and what do you think?
http://jeff-brent.com/Lessons/LCC/LCCdiscrepancies.html
Has anyone else seen/read this article?
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
Has anyone else seen/read this article?
"space is the place"
I think it's unfortunate that dialogue on a theoretical level is so discouraged in this forum. While I don't agree with Jeff Brent's take on theory, or his particular argumentation against the LCC, I wish there were some other reaction to theory discussion than "GR is a genius who figured out all theory problems, let's not ever talk theory again".
If the desire really is to try to "understand it the best our frail minds will allow", then should we assume that the LCC is the best that man's collective mind can come up with?
What brought most people to the LCC book and to this forum, was that we could not just "get on with the music". We felt there were gaps left by traditional theory that would forever prevent us from taking full command of the mysterious forces that seem to be under our fingers and between our ears.
LCC encourages us to see a bigger picture than traditionally offered, and that's awesome. But if a few people feel that there are still gaps, that there are still certain audible phenomena that the LCC fails to explain or address, why discourage that?
If the fish is all that interests you - great, focus on the fish. But there are some of us who are just as fascinated with the water. If this forum is a "round hole", maybe you could suggest where I might fit my "square pegs" (somewhere other than AAJ)?
If the desire really is to try to "understand it the best our frail minds will allow", then should we assume that the LCC is the best that man's collective mind can come up with?
What brought most people to the LCC book and to this forum, was that we could not just "get on with the music". We felt there were gaps left by traditional theory that would forever prevent us from taking full command of the mysterious forces that seem to be under our fingers and between our ears.
LCC encourages us to see a bigger picture than traditionally offered, and that's awesome. But if a few people feel that there are still gaps, that there are still certain audible phenomena that the LCC fails to explain or address, why discourage that?
If the fish is all that interests you - great, focus on the fish. But there are some of us who are just as fascinated with the water. If this forum is a "round hole", maybe you could suggest where I might fit my "square pegs" (somewhere other than AAJ)?
Hi motherlode,
I do remember your positive response to that blues thing, and it was certainly appreciated. And I appreciate that you are yet open to my contributions. I don't get that response from everyone, you know.
I have some ideas yet to share, and I've been toying with NOT posting them here, out of deference to those who feel it's entirely inappropriate to voice anything of that sort here.
But I know where I stand on LCC and it's not a "Theoretician X vs. GR/LCC" position. If you're willing to hear and respect a viewpoint that does not hold GR as infallible, then I guess there's no reason NOT to post it here.
So, thanks for inviting me to stick around.
I did read your Hindemith work-up, and it was very musical indeed.
I guess we all have our hot buttons, things that irk us, and we ought to be mindful of who we're discussing things with. That being said, I hope we can all share our ideas and not feel compelled to adopt a diametric "for" or "against" position toward the LCC or any other idea thrown out there.
Like you said, we're all "Lydiots"! See you soon (in a thread of my own - don't want to de-rail someone else's again).
I do remember your positive response to that blues thing, and it was certainly appreciated. And I appreciate that you are yet open to my contributions. I don't get that response from everyone, you know.
I have some ideas yet to share, and I've been toying with NOT posting them here, out of deference to those who feel it's entirely inappropriate to voice anything of that sort here.
But I know where I stand on LCC and it's not a "Theoretician X vs. GR/LCC" position. If you're willing to hear and respect a viewpoint that does not hold GR as infallible, then I guess there's no reason NOT to post it here.
So, thanks for inviting me to stick around.
I did read your Hindemith work-up, and it was very musical indeed.
I guess we all have our hot buttons, things that irk us, and we ought to be mindful of who we're discussing things with. That being said, I hope we can all share our ideas and not feel compelled to adopt a diametric "for" or "against" position toward the LCC or any other idea thrown out there.
Like you said, we're all "Lydiots"! See you soon (in a thread of my own - don't want to de-rail someone else's again).
-
DroneDaily
- Posts: 25
- Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2011 8:59 am
-
chespernevins
- Posts: 368
- Joined: Sat Sep 16, 2006 7:34 am
The biggest problem I have with the article is when Jeff talks about discrepancies with a 'ladder of fifths.' This is George's greatest argument for the Lydian mode. Jeff doesn't take into account that each note has it's own set of overtones. C has an immediate overtone of G, G has an immediate overtone of D, D has an immediate overtone of A, etc. all the way up to F# All of George Russell's other proofs of the Lydian mode may be unsound (I'm not saying the are) but the ladder of fifths is the most impressive because the stacked fifths really do imply an eventual #4.
"Life finds a way"- Wayne Shorter
The biggest problem I have with the article is when Jeff talks about discrepancies with a 'ladder of fifths.' This is George's greatest argument for the Lydian mode. Jeff doesn't take into account that each note has it's own set of overtones. C has an immediate overtone of G, G has an immediate overtone of D, D has an immediate overtone of A, etc. all the way up to F# All of George Russell's other proofs of the Lydian mode may be unsound (I'm not saying the are) but the ladder of fifths is the most impressive because the stacked fifths really do imply an eventual #4.
