Superbly explained, thank you so much for this! Your carefully walking us through the two-scales-in-one perspective, among other elements in all this, helped switch on a light in my mind. And I absolutely love the history and background, that adds so much. Very nicely done!
Thanks for this video! I've played trumpet at a decent level since middle school and am trying to convince my wife to get me a slide trumpet for Christmas haha. I've wanted one since high school jazz band and love looking them up on RU-vid every few years to see if anyone plays them. This is the first new video I've seen on it in years; it's so cool people are making content with them!
Bob: "remember this is not prescriptive" also dedicated an entire episode to explaining paradigm shifts. Title: Lydian Chromatic "Concept" of Tonal "Organization" Half the comments in each episode- this really just feels like its organizing the notes in a different way and doesnt necessarily tell me new things to do that people weren't already doing in jazz to some extent. ------------ Much like how new Physics models dont change how the heavenly bodies interact with each other, the LCCoTo doesn't change the music. Russell saw a BUNCH of empirical evidence (jazz) that was poorly explained by Western harmony and wanted to better explain how/why these sounds make sense. Its philosophy, its capital A Aesthetics, which unlike many other philosophies is held accountable for making sense of changes in the Art world. Once organized into a coherent system you CAN make choices utilizing it, like how different ethical systems solve the trolley problem differently. You can make musical choices explicitly using the Ezzthetics of George Russell AND/OR simply explain whats going on. Absolutely stunning series so far, Bob.
I think the whole LCC is designed to "suspend " tonality, so as to allow more freedom of movement for improv and soloing, thus, its why it's called modal jazz, 🤔
I think that the b2 retains functional purpose as it can serve as an important compositional option when applied to a final resolution to the tonic. While it is certainly too dissonant for wide use, it can add a nice bit of spice at the end of a tune.
I've been thinking about this quite a bit. To me, it's a question of shifting colors. I conceptualize the center point as the dorian scale, because both tetrachords are "neutral." If that's green, then we deviate up or down (sharps or flats), and that can be visualized as a color shift -- either a blue shift (flats) or a yellow shift (sharps). One sharp (yellow) becomes the mixolydian scale, then orange to major/ionian, then red to the lydian. Adding flats from dorin, you get minor/aeolian (aqua), phrydgian (blue), then the dreaded locrian (purple). But note that you also get to locrian along the yellow, so the next step up from lydian is the locrian modulated up a half tone. Keep adding sharps, you modulate upward, keep adding flats, you modulate downward. But nobody likes locrian, so most music stops at lydian or phrygian. If you start on the tonic, and conceptualize everything flatted except the tonic, then moving up fifths adds a new natural or sharp. Add the fifth for phrygian, then the 2nd for aeolian, then the 6th for dorian, then the 3rd for mixolydian, then the 7th for major/ionian, then the 4th for the lydian. Then the tonic to modulate up to the next locrian. This makes more sense to me, and doesn't make the sharp 9 the floppy-eared runt of the litter.
That's a valid extension of the concept for sure. The Dorian scale is the same when inverted so its a natural resting point. And by reinterpreting the dorian in terms of up or downwards shifts by a 5th of the original LC tonic you get chord scales that you normally wouldn't consider using traditional methods. The only drawback, (and this applies to Bob's exposition also) is a traditional bebop language setting where dissonance tends to get resoved quickly and where the root 1357 chord tones take precedence over subsiduary scale or non scale tones. This still gives the feel of a line too closely tethered to the original harmony as you can hear above. The object of the concept was to free the line from the chord. This is why the concept was most effective when thinking intervallically and with the accompaniment strpped down to just 7ths in the bass and scale tone clusters in the upper register. Or else polychords or modal 4th voicings. Another outgrowth was Miles telling Herbie to leave out the 7th and 3rd altogether and play scale clusters mixed with 4ths. That, and fewer chords, gave players the freedom to stack harmonies and interval sequences on top. With Dolphy and others It got back to a similar feel of gravitating lines around upper srtucture chord tones like 9, 11, and 13 the way Parker did, only by different means and with more emphasis on sustained dissonance. Check out Dolphy and Herbie on "Softly as in a Morning Sunrise", or any of the 1963/4 repetoire in Miles's second quintet.
Far out: A term of high approbation in the swing era was "out of this world," in the bop era it was "gone," and today it is "the greatest" or "the end." Similarly, a daring performance was "hot," then "cool," and now is "far out." - Time, 8 Nov. 1954. The Lydian Chromatic Concept of Tonal Organization was written by George Russell in 1953. Does the term originate from the far out "out going" improvisations based on this?
