What is this scale?

[jancivil]

Technically we need to know what is/are the reason(s) for the chromatic bit. That's a somewhat exotic example I pulled out my backside but 'harmonies' is a very broad word, by itself. I could do that all day, there's a lot of abstruse jazz that's quite chromatic in its scalar aspect that work in harmonic, functional music,

(yes, we can haz a b9/#9 harmony in minor, it's not actually so rare on V7. Let alone the tendency in a "blues scale" to do 7, ^7, 8; 2, -3, 3; 4, +4, 5 that in no way cancel the possibility of coming up with harmony.
In the other what's the deal with this scale thread are major and minor 6ths and a 5th. There's harmony in the example.

I've used plenty of my own scales that do not lend to harmony so there are none, on the other hand.

[jancivil]

Reductio ad absurdum, *a chromatic scale can't generate harmony* I think should occur to one with half a thought. Scales are not generated necessarily via harmony. The whole of Indian Classical Music (for just one example) is based in lines from a parent raga in the form of a scale, there is no harmony whatsoever underpinning anything.

[shawshawraw]

I got ya. I think the word "generate" has a problem. I don't view the chord-scale theory as chords generating scales or in the other way, but for the purpose of identifying 'safe' notes that are not part of the chord symbol but still belong to the 'sound' (all within the 12-TET system), to be considered as possible melodic accents for parts.

But of course this implies a specific vision of what counts as "harmony" and what does not, and also where the harmony is considered "changed." (Out of this vision: are Cmaj7 and C the same harmony? Are most jazz tunes based off the chromatic scale because they use all the 12 notes?)

It's not one-size-fit-all for all genres. For example, the maj7 (^7) is a no-no on 7 chords within the c-s theory, but it's what blues is supposed to sound... But so far, I've found it the best basis for exploring colors and recognizing the "reasons for chromatic bits" - I like this

[NERF_PROTOSS]

I got ya. I think the word "generate" has a problem. I don't view the chord-scale theory as chords generating scales or in the other way, but for the purpose of identifying 'safe' notes that are not part of the chord symbol but still belong to the 'sound' (all within the 12-TET system), to be considered as possible melodic accents for parts.

But of course this implies a specific vision of what counts as "harmony" and what does not, and also where the harmony is considered "changed." (Out of this vision: are Cmaj7 and C the same harmony? Are most jazz tunes based off the chromatic scale because they use all the 12 notes?)

It's not one-size-fit-all for all genres. For example, the maj7 (^7) is a no-no on 7 chords within the c-s theory, but it's what blues is supposed to sound... But so far, I've found it the best basis for exploring colors and recognizing the "reasons for chromatic bits" - I like this

yeah jazz theory's primary concern is trying to come up with some kind of answer to the question "hey what should I play over _ chord", and that usually presupposes a certain kind of texture (bass player, harmonic accompaniment, soloist...) and tertian harmony (polychords and chords by other intervals are generally reinterpeted as ways of *voicing* chords by thirds, because that's what the jazzers were doing - spicing up existing harmonic frameworks).

imo the berklee chord-scale stuff does answer it well in one specific domain: figuring out notes you can add as *unresolved* extensions over the duration of the chord that don't obscure the chord's underlying function or create non-idiomatic (in a mainstream jazz context) dissonances. that sentence is a mouthful but I think that's all there is to it. it's helpful but not a panacea, and definitely not the be-all-end-all improv method that it seems to get marketed as.

(and these harmonic ideas were all there in the twentieth century composers. that's who inspired people like herbie and bill evans. check out the section on added-note chords in persichetti's book, and schoenberg's section on augmented sixth chords in his harmony book (tl;dr "what if we pretend they're dominant chords"))

[alexf26]

A scale is just an ordered sequence or set of notes that follows a pattern that can be repeated along the whole keyboard (usually covers all the tones) and repeats after every octave.

[jsaras]

What is the actual argument, then, why exactly does three chromatics in a row destroy any possibility of creating harmony from it?

You absolutely have to give examples of something and how it works or doesn't. That's some bullshit.

I just saw it asserted that the fact of identifying a set of tones as a scale is dependent on harmony generated.
That's not a fact, that's an assumption and it's an ignorant as f**k one.
Scale forms prefigure 'harmony' in the sense implied by that first assertion by an epoch.

let me pull one out of my hat... we want tertial triads and tetrads, yeah?
A Bb C D E F# G G#

A C E G#

G Bb D F#
etc

What's the principle? Have we now an arbitrary rule begging the question of the premise?
IE., we have to what, use both Gs here? What's the argument?

if the premise is functional harnony, that's a specific goalpost not given.
But wait, is there a V for the i harmony A C E (G)? E G# Bb (D)?

enough with posting rubbish, it adds no value and is another one of these internet facts that isn't, leading people to a stymy if they buy it
negative waves man, so early in the morning

Here are the diatonic chords from your scale. The issue with it should be immediately apparent to a genius such as yourself.
Chords-1.png