It seems as though GR decided to to abandon the (I) and the (V) in his Circle of Relationships Between Chords in the 2nd edition of the concept.
I think this makes quite a statement... The frustration of their interchangeability...
Hmm...
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
On the very last page of the second edition there is a circle of how chords relate to one another... Kind of a fraction of chart A on a single page.
He has all of the roman numeral categories (PMTs) listed on the newest edition's chart A besides two most basic roman numerals - I - V -
I figured his reasons for doing so are as follows. They are the most interchangeable of any of the roman numerals, they label basically the same genre of chords on a different category, the only two to have this trait according to chart A. I will gladly state there is a really big difference between (I) and (V) major chords/scales that occur on these steps! This is extremely basic but insanely complex. Like music itself...
Truthfully, I am just making an assumption.
I remembered that topic speaking about how much the chord categories and even the order of tonal gravity had changed over the years. I decided to post this because there is some serious restlessness for the next edition of LCCOTO. It reminded me that I had noticed this oddity a while back.
I feel so sorry for the people who have been waitin' over seven years for it... I have been studying it since '06 and I am hyped!
He has all of the roman numeral categories (PMTs) listed on the newest edition's chart A besides two most basic roman numerals - I - V -
I figured his reasons for doing so are as follows. They are the most interchangeable of any of the roman numerals, they label basically the same genre of chords on a different category, the only two to have this trait according to chart A. I will gladly state there is a really big difference between (I) and (V) major chords/scales that occur on these steps! This is extremely basic but insanely complex. Like music itself...
Truthfully, I am just making an assumption.
I remembered that topic speaking about how much the chord categories and even the order of tonal gravity had changed over the years. I decided to post this because there is some serious restlessness for the next edition of LCCOTO. It reminded me that I had noticed this oddity a while back.
I feel so sorry for the people who have been waitin' over seven years for it... I have been studying it since '06 and I am hyped!
-
sandywilliams
- Posts: 201
- Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2006 9:17 pm
OK I’m on the same page with you. He didn’t abandon the I. As a matter of fact, it’s staring us in the face. The I is the big letter in the middle of each circle, the Lydian Tonic. I think you have to look at those Roman numerals differently than if you were looking at an analysis of a piece using trad. theory. They wouldn’t be used for diagramming a chord progression like a III-VI-II-V-I. They are simply where the different Modal Genres reside within a Lydian scale. The V probably isn’t there because modal genre Major VB is more like an inversion of I than a completely distinct category.
I like the one page summary of the LCC in back of that edition. I hadn't looked at that for a while.
I like the one page summary of the LCC in back of that edition. I hadn't looked at that for a while.
Haha! Staring me right in the face... I'm so embarrassed! 
-Maybe I should observe a tidbit more before posting.
--Bleh! I need to stop posting dead end threads.
It is still odd. Unlike The Order of Tonal Gravity it seems as though GR meant that the Lydian tonic relates to all of them as equals... Quite strange. For my ear cannot accept such a statement! Or fact...
-I'm thinking I should rely more on examples from the older editions, not the larger aspects, as not to skew my views. (He's much more blunt/clear in this current edition...) For example p.124 compared to what I previously stated.
-Maybe I should observe a tidbit more before posting.
--Bleh! I need to stop posting dead end threads.
It is still odd. Unlike The Order of Tonal Gravity it seems as though GR meant that the Lydian tonic relates to all of them as equals... Quite strange. For my ear cannot accept such a statement! Or fact...
-I'm thinking I should rely more on examples from the older editions, not the larger aspects, as not to skew my views. (He's much more blunt/clear in this current edition...) For example p.124 compared to what I previously stated.