6 дней назад
I think Jacob Collier have the real solution for #15 , is the authentic Lydian evolution colour ... My ear is completely agree with that
Thanks for this. If this can't be explained, forget about Popperian falsifiability, right? The point is that all here pertains to an old world of science - something more like contemplation (..not analytic systematics!). Thanks again. Peace.
4:15 I would recommend checking out Paul Hindemith's book "The Craft of Musical Composition" if you haven't. The first pages discuss construction of the chromatic scale from the overtone series and combination tones. I haven't properly compared it with george russell's lydian chromatic scale construction, but there seem to be similarities in their ideas.
Yes, similar, especially in the determination of the root of intervals and chords. Also in the way that the intervals nearer the root determine the underlying tonality. Hindemith probably went further in determining the overall dissonance level of a given vertical chord structure by grading the dissonance of every interval it contains. Where Russell is better is assigning more than one possible tonal centre for any chord in ascending order of tension. This opens up more possibilities for melodic independence from the chord tones and also allowing the graded stacking of harmonies or lines from more than one tonal centre
Even setting aside the issue of the sharp 1 / flat 2, lydian augmented feels like a weird fit since you are discarding the first / strongest fifth in the order of tonal gravity. (nvm, I see that it is just one choice of many replacements) I also can't think of a principled reason why you would prefer to swap the Eb for the E in Lydian Diminished rather tthan a D# for D. Both of these give you modes of the harmonic minor if you want to justify the choice that way. Similarly for other principal scales, it's not clear why to choose which enharmonic pair. I'm trying to be open-minded but this feels more like george russell's musical hot take rather than anything with genuine explanatory power
Swapping Eb for E yields the harmonic MAJOR scale. Swapping D# for D yields the harmonic minor scale. My take on the choices for the principle scales is that each, save for the last (most outgoing), preserves the Lydian II chord (traditional V chord).
All very interesting - but I still fail to see how this theory adds anything to the language of jazz, vis a vis it was played prior to his theory, using various chord substitutions, like tritone, etc.. The improvisation examples you gave are all within the scope of conventional substitutions. In other words, I see it more as a different perspective on musical organization - which adds very little to the way jazz is played in practice - except in the very important case of purely modal music a la Kind of Blue
Am I understanding the terms inbound and outbound correctly? I take it that inbound means that the pool of notes you're using is going to resolve back to the tonic they're based on... You're drawing from a pool of notes that wants to resolve to a new place
There's an old post on the lydianchromaticconcept.com message board that goes into detail why that author deems it necessary to move the C# to the end of the order of tonal gravity. In summary, The C# creates two competing Lydian tonics and is therefore the most disruptive interval. www.lydianchromaticconcept.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=3133#p3133
Great! I think that one explanation for #15 (C#) is that because C# it's a sharpened root and that's why it can't be the next note before F#. Also, C# is the "Lydian" note of G. So then scale is more G LC-scale than C LC-scale. And when it is in Aux blues scale (half-whole dim) it is Db not a C#.
I think this is a very good explanation. George Russell mixes sharps and flats in the order, but once we get past the #11, if we think of it as #5, #2, #6, #3, and #1, it makes total sense we would skip the C#/Db. I’ll do more on this in ep. 6.
@@RidgewoodSchoolofMusic I also think that it would perhaps be more logical to primarily flatten the notes, i.e. b6, b3, b7, b(#4) = 4, b2. If we flatten the note, we first get the Lydian Harmonic Major scale (according to Ian Ring) and after that the Aeloian Harmonic, which is the same as E Harmonic minor. After this Lydian Dominant and Major Scale and finally Lydian b2. So these are only of course 7-tone scales. And I can well understand why George Russell has chosen sharps (for some) of the scales. Scales chosen by Russell are somewhat closer to western (and also jazz) harmony than the first ones and last one.
Couldn't you apply the same logic to all the other extensions too? You could just say G# is a sharpened 5th and has the same problem. Or that G# is the Lydian note of D. What's actually different about the #15 that makes it break the order?
@@Ambidextroid If I understood your question correctly, what I was trying to say is that C# is a raised fundamental. And fundamental is tone which all other tones are originally (hence the Lydian scale) built through the fifth-fourth relationship. Db is different because it is flattened two. But these are just my thoughts. ;)
I always disagreed with the #1 or #15 being more outgoing than the #5, #9, #6, and 4. As long as the interval between the root and the #1, is greater than a minor9th, the dissonance isn’t as noticeable, especially when you put it above the #11, which stabilizes it. I use Dmaj7/Cmaj7 polychord voicings to access this level of brightness
Interesting! With the right voicing you can make anything work, but do you still hear the #1 being more ingoing than the #5 as a part of a scale or voiced lower in the chord? Put in other modes it would be, for example, a natural 7 (#5) vs a natural 3 (#1) on a minor chord, a #11 (#5) vs a natural 7 (#1) on a dominant 7th, etc.
When learning improvising by jamming over one chord vamps, I knew you could jam over a major triad theoretically--- with either the corresponding Ionian (major scale) OR you could jam on it with lydian. Both "work" but my ears always thought HEY Lydian sounds better than other way (at least when jamming on that single chord). Just like dorian sounds best to my ears over a one minor triad jam. This seems to do a good job explaining the math of WHY lydian sounds better. very cool.
I've only been playing for a little less than a year. So I'm completely lost. I only worry about my chops and just making beautiful songs. But I'm still here trying to understand. I surprised myself when I learned how to read music, and even more when I became pretty good. Starting at 39 years old is tough cuz of life. But I feel in love with the sound and progression of talent in my trumpet. Thank you for your teachings
I appreciate you, your videos, and tackling this topic. Thank you! I do want to share that after watching all four videos in this series (so far), I find I'm not sure what the value of it is. Can't any chord go to any chord, regardless of the theoretical explanation or "justification"? Note: I am not against music theory. I'm a bit of a theory nerd, which I why I've been watching these videos. My thoughts probably indicate that I don't truly understand the material. I will plan on watching videos 3 and 4 again. Thanks for your effort and enthusiastic presentation!
Had the ‘scales’ falling from my both eyes! So we are traveling from one lydian parent scale to another in a song. Thank you so much and expect your next video, Bob!
Question; Is there something interesting to be said about “symmetrical” structures like an Augmented triad where the notes are all equidistant from each other? Is each note theoretically equally tonicized since they all have identical overtone relationships? Does the tonal gravity have implications for why those symmetrical structures have so much tension and “dominant” qualities? Is a diminished 7 chord a tonal singularity? Should I be worried about creating a tonal black hole if I play too much wholtone stuff?
So far this is the best explanation of the Lydian theory I've ever seen , and in fact the only one that's made much sense. But what I'm wondering about and have never found anything about is how does this apply to soloing in modal tunes? I get how it can be used to understand classic harmony and how it could make more sense of modern tunes like Wayne Shorter etc. But isn't it supposed to be useful over modal harmony - if so how? How does it apply to So What?
I haven't really heard about any usefulness over modal harmony. Since modal harmony tends to be diatonic to the mode you are in. The most I could say is that if Major-Minor are reciprocal relatives, then Lydian-Dorian share the exact same relative relationship. Therefore So What is using "the more harmonious minor" of the Lydian mode.
Modal jazz is poorly named, it is explicitly built on George Russell's Lydian Chromatic Concept and has nothing to do with cycling through Western modes. This has made the language convoluted as someone playing modally (utilizing the LCC) and someone recentering the tonic center around the relative modes are doing two different things.
@@CassWhistles-le6sf So I have 2 response now. The first says LCC isn't useful over modal harmony , and yours saying that LCC is only for modal harmony. Wish I had a response from Bob . However as I've always heard that LCC had a lot to do with the development of modal jazz and Kind of Blue I'll stick with you. However that said, what are the practical implications for playing modal tunes..,. i.e. what's the point? Just saying play Lydian F over a Dm7 doesn't seem a whole lot more valuable than thinking Dorian D unless it opens more possibilities. How to think about that is what I'd like to hear more about . Does it just mean I can utilize Russell's other more "outside" scales over that Dm7 vamp and then resolve back to the chord tones? If so i do that anyway `without specifically referencing Russell's scales , though that does offer options. Hopefully that's coming next . So far though this stuff has helped me make sense of some Cedar Walton tunes like Bolivia and especially Fantasy in D ( AKA Ugetsu).
I'm don't know if I'm understanding the superposition stuff at all. In all these cases, we have two chordmodes highlighted, but it's not clear what do do about the notes that are not common to both. In the C major example (10:30) we have F and C highlighted when you play the C major scale (~ F lydian), presumably because you are playing a C chord (implying C lydian), okay fine, but what precisely is the status of the F / F#. But why Bb and C highlighted in the sixth chord case? (11: 40) Where is the mixolydian sound that you call out coming from? Surely a C6 chord comes naturally from the sequence of fifths C G (D) E A, hence C lydian. Now there is nothing in a C6 which contradicts, so to speak, a mixolydian sound, so you could play mixolydian melodies over a C6 chord, hmm okay, but that seems like a vocabulary/stylistic thing which is compatible with, but not entailed by the lydian framework. Then at (12:15), we start with the pentatonic of Eb lydian (Eb F G Bb C), then because the C minor pentatonic is the same notes, you can play a C minor pentatonic over a Eb, but over a C major chord, which implies a lydian, you would be clashing with the Eb, F and Bb, so to speak. I'm not even going to ask about the ones after that. Frankly, I don't see what this framework is explaining.
I'm imagining that it is a case of much more modulation theory. What I mean is, when we see F Major chord to C Major chord, we have been taught to think of that as IV to I, or F Lydian to C Major, all contained within one key center. But I think this approach views chords more as isolationist to themselves (essentially if a #4 sounds more "harmonious" on a Major triad, then it will no matter what "function" you think that Major triad is serving. The very idea of "function" is a symptom of common practice Tonal Harmony (Major/Minor), and it seems may be being discarded with.) You may be familiar with Chord-Scale Theory? This sort of does the same thing, but often sticks to the diatonic approach so if you see G-F-C, you think G Mixo, F Lydian, C Major. But it seems this approach says, no, they are all separate unrelated Major triads so we will think G Lydian, F Lydian, C Lydian. Not sure if I'm truly correct about this, but it's just what I've gleaned from this video and other studied sources. You may have heard something like "jazzers use Dorian on any minor chord they like"? We tend to think that's cause they are always assuming ii-Vs, but maybe it's also because, if Lydian is the primordial major scale, then its minor relative, Dorian, is the primordial minor scale,
12:31 the pentatonic version of Eb lydian is the same as the pentatonic version of Eb major... so, pigeonholing this into lydian chromatic, it feels like a backronym, to me. I agree with all of your practical examples... and sometimes the theoretical framework has been enlightening... but many times the theoretical pigeonholing feels like an unnecessary complication. The example at the timestamp, are the blues musicians borrowing from Eb lydian? No, not in their own minds. If you're in C, playing blues, you're more involved with the F rather than the F#... and when you borrow, you're borrowing from Eb or Bb or Ab, but it's not major or lydian, but from those tonal centers. I understand that to Russell, those "tonal centers" imply lydian, and he and you have shown why you believe that... but the situation on the ground is different - it's a more practical decision. You're not deciding between Eb major, lydian, pentatonic, or Ab lydian vs major, etc... It's more like, which notes provide the right feel, in the moment, for that song. If I'm playing a C blues, and I use a Db note... there are many possible theoretical explanations... and you can try and figure out which mode or scale I was borrowing from, based on the context notes, what else I played around it... but then if you asked me, I might say, "I was borrowing from C minor, and at that point, I wanted to go even more minor than minor" or some other such nonsense, "vut then some optimism poked thru, with a natural E slipping back in." And someone could analyze and say, oh you were borrowing from phrygian dominant... and someone else could say what the parent lydian scale for that could be, and how many spots around the circle of 5ths that is. Whereas in my mind, it was a musical reflection of an internal struggle between selfishness and compassion, or, the urge to help somebody up versus to steal his wallet while he's down. Nevertheless, challenging theoretical videos, such as this, do seem to help me to discover new (to me) practical musical options. IOW, despite all those words, I'm enjoying these vids and will continue to watch the forthcoming ones, and I have learned from them so far. I want to make that clear, since I've offered a little bit of pushback as well, and that could come off as me having a problem with them, and I don't. I think I'm having issues with some of Russell's contentions, rather than with your presentation of them. Plus, I'm open to the possibilty that I might be wrong about that. I'm not an expert, just a hobbyist keyboards player. Which, P.S. - I know I took a trumpeter's handle... At the time, I thought he was overshadowed by other greats in the jazz zeitgeist, but I'll probably change names before too long. I'll keep the same flower pic for continuity, if I do that. Keep up the good work, and the potentially challenging videos (other commenters seem to be handling the information in the vids with more acceptance, but challenging for me, at least).
14:30 I'm glad you (and Russell) showed this "more minor than minor" aspect as being another spot flatwards along the circle of 5ths... I really do appreciate this theory and set of videos, as a different way to view what's going on. My comment seems smug, but this timestamp made me smile - similar musical results but with a different "show your work" journey. Maybe I'll end up taking to this theoretical framework. Though, if we really wanted to reflect the harmonic series, 12tet would have to be tossed out with the bathwater. Lydian is CLOSER to that than major, I'll admit that on the record.🤣 Again, thanks for the vids. I don't want that appreciation to get lost in these comments.
