George Russell Book
Min7b5
.MAtt Butler
"Min7b5" <min...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20011031160915...@mb-cp.aol.com...
> now available.....
>
> www.georgerussell.com
Michael Fitzgerald
<ms...@spambellsouth.net> wrote:
>$125!!!!
I ordered it without hesitation and am eagerly awaiting its imminent
arrival.
Mike
.MAtt Butler
"Michael Fitzgerald" <fitz...@eclipse.net> wrote in message
news:q0e1utkhv6hrdvk7k...@4ax.com...
Michael Fitzgerald
$125 is a lot of money, sure. But let's look at what you're getting -
It's now 268 pages - the previous version was around 100.
Back in 1994 (last time I find it in the Aebersold catalog), the old
version was going for $39.95. If we simply multiply the greater size
by the old price it comes out to $107.
Plus any inflation in 7 years, plus the fact that you're now getting a
hardcover, cloth-bound book, printed on acid-free paper. The old one
wasn't nearly that durable.
Oh - and remember that this is completely revised. Personally, I think
it's a bargain.
Now, if you'd like to settle for less, I believe Jamey Aebersold still
includes that free "Jazz Aids" handbook with orders from his company.
Plenty of sound advice in it. Also lists a bunch of scales among other
things. I leave the decision and any value judgment up to you.
Mike
Robby
will contain much beyond the original LCC. Also curious what peoples'
impressions are over time of how much the essential information in the LCC
book could be distilled/ compressed into a much smaller space. I'm also
curious what documentation/quotes back up the claims it was a major
influence on'Trane, Miles & Bill Evans. I'd be more than happy to have my
skepticism on all of this turned around however. But my limited reading of
the LCC book seemed to be summarized by the exposition of a few scales from
a Lydian (#4) perspective, maybe some sense that transpositions of those
scales could be ordered into a hierarchy of dissonance- which may have been
based on the circle of 5ths, i'm not sure. I should go look at the book in
the library or a store again. I don't mean to sound negative or harsh. The
implications of those few principles (major, melodic minor, diminished,
whole tone related to chords & graded by consonance) are temendous. I'm just
wondering if the new version of the book gives any practical methodical way
of exploring those principles, or if it's listing lots of scales &
'permutations', which may or may not be necessary to communicating the
approach.. For $125, it would be nice to know.
Brian Wood
to digest the material. I really want it, but $125 seems steep. However,
if it's worth it, I have no problem spending it.
Brian Wood
"Robby" <rob...@UNSPAMjavanet.com> wrote in message
news:9rqsn4$a39$1...@bob.news.rcn.net...
Dan Adler
> now available.....
>
> www.georgerussell.com
Just $125 + shipping to totally screw up your head. Great deal.
thomas
> min...@aol.com (Min7b5) wrote in message news:<20011031160915...@mb-cp.aol.com>...
> > now available.....
> >
> > www.georgerussell.com
>
> Just $125 + shipping to totally screw up your head. Great deal.
The whole "scales over chords" approach to improvising has really
wasted the time of a lot of learning jazz musicians, and led to
endless hours of unlistenable solos. George Russell is the worst
thing that ever happened to jazz pedagogy.
Travis Harrell
In the spirit of friendly discourse, two questions:
What is your definition of "scales over chords" and why is it so bad?
What is Geo. Russell's Lydian Chromatic Concept and why is it so bad?
(Note: I do have his old book and didn't get it for some reason so
someone please enlighten me)
Thanks,
Travis
Michael Fitzgerald
>wasted the time of a lot of learning jazz musicians, and led to
>endless hours of unlistenable solos. George Russell is the worst
>thing that ever happened to jazz pedagogy.
Considering that most of the people who bash Russell haven't seriously
studied the LCC with a qualified teacher, I wonder about these blanket
judgments - and associations.
There's only twelve notes.
Mike
Bob Russell
> The whole "scales over chords" approach to improvising has really
> wasted the time of a lot of learning jazz musicians, and led to
> endless hours of unlistenable solos. George Russell is the worst
> thing that ever happened to jazz pedagogy.
"Jazz pedagogy" is the worst thing that ever happened to jazz!
-- Bob Russell
http://www.uncwil.edu/people/russellr
Dan Adler
> $125 is a lot of money, sure. But let's look at what you're getting -
>
Michael,
In the previous version, the centerfold was not in color and did not
fit on my gym locker door, do you know if they fixed that for this
version?
I hear he's also marketing a Lydian Chromatic Piano (LCP). It looks
and feels the same as a regular piano, has the white and black keys in
the same place, but instead of the white keys being C major, they are
now redefined as F Lydian. The piano is made of lactose-free wood and
costs double because it's so much easier to play and has so many more
tonal possibilities.
Operators are standing by.
Bob Russell
LOL! "How much would you pay? $150? $200? But wait - there's more! Each copy
of the Lydian Chromatic Concept comes with a FREE emotion removal kit. Get
those unsightly 'soul stains' completely out of your solos at NO extra
charge..."
Howard Klepper
[Ya ya, I know there's more to it. no flames please}
Bob Russell
> Kinda pricey for the advice that you can sharp the 4th.
>
> [Ya ya, I know there's more to it. no flames please}
>
One word for ya, Howard: Nomex. :)
thomas
> thomas wrote:
>
> > The whole "scales over chords" approach to improvising has really
> > wasted the time of a lot of learning jazz musicians, and led to
> > endless hours of unlistenable solos. George Russell is the worst
> > thing that ever happened to jazz pedagogy.
>
> "Jazz pedagogy" is the worst thing that ever happened to jazz!
Jazz pedagogy and scales over chords are pretty much intertwined.
Howard Klepper
Bob Russell
> Nomex??? Huh?
>
Flame-retardant material. Race car drivers tend to wear Nomex suits. Thought
you might find it handy if you encounter any irate pedagogues.
Randy Graves
Tom Lippincott
>
>Jazz pedagogy and scales over chords are pretty much intertwined
so then we have people like Dizzy Gillespie and Charlie Parker to blame I
guess; or go even farther back and we can blame those pedantic no talents like
Debussy, Ravel, Stravinsky, ect.
Tom Lippincott
Guitarist, Composer, Teacher
audio samples, articles, CD's at:
http://www.tomlippincott.com
Nazodesu
Fitzgerald <fitz...@eclipse.net> wrote:
> On 1 Nov 2001 18:44:55 -0800, tomb...@jhu.edu (thomas) wrote:
> >The whole "scales over chords" approach to improvising has really
> >wasted the time of a lot of learning jazz musicians, and led to
> >endless hours of unlistenable solos. George Russell is the worst
> >thing that ever happened to jazz pedagogy.
>
> Considering that most of the people who bash Russell haven't seriously
> studied the LCC with a qualified teacher, I wonder about these blanket
> judgments - and associations.
>
> There's only twelve notes.
I don't know how many "qualified" LCC teachers there are but I was
studying guitar with an excellent teacher and studied LCC on my own for
over a year. A rare time in my exuberant youth when I was actually
putting in from 4 to 8 hours of practice and play a day.
I got bupkis from my efforts (in my estimation) and wasted time I could
have put towards something more useful I think. Certainly it made me
think harder about the scale-tone relationships as they relate to the
chord and/or key of the moment. This would have had value had I been
mauling melodic minors rather than some of the less useful scales of
LCC. So it had some value, but it could have been much more functional
value.
My view morphed into one held my many players, that whatever chord
function and key you are in should dictate your perspective of the
scale tones you are using; naming such a scale and cataloging it and
being able to rack out technical excercises in that scale are not so
important. You bend the scale as you need it, rather than *overlaying*
a fixed scale during the right sliver of time.
My view of course. If you, or others, got to a good aesthetic stance
in your music via LCC or any other methodology, that's all that's
really important. Overall though, I think LCC, for beginner to
'advancing' players is more inclined to make unnecessarily complex the
relations between chords/keys/scales.
--
I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and
the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative
lifestyle, the ACLU, People for the American Way, all of them who have tried
to secularize America; I point the finger in their face and say, "You helped
this happen."
-- Jerry Falwell, referring to the World Trade Center Tragedy.
Nazodesu
Lippincott <tomli...@aol.comnospam> wrote:
> >Jazz pedagogy and scales over chords are pretty much intertwined
>
> so then we have people like Dizzy Gillespie and Charlie Parker to blame I
> guess; or go even farther back and we can blame those pedantic no talents like
> Debussy, Ravel, Stravinsky, etc.
Those BASTARDS!
--
In heaven an angel is nobody in particular.
-- George Bernard Shaw
Max Leggett
>Lippincott <tomli...@aol.comnospam> wrote:
>
>> >Jazz pedagogy and scales over chords are pretty much intertwined
>>
>> so then we have people like Dizzy Gillespie and Charlie Parker to blame I
>> guess; or go even farther back and we can blame those pedantic no talents like
>> Debussy, Ravel, Stravinsky, etc.
>
>Those BASTARDS!
Foreigners. Need we say moire?
Tom Lippincott
>>> guess; or go even farther back and we can blame those pedantic no talents
>like
>>> Debussy, Ravel, Stravinsky, etc.
>>
>>Those BASTARDS!
>
>Foreigners. Need we say moire?
LOL (and I don't use that very often)
Bob Russell
Yeah. And how about Stravinsky's time? Man, it sucked! Have you heard that
"Rite of Spring" thing? Every time you turn around, he's dropping beats,
adding beats. Scales on chords, my ass; buy a freakin' metronome, Eye-gor!
Nazodesu
<bobrus...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Yeah. And how about Stravinsky's time? Man, it sucked! Have you heard that
> "Rite of Spring" thing? Every time you turn around, he's dropping beats,
> adding beats. Scales on chords, my ass; buy a freakin' metronome, Eye-gor!
Jeez, yeah! For chrissake if you can't swing, and you KNOW it, go get
funding for an orchestra...
--
Your work is to discover your work and then with all your heart to give
yourself to it.
-- The Buddha
Michael Fitzgerald
The book arrived today.
I have only glanced through, but will present some of my initial
observations -
There are several jazz solos trasncribed and analyzed including those
of Miles, Coltrane, Dolphy, Mobley, Hawkins, and Galbraith, also
compositions by Lee Konitz, Ran Blake, even Hoagy Carmichael's "Star
Dust" - and quite a bit of classical stuff - Bach, Ravel, and Debussy
(the Alban Berg violin concerto analsysis is gone, though). There are
also new melodies written on the changes of "All the Things You Are"
and "Autumn Leaves" designed as examples for analysis and as models
for composition exercises.
For those who are familiar with the previous version, things like the
River Trip analogy are still in there, but the accompanying commentary
has been rewritten and even the graphic is slightly different.
Coltrane now travels in an airplane rather than a rocket ship. Where
this was a 1961 addendum to the LCC, it is now integrated into the
body of the work. I think that Russell has integrated history into the
text more in this version. He has had plenty of time to reflect on the
1950's and put it in perspective. The time he has been on the faculty
of New England Conservatory has also been used wisely. This new
edition seems much more thought-out and the text is more
"user-friendly" than the previous one. Still *very* deep, though.
I note that the number of principal scales has increased from six to
seven, with the addition of "Lydian Flat Seventh." Since this is a
mode of the already-present Lydian Augmented, there seems to be a
difference in function. I believe it relates to the idea that the I
chord of this Lydian Flat Seventh scale is *not* a dominant, but a
major chord with a flat seventh. Makes sense as jazz sees 1,3,5,b7
chords as non-dominants all the time in the blues. You don't expect
that good old blues in F to end then resolve to B-flat major. The F7
is a I, not a V.
The new book is beautifully typeset and engraved. No more typewriter
and hand-written examples. It's much cleaner and clearer. There is no
slide rule with this new version, but I never used the other one
anyway. I just memorized the relationships from the chart - which is
included and is more legible.
There seem to be more acronyms tossed about in this version (I thought
PMG was Pat Metheny Group and AMG was All-Music Guide, not Primary
Modal Genre and Alternate Modal Genre). When I studied the LCC with
Ted Dunbar, we never spoke of ingoing and outgoing and all that stuff.
It's my opinion that too many people get hung up on those terms and in
the "odd names" for scales, etc. That's why I think it's more
productive to study the LCC with a teacher, as opposed to just
borrowing the book and expecting to grasp everything.
I found one editing error (Bill Grauer, not Graham was co-founder of
Riverside Records) - and I was surprised to see that this went to
press late enough to mention the *late* Milt Gabler (died 7/20/2001).
Incredible tangent - just noticed in the acknowledgments that Dave
Guard funded the second edition of the LCC in 1959 - recognize that
name? Founder of the Kingston Trio. Interesting.
This is Volume 1 of 2 and is titled "The Art and Science of Tonal
Gravity." It is "focused entirely on the Level of Vertical Tonal
Gravity." Russell promises Volume 2 that will deal with "the Levels of
Horizontal Tonal Gravity and Supra-Vertical Tonal Gravity". I look
forward to it.
I get the impression from my quick survey that Russell is working at
presenting the LCC as a perspective from which to view music (and not
just jazz). I don't think it's the *only* perspective, but I think
that there is a great deal of worth in looking at things his way
sometimes.
BTW, my copy came with a nice handwritten note from Russell. He's a
very perceptive guy.
Mike
thomas
> >> "Jazz pedagogy" is the worst thing that ever happened to jazz!
> >
> >Jazz pedagogy and scales over chords are pretty much intertwined
>
> so then we have people like Dizzy Gillespie and Charlie Parker to blame I
> guess; or go even farther back and we can blame those pedantic no talents like
> Debussy, Ravel, Stravinsky, ect.
What do any of those guys have to do with modern jazz pedagogy? The
notion that you learn jazz by applying scale patterns to chords was--
AFAIK--introduced by George Russell, and has infected jazz teaching
ever since. I am quite certain that Dizzy and Bird did not learn to
play that way. You can't hear it in their early recordings.
Michael Fitzgerald
>What do any of those guys have to do with modern jazz pedagogy? The
>notion that you learn jazz by applying scale patterns to chords was--
>AFAIK--introduced by George Russell, and has infected jazz teaching
>ever since. I am quite certain that Dizzy and Bird did not learn to
>play that way. You can't hear it in their early recordings.
Do you really believe that the Lydian Chromatic Concept teaches you
jazz?
Do you really believe that the big names that get thrown around when
the subject of the LCC comes up learned jazz from George Russell?
I kind of think that those people (and in fact, most people who
seriously study the LCC) already knew how to play jazz.
I don't think the point of the book is that "you learn jazz by
applying scale patterns to chords."
It does not seem at all like a beginner book. This is something for
investigating new ideas, not for getting to the point of being able to
play over changes or anything like that.
Others have applied elements taken from the LCC and tried to teach
beginners that way. Maybe those are the people you need to address.
If you don't like the Egg McMuffin, don't complain about Lemuel
Benedict.
Mike
Robby
you give updates on what it presents as you delve into it? What are the
principles/ concepts being used? Hearing that another mode of melodic minor
is given attention doesn't sound especially groundbreaking. To someone
willing to explore major, melodic minor, whole tone, diminished, hexatonic,
harmonic minor, & harmonic major scales & their modes & their 3rds & 4ths
based chords & the relationships of various transpositions among them, does
this book offer any thing new in terms of insight, organizing principle or
techniques? Does he look at chords of non-triadic/ quartal form, e.g., CFGB
or CEFG etc.? Any specifics eagerly awaited.
Tom Lippincott
>What do any of those guys have to do with modern jazz pedagogy? The
>notion that you learn jazz by applying scale patterns to chords was--
>AFAIK--introduced by George Russell, and has infected jazz teaching
>ever since. I am quite certain that Dizzy and Bird did not learn to
>play that way. You can't hear it in their early recordings.
I've been through two college jazz programs and have never heard it suggested
or implied that one can "learn to play jazz by applying scale patterns to
chords." Learning jazz harmony is part of learning to play jazz, and any tonal
harmonic system is based on scales; there's no way around it unless you abandon
tonality and the equal tempered 12 tone system altogether. The bebop pioneers
like Dizzy and Bird were some of the first in jazz to use some of the scales
that the late romantic and early twentieth century composers had made use of in
their work; things like the whole tone, ascending melodic minor, and
symmetrical diminished scales. Dizzy, in particular, was known at the time for
his astute understanding of harmony, and supposedly he encouraged many younger
players at the time to learn the piano so that they could more readily
understand the sets of notes (i.e., scales) involved in the harmonies bebop was
built from. The music of Dizzy, Bird, Monk, Bud Powell and others of that era
are what "jazz pedagogy" is entirely based upon. Are there lots of bad to
mediocre players who have come out of jazz education programs? Of course there
are. Not everyone is going to be a Bird or a Miles Davis, that's just a fact
of life. I don't think it's George Russell's fault, and I certainly don't
think it's the scales' fault.
RalphPatt
< I've been through two college jazz programs and have never heard it suggested
or implied that one can "learn to play jazz by applying scale patterns to
chords." Learning jazz harmony is part of learning to play jazz, and any
tonal harmonic system is based on scales; there's no way around it unless you
abandon tonality and the equal tempered 12 tone system altogether. The bebop
pioneers like Dizzy and Bird were some of the first in jazz to use some of the
scales
that the late romantic and early twentieth century composers had made use of
in their work; things like the whole tone, ascending melodic minor, and
symmetrical diminished scales. Dizzy, in particular, was known at the time
for his astute understanding of harmony, and supposedly he encouraged many
younger players at the time to learn the piano so that they could more readily
understand the sets of notes (i.e., scales) involved in the harmonies bebop
was built from. The music of Dizzy, Bird, Monk, Bud Powell and others of that
era are what "jazz pedagogy" is entirely based upon. Are there lots of bad to
mediocre players who have come out of jazz education programs? Of course
there are. Not everyone is going to be a Bird or a Miles Davis, that's just a
fact
of life. I don't think it's George Russell's fault, and I certainly don't
think it's the scales' fault.>
Very well put Tom!
Ralph Patt
Michael Fitzgerald
wrote:
>What are the
>principles/ concepts being used? Hearing that another mode of melodic minor
>is given attention doesn't sound especially groundbreaking. To someone
>willing to explore major, melodic minor, whole tone, diminished, hexatonic,
>harmonic minor, & harmonic major scales & their modes & their 3rds & 4ths
>based chords & the relationships of various transpositions among them, does
>this book offer any thing new in terms of insight, organizing principle or
>techniques? Does he look at chords of non-triadic/ quartal form, e.g., CFGB
>or CEFG etc.? Any specifics eagerly awaited.
