is: Some chords do in the default Lily-notation. That's the 
point in this whole issue, and that is why a bug has been opened in the 
tracker (I posted the link earlier in the thread). The (new; read as: 
since v2.16) default makes <c e g d> and <c e g b d> printed the same 
way as "C9", and that simply is wrong in my optinion, since the two 
chords are used in completly different cicumstances and the intention of 
the composer/arranger to use the one or the other should be readable by 
the musician in the score (and I gues, we already agree in this point).

Best regards, Jan