Lydian tonicization in rock

[jancivil]

This is the most interesting paper I've read. Brett Clement, Ball State. Alumni of Cinc. Conservatory.
He argues that while the common practice tonal, all established tonal theory really, has always considered Lydian as useless for tonality - owing to the ^4, preventing a regular V7, so V - I is not it really - doesn't apply quite as one might assume (and which has been argued, at times strenuously) to the rock idiom. His chief argument is the Lydian II to I is in a way stronger.

So this is controversial going in. Yous may not agree.
I personally believe, and this is foundational for my thinking, that Lydian is the (more) fundamental scale than Major or Ionian. I'll tell you why: the scale form is {uniquely} built from a stack of perfect fifths, F C G D A E B. This is the idea George Russell sets out from; he says "The major scale
resolves to its tonic chord. The Lydian scale is the sound of its tonic chord."

A big factor in Clement's thesis is the consonant, or you may like non-dissonant <co-existence of II and I at the same time>. I guess he is getting this from Zappa; a paper on one of Zappa's fundamental praxis being essentially Lydian precedes this paper by some years. (This would open up a whole 'nother can of worms, strictly from modal, so outside the scope here.)

But here he is focusing on leading tones! But say B to C is resolving in the II-I "progression".* I'm putting quotes around that as, while it kind of moves, ie., tonicizes I well enough, it has at the same time that Lydian stasis.
(*: Herein lies the basic controversy, it defies a lot of the extant thinking.)

Me, I have not really thought about Lydian harmony, I'm happy with its static quality. I like the climate of it, explicated herein by <peaceful co-existence of its essentially dominant harmony and its tonic>. "The ascending fifths of the Lydian scale [] contrast with the characteristic descending fifths of major-scale tonality; this difference is reflected in the way that Lydian progressions are often generated upward from the tonic, whereas major-scale progressions generally fall in the direction of the tonic. Finally, the Lydian scale is easily experienced by listeners as a single unified sound..." (emphasis mine)

But this is an area that as far as I know has not been touched. To me this is exciting.

https://www.academia.edu/18771625/Modal ... card=title

[FranklyFlawless]

Lydian chords are sometimes used in jazz as a resolution, usually as a sharp 11th.

[jancivil]

Well, I should say this about that. If that's about the so-called Lydian Dominant [et al] from a certain kind of jazz theory, the #4 of a dominant 7th is in fact the #1 - or practically sure to work as b2 - of the tonic, eg., F#/Gb in key of F. (Confer the b5 substitute dominant, eg., Gb "C" Bb "E".)
IE., Outside the scope of this, which deals in "Lydian scale" in the direct or literal meaning; the #4 as per the tonic, full stop.

Thanks for a reply.

[NKF]

The “major scale resolves to its tonic chord” as part of the premise madeq me chuckle.

“Major resolves to ….”
“Modal sounds like tonal ….”

sigh

I’m sure Rick could milk a video from it. This is about his wheel house.

anyways , thanks for sharing

[jancivil]

Well, if you grasp his meaning at all you'll have less of a chuckleheaded Dunning-Kruger outlook.
"{you may like} non-dissonant <co-existence of II and I at the same time>." but no, your wheelhouse (one word btfw) appears more the cherry-picking whatever gets you to the snarky dismissal the quickest.

If the I harmony can resolve to II and II may equally resolve to I, the point there is clear.
NB: this difference is reflected in the way that Lydian progressions are often generated upward from the tonic, whereas major-scale progressions generally fall in the direction of the tonic.
I'd recommend reading to see what can be gained from it.

And evidently you missed where the focus is on Lydian as a scale (it's in the name of the article ). It isn't about modal. I was clear about that bit, albeit Clement needing me is a laugh as he writes for his money essentially (the point here was, for the interested, read Clement, he does something arguably novel here).
("This would open up a whole 'nother can of worms, strictly from modal, so outside the scope here.")

Hey I wonder if I can monetize a channel like Rick Beato anyway.

