-
I think the Lydian Chromatic Concept is worth reading.
GR was really onto something, but I'm not convinced by his argument from first principles, so I find it hard to wholeheartedly get into it.
Specifically having decided that the fifth stack should be the basis of the approach - i.e.:
C G D A E B F# C# Ab Eb Bb F
He then chooses to selectively ignore the C# in his scale construction. Why? It's like he draws a curtain around it and hopes the reader won't notice.
Couldn't get past that bit. Maybe I'm missing something.
Also I see the foundation of the Lydian mode as stacked thirds, not fifths.
I use very similar concepts to his in my own understanding of harmony though.
Incidentally, Warne Marsh had a two octave C major scale that went like this:
C D E F G A B C D E F# G A B C#
When played in 8th notes, that gives you this extended tertial structure on the beat:
C E G B D F# A C# - or a C major 7 with a D major 7 upper structure.Last edited by christianm77; 12-30-2015 at 12:56 PM.
-
12-30-2015 12:50 PM
-
Originally Posted by christianm77
This was his justification
The skipping of the interval of a fifth between the seventh and eighthtones of the Lydian Chromatic Scale allows the five basic chord categories ofWestern harmony to be assimilated by its Nine-Tone Order, Semi-IngoingLevel, in the logical order oftheir development in Western harmony and theLydian Chromatic Scale.2 In fact, it is precisely this accommodation to the evolution of Western harmony's major, minor, seventh, augmented, anddiminished chord categories that accounts for referring to the Lydian Chromatic Scale as THE WESTERN ORDER OF TONAL GRAVITY
So..... yeah that.... It does make sense if you break it down with his definitions, but reading it and truly comprehending it, is intense reading/study..... From what I gather it makes it so that by the 9th "mode" you have all the required "chord modes" (chord scales).
-
I don't dismiss LCC, but if you're working with other musicians that don't understand the concept, you are not going to be able to fully utilize it.
I've had the misfortune of dealing with some LCC devotees that treated the uninitiated as if they were musical cretins, and inferior because they weren't enlightened enough to embrace LCC and discard trad theory.
Every song they played had to be reharmonized to incorporate the concept, if you weren't on board with it you must be a wannabe. Just the kind of musicians you like to work with. Too smug for me.
-
The important thing to remember about the LCC is that it assumes "VERTICAL tonal gravity". That is to say that it treats a chord in isolation rather than in the context of moving to another chord, or being moved to from another chord. Russell had intended to write a second volume addressing "HORIZONTAL tonal gravity" but never got around to it. So, he's only addressing chords that are in a specifically heard in a non-functioning way.
He also uses a lot of personal and, IMO, somewhat confusing terminology to avoid using common terms that he felt were too value-loaded, so, for example, he talks about "ingoing tonal gravity" rather than "consonance" and "outgoing tonal gravity" rather than "dissonance", because he felt that "consonance" and "dissonance" carried connotations of "good" and "bad" and he wanted to avoid that. So reading the LCC can be tough going until you learn his language. (And he never really explains his language - you just kind of have to figure it out as you go.)
I think a lot of people have misunderstood Russell, and because of it, think they should use a #4 in all situations. The sound has become so common that we've gotten used to it. It's a valuable book, and once I figured it out, it did help me, but only after I really started to understand his terminology. (And I'm a technical writer by trade, so I'm used to figuring out obscure terminology. I can't imagine what trouble a less verbally-oriented person might have with it.)
-
I wrestled with the book back when, found the ideas pretty fascinating and gripping, and immediately rushed out around town rounding up all the Russell recordings I could manage. Originally Posted by bobsguitars09
But subsequent listening provided me no great pleasure.
Save for one solitary vocal track, I enjoyed none of it.
I found it funny at the time - but maybe you just had to be there.
-
Jeff Brent: Discrepancies in the "Lydian Chromatic Concept"
I think everyone should read this page if you're thinking about delving into LCC. Sure, Jeff is peddling his own book "Modology", but he exposes the flaws and forced logic (even sophistry?) in Russel's opus rather convincingly. We all acknowledge some fine music has been made using LCC theory, but, really, any "theory" if applied by great musicians and composers will yield fine music.
I studied 20th C composition at uni so was well aware of "revolutionary" theories that attempted to render all others obsolete. There are dozens that yielded interesting work, and then disappeared into obsolescence.
LCC was fashionably adopted by some heavy hitters, especially in the 60's and 70's. So too were tie dyed shirts, rainbow striped flares, platform shoes and dubious (ie ridiculous) hats/caps. Trouble was, it was easier to re think one's wardrobe than to re think one's exposure to LCC ....
My advice to youngsters is - Don't be a latecomer to this spent idea. If trad Functional Harmony is not your thing, then "roll your own" theories!
(with optional #4, natch...)
-
Originally Posted by princeplanet
Jeff Brent: Discrepancies in the "Lydian Chromatic Concept"
I think everyone should read this page if you're thinking about delving into LCC. Sure, Jeff is peddling his own book "Modology", but he exposes the flaws and forced logic (even sophistry?) in Russel's opus rather convincingly. We all acknowledge some fine music has been made using LCC theory, but, really, any "theory" if applied by great musicians and composers will yield fine music.
