What is the more correct definition of angular momentum $\vec{\mathbf{M}}$ in three dimensions? (I.e. classically/Lagrangian/Hamiltonian, not necessarily quantum or relativistic)
$$\vec{\mathbf{M}}=m\cdot \vec{\mathbf{r}}\times \vec{\mathbf{v}}?$$
or
$$\vec{\mathbf{M}}=\vec{\mathbf{r}} \times \frac{\partial L}{\partial \vec{\mathbf{v}}}?$$
Obviously these two expressions are usually the same, but not always. (I think, I'm not sure, that is why I am asking -- I might be confusing "actual" momentum with a generalized momentum. I would have thought "canonical momentum" would refer to the former and not the latter).
See here: http://www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk/~bds10/aqp/lec5.pdf
and here: http://insti.physics.sunysb.edu/itp/lectures/01-Fall/PHY505/09c/notes09c.pdf
If I am reading them correctly, for a single particle in an electromagnetic field, we have (classically) that
$$\frac{\partial L}{\partial \vec{\mathbf{v}}} = m\vec{\mathbf{v}}+q\vec{\mathbf{A}}\not=m\vec{\mathbf{v}}$$
Hence, if I want to calculate the angular momentum for such a particle, I need to know better what the proper definition of angular momentum is, since there are at least two choices available, both which seem appealing.
(Also the reason why $\frac{\partial L}{\partial \vec{\mathbf{v}}}\not=m\vec{\mathbf{v}}$ here is because we're dealing with a non-conservative system, right? So that force only equals the time derivative of momentum for conservative systems?)