Russell builds the chords he shows in triads, but as far as I am
concerned has always allowed for the formation of chords in lots of
interval structures taken from the parent scales. Quartal, tertian,
whatever.
Are you familiar with the earlier edition of the LCC book? The
principles are the same. The key is in the organizing principle, not
that it's a mode of the melodic minor or whatever. That's the reason
you don't find melodic minor and instead find Lydian Augmented and
Lydian Flat Seventh.
Mike
Soapy10999
sounds great! My copy is so PRIMITIVE, but I have all the class handouts and
charts.
Bob Russell
> The music of Dizzy, Bird, Monk, Bud Powell and others of that
> era are what "jazz pedagogy" is entirely based upon.
If only that were true...
The *best* of jazz pedagogy is based on those things, I'd agree. There's
also a lot of pseudo-rocket-science foisted upon the innocent by people
whose only 'jazz experience' consists of soaking up pseudo-rocket-science at
some university.
Sometimes it seems to me that people (educators and students alike) seize
upon one facet of the jazz learning process, like "scale/chord
relationships" or "motivic development", then treat that aspect as if it
were the whole process. Playing jazz is much deeper than any of that stuff;
it's all of those kinds of things put together plus some mysterious stuff
that can't be quantified or codified.
Scale/chord relationships aren't good or bad; they just exist, like the
periodic table of elements. The knowledge can be used to create healing
substances as well as nuclear bombs.
Michael Fitzgerald
<bobrus...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>The *best* of jazz pedagogy is based on those things, I'd agree. There's
>also a lot of pseudo-rocket-science foisted upon the innocent by people
>whose only 'jazz experience' consists of soaking up pseudo-rocket-science at
>some university.
So you're saying that there are good and bad teachers. No surprise
there.
That's quite different from your earlier blanket statement that "jazz
pedagogy is the worst thing that ever happened to jazz."
Seems like a lot of the attacks on the Lydian Chromatic Concept here
are really about bad teachers or people who have borrowed elements and
applied them poorly. I have yet to see someone address the reality of
the Concept.
Mike
Robby
"Michael Fitzgerald" wrote > Seems like a lot of the attacks on the Lydian
Chromatic Concept here
> are really about bad teachers or people who have borrowed elements and
> applied them poorly. I have yet to see someone address the reality of
> the Concept.
am unclear on what its 'Concept' is. Are you talking about considering
scales w/ sharped fourths as more primary that those w/ those w/ natural
fourths? Or is there some specific way of organizing scale types or
different transposition levels by consonance/ dissonance? What is the
'reality of the concept' in your understanding? Thanks again.
Michael Fitzgerald
wrote:
>I no longer own a copy of LCC, the one I had was many years ago. Honestly, I
>am unclear on what its 'Concept' is. Are you talking about considering
>scales w/ sharped fourths as more primary that those w/ those w/ natural
>fourths? Or is there some specific way of organizing scale types or
>different transposition levels by consonance/ dissonance? What is the
>'reality of the concept' in your understanding? Thanks again.
I think that the *organization* of the primary scales is an important
part of the concept. I think the chords that are built on the various
degrees of each of these scales is an important concept. The
gradations of color and dissonance are important parts. The LCC
investigates this thoroughly.
Those are pretty fundamental elements that no one has brought up. The
LCC is not about "the fact that scales can be associated with chords"
- plenty of people have borrowed that and missed the point - it's
about how those chords/scales (now called chordmodes) are approached.
And yes, the basic unifying element of the LCC is the tritone.
Mike
Joey Goldstein
to break new ground. The first C in LCC stands for "chronatic". The LCC is a system for introducing
varied degrees of, more or less logical sounding, chromaticism into a jazz melody line.
The LCC details most of the regular chord-scale relationships that we all have learned via other
means but it also goes beyond that and hints at both a horizontal and a vertical technique for
taking things "out" but with an organizing priciple. People looking to the LCC as a way to get
started with jazz improv via the study of chord scales should look elsewhere first IMO. The Chord
Scale Theory And Jazz Harmony by Nettles and Graf is a better starting point. The LCC is for people
who already know how to play and are looking for new and uncommon sounds.
--
Joey Goldstein
Guitarist/Jazz Recording Artist/Teacher
Home Page: http://www.joeygoldstein.com
Email: <joegold AT sympatico DOT ca>
Joey Goldstein
Joey Goldstein wrote:
>
> The first C in LCC stands for "chronatic".
Danm dislexslia.
Bob Russell
> So you're saying that there are good and bad teachers. No surprise
> there.
>
> That's quite different from your earlier blanket statement that "jazz
> pedagogy is the worst thing that ever happened to jazz."
If by "jazz pedagogy" we simply mean "the teaching of jazz", who could
object? Anyone who shows a kid the changes to Cherokee could be considered
to be engaging in an act of "jazz pedagogy", I suppose.
I have personally encountered quite a few famous "jazz pedagogues" who have
stellar reputations - among pedagogues. When they start playing (which
they're generally careful to avoid except in a gathering of pedagogues),
that's another matter. This makes me somewhat leery of the term. Sorry.
> Seems like a lot of the attacks on the Lydian Chromatic Concept here
> are really about bad teachers or people who have borrowed elements and
> applied them poorly. I have yet to see someone address the reality of
> the Concept.
Except for an earlier joke, I haven't really attacked the LCC. (If I had,
you'd know.) I'm personally unaware of any great jazz player who claims
indebtedness to the LCC, but that could be just a gap in my own knowledge.
thomas
> On 3 Nov 2001 17:11:43 -0800, tomb...@jhu.edu (thomas) wrote:
> >What do any of those guys have to do with modern jazz pedagogy? The
> >notion that you learn jazz by applying scale patterns to chords was--
> >AFAIK--introduced by George Russell, and has infected jazz teaching
> >ever since. I am quite certain that Dizzy and Bird did not learn to
> >play that way. You can't hear it in their early recordings.
>
> Do you really believe that the Lydian Chromatic Concept teaches you
> jazz?
Not very good jazz, IMO. But this approach is used to teach
jazz. Dave Baker uses it in his intro to improv courses.
> Do you really believe that the big names that get thrown around when
> the subject of the LCC comes up learned jazz from George Russell?
No, that's part of my point. Who worth listening to learned to
play well this way? Although there may be some guys who play well
in spite of learning this way....
> I kind of think that those people (and in fact, most people who
> seriously study the LCC) already knew how to play jazz.
>
> I don't think the point of the book is that "you learn jazz by
> applying scale patterns to chords."
Russell's central point seems to be that jazz solos can be generated by
thinking in terms of scales over chords. This is one way of doing it, but
the folks who work this way usually don't produce a lot of music
that I am interested in hearing more than once.
> It does not seem at all like a beginner book. This is something for
> investigating new ideas, not for getting to the point of being able to
> play over changes or anything like that.
Presumably if you are not a beginner, then you can already hear
what each of the 12 notes sounds like over any given harmony,
and don't need to think about riverboats and scales when employing
chromaticism or polytonality in a solo.
Russell's kind of analysis is interesting as mental architecture, but I
question its utility for generating music that I personally would enjoy
hearing more than once. Same for Slonimsky, etc. Those who use
these methods and do manage to produce good music would probably
do just fine no matter what method they use, IMO. If you have
a creative mind and something interesting to say, you can take
inspiration from nearly anything--even from Russell and Slonimsky.
I prefer to take inspiration from great composers, not theorists.
> Others have applied elements taken from the LCC and tried to teach
> beginners that way. Maybe those are the people you need to address.
Yes, maybe. Do you agree that Russell was the first to prominently
express a theoretical approach to jazz improvisational technique in
terms of scales over chords? My opinion is that this approach to
thinking about improvisation has led to a lot of tedious music,
and sidetracked and slowed down a lot of developing musicians, and
for that Russell takes some blame.
Nazodesu
<nos...@nowhere.net> wrote:
> People looking to the LCC as a
> way to get started with jazz improv via the study of chord scales
> should look elsewhere first IMO.
Agreed. That was what I did, related upstream, and it was time
inappropriately spent.
> The Chord Scale Theory And Jazz
> Harmony by Nettles and Graf is a better starting point. The LCC is
> for people who already know how to play and are looking for new and
> uncommon sounds.
I'm unfamiliar with Nettles and Graf, but think that once a player has
chops enough to handle the conceptual hurdles of LCC that it is too
fundamentally realized. That is, it's like learning to read, and write
and type using the one-size-fits-all typewriter. Then once you've got
serious chops turning to a Dvorak (?) key-placement typer. Yeah, you
could re-invent your view of the world, but who has the flexibility to
pull that off.
One of the reaons I worked so diligently at LCC in the 70's was because
a demi-god or two that I studied with/through, Barry Galbraith and
David Baker respectively, were involved with Russell and I had great
respect for their playing while with him.
I'm not, after oblique discussions with Barry, that he ever had any
interest, involvement or appreciation (good or bad) of LCC. Baker
makes unending references to it in his myriad method books, and I have
always assumed that it formed a basis of his early
thinking/learning/playing.
But who else actually make use of that material and then turned it into
something. I know that such as Coltrane and others can be "viewed" or
"interpreted" in terms of LCC, but I don't think they necessarily made
use of it conceptually. It's a post-analysis.
Eric Dolphy--I know he had some involvement with Russell. Was his
playing, as I believe was the case with Baker, actually a result of the
*USE* of a LCC approach.
If not, then who?
--
Better a bleeding heart than none at all.
Michael Fitzgerald
>Russell's central point seems to be that jazz solos can be generated by
>thinking in terms of scales over chords.
inseparable relationship between chords and scales - so does Barry
Harris.
>Presumably if you are not a beginner, then you can already hear
>what each of the 12 notes sounds like over any given harmony,
>and don't need to think about riverboats and scales when employing
>chromaticism or polytonality in a solo.
Well, I could just tell you that you can play any note over any chord
but that doesn't help you. It's about the *organization* and how you
get to that point.
If you aren't interested in playing or listening to music that pushes
the boundaries of tonality, then don't. You can do a whole lot with
bebop or swing styles. I hear plenty of great players doing that all
the time.
If you feel that you've got all the info you need, then absolutely you
should save your money and not buy the book. I think beginners should
save their money and not buy the book too.
>Do you agree that Russell was the first to prominently
>express a theoretical approach to jazz improvisational technique in
>terms of scales over chords? My opinion is that this approach to
>thinking about improvisation has led to a lot of tedious music,
>and sidetracked and slowed down a lot of developing musicians, and
>for that Russell takes some blame.
I don't know how difficult it was to make the connection between a
major chord and a major scale and go from there (even without the
whole Lydian controversy). I really don't think this just sprang out
of someone's head. It's a pretty basic logical thing. Must go back
centuries. It probably did take a jazz musician who had familiarity
with classical music to develop it, but I think quite a few players
had that capability and made the connection. So they didn't publish
books - does that make the difference?
I don't know. I think we get back into the discussion that brought in
Ravel and Debussy and Stravinsky now if you go blaming the influence.
Should I blame Thomas Edison for the crap on MTV?
Mike
Michael Fitzgerald
>Baker
>makes unending references to it in his myriad method books, and I have
>always assumed that it formed a basis of his early
>thinking/learning/playing.
Baker was playing trombone with Stan Kenton in the mid 1950's. He had
worked with Maynard Ferguson, Wes Montgomery, Lionel Hampton, Harold
Land and others before he became exposed to George Russell and the LCC
at the Lenox School of Jazz (1959).
David could think and play before he met Russell. He was profoundly
influenced by him, certainly.
As for "prove that the LCC was the unquestionable and sole basis of
so-and-so's work" - I don't know if it's possible and I don't know if
it matters. Russell was a well-known figure in the 1950's, he had
contact with a great number of (in my opinion) the most significant
jazz artists. I happen to think that he had some influence on them.
When we're talking about such great artists, I wouldn't want to imply
that they got *everything* from Russell. That's ridiculous. But I
don't think they went away empty-handed. Just my opinion, based on my
experience and research. Your mileage may vary.
Mike
Joey Goldstein
Bob Russell wrote:
>
> Except for an earlier joke, I haven't really attacked the LCC. (If I had,
> you'd know.) I'm personally unaware of any great jazz player who claims
> indebtedness to the LCC, but that could be just a gap in my own knowledge.
I think I've seen Wayne Shorter quoted as feeling in debt to Russell but I could be wrong.
Robby
"Michael Fitzgerald" > wrote:
> I think that the *organization* of the primary scales is an important
> part of the concept. I think the chords that are built on the various
> degrees of each of these scales is an important concept. The
> gradations of color and dissonance are important parts. The LCC
> investigates this thoroughly.
>
$125 book that claims to be a major influence/ breakthrough!
Besides analysis of transcriptions & philosophical prose & historical
information, could you share some of the specific overarching organizing
principles? Maybe I need to find an old copy of LCC & work thru the chart or
slide rule more? But my specific questions are, like, which scales are
primary, how does he classify chord types, & how is the heirarchy of
consonance/ dissonance arranged? Is it more like 1)'over Cmaj 7' C lydian is
more consonant than C Augmented Lydian' or 2) ' over Cmaj7 C lydian is more
consonant than F Lydian which in turn is more consonant than G Lydian (just
an example, not necessarily "true")' -or some combination of the 2
approaches? In other words is the specific gradation of dissonance limited
to different scales on the same root (#1 in previous question) or is it
arranged comparing different transpositions of the same scale (#2).
If LCC is indeed a somewhat coherent system & not just a disparate
collection of observations it should be pretty easy to outline its basics.
Thanks.
PS what's a 'primary modal genre'?
Robby
found a post where you explained some basics about LCC:
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=%22lydian+chromatic%22&hl=en&group=rec.mus
ic.*&rnum=3&selm=00jvnssluu7ip2jgovdcqr92j8nkeh1bna%404ax.com
"
It helped me see how the chord/scales are related in the basics of LCC, but
I guess my question is does Russell go much beyond that foundation, and if
so, in what ways?
Larry Otis
the Lydian Chromatic Concept. It pretty much went right over my head at the time.
Larry
Charlie Robinson
<< Except for an earlier joke, I haven't really attacked the LCC. (If I had,
> > you'd know.) I'm personally unaware of any great jazz player who claims
> > indebtedness to the LCC, but that could be just a gap in my own knowledge.
> I think I've seen Wayne Shorter quoted as feeling in debt to Russell but I
could be wrong.
---------------------------------------------------
Miles, both directly and indirectly through Bill Evans who had done some early
modal experimentation with Russell.
Charlie Robinson Jazz Guitarist, Composer
You can hear me online at: http://www.cdbaby.com/cd/robinsonchazz
or: <A HREF="http://rmmgj.iuma.com">http://rmmgj.iuma.com</A>
Bob Russell
> << Bob Russell wrote:
> << Except for an earlier joke, I haven't really attacked the LCC. (If I had,
> > > you'd know.) I'm personally unaware of any great jazz player who claims
> > > indebtedness to the LCC, but that could be just a gap in my own knowledge.
> ----------------------------------------
> > I think I've seen Wayne Shorter quoted as feeling in debt to Russell but I
> could be wrong.
> << Joey Goldstein >>
> ---------------------------------------------------
> Miles, both directly and indirectly through Bill Evans who had done some early
> modal experimentation with Russell.
>
>
I've seen claims made by other people that Miles was influenced by the LCC, but
I've never read a quote by Miles anywhere which supports that. In his
autobiography, for example, scant mention is made of George Russell and even less
of the LCC ("George Russell said that F ought to be where C is on the piano", or
something to that effect).
-- Bob R.
'Nog
wrote:
>[...]
>
>I've seen claims made by other people that Miles was influenced by the LCC, but
>I've never read a quote by Miles anywhere which supports that. In his
>autobiography, for example, scant mention is made of George Russell and even less
>of the LCC ("George Russell said that F ought to be where C is on the piano", or
>something to that effect).
>
>-- Bob R.
>
Davis no doubt would regard Russell as a "motherfucker."
'Nog
>
Bob Russell
> Davis no doubt would regard Russell as a "motherfucker."
He might. He refers to Ross Russell in the same way, but I don't think he
means the same thing. ;)
Max Leggett
>
>> Davis no doubt would regard Russell as a "motherfucker."
>
>He might. He refers to Ross Russell in the same way, but I don't think he
>means the same thing. ;)
I thought the funniest part of Davis' autobiography was where he
relates asking his father got more allowance at the age of nine.
Miles - "Motherfucker, I got have more allowance."
Father - "Listen, motherfucker, you want more allowance, you got to do
more chores. You work for it, motherfucker."
Miles - That was an important lesson I learned.
IvanDRodriguez
>Father - "Listen, motherfucker, you want more allowance, you got to do
>more chores. You work for it, motherfucker."
>Miles - That was an important lesson I learned.
>
LOL.. had I said that to my dad, my next words would have been said .. without
teeth..:) I haven't read the book in quite a few years. Might as well re-read
that this week, as my guitar playing doesn't seem to be going anywhere
lately...
Ivan
Charlie Robinson
but
>I've never read a quote by Miles anywhere which supports that. In his
>autobiography, for example, scant mention is made of George Russell and even
less
>of the LCC ("George Russell said that F ought to be where C is on the piano",
or
>something to that effect).
>
>-- Bob R.
>
Davis no doubt would regard Russell as a "motherfucker."
'Nog
>
>>
Charlie Robinson Jazz Guitarist, Composer
Charlie Robinson
but
>I've never read a quote by Miles anywhere which supports that. In his
>autobiography, for example, scant mention is made of George Russell and even
less
>of the LCC ("George Russell said that F ought to be where C is on the piano",
or
>something to that effect).
----------------------------------------
Pick up some old Down Beats Miles used to do endorsements for the original
book. There is no doubt about it, Russell was a heavyweight who influenced many
musicians of that period. there is a pretty good argument for him being the
father of modal jazz.
-----------------------------
Charlie Robinson
>autobiography, for example, scant mention is made of George Russell and even
less
>of the LCC ("George Russell said that F ought to be where C is on the piano",
or
>something to that effect).
<< - Bob R. >>
------------------------------------------------
I sent one along these lines but I don't think that it got through. Miles used
to give endorsements for the book in Down Beat. For Russell's side of the story
which coicides with much of the information found in the book on the making of
"Kind of Blue" you can go here:
http://www.georgerussell.com/gr.html
Nazodesu
Robinson <robins...@aol.com> wrote:
> Pick up some old Down Beats Miles used to do endorsements for the
> original book. There is no doubt about it, Russell was a heavyweight
> who influenced many musicians of that period. there is a pretty good
> argument for him being the father of modal jazz.
Yikes! I'd like to hear that argument.
--
Ten years searching in the deep forest. Today great laughter at the edge of the
lake.
-- Soen
Robby
in his head during that conversation? Also, theoretically one's father is
one of the few people one could call an MF & be literal. Not to say I
encourage such disrespect...
Charlie Robinson
> who influenced many musicians of that period. there is a pretty good
> argument for him being the father of modal jazz.
Yikes! I'd like to hear that argument.
>>
Check out the book "Kind of Blue: The Making of the Miles Davis Masterpiece."
Ashely Kahn.
Brian Wood
"motherfuckers" in it than any book in history. Actually, anybody with too
much time on their hands should do this.
Brian Wood
"Max Leggett" <mle...@sprint.ca> wrote in message
news:3be72a9d...@news.sprint.ca...
Max Leggett
>in his head during that conversation? Also, theoretically one's father is
>one of the few people one could call an MF & be literal. Not to say I
>encourage such disrespect...
dentist with a thriving practice, his mother he described as a society
hostess. The Davis family were la creme of East St Louis. They owned a
house in town and a hobby farm out. Miles would have been raised to be
a well spoken middle class boy. All the motherfuckers came later.
The other funny part of Miles' autobiography was when Miles is talking
abiout the mid 70s. He says he spent $500,000 in one year on cocaine.
Then he says he likes coke because it doesn't string you out like
smack.
Thom j.
"Charlie Robinson" <robins...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20011106003149...@mb-cu.aol.com...
Nazodesu
Robinson <robins...@aol.com> wrote:
> Check out the book "Kind of Blue: The Making of the Miles Davis Masterpiece."
> Ashely Kahn.
Rather than go do the research, I thought someone would simply state
the argument. Are you saying that Kind of Blue, which I see as a
critical point in modal playing, is the result of George Russell and
LCC?
--
Honest criticism is hard to take, particularly from a relative, a friend, an
acquaintance or a stranger.
-- Franklin P. Jones
Brian Wood
George Russell's "Jazz Workshop" record came out before "Kind of Blue" Gil
Evans(who we all know was a big influence on Miles and what he recorded)
used to hang with musicians in his loft in NY and exchange ideas. Russell
was working on his LCC at this point. Russell also claims he "discovered"
Bill Evans, using him on that record.
I think it was probably a precursor to "Kind of Blue" Bill Evans was
certainly a big part of "Kind of Blue" Even before "Kind of Blue" with
tunes like "Milestones" Evans had an idea of what the modal concept was,
having worked with George Russell.
Whatever, "Jazz Workshop" is a great record, as is "Kind of Blue." "Jazz
Workshop" also gives you a chance to hear the great Barry Galbraith.
Brian Wood
"Nazodesu" <22...@home.com> wrote in message
news:061120011424102764%22...@home.com...
Charlie Robinson
George Russell's "Jazz Workshop" record came out before "Kind of Blue" Gil
Evans(who we all know was a big influence on Miles and what he recorded)
used to hang with musicians in his loft in NY and exchange ideas. Russell
was working on his LCC at this point. Russell also claims he "discovered"
Bill Evans, using him on that record.
I think it was probably a precursor to "Kind of Blue" Bill Evans was
certainly a big part of "Kind of Blue" Even before "Kind of Blue" with
tunes like "Milestones" Evans had an idea of what the modal concept was,
having worked with George Russell.
Whatever, "Jazz Workshop" is a great record, as is "Kind of Blue." "Jazz
Workshop" also gives you a chance to hear the great Barry Galbraith.
Brian Wood
That covers most of it but it is also good to remember that Miles had also been
getting together with Russell and had a handle on a lot of his ideas. There is
also the question of how much of "Kind of Blue" was Miles or Evans and if it
was mostly Evans how much of that came from the experiments with Russell. One
thing that is sure is that Russell was a highly respected member of that circle
of musicians in New York who at the time were on the cutting edge of the music.
If you go to his website you will see an astonishing array of credits which
give you a feel for how highly his contributions to the music have been
regarded.
---------------------------------
Charlie Robinson
Nazodesu
Wood <brianwo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> The argument is this: Not saying I neccesarily agree, but here it is:
> George Russell's "Jazz Workshop" record came out before "Kind of Blue" Gil
> Evans(who we all know was a big influence on Miles and what he recorded)
> used to hang with musicians in his loft in NY and exchange ideas. Russell
> was working on his LCC at this point. Russell also claims he "discovered"
> Bill Evans, using him on that record.
>
> I think it was probably a precursor to "Kind of Blue" Bill Evans was
> certainly a big part of "Kind of Blue" Even before "Kind of Blue" with
> tunes like "Milestones" Evans had an idea of what the modal concept was,
> having worked with George Russell.
>
> Whatever, "Jazz Workshop" is a great record, as is "Kind of Blue." "Jazz
> Workshop" also gives you a chance to hear the great Barry Galbraith.
I'm proud to say I studied with Barry. And a large part of my reason
of moving to NYC to study with him was because of my intense passion
about getting with LCC. Barry provided no clues, nor much interest
frankly, but he did turn me around and wise me to learning how to play
the guitar instead.
I can see the argument, but it almost sounds like something the CDC
would come up with for how modal spread, not from where it emanated.
Clearly, modal playing had been around for a long while, but used in
the context of Kind of Blue was special. Evans and Davis and others
were important to that. I guess what I haven't heard in the argument
is that Russell himself spawned this approach. Certainly he was around
and among the players/composers at that time, but so were countless
others.
--
It will be a great day when our schools get all the money they need and the Air
Force has to hold a bake sale to buy a bomber.
Charlie Robinson
is that Russell himself spawned this approach. Certainly he was around
and among the players/composers at that time, but so were countless
others.
>>
The fact that he received the "Mac Arthur Foundation Award","The National
Endowment For the Arts Jazz Master Award", etc. seems indicate that he was
someone who was doing more than hanging out with the right people at the right
time. Whatever your feelings about the inception of modal jazz it is hard to
deny that his concepts had a major influence on 70's players like Jaco,
Metheny and others too numerous to mention.
Tom Walls
guys who were major popularizers of this approach to the music. I
haven't spent ten minutes on the LCC and have very little exposure to
Russell's music -- although what I've heard, I've dug -- and I have no
axe to grind, but I think Russell is often credited -- probably correctly
-- with being the dude who set the ball in motion.
--
Tom Walls
the guy at the Temple of Zeus
http://www.arts.cornell.edu/zeus/
Nazodesu
Robinson <robins...@aol.com> wrote:
> The fact that he received the "Mac Arthur Foundation Award","The National
> Endowment For the Arts Jazz Master Award", etc. seems indicate that he was
> someone who was doing more than hanging out with the right people at the right
> time. Whatever your feelings about the inception of modal jazz it is hard to
> deny that his concepts had a major influence on 70's players like Jaco,
> Metheny and others too numerous to mention.
It's neither for me to deny nor it nor champion it. I've personally
heard testamonials from Dave Baker and precious few others (seems like
I remember something about Dolphy as I mention upstream) regarding how
they were *personally* influenced by his methods.
I would have to say that *I* was influenced (in both good and bad ways,
I suppose) by grappling with his approach. I was also influenced by
some actual dead-ends in my explorations--they were still useful
experiences despite the fact that I had to reject them in some large
sense.
You've clearly got your viewpoint, and you're welcome to it. I don't
have any reason to disregard or embrace it either one. I would point
out that the grants and awards he's rec'd over the years weren't
accorded because he was the "father of modal jazz".
I'm not saying that they haven't given him praise and honor every time
they've opened their mouths, but I personally haven't heard Jaco or
Matheny mention that Russell was a major influence on their musical
approach. Are you surmising this, or have you actually read something
of this kind.
--
Plants and animals disappear to make room for your fat ass.
Nazodesu
Walls <tw...@REMOVEcornell.edu> wrote:
> FWIW my sense of the history is that Russell was a big influence on these
> guys who were major popularizers of this approach to the music. I
> haven't spent ten minutes on the LCC and have very little exposure to
> Russell's music -- although what I've heard, I've dug -- and I have no
> axe to grind, but I think Russell is often credited -- probably correctly
> -- with being the dude who set the ball in motion.
Well okay. This it's news to me that some consensus of folks even know
Russell's name, much less heard his work. New York, New York certainly
had an effect on me in the early 70's on it's reissue. As I say, it
was enough of an experience that I worked on the LCC myself and moved
to NYC to study it.
--
When the missionaries came to Africa they had the Bible and we had the land.
They said, "Let us pray." We closed our eyes. When we opened them we had the
Bible and they had the land.
-- Bishop Desmond Tutu
Charlie Robinson
-------------------------------------
I think that Tom Walls has expressed it better than I could. For me it is
strange that his contributions are now being questioned.
