recent activity

Post by **bobappleton** » Tue Jan 18, 2011 4:48 pm

just a comment on the large number of theories of harmonics or other things posted here by people since gr passed on.

it seems a little weird to read these, other than as strange contentions, and not necessarily by their authors, for "theory of the moment."

nothing against those ideas. it's simply sad that the lcc seems to have (temporarily one hopes) ended it's trajectory as a vital force in music... maybe there's no other way right now.

it would be nice (imho) to see people posting new uses, or personal evolutions of, the concept.

strachs · Post by **strachs** » Wed Jan 19, 2011 1:45 pm

The problem is, no one but the members of this forum are in a position to intelligently make any comparisons between the Concept and other theories of harmony. In here it will have to be.

Post by **bobappleton** » Wed Jan 19, 2011 2:18 pm

i understand that. however the situation i'm describing is that using the lcc forum to publish someone else's theoretical position - which most often opposes the lcc is not in the spirit of this forum - nor is it even useful to a discussion of the lcc.

i'm simply bemoaning the fact that many people (including yourself strachs) want to challenge the lcc and not explore it.

b

strachs · Post by **strachs** » Thu Jan 20, 2011 8:56 am

I publish no one's position but my own. Sharing references to works that have improved my understanding does not promote them as replacements for LCC.

I don't see Hindemith, Russell, Mathieu, or any other composer/theorist as having all the answers in a neat little system that trumps all the others.

My personal musical journey has been fed and nourished by all three of these, and I emerge with my own personal take on how harmony works and why. I am endebted to each, but feel no need to feign loyalty to any one theory or theorist.

I personally bemoan the fact that no one seems to jump to the defense of Russell's IDEAS on their own strength, only to the defense of the man and this forum. No one's challenging the man or the forum, only some of the ideas.

Don't forget, people like Russell did not become innovators by accepting the ideas of their forerunners. There is no innovation if we don't challenge ideas. If I see something about LCC that doesn't sit right, this should be the PERFECT place to raise these issues, since the experts are here.

This is not a GR fanclub. It is, as the forum's welcome page says, for: "Discussions about George Russell's Lydian Chromatic Concept of Tonal Organization." My posts fit that description.

You say I want to "want to challenge the lcc and not explore it". I can only challenge the LCC because I am exploring it and know it well. I think that not welcoming challenge does the Concept a disservice, because it then appears to be about loyalty to the man, and not about the quest for musical truth that is the common thread among all who have discovered the Concept.

People who mention other theorists are not suggesting a replacement for "theory of the moment". No theory exists in a vaccuum, and one needs to get a broader sense of man's progress in music theory, where we're at now, who helped get us here, and what needs to be further improved.

No one has been hired as moderator of this forum, so let's all feel free to share ideas, no matter how we arrive at them.

[/i]

Post by **bobappleton** » Thu Jan 20, 2011 11:44 pm

"no one but the members of this forum are in a position to intelligently make any comparisons between the Concept and other theories of harmony."

i was planning on leaving this one overnight before responding. but call me impetuous, i have an almost uncontrollable aversion to pomposity. have you forgotten, strachs, that the vast majority of musicians who have played george russell's music professionally are either NOT on this forum at all, or choose NOT to respond to some of the wackier ideas expressed - such as your quote above?

"the forum's welcome page says: "for Discussions about George Russell's Lydian Chromatic Concept of Tonal Organization." My posts fit that description."

again, i'm sorry strachs, for me your recent posts do not fit this description. they are talking about your views of other peoples' musical theories. i look forward to more insight on the inner workings of the concept, at a level equal to some of the most thoughtful and sincere contributions here. douglas heining's biography is full of insights on where the concept might go next - including new research into the relationship between music and physical health, as well as expansion of russell's notion of the "platonic description of an existing reality."

