I know some posters here will accuse me of being pedantic, but I'm going to make this point anyway.

I've lost count of the number of times I've read on this forum posts where 'sharpening the 7th note' of a minor scale is mentioned.

I think it is inaccurate as well as misleading to describe notes in a scale as being sharpened or flattened, it is much better to use the words raised and lowered. In the scale of C harmonic minor, the 7th note is raised, the Bb becomes a natural, it does not become sharp, similarly in C melodic minor, the 6th and 7th ascending are raised to A natural and B natural, they re not sharpened to A# and B#. On the other hand, in D melodic minor, the 6th note is raised to a B natural and the 7th is a C#. Both the 6th and 7th notes were raised, they were not both sharpened.

It is very misleading and confusing for students to be told notes in a minor scale are sharpened or flattened as students connect sharpening with # and flattening with b. It is much more specific to describe a note as being raised or lowered.

I won't accuse you of being pedantic: I just think you're wrong. To sharpen means to make higher in pitch irrespective of what the original note was. To flatten means to make lower in pitch. If I play a G flat and my teacher says it's sharp, I don't suppose she means I'm playing a G sharp: I know she means that the note is higher than it should be. Doesn't everyone need to understand this?

I don't know but could it be because it's the terminology which is the most widely used by respected theory writers? It's the terminology used by the ABRSM for example and various other respected publishers/editors.



Some theory writers qualify their explanations by using one term and putting the other term in brackets. I can't say I found it confusing myself, and I can't help wondering if it would be even more confusing for students not to have the most widely-used terminology explained to them in a way they can understand, so that they know what other people are talking about if they hear/see other people use the expressions "sharpened" or "flattened" - they're possibly more likely to be confused if they've only ever heard the explanation as raised/lowered, but that's just my opinion.

Yes I agree that flat and sharp refer to pitch of notes, but I wasn't talking about playing notes on an instrument I was referring to a theory context. That's slightly different to writing a minor scale and saying you sharpen the 7th note. Most students, especially young children connect the word sharpen with this #, whereas if you specifically tell them to raise the 7th note, then they are more likely to come up with the correct accidental.

When explaining scales to my students, I say the notes have been raised i.e. on ascending minor scales, and have been made natural (or the notes are played according to the key signature) when descending.

I use "sharp" and "flat" to explain accidentals within a piece of music.

Actually, I strongly agree with Noodle.

In AP Music Theory (United States college-level equivalent class for select high school students), we tend not to use "sharpen" or "flatten" for describing certain note changes in chords or scales. Raised or lowered is what we use; "raised seventh" or "raised third".

Maybe this is a colloquial difference between how music theory is taught in the United States compared to the teachings of Great Britain.

I'm in agreement with Noodle. Have always referred to this as raising the note a semitone. No ambiguity to that.

I agree with this, not necessarily because the terms 'sharpen' and 'flatten' are wrong in themselves but because at the time when this is usually being taught these words are likely to be though of as meaning you need a sharp or a flat sign.
To say 'raise' or 'lower' removes this confusion.

I agree with Noodle, though I do see why people use the word 'sharpen' to mean 'make higher by a semitone' and flatten to mean 'make lower by a semitone. However, unless students are totally clear that a natural sign can mean 'a semitone lower' in some contexts and 'a semitone higher' in other contexts, I can see why some people could easily get confused.

For instance, imagine the ascending F melodic minor scale (key signature Bb, Eb Ab and Db); the notes of the scale are F, G, Ab, Bb, C, D natural, E natural, F. You're turning the Db in the key signature into an D natural by raising it by a semitone. If you said you were 'sharpening it', an inexperienced music student could get very confused and think you meant D#.

Much clearer all round to say 'raising' or 'lowering', so I'm with Noodle on this one.

Me too.

I tend to use the terms "sharpen" and "flatten" but I also add that this does not always mean just sticking a sharp or flat sign there but raising or lowering the note by one semitone. Pupils very soon get used to my chant that sharpening means raising a note by one semitone. I don't find it a problem at all. If written exercises include writing a note one semitone higher or lower than the written note or adding an accidental to create the same effect all is well. Remember to include key signatures to these exercises too.

I have to be honest and say that I can't remember whether my teacher says to sharpen or flatten rather than raised or lowered but I certainly know when I am telling myself when doing theory that I have to sharpen or flatten I know that means that I have to take it up or down and don't think that I have to put a sharp or flat there.

ET

Not a teacher, but this is how I was taught "sharpened" and "flattened" as a child, which I found extremely easy to understand:

(Using C harmonic minor as example)
Step 1: Figure out how many sharps/flats are needed for the key signature. In this case: Eb, Ab, Bb

So, C D Eb F G Ab Bb C

Step 2: Add accidental. Here harmonic minor means 7th note is "sharpened" so simply add a sharp to it i.e.

C D Eb F G Ab Bb# C

Step 3: "clean up" the odd looking ones. In this case, Bb# looks strange so have to figure out what it "means". By definition, flat = lower by semitone and sharp = higher by semitone, so -1/2 + 1/2 = 0; they cancel each other out: Bb# = B

Voila, C D Eb F G Ab B C

Me three!



I suppose the thing is that you are making what you mean very clear to your pupils. Maybe Noodle was referring to teachers who don't make the distinction to their pupils and thus cause confusion. I have one theory pupil in particular who is very prone to confusion, so it is easier to make sure that she fully understands what I mean initially. I think if a pupil has grasped the concept, then they should be able to deal with either term, but in teaching it I would use raise or lower.

Me four! My then theory teacher always said raise or lower, and so that's what I have always done. It doesn't stop people adding a sharp instead of a natural when needed though! But I think that's because the first minor keys that we teach need a sharp to do the raising.