--------------------------------
Robby
jazz, w/ long durations on a single chord as compared to the LCC, which has
ideas that could be applied in 'non-modal' settings as well. They are not
the same thing, & Russell's influence w/ one is not necessarily the same as
his inluence w/the other. This thread has seemed to muddle these into one
idea. Does Russell's composition/ arranging & recorded output particularly
reflect modal tendencies? The little i've heard of it was rather complex
arrangements & harmonies, far from my usual idea of 'modal' a la Miles.
Tom Walls
says...
the vertical representation of the chord of the moment, or a
compositional device wherein a static harmony is applied for some
duration, neither of which is typical of traditional modal music. Both of
these concepts were drawn from the exploration of harmony associated with
bebop. As Nazodesu has pointed out there were a lot of musicians working
these ideas and comparing notes, but it seems to me Russell(along with
Gil Evans) is often identified as a primary source for the contribution
of modal ideas.
Alice Russell
free to 'talk about me when I'm gone," but having been married to
George Russell for 25 years, I wish to offer a few facts for you to do
with as you wish. The new book is a total reconstruction of
traditional music theory, and can be applied to all equal tempered
music. It is not for beginners, or for those simply wishing to add a
few new chords to their repertoire. It is not a jazz theory; it is a
theory which comes from a musician known primarily as a jazz artist.
It refutes the "do's" and "don'ts" of traditional theory and offers a
different way to analyse and compose. The cost is based on a number of
considerations: the length of time spent in its development--50 years
(and I'm not talking the odd few hours on the weekend) during which
George put ever one of this ideas to the test,attempting to disprove
them; the level of expertise requred to produce such a work; the
sacrifice and expense which we have put into the project over the
years, and the value of the information to those who receive it. An
hour with a master teacher in major cities is 100 dollars, minimum. A
ticket to a Broadway show for a few housr entertainment is often more
than a hunded dollars. Dinner in a fine restauarant? We feel very
comfortable with our pricing; the book is completely unique and will
give the reader many years of study, and, we hope, insights and
breakthroughs in his/her own music.
Lastly, George has been widely embraced by the rest of the world for
his contributions. You can visit the website, georgerussell.com to see
the many writings about him and the value of his work. We will, again,
be Orchestra in residence at the Umbria Festival next year., and have
been working all over the rest of the world for decades. Along with
other honors, he was elected a Foreign Member of the Royal Swedish
Academy, which includes Ellington, Rostopovich and Stockhausen. I was
there the night Miles threw his arms around him and said to his then
wife, Cicely, "this is the motherfucker who taught me how to write."
(See Making of Kind of Blue" by Eric Niseneson.) It's lamentable, but
not surprising, that his work has been so marginalized in America. If
you're interested in the facts, you can check out the site. If you are
not, that's cool, too.If you have serious questions, you can email me.
This is not an effort to sell a book. That will take care of itself.
There are many people around the world who have been waiting for it,
and it was never our intent to sell large numbers. It's just that when
a comment is made that the Concept "removes emotion" from music, it's
hard to remain silent. Check out his Cubano Be/Cubano Bop from 1947,
or The African Game on Blue Note to see veracity of that statement .
In music,
Alice Russell
Martin Porto
fingers, you'll have a really BIG job ahead.
The book is a masterpiece of George's own insights, as any music book should
in fact be.
But you know what ? (I'm sure you do) in music it's so easy to write a book
when you have NO CLUE about what you're writing..., today anybody have a
book!, articles, videos etc... mostly about the same shit, musical lies
basically.
I hate to quote this guy but you know... "The bigger the lie the most people
gonna believe it"
Fortunately, between so much shit there're still books that didn't lost the
subjet, such as your husband's book.
cheers
Martin Porto
"Alice Russell" <LydCo...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1682f262.01111...@posting.google.com...
Bob Russell
> It's just that when
> a comment is made that the Concept "removes emotion" from music, it's
> hard to remain silent.
I think I made the comment to which you are referring. Of course, "concepts"
don't do anything in and of themselves; their applications (or
misapplications) do. My comment was intended humorously and was based on
abuses of the LCC which I have personally witnessed. George Russell is
obviously not responsible for the ways in which musicians choose to use or
misuse his theory, and I apologize if I offended you.
-- Bob Russell
http://www.uncwil.edu/people/russellr
'Nog
wrote:
I was
>there the night Miles threw his arms around [George Russell] and said to his then
>wife, Cicely, "this is the motherfucker who taught me how to write."
>Alice Russell
I was right!
'Nog
Bob Russell
>> I was
>> there the night Miles threw his arms around [George Russell] and said to his
>> then
>> wife, Cicely, "this is the motherfucker who taught me how to write."
>
>> Alice Russell
>
> I was right!
>
> 'Nog
How 'bout that? :) [remembering your earlier post]
Nazodesu
the principals and related to the product proper, but what the hell...
In article <1682f262.01111...@posting.google.com>, Alice
Russell <LydCo...@aol.com> wrote:
> I don't frequent chat rooms, and I won't be back to this one, so feel
> free to 'talk about me when I'm gone,"
This must be true, as this is not a "chat room" but a newsgroup. The
chat rooms are the kind that are real-time typing. There, absolutely
no discussions take place regardless of any one's presence.
> but having been married to George Russell for 25 years, I wish to
> offer a few facts for you to do with as you wish. The new book is a
> total reconstruction of traditional music theory, and can be applied
> to all equal tempered music. It is not for beginners, or for those
> simply wishing to add a few new chords to their repertoire. It is not
> a jazz theory; it is a theory which comes from a musician known
> primarily as a jazz artist. It refutes the "do's" and "don'ts" of
> traditional theory and offers a different way to analyse and compose.
> The cost is based on a number of considerations: the length of time
> spent in its development--50 years (and I'm not talking the odd few
> hours on the weekend) during which George put ever one of this ideas
> to the test,attempting to disprove them; the level of expertise
> requred to produce such a work; the sacrifice and expense which we
> have put into the project over the years, and the value of the
> information to those who receive it. An hour with a master teacher in
> major cities is 100 dollars, minimum. A ticket to a Broadway show for
> a few housr entertainment is often more than a hunded dollars. Dinner
> in a fine restauarant? We feel very comfortable with our pricing; the
> book is completely unique and will give the reader many years of
> study, and, we hope, insights and breakthroughs in his/her own music.
Okay then, it's appropriately priced. Prices for most books by major
publishers have skyrocketed over the past 15-20 years, so I see no
reason to think it shouldn't be priced even more than it is. But I
don't really care one way or the other because I don't think I need a
highly evolved "counter" method to traditional music composition.
My personal complaint, as worded upstream is that the CLC is not
something a novice or advancing guitarist should concern himself with,
and instead should address absorbing the operation of "average" scales
and chords as they are and have been used in all popular musics and
jazz for a few centuries. That is, learn the major scales, arpeggios,
chords and chords with altered partials in all keys. Get really good
at that first.
At this point in a student's life I'm not sure that the CLC does
anything but muddy the already dense water of a student's intellectual
environment. I'm not sure if you or anyone else here has any
significant disagreement with that. Mostly the quibbling is about
whether Russell's contributions are evidenced in any specific player of
note, whether the books cost too much, whether he is rightly the
"father" of jazz, and what Miles said and when.
> Lastly, George has been widely embraced by the rest of the world for
> his contributions. You can visit the website, georgerussell.com to
> see the many writings about him and the value of his work. We will,
> again, be Orchestra in residence at the Umbria Festival next year.,
> and have been working all over the rest of the world for decades.
> Along with other honors, he was elected a Foreign Member of the Royal
> Swedish Academy, which includes Ellington, Rostopovich and
> Stockhausen.
Even without these citations I think his contributions are significant,
but don't think that Stockhausen was widely embraced, and consider
Russell similiarly; so that's good company I guess. I've never thought
that universal acceptance, whether in European or in UnitedStatesian
culture was any kind of mark of quality, accomplishment or anything
else, so that's not a negative statement.
> I was there the night Miles threw his arms around him and said to his
> then wife, Cicely, "this is the motherfucker who taught me how to
> write." (See Making of Kind of Blue" by Eric Niseneson.) It's
> lamentable, but not surprising, that his work has been so
> marginalized in America.
I think that Russell, as indicated in the anecdote above, is noteworthy
specificialy in the world of jazz. I think that Jazz has been
marginalized in America, and continues to be. Russell, it seems, has
made a living in this business, which is more than can be said of some
of our more lauded practitioners in American Jazz.
> If you're interested in the facts, you can check out the site. If you
> are not, that's cool, too.If you have serious questions, you can
> email me. This is not an effort to sell a book. That will take care
> of itself. There are many people around the world who have been
> waiting for it, and it was never our intent to sell large numbers.
> It's just that when a comment is made that the Concept "removes
> emotion" from music, it's hard to remain silent.
I didn't read that comment, but would disagree that it removes emotion.
It is true, though, that the more you are thinking about the mechanism
the less you can contribute to emotion. This is true of any
methodology, and particularly of a new or difficult for to the player.
I think that's one of the reasons why the application of such
approaches can strip some of the emotion out of a player's approach--he
or she is involved with the absorption and application of a method. If
the method has been integrated, whatever approach it might constitute,
this should not be case.
> Check out his Cubano Be/Cubano Bop from 1947, or The African Game on
> Blue Note to see veracity of that statement.
