lydian chromatic concept

[bassist]

hey....
just browsing around some jazz sites, and i saw some people mention the Lydian Chromatic Concept. has anyone heard of this? can anyone explain to me what it is?
i read the first two pages of the explanation of it at http://www.lydianchromaticconcept.com/lccoto.html but it was all way over my head. maybe someone who has digested it can explain it to me?
thanks!
dan

[Jakeweiser]

Basically it is a reorganization of Chord Scaletheories and Structuring the tonal system to create a more unified sound.

In the LCCOT the Lydian Mode in a Major scale now becomes Mode One, and all other modes are reorganized and renamed accordingly as well as other modes created based I believe on their relationship to Lydian and the Overtone Series. It's been a long time since I studied it and when I did, I didn't care for it.

[EdByrne]

Save your time and money.

[gennation]

I haven't read the book but read a blurb about Miles carrying around the "pamphlet" in the day. The blurb did get me thinking though as it mentioned the Lydian scale as being two Maj7 arps/chords a 5th apart a 5th apart...as opposed the The Major scale having two Maj7 arp/chords a 4th apart.

I hear Coltrane basing a lot of licks from the 5th at times, not necessarily a Lydian scale, and obviously he did much more than that too, but I do hear a lot of licks stemming from the 5th of the given chord. Wonder if it had any effect on his direction.

Not sure it's directly related to "the pamphlet" or not cause Coltrane was blowin chops for years before the pamphlet.

There's also the deal with many common scales being mixed matches of Tetrachords a 5th apart too. (Major being two Major Tetra's a 5th apart, Dorian being 2 Minor Terta's a 5th apart, Mixolydian being a Major and Minor Terta a 5th apart, Melodic Minor being a Minor and Major Tetra a 5th apart)

Any insight on the Maj7's a 5th apart or the Tetra's a 5th apart? Does that tie into the LCC? I find them all very useful for inspiration sake.

[bob@robertappleton.c]

This thread and one other with some of the same participants on AAJ seems to be suggesting that George Russell and his Lydian Chromatic Concept are a "waste of time".

Let me put it this way: when I compare the credentials of Mr Russell (a major jazz figure) with those of his detractors on AAJ, I can't help but laugh.

George Russell's musical collaborators (in no special order) have included Dizzy Gillespie, Max Roach, Miles Davis, Art Farmer, Gil Evans, John Coltrane, Eric Dolphy, Bill Evans, Jimmy Giuffre, Paul Bley, Teddy Charles, JJ Johnson, Gerry Mulligan, David Baker, Steve Swallow, Bob Brookmeyer, Milt Hinton, Ian Carr, Don Ellis, Buddy de Franco, Lee Konitz, Barry Galbraith, Hal McCusick. Others like Pat Metheny, Carla Bley, Gil Goldstein, Steve Kuhn, Denny Zeitlin and Jan Garbarek have all acknowledged his influence on their work.

[Stackabones]

This thread and one other with some of the same participants on AAJ seems to be suggesting that George Russell and his Lydian Chromatic Concept are a "waste of time".

Let me put it this way: when I compare the credentials of Mr Russell (a major jazz figure) with those of his detractors on AAJ, I can't help but laugh.

George Russell's musical collaborators (in no special order) have included Dizzy Gillespie, Max Roach, Miles Davis, Art Farmer, Gil Evans, John Coltrane, Eric Dolphy, Bill Evans, Jimmy Giuffre, Paul Bley, Teddy Charles, JJ Johnson, Gerry Mulligan, David Baker, Steve Swallow, Bob Brookmeyer, Milt Hinton, Ian Carr, Don Ellis, Buddy de Franco, Lee Konitz, Barry Galbraith, Hal McCusick. Others like Pat Metheny, Carla Bley, Gil Goldstein, Steve Kuhn, Denny Zeitlin and Jan Garbarek have all acknowledged his influence on their work.

So, you've used it? I didn't see your name on the list.

Don't you think that there could have been other factors "influencing" these various artists' work? Or do you think that it was only this concept?

By the way, welcome to the forum!

[Lee Gato]

So, you've used it? I didn't see your name on the list.Whether he's used it or not doesn't affect his point.

Don't you think that there could have been other factors "influencing" these various artists' work? Or do you think that it was only this concept?!I don't see anything in his posts that even remotely suggests that he would believe anything as absurd as that George Russell is the sole influence on those musicians.

[ingeneri]

Well this is becoming a dreary pattern. Someone with two posts comes out swingin' (in the bad way) at two of the three most knowledgable and respected members of the entire board. Then they learn Ed played with Chet and Mingus and isn't just some middle aged twerp with an obsessive compulsive record collection.

Whether this book was influential in the 1950s or not, and I think it was, is irrelevant to whether it is a useful tool for learning today. The music and its underlying concepts may be timeless, but people have gotten much better in recent decades at explaining what's going on theoretically.

I haven't read the book, so I can't comment directly. But the fact that someone as experienced as both a player and an educator as Ed says it's not worh checking out certainly convinces me to check out other sources first.

[Jay Norem]

Well this is becoming a dreary pattern. Someone with two posts comes out swingin' (in the bad way) at two of the three most knowledgable and respected members of the entire board. Then they learn Ed played with Chet and Mingus and isn't just some middle aged twerp with an obsessive compulsive record collection.

Whether this book was influential in the 1950s or not, and I think it was, is irrelevant to whether it is a useful tool for learning today. The music and its underlying concepts may be timeless, but people have gotten much better in recent decades at explaining what's going on theoretically.

I haven't read the book, so I can't comment directly. But the fact that someone as experienced as both a player and an educator as Ed says it's not worh checking out certainly convinces me to check out other sources first.

Sound.

[Lee Gato]

Whether this book was influential in the 1950s or not, and I think it was, is irrelevant to whether it is a useful tool for learning today.No, it is definitely not irrelevent. Moreover, such a book need not be evaluated as unworthy of one's time and money merely because there are other books and other approaches that may contribute more immediately to one's improvising skills. Books from VARIOUS approaches may influence DIFFERENT KINDS of people (people conceptualize differently depending on their intellectual personalities) in different ways, whether as the main organizing concept or even if just in a less starring role as part of one's overall background. Moreover, such a book may be of intellectual interest onto itself, even if one does't adopt it as an immediate "how to play" tutorial. Thus to dismiss the book with such remarks as "save your time and money" IS arrogant, narrow-minded, and basically intolerant. Just as I have read certain other of Ed Byrne's posts on the subject of jazz pedagogy to be intolerant of certain approaches and conceptualizations that are not his. I have no quarrel with him choosing to advocate his method and for him to explain what he believes to the advantages of his method over other methods and even for him to describe what he believes to be the mistakes and disadvantages of other methods. But his advocacy is vastly overstated and, as I mentioned, comes off as intolerant, when it does not allow that other methods and conceptualizations may offer something on thier own, especially for different people at different times in different circumstances and with a variety of goals ranging from most immediate practical musicianship to intellectual curiosity for its own sake.

Given Mr. Byrne's obvious credits and expertise, he does himself a disservice by evincing such intolerance when his accomplishments and authority give him every reason to put himself above such pettiness.

The music and its underlying concepts may be timeless, but people have gotten much better in recent decades at explaining what's going on theoretically. I haven't read the book, so I can't comment directly.Then I don't see how you can claim that there is a better explanation of such concepts. Moreover, the book was re-written, so it may very well be even more explanatory than the original version ( I haven't had a chance to see the new version so I can only say 'very well may be').

But the fact that someone as experienced as both a player and an educator as Ed says it's not worh checking out certainly convinces me to check out other sources firstAnd the question was not of what other sources to check out first, but rather that of checking out Russell's book at all. And your argument makes no sense. That Mr. Byrne dismisses the work, while OTHER authorities endorse it, simply means that he and possibly others dissent from those endorsements; I don't see why Mr. Byrne's authority should in itself outweigh that of all others.

