I agree with most of what is being written here, but I have to state to Martin that there are many ways to learn, including absorbing "rules" unconsciously. I am not advocating this as a substitute for serious study, but the way a jazz master learns is not by studying books and theory and history, but by playing and listening and absorbing style. And this happens in more "classical" music as well, depending on the composer's own method of learning. The important thing is to be open to new ideas and techniques: to have a hunger to improve and encompass more and not be stuck in a rut of repetition due to ignorance.

This distinction reminds me of a recent statement which I found very refreshing made by Twyla Tharp in a very good book she published on creativity. She was discussing the film and play "Amadeus" which as everyone knows depicts Mozart as an effortless genius who automatically created perfect music compared to the studious hack Salieri. This is a complete insult to Mozart, who himself stated that he studied and worked and constantly thought about the music he did. It didn't simply drop from heaven as the simplistic concept of that film implies. And of course the ultimate example of working at it - habitually working at it - is Beethoven who scratched and clawed his way through everything with enormous labor and determination.

Gugliel's first quote is from Walter Piston, a man who knew how to break rules.

When Rameau first catalogued Harmony, he studied what composers had BEEN doing -- not what they should or must continue to do. The genuine study of harmony is retrospective, not prescriptive.

I'm sure we've all faced people who tried to palm off their ignorance as bold and unique. To be uneducated is not a sin, but I've never understood the need to be proud of it.

Such a person notes, "I don't study music. I just sit and let it come out of me." No, you sit and improvise on chord structures that have been identified and employed for over 500 years, and not knowing what those chords are called doesn't make you any more or less talented.

It's been said that we're doomed to repeat the past if we forget it. How much more doomed are we if we never bothered to study it in the first place?

Alan:

In one of your books (I have all four BTW and echo Martin's comment) you mention the 4 Volume work on Orchestration by Koechlin. I believe it is only available in French. Do you know where I could acquire this set?

Moderator:

If this question should be sent as a PM I apologize in advance. I am posting it because there may be others who are interested but I'm not sure.

Thank you.

Be Well,

Poppa

Many interesting replies; I too have appreciated Alan's pages, and will return to explore some more. I did read Shillinger, years ago, at a time when it had been almost forgotton -- it was like walking on the moon, or some other out-of-nature experience.

Yes, my first quote is from Piston, who has been steadily sliding lower in my estimation on closer and closer reading of his works. There is so much "usually" and "often" and "it seems", all the while giving rules like the one I quoted: if you'd write exciting music, then you should break the rules.

Hmmm... how about breaking THAT rule .....!

I am glad the books are of use. [:)]

I bought my copy of the Koechlin many years ago (it cost a fortune even then). I am pretty sure it is now OOP.

A quick look on Abebooks.com shows a copy for sale, but it's NOT cheap!

Good luck.

Alan

@PoppaJOL said:

Alan:

In one of your books (I have all four BTW and echo Martin's comment) you mention the 4 Volume work on Orchestration by Koechlin. I believe it is only available in French. Do you know where I could acquire this set?

Moderator:

If this question should be sent as a PM I apologize in advance. I am posting it because there may be others who are interested but I'm not sure.

Thank you.

Be Well,

Poppa

@Another User said:

A quick look on Abebooks.com shows a copy for sale, but it's NOT cheap!

Yikes!!! Is any orchestration book really worth that price?

Be Well,

Poppa

@Another User said:

A quick look on Abebooks.com shows a copy for sale, but it's NOT cheap!

Yikes!!! Is any orchestration book really worth that price?

Be Well,

Poppa

Well, I can't speak for you, but it really is an INCREDIBLE resource, and that is about what I paid for it, adjusted for inflation, 20 years ago! Of course you have to read French fluently!

"...We must realize that musical theory is not a set of directions for composing music. It is rather the collected and systemized deductions gathered by observing the practice of composers over a long time, and it attempts to set forth what is or has been their common practice. It tells not how music will be written in the future...."

"Harmony," Piston (introduction).

@William said:

I agree with most of what is being written here, but I have to state to Martin that there are many ways to learn, including absorbing "rules" unconsciously. I am not advocating this as a substitute for serious study, but the way a jazz master learns is not by studying books and theory and history, