Do any of you use George Russell's Lydian Chromatic Concept?

[Sharks]

So, I've heard about this concept and a friend has a copy of the text they can lend me (if it turns out to be useful I'll buy my own copy, but at the moment it's hard to justify the price tag for something I don't know much about).

I'm wondering if anyone here has studied this at all and if so, have you found it useful, and how do you use it (improv, composition etc)?

I've heard Miles and Coltrane were fans of this, as well as many other jazz greats.

George Russell's Lydian Chromatic Concept of Tonal Organization

Amazon.com: Geroge Russell's Lydian Chromatic Concept of Tonal Organization (9780846426004): George Russell: Books

[JonR]

Oh-oh, hang on for a bumpy ride. I'm going to start the roller coaster with this kick from Ed Byrne, one of my jazz heroes:
Jazz Bulletin Board - View Single Post - Maj7b5
(you may need to read the rest of the thread for context, and there's more where that came from.)

From my own perspective, I've only read short excerpts from the book (it's insanely expensive), and from the dedicated website. It's a hard concept to warm to, as the jargon is deliberately neologistic, and from a distance it looks like one of those religious cults.
I also found a dubious premise in the book (that lydian is a "natural" scale, or words to that effect); and I've seen some specious attempts by followers to analyse harmonic progressions using LCC terminology. It's not so much using a hammer to crack a nut, as using a wrench to drill a hole in the wall.

I understand he was an influence on modal jazz pioneers, like Miles and Coltrane. But I suspect that wasn't so much through deep absorption and application of his ideas, but of allowing the broad notion of modal scales to inspire their own experimentation. You certainly don't need the LCC to understand the music of Miles and Coltrane. Miles, at least, piggybacked on Bill Evans' knowledge of Debussy and Satie, and claimed himself to have been inspired by African music and gospel for Kind of Blue. While Evans did take some lessos from Russell, Miles seems to have found his own way to modal jazz.

EDIT: BTW, I just noticed Byrne made an highly embarrassing Freudian typo in that post of his - perhaps due to his clearly heated frame of mind at the time. He called Russell's book the "Linear Chromatic Concept of Tonal Organisation" (instead of "Lydian...") and then commented "is this a pretentious title or what?" In fact his own book is called "Linear Jazz Improvisation". Whoops... (I don't think anyone picked him up on that at the time.)
Of course, Russell's title IS pretentious (where Byrne's is not), and the LCC is flawed (IMO) for the reasons Byrne lays out.

[Sharks]

Thanks JonR, I hadn't read that Ed Byrne post. He doesn't seem too keen on it...

The language Russell uses (from what I've read) does seem deliberately vague, and if it continues in a similar style throughout I imagine one would have trouble understanding his concept and even start to doubt its validity.

I came across it thanks to Mick Goodrick's Advancing Guitarist, and as I'm always looking for the holy grail of theory that will suddenly enable my playing of effortless, elegant lines, this caught my interest.

I think ultimately I should just play tunes. I do love theory though - if only it gave you chops!

[paynow]

Sharks,

Here's an LCCOTO thread on the forum from a while back, and in it is a link to another one:

Lydian Chromatic Concept ?

[Sharks]

Sharks,

Here's an LCCOTO thread on the forum from a while back, and in it is a link to another one:

Thanks. I did a search but didn't see this.

[Aristotle]

Do any of you use George Russell's Lydian Chromatic Concept?

Just a guess, but I'd say no.

[JonnyPac]

Here's this lowdown again:

Jeff Brent: Discrepancies in the "Lydian Chromatic Concept"

[JonR]

Here's this lowdown again:

Jeff Brent: Discrepancies in the "Lydian Chromatic Concept"

Thanks Jonny - I knew the math, but I wasn't aware how closely GR relied on incorrect beliefs about the harmonic series. I've not totally agreed with Jeff's viewpoints in the past, but that's a a nicely dispassionate demolition job.
(To knock down a building, you only have to undermine the foundations... )

Maybe if the book wasn't so laughably expensive, it would have sold more and thus attracted more widespread criticism earlier. As it is, one suspects that once a (rare) buyer has spent that much money, he/she would be a little embarrassed to admit they'd wasted it all. There MUST be something worthwhile in it... (More kudos to Jeff B, if he actually bought the thing.)