[EdByrne]

No, it is definitely not irrelevent. Moreover, such a book need not be evaluated as unworthy of one's time and money merely because there are other books and other approaches that may contribute more immediately to one's improvising skills. Books from VARIOUS approaches may influence DIFFERENT KINDS of people (people conceptualize differently depending on their intellectual personalities) in different ways, whether as the main organizing concept or even if just in a less starring role as part of one's overall background. Moreover, such a book may be of intellectual interest onto itself, even if one does't adopt it as an immediate "how to play" tutorial. Thus to dismiss the book with such remarks as "save your time and money" IS arrogant, narrow-minded, and basically intolerant. Just as I have read certain other of Ed Byrne's posts on the subject of jazz pedagogy to be intolerant of certain approaches and conceptualizations that are not his. I have no quarrel with him choosing to advocate his method and for him to explain what he believes to the advantages of his method over other methods and even for him to describe what he believes to be the mistakes and disadvantages of other methods. But his advocacy is vastly overstated and, as I mentioned, comes off as intolerant, when it does not allow that other methods and conceptualizations may offer something on thier own, especially for different people at different times in different circumstances and with a variety of goals ranging from most immediate practical musicianship to intellectual curiosity for its own sake.

Given Mr. Byrne's obvious credits and expertise, he does himself a disservice by evincing such intolerance when his accomplishments and authority give him every reason to put himself above such pettiness.

Then I don't see how you can claim that there is a better explanation of such concepts. Moreover, the book was re-written, so it may very well be even more explanatory than the original version ( I haven't had a chance to see the new version so I can only say 'very well may be').

And the question was not of what other sources to check out first, but rather that of checking out Russell's book at all. And your argument makes no sense. That Mr. Byrne dismisses the work, while OTHER authorities endorse it, simply means that he and possibly others dissent from those endorsements; I don't see why Mr. Byrne's authority should in itself outweigh that of all others.

Mr. Gato:

I was merely responding to bassist's puzzlement to Russell's book. What I said was my opinion, nothing more. I did, however, study privately with George for six months. I performed with him on several ocassions; I interviewed him for my dissertation. Therefore I can state that I know his method, and as Jake says, "I don't care for it."

I could write a critical analysis of it, but I will not do that here.

As for your personal baggage, I mostly offer information and advice in this forum, sometimes opinion: You merely criticize.

[thedwork]

This thread and one other with some of the same participants on AAJ seems to be suggesting that George Russell and his Lydian Chromatic Concept are a "waste of time".

Let me put it this way: when I compare the credentials of Mr Russell (a major jazz figure) with those of his detractors on AAJ, I can't help but laugh.

George Russell's musical collaborators (in no special order) have included Dizzy Gillespie, Max Roach, Miles Davis, Art Farmer, Gil Evans, John Coltrane, Eric Dolphy, Bill Evans, Jimmy Giuffre, Paul Bley, Teddy Charles, JJ Johnson, Gerry Mulligan, David Baker, Steve Swallow, Bob Brookmeyer, Milt Hinton, Ian Carr, Don Ellis, Buddy de Franco, Lee Konitz, Barry Galbraith, Hal McCusick. Others like Pat Metheny, Carla Bley, Gil Goldstein, Steve Kuhn, Denny Zeitlin and Jan Garbarek have all acknowledged his influence on their work.


:yeahthat: :yeahthat: :yeahthat:




No, it is definitely not irrelevent. Moreover, such a book need not be evaluated as unworthy of one's time and money merely because there are other books and other approaches that may contribute more immediately to one's improvising skills. Books from VARIOUS approaches may influence DIFFERENT KINDS of people (people conceptualize differently depending on their intellectual personalities) in different ways, whether as the main organizing concept or even if just in a less starring role as part of one's overall background. Moreover, such a book may be of intellectual interest onto itself, even if one does't adopt it as an immediate "how to play" tutorial. Thus to dismiss the book with such remarks as "save your time and money" IS arrogant, narrow-minded, and basically intolerant. Just as I have read certain other of Ed Byrne's posts on the subject of jazz pedagogy to be intolerant of certain approaches and conceptualizations that are not his. I have no quarrel with him choosing to advocate his method and for him to explain what he believes to the advantages of his method over other methods and even for him to describe what he believes to be the mistakes and disadvantages of other methods. But his advocacy is vastly overstated and, as I mentioned, comes off as intolerant, when it does not allow that other methods and conceptualizations may offer something on thier own, especially for different people at different times in different circumstances and with a variety of goals ranging from most immediate practical musicianship to intellectual curiosity for its own sake.

Given Mr. Byrne's obvious credits and expertise, he does himself a disservice by evincing such intolerance when his accomplishments and authority give him every reason to put himself above such pettiness.


:yeahthat: :clap: :yeahthat: :clap:

[EdByrne]

substantive and courageous, as always

[Jay Norem]

I seems to me that some people are so damned predisposed to take things personally. And once they do, the topic being discussed becomes yesterday's news and the whole thing turns into a how-dare-you-say-that-no-I-didn't-yes-you-did-but-I-didn't-mean-it-that-way-who-are-you-anyway bitch-fest. Really folks...let's be a little more secure about ourselves. it was going fine until post #5. And I thought it was quite interesting, up to that point.

[tweebinmusic]

It is really dense stuff... reading the text is a bit like trying to take a milkshake through an I.V. Drip... at the same time, there is a wealth of knowledge tucked in there... one example is that I just found a voicing I hadn't been using... another is the malleability of the system creating a hierarchy of inside and outside playing.... I'm sure there is more, but I'll have to come back to it another day.

I would exhaust simpler methodologies like Bergonzi's and others before attempting to dive in to this one.

[Jason Palmer]

I studied with George Russell at NEC and I was in his small group when I was there. He was a profound influence in my development as a player and composer.


Jason Palmer
www.myspace.com/jasonpalmercollective

[Jakeweiser]

yeah it's interesting to be honest. I studied with a student of his as well in compsition and he taught me a lot about the system. I used it then didn't and if you don't use it you lose it :)

I use Lydian alot though.

[Lee Gato]

You merely criticize.That is a LIE.

I criticize, get criticized, and defend myself from certain criticisms. And I post advice, recommendations, and information - on albums, on discographical information, historical information, and sometimes about music theory. I critique, debate, agree, disagree, get disagreed with, flame, get flamed, lampoon, crack jokes, run schtick, offer lists, write encomiums, say goodbyes to people in jazz just passed, speak out on certain board policies, post my appreciation of the board, correct people, get corrected by people, ask questions, thank people for their answers, play jazz trivia games, give personal reminiscences related to jazz, ruminate, lay out my views, and explore ideas about jazz and music, and generally post about jazz and other subjects in many manners, moods, and modes.

So, to say that I "merely criticize" is to LIE. And it's not a matter of opinion; whatever anyone may think about my postings, my postings are in fact not "MERELY criticisms" [emphasis added]. And, yep, I would think that stooping to such a blatant lie about my postings is the kind of thing you'd be far above.

[Lee Gato]

I was merely responding to bassist's puzzlement to Russell's book. What I said was my opinion, nothing more.And not for a nanosecond would I begrudge your prerogative to voice your opinion. And my remarks were not, as I alluded, about just your flippant comment in this thread. In certain other discussions, when certain approaches that don't adhere to your own have been mentioned, you clamp down not just with your opinion but with denunciation that is so categorical, so narrowly conceived, and so overstated that the prospect of posting a differing view from yours turns into a real drag.

And in this thread your remark was not just to give your opinion but moreover to urge someone from following up on his intellectual or musical curiosity as pertains to the particular instance of Russell's book. I know it would be unreasonable to take your words literally as they are in the imperative, "Don't waste your time or money," but still the remark, no matter how you may have intended it, has the effect of not just giving an opinion (with posssibly your reasons for it) but of, as I said, steering someone to not follow his curiosity about something that is, by the way, a notable part of the history of the music, of instrinsic intellectual interest, and just possibly something that could turn on a big lightbulb in someone's conceptualization or lead to an expansion of his or her playing. As I mentioned, and as you didn't reply to, people have all kinds of different ways of conceptualizing, are at all kinds of different levels in their playing and in their understanding, and have all kinds of different goals, ranging from, at one end, the most immediate urgency to learn how to play Rhythm changes before his or her first Sunday afternoon jam session next week to, at the other end, that of in-the-clouds intellectual conceptualization for its own sake. And so, while there is little doubt that your method offers real wisdom (I say that not sarcastically) and may be just the right approach for a great many students, it is still a big wide world of thought out there, which includes George Russell, David Baker, Oliver Nelson, Yusef Lateef, Gary Campbell, Jerry Coker, Dan Haerle, Mark Levine, Jamey Aebersold, Schillinger and Slonimsky and all kinds of people each with something that contributes to a wide and rounded view. And your saying about, e.g., Russell, not to even check him out does present you as narrow, intolerant, and petty when your clearly estimable creds are crying out that you'd be far above that. And as I wish to reiterate, it's not a matter of merely disagreeing and giving voice to healthy debate and critique, but rather that of going so far as to urge people not to even check out such as Russell's offering for themselves and to state your position in a way that is so categorical and over-the-top that it gives not even a nod of recognition to variation of conceptual inclination and personal, musical and intellectual needs, goals, and interests.

I did, however, study privately with George for six months. I performed with him on several ocassions; I interviewed him for my dissertation. Therefore I can state that I know his method, and as Jake says, "I don't care for it."Your familiarity with the material is not in question.

I could write a critical analysis of it, but I will not do that here.And I could critque a lot of books about different subjects, to the extent that I will give my opinion that certain of them are garbage and nonsense; but I wouldn't tell someone not to check something out for himself when he's interested enough to be asking about it. For that matter, as an instance in greatest proximity, I find the polemic you wrote about the notion of modal jazz to be trainwreck of non sequiturs (and too bad, because there is a germ of truth in what you posted; but then in your way you go on to tramp and crush the reasonability right out of it), but I don't urge anyone not to read it who might express an interest in the subject.

[Lee Gato]

I seems to me that some people are so damned predisposed to take things personally. And once they do, the topic being discussed becomes yesterday's news and the whole thing turns into a how-dare-you-say-that-no-I-didn't-yes-you-did-but-I-didn't-mean-it-that-way-who-are-you-anyway bitch-fest. Really folks...let's be a little more secure about ourselves. it was going fine until post #5. And I thought it was quite interesting, up to that point.And post #5 seems to think that it was going fine until post #3 (or maybe post #2; by the way, I have no problem at all with post #2). And I don't see post #5 as evincing a "predisposition" to take things personally.

[Lee Gato]

Someone with two posts comes out swingin' (in the bad way) at two of the three most knowledgable and respected members of the entire board.I don't see that the number of the person's previous posts disqualifies him from speaking his mind as freely as anyone else. And I also seem to have missed the poll in which three particular people were elected as "the most knowledgable and respected members of the entire board".

[artmaus]

I have to agree with Lee Gato. The fact that Ed Byrne may be a great musician is of no real consequence in a discussion of this kind. What seems to matter are the numerous people who have been influenced by the Russell study.

I mean no disrespect to anyone but the influence that Ed Byrne and Jack Hanlon exert over musician to musician is in my opinion excessive. I don't come to this sight very much because of it.

They each have intelligent points of view but they are only their points of view. To many people on this site allow Ed's reputation and Jake's education to close down real discussion.

[Lee Gato]

I have to agree with Lee Gato. The fact that Ed Byrne may be a great musician is of no real consequence in a discussion of this kind.However, I do grant that Byrne's musicianship and his experience as a teacher, as well as the thought he has put into developing his teaching methods do count considerably toward appreciation of his opinions and criticisms of other methods. I am informed by many of his posts and I am happy to have had my own notions expanded by his posts as I see that there is something to be said for his point of view. My main point though is that he carries it too far.

[Stackabones]

This thread isn't really about the lydian chromatic concept, is it?

[Lee Gato]

This thread isn't really about the lydian chromatic concept, is it?Your posts in this thread aren't really about the lydian chromatic concept, are they?

[Stackabones]

Your posts in this thread aren't really about the lydian chromatic concept, are they?

:lol:

[Jay Norem]

I studied with a student of his as well in compsition and he taught me a lot about the system.

So I take it then that this system applies also to composing. In that context, is it worth looking into? I ask because I thought it was an approach to improvising.

[guitarjazz]

A novice could probably entirely skip all the jazz method books entirely (even though I’m not sure the LCC counts as a ‘method’) and do the following:
1. Learn the how to get around on your instrument of choice.
2. Learn as many tunes as you can.
3. Spend countless hours listening and learning from the people that inspire you.
4. Find some folks that will put up with you (initially) smattering egg on your face while you delve into the world of improvising.
5. After a decade or two, when you need some extra income to help pay for your outrageous health insurance bills…write a jazz method book!

[CoyotePalace]

George Russell's method is important from a compositional and/or improvisational point of reference. With any 'method', I feel it's important to remember that it is an OFFERING to the general public by an individual. I would suggest to you, bassist or anyone else whose interested in the Lydian Chromatic Concept, to listen to some of the artists that have used it extensively; Terje Rypdal, Jan Garbarek, and George Russell himself, then delve deeper into the 'method' if you feel inspired to do so. I would also like to point out that Ed B. STUDIED with George R. and that speaks volumes regardless of his 'final' opinion of the 'method'. It's also important to remember that Ed B. OFFERS his 'method', which is unique in it's own sweet way!

[thedwork]

And not for a nanosecond would I begrudge your prerogative to voice your opinion. And my remarks were not, as I alluded, about just your flippant comment in this thread. In certain other discussions, when certain approaches that don't adhere to your own have been mentioned, you clamp down not just with your opinion but with denunciation that is so categorical, so narrowly conceived, and so overstated that the prospect of posting a differing view from yours turns into a real drag.

I have to agree with Lee Gato. The fact that Ed Byrne may be a great musician is of no real consequence in a discussion of this kind. What seems to matter are the numerous people who have been influenced by the Russell study.

I mean no disrespect to anyone but the influence that Ed Byrne and Jack Hanlon exert over musician to musician is in my opinion excessive. I don't come to this sight very much because of it.

They each have intelligent points of view but they are only their points of view. To[o] many people on this site allow Ed's reputation and Jake's education to close down real discussion.


my hat's off to lee gato and artmaus :clap: :clap: :clap:


it's about damn time.

[Jay Norem]

I mean no disrespect to anyone but the influence that Ed Byrne and Jack Hanlon exert over musician to musician is in my opinion excessive. I don't come to this sight very much because of it.


Well I'd rather have them here the way they are then not have them at all. And you know, you can always exert your OWN influence. By the way, Mr. Byrne straightened me out on a trombone part I was writing and in doing so saved me a lot of wasted effort. Thank you Ed.

[Jakeweiser]

wow I have influence?


I mean no disrespect to anyone but the influence that Ed Byrne and Jack Hanlon exert over musician to musician is in my opinion excessive. I don't come to this sight very much because of it.

My name is Jake not Jack. That's the only disrespect I'll take since I'll take your word that you mean no disrespect, I'm curious how spending my free time discussing Jazz on the internet and giving my opinions are excessive, or that I yield any influence? I certainly don't claim to be a guru or any kind of expert. In fact I hardly get requested to answer any questions except for those instrument related. I'm just a humble student, that is the truth


So I take it then that this system applies also to composing. In that context, is it worth looking into? I ask because I thought it was an approach to improvising.

Considering that a lot of Russel's influence has been compositional and how he helpd shift the tend in music to a modal way of thinking much of the concept is geared to composition and not nessearily to improvisation. It's certainly worth checking out I think. I know for myself that I have to much on my plate to bother with spending the money on a book right now :D

[artmaus]

[QUOTE=Jakeweiser;324256]wow I have influence?



My name is Jake not Jack. That's the only disrespect I'll take since I'll take your word that you mean no disrespect, I'm curious how spending my free time discussing Jazz on the internet and giving my opinions are excessive, or that I yield any influence? I certainly don't claim to be a guru or any kind of expert. In fact I hardly get requested to answer any questions except for those instrument related. I'm just a humble student, that is the truth/QUOTE]

First, sorry about the name. It was a typo Jake. Second, I can only give my opinion. What I dislike about what you do may only relate to me. Your much admired and respected by people on this part of the BB. I really have trouble buying into your modesty. Yes, on this part of the BB you have enormous influence I think. Let me also say that I think your very sincere in trying to help people with information. The problem for me is that in terms of pedogogy your to caught up in what you've gotten from your UNT teachers. So when some kid who is beginning asks something, you'll give an answer that really is meant for an older more accomplished musician.

I'm not trying to get into an argument here. Please don't take it that way. I just have no interest in the way you and Ed, without meaning to, control many of the conversations. I wish that more people like Lee Gato would stand up and tell you that your wrong. This Lydian Chromatic thing is a perfect example. You and Ed both come out swinging both basically saying it's not worth the trouble. Obviously there have been many major musicians who have felt differently but for many on the BB, especially the younger members who are blown away by Ed's resume, your opinions are the final word. I just would like you both to present your opinions in a way that shows people that you recognize that yours isn't the final word.

[Jakeweiser]

Well that's fine, and I respect your opinion.

In my defense though...

I didn't say that The Lydian Concept was bad, I said I studied it, and I learned from it and in a further post backed up that I still use some of the things I looked at to write music. Did I endorse it, no I didn't. Perhaps it was unclear and so be it, I appologize and I certainly didn't mean to shun it in any way.

Sure, I study at UNT, I'm glad to be here. But in fact much of my "Pedagogical" processes are FAR from the normal UNT approach to teaching Jazz as other UNT students/Adjunct Faculty that post here can attest to. In fact I tend to try and reach out to the beginners and give them the most simple answers but since it's not often something that is an easy answer to grasp right away maybe it looks like I'm trying to preach to the top students I have no idea. Much of what I try to share has been the things that I've figure out on my own. I wouldn't start sharing what I'm working on now at school with confidence until I have the piece of paper, because I'm learning it now as well as I can. I've been involved in music in one way or the other for close to 17 years now, I've picked up some stuff along the way. Most of I guess to me is common sense

As for my Modesty, you obviously have no idea what I'm like personally. I'm sure that those people who are on this forum that know me personally can attest that I am far from an Egomaniac, and am indeed modest and a humble student. I'm glad you feel that my intentions are just.

In fact I would also prefer those who are knowledgable to speak up more often. I learn a from everyone I interact with, that's why I miss Codewarrior in a masocistic sort of way, and why I missed dworkin when he was gone.

However everyone has red button issues. I however only feel the need to discover why someone doesn't like me only to improve myself ;)

[EdByrne]

Well I'd rather have them here the way they are then not have them at all. And you know, you can always exert your OWN influence. By the way, Mr. Byrne straightened me out on a trombone part I was writing and in doing so saved me a lot of wasted effort. Thank you Ed.

You're welcome, Jay. Anytime I can be of help. . .

[guitarjazz]

Here are some thoughts about the Lydian Chromatic Concept by music sage, Mick Goodrick, from his ‘Advancing Guitarist’ book. BTW Don’t let the title fool you; the essays in the back of the book are wonderful meditations for any musician.
“One appealing feature of the LCC is that it is a complete and consistent system within itself. One less appealing feature is that is can be confusing to someone who doesn’t already have a strong background in both derivative and parallel thinking. Like any other approach, the LCC has it’s own distinct advantages and disadvantages. p.62
“I(Mick Goodrick) personally think that the most valuable aspect of the LCC has to do with the way that the author” looked at the overview.” The way he chose to organize it was one of several possibilities. But the fact that someone could look this way is quite valuable…Again, I must add that my own feeling is that any system has certain “traps” built into it by virtue of being a “system”. On the other hand, to disregard the benefits and valuable aspects of someone’s work just because it’s a system would be silly. So, my advice would be to check it out if you’re interested, and take from it what makes sense for you.” p.63

[jefe]

My 2 cents.....i read (most of the book) a few years ago, when I was invited to a semnar on it. (I didn't end up going) The book was really interesting and I was able to sort of understand what he was getting at, but it is really quite dense, and would require a ton of time to assimilate. There just isn't enough time right now to take on that beast.

(I'll mostly stay out of it, but Jake and Ed, I love your active participation)

[bluenote82]

I personally would love to learn the Lydian Cromatic Concept. I think it's an interesting concept and when I listen to former students of Russell's like Terje Rypdal and Jan Garbarek it makes me want to learn more about it.

I haven't really been taught a method of anything. I created my own method of playing as I'm sure everyone has.

Here's a quote from one of my favorite jazz guitarists, Ben Monder:

"Once a musician learns the basics of how to navigate jazz harmony, then what else do you need a teacher for? Use your imagination."

My method is simple: I find sounds that I like and I explore and learn as much as I can about them. Like for example, I love the tonality of Abmajb5 (A flat major flat 5), which is Ab Lydian, so I tried an learned as much as I could about it.

[bluenote82]

I personally would love to learn the Lydian Cromatic Concept. I think it's an interesting concept and when I listen to former students of Russell's like Terje Rypdal and Jan Garbarek it makes me want to learn more about it.

I haven't really been taught a method of anything. I created my own method of playing as I'm sure everyone has.

Here's a quote from one of my favorite jazz guitarists, Ben Monder:

"Once a musician learns the basics of how to navigate jazz harmony, then what else do you need a teacher for? Use your imagination."

My method is simple: I find sounds that I like and I explore and learn as much as I can about them. Like for example, I love the tonality of Abmajb5 (A flat major flat 5), which is Ab Lydian, so I tried an learned as much as I could about it.

[ingeneri]

Here are some thoughts about the Lydian Chromatic Concept by music sage, Mick Goodrick, from his ‘Advancing Guitarist’ book. BTW Don’t let the title fool you; the essays in the back of the book are wonderful meditations for any musician.
“One appealing feature of the LCC is that it is a complete and consistent system within itself. One less appealing feature is that is can be confusing to someone who doesn’t already have a strong background in both derivative and parallel thinking. Like any other approach, the LCC has it’s own distinct advantages and disadvantages. p.62
“I personally think that the most valuable aspect of the LCC has to do with the way that the author” looked at the overview.” The way he chose to organize it was one of several possibilities. But the fact that someone could look this way is quite valuable…Again, I must add that my own feeling is that any system has certain “traps” built into it by virtue of being a “system”. On the other hand, to disregard the benefits and valuable aspects of someone’s work just because it’s a system would be silly. So, my advice would be to check it out if you’re interested, and take from it what makes sense for you.” p.63

This post proves my point entirely. Jake and Ed are not infallible but it takes more than a laundry list of people's names fand calling them insignificant nobodies for a valid counter argument.

As for the influence Jake and Ed exert, it is mainly based on the utility of the advice they give. Yes, Ed's resume is impressive and gives his positions an initial credibility. But at the end of the day, people pay attention to his and Jakes' posts because they produce.