[jancivil]

Now, when Frank Zappa does a whole tone apart, two-chord vamp, the point is to do a guitar solo and mostly if not purely modal but he doesn't even need them to be distinct chords.
OTOH an example (one I've not studied, mind) is John Williams, tonal harmony but Lydian scale is a noticable feature.
No, wait, Tyler Bartram has one where he gets into the modal thought behind such non-modal FZ as Black Napkins.*

So in posting particularly this the risk is run to get on one hand 'Lydian Dominant Chord' which is only Lydian if everything with a #4 is; with, on the other hand 'Lydian is only ever modal and you said tonal hardy har har'. And I paid for it.

[Jafo]

Just a different set of colors. Great to have options! But unless you're being graded or paid (or ordered by the gremlins in your head) to follow a framework, don't sweat it.

[Jafo]

I mean seriously, what could be less rock than following rules?!

[jancivil]

First, I thank you for replying. It turns out I'm interested in saying more.

I didn't come up with it and chances are close enough to nil that I would, for a number of reasons.
I do find strong agreement with the salient points as I found them and presented them. Major key as yer tonal basis is about rising fourths {ie., falling fifths} while Lydian Scale is constructed in rising P5s. Confer the Lydian Chromatic Concept
(another approach that regards the Lydian Scale that is not about the Lydian Mode at all).

I agree so fully with it I'm invested in it evidently.
(What appears to have occurred here is in researching his phd on the Instrumental Music of Frank Zappa Mr Clement found out about George Russell Lydian Chromatic Concept and found he was thinking along same lines; and maybe later had more to think and here's this article.)

I did very much take offense at the lack of thoughtfulness and flat incompetence of some guy sauntering up in here turd-sprinkling like that.
First, the remark "The major scale resolves to its tonic chord. The Lydian scale is the sound of its tonic chord." is aptly enough presented within the material already to say the least. It is - that is we can easily see its derivation from - stacking P5s high enough for a septatonic scale once spelled as a scale.
C G D A E B F# is its sound. We may say the tertially-constructed regular C harmony and the tertially-constructed regular D harmony are present simultaneously. Clement means the whole of the seven-note chord/scale is consonant while containing enough tension to from a different perspective to have this duality.
So, this is wholly unlike the major scale needing V [and really V7] to I for *its tonal identity*. This is crystal-clear.
In the 'you can't make this shit up' column we get the ridiculing (yes, this is ridiculous) 'it's tonal because it sounds modal'.
Nowhere in the material in the article, & nowhere in my quickie-lite presentation of its buzz points states "it sounds modal" (or refers in any way to modal music). All one had to do is click the link and see the title. It's just that the word's meaning is restricted in this user's lexicon to this extent. It's not a strange or concerning mistake per se, but here it is a mistake made in the quest to diss something or somebody. So the finger pointing ridicule points back to the one making that point, doesn't it.

And it isn't about a rule (nor is its converse, that the only possibility for tonality is them rising fourths and V-I). It happens that Brett Clement finds his niche in rock music theory in a gig that means tenure carries with it a demand one WRITE STUFF. You or yous don't need to agree or anything. I gave it a shot, a subject that to me is worth talking or typing about. Fail, and honestly didn't I know it coming in. It was a small act of defiance on a board that's mostly 'How 'bout that Scaler 2' now.

[jancivil]

The framework (let's build a row easy, stacking big ol' 3:2 aka Perfect Fifths) isn't any more novel than Ancient Greece, but for the Common Practice Period afaik the idea arguing for a tonality straight-up out of Lydian is.

[N__K]

[...]
Hey I wonder if I can monetize a channel like Rick Beato anyway.

Not sure about monetization. But if you made videos in which along with your thoughts on theory you played the examples (and perhaps showed the notes, tabs, pianorolls etc.), that might gather a niche audience of peculiar folks. Much like here on KvR.

EDIT: in case it wasn't clear, I'm one of those peculiar niche folks, and I've also listened to your material on Youtube. I find it awesome in its own right.

[NKF]

First, I thank you for replying. It turns out I'm interesting in saying more.

I didn't come up with it and chances are close enough to nil that I would, for a number of reasons.
I do find strong agreement with the salient points as I found them and presented them. Major key as yer tonal basis is about rising fourths {ie., falling fifths} while Lydian Scale is constructed in rising P5s. Confer the Lydian Chromatic Concept
(another approach that regards the Lydian Scale that is not about the Lydian Mode at all).

