I'm not sure who was "saying the raised sixth and sevenths were simply... giving undue prominence to the natural implying the sharpened notes are inferior". I seem to be the one person calling natural "default" and this is simply because it occurs with no accidentals as per the key signature.fmr wrote:I agree that it could be read that way, but I also said that the vii degree is usually used altered BECAUSE it is needed for the sake of tonality, to have the "Dominant" function (the harmonic V). And my first post was to say that, if nothing is said, it is safe to assume that the requested "scale" (I am becoming sick of this word) is the harmonic.JumpingJackFlash wrote: I would agree there is only one minor key (or "mode", but that word carries other meanings so can cause confusion). But that one thing includes the notes from all of the minor scales. I'd be careful saying the raised sixth and sevenths were simply additions or modifications to the natural minor as that gives undue prominence to the natural minor and implies the sharpened notes are inferior or less important/significant. In classical use (as you know), the leading note normally outnumbers the subtonic fairly significantly.
But I'm certain that you agree the raised vi is just a consequence of the raised vii and usually doesn't exist without it (while the raised vii may and many times does exist without the raised vi). And, no matter we like it or not, they are alterations, even if the leading tone is an almost obligatory one in tonal music, otherwise we create a tonal/modal ambiguity.
An objective rather than a subjective *default*. And my experience here rather indicates the prevalence of natural minor (because tarnce, basically) and maybe the answer to what 'they' mean.
We cannot know what 'they are talking about', only guess as per who is this 'they'.
Here we see people with a different experience and learning from a different standpoint. Such as <there is no such thing as melodic minor in descent>. Well, in CPP harmony-based 'theory', the meaning originally or whatever is raised 6 and 7 as motion typically up to '8' or tonic {la ti do} and back to the unaltered for a move downward typically to or through 5 {te le sol}. And if your standpoint is being taught to use harmonic minor because V-i, I wasn't taught any such thing. I didn't gravitate to dominant-tonic behavior in my own thought, that's for sure. I took 'theory' at 18 in order to grasp JS Bach, and it was always pragmatic like that. Turned out to be quite suitable for this, who knew. EG: the melodic minor as given, particularly.
HOWEVER there is in fact such a thing as jazz minor. Perhaps the first definition of this is melodic minor scale used in ascending and descending lines. Now, since the derivation probably comes from a certain harmonic concept - Ab melodic minor scale over a G dominant 7th type, eg; and in addition the thinking is more 'major scale with a b3' - maybe you don't even want to call that 'melodic minor' but the construction scale-wise is not different. And people at one time found 'melodic minor both directions' a standpoint for that type of application. And there's nothing ridiculous about it.
Then there are 'modes of jazz minor'. Now, these are 'modes of' by the same reasoning as 'modes of major' and in usage they may not be modal at all (I would absolutely rather call them scales unless there is a consistent and definitive relationship of its tones to a 'home' note like a tonic; cf. the same mistake reflecting classical theory 'thinking', that is if you care about modal music.). A prevalent usage is the 4th mode of, known as "Lydian Dominant" which I first came across it independently from this 'theory' as the 'harmonic [or acoustic] scale', which is lydian scale with a b7. In a little booklet giving 'synthetic scales'. It was actually kind of exciting to find that (and eg., 'super locrian') as 'mode of melodic minor' later. So, people have a different standpoint for 'harmony/theory'.
