"To me these inaccuracies are glaring, but seemingly not to any one else here.
The lie here is that the 13th overtone is a major 6th. And even though it is closer to being a b6th, it is NEITHER A b6th NOR a major 6th.
The half-truth here is that the 11th overtone is an augmented fourth. One eensy-weensy 1/100 of a semi-tone is not enough evidence to convince any rational mind that the 11th overtone is in actuality an augmented 4th.
The 11th overtone is NEITHER a perfect fourth NOR an augmented fourth. "
This doesn’t necessarily relate to anything in the LCC book but: why do you think the so-called Lydian Dominant scale (123#456b7) is often referred to as the Overtone Scale? I don’t think anybody is out to spread “liesâ€
#4 is the natural child of the overtone series
Moderators: bobappleton, sandywilliams
Forum rules
An open letter from Alice Russell. June 21, 2011, Brookline, Massachusetts. 1. DO NOT make insulting, mean spirited remarks about anyone or their work; there are a plethora of sites where you can rant unfettered. If you attack someone personally, your comments will be removed. You can post it, but I'm not paying for it. Go elsewhere, and let those artists who are actually interested in discussion and learning have the floor. 2. There will be NO posting of or links to copyrighted material without permission of the copyright owner. That's the law. And if you respect the work of people who make meaningful contributions, you should have no problem following this policy. 3. I appreciate many of the postings from so many of you. Please don't feel you have to spend your time "defending" the LCC to those who come here with the express purpose of disproving it. George worked for decades to disprove it himself; if you know his music, there's no question that it has gravity. And a final word: George was famous for his refusal to lower his standards in all areas of his life, no matter the cost. He twice refused concerts of his music at Lincoln Center Jazz because of their early position on what was authentically jazz. So save any speculation about the level of him as an artist and a man. The quotes on our websites were not written by George; they were written by critics/writers/scholars/fans over many years. Sincerely, Alice
An open letter from Alice Russell. June 21, 2011, Brookline, Massachusetts. 1. DO NOT make insulting, mean spirited remarks about anyone or their work; there are a plethora of sites where you can rant unfettered. If you attack someone personally, your comments will be removed. You can post it, but I'm not paying for it. Go elsewhere, and let those artists who are actually interested in discussion and learning have the floor. 2. There will be NO posting of or links to copyrighted material without permission of the copyright owner. That's the law. And if you respect the work of people who make meaningful contributions, you should have no problem following this policy. 3. I appreciate many of the postings from so many of you. Please don't feel you have to spend your time "defending" the LCC to those who come here with the express purpose of disproving it. George worked for decades to disprove it himself; if you know his music, there's no question that it has gravity. And a final word: George was famous for his refusal to lower his standards in all areas of his life, no matter the cost. He twice refused concerts of his music at Lincoln Center Jazz because of their early position on what was authentically jazz. So save any speculation about the level of him as an artist and a man. The quotes on our websites were not written by George; they were written by critics/writers/scholars/fans over many years. Sincerely, Alice
-
sandywilliams
- Posts: 201
- Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2006 9:17 pm
Last edited by sandywilliams on Mon Oct 20, 2008 9:09 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
sandywilliams
- Posts: 201
- Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2006 9:17 pm
The bedrock of the LCC wasn’t formed in a physics lab, it was formed with Mr. Russell sitting at a piano, listening. The main principal of the LCC is Tonal Gravity. The book you have deals primarily with Vertical Tonal Gravity but if you are lucky enough to find a copy of the 1959 edition on eBay you’ll find a nice section on Horizontal Tonal Gravity as well.
The LCC isn’t a jazz method book. It’s more of a tonal cookbook, a resource, if you will.
The current edition may have a few typos and mistakes but these aren’t reason to dismiss it entirely. The LCC has it’s own jargon. There is a reason that Modal Genre VII 11b9 isn’t called Phrygian. For one thing, the Modal Genres aren’t the same as the Greek Modes. It sounds like your book or concept has some jargon of it’s own. I’d like to check out your ideas some more.
Lastly, have you spent much time listening to George Russell’s recorded work? His >50 year output has produced some amazingly forward thinking pieces featuring some stellar players including Max Roach, Barry Galbraith, Bill Evans, Paul Bley, John Coltrane, Steve Swallow, Don Ellis and on and on. This legacy alone should hopefully inspire you to deal with the LCC with even more respectful curiosity.
The LCC isn’t a jazz method book. It’s more of a tonal cookbook, a resource, if you will.
The current edition may have a few typos and mistakes but these aren’t reason to dismiss it entirely. The LCC has it’s own jargon. There is a reason that Modal Genre VII 11b9 isn’t called Phrygian. For one thing, the Modal Genres aren’t the same as the Greek Modes. It sounds like your book or concept has some jargon of it’s own. I’d like to check out your ideas some more.
