Re: Mixed chord/note mode

[Carl Sorensen]

On Mon, Aug 22, 2022 at 12:59 PM Jean Abou Samra <jean@abou-samra.fr> wrote:

>
>
> > Le 22 août 2022 à 15:16, Lukas-Fabian Moser <lfm@gmx.de> a écrit :
> >
> > 
> >> Am 13.08.22 um 22:04 schrieb David Kastrup:
> >> We had this discussion a longer time ago, with chords and notes
> >> conflicting in that : is used for tremolo notation, too.
> >
> > For context:
> >
> > https://mail.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-devel/2012-09/msg00160.html
> [GLISS] Unifying \chordmode and \notemode
> > https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-devel/2010-04/msg00390.html
> Why don't we get rid of \chordmode?
> >
> > Probably there were other discussions after that, but these were the
> first I found.
> >
> >> Chord modifiers are a bit of a puzzlement to figure out later, but
> >> something like <c:> would (I think) be a major chord, <c:m> a minor
> >> chord and so on.
> >
> > Just for confirmation: This does _not_ mean that \chordmode would be
> abandoned, does it? (I probably got confused by some of the ideas in those
> old threads.)
> >
> > As someone who uses \figuremode on a daily basis, I learned to loathe
> the necessary < > signs around each and every element I enter (of course I
> get that it would be hard to get rid of them in figure mode). I think it
> would be a considerable gain in heavy-handedness if I would have to do
> >
> > <f:maj7>1*2 <g:7> <g:m7>1 <ges:7>1 <f:maj7> <ges:7>
> >
> > instead of
> >
> > f1*2:maj7 g:7 g1:m7 ges1:7 f1:maj7 ges1:7
>
>
>
> And what do you think about
>
> f1*2:maj7 g:M7 g1:m7 ges1:M7 f1:maj7 ges1:M7
>

I do not like it.  I don't like Do to indicate a major  chord.  I think
that one of the strengths in LilyPond is its consistency.  Whether in note
mode or in chord mod, the notename is a pitch.  And the pitch is all
lower-case .

g:7 is not a major chord, as I understand it .  It's a dominant 7 chord.
So even if we were to use the M and m convention (that you are proposing),
I don't think g:7 should change to g:M7.

I don't think we should change the syntax arbitrarily.  The new proposal
makes it nicer for French speakers and less nice for English speakers.  We
already have the syntax published, and out in the wild for many years.
Changing it, in my mind, is arbitrary.

Thanks,

Carl