I've met Jake when he was participating in the Betty Carter program here in DC. I can attest that he's polite and modest in addition to having impressive musical skills. The personal attacks on someone simply trying to help people over the opinions concerning a method book are really unjustified.

It's hot enough outside folks, lets keep things cool in here.

[TehSuperFox]

This post proves my point entirely. Jake and Ed are not infallible but it takes more than a laundry list of people's names fand calling them insignificant nobodies for a valid counter argument.

As for the influence Jake and Ed exert, it is mainly based on the utility of the advice they give. Yes, Ed's resume is impressive and gives his positions an initial credibility. But at the end of the day, people pay attention to his and Jakes' posts because they produce.

I've met Jake when he was participating in the Betty Carter program here in DC. I can attest that he's polite and modest in addition to having impressive musical skills. The personal attacks on someone simply trying to help people over the opinions concerning a method book are really unjustified.

It's hot enough outside folks, lets keep things cool in here.

Quoted for truth.

And just to add a bit, I also met Jake in DC during the Betty Carter program. Though it was only for a minute, he was polite and if he didn't have to leave so soon he like would have stayed and chatted. He's also been friendly and helpful when we've talked on MSN.

[EthanW]

^Exactly. Everytime I talk to him I benefit from it, be it from learning about some new album to check out or the compositional advice he's given me (Thanks a load for that by the way). He's always come across as a humble guy, and I kind of find it rude to dismiss someone's opinion just because he gives many suggestions and people take those suggestions to heart. :shrug:


Oh yes, and ditto with Ed, Phil, Dworkin, Ingeneri, PhatBoi, Engelbach, and many more. I think it's pretty short sighted of someone to say that only Ed and Jake's advice are the only ones that anyone cares about, seeing as the amount of incredibily gifted musicians on this board is astounding.~pimp:

[guitarjazz]

Back to the topic at hand:
It is too late to repent now but I started checking out the Lydian Chromatic Concept when I was in high school, the mid seventies. I worked through the whole book but was puzzled by the fact that I wasn’t an instant heavy jazzer. (Reminds me a little of the story in Randy Halberstadt’s Metaphors for Musicians about his frustration after relentlessly practicing lines from the Slonimsky book) After about a decade of gigging, listening, transcribing, jamming till the sun came up, paying various road dues.. I was able to use some of the ideas presented in the Russell book in a musical manner. The LCC isn’t a jazz method book to teach you how to phrase or make cool ii-V7 patterns. It is a philosophy of sound. The LCC is one of the many books residing in several filing cabinets of music books in my lifetime lab of study. When I play, I try not to think about any of this but just react. It’s ok to meditate on one’s navel in the privacy of your own house though!
Unfortunately the current volume represents only half the LCC, Vertical Tonal Gravity. Hopefully the second half, about Horizontal Tonal Gravity will be published soon.
Has anyone ever checked out LIES MY MUSIC TEACHER TOLD ME by Gerald Eskelin? It is also a philosophy of sound based on natural acoustic principals. How ‘bout Improvisation by Derek Bailey?

[CoyotePalace]

Other method books that are brilliant: Steve Lacy's "Findings", Mick Goodrick's "Advancing Guitarist", Derek Bailey's "Improvisation", and Leo Smith's "Notes".

[CoyotePalace]

Oh...and Anthony Braxton's "Tri-Axiom Writings".

[guitarjazz]

Thanks...I'll check them out.
Have you read Time Will Tell: Conversations with Paul Bley?
Now if I can just get my copy back from that damn bass player who borrowed it.

[bob@robertappleton.c]

my copy of paul bley's book is in a storage box with all our other stuff while we're changing cities. but one thing i do remember is his "critique" of bill evans, when they improvised together on the beautiful intro to jazz in the space age. he says something like "afterwards evans asked me what we'd just played - he had no idea what it was".

http://www.lydianchromaticconcept.com would be a good place to learn more about how one person created musical environments for such amazing musical dialogs as this.

[guitarjazz]

To respond to Jake’s first post on the topic: The LCC isn’t “ a reorganization of Chord Scaletheories”. When it was first published( 1953) I don’t think anyone in jazz pedagogy had published a chord/scale theory that I am aware of. Perhaps latter chord/scale theories are dilutions of portions of the LCC. This is quite possible when you look at certain branches of the ‘family tree’ of jazz education and how they relate to Mr. Russell. David Baker played in George Russell’s band and studied with him and later published a plethora of instruction books. Jerry Coker, Gary Campbell, Jamey Aebersold, Jerry Greene studied with David and published their own books. I would imagine Berklee and North Texas weren’t immune to the influence either.
Years ago I had a friend who attended St. John’s College in Santa Fe, NM. At that school they make a point to study the original work of a great thinker like ,say, Isaac Newton, before picking up a standard physics textbook. Despite the fact that I don’t see the LCC as a jazz method or instruction book I think it would be highly worthwhile to ‘drink from the source’.
(The relationship between chords and scales( Vertical Tonal Gravity) is only one of three facets of the LCC.)

[DraperiesOfNight]

Wow, I never seen a cat get his panties up in bunch like that. Reminds me of when I met chet baker. I said I didnt like some jazz album and he just about decked me.

[guitarjazz]

Was it one of his albums?

[DraperiesOfNight]

No I think it was a Miles Davis Album or something. Im not sure its been a long time.

[Phil Kelly]

I mean no disrespect to anyone but the influence that Ed Byrne and Jack Hanlon exert over musician to musician is in my opinion excessive. I don't come to this sight very much because of it.

They each have intelligent points of view but they are only their points of view. To many people on this site allow Ed's reputation and Jake's education to close down real discussion.

Whoa! I missed this one earlier ..

I think taking potshots at Ed and Jakes "influence" on this section of the board is unwarranted. Both of them generously share their time and knowlege with others here and to be dimviewed for it indicates somewhat of an insecure personality.

If you don't choose to use the things they've suggested then dont! No one is holding a gun to your head. Their commentary on the LCC is on track with my own experience with it. I read it back when it first came out, and I must say over the years, I've learned much more from analysing Russels music than I did from the book.

BTW: I tend to post a lot in this area as well ..why not include me in your dimviewing ???

[Jay Norem]

BTW: I tend to post a lot in this area as well ..why not include me in your dimviewing ???

Yeah, Phil, you're major offender! I can't stand it that you know so much more about music than me. It really hurts my little ole feelings. How can I go on, oh how???????
Maybe I'll get a job at the post office. Good benefits...

[gennation]

Show of hands...

who has actually worked through the book???

Not me.


next...

[engelbach]

Before buying the book (which is out of print and available used on Amazon for only $279.00), listen to George Russell's 1956 album The Jazz Workshop (also out of print, but "only" $40.00 on Amazon).

It's instructive to hear Russell's theories, when they were still new, applied to his own compositions.

Re the arguments on this thread: When jazz musicians start calling each other "Mister" you know there's trouble. "Mister Davis"? "Mister Coltrane"? "Mister Baker"? Nah.

Someone please start a new thread called "Debating with Ed Byrne." That should keep him occupied elsewhere.

(Just kidding, Ed.)

[guitarjazz]

Great idea to listen to George Russell’s recordings from the 1950’s. In addition to The Jazz Workshop, how ‘bout Jazz in the Space Age( with Bill Evans and Paul Bley trading).
The 1959 edition isn’t in print any more but I’ve seen copies on EBay at a reasonable price.
The 2001 edition is available at http://www.lydianchromaticconcept.com/buyit.html
for $125. Not bad deal when you consider that the man put 60 years into working on it. Heck, my friend Kev paid $2000 for a custom made Batman suit. He’s also caretaking my Batman soundtrack Lp with Sun Ra on organ.

[guitarjazz]

Show of hands...

who has actually worked through the book???

Not me.


next...