Of course, the claim that Miles and Coltrane were influenced by it is its best recommendation, hard to dispose of. But as I said, that influence seems to have been minimal, perhaps little more than a spark, the inspiration for the musicians to do their own experiments along those lines

It may also be that flawed foundations don't damage the building - maybe there are other strengths that keep the main structure intact?

But ultimately, as I said before, we don't need the LCC to understand what Miles and Evans (and Coltrane et al) ended up doing, under the umbrella of "modal jazz". Still less to understand any other kind of jazz.

[JonR]

Thanks JonR, I hadn't read that Ed Byrne post. He doesn't seem too keen on it...

The language Russell uses (from what I've read) does seem deliberately vague, and if it continues in a similar style throughout I imagine one would have trouble understanding his concept and even start to doubt its validity.

You have to buy into the whole thing. And when I say "buy", I mean "BUY".... (at $125 for a 268pp book, I'd expect a work of art...).
People who know the book seem to fall into two camps: a large one totally dismissive of it; and a small one totally committed to it. To accept his ideas, you basically have to reject orthodox theory - the two systems are not compatible. Like I said: a pseudo-religious cult.

I came across it thanks to Mick Goodrick's Advancing Guitarist, and as I'm always looking for the holy grail of theory that will suddenly enable my playing of effortless, elegant lines...

As I suspect you know in your heart, there ain't no such thing.

I think ultimately I should just play tunes.

There you go. Melody, and embellishment of melody. And doing it with LOTS of tunes. That's where it comes from.
Theory is just for talking about music; not for playing it.

I do love theory though - if only it gave you chops!

Right. Mind you, I never made the mistake of thinking theoretical knowledge would improve my playing. It can shine a light, and provoke new thoughts. But the playing only gets better by actually doing it.
And the more playing you do, the more understanding you get as well. The latter can be speeded up a little by reading theory - but it will come anyway in the end.

[pingu]

I came across it thanks to Mick Goodrick's Advancing Guitarist, and as I'm always looking for the holy grail of theory that will suddenly enable my playing of effortless, elegant lines, this caught my interest.

Nice one !
Yeah let me know if you find that Grail

[JonnyPac]

I have a ton of George Russell recordings from the late 50's and 60's. His stuff is great... Bill Evans plays piano on some too. It really sparks my interest that such interesting jazz can come from the LCC. ...I actually doubt that every musician on the sessions was totally solid with the ideas. I think they were just good musicians playing well written tunes... nothing out of this world as far as theory. Just a guess.

[JonnyPac]

Here's Grant Green playing a GR tune...

[oneworld]

maybe forummember mike walker can chime in here...
mike has played & recorded with george russell who, in his time in sweden & norway, left a lasting impression on musicians such as jan garbarek, terye rypdal amo...

[fflower]

hellllllllllllo
Maybe if the book wasn't so laughably expensive, it would have sold more and thus attracted more widespread criticism earlier. As it is, one suspects that once a (rare) buyer has spent that much money, he/she would be a little embarrassed to admit they'd wasted it all. There MUST be something worthwhile in it... (More kudos to Jeff B, if he actually bought the thing.)

Of course, the claim that Miles and Coltrane were influenced by it is its best recommendation, hard to dispose of. But as I said, that influence seems to have been minimal, perhaps little more than a spark, the inspiration for the musicians to do their own experiments along those lines

It may also be that flawed foundations don't damage the building - maybe there are other strengths that keep the main structure intact?

[Sharks]

Thanks for the responses everyone.