> In music,
> Alice Russell
--
I don't have any respect for the Religious Right. There is no place in this
country for practicing religion in politics.
-- Barry Goldwater
Joshua Dougherty
> > An hour with a master teacher in
> > major cities is 100 dollars, minimum. A ticket to a Broadway show for
> > a few housr entertainment is often more than a hunded dollars. Dinner
> > in a fine restauarant?
...and the minimum wage is about $5.
> > We feel very comfortable with our pricing; the
> > book is completely unique and will give the reader many years of
> > study, and, we hope, insights and breakthroughs in his/her own music.
true. The problem is that the going rate for books is well below your price
tag, and
any author could argue that their book is important, unique, they've worked on
it their whole life...etc. I received all the e-mails in the many months
leading up
to the book's release (curiously no mention of price in any of them) and was
awaitinging the immenent release. I was shocked when I saw the price tag, and
i think it's a shame because if it was in the range
I had expected, I would have purchased the book immediately. Now i'm not sure
if I ever will. That's a huge hit to the old wallet to drop on a book. ...any
plans for release in paperback? :)
>
> Okay then, it's appropriately priced.
"appropriate" is a tricky word. Of course any creator of a product *can*
charge whatever the hell they like.
However, what is "appropriate" or not is determined by a compromise between
what the creator thinks and what each
consumer considering purchase thinks. I understand the strategy. They removed
this book from circulation a long time ago,
so that there's no other way to get it. There's a lot of buzz and lore about
the book in the jazz community, so demand is tweeked. They tell
everyone that it's going to be out...soon to be released...etc. for years, and
then when the demand is peaked, and there has been no supply for so long, you
build as much hype as you can. Then you open the door and ...bam, huge price
tag. Take it or leave it.
Personally, I don't really know that it's the best strategy from any
perspective. I'm not sure they wouldn't make more by charging a little less
and thereby selling more units.
I think the price tag is a tough nut to make for a lot of people and will be a
deterrant for many.
I don't know. I understand their reasons, but I don't know if I agree with
them. I think everyone concerned could
have made out better...author and customers alike.
> Prices for most books by major
> publishers have skyrocketed over the past 15-20 years, so I see no
> reason to think it shouldn't be priced even more than it is.
Maybe I don't buy enough new books, but I don't know of ones that come out at
$150 price tag.
Josh
--
Posted from [204.143.171.114]
via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
Michael Fitzgerald
<jbd...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>They removed this book from circulation a long time ago,
>so that there's no other way to get it. There's a lot of buzz and lore about
>the book in the jazz community, so demand is tweeked. They tell
>everyone that it's going to be out...soon to be released...etc. for years, and
>then when the demand is peaked, and there has been no supply for so long, you
>build as much hype as you can. Then you open the door and ...bam, huge price
>tag. Take it or leave it.
Nearly 3 full years ago - back in 1999 - I was reporting on the
Internet that the new book was going to cost $150. It was no secret
that they sprang on the unsuspecting public when the book was
published. I probably got the information from the George Russell
website. Here's the post from this very newsgroup:
-----------------
On Mon, 18 Jan 1999 09:18:16 +0100, "Guido Zuccaro"
<gui...@prometeia.it> wrote:
>I'm looking for informations about: "The lydian chromatic concept of jazz
>jmprovisation" of George Russel. I can't find it in my city (Bologna,
>Italy). I must require it to a bbok store, but I need the publisher.
Currently out of print. A new version is rumored but as yet
unpublished. I'm told the new book will cost a whopping $150, but I
will probably purchase it anyway. This concept is so influential it's
worth it to see what GR has developed since the 1950's.
Mike
----------------
As it turned out, it's not $150. It's $125 - bam, huge price drop.
>Personally, I don't really know that it's the best strategy from any
>perspective. I'm not sure they wouldn't make more by charging a little less
>and thereby selling more units.
What's the parallel to an armchair quarterback or a backseat driver -
an armchair CFO? When you write your book, you are welcome to price it
any way you like.
>I think the price tag is a tough nut to make for a lot of people and will be a
>deterrant for many.
Oh well - you save your pennies and buy it, or you don't. That's yer
economics for ya. Take it or leave it, as you put it so well.
It seems I am still the only person here who has bought the book. I'd
love to hear from someone else to get another perspective. Right now
it's getting to be too much like the blind men and the elephant.
Mike
thomas
>
> FWIW my sense of the history is that Russell was a big influence on these
> guys who were major popularizers of this approach to the music. I
> haven't spent ten minutes on the LCC and have very little exposure to
> Russell's music -- although what I've heard, I've dug -- and I have no
> axe to grind, but I think Russell is often credited -- probably correctly
> -- with being the dude who set the ball in motion.
Yeah, no one had ever jammed on one chord before Russell came along.
Joshua Dougherty
news:u9k0vtgl7eb8ub8dt...@4ax.com...
> Nearly 3 full years ago - back in 1999 - I was reporting on the
> Internet that the new book was going to cost $150. It was no secret
> that they sprang on the unsuspecting public when the book was
> published. I probably got the information from the George Russell
> website. Here's the post from this very newsgroup:
Ok Mike, but I did not see your post, nor see any reference to the price in the
e-mail
notifications leading up to the book's release. I was fully prepared to buy
the book
as soon as it hit, but I was shocked when I saw how much. The price may have
been common
knowledge before it came out, but I never heard it, nor did many of the others
here apparently.
> >Personally, I don't really know that it's the best strategy from any
> >perspective. I'm not sure they wouldn't make more by charging a little less
> >and thereby selling more units.
>
> What's the parallel to an armchair quarterback or a backseat driver -
> an armchair CFO?
Who cares? The armchair quarterback isn't a player in the game. This is a
consumer offering a
simple opinion on the price of a product that has been offered to him for sale.
Commerce is a two-way street.
The quarterback can play the game without his armchair counterpart and so can
the driver drive. The
seller can do nothing without the customers, and neither can the customers do
anything without a seller. Both
sides have some say in the game.
> When you write your book, you are welcome to price it
> any way you like.
Absolutely. I said this in my first post:
"Of course any creator of a product *can* charge whatever the hell they like."
Likewise, when I choose to price it any way I like, then my prospective
customers would be welcome
to discuss their opinions (pro or con) of my choice in any way they like.
> >I think the price tag is a tough nut to make for a lot of people and will be a
> >deterrant for many.
>
> Oh well - you save your pennies
...that is quite a few "pennies" there.
> and buy it, or you don't. That's yer
> economics for ya. Take it or leave it, as you put it so well.
As of right now, I'm leaving it...as well as sharing my reasons. At a later
date, I
might decide to take it.
> It seems I am still the only person here who has bought the book. I'd
> love to hear from someone else to get another perspective. Right now
> it's getting to be too much like the blind men and the elephant.
I only have a general idea of what the book actually contains, how it presents
it, what kind
of things i'm going to get out of it, and how much i'd use the concepts. I
guess I'm
just not $125 sure that it's something I have to have. That's all. It may be
totally worth it and more, or it might not. I'm not ready to bet that much on
a maybe right now.
Josh
--
Posted from ac8611b4.ipt.aol.com [172.134.17.180]
thomas
>
> and it was never our intent to sell large numbers.
I think the price pretty much guarantees you'll realized that goal.
thomas
> Russell <LydCo...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > It's
> > lamentable, but not surprising, that his work has been so
> > marginalized in America.
>
> I think that Russell, as indicated in the anecdote above, is noteworthy
> specificialy in the world of jazz. I think that Jazz has been
> marginalized in America, and continues to be.
Being "marginalized" implies active discrimination on the part of
some unspecified power. The more apt description is that few people
are interested in certain corners of the art world, and you
marginalize yourself by insisting on dwelling where there is not much
audience. It doesn't take a brain surgeon to figure this out. Jazz
musicians are in no way comparable to an oppressed minority. No one is
marginalizing you, and your market value
doesn't inflate because Miles called you a motherfucker and then you
spent 50 years in a room revising a book. It's just that there's not
much audience these days for music theory with no proven real world
utility, amazingly enough.
Michael Fitzgerald
wrote:
>I've seen claims made by other people that Miles was influenced by the LCC, but
>I've never read a quote by Miles anywhere which supports that. In his
>autobiography, for example, scant mention is made of George Russell and even less
>of the LCC ("George Russell said that F ought to be where C is on the piano", or
>something to that effect).
Here's a quote, take it as you will -
"You know, you can play chords on every note in the scale. Some people
don't realize that. People like Bill [Evans], Gil Evans, and George
Russell know what can be done, what the possibilities are."
This is from The Jazz Review, 1958. Miles is putting George Russell
alongside Bill and Gil Evans.
Later in the same article, he says:
"Then we got to talking about letting the melodies and scales carry
the tune. J.J. [Johnson] told me, 'I'm not going to write any more
chords.' And look at George Russell. His writing is mostly scales.
After all, you can feel the changes."
The Lydian Chromatic Concept is not mentioned, but as far as I am
concerned, that's the essence of George Russell's writing. It doesn't
need to be named.
Mike
Nazodesu
<8695a28cd06481240ea...@mygate.mailgate.org>, Joshua
Dougherty <jbd...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > Prices for most books by major
> > publishers have skyrocketed over the past 15-20 years, so I see no
> > reason to think it shouldn't be priced even more than it is.
