Re: Chord names broken since 2.16

[Thomas Morley]

Hi again,

please always reply to all ;)

2015-03-15 14:19 GMT+01:00 Amelie Zapf <address@hidden>:

Hi Thomas,

> Though, I can easily imagine situations where <c e g d> is dominant or
> subdominant or tonic, depends on the surrounding circumstances.

True. But the reverse doesn't hold.

So far, I'd agree

 

> Again, I disagree here. Correct ChordNames (together with some common
> agreements) will show only which pitches are present, not their harmonic
> function.

And that's precisely what C9 for <c e g d'> doesn't do. It implies the
minor 7th that just isn't there, but, if present, would drastically
change the chord type. Let's put it like that: two vastly different
chords would become synonymous.

Agreed as well. (My point was to emphasize the absence of any functional harmonic meaning with ChordNames.)

 

> Though this will have the above already mentioned disadvantage, see the
> following example, last chord.
>
> \new ChordNames
> \chordmode {
>     \set additionalPitchPrefix = #"add"
>     <c' e' g' bes' d''>
>     <c' e' g' d''>
>     c:7.9
>     c:5.9
>     c:5.7+.11+.13

In practical jazz improvisation you'd just omit a few tones from a 6 or
7 note chord. I don't know anybody who'd write a double "add" there.
Everybody would call it a C [triangle] #11 13.

And that's the reason why 'additionalPitchPrefix' was changed.

 

Plus, the presence or
absence of the d in said chord wouldn't nearly make as much of a
difference as the b flat in the 9th chord.

Kind regards,

Amy

All in all I'd go for adding <c e g d> to 'chordNameExceptions', see my previous mail.

I'll likely put up a patch for it.

Cheers,

  Harm