I studied 20th C composition at uni so was well aware of "revolutionary" theories that attempted to render all others obsolete. There are dozens that yielded interesting work, and then disappeared into obsolescence.
LCC was fashionably adopted by some heavy hitters, especially in the 60's and 70's. So too were tie dyed shirts, rainbow striped flares, platform shoes and dubious (ie ridiculous) hats/caps. Trouble was, it was easier to re think one's wardrobe than to re think one's exposure to LCC ....
My advice to youngsters is - Don't be a latecomer to this spent idea. If trad Functional Harmony is not your thing, then "roll your own" theories! (with optional #4, natch...)
Jeff Brent I was trying to remember his name the other day, real interesting guy we used to email back and forth in the past.
-
I can't be bothered with slacker musicians who don't have a working knowledge of the LCC. This is the 21st century.
-
Originally Posted by princeplanet
Jeff Brent: Discrepancies in the "Lydian Chromatic Concept"
I think everyone should read this page if you're thinking about delving into LCC. Sure, Jeff is peddling his own book "Modology", but he exposes the flaws and forced logic (even sophistry?) in Russel's opus rather convincingly. We all acknowledge some fine music has been made using LCC theory, but, really, any "theory" if applied by great musicians and composers will yield fine music.
I studied 20th C composition at uni so was well aware of "revolutionary" theories that attempted to render all others obsolete. There are dozens that yielded interesting work, and then disappeared into obsolescence.
LCC was fashionably adopted by some heavy hitters, especially in the 60's and 70's. So too were tie dyed shirts, rainbow striped flares, platform shoes and dubious (ie ridiculous) hats/caps. Trouble was, it was easier to re think one's wardrobe than to re think one's exposure to LCC ....
My advice to youngsters is - Don't be a latecomer to this spent idea. If trad Functional Harmony is not your thing, then "roll your own" theories! (with optional #4, natch...)
So, I really got a chance to dig into the book today. It is very deep, possibility wise. As mentioned in the article, there are equivalents for things I already do, but there were also some new sounds and possibilities that mingled with the sounds and possibilities already in my head, creating some useful new vocabulary. Isn't that what learning is all about???
I would be very interested to see some of the fundamental things we use in traditional theory, like 4 voice Bach chorales, analyzed using this method. I don't doubt that it could be done, but I am skeptical that it would be easier than our traditional system. Therefore it's usefulness as an all encompassing theory, imo, is unproven. It very well could be, however, there would need to be a ton of work and research to see if it is as wide ranging, and frankly simple, as what is currently used. That being said, it's definitely best used by someone with a firm grip on theory, to expand on their vocabulary. I would say the sounds were pretty hip.
I'm not sure the debunker guy got this, but for any chord, you can use any of the LCC modes over that chord (once you know how). That opens lots of possibilities. Some of which are called other things in traditional analyzation, but even just approaching it in the suggested new way, results in creative things you wouldn't have thought of otherwise. For that alone, it's worth digging into the book.
My 2 cent.....
Now how to charge people absurd amounts of money to teach them the secrets of tonal gravity??? Definitely thinking fragile crystal lattice stuff here.... A little Dumble humor to ring in the new year!!!
-
It's as easy as riding a bike!....L..
-
I bet it really matters to the audience whether you are using the LCC or not.
-
Well, gee, thanks for clearing that up ;-) Originally Posted by vintagelove
What's the beef with C# though, bruv? What's the logic? The quote just sounds like meaningless jargon to me, or at best circular logic. My BS detector went off at this point.
TBH I think I'm probably overthinking it. Should just give the sounds a go.
(I blame my education. Everything has to be rigorous! If a physicist presented a theory as poorly presented, articulated and illogical as this, he would have laughed at and ignored by the mainstream journals and probably go and self publish some book about antigravity muttering darkly about how Galileo was laughed at in his day... But I digress.... Music is obviously not physics...)
But then, that is how GR is presenting it - as an objective theory based in maths/science. So in a sense - it's actually him who's over thinking it.... If he had just gone 'here are some sounds I like' I would be more receptive.
But, as I say, he's definitely onto something...
(TBH I can't really be bothered to dig any further into it ATM because there's plenty of stuff to do with my basic musicianship that could use some work... Until I can make simple things sound amazing, which could of course take more than my remaining lifetime, I'm happy not to take on any new theoretical info. I'm leery about a route that points towards thinking about music as opposed to doing music - a simple trap to fall into... I feel the LCC is trying to be grand unified theory of Music, and there is no such thing. Thank god.)
But if you get some ideas out of it - good on you.... And many jazz musicians have, to be fair...Last edited by christianm77; 01-01-2016 at 06:32 PM.
-
Thank you for the interesting link. What he covers occurred to me, in part. I'm reading through some of the other stuff on his site. Originally Posted by princeplanet
Jeff Brent: Discrepancies in the "Lydian Chromatic Concept"
I think everyone should read this page if you're thinking about delving into LCC. Sure, Jeff is peddling his own book "Modology", but he exposes the flaws and forced logic (even sophistry?) in Russel's opus rather convincingly. We all acknowledge some fine music has been made using LCC theory, but, really, any "theory" if applied by great musicians and composers will yield fine music.
