i've noticed that the forum has not been active lately and i was hoping that it wasn't due to lack of interest. perhaps we're caught up in the back-to-school hullabaloo or just trying to salvage what's left of the ever so short summer season, but what the heck...
i may be posing a ridiculous question; however, i am wondering if the purpose of the forum (the LCC has certainly been brought up in other forums of late) is to:
1) disseminate information for the enrichment for those who have not purchased or studied any of the various publications of the concept?
2) generate interest in the concept?
3) further clarify topics found in the text?
or perhaps all or none of the above - or even that the forum serves whatever purpose the participants choose to make of it...
it seems that in the past, some of the commentary may have left us with the impression that anything that might be taken as criticism was unacceptable or subject to emotional responses - and may have discouraged the free exchange of ideas that a forum would ideally provide...
if my queries seem a bit of a non-sequiter, it may be that i am being prompted to write because of activity on other BBs that i might construe as devolved into either grandstanding "don't waste your time" (with the concept) and/or the opposite, which i might refer to as a "mutual admiration society" or "isn't this wonderful"...
i realize that merely asking these kinds of questions may provoke one or two harsh responses, but let it be stated for the record that i find the concept to be provocative from its inception - calling into question the human mechanisms for perceiving, composing, and analyzing musical sound. so if i succeed in generating any kind of response in the forum from its many participants with their many diverse viewpoints, i have accomplished what i have set out to do. it is the lively discussions from which i learn the most, even though like many people, i am often unaware of my own motives when participating in a dialogue: unsure whether i am on an impartial quest for dispassionate information, or to merely establish my own preconceptions for others to see as some kind of "a priori" or fundamental narcissistic "truth"...
i would also wish to state that i am, without hesitation, a passionate advocate of the concept and the way it has forced me to acknowledge and re-evaluate my belief systems as applied to the study of musical practices and music theory in general...
so there you have it - let's hear from everyone about what you think, feel, and hear in music; and whether or not your musical experiences have been shaped by your study of and your awareness of the concept and if so, just how exactly...
play well,
schell
forum activity
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
-
Fer Carranza
- Posts: 90
- Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2006 8:00 am
- Location: Argentina
Well, I think it´s clear for me that this forum is mainly for learn, for share, for know people influenced by the concept and your experiences. I´m always reading the posts of this forum but I don´t participate in every subject due two factors: 1) My bad english (I´m from Argentina, South America) and/or 2) The subject inself (sometimes it doesnt matter to me).
It´s very inexplicable for me the rejection of musical world (overcoat of the musical educators) to this concept, with all kind of ridiculous sentences.
It´s very inexplicable for me the rejection of musical world (overcoat of the musical educators) to this concept, with all kind of ridiculous sentences.
-
bobappleton
- Posts: 355
- Joined: Mon Sep 04, 2006 8:57 pm
- Location: Toronto, Canada
- Contact:
i agree with bob: very cool. i guess one of my ponderings has to be: will the concept's contribution to music history be acknowledged by musicologists in the "larger" world in the long run as "radical" or "mainstream"? both? neither? i cannot help but feel that the plethora of instruction methods in the areas of theory, improvisation, and composition must inevitably give way to a "unifying" force such as the concept, but no one i work with seems to know anything about it...
is it simply that the average musician really has no time or interest in exploring the potential changes in the evolution of music that the concept represents? i don't think so. i think that musicians in general are confused and overwhelmed by the "information overload" that is the result of the lack of unity in musical training. as paul hindemith says in one of his books (i am paraphrasing from memory here to the best of my recollection): "the young student cannot comprehend all that he/she is given and has inherited chaos"...
i truly believe that the time will come when the "larger" musical world will recognize the need for unity and will ultimately embrace the necessary changes, i hope sooner rather than later...
okay, call me an idealist, but i really don't think that the concept is as radical as some have made it out to be, perhaps because i've always embraced the most progressive thoughts on music theory and philosophy that i could find and have applied them as i find useful. the concept, for me, represents a stepping stone into the evolution that must take place if anything "new" in music can occur - i certainly don't mean to imply that without the concept in one's grasp that no evolution of musical thought can happen, but i do propose that the concept provides one with a most powerful tool to do so...
thoughts anyone?
is it simply that the average musician really has no time or interest in exploring the potential changes in the evolution of music that the concept represents? i don't think so. i think that musicians in general are confused and overwhelmed by the "information overload" that is the result of the lack of unity in musical training. as paul hindemith says in one of his books (i am paraphrasing from memory here to the best of my recollection): "the young student cannot comprehend all that he/she is given and has inherited chaos"...
i truly believe that the time will come when the "larger" musical world will recognize the need for unity and will ultimately embrace the necessary changes, i hope sooner rather than later...
okay, call me an idealist, but i really don't think that the concept is as radical as some have made it out to be, perhaps because i've always embraced the most progressive thoughts on music theory and philosophy that i could find and have applied them as i find useful. the concept, for me, represents a stepping stone into the evolution that must take place if anything "new" in music can occur - i certainly don't mean to imply that without the concept in one's grasp that no evolution of musical thought can happen, but i do propose that the concept provides one with a most powerful tool to do so...
thoughts anyone?
Hi, This is my first time participating in a forum outside of my personal network. I find the LCC a major contribution to theory, along side Hindemith, Schenker, Schoenberg, and Wourenin; that has been indispensable for me when improvising, composing and arranging jazz. Most musicians I know like Jazz Theory by Mark Levine (who does not mention Russell (no comment from him to my email inquiry)), as more user-friendly, and the LCC as difficult and obscure. Having collapsed Levine to Russell, Levine is subsumed to LCC with the inestimable advantage of the overall Lydian tonic, not having to rethink modal tonics while going between "major harmony" (Lyd V) and "melodic minor" harmony (Lyd.Aug VI), "whole-tone" harmony (Lyd.Aux.Aug), and "diminished scale" harmony (Lyd.Aux.Dim and Lyd.Dim.Blues). To prepare for improvisation, one finds the Lydian tonic of the tune, and voila, the pallette is right there. I don't get it. What's the problem? A couple of composer/professor friends are working on "12-tone tonality" informed by Charles Wourenin and 'reverse-Schoenberg.' Trying to persuade them that the problem has been solved within the LCC is fun. Within a contemporary 'classical' narrative, that a jazz musician..., E.g., a non-tertian harmony like cdg, is Cmajor (add 9, omit 3) and functions according. I hope this qualifies as an acceptable opening rant.
WWGD? Bob
WWGD? Bob
10 {The artist formerly known as Bb}