I agree so fully with it I'm invested in it evidently.
(What appears to have occurred here is in researching his phd on the Instrumental Music of Frank Zappa Mr Clement found out about George Russell Lydian Chromatic Concept and found he was thinking along same lines; and maybe later had more to think and here's this article.)

I did very much take offense at the lack of thoughtfulness and flat incompetence of some guy sauntering up in here turd-sprinkling like that.
First, the remark "The major scale resolves to its tonic chord. The Lydian scale is the sound of its tonic chord." is aptly enough presented within the material already to say the least. It is - that is we can easily see its derivation from - stacking P5s high enough for a septatonic scale once spelled as a scale.
C G D A E B F# is its sound. We may say the tertially-constructed regular C harmony and the tertially-constructed regular D harmony are present simultaneously. Clement means the whole of the seven-note chord/scale is consonant while containing enough tension to from a different perspective to have this duality.
So, this is wholly unlike the major scale needing V [and really V7] to I for *its tonal identity*. This is crystal-clear.
In the 'you can't make this shit up' column we get the ridiculing (yes, this is ridiculous) 'it's tonal because it sounds modal'.
Nowhere in the material in the article, & nowhere in my quickie-lite presentation of its buzz points states "it sounds modal" (or refers in any way to modal music). All one had to do is click the link and see the title. It's just that the word's meaning is restricted in this user's lexicon to this extent. It's not a strange or concerning mistake per se, but here it is a mistake made in the quest to diss something or somebody. So the finger pointing ridicule points back to the one making that point, doesn't it.

And it isn't about a rule (nor is its converse, that the only possibility for tonality is them rising fourths and V-I). It happens that Brett Clement finds his niche in rock music theory in a gig that means tenure carries with it a demand you WRITE STUFF. You or yous don't need to agree or anything. I gave it a shot, a subject that to me is worth talking or typing about. Fail, and honestly didn't I know it coming in. It was a small act of defiance on a board that's mostly 'How 'bout that Scaler 2' now.

I suppose my appreciation for theory ends at its practical use. post-tonal Theorists tend to overreach. There is nothing in rock that can't be adequately covered with old-fashioned 19th-century tonality and extremely basic modal jazz. Parsimony should be any theorists fundamental goal. That is kinda why i made a dig at rick. He tries to use modal scale theory when it is not needed nor helpful.

but i mean , well to me Zappa is just a watered down version of Cage. Both trolls. One was slightly more redundant and not quite self aware that the actual value was philosophical. And i know better than to get in a disagreement with a zappa fan. lol

[jancivil]

I agree with your assessment of Rick Beato there. Entirely.

This is not post-tonal, this is signaled rather clearly in the beginning (the f**king title).
You're countering what I wrote with lingo (frankly, word salad) that has nowt to do with musical usage or practice.

"There is nothing in rock that can't be adequately covered..." - well here we'll want an argument and some substance, that is but a blank assertion. (and Pro Tip: any argument that asserts the absolute 'everything/nothing' signals in virtually any case 'here's an idiot'. I mean how can one manage to know everything that ever happened in ___? You're obv. ready to dismiss wide swaths of music you've never encountered, and your account of such has shown us nothing remotely in the vicinity of substance.)

It's like this: Brett Clement is a known authority with a deep curriculum vitae. You're gainsaying him having no counter/no argument. (Compare: we saw you try to make an argument in the 'why does this work' thread. It wasn't one.)

Where are your bona fides? All hat/no cattle.

buhbye

[Scoops]

Pointless discussion

Lydian and Western music are 2 different musical system

It's like saying, geez this muskmelon doesn't taste as good as this watermelon so it has no place in satisfying my appetite

[jancivil]

So every time John Williams does Lydian Scale and the harmonies derived therein he's engaged in eastern music (of some undefined sort)? You could get a working definition of terms (rather than the proud proof of Dunning-Kruger you present) or read what's been written in good faith (or even at all, if that's the look).