I studied 20th C composition at uni so was well aware of "revolutionary" theories that attempted to render all others obsolete. There are dozens that yielded interesting work, and then disappeared into obsolescence.
LCC was fashionably adopted by some heavy hitters, especially in the 60's and 70's. So too were tie dyed shirts, rainbow striped flares, platform shoes and dubious (ie ridiculous) hats/caps. Trouble was, it was easier to re think one's wardrobe than to re think one's exposure to LCC ....
My advice to youngsters is - Don't be a latecomer to this spent idea. If trad Functional Harmony is not your thing, then "roll your own" theories! (with optional #4, natch...)
Site does look like it was designed in 1994 though....
-
It's just a set of possibilities. The ear is the ultimate judge.
-
Just wanted to say I was working on this again today, going over the new vocabulary, assimilating it into my system if you will. Had a real revelation about something I've been working on, it exists in both LCC and another theory I use, long story short i discovered something that doesn't exist in either system, but completes the original system I was using in a way I'm not sure has been used ... At least widely.
anyway I know you have no idea what I'm talking about, but I wrote it just to underscore the importance of learning. A few day spent trudging through an admittedly pita book, paid off with not only the knowledge contained in the book, but entirely new ideas. Well worth the effort!!!
If you're an old dog looking for some new tricks....
-
can you expand on this other system and go into what you mean? Sounds cool Originally Posted by vintagelove
-
Originally Posted by bobsguitars09
Ok, long story short, one way to approach tensions over a dominant chord is through diminished vocabulary. There is a concept called the diminished ladder (I learned it from Willie Thomas), it's a method bebop players used to access vocabulary built on the upper extensions of the chords. Anyway it started off that you can play vocabulary off the dominant chord, but more importantly, off each step of the diminished ladder, from that dominant chord. Inside of those notes, I noticed a secondary diminished ladder, to which the same process could be applied. After playing around with some of the new LCC vocabulary (some of which is actually really close to what Uncle Willy teaches), the thought occurred to me, what if I play off the b7 of the secondary diminished ladder, creating a third diminished ladder, of which all the vocabulary can be used over as well.....
Then I noticed all three ladders form a chromatic scale, which provides access to basically all tones over a dominant 7, while having a firm footing in traditional bebop sounds. There is literally years worth of material that I can pull from that concept.
The bigger point isn't what I'm doing with it. It's how learning something new, can influence something totally unrelated. I just see people making fun of the book, and it's a shame because you don't have to be a complete LLC convert to learn some new tricks, then those new tricks might make you look at your old tricks in a new light.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=fpchHuVPl0sLast edited by vintagelove; 01-02-2016 at 03:52 PM.
-
Originally Posted by vintagelove
Amen and that's what Jazz is all about there are new things to learn and discover till the day you die. It's about finding new way to navigate a tune you've played for decades.
-
sad but true..you begin the study of jazz applied to guitar..and then you focus on specific guitarists (wow..id like to play like that) and that guitarists says he learned a system that he modified and you study it for about 6 months before you hear another top jazz guitarist say he has his own system and you like how that sounds so you begin to study it--fast forward-you now have 30 books of "how to play jazz guitar" at some point you realize "you" got lost in all this study of "other peoples systems" Originally Posted by docbop
in my playing you may hear..larry Coryell..john McLaughlin..joe pass..larry carlton..jimi Hendrix..ben monder..ted greene..lee ritenour..Kenny burrell..mike bloomfield and some others..
point is..I can play..at the moment im studying Giant Steps by Joe Diorio..he breaks down the tune bar by bar and some amazing stuff is possible..that Im still discovering new ways to play Aminor7..come on..really..where does this end...
the good news--it doesn't
the bad news..thats obvious
-
I don't see it as sad. It's like an endless box of toys to play with. What's sad about that? I only had so many LEGOs when I was a kid, but music goes on forever. Originally Posted by wolflen
Systems can be fun to play around with, but I do think they originate from people trying to sell you stuff. They can be useful to get started. I think things like the Ben Monder handout (itself a development of Chuck Wayne's teachings) is very useful, but it's more like a syllabus. There's no 'secret knowledge' here....
Eventually you will develop your own system anyway.
In my experience teaching jazz is that most students have plenty of information. What they need to work on to sound better are the basics. This is certainly true of my own playing. To my ears what separates the pros from the amateurs is that the pros have really gone to work on the very simple things. As a result they always sound great.
There is an element of people looking for the 'secret' here. I do not believe there is a secret. I think transcription teaches this.... It does seem to be about the how, not the what.Last edited by christianm77; 01-03-2016 at 08:53 AM.
-
I concur. Originally Posted by christianm77
-
the simple things .... the basics yeah ! Originally Posted by christianm77
Reply With Quote
“Shearing style”
Today, 05:26 PM in Comping, Chords & Chord Progressions