"Life finds a way"- Wayne Shorter
-
chespernevins
- Posts: 368
- Joined: Sat Sep 16, 2006 7:34 am
Jeff asks:
F#
B
E
A
D
G
C
C is the tonic of:
the C-G interval
the C-D interval
the C-A interval
the C-E interval
the C-B interval
the C-F# interval
(in the case of the C-F# interval, either tone could be considered the tonic)
As for the OTHER notes in the cycle (C#, Ab, Eb, Bb, F):
C# is the tonic of the C#-C interval
Ab is the tonic of the Ab-C interval
Eb is the tonic of the Eb-C interval
Bb is the tonic of the Bb-C interval
F is the tonic of the F-C interval
True, other systems, such as Hindemith's, may have a different view of which note is the tonic of a given interval. But within the LCC, this is consistent.
I admit this is somewhat circular reasoning, because the tonic of an interval is determined by its placement in a ladder of fifths. So let me offer some additional detail.
I will refer to the fully chromatic cycle drawn below as "the cycle", and will refer to a ladder of 6 fifths (7 notes) as a "ladder".
Here is the cycle of 5ths laid out in a straight line:
C
F
Bb
Eb
Ab
C#
F#
B
E
A
D
G
C
G is in C's ladder of 5ths - and not vice versa - because G is one step above C in the cycle, whereas C is 11 steps above G in the cycle. The closest spacing of these 2 notes in the cycle is G one fifth above C. Therefore C is the tonic of the G and C interval.
D is also in C's ladder of fifths - and not vice versa - because D is 2 steps above C in the cycle, while C is 10 steps above D in the cycle. The closest spacing of these 2 notes in the cycle is D two fifths above C. C is the tonic of the C and D interval.
The same is true of A, E, and B. They are in C's ladder of fifths, and C is not in the ladder owned by A, E or B. C is the tonic of C and A, etc.
F# is in C's ladder and C is in F#'s ladder. They are the same distance apart in the cycle. C to F# is 6 steps up the cycle and F# to C is also 6 steps up the cycle. Either note can be the tonic of this interval.
C# is where things change. C# is 7 steps up the cycle from C, but C is only 5 steps up the ladder from C#. This means the closest spacing of the two notes on the cycle is C# up to C. This means C is in C#'s ladder of fifths - and C# is NOT in C's ladder of fifths. C# is the tonic of the C and C# interval.
So the ladder goes up to F# and stops there.
F#
B
E
A
D
G
C
When we get to the note C#, the distance between C and C# is closer when we place them in C#'s ladder:
G
C
F
Bb
Eb
Ab
C# (Db)
My take is that the ladder is 7 tones based on the idea of interval tonics:If the LCC theory is based on a �ladder� of ascending fifths emanating from a center of tonal gravity �do�, why specifically choose a 7 note tone row? Why not 6 notes or 8 notes or why not any number?
F#
B
E
A
D
G
C
C is the tonic of:
the C-G interval
the C-D interval
the C-A interval
the C-E interval
the C-B interval
the C-F# interval
(in the case of the C-F# interval, either tone could be considered the tonic)
As for the OTHER notes in the cycle (C#, Ab, Eb, Bb, F):
C# is the tonic of the C#-C interval
Ab is the tonic of the Ab-C interval
Eb is the tonic of the Eb-C interval
Bb is the tonic of the Bb-C interval
F is the tonic of the F-C interval
True, other systems, such as Hindemith's, may have a different view of which note is the tonic of a given interval. But within the LCC, this is consistent.
I admit this is somewhat circular reasoning, because the tonic of an interval is determined by its placement in a ladder of fifths. So let me offer some additional detail.
I will refer to the fully chromatic cycle drawn below as "the cycle", and will refer to a ladder of 6 fifths (7 notes) as a "ladder".
Here is the cycle of 5ths laid out in a straight line:
C
F
Bb
Eb
Ab
C#
F#
B
E
A
D
G
C
G is in C's ladder of 5ths - and not vice versa - because G is one step above C in the cycle, whereas C is 11 steps above G in the cycle. The closest spacing of these 2 notes in the cycle is G one fifth above C. Therefore C is the tonic of the G and C interval.
D is also in C's ladder of fifths - and not vice versa - because D is 2 steps above C in the cycle, while C is 10 steps above D in the cycle. The closest spacing of these 2 notes in the cycle is D two fifths above C. C is the tonic of the C and D interval.
The same is true of A, E, and B. They are in C's ladder of fifths, and C is not in the ladder owned by A, E or B. C is the tonic of C and A, etc.
