Re: Chords and what they mean

[David Kastrup]

Thomas Morley <address@hidden> writes:

> 2015-09-20 14:14 GMT+02:00 BB <address@hidden>:
>> I absolutely agree! I did not understand as I read that Lilypond now
>> supports misbehavour of some lazy people with reduced harmonic skills.
>>
>> There are a bunch of "coloured" sus chords, not just sus4 for every sus
>> sign.
>
> No idea if anyone tested my recent proposal, seems not.
>
> From the user's point of view it simply aliases
> c:sus to c:sus4
> and
> c:5 to c:1.5 or c^3
>
> no other sus is changed or impossible to use, c:5 will only work if
> the 5 is the one and only modifier, hence no other stuff is concerned.
> If it turns out that my low tested proposal doesn't warrant this, it
> needs more work, ofc.
>
> Though, I really don't understand why people don't test and give feedback.
> Instead more and more mails cumulate.
>
> -Harm
>
> P.S.
> David announced an own patch. I'm quite confident he will do better
> work than me.

Depends on what one wants to call "better".  The code may be marginally
nicer.  I think that my commit regarding "sus" is pretty uncontentious.
I'm not terribly convinced about the "5" part of my patch though.  The
main difference to your approach seems to be that you only change "c:5"
whereas I change "c:5*", so to say, with * being anything.  That's more
consistent with the general idea that the first digit sets up the basic
chord configuration and everything after it is a modification.  But it
also affects actually existing chords in the docs.  So I have to throw a
convert-ly rule into the mix.

-- 
David Kastrup