Re: triangle chord notation

[Michael J Millett]

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