Page 1 of 2

Has anyone else seen/read this article?

PostPosted: Sat Apr 16, 2011 4:43 am
by MokshaIs

PostPosted: Tue Apr 26, 2011 7:33 am
by strachs
I think it's unfortunate that dialogue on a theoretical level is so discouraged in this forum. While I don't agree with Jeff Brent's take on theory, or his particular argumentation against the LCC, I wish there were some other reaction to theory discussion than "GR is a genius who figured out all theory problems, let's not ever talk theory again".

If the desire really is to try to "understand it the best our frail minds will allow", then should we assume that the LCC is the best that man's collective mind can come up with?

What brought most people to the LCC book and to this forum, was that we could not just "get on with the music". We felt there were gaps left by traditional theory that would forever prevent us from taking full command of the mysterious forces that seem to be under our fingers and between our ears.

LCC encourages us to see a bigger picture than traditionally offered, and that's awesome. But if a few people feel that there are still gaps, that there are still certain audible phenomena that the LCC fails to explain or address, why discourage that?

If the fish is all that interests you - great, focus on the fish. But there are some of us who are just as fascinated with the water. If this forum is a "round hole", maybe you could suggest where I might fit my "square pegs" (somewhere other than AAJ)?

PostPosted: Tue Apr 26, 2011 11:56 am
by strachs
Hi motherlode,

I do remember your positive response to that blues thing, and it was certainly appreciated. And I appreciate that you are yet open to my contributions. I don't get that response from everyone, you know.

I have some ideas yet to share, and I've been toying with NOT posting them here, out of deference to those who feel it's entirely inappropriate to voice anything of that sort here.

But I know where I stand on LCC and it's not a "Theoretician X vs. GR/LCC" position. If you're willing to hear and respect a viewpoint that does not hold GR as infallible, then I guess there's no reason NOT to post it here.

So, thanks for inviting me to stick around.

I did read your Hindemith work-up, and it was very musical indeed.

I guess we all have our hot buttons, things that irk us, and we ought to be mindful of who we're discussing things with. That being said, I hope we can all share our ideas and not feel compelled to adopt a diametric "for" or "against" position toward the LCC or any other idea thrown out there.

Like you said, we're all "Lydiots"! See you soon (in a thread of my own - don't want to de-rail someone else's again).

PostPosted: Tue Apr 26, 2011 2:25 pm
by DroneDaily
...

PostPosted: Tue Apr 26, 2011 5:40 pm
by chespernevins
If we want to discuss any specifics of Brent's counter-arguments, then let's isolate them and discuss them individually.

Strachs, you have always presented your thoughts assertively but also with an open mind and never arrogance. IMO, that's always welcome.

PostPosted: Wed Apr 27, 2011 4:05 pm
by Andrew
The biggest problem I have with the article is when Jeff talks about discrepancies with a 'ladder of fifths.' This is George's greatest argument for the Lydian mode. Jeff doesn't take into account that each note has it's own set of overtones. C has an immediate overtone of G, G has an immediate overtone of D, D has an immediate overtone of A, etc. all the way up to F# All of George Russell's other proofs of the Lydian mode may be unsound (I'm not saying the are) but the ladder of fifths is the most impressive because the stacked fifths really do imply an eventual #4.

PostPosted: Wed Apr 27, 2011 4:05 pm
by Andrew
The biggest problem I have with the article is when Jeff talks about discrepancies with a 'ladder of fifths.' This is George's greatest argument for the Lydian mode. Jeff doesn't take into account that each note has it's own set of overtones. C has an immediate overtone of G, G has an immediate overtone of D, D has an immediate overtone of A, etc. all the way up to F# All of George Russell's other proofs of the Lydian mode may be unsound (I'm not saying the are) but the ladder of fifths is the most impressive because the stacked fifths really do imply an eventual #4.

PostPosted: Wed Apr 27, 2011 4:56 pm
by chespernevins
Jeff asks:

If the LCC theory is based on a �ladder� of ascending fifths emanating from a center of tonal gravity �do�, why specifically choose a 7 note tone row? Why not 6 notes or 8 notes or why not any number?


My take is that the ladder is 7 tones based on the idea of interval tonics:

F#
B
E
A
D
G
C

C is the tonic of:

the C-G interval
the C-D interval
the C-A interval
the C-E interval
the C-B interval
the C-F# interval
(in the case of the C-F# interval, either tone could be considered the tonic)

As for the OTHER notes in the cycle (C#, Ab, Eb, Bb, F):

C# is the tonic of the C#-C interval
Ab is the tonic of the Ab-C interval
Eb is the tonic of the Eb-C interval
Bb is the tonic of the Bb-C interval
F is the tonic of the F-C interval

True, other systems, such as Hindemith's, may have a different view of which note is the tonic of a given interval. But within the LCC, this is consistent.

I admit this is somewhat circular reasoning, because the tonic of an interval is determined by its placement in a ladder of fifths. So let me offer some additional detail.

