While i might agree with you to some extent this is also a practial matter:
1) Whether or not you call it maj or *triangle*, m or MI is indeed a matter of culture and personal taste. But consider the following: A C7, a dominant, might tell a performing musician lots but when dealing with academic and analysis it is quite thin if the actual sounding timbre is a C13(b9), also a dominant, but allowed for when performing certain styles. What the composer/arranger chooses to do, is a different case than the needs of the academic (and specific composer/arranger).
2) There is also the matter of spacing. Cmaj7 #5 b9 #11/F# is stealing a whole system! That is insane (in the membrane!) and i stand by my statement that the default output of lilypond is undesirable.
Both Sibelius and Finale have a comprehensive libraries of chords and while not to everybodys taste, it does pave the way for a good default. The people of Sib and Fin have done theire homework. Sibelius perhaps even more so regarding chords. Perhaps it is possible to look what have already been done?
On Jan 17, 2016, at 3:28 PM, Carl-Henrik Buschmann <address@hidden> wrote:
A properly formatet complex chord stacks alterations in parenthesis.
Hemmm, that is a matter of individual preferences. As a jazz musician I find parentheses in chords add to the visual clutter and add no useful information. More characters add more confusion. Cmaj7#4 is less trouble to read than Cmaj7(#4) on the bandstand in an unfamiliar tune. Of course 90% of the extensions that are written on lead sheets are ignored anyway in favor of what the musician’s ear tells him or her what to play. Composers should generally save themselves the bother.
|
