RE: c:maj inconsistency

[Carl D. Sorensen]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Erlend Aasland [mailto:address@hidden
> Sent: Sunday, May 18, 2008 10:23 AM
> To: Carl D. Sorensen
> Cc: Graham Percival; lily-devel
> Subject: Re: c:maj inconsistency
>
> 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>.
>

Right now, :maj adds a major 7th step, even if no number is present.

c:maj is equivalent to c:maj7.  That is the confusion.

> > 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".
>

I'm OK with that, too.

In looking through the chord name scheme on Wikipedia (I know, it's not 
definitive for music, but it's widely available) (see 
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chord_(music)>), Cmaj is listed as an alternate 
name for the major triad.  In any guitar music I've ever played, major chords 
are always indicated without any suffix.

So I don't feel strongly about this.  I do feel strongly that c:maj should 
_not_ be the same as c:maj7.  I'd be fine if c:maj were disallowed.  I'd also 
be fine if c:maj denoted the major triad (i.e. basically equivalent to c:maj5.

Carl