so i guess what i'm saying us that if we have more contributions at this higher level, as well as questions from beginners, then people will pay attention, and the lcc will grow through the forum. the biggest danger of allowing the forum to become irrelevant or irreverent to george russell, is that it can justifiably be dropped by the russell family - and we all lose.

b

strachs · Post by **strachs** » Fri Jan 21, 2011 8:47 am

I was not suggesting that the members of the forum are an elite intelligentsia, as if to elevate myself by being in this company. That WOULD be pompous, but you got me wrong, Bob. I was simply referring to the fact that with few exceptions, any discussion of the LCC outside this forum tends to be among people who have no idea about it, and have not read the book. You can only post on this forum if you've read the book, so it's a starting point for discussion that generally does not exist out there. (unless you know where to meet and discuss with former band members, as you say, which I don't). Make sense?

Secondly, other than one brief response to two separate threads, neither of which were damaging to the Concept, I have posted nothing in over a year. So, what "recent posts" are you referring to?

To assert that someone is 'pompous' and 'wacky' and whose contributions ought to be on a 'higher level' to merit being posted, is not going to cause the lcc to grow.

Let's not turn this into a take-everything-personally, get-your-back-up kind of GR loyalist camp. You're friends with the Russell family, I get it. But don't turn ideas away at the door.

You'd do the Concept a greater service if you'd take on the ideas presented, rather than taking on their presenters.

Post by **bobappleton** » Sat Jan 22, 2011 10:19 am

thanks for not taking this personally strachs. it's definitely NOT intended that way. and it could well be that the timing of your post about (yet another) set of ideas of only tangential relevance to the concept, made me respond.

it's certainly true that neither you nor i nor anyone else has been contributing in the same way that we once did when we felt (perhaps) that we were speaking to george - and felt encouraged by that great image of the conductor up there on the top left of the page - raising the stakes...

here's to better times

:')

dogbite · Post by **dogbite** » Sat Jan 22, 2011 7:46 pm

dear friends,

in a band, "democracies don't work" - [i]mike markov[/i]

perhaps in a forum as well. there are no moderators here that i know of; further, that there are no "official voices" either, makes the dialog, well, [i]speculative[/i] and this leads to the current dynamic which seems unfocused and without purpose. i understand that the forum is specifically devoted to LCC but in the absence of even a single individual who can answer basic questions about things such as, "what did russell mean when he wrote x, y, or z," what exactly are we supposed to write about?

i have expressed privately to certain individuals my frustration at the current dynamic and my comments are not intended to be perceived as contentious or adversarial in any context. i have not posted in a very long time and the above comments may serve to explain my absence in a forum community whom at one time i was very excited about.

the fact that the original edition has more to say about HTG (in lesson V) and SVTG (through the tonal gravity chart) than the present volume one is of great concern for me, as it has been implicitly stated that subsequent volumes are not to be released. i have also stated privately that respect for "GR the Man" has eclipsed the advancement of "LCC the Concept" and this makes me hesitant to post anything at all about LCC in any forum, including this one. i mean, when it comes to anything beyond the basics of VTG, i'm just not sure i know what the heck i'm talking about and there seems no practical way of furthering my understanding beyond these basics.

i know enough about blogging software to know that [i]somebody[/i] is administering or otherwise monitoring the host server because they are not free (not for me anyway) so it would be imho very helpful if there were some kind, any kind, of guidance as to the resolutions of these issues.

in closing, i would reiterate that although i don't agree with russell about [i]everything[/i], i remain an enthusiastic advocate for not only the concept, but for what i feel it represents: a timely reexamination of music theory and pedagogy for modern music and ultimately music of any time period. if the fact that i, or anyone else, may not agree with russell about [i]everything[/i] precludes us from writing about other things here on this forum, we have not been told so explicitly and for this reason in particular, i seek guidance in the form i have mentioned above.

i sincerely hope i've been helpful in outlining my perspective as regards to what bob and strachs were talking about.

peace and prosperity,

s/aka/db

ps - and does anyone know why my italics are not working here? probably also the bold and underline too...