F# is in C's ladder and C is in F#'s ladder. They are the same distance apart in the cycle. C to F# is 6 steps up the cycle and F# to C is also 6 steps up the cycle. Either note can be the tonic of this interval.
C# is where things change. C# is 7 steps up the cycle from C, but C is only 5 steps up the ladder from C#. This means the closest spacing of the two notes on the cycle is C# up to C. This means C is in C#'s ladder of fifths - and C# is NOT in C's ladder of fifths. C# is the tonic of the C and C# interval.
So the ladder goes up to F# and stops there.
F#
B
E
A
D
G
C
When we get to the note C#, the distance between C and C# is closer when we place them in C#'s ladder:
G
C
F
Bb
Eb
Ab
C# (Db)
-
chespernevins
- Posts: 368
- Joined: Sat Sep 16, 2006 7:34 am
Hey Strachs. I aspire to be both a theory head and a practitioner as well. How well that is going depends on when you catch me... Hopefully I use my ears sometimes too.Chesper: a fellow theory-head. Good to hear your perspective again. Your diagrams of ladders have been a good visual tool in the forum.
So, let me get your point clear: are you viewing the tones in a kind of close-to-distant, strong-to-weak gravitational pull kind of way? If that's what's going on, do you have a theory as to why C#, then, seems to have a stronger claim on C than, say, Ab through F?
I have a theory. It may be a bunch of bs.
I think you'll remember this once you see it - I spelled out the theory in the "Questions about Chords" thread. Here's the link:
http://lydianchromaticconcept.com/phpBB ... sc&start=0
-
chespernevins
- Posts: 368
- Joined: Sat Sep 16, 2006 7:34 am
-
Jeff Brent
- Posts: 10
- Joined: Sat Oct 18, 2008 4:13 pm
- Location: L.A.
I cover/debunk that here:Andrew wrote:Jeff doesn't take into account that each note has it's own set of overtones. C has an immediate overtone of G, G has an immediate overtone of D, D has an immediate overtone of A, etc. all the way up to F# All of George Russell's other proofs of the Lydian mode may be unsound (I'm not saying the are) but the ladder of fifths is the most impressive because the stacked fifths really do imply an eventual #4.
http://Jeff-Brent.com/Lessons/LCC/Evolu ... raLCC.html
Look under: 4. Harmonics Generating Harmonics
-
DroneDaily
- Posts: 25
- Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2011 8:59 am
on jeff's website:
Ockham's Razor:
'All things being equal, the simplest solution tends to be the best one'
me playing devil's advocate:
H.L. Mencken Quotes:
For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong.
life is complicated and messy. uniformity and conformity are not the secret to a great life, diversity is, if russell's theories are complicated its because they pick up on the subtle nuances that simpler theories consider outliers
question for jeff: you are not a big fan of the LCC, but what do you think of Delamont's or Hindemith's theories? who do you think gets it right?
Ockham's Razor:
'All things being equal, the simplest solution tends to be the best one'
me playing devil's advocate:
H.L. Mencken Quotes:
For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong.
life is complicated and messy. uniformity and conformity are not the secret to a great life, diversity is, if russell's theories are complicated its because they pick up on the subtle nuances that simpler theories consider outliers
question for jeff: you are not a big fan of the LCC, but what do you think of Delamont's or Hindemith's theories? who do you think gets it right?
If that page you linked debunked something, I guess I missed it. I'm not sure I found any reasoned conclusions on the entire page. I'd be more than happy to consider a re-worded second attempt or something, but if this page is the most convincing you've managed, I'm not sure you have something to prove really. You may very well feel the same about what I've posted, and it may be because we see something in our own words that just isn't getting across to the reader.
Happy posting, everyone.
Happy posting, everyone.
-
chespernevins
- Posts: 368
- Joined: Sat Sep 16, 2006 7:34 am
Not to pile on, but I meant to post anyway.
Jeff, your symmetry theory is cool and interesting - there are a lot of symmetrical objects in nature - but I don't see how it takes anything away from the LCC.
I feel that that the article's Ockham's Razor scenario is a bit of a straw man argument. How many verbal steps to creating a pentatonic scale - no matter how fundamental a scale it may be - just doesn't seem to prove anything one way or another about "tonal gravity", or even the ladder of fifths, IMO.
I kept thinking that it seems to me like your ideas deserve to be presented alone, on their own merits...
Jeff, your symmetry theory is cool and interesting - there are a lot of symmetrical objects in nature - but I don't see how it takes anything away from the LCC.
I feel that that the article's Ockham's Razor scenario is a bit of a straw man argument. How many verbal steps to creating a pentatonic scale - no matter how fundamental a scale it may be - just doesn't seem to prove anything one way or another about "tonal gravity", or even the ladder of fifths, IMO.
I kept thinking that it seems to me like your ideas deserve to be presented alone, on their own merits...