Re: Adding text to chord names or note names

[kbvw]

Hi Kieren,

Thanks for your reply; I hope my message didn't come off as rude or 
unsolicited. 

(To be sure: I did not mean to suggest removing any functionality that's there. 
I can easily see many use cases for calculating the actual pitches of a chord 
internally. I meant more of an alternative chordNameFunction or engraver of 
some sorts that could be swapped in, one that would display arbitrary extra 
information for a chord as a suffix.)

As a new user, the message was mostly intended to ask around a bit for the 
state of the art or latest thoughts on this. 

So far, I found most of the code relating to the (new) chord engravers in 
scheme and I can see how that part works, but I'm not too clear yet on the 
input side. I saw there was talk of a unified chord/note input; I'll keep 
reading the discussion/source/issues to get up to speed.

(Meanwhile Jean's solution puts me in business for what I wanted to do; thanks 
again Jean!)

All the best,
Koen


------- Original Message -------
On Monday, November 28th, 2022 at 3:37 PM, Kieren MacMillan 
<kieren_macmillan@sympatico.ca> wrote:


> Hi Koen,
> 
> > I still think it could be nice to try to write a longer-term solution.
> 
> 
> There has been a lot of work done on chord naming over the last decade, 
> mainly as part of a Google Summer of Code project a few years ago, but 
> essentially none of it has yet navigated through the patch submission process.
> 
> There are lots of people who think it would be nice to write a long-term 
> solution — it just keeps getting stalled (for various reasons). <sigh>
> 
> > Do you think there would be any interest in specifying the chord suffixes 
> > like that, directly from markup?
> 
> 
> Not sure if I can speak for anyone else, but my interest is (and has always 
> been) in having a robust, unified system with a clean UI that handles most 
> (if not all) of the main use cases.
> 
> > in the specific use case of printing a harmonic background, the layer of 
> > calculating chords from internal pitches is redundant anyway. There are 
> > many ways to think about a chord, and I change the way I think about them 
> > all the time: I just want to write it down and I don't need LilyPond to 
> > reason about it. :) (Although a root and a bass note are still useful.)
> 
> 
> Make sure you’re up to speed on what’s been done in this area, since some of 
> the groundwork may be complete. And of course there are good reasons that 
> Lilypond has the calculating chords layer — the thing we all want (I think?) 
> is to add functionality without losing what’s already there!
> 
> Cheers,
> Kieren.