mMin III: third mode of melodic minor
hMaj I: first mode of harmonic major
(mMaj III = Phrygian, third Mode of melodic major, but for mMaj I usually use the mode names)
Thanks for the clarification; that gives me a better idea of what you were saying. I'd clarify just a tad further by saying "mMin III: third mode of
ascending melodic minor" but, granted, that is assumed by many. "Melodic major" is something I had to look up; I've never heard that term used before. I was going to suggest that there's no such thing, but a quick search obviously showed that you're not the only one to use the term. My theory background started with standard classical theory and evolved to encompass jazz theory as I embraced both worlds as a performer and teacher. There are two (or more) schools of thought; basically, chords are derived from scales, or scales are derived from chords. I am generally in the "derive the scale to fit the chord" camp, but more on that later...
Scale notes are diatonic notes.
That very much depends on the scale and your definition of "diatonic." "Tonic" implies a "key" rather than a chord, so a diatonic scale is usually defined as one made up of the seven notes encompassed in the key of the work being analyzed, period. If you define "diatonic" as meaning using just the notes defined by a specific chord symbol, you are changing the standard meaning of the word diatonic. For instance, if one sees a C7#9, one might use a scale that uses C, Db, Eb, E, F#, G, A, Bb, C. There are, of course, other options, but let's take that one as a for instance. If the C7 is acting as a V7 function chord in a piece in the key of F major, it wouldn't be diatonic because the Db, Eb, and F# are not within the key signature of F. If the C7#9 is in a piece in the key of C, then the Bb would also not be a diatonic note. Yet, it IS a scale (a diminished or half tone/whole tone scale) that fits within the chord. In your nomenclature (which I think is incorrect, but I'll leave that up to you), would call it a diatonic scale because it fits the chord?
Passing notes can be diatonic notes that are not part of the chord, but the ones you were referring to are chromatic ones that are not part of the scale (of diatonic notes).
Yes, that sounds right. There are notes, however, that are part of chords with altered extensions that are not diatonic notes, though. Being part of a specific chord does not make a note diatonic.
I know that I sometimes use non-standard nomenclature, sorry for not explaining that.
No worries... I appreciate your reply and explanations of your meanings. Granted, I think using personal terminology rather than standardized terms makes discussions more difficult, but the drawbacks and benefits are different for everyone and their use situations. I work with a TON of different musicians in various genres as a freelancer, and the ability to communicate quickly, efficiently, and clearly with others is of paramount importance to the work I do, so we all kind of speak the same language (mostly). There are exceptions; I'm in a latin band with a percussionist who is steeped in the afro-cuban tradition and not much else and when we started playing together I had no idea what he was talking about... and he couldn't understand how I looked at music, either. We've learned a lot together!
For me a chord is a subset of diatonic scale notes with a root note as the lowest in the chord.
The only chords that are subsets of diatonic scale notes are unaltered chords; anything with an accidental in the "exponents" is no longer using only diatonic scale notes, nor is any I chord ("One chord," as in a C chord in the key of C) with a 7 or any higher number in the exponents (because the 7th is understood to be flatted) unless the 7th is specifically stated to be a major 7th. As I said earlier, a C7#9b13 or any other chord with alterations can not be constructed with only diatonic scale notes.
It is not limited to a stack of thirds, even though they are often used for a good acoustic reason.
Are you talking about voicing or just deciding what the notes of a specific chord are? "Fourthy" voicings, "drop 2" voicings, and a whole host of other ways to approach chord voicings help open up the sound of chords with four or more differing notes, for "acoustic reasons," but the chords themselves can usually be named in typical style using the odd-numbered extensions derived from the stacked third method. As I said earlier in the thread, and I think you agreed, no one plays dense chords as stacked thirds... acoustically, they are very muddy.
Different scales can often be used over chords, but to be theoretically correct and not misleading, the notation of the chord should reflect the note in the scale that is intended to be used or the most logical in context.
I would agree with that. I think we may differ in what we find to be logical, and that's OK... unless you need to communicate with a lot of musicians on a bandstand quickly!