I could list an lengthy number of books I know nothing about but prefer not to advertise it to the world and I don’t seek out their web forums unless I have an interest or question!
(Maybe I could list them on the Facebook or MySpace..mmm)

[bob@robertappleton.c]

"jazz in the space age" is on i-tunes @ 99c a track

here's a quote from nate dorward "The "Chromatic Universe" tracks are features for the duelling pianos of Bill Evans & Paul Bley, one of the most memorable encounters in modern jazz."

plus there's a nice discussion of gr's 1950's riverside recordings on the aaj discographies forum. intelligent, informed, recyclable, non-destructive... wow what a concept

[engelbach]

"jazz in the space age" is on i-tunes @ 99c a track

Thanks much for this valuable information.

Actually, on iTunes you can buy only the four shortest of the six tracks for 99c each:
Chromatic Universe Part 1 3:35
Chromatic Universe Part 2 3:47
Chromatic Universe Part 3 4:55
Waltz from Outer Space 6:59

If you want the two long tracks ...
Dimensions 13:11
The Lydiot 10:05

... you have to buy the whole album for $9.99.

Still a good deal!

[CoyotePalace]

Thanks for the info on Russell's "Jazz in the space age". I downloaded the whole album and it's utterly fantastic! I know much of his catalog, but somehow this one had slipped thru the cracks.

[engelbach]

Ditto. I downloaded the whole thing as well. Superb.

[guitarjazz]

Paul Bley is an incredibly creative pianist. He doesn’t get enough credit for his innovative playing.
There is a Sonny Rollins/Coleman Hawkins recording that Bley takes an incredible solo on All the Things. Downbeat published a transcription of it a few years ago.

[guitarjazz]

Pardon me for posting the same message on two different threads but this seems to pertain to both:
I’ve been a Pat Martino fan since hearing Consciousness when it first came out so it was special to meet him last year. He was kind enough to sign my Consciousness CD and he told me the story of the front cover picture. It was mind-blowing to watch him play after listening to his recording for so long. His lines were incredible and his zero-fret open position playing was wild to watch (he doesn’t or rarely uses his first (LH) finger when in open position).
I wanted to point out that the whole minor-conversion process is very similar to certain vertical aspects of the Lydian Chromatic Concept. The Concept points to many more directions but the thought process between the two is much the same.
I guess the question might be: What is the use of either method? Is there a traditional theory book that proposes the same kind of 'conversion'? Haven't seen one yet but I'm all ears(no pun!).

[DraperiesOfNight]

Yeah, Phil, you're major offender! I can't stand it that you know so much more about music than me. It really hurts my little ole feelings. How can I go on, oh how???????
Maybe I'll get a job at the post office. Good benefits...

I was gonna pass this by and just forget about this whole long speel about how you think a certain way. Honestly, Ed, Jake, and Phil are just trying to say there opinions about something. Probly even save allot of guys a long line of utter confusion and eventual abandonement of something they dont really need. Yes its probly not that great for them to disuade other people from buying the book. But who the hell cares! They have obviously lived in jazz allot more then some of us. If I know Ed, Jake, and Phil like I think I they would never say anything to purposely hurt anyone. There probly the nicest guys you will ever meet who play music. Most people out there are just plain old dicks. Quite frankly right now your coming off as one. Why dont you just take your little johnson out of the vice grip and get over yourself. Plain and simple.

[EthanW]

I'm pretty positive he was being sarcastic, so it's all good. ~pimp:

[DraperiesOfNight]

I'm pretty positive he was being sarcastic, so it's all good. ~pimp:

Oh then im the dick now.. damn.. well then that could be to whoever started this damn arguement.

[Phil Kelly]

I'm pretty positive he was being sarcastic, so it's all good. ~pimp:


I've had several contacts with Jay and I'm SURE he was !

Sarcasm and ironic humor doen't play well on the internet I've discovered over time ..

( BTW: since I'm here anyway, you all can shove your collective heads up your anuses and inhale ...)

:clown: :cheers :clown: :cheers :clown: :cheers :gavel: :gavel:

[jefe]

( BTW: since I'm here anyway, you all can shove your collective heads up your anuses and inhale ...)



Mmmmmmmm.......it's a bit like:spam:

[guitarjazz]

I think Ed should post his criticism of the Concept. Taking into account his background with George, I’m sure it would be one of the more intelligent and informed postings on this thread, whether I agree with it or not. I haven’t been around the forum long enough to be instantly swayed by his opinion(though I love some of the stuff he’s posted, like his Here’s That Rainy Day changes). The fact that his ‘criticism’ is so highly valued without even being clarified is kinda creepy to this newbie.
So Ed..school me please, brother!

[Jeff Lampert]

Is it possible for some of you who are knowledgeable with LCC to post some of the concepts in such a manner that it would give me an idea of the sorts of things that it is about. Not just general concepts (though that is also cool), but some real tangible ideas about what scales and chords and relationships are played in what context. Specific song examples with scales and chord choices would be very much appreciated. Please use very well known, not-too-complex standards (e.g. Autumn Leaves, There Will Never Be Another You, etc.). Thank you very much in advance. .. Jeff

[engelbach]

Is it possible for some of you who are knowledgeable with LCC to post some of the concepts in such a manner that it would give me an idea of the sorts of things that it is about. Not just general concepts (though that is also cool), but some real tangible ideas about what scales and chords and relationships are played in what context. Specific song examples with scales and chord choices would be very much appreciated. Please use very well known, not-too-complex standards (e.g. Autumn Leaves, There Will Never Be Another You, etc.). Thank you very much in advance. .. Jeff

Excellent request.

I, too, would like to know more about this, as I have not been able to afford the book and from what I've heard might have trouble understanding it.

[guitarjazz]

Excellent request.

I, too, would like to know more about this, as I have not been able to afford the book and from what I've heard might have trouble understanding it.

A really good primer for the LCC is in Mick Goodrick’s The Advancing Guitarist, which I assure you is one of the most interesting music books you will read regardless of what you play. From pages 62 to 73 there is a comparison of different ways to approach chord-scales.Here is what Mick says in his summary on page 66: “..no approach is “the best.”But each approach has definite uses. Each is valuable. Each is worth exploring.” There is also a chord section that is strongly influenced by the Concept.
You can get this book for a measly ten bucks from Amazon!
http://www.amazon.com/Advancing-Guitarist-Mick-Goodrick/dp/0881885894/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/102-2658232-5722500?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1188263929&sr=8-1

PS When you get the book start with the commentaries on page 93.

[engelbach]

A really good primer for the LCC is in Mick Goodrick’s The Advancing Guitarist, which I assure you is one of the most interesting music books you will read regardless of what you play. From pages 62 to 73 there is a comparison of different ways to approach chord-scales.Here is what Mick says in his summary on page 66: “..no approach is “the best.”But each approach has definite uses. Each is valuable. Each is worth exploring.” There is also a chord section that is strongly influenced by the Concept.
You can get this book for a measly ten bucks from Amazon!
http://www.amazon.com/Advancing-Guitarist-Mick-Goodrick/dp/0881885894/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/102-2658232-5722500?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1188263929&sr=8-1

PS When you get the book start with the commentaries on page 93.

Thanks anyway. I'm interested specifically in what George Russell says.

[guitarjazz]

I understand. Not trying to be coy, but, it's probably better from Russell's mouth. I'm interested in what Ed has to say!

[engelbach]

I understand. Not trying to be coy, but, it's probably better from Russell's mouth. I'm interested in what Ed has to say!

He already weighed in on the third post in this thread.

[guitarjazz]

Guess so! Never thought music theory would remind me so much of politics.

