[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: formal requests

From: wintryblue
Subject: Re: formal requests
Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2005 12:53:59 -0500

> Regarding your request to decouple the chord symbols from any kind of
> musical semantics (i.e. interpreting them as a particular combination
> of pitches), we have had exactly the same discussion about the support
> for figured bass in LilyPond. In that situation, it seems that most
> people agree that the current solution where LilyPond only supplies a
> kind of drawing board for figured bass without any musical
> interpretation, is reasonable, since there were so many different
> conventions during the baroque era and the figured bass was just used
> as a kind of rough stonegraphy anyway. When it comes to chord symbols,
> it seems that most users are happy with the current solution with
> predefined chord notation according to a few standards.
>      /Mats

I understand that you guys have spent quite a while coding that in,
and you wouldn't want to remove it. But I just want to point out that
no jazz musician actually thinks of those chord symbols as being tied
to those pitches. Those are just guides. The fact that lilypond
outputs MIDI for those chords strikes me as ridiculous. Who actually
has any need for block chords, I ask you? People want chord symbols
for the symbols themselves. They don't need Lilypond telling them that
those notes go along with it. It's just wrong.

The problem with tying notes to symbols is that is tries to enforce
consistency in a system where none exists. And using Ignatzek is sure
to alienate the 90% of the jazz population that didn't grow up in

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]