We seem to be in agreement except for one concept: The idea of a
jazz/pop chord symbol being based on a melodic minor scale, or any
other scale for that matter, is irrelevant. There is no way for a
person reading the chords to guess what form of minor mode is being
invoked. Scores do not say up front: "I am in melodic minor." And, it
would defeat the purpose of the system anyway, that being, to be simple
and practical.
Those who play chord symbols tend to know some basic concepts. They can
play a major chord on any note. They can make any of those chords a
dominant 7th chord (E7). They know how to add a sixth as a whole step
above the fifth. They know how to add a second or ninth a whole step
above the root .
Anything other than this is considered an alteration from those basics.
In fact, it isn't even necessary to read the chord symbols very
carefully. For instance, if the 6th (or 13th) is altered in any way,
it's lowered. If the 7th is altered in any way, it's raised. If the 4th
or 11th is altered in any way, it's raised. After the basics, the
system used to explain the alterations shouldn't make a difference.
After all, the alterations from these basics, can only go one
direction.
Jazz/Pop chord symbol readers simply know these things without
thinking. As theorists, we are capable of figuring out and explaining
why these alterations are the way they are. The chord reader, however,
does not need to care about the key or type of minor scale.
I still maintain that neither the concept of key or mode matters when
reading jazz/pop chord symbols. There exists the basic chords, with
7th always referring to a dominant 7th, the standard additions of the
major ninth, perfect fourth, major sixth; and then everything else is
an alteration of one of those, with any alteration being only capable
of going one common-sense direction.
Michael
_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
