Re: Mixed chord/note mode

[Lukas-Fabian Moser]

Am 22.08.22 um 21:34 schrieb Aaron Hill:
> On 2022-08-22 6:12 am, Lukas-Fabian Moser wrote:
> > 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
>
> Not to sound contrarian, but I would very much welcome the former syntax.
>
> While I have used LilyPond since 2.10.33 and am quite used to the 
> existing chord-mode form, I am nevertheless irked by the need to 
> sandwich the duration between the chord root and its modifiers.  I 
> have to make a strong mental effort to pronounce the chord in my head 
> as "D, for a half note, minor seventh" in order to successfully type 
> "d2:m7".
>
> If we borrowed the chord syntax from note-mode, it would mean when 
> typing "<d:m7>2" I could think "D minor seventh, for a half note" 
> which feels much more natural.

Maybe these are orthogonal questions?

- The "strange" order of elements in chord input mode (with the duration 
coming in the middle, so to speak
- The additional weight of the < > signs around each chord.

Of course Carl's arguments against changing established syntax 
arbitrarily are perfectly valid, but if we're spitballing, I've been 
wondering why it's not

f.maj7:!2 g.7 g.m7:1 f.maj7 ges.7

This has the drawback, of course, of needing c:4 instead of c4, but 
personally, I wouldn't be bothered very much by this. But of course it's 
very likeliy that this idea would create syntactical ambiguities that I 
didn't spot yet.

Lukas