Re: c:maj inconsistency

[Erlend Aasland]

Hi Carl

On 18. mai. 2008, at 11:56, Carl D. Sorensen wrote:
> > Hmmm, since c:maj is ambiguous, I think it's better to just
> > disallow c:maj without the 7.
> […]
> 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.

No problem, just disallow c:maj without any number...

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

Huh? Perhaps I misunderstand you, but this is the way things work  
right now: c:maj7 will produce <c e g b> and c:maj9 will produce <c e  
g b d>.

> Also, I can't see why c:maj is ambiguous as a chord name.

My mistake - I meant c:maj7: If we change c:maj to mean <c e g>, then  
what should c:maj7 mean? <c e g bes> or <c e g b>?

IMHO, by making c:maj equal to c, we would make c:maj7 (and friends)  
less clear. By just disallowing c:maj (without a 7, 9, 11, ...) we get  
rid of the "problem".


E