# Ct chord symbol generates same notes as C chord symbol

• Sep 9, 2020 - 16:19
Reported version
3.5
Type
Functional
Frequency
Few
Severity
S5 - Suggestion
Reproducibility
Always
Status
active
Regression
No
Workaround
No
Project

Add a chord on a note with CTRL K, give the C name
Add a chord Add a chord on a note with CTRL K, give the Ct name
Generate notes (by right click) for each chord
C gives : ID -1018 Notes C,C,C,E,G
Ct gives : ID -1019 Notes C,C,C,E,G
The good answer is given by CMaj7
ID -1020 Notes C,C,C,E,G,B

Hmm, well, as far as I can tell "Ct" is the same thing as "CMaj", if you want it to sound like "CMaj7", spell it as "Ct7"

 Severity S4 - Minor ⇒ S5 - Suggestion

Indeed. There is some debate within the jazz community as to how people should interpret the triangle with no seven, some arguing strongly that the triangle was meant from the beginning to suggest "triad", others saying that in modern usage it normally implies a major seventh. To me, the mere fact that confusion exists is reason to not use the triangle all by itself. But my sense is that the majority of people who use it by itself today do mean to imply a major seventh, and someday we could indeed alter the parser to interpret it that way. Not just for playback, but in the internal representation used for MusicXML export etc as well.

 Frequency Once ⇒ Few

Just to add some geo-data: here in Argentina we usually concord with that Wikipedia capture (C^ = Cmaj7, C-^ = Cm(maj7)). Considering that C alone means the major triad (C,E,G), adding M or ^ just to signify the same has no purpose. Considering that people have different habits and traditions (not necessarily logical) and MuseScore has to accommodate them all, I'm not sure what would be the best thing to do...
Best regards and thanks for the info!

The M is used to remove doubt (e.g. for places where one could expect a minor chord)

Still, I think you put it well when you said "people have different habits and traditions (not necessarily logical)" - emphasis on the "not necessarily logical" :-).

Again, I do feel it would probably make sense to change our interpretation here, although I have no real sense of how many people have the opposite expectation.

In reply to by Marc Sabatella

Issues like this maybe could benefit from some kind of user-base survey (I have no idea which media would be better or are available for this in the MuseScore ecosystem), I imagine the result could have a notorious geographic dependence, and maybe the result could be incorporated in the localization process of the software (like when users select language, EN-US, ES-AR, etc., and that incorporates the typical nomenclature for that region...).
Just long-shooting a little... ;)
Thanks a lot for the responses.

As a traveller and a VPN user, I hate when software take decisions for me based on what they imagine be my location/nationality.
I would much rather have an explicit config panel in MuseScore.

I agree. Just to clarify: I meant localizations that the user defines/apply, not necessarily automatic ones.
Anyway, I kind of remember that those are based on system preferences (which shouldn't change no matter how much a laptop travels, let's say ;)
Regards