RE: c:maj inconsistency

[Carl D. Sorensen]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Erlend Aasland [mailto:address@hidden
> Sent: Sunday, May 18, 2008 3:03 AM
> To: Graham Percival
> Cc: lily-devel; Carl D. Sorensen
> Subject: Re: c:maj inconsistency
>
> Hmmm, since c:maj is ambiguous, I think it's better to just
> disallow c:maj without the 7.
>
> E

This proposed solution gets a little tricky when we talk about a c:maj9, which 
creates a five-note chord with a raised 7th step.

The original documentation said that :maj raises the 7th step *if present*.  
Can we get the performance to match that?

Also, I can't see why c:maj is ambiguous as a chord name.  Wouldn't c:maj just 
be a c major chord, which is the same as c?

Carl