Do you think maj7(b13) does not exist? I just shortened it as it was obvious which scale I meant (OK, not without the missing scale naming explanation). Anyway, I meant the b13 not as a full chord description but as a note of a scale (just notated as the higher octave as part of a chord) as the enharmonic to the #5.
Yes, it exists. Most of the time, though, it exists as an augmented major 7 chord, which could be written more clearly as C+maj7. A Cmaj7(b13) WOULD include a G natural as a specified chord tone as the b13 would alter the A to an Ab, whereas a C+maj7 would alter the G to a G#, removing the G natural and relegating it to passing tone status. A slight difference, but it's there.
I have no problem now, knowing that chord notation is a shortcut for selecting keys to play and not necessarily being theoretically correct, but before I was constantly mislead by a #5 in a chord symbol that was not a raised fifth in the scale but really a b6/b13.
That really isn't correct; see my previous paragraph. A #5 is absolutely, by definition, a raised fifth, and it removes the unaltered fifth from the chord. A b6 lowers the sixth, removes the unaltered 6th, and does NOT imply the inclusion of the 7th. A b13 (as a chord symbol extension) lowers the thirteenth and removes the unaltered thirteenth (and, since it's the same note as the sixth, also removes the unaltered 6th), AND implies the inclusion of a flat seventh. Technically (very), a C b6 and a C b13 are (slightly) different chords. In root position, a C b6 would be C, E, G, Ab while a C b13 would be C, E, G, Bb, Ab. A Cmaj7(b6) and a Cmaj7(b13) could be considered to be the same chord due to the inclusion of "maj7" in both, but I find the nomenclature in the first chord to be less clear; the use of numbers lower than 7 in a chord desired to contain a 7th goes against convention, although yes, people do that.
I know it is a small path between being just ignorant to the traditional view and being ignorant for a good reason that seems to be better now than the reasons in the tradition.
Ignorance implies a lack of knowledge, and I don't think that applies to you. Bucking tradition for reasons that make sense to you is willful, rather than ignorant. If that's an effective path for you and your goals, there's no reason not to. Nobody is harmed! It just makes discussion with others a bit more difficult, and maybe confuses others who are trying learn this stuff.
But I feel I make my way there even though it is often not accepted.
I admit some of your posts had me scratching my head, and some of things you've written I can't agree with and wouldn't teach my students, but making your way so that things make sense to you, are clear in your head, and allow you to accomplish your goals musically is pretty important. I'm certainly not trying to tell you what YOU must think... just offering further information for anyone interested.
I might need to name my scale term "diatonic scale" because the common scale term is such a mix of different things.
Maybe find another term. "Diatonic scale" is already taken and defined...
All the best... thanks for the post.
Edit... to an already way too long post... I had promised in the first paragraph to further address the "which came first, the scale or the chord?" ways of thought. As concisely as possible, I'll describe how I view that question...
First, the key.
Second, the diatonic scale using the seven notes within that key signature.
Third, the chords derived from that scale, all of which can be played over (with the limited harmonic and melodic tension) using the original diatonic scale, emphasizing different scale degrees (basically, describing the seven "church" modes).
Fourth, chords using altered extensions.
Fifth, new-fangled scales consisting of the notes within those altered chords and passing tones selected for their leading properties to those tones.
That's what makes the most sense in my brain. I DO know players, usually sax and trumpet players, who will experiment with altered scales and think "hey, man, I really love the sound of this scale... what chord do you think it goes with?" Nothing wrong with that, but as a piano player scales to me are just chords sounded one note at a time filled in with approach/passing notes to each chord tone. While I understand them, I find the entire altered scale, lydian chromatic concept, and other scalar approaches to improvisation needlessly complex. The scales write themselves if one understands chord structure.
On top of that, melodic improvisation also needs to take into account, and I would argue to an even GREATER degree than simply choosing notes that fit a given chord, what the chord being APPROACHED is. Choosing a scale that fits a certain chord won't always allow an improvisor to construct melodies and phrases over chord CHANGES effectively.
