I appreciate and thank you for your contributions, specifically your use of an obscure coding language that most musicians don't have the time or desire to learn, most Wikipedians don't have the time or desire to learn, and thus very few musicians on Wikipedia learned. I have been told by a few highly opinionated Wikipedians that LilyPond is preferred to images of musical notation and sound files of the depicted music, but I have not seen anyone take much, if any, of the time and effort that you have to try to replace useful images with useful LilyPond substitutes.
However, I am happy to ask that you please create complete substitutes for the things that you remove. It may make a few people quite happy that you do the work for them and replace an uploaded image of a musical chord with a generally quite similar LilyPond generated image, but for most people, such as people without musical training reading articles about music topics, the failure to replace the sound file with a generally quite similar LilyPond generated synthesis creates a large gap and leaves many readers without any real access to the information portrayed.
It is quite discouraging to users who cannot read music to read a description of a chord containing words with multiple meanings in multiple contexts (such as consonance, which may refer to agreement as opposed to disagreement, similarity as opposed to difference, matching as opposed to clashing clothing, to consonants as opposed to vowels, and more) but not be given the means to listen to what is described and evaluate the description using their perception of the object described (I can look at a picture of a chord and play it on my keyboard, if need be, but people, even musicians, who can't read music can not do that, so if the LilyPond image does not contain a means of playing a chord these users may never know what the chord sounds like).
For example, in the "Supertonic" article you replaced the images of scales with LilyPond code and replaced the MIDI files of those scales with LilyPond synthesis playing those scales followed by the supertonic chords, but you removed any ability for a reader who cannot read music to play the chords alone. This makes it much more difficult to compare one form of the supertonic with another form (such as the supertonic seventh chords with no sound file or LilyPond synthesis). If LilyPond is preferable because it is more accessible (it may be modified by people without the "privilege" of owning musical notation software), then it should be used to create the most accessible examples possible rather than as an excuse to remove information because it's not presented exactly the way that someone wants it to be.
I would also like to ask that you please reposition citations to the relevant text or LilyPond image that you substitute for image files, as verifiability is one Wikipedia's highest priorities and articles are weakened rather than strengthened when the material discussed is not supported by citations. Hyacinth (talk) 01:48, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
:{{Reply to|Hyacinth}} Sorry for the late reply. It's been a busy month of moving. I usually do add sound files. For things like the supertonic article I didn't really think it was as useful because it is just playing minor seventh and half-diminished seventh chords. Without having the key established, to me, it doesn't really give a sense of what a minor seventh on the ii sounds like. People may disagree, but that is why I left out the sound files in that article.
:P.S. It's pretty easy to add a sound file. For many, you can just click edit, click on the music, go to Audio, and select "Include an audio file". Alternatively, you can add 'vorbis="1"' after 'Squandermania (talk) 19:50, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
