Has anyone else seen/read this article?

[Jeff Brent]

If we want to discuss any specifics of Brent's counter-arguments, then let's isolate them and discuss them individually.

what do you think of Delamont's or Hindemith's theories? who do you think gets it right?

Get *what* right? Are you specifically referring to "Harmonics Generating Harmonics" or ...?

If that page you linked debunked something, I guess I missed it.

My post was only in regards to Andrew's statement that I had neglected to examine "harmonics generating harmonics".

In a nutshell, attempting to derive any scale by means of stacked fifths arrived at via successively generating harmonics of harmonics of harmonics, etc becomes unwieldy very quickly due to the need to multiply by consecutive powers of three (escalating rapidly to frequencies beyond the range of human hearing), and also due to the extremely faint nature of any harmonics except those few at the very lowest end.

Jeff, your symmetry theory is cool and interesting ... your ideas deserve to be presented alone, on their own merits

Thank you for the compliments!

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.

These are not verbal steps, these are audio steps.

Deriving an ur-scale via RS is based on close-by neighboring consonances that are easily heard in the real-world.

Trying to derive an ur-scale via "harmonics generating harmonics generating harmonics generating harmonics" that go up and up and up and up, which for the most part cannot even be felt much less be heard, and exist only in the realm of theoretical mathematics, is wishful thinking.

If we want to discuss any specifics of Brent's counter-arguments, then let's isolate them and discuss them individually.

[chespernevins]

chespernevins wrote:

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.

Jeff wrote:

These are not verbal steps, these are audio steps.

Deriving an ur-scale via RS is based on close-by neighboring consonances that are easily heard in the real-world.

I don't know. I can hear C G D A E all at once, just as easily as E A D G C.

[chespernevins]

http://jeff-brent.com/Lessons/LCC/Evolu ... raLCC.html

Can someone explain to me Jeff's idea of the number-of-steps-to-construct-a-pentatonic-scale theory? I just can't grasp what constitutes a "step".

Do I have these ratios right? Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Jeff's symmetry = E A D G C

E:A = 3:4 A:D = 3:4 D:G = 3:4 G:C = 3:4

Ladder of 5ths: C G D A E

C:G = 2:3 G:D = 2:3 D:A = 2:3 A:E = 2:3

It just seems like these are two structures with a lot in common.

The interval of A-D in the symmetry model is from the overtone series, as the article points out. So is the ladder's C-G interval. So the first step of each is a given.

But the symmetrical structure of ADG is not in the overtone series, so this must be the first conscious manipulation of tones into a symmetrical pattern. I can't think of why a series of 3 fourths is more natural than a series of 3 fifths.

The two five note sequences both seem to be a series of repeating ratios.

The article mentions C being the defacto tonal center of the Ladder. It seems to be saying that this means that the farthest reach of the ladder, E, is therefore further from the organizational center of the ladder, C, than any note is from the D in the symmetrical construct. This makes the symmetrical structure of P4ths better because D is in the center, and therefore more closely related to any of its elements.

However, then the article goes on to base its proof on the outcome of these patterns forming the long-standing culturally significant minor or major pentatonic scales. What I don't get is why a five note pattern with D as its center then creates an A minor pentatonic scale. I mean, it's not unimaginable, but where's the cultural precedent in D being the center of the A minor pentatonic scale? At least C is the center of the C ladder and C is the most significant note in the C Pentatonic scale.

[dogbite]

chesper,

your ratios are correct. funny thing that no one has mentioned (that i am aware of) is how these ideas may actually mutually support each other:

D, radially expanded outwards with (either) fourths (or fifths) yields A D G and expanding again yields E A D G C

C, climbing the ladder of fifths yields C G D A E

the very same set of notes, albeit generated with a different starting tone

so is it the order in which the tones are produced that is the issue at hand?

perhaps.

jeff wrote that since the linear order of E A D G C is A C D E G, the minor pentatonic scale (in this case A) is, shall we say, important?

the minor pentatonic scale exhibits a huge influence upon the music i listen to...

russell wrote that since C is at the bottom of the ladder in this series, the implication is that the linear order C D E G A is also important???

the major pentatonic scale (C, in the above example) also exhibits a huge influence upon the music i listen to...

but since all of the scales being mentioned here are fundamentally the same (they are modes of each other) could it be that they are different aspects of the same thing? i also realize that the presence of two consonant triads (C major and A minor) in the E A D G C (C G D A E or whatever order you like) pitch collection (scale, etc...) also explains the "dominance" of these two "modes" of the pentatonic scale.

and then there's the idea of the predominant chord tone as applied to lydian (the bottom of the ladder) tonics:

Am7, the C is the b3, the guy who tells you it's minor, is the lydian tonic

D7, the C is the b7, the guy who tells you it's a seventh chord, is the lydian tonic

F#m7b5, the C is the b5, the guy who tells you it's (half) diminished, is the lydian tonic

i don't think it's about math as much as it is about practicality. the lydian tonic (and it's associated lydian scale) when played upon a chord tone that "jumps out at you" (as in the Am7, D7, and F#m7b5 shown above) seems to generate the correct material necessary to describe a theory of music, in this case vertical tonal gravity or VTG.

