Re: Chords in LilyPond

[Kieren MacMillan]

Hi Ivan,

Thanks for your input on this important thread.

> This "every chord can/should be given a name" hypothesis
> is a popular/amateur musician idea that does not exist
> in the concert/conservatory musician world.

Not every chord can or should be given a name, of course.

That being said, I must disagree with your implication that there is no room 
for improvement in the way Lilypond handles chords and their naming — and I say 
that as a full-time professional composer, arranger, and performer who makes 
most of my income from the "concert" world.

> Having lilypond chord structures contain this information will
> burden lilypond with a lot of useless and even _wrong_ information.

How is it "wrong" for the chord <c e g a> to [additionally] include the 
information 'root = a'?

> Ultimately, giving a chord a name is "analysis" of music,
> it is not a part of music notation.

Again, I must disagree: I included chord names in much of the score and piano 
part of my most recent full-length concert drama (commissioned by a leading new 
music ensemble in the United States), and both the conductor and pianist were 
deeply appreciative of their presence in the places I chose to include them.

Even if you are correct, why should Lilypond be artificially limited to pre-hoc 
notation only? Why shouldn't we expand Lilypond's power to support and 
encourage musical analysis?

> What you are suggesting is "naive" musical analysis which
> should not be a part of such a powerful notation program as lilypond.

So having additional power in the form of expanded analysis functions would 
somehow make Lilypond *less* powerful as a notation program? I'm not sure I see 
how that follows…

Best regards,
Kieren.
________________________________

Kieren MacMillan, composer
‣ website: www.kierenmacmillan.info
‣ email: address@hidden