Lastly, have you spent much time listening to George Russell’s recorded work? His >50 year output has produced some amazingly forward thinking pieces featuring some stellar players including Max Roach, Barry Galbraith, Bill Evans, Paul Bley, John Coltrane, Steve Swallow, Don Ellis and on and on. This legacy alone should hopefully inspire you to deal with the LCC with even more respectful curiosity.
jeff said:
Dogbite,
I thank you for taking the time to read through my pdf (whether or not you agree with any or all of it). It is nice to know that somebody has given it more than just a passing glance.
Since you have read that article, you already know that scales are formed via simple radial symmetry of consonants and not via uni-directional ascending fifths (GR's hypothesis).
Which could be seen as an "agenda".
For the benefit of those who have not seen the article on radial symmetrical scales and its consequence "the derivation of radial symmetrical altered scales", I intend to begin a thread entitled "How does the tonic imply the #4?"
But I want to see this thread end of its own volition first, as I consider the above to be a more or less separate topic."
db replies:
jeff,
i am intrigued by your reference to radial symmetry as applied to scales and would greatly enjoy a further discussion of it. if you started a thread at AAJ, it would get more exposure than here, but that is your call. i believe there to be many ways to derive melodic and harmonic structures that may be called "scales" and i hope you don't mind if i implore you to further illuminate your reference to "radial symmetry"...
db
Dogbite,
I thank you for taking the time to read through my pdf (whether or not you agree with any or all of it). It is nice to know that somebody has given it more than just a passing glance.
Since you have read that article, you already know that scales are formed via simple radial symmetry of consonants and not via uni-directional ascending fifths (GR's hypothesis).
Which could be seen as an "agenda".
For the benefit of those who have not seen the article on radial symmetrical scales and its consequence "the derivation of radial symmetrical altered scales", I intend to begin a thread entitled "How does the tonic imply the #4?"
But I want to see this thread end of its own volition first, as I consider the above to be a more or less separate topic."
db replies:
jeff,
i am intrigued by your reference to radial symmetry as applied to scales and would greatly enjoy a further discussion of it. if you started a thread at AAJ, it would get more exposure than here, but that is your call. i believe there to be many ways to derive melodic and harmonic structures that may be called "scales" and i hope you don't mind if i implore you to further illuminate your reference to "radial symmetry"...
db
-
Jeff Brent
- Posts: 10
- Joined: Sat Oct 18, 2008 4:13 pm
- Location: L.A.
Nope. But I did take the time to read all 22 reviews on Amazon (which have a number of mixed opinions).sandywilliams wrote: Jeff, have you ever read the book Lies My Music Teacher Told Me?
Please include whichever quotes you think would be relevant to this thread.
Never heard it called that. But if I may hazard a guess, folks might call it the Overtone Scale because they saw that same flawed overtone series chart that is reproduced in the LCC and bought into it without doing their homework.sandywilliams wrote:Why do you think the so-called Lydian Dominant scale (123#456b7) is often referred to as the Overtone Scale?
No special jargon. Just straightforward plain English, simple and to the point. I posted the links to two of my short articles in Dogbite's thread at AAJ (http://forums.allaboutjazz.com/showthre ... post423871).sandywilliams wrote:It sounds like your book or concept has some jargon of it’s own. I’d like to check out your ideas some more.
I tried really hard to find some mp3s of his online, but no luck. Seems odd, there was no shortage Miles, Trane, Bill Evans, etc.sandywilliams wrote:Lastly, have you spent much time listening to George Russell’s recorded work? His >50 year output has produced some amazingly forward thinking pieces featuring some stellar players including Max Roach, Barry Galbraith, Bill Evans, Paul Bley, John Coltrane, Steve Swallow, Don Ellis and on and on. This legacy alone should hopefully inspire you to deal with the LCC with even more respectful curiosity.
I did see the Billy Taylor video though with Bill Evans only playing with one hand most of the time.
As regards "curiosity", if I weren't interested in what could be gained from the LCC I wouldn't have read through it twice with a fine tooth comb and I also wouldn't be here.
