Re: Lilypond and Jazz chords

[timmcn]

> On Jan 17, 2016, at 4:18 PM, Kieren MacMillan <address@hidden> wrote:
> 
> Hi Tim,
> 
>> that is a matter of individual preferences.
> 
> Agreed.
> 
>> Cmaj7#4 is less trouble to read than Cmaj7(#4) on the bandstand in an 
>> unfamiliar tune.
> 
> Disagreed.
> 
>> 90% of the extensions that are written on lead sheets are ignored anyway in 
>> favor of what the musician’s ear tells him or her what to play.
> 
> Agreed.
> 
>> Composers should generally save themselves the bother.
> 
> If you mean composers (or, really, engravers) should save themselves the 
> bother of writing chord names, I disagree.
> 
> If you mean there is a point of diminishing marginal utility on the number of 
> “extras” that are useful in chord naming, I agree.

That is my point- at least in jazz performance.  The needs of academics may be 
different (although I would argue that it would often be simpler and more 
accurate to define many of the chords with lots of tensions and extensions as 
polychords rather than cobbling together a numerical stew of a tetrad with six 
modifiers following.  That said, I am not sure that Lilypond handles polychords 
gracefully either).

> But then we are, to some extent, back to "individual preference” (cf. the top 
> of your email).

Yep- and perhaps the context of intended use as well.  An doctoral candidate 
submitting an analysis of jazz performance or a theoretical composition is 
paddling a different boat than the jazz musician on stage.