[Jay Norem]

I have an honest unopinionated question to ask here. What is to be gained by studying such books and the methods they put forward? If it's to make it easier to play an improvised line in jazz music then that sounds fishy to me. If it's to teach how to improve one's technique then it's just another of many books on that subject. If it's just an interesting read for the theory-heads out there then of course that's fine, but why this book, and actually, why any book? After all, we are not classical musicians. Couldn't we just, like, get together and play? "Learn by doing," and all that? Okay, maybe this question isn't all that unopinionated, but it pretty much is really. I'm just wondering.

[guitarjazz]

I have an honest unopinionated question to ask here. What is to be gained by studying such books and the methods they put forward? If it's to make it easier to play an improvised line in jazz music then that sounds fishy to me. If it's to teach how to improve one's technique then it's just another of many books on that subject. If it's just an interesting read for the theory-heads out there then of course that's fine, but why this book, and actually, why any book? After all, we are not classical musicians. Couldn't we just, like, get together and play? "Learn by doing," and all that? Okay, maybe this question isn't all that unopinionated, but it pretty much is really. I'm just wondering.

“For the sake of a single verse, one must see many cities, men and things, one must know the animals, one must feel how the birds fly and know the gesture with which the little flowers open in the morning”
Rainer Maria Rilke

[engelbach]

All created Western music is based on theory, in the sense of building on what's been created before. Some theory is what one gleans from reading scores and using one's ears, some is written down as analysis of past practice, and some is suggested variation based on past practice, as with Russell.

Every time you read a chart you're a "classical" musician. Every time you derive harmony from a chord symbol you're a "classical" musician. Musical notation and harmonic conventions long predate jazz. And improvisation was a staple for every classical performer throughout the Classical era, at least up to the time of Chopin and Liszt. Not to mention improvisation in folk music.

If all musicians did was to get together and play they would never have gone beyond Gregorian Chant.

[thedwork]

“For the sake of a single verse, one must see many cities, men and things, one must know the animals, one must feel how the birds fly and know the gesture with which the little flowers open in the morning”
Rainer Maria Rilke

All created Western music is based on theory, in the sense of building on what's been created before. Some theory is what one gleans from reading scores and using one's ears, some is written down as analysis of past practice, and some is suggested variation based on past practice, as with Russell...

If all musicians did was to get together and play they would never have gone beyond Gregorian Chant.


:yeahthat:

[Jay Norem]

Every time you read a chart you're a "classical" musician. Every time you derive harmony from a chord symbol you're a "classical" musician. Musical notation and harmonic conventions long predate jazz. And improvisation was a staple for every classical performer throughout the Classical era, at least up to the time of Chopin and Liszt. Not to mention improvisation in folk music.

That's a great way of putting it. Thanks.

[engelbach]

That's a great way of putting it. Thanks.

Thanks, Jay.

[Jeff Lampert]

What is to be gained by studying such books and the methods they put forward?

I can only speak for myself. The reason I ask is because I have gotten a good deal of my base of harmonic knowledge from reading. I am under the impression that the Lydian Chromatic Concept is fundamentally a text on melody and harmony (i.e. scales, chords, etc.). as opposed to rhythm, articulation, phrasing, or other components of playing jazz-related music. I would like to know some specifics about it because I might be able to use it to advance my melodic and harmonic abilities. Unfortunately, even though several posters here know about it, none have chimed in with some specific examples. I sure wish they would. .. Jeff

[Mario Abbagliati]

“For the sake of a single verse, one must see many cities, men and things, one must know the animals, one must feel how the birds fly and know the gesture with which the little flowers open in the morning”
Rainer Maria Rilke

The journey is the reward.

Chinese proverb

[edrowland]

They each have intelligent points of view but they are only their points of view. To many people on this site allow Ed's reputation and Jake's education to close down real discussion.

I agree with this point absolutely. Too many people let that happen. ;-) Too many people shouldn't do that.

You should not let Jake's education and Ed's reputation shut down real discussion. That's the part I love most about this site. These guys are here out of a love of the music, and genuinely desire to share. And I do not questoin their motives for a millisecond. Personally, I learn a great deal by disagreeing with Ed. Sincerely. Maybe more than anyone. (And I hardly ever disagree with Jake, although I learn lots from Jake as well). That's how discussions work. I don't think there's a better way to learn than to articulate your best understanding and have someone provide an alternate way of looking at the problem; or to seriously consider the opinion of someone who speaks from deep experience, and decide to respectfully disagree anyway. Or to formulate your thoughts as best you can around a difficult topic in an attempt to help someone else (and improve your own understanding in the doing).

My advice: don't be afraid to say something truly stupid (lord knows I've done it), and know that it's actally pretty difficult to say something truly stupid. We're all at different points on the path, and there are many paths. And the value of your contribution is the extent to which it resonates with any one person who's struggling with the same problems you are struggling with, and the extent to which ensuing discussion resonates with you. I think. And if what gets said doesn't resonate with you, then you need to chip, and take your best shot, in the hopes of directing the conversation in a direction that will resonate with you. (I do that). If something doesn't resonate, then let it be and move on. Chances are that it's not wrong; but it may not be of particular use to you on your particular path.

I've always considered it a huge benefit of this site: that discussion takes place on all levels at all times. From the humblest beginner to the saltiest pros, there are people who want to share their insight and test their ideas (and yours).

I hate to see a posting like yours, because I really do consider this place a magical one, and I'd hate to see someone miss the magic for all the wrong reasons.

[Jeff Brent]

I realize that I am about 55 years too late in posting this, but for anyone that has studied the Lydian Chromatic Concept, or for anyone considering reading the book, here are some cold, hard facts that you should be aware of:

"Lydian Chromatic Concept" Discrepancies (http://www.jeff-brent.com/Lessons/LCC/LCCdiscrepancies.html)
A review of "The Lydian Chromatic Concept" with proofs that it is based on a false premise.


This article is also available as an MS Word Document or printable .pdf file (17 pages).

[engelbach]

I realize that I am about 55 years too late in posting this, but for anyone that has studied the Lydian Chromatic Concept, or for anyone considering reading the book, here are some cold, hard facts that you should be aware of:

"Lydian Chromatic Concept" Discrepancies (http://www.jeff-brent.com/Lessons/LCC/LCCdiscrepancies.html)
A review of "The Lydian Chromatic Concept" with proofs that it is based on a false premise.


This article is also available as an MS Word Document or printable .pdf file (17 pages).
Jeff,

I've neither read nor understand the Lydian Chromatic Concept, so I'm afraid your thorough analysis is lost on me.

However, it's always good to see a new person on the forum, and I look forward to hearing more from you.

Cheers,
Jer

[jefe]

Hi, I'm Jeff too!
I only read your PDF kinda of like I read the LCC. (and that was years ago, so I don't remember it that well) After a couple of glasses of wine, and just reading for fun, not with the eye of a editor/theory junky like you...

I thought this part was funny cause it's true!:
The main points that I gleaned from studying the LCC

1. It’s ok to play a #4

2. I can play a whole bunch of scales (the same scales that I already know) over chords (the same chords that I already know), but I have to learn to call them different names

3. A side effect of the lack of unity makes the level of physical violence more prevalent.

4. The author thinks “The Star Spangled Banner” is Lydian

I got that too... (Except for the Star Spangled banner, Don't remember that)
I also kind of liked the stuff about coltrane and Lester floating down the river and taking space ships and stuff in a stoner kind of way....

[guitarjazz]

I realize that I am about 55 years too late in posting this, but for anyone that has studied the Lydian Chromatic Concept, or for anyone considering reading the book, here are some cold, hard facts that you should be aware of:

"Lydian Chromatic Concept" Discrepancies (http://www.jeff-brent.com/Lessons/LCC/LCCdiscrepancies.html)
A review of "The Lydian Chromatic Concept" with proofs that it is based on a false premise.


This article is also available as an MS Word Document or printable .pdf file (17 pages).