-
sandywilliams
- Posts: 201
- Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2006 9:17 pm
[quote="strachs"]If I were to read this thread without the specific referenced to music theory, I might mistake it for a dispute about religious doctrine. No fighting folks. Take it outside.[/quote]
fear not - it's settled. we just needed to establish where we stand - we now have an interesting dialog regarding scale construction over at AAJ, where such spirited discussions are more the norm...
peace and crumpets,
db
fear not - it's settled. we just needed to establish where we stand - we now have an interesting dialog regarding scale construction over at AAJ, where such spirited discussions are more the norm...
peace and crumpets,
db
-
bobappleton
- Posts: 355
- Joined: Mon Sep 04, 2006 8:57 pm
- Location: Toronto, Canada
- Contact:
jeff:
we try to keep this up to date. the web info thread has a lot of george russell - music, video, theory and dialog: http://www.lydianchromaticconcept.com/p ... .php?t=137
bob
we try to keep this up to date. the web info thread has a lot of george russell - music, video, theory and dialog: http://www.lydianchromaticconcept.com/p ... .php?t=137
bob
In my personal thinking i think the sharp eleventh conform with the overtone series not in that it exists in consonance with the fundamental, but in that it is obtained using a ladder of the most consonant overtone interval (perfect fifth). That being said, the M2, M6, M3, and M7 intervals would also belong to this category, being obtained by successive perfect fifths.
"Life finds a way"- Wayne Shorter
I appreciate Andrew's comment above (just read it), and I think it basically goes along with my ultimate conclusion on the matter, but I'll paste in my 2 cents (ok more like 2 bucks) anyway:
The overtone series is well-known, but at the same time presents a tremendous riddle/mystery to humankind. Our efforts to harness it always seem to produce results wrapped in debate.
While I find many criticisms of Russell and his concept to be unjustified, I do think that maybe Russell may draw more support from the Overtone Series (OS) than is really warranted.
On page 234, he points out a similarity between the OS, a Pythagorean ladder of fifths, and the LCS: the fifth tone in the series is the third tone of the scale. Fine. This holds true for the major scale as well as the lydian scale, so nothing is really demonstrated here. Just kind of a mathematical coincidence as far as I can tell.
On page 228, he makes the note that "the overtone series is, therefore, amplitudinal, rather than a gravity-based phenomena." Doesn't that statement entirely remove any argument that a tonal gravity theory should be based upon the OS? (That being said, I DO think that the OS, to a degree, provides the basis, but I'm just pointing out the inconsistency of the above quoted statement).
Also, on page 230, Russell points out that the Lydian Flat Seventh scale is formed by partials 8 through 14. There are three points about this (that I can see):
1. As noted above, if the OS is not gravity-based, as Russell says, then what difference does this make?
2. Secondly, the 11th partial does not indisputably represent a sharp fourth (as Jeff Brent has pointed out), so does this segment of the OS even spell a Lb7 scale, or just a Mb7 scale?
3. Thirdly, if the OS first spells the Lb7 scale (and a 7th chord), and NEVER directly spells a Lydian scale (or a M7 chord), is the OS really suggesting to us the Lydian scale as a natural parent, or rather the Lb7 scale?
Next, on page 231, the first six partials are used to create three triads that ultimately create the Lydian scale. This (other than going up two fifths rather than up a fifth and down a fifth to create a major scale) is pretty much universally accepted, and I agree with this completely. No problems here.
My acceptance of the Lydian scale as the basis for an objective (though currently incomplete and still imperfect) theory of music is based primarily upon two things: the appreciation that the physics of sound involve tones sounding ABOVE a fundamental tone (in light of this, the major scale arrangement seems arbitrary compared to the Lydian scale), and the simple side-by-side aural experiment Russell suggests to compare the sounds of the two arrangements.
Trying to use the OS beyond the sixth partial to justify a "Lydian Chromatic Scale", to me, does not make sense.
For one thing, our equal-tempered system is simply too compromised (for good reasons, mind you) to really correspond with the tones of the OS beyond third and fifth partials. The fourth/raised fourth is one of the LEAST related tones to the OS.
Even if the tones of ET were considered to correspond with upper partials of the OS, the ingoing-to-outgoing grade of the LCS would have to fairly strictly comply with this, if it were to be considered a model, or at least a justification for this scale. The explanation on pages 231-234 seems like kind of a circular, smoke-and-mirrors, kind of non-logic to me.
Only tones ABOVE the fundamental and it's octaves can be considered new intervals introduced by the OS. Otherwise, the fourth indisputably comes before the tritone, since the fourth and third partials are a fourth apart. The side-by-side aural comparison of Lydian and Major already would be evidence that the OS does not explain or agree with Lydian's vertical unity. So, to begin with, only intervals occuring above the fundamental and it's octaves in the OS can be considered to be introduced by the series.
For that reason, the 4:3 ratio cannot be said to represent a vertical perfect fourth, nor can the 7:5 ratio be said to represent a vertical tritone. (and neither, of course, does Russell claim they do).
Because of ET's compromised nature, the 11th partial corresponds neither to a perfect fourth nor a tritone on our instruments. It cannot reliably said, then to prove or disprove the conformance of either Lydian or Major scale to the OS.