I will refer to the fully chromatic cycle drawn below as "the cycle", and will refer to a ladder of 6 fifths (7 notes) as a "ladder".

Here is the cycle of 5ths laid out in a straight line:

C
F
Bb
Eb
Ab
C#
F#
B
E
A
D
G
C


G is in C's ladder of 5ths - and not vice versa - because G is one step above C in the cycle, whereas C is 11 steps above G in the cycle. The closest spacing of these 2 notes in the cycle is G one fifth above C. Therefore C is the tonic of the G and C interval.

D is also in C's ladder of fifths - and not vice versa - because D is 2 steps above C in the cycle, while C is 10 steps above D in the cycle. The closest spacing of these 2 notes in the cycle is D two fifths above C. C is the tonic of the C and D interval.

The same is true of A, E, and B. They are in C's ladder of fifths, and C is not in the ladder owned by A, E or B. C is the tonic of C and A, etc.

F# is in C's ladder and C is in F#'s ladder. They are the same distance apart in the cycle. C to F# is 6 steps up the cycle and F# to C is also 6 steps up the cycle. Either note can be the tonic of this interval.

C# is where things change. C# is 7 steps up the cycle from C, but C is only 5 steps up the ladder from C#. This means the closest spacing of the two notes on the cycle is C# up to C. This means C is in C#'s ladder of fifths - and C# is NOT in C's ladder of fifths. C# is the tonic of the C and C# interval.


So the ladder goes up to F# and stops there.

F#
B
E
A
D
G
C


When we get to the note C#, the distance between C and C# is closer when we place them in C#'s ladder:

G
C
F
Bb
Eb
Ab
C# (Db)

PostPosted: Thu Apr 28, 2011 11:58 am
by strachs
Without “shooting downâ€

PostPosted: Thu Apr 28, 2011 1:55 pm
by chespernevins
Chesper: a fellow theory-head. Good to hear your perspective again. Your diagrams of ladders have been a good visual tool in the forum.


Hey Strachs. I aspire to be both a theory head and a practitioner as well. How well that is going depends on when you catch me... Hopefully I use my ears sometimes too. :lol:

So, let me get your point clear: are you viewing the tones in a kind of close-to-distant, strong-to-weak gravitational pull kind of way? If that's what's going on, do you have a theory as to why C#, then, seems to have a stronger claim on C than, say, Ab through F?


I have a theory. It may be a bunch of bs.

I think you'll remember this once you see it - I spelled out the theory in the "Questions about Chords" thread. Here's the link:

http://lydianchromaticconcept.com/phpBB ... sc&start=0

PostPosted: Fri Apr 29, 2011 10:17 am
by chespernevins
I posted a summary of my "thought experiment" in a new thread called "My Take on WOTG", to save wading through the thread referenced above.

PostPosted: Sat May 21, 2011 1:38 pm
by Jeff Brent
Andrew wrote:Jeff doesn't take into account that each note has it's own set of overtones. C has an immediate overtone of G, G has an immediate overtone of D, D has an immediate overtone of A, etc. all the way up to F# All of George Russell's other proofs of the Lydian mode may be unsound (I'm not saying the are) but the ladder of fifths is the most impressive because the stacked fifths really do imply an eventual #4.


I cover/debunk that here:

http://Jeff-Brent.com/Lessons/LCC/Evolu ... raLCC.html

Look under: 4. Harmonics Generating Harmonics

PostPosted: Mon May 23, 2011 7:38 am
by DroneDaily
on jeff's website:
Ockham's Razor:
'All things being equal, the simplest solution tends to be the best one'



me playing devil's advocate:
H.L. Mencken Quotes:
For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong.


life is complicated and messy. uniformity and conformity are not the secret to a great life, diversity is, if russell's theories are complicated its because they pick up on the subtle nuances that simpler theories consider outliers

question for jeff: you are not a big fan of the LCC, but what do you think of Delamont's or Hindemith's theories? who do you think gets it right?

PostPosted: Mon May 23, 2011 6:22 pm
by strachs
If that page you linked debunked something, I guess I missed it. I'm not sure I found any reasoned conclusions on the entire page. I'd be more than happy to consider a re-worded second attempt or something, but if this page is the most convincing you've managed, I'm not sure you have something to prove really. You may very well feel the same about what I've posted, and it may be because we see something in our own words that just isn't getting across to the reader.

Happy posting, everyone.

PostPosted: Mon May 23, 2011 7:57 pm
by chespernevins
Not to pile on, but I meant to post anyway.

Jeff, your symmetry theory is cool and interesting - there are a lot of symmetrical objects in nature - but I don't see how it takes anything away from the LCC.

I feel that that the article's Ockham's Razor scenario is a bit of a straw man argument. How many verbal steps to creating a pentatonic scale - no matter how fundamental a scale it may be - just doesn't seem to prove anything one way or another about "tonal gravity", or even the ladder of fifths, IMO.

I kept thinking that it seems to me like your ideas deserve to be presented alone, on their own merits...