you see, i like the ladder - through seven tones that is: C G D A E B F# but the remaining five tones? we're starting to close in on the tonic (lydian tonic that is) from the other direction now and the skipping of a fifth in russell's western order of tonal gravity (WOTG) seems to bother some of us.

me too.

my concept (and jeff's) answers the question very differently than russell has, as to the character or essence of the remaining five tones. pure theory as an explanation of something as complex as modern musical practice (jazz, rock, pop, classical, whatever) may be as elusive as what it seems here, but the diametrically opposed concepts of:

1) simplicity, which may lack the detail necessary to describe the particulars

and

2) completeness, which may lack the elegant beauty we seek in a coherent theory of music

is perhaps the real issue at hand. in other words, i in particular am looking for ideas that are (1) simple enough to apply on the fly and (2) complete enough that will provide the diversity necessary for modern musical situations.

jamey aebersold has a list of over twenty-five scales (volume 26, scale syllabus - also described in varying levels of detail in most other volumes) where russell through his lydian tonics (and eight modal genre) in VTG, has shortened the list to a mere seven. i think that's a bargain with little lost in terms of complexity and much gained in terms of elegance.

my concept has a mere (eight modes of) five scales for both vertical and horizontal situations; however, i insist on a full twelve "chromatic modes" because it makes sense for me to include the possibility of any diatonic scale and their expansions to be played over any chord.

but in the long run, you must use what works for you. as i said (implied really) i don't believe it is about correctness as much as it is about practicality; therefore, the theory that actually work for you is by definition the correct one. for you.

i suspect we may all agree with each other more than it would seem from reading our posts. good day to all who are taking part in this illuminating discussion.

[chespernevins]

DB,

I think I may have added something to my post while you were posting.

I have skimmed your post so far, but give me a little more time to read.

C

[chespernevins]

Thanks for chiming in Dogbite. I think there are two different currents going on here. One, the symmetrical approach and, two, this particular article which, even if taken on its own terms, is very confusing to me.

I really like your - and Jeff's - symmetry approach, which you first introduced to me. I spent a good amount of time checking it out back then. Hence my compliment to Jeff earlier in this thread. I don't see why these approaches can't co-exist and perhaps inform each other on some level.

A big problem is that the article sets up its proof as hinged on the symmetrical approach vs. the ladder approach, and at the end validates the symmetrical approach based on its (now supposedly proven) superiority to the ladder. I don't think Jeff's symmetry needs this validation, and at the same time am utterly unconvinced and confused by the proofs offered.

I posted a follow up in this thread in an honest attempt to understand.

Dogbite said:

so is it the order in which the tones are produced that is the issue at hand?

So D, being the central tone -and the first tone - in the symmetrical construct, is closer to any given note than C is to the farthest reaches of the ladder? I can see how that is a plus.

On the other hand, there *seems* to be some truthful musical information in C being the bottom of the ladder and it also being the perceived "tonic". I seem to lose this sense of a "tonic" with the central D tone. D being the central tone doesn't seem to translate very well as being the central tone in the A minor pentatonic scale, while C seems to retain its status as central tone in C pentatonic.

Is that an example of what you mean here:

Dogbite:

1) simplicity, which may lack the detail necessary to describe the particulars

and

2) completeness, which may lack the elegant beauty we seek in a coherent theory of music

(I am not suggesting the symmetry approach is simplistic. I'm wondering if erasing a tonic-type note creates less confusion as to the organization of the 12 notes, but at the same time loses other info.)

I'm sure it would be worth discussing the symmetrical approach more in depth - including those interesting notes 8-12 of the chromatic scale!

On the other hand, Jeff threw down a challenge of sorts - promoting his concept at the expense of another. Truth *should* be championed, so I am trying to understand the details of his argument with an open mind. But so far...

[Fer Carranza]

And a last question to Jeff arguments...... Why C Lydian Scale sounds so well over C Major7 chord???? It's simply audition.....

[Lookinforanartist]

I was in Kansas City studying theory with John Elliott back in the 70's when I ran across the Lydian Chromatic Concept. I bought the book for 30.00 (the tan cover) and worked my way thru it for a bit. My impression back the was that it was basically showing me pretty similar things that I was learning from John, but expecting me to learn to decipher the LCC language. To arrive at essentially the same things that I was learning from John, so I put the book on the shelf and kept on working with Elliott until I left KC. I found the book this weekend and took it for spin, and enjoyed digging into the system after 40 years. The book is in really good condition still and all the supplemental charts and slide rule etc. are still there!
Anyhow, after a few hours of playing and applying and just enjoying stretching outside a bit, I came to the same conclusion. Most of the modes and altered chords etc. that I use based on what I learned from John were what I found myself arriving at with going thru the LLC. I just see them thru a less complicated process. Was it Dizzy Gillespie that said something like all he needed to know was if it was major, dominant or minor and that he'd take off from there...?

If anyone would like to see the scope and sequence of how Elliott approached jazz theory, check out Jay EuDaly's Vertical Truth and his links to John and comments from some of his former students (including Pat Metheny)...

Happy creating.

[Fer Carranza]

Thanks my friend, I will check this......