What is more, if any scale is spelled out, or even suggested by the OS, it would be a toss-up between Lb7 and Mb7, not lydian or major. If the OS is a model for an ingoing-to-outgoing measure, the "dominant" seventh chord is surely prototyped by the OS long before the M7 has it's appearance.
So, beyond the first six partials, I don't think the Overtone Series can be used to justify the Lydian Chromatic Scale, or even the Lydian scale. I'm sure that all those higher paritals are there for a reason (other than creating timbre), and that they have an effect upon all of this, but I just don't think anyone has figured it out yet. Russell certainly hasn't. I certainly don't claim to.
The overtone series is well-known, but at the same time presents a tremendous riddle/mystery to humankind. Our efforts to harness it always seem to produce results wrapped in debate.
While I find many criticisms of Russell and his concept to be unjustified, I do think that maybe Russell may draw more support from the Overtone Series (OS) than is really warranted.
On page 234, he points out a similarity between the OS, a Pythagorean ladder of fifths, and the LCS: the fifth tone in the series is the third tone of the scale. Fine. This holds true for the major scale as well as the lydian scale, so nothing is really demonstrated here. Just kind of a mathematical coincidence as far as I can tell.
On page 228, he makes the note that "the overtone series is, therefore, amplitudinal, rather than a gravity-based phenomena." Doesn't that statement entirely remove any argument that a tonal gravity theory should be based upon the OS? (That being said, I DO think that the OS, to a degree, provides the basis, but I'm just pointing out the inconsistency of the above quoted statement).
Also, on page 230, Russell points out that the Lydian Flat Seventh scale is formed by partials 8 through 14. There are three points about this (that I can see):
1. As noted above, if the OS is not gravity-based, as Russell says, then what difference does this make?
2. Secondly, the 11th partial does not indisputably represent a sharp fourth (as Jeff Brent has pointed out), so does this segment of the OS even spell a Lb7 scale, or just a Mb7 scale?
3. Thirdly, if the OS first spells the Lb7 scale (and a 7th chord), and NEVER directly spells a Lydian scale (or a M7 chord), is the OS really suggesting to us the Lydian scale as a natural parent, or rather the Lb7 scale?
Next, on page 231, the first six partials are used to create three triads that ultimately create the Lydian scale. This (other than going up two fifths rather than up a fifth and down a fifth to create a major scale) is pretty much universally accepted, and I agree with this completely. No problems here.
My acceptance of the Lydian scale as the basis for an objective (though currently incomplete and still imperfect) theory of music is based primarily upon two things: the appreciation that the physics of sound involve tones sounding ABOVE a fundamental tone (in light of this, the major scale arrangement seems arbitrary compared to the Lydian scale), and the simple side-by-side aural experiment Russell suggests to compare the sounds of the two arrangements.
Trying to use the OS beyond the sixth partial to justify a "Lydian Chromatic Scale", to me, does not make sense.
For one thing, our equal-tempered system is simply too compromised (for good reasons, mind you) to really correspond with the tones of the OS beyond third and fifth partials. The fourth/raised fourth is one of the LEAST related tones to the OS.
Even if the tones of ET were considered to correspond with upper partials of the OS, the ingoing-to-outgoing grade of the LCS would have to fairly strictly comply with this, if it were to be considered a model, or at least a justification for this scale. The explanation on pages 231-234 seems like kind of a circular, smoke-and-mirrors, kind of non-logic to me.
Only tones ABOVE the fundamental and it's octaves can be considered new intervals introduced by the OS. Otherwise, the fourth indisputably comes before the tritone, since the fourth and third partials are a fourth apart. The side-by-side aural comparison of Lydian and Major already would be evidence that the OS does not explain or agree with Lydian's vertical unity. So, to begin with, only intervals occuring above the fundamental and it's octaves in the OS can be considered to be introduced by the series.
For that reason, the 4:3 ratio cannot be said to represent a vertical perfect fourth, nor can the 7:5 ratio be said to represent a vertical tritone. (and neither, of course, does Russell claim they do).
Because of ET's compromised nature, the 11th partial corresponds neither to a perfect fourth nor a tritone on our instruments. It cannot reliably said, then to prove or disprove the conformance of either Lydian or Major scale to the OS.
What is more, if any scale is spelled out, or even suggested by the OS, it would be a toss-up between Lb7 and Mb7, not lydian or major. If the OS is a model for an ingoing-to-outgoing measure, the "dominant" seventh chord is surely prototyped by the OS long before the M7 has it's appearance.
So, beyond the first six partials, I don't think the Overtone Series can be used to justify the Lydian Chromatic Scale, or even the Lydian scale. I'm sure that all those higher paritals are there for a reason (other than creating timbre), and that they have an effect upon all of this, but I just don't think anyone has figured it out yet. Russell certainly hasn't. I certainly don't claim to.