@jdjazz The idea of blue notes as representing ranges really is not specific to "early" blues. "Archetypal" might be a fair word, but not "early"- there are many tunes released in the last few years that are characterised by those bends/microtonal explorations, and there will be many more in the next few years. The blues - and the idea of blue notes - is based on that technique and tradition.

There's nothing esoteric about that claim - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_note says much the same.

Of course it is important to understand when some pieces of terminology may mean more than one thing, and it is fair to say that "blues scale" is such a piece of terminology. "Blues scale" may indeed be used when referring to a limited version that is a fixed-pitch subset of the chromatic.

But when talking about the "blues scale" in a general sense, there seems no reason to restrict discussion to that meaning alone.

As you can probably imagine, my answers to your specific questions would be in line with my impression of "blues scale" (and even "major blues scale") as encompassing a range of possibilities.

This is getting into the territory of "a pentatonic scale" vs "the pentatonic scale". The a vs the is important. There are many, many 5 note scales all of which by definition are pentatonic scales. Saying the pentatonic scale, you're talking about the major/minor pentatonic pattern which are modes of each other.

It definitely is that kind of "what exactly are you talking about?" discussion. The slight difference with blues scales is that some definitions are simplified versions of other definitions - or alternative simplifications of the same concepts.

I agree completely with the points about terminology. I agree that the fixed-pitch version arose historically as a simplification, but from a music theory perspective, I see the two approaches as equally valid alternatives.

In my mind, calling one an approximation might be true in some cases, but definitely not all cases. The term "approximation" suggests that the scale's usage is an allusion to the archetypal approach of blues music. I'm sure it was true in the early/mid 1900s that any fixed-pitch use of the blues scale was an approximation of the microtonal approach, but I don't think that 'dynamic' between the archetypal approach and the modern approach is as universally true today.

Modern approach might be the wrong term--perhaps 'fixed-pitch approach' would be better.

In my mind, 'approximation' implies some level of inaccuracy, which suggests that the fixed-pitch approach is in some way wrong or flawed. I don't think that's a fair characterization when the scale is used outside of archetypal blues playing (where pitch-bending is such a prevalent and established feature).

@jdjazz Those thoughts all sound reasonable to me.Some of the difference in perspective might simply come, as you mentioned earlier, from difference in exposure to repertiore - I've quite simply 'noticed' a lot more work in the archetypal blues mould than the fixed pitch mould.

If I were a betting man I would still wager that the body of 'archetypal' work is larger, but it could be that I am wrong and that there are swathes of 'fixed-pitch' work that I've not engaged with. Many pieces might even have a foot in both camps.

By the way, for what it's worth, I really like the terms you've come up with to describe these difference