dogbite · Post by **dogbite** » Sat Jan 22, 2011 9:55 pm

[quote="bobappleton"]...someone else's theoretical position - which most often opposes the lcc...[/quote]

bob

i think i know what you're getting at; however, i don't feel that theories of music can oppose each other. for example, the perception of music from a tonal gravity perspective is subjective enough that i can easily get two of my students to listen to exactly the same piece of music where one says it sounds "wrong" yet the other says it sounds "dark and compelling" - and it most certainly is not my intention to introduce an element of existentialist metaphysics into the dialog, as this has happened before and it led nowhere.

if my example demonstrates that i don't know what i'm talking about, by either misusing the term "tonal gravity" or perhaps using it out of context, well i'd like to know that too. can you give examples of what you feel has been posted which may be construed as in opposition to LCC? further, i actually think that it would be useful to explore what LCC is not as to further define what it is, so as to clarify for all of us the substance rather than potentially get caught up in minutiae.

my students do this a lot, by focusing on a detail which may be no more than that of a peripheral or tangential nature and not seeing the bigger picture and if i am doing so here, i apologize. like i mentioned before, i think i understand some of the concept but it may turn out that i am not "seeing it" clearly after all.

g'day!

ps - and the quote function seems to be inoperative as well...

Post by **bobappleton** » Mon Jan 24, 2011 3:28 pm

dogbite. here is my response to your questions:

roughly in date order the oppositional positions are:

some thoughts on, and possible criticisms of the L.C.C. http://www.lydianchromaticconcept.com/p ... .php?t=140 alan smith, april 1(?), 2007. responded to on behalf of the "authorized teachers of the concept" by marc rossi, april 28 2007. http://www.lydianchromaticconcept.com/p ... .php?t=147

Ray Barretto http://www.lydianchromaticconcept.com/p ... .php?t=282 from the disappearing bob b, responded to by himself, alone as he gradually disintegrated into outer space (after i might add, writing a good summary of the concept) march, april and may 2008.

http://forums.allaboutjazz.com/showthread.php?t=21948 (not on the forum) though visited by many of us - the famous AAJ wars (we won this argument against the lcc when the primary mover was outed as a disgruntled former student of george russell) approx 2007-2009 (and in any event a very, very long time).

Dont' Hate Me - I Disagree With Russell's Theory http://www.lydianchromaticconcept.com/p ... .php?t=340 strachs july 27 2009 (unfortunate timing indeed). responded to by motherlode

It's a Sad Day http://www.lydianchromaticconcept.com/p ... .php?t=341 pierem july 28 2009 (simply as a marker, this was the day that George Russell passed on)

Interval Tonics - Their Effect Upon the LCS. http://www.lydianchromaticconcept.com/p ... .php?t=357 strachs october 2009. responded to on behalf of the "authorized teachers of the concept" by ben schwendener

Orbital Geometry http://www.lydianchromaticconcept.com/p ... .php?t=365 - intereference theory. bagatell jan 2011 (tangential self-promotion in my view)

George Russell V.S. Paul Hindemith http://lydianchromaticconcept.com/phpBB ... .php?t=376 DroneDaily Jan 2011. Responded to by strachs (who announces that W.A Mathieu has "completely recalibrated his understanding"... beyond the lcc) and dogbite (who states that "the musics of hindemith and russell are... very different")

then we come full circle with:

recent activity http://www.lydianchromaticconcept.com/p ... .php?t=377 bob appleton jan 2011. responded to by strachs and dogbite.

__________________

so dogbite, my response to your comments is - that we do need an administrator - an experienced lcc person who wants to do it.

i find myself taking the role of philosophical administrator - but not musical administrator. if any one or three of you would care to assume that role, we could share the responsibility.

in the meantime i'm pleased to see new activity from students, responded to by sandy and ches - and the return of motherlode, dogbite and (the hopefully now less impetuous and insensitive) strachs.

good signs for a happy new year