Some people just don’t pay attention to the signs that say:
“Don’t poke the bear”
Welcome to the forum, friend.

[Bob Budny]

All "Western" music theory is based on the false premise that tempered tuning exists in nature. Or that pianos grow wild in the forest.

[Jeff Brent]

All "Western" music theory is based on the false premise that tempered tuning exists in nature. Or that pianos grow wild in the forest.

While it can be disputed that the very first true western music theory treatise may have been Franchino Gaffuiro's "Theoricum Opus Musicae Discipline" (1480), the equal tempered tuning system (even though its history can be traced back to 1518) did not become universally adopted until circa 1850.

This means that western music theory existed for at least four centuries before equal tempered tuning became the norm. Therefore ET is not a prerequisite for theory (western or otherwise).

Pianos were originally made from elephants and trees (both of which grow wild in the forest):lol:.

A quick note on pianos and "tempered tuning vs natural tuning":
Pianos are tuned with "stretch tuning".

A piano which is tuned precisely to equal tempered tuning will sound out-of-tune, due to the human ear's predilection to expect the higher notes to progressively sharpen while the lower notes "should" progressively flatten.

This is most likely due to the same effect that occurs in natural pythagorean tuning.

Equal tempered tuning fixes the problem of not being able to play in twelve keys, and then "stretch tuning" fixes the fix (if you get my drift).

[randalljazz]

just want to second that "welcome to the forum". :welcome:

this guy doesn't count?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guido_of_Arezzo

[Bob Budny]

While it can be disputed that the very first true western music theory treatise may have been Franchino Gaffuiro's "Theoricum Opus Musicae Discipline" (1480), the equal tempered tuning system (even though its history can be traced back to 1518) did not become universally adopted until circa 1850.

This means that western music theory existed for at least four centuries before equal tempered tuning became the norm. Therefore ET is not a prerequisite for theory (western or otherwise).

Pianos were originally made from elephants and trees (both of which grow wild in the forest):lol:.

A quick note on pianos and "tempered tuning vs natural tuning":
Pianos are tuned with "stretch tuning".

A piano which is tuned precisely to equal tempered tuning will sound out-of-tune, due to the human ear's predilection to expect the higher notes to progressively sharpen while the lower notes "should" progressively flatten.

This is most likely due to the same effect that occurs in natural pythagorean tuning.

Equal tempered tuning fixes the problem of not being able to play in twelve keys, and then "stretch tuning" fixes the fix (if you get my drift).

Hey, this guy's good! Welcome to the forum.

[Mike A]

... in other words, what is the precise amount in which pianos are "stretch tuned" - is there an industry standard?...

This is helpful ...
http://www.postpiano.com/support/updates/tech/Tuning.htm

Stretch, as I understand it, is compensating for inharmonicity, which varies depending upon the particular strings, frame, etc., so there isn't a "standard" stretch.

[randalljazz]

good piano tuners do it by ear. more an art than a science.

[engelbach]

Many piano tuners use electronic aids now instead of just a tuning fork, but tuning still requires a good ear and much practice.

The stretch in tuning to compensate for inharmonicity is not the same thing as tempering within the octave. Stretch refers to the the need to tune the notes within higher octaves slightly sharper and lower octaves slightly flatter, to compensate for the different overtone characteristics of shorter and longer strings.

Large pianos, with longer strings, suffer less than smaller pianos from inharmonicity because the proportion of string length to string thickness is higher. I don't know the physics of this, but it helps to explain why the high and low notes on a larger piano sound cleaner and more resonant than those on a smaller piano.

Electronic piano tuners have an adjustment for tuning in different octaves on different size pianos.

[Jeff Brent]

When I was tuning pianos as a job, the piano tuners who showed me the tricks of the trade explained it to me in the terms I described above.

They told me that once you're into the next octave above middle C that you start sharpening at about the rate of a cent per half-octave and then the top notes are tuned by ear (electronic tuners have a heck of a time with those super-high frequencies).

And then you do the same for the bottom end.

Using their formulae, I tuned hundreds of pianos and even though my "stretch" max'd out at generally no higher than about twelve cents, those babies sounded good to me.

Mike A's link regarding "inharmonicity" told me something that those old piano tuners never did (maybe they didn't know about it or thought that since I was just a teenager then that the topic would have been over my head - who knows ...)

The point I want to make here is that a stretch of 10 cents is much closer to the variance caused by the pythagorean comma than the 35 cents referenced in Mike A's link.

35 cents is WAAAAY more than the pythagorean comma.

I always take everything with a grain of salt, and it would be interesting to hear other piano tuners' takes on this subject.

(This thread isn't really about the LCC, is it?)

[engelbach]

When I was tuning pianos as a job, the piano tuners who showed me the tricks of the trade explained it to me in the terms I described above.

They told me that once you're into the next octave above middle C that you start sharpening at about the rate of a cent per half-octave and then the top notes are tuned by ear (electronic tuners have a heck of a time with those super-high frequencies).

And then you do the same for the bottom end.

Using their formulae, I tuned hundreds of pianos and even though my "stretch" max'd out at generally no higher than about twelve cents, those babies sounded good to me.

Mike A's link regarding "inharmonicity" told me something that those old piano tuners never did (maybe they didn't know about it or thought that since I was just a teenager then that the topic would have been over my head - who knows ...)

The point I want to make here is that a stretch of 10 cents is much closer to the variance caused by the pythagorean comma than the 35 cents referenced in Mike A's link.

35 cents is WAAAAY more than the pythagorean comma.

I always take everything with a grain of salt, and it would be interesting to hear other piano tuners' takes on this subject.

(This thread isn't really about the LCC, is it?)
It's not unusual for a thread to veer off topic, especially once the original point of the thread has been covered.

[DjangoFingers]

Years behind the discussion......

I once asked a sax player what he thought of the concept and he laughed and said why should he learn a bunch of stupid names for stuff that i already know. After taking baby steps through the book all I can say is "My God, it's full of stars!" It is looking at the infinite. That sax player, who has mad chops, is looking at space through a telescope and has decided the fixed point he is looking at is all of the universe there is.
Only a fool can dismiss the wealth of limitless knowledge the book contains.

To split hairs about equal temperament is beside the point. We are talking about stacked fifths. 700 vs 702 cents away from a given tonic.

Lydian IS the major scale
Dorian IS the minor scale

I am definitely a parallel thinker by nature, but derivative thinking yields new sounds. It is much easier to be a derivative thinker to make this stuff work. You can commit to this stuff for life and still not use all the possibilities.

[DJ Soupalognon]

Years behind the discussion......

I once asked a sax player what he thought of the concept and he laughed and said why should he learn a bunch of stupid names for stuff that i already know. After taking baby steps through the book all I can say is "My God, it's full of stars!" It is looking at the infinite. That sax player, who has mad chops, is looking at space through a telescope and has decided the fixed point he is looking at is all of the universe there is.
Only a fool can dismiss the wealth of limitless knowledge the book contains.

To split hairs about equal temperament is beside the point. We are talking about stacked fifths. 700 vs 702 cents away from a given tonic.

Lydian IS the major scale
Dorian IS the minor scale

I am definitely a parallel thinker by nature, but derivative thinking yields new sounds. It is much easier to be a derivative thinker to make this stuff work. You can commit to this stuff for life and still not use all the possibilities.

You know I just read the whole thread for the first time. And this is actually the first post that answers the question.

Thank you!

Now, does anyone have the book? Before paying 120$ for a book, I'd like to be sure...

[Jeff Brent]

http://i78.photobucket.com/albums/j106/jeffbrent/LCCforDummies.png

[engelbach]

http://i78.photobucket.com/albums/j106/jeffbrent/LCCforDummies.png
Brilliant!

[DJ Soupalognon]

http://i78.photobucket.com/albums/j106/jeffbrent/LCCforDummies.png

Hilarious!