>
> Maybe I don't buy enough new books, but I don't know of ones that come out at
> $150 price tag.
You need to look then, at highly specific academic volumes that are
published only by extremely small publishing companies. Think text
books. Some of the text books--even by major publishers--are priced at
staggering rates.
--
The secret of managing is to keep the guys who hate you away from the guys who
are undecided.
-- Casey Stengel
Nazodesu
<tomb...@jhu.edu> wrote:
> Nazodesu <22...@home.com> wrote in message
> news:<121120010919190458%22...@home.com>... > In article
> <1682f262.01111...@posting.google.com>, Alice > Russell
> <LydCo...@aol.com> wrote:
> >
> > > It's lamentable, but not surprising, that his work has been so
> > > marginalized in America.
> >
> > I think that Russell, as indicated in the anecdote above, is
> > noteworthy specificialy in the world of jazz. I think that Jazz has
> > been marginalized in America, and continues to be.
>
> Being "marginalized" implies active discrimination on the part of
> some unspecified power.
Okay, since we're down to some kind of semiotic etymology, I think that
American music is marginalized by those "market forces" that don't
consider a return of 50-150% on their investment a valuable enough
return. They prefer 2000% or more--hey! that's just good ol' fashioned
capitalism and nobody can blame you for making a buck, etc. etc. etc.
> The more apt description is that few people are interested in certain
> corners of the art world, and you marginalize yourself by insisting
> on dwelling where there is not much audience. It doesn't take a brain
> surgeon to figure this out.
Are you saying then that everybody like Russell ought to be writing
books that sell to bigger audiences? Maybe, a book on how to play
music that will get you laid or perhaps a pop-psychology
book--something altogether irrelevant to music? After all it would
sell to more people in theory.
> Jazz musicians are in no way comparable to an oppressed minority. No
> one is marginalizing you, and your market value doesn't inflate
> because Miles called you a motherfucker and then you spent 50 years
> in a room revising a book.
I'm not sure when you changed subjects. I think you're using
"marginalized" as a political bludgeon the way some folk do the word
"victim". If you get screwed by a company you are only "letting
yourself be victimized" if you think about it, or sue them or cry or
something.
Russell's music is undoubtedly marginalized because it is theoretically
only marketable to a small audience. Of course that could easily have
been said about Elvis, the Beatles, and anybody else. Somebody had to
market the music to a larger audience, and sometimes it stuck. Record
companies don't want to invest in anything that isn't a guaranteed
return, and of a particular pre-determined profitability.
Anybody that doesn't make their semi-arbitrary financial cut doesn't
get to be the kind of art that is exhibited. They stand between an
artist and the audience.
"Oppressed minority" is another political bludgeon. To the extent I've
described it musicians are financially oppressed in that they are
afforded meager opportunities for others to market their art; it is
predominantly closed system of radio/records/distribution et al.
Additionally they are certainly a minority of the population. It has
nothing to do with the topic to my knowledge but yes, they are a
oppressed minority.
> It's just that there's not much audience these days for music theory
> with no proven real world utility, amazingly enough.
Statistically you can't know this until you attempt to market the
product to all the groups that could potentially purchase it. And
publishing companies won't do that.
Additionally if Russell's music had been better marketed in the past 30
years (while his music was marginalized) I feel quite sure his books
would be better marketed and have a greater potential audience at this
time.
In the meantime, your opinion is as good as anybody elses.
--
Feminism encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children,
practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism and become lesbians.
-- Pat Robertson - 1992 GOP Convention
Nazodesu
Fitzgerald <fitz...@eclipse.net> wrote:
> Here's a quote, take it as you will -
>
> "You know, you can play chords on every note in the scale. Some
> people don't realize that. People like Bill [Evans], Gil Evans, and
> George Russell know what can be done, what the possibilities are."
>
> This is from The Jazz Review, 1958. Miles is putting George Russell
> alongside Bill and Gil Evans.
>
> Later in the same article, he says:
>
> "Then we got to talking about letting the melodies and scales carry
> the tune. J.J. [Johnson] told me, 'I'm not going to write any more
> chords.' And look at George Russell. His writing is mostly scales.
> After all, you can feel the changes."
>
> The Lydian Chromatic Concept is not mentioned, but as far as I am
> concerned, that's the essence of George Russell's writing. It doesn't
> need to be named.
I assume that's from a book on/about Miles? That's Miles speaking?
That's hardly an endorsement or embrace of LCC, Russell or anything
else. It's a matter of fact statement of general concepts.
I'd like to hear of noted players, besides Dave Baker, that stated
specifically that they were influenced as an artist by the CLC. I know
of none. I know there are a lot of noted players that are AWARE of it,
or that may have read it or pondered it. I'm just curious of any that
explictly have stated their use of it.
Seems Dolphy did, but I have no quotes.
Michael Fitzgerald
>I'd like to hear of noted players, besides Dave Baker, that stated
>specifically that they were influenced as an artist by the CLC. I know
>of none. I know there are a lot of noted players that are AWARE of it,
>or that may have read it or pondered it. I'm just curious of any that
>explictly have stated their use of it.
Do you consider guitarist Jerome Harris to be "noted"? He wrote this
back at the end of 1995 on rec.music.bluenote
>as one who took George's first-year undergrad class
>at New England Conservatory years ago and was affected deeply *and*
>frustrated a bit by it, I think that the new edition may be a real
>valuable piece of work. My personal take: go with the old one if you
>can find it, but you may find the revised edition (whenever it actually
>appears) to be a better articulation of a very deep musical vision.
But in the end, it's my opinion that looking for someone else (however
"noted") to validate anything is b.s. Get some firsthand experience
and make your own decision. Which is something that very few people
seem willing to do.
Mike
Robby
"Michael Fitzgerald" <fitz...@eclipse.net> wrote > It seems I am still the
only person here who has bought the book. I'd
> love to hear from someone else to get another perspective. Right now
> it's getting to be too much like the blind men and the elephant.
>
endorsements by people like Pat Metheny who READ it. Similar with Hal
Crook's 'How to Improvise'. What I hoped to elicit with previous posts/
questions was some reasonable level of detail about what the book's approach
is. Like what's a primary modal genre & it's permutations? Where does it go
that the 1st LCC didn't? Where did the 1st LCC go, in your opinion (in terms
of what it really said & implied)? I asked some very specific questions,
along these lines: For a musician who understands basic modern jazz (in a
broad sense- as a language for discussing harmony/ melody, not a 'style')
theory, scales (with their modes & extracted chords) including major,
melodic minor, harmonic minor, 'harmonic major' (Russell's lydian diminished
I think), whole-tone, diminished octatonic, & augmented hexatonic, as well
as the general idea of polytonality based on exploring combinations of
these, what novel kernel of an idea or specific classification/ explication/
explanation of these elements does the book explore? All I've really heard
so far on this are endorsements of how influential Russell's broader work
has been, nothing much if at all pointing to the CONTENT of the new edition-
just pointers back to the old LCC. Could you please summarize some of the
principles or methods the book introduces or develops? Thanks again. Robby
Roiter
PS I'm reasonably familiar with modern classical pitch class set theory ( to
the point of having a paper I wrote cited in Perspectives of New Music in
the 1980's) as well as general jazz theory so please feel free to talk
technically if useful.
Nazodesu
Fitzgerald <fitz...@eclipse.net> wrote:
> But in the end, it's my opinion that looking for someone else
> (however "noted") to validate anything is b.s.
It was just a point of curiosity. I think what every you're curious
about is b.s. That was fun.
> Get some firsthand experience and make your own decision. Which is
> something that very few people seem willing to do.
A year and a half of firsthand experience is enough for me. As I've
said repeatedly. Do you read these posts?
Michael Fitzgerald
>A year and a half of firsthand experience is enough for me. As I've
>said repeatedly. Do you read these posts?
I was speaking about the new book.
Mike
Tom Walls
tomb...@jhu.edu says...
the mid 50s. And to be fair(you do want to be fair, don't you?) you must
admit that there has been much more use of the modal concept in jazz than
just jamming on one chord.
Tom Walls
> In article
> <8695a28cd06481240ea...@mygate.mailgate.org>, Joshua
> Dougherty <jbd...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Prices for most books by major
> > > publishers have skyrocketed over the past 15-20 years, so I see no
> > > reason to think it shouldn't be priced even more than it is.
> >
> > Maybe I don't buy enough new books, but I don't know of ones that come out at
> > $150 price tag.
>
> You need to look then, at highly specific academic volumes that are
> published only by extremely small publishing companies. Think text
> books. Some of the text books--even by major publishers--are priced at
> staggering rates.
>
>
cook books, technology, etc. A book of heavy thinking about the esoteric
elements of music theory is never going to be aimed at a general
audience. Surely this thought must occur to everyone who considers the
subject for more than a minute.
Jonathan Byrd
>
> true. The problem is that the going rate for books is well below your price
> tag
I'm not so sure. Ask a grad student in science or engineering or
medicine what he or she spent on books last semester. And those books
are often obsolete within a half dozen years.
--
Jonathan Byrd Computer Software Engineering Technology
j...@isu.edu Idaho State University
(208) 282-4256 Pocatello, Idaho USA