I'm barely playing atm due to tendon issues in my wrist, so I'm looking for ways to keep improving/expanding without time on the instrument. I've always loved theory, but I think something like this should be put on the backburner for when I've got more time.

I guess I'll focus on singing lines and ear training.

[cmajor9]

My composition professor (who was something of a hot jazz trumpeter earlier in life) used to say "The composers write music; the theorists pick up the droppings."

[JonR]

My composition professor (who was something of a hot jazz trumpeter earlier in life) used to say "The composers write music; the theorists pick up the droppings."

That's about right. Mind you, you can build pretty impressive structures out of shit...

And don't forget shit makes good fertiliser...

[JonnyPac]

Shiz?

[JonR]

Shiz?

Yeah, that too.

[sallan]

Ahhh, the great brain in the jar is still ticking along, good to see you round JonR, been a long while!

I actually got this book (free of charge) and I'm looking through it and as a "concept" it seems to me to be a method to avoiding "avoid" notes. Now, avoid notes tend to be dissonances based on a particular aesthetic, such as not playing F naturals over a Cmaj7, while for some ears, the F sounds perfectly fine...even if the F# sounds better. That being said, I don't from first glance see anything here thats all that ground breaking, other than a convoluted system within a convoluted system. If you already know your basic scales, chords, modes, and idomatic tendancies...I don't know how much further this line of thinking can really take you. You know the high road, you know the low road, the river still leads to scottland, and hopefully drinks at the end of the journey. After all if making good music is the primary aim, your particular concept/approach and however you arrive at it is of a much more serious concern, it seems to me.

But I'm checking it out to get a better sense of where he's coming from. In the end, I get much more ground breaking information out of reading a passage of a charlie parker solo these days than anythying else.

-sallan

[randalljazz]

if you think it makes you look cool...but g.r. was hardly a mere theorist:

Amazon.com: george russell: Music

[franco6719]

Oh-oh, hang on for a bumpy ride. I'm going to start the roller coaster with this kick from Ed Byrne, one of my jazz heroes:
Jazz Bulletin Board - View Single Post - Maj7b5
(you may need to read the rest of the thread for context, and there's more where that came from.)

From my own perspective, I've only read short excerpts from the book (it's insanely expensive), and from the dedicated website. It's a hard concept to warm to, as the jargon is deliberately neologistic, and from a distance it looks like one of those religious cults.
I also found a dubious premise in the book (that lydian is a "natural" scale, or words to that effect); and I've seen some specious attempts by followers to analyse harmonic progressions using LCC terminology. It's not so much using a hammer to crack a nut, as using a wrench to drill a hole in the wall.

I understand he was an influence on modal jazz pioneers, like Miles and Coltrane. But I suspect that wasn't so much through deep absorption and application of his ideas, but of allowing the broad notion of modal scales to inspire their own experimentation. You certainly don't need the LCC to understand the music of Miles and Coltrane. Miles, at least, piggybacked on Bill Evans' knowledge of Debussy and Satie, and claimed himself to have been inspired by African music and gospel for Kind of Blue. While Evans did take some lessos from Russell, Miles seems to have found his own way to modal jazz.

EDIT: BTW, I just noticed Byrne made an highly embarrassing Freudian typo in that post of his - perhaps due to his clearly heated frame of mind at the time. He called Russell's book the "Linear Chromatic Concept of Tonal Organisation" (instead of "Lydian...") and then commented "is this a pretentious title or what?" In fact his own book is called "Linear Jazz Improvisation". Whoops... (I don't think anyone picked him up on that at the time.)
Of course, Russell's title IS pretentious (where Byrne's is not), and the LCC is flawed (IMO) for the reasons Byrne lays out.

I'm not even going to get myself entangled in this one, except to say I don't really know anyone who uses it extensively and I know a good amount of musicians. So, it does not seem to be essential as some people make it out to be. Also, I like this Ed Byrne fellow.