Re: 13th chord?

[Rob Torop]

I'm pretty confused!  According to http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.19/Documentation/notation/chord-name-chart, a 13 chord would be rendered as C13 in Ignatzek notation. My question is - is there a way for me to omit the "9" in the chord name?  My experience is limited just to looking at jazz lead sheets and pop music, but at least in those I've never seen it done this way. I'm not saying it's wrong of course.

On Sat, Feb 25, 2017 at 5:47 PM, Thomas Morley <address@hidden> wrote:

2017-02-25 23:08 GMT+01:00 David Kastrup <address@hidden>:
> Rob Torop <address@hidden> writes:
>
>> When I enter a 13th chord like this e:13, it renders with a 9 as well.
>> I know a 13 chord officially contains the 9 and 11, and that lilypond
>> by convention will omit the 11.  But I don't really want to have the 9
>> showing.  Do I inadvertently have some setting on that is giving me
>> this?
>
> Minimal example:
>
>
>
> The default chord printer is Ignatzek.  No idea whether this would count
> as a bug with the Ignatzek naming framework or not, and how the other
> chord printers would behave in comparison.
>
> As a default, the mismatch between input and output seems weird.
>
> --
> David Kastrup


Well, we omit the 11 by purpose,
See the comment in construct-chord-elements from chord-entry.scm and
regtest chord-name-entry-11.ly.

Also quoting "Standardized Chord Symbol Notation" by Brandt/Roemer in
section "Dominant Thirteenths":
"In accepted usage, the 9th is included but the 11th is omitted. Quite
frequently the unaltered 5th is also left out."

So no bug, but a design decision.

To have the 11th included, one needs to explicitely state it:

\chords { e:11.13 }

If this is not done, the printing as E⁹ ¹¹ is ok, imho.

Ofcourse we could do it the other way round. as said: a design decision.


Cheers,
  Harm

--

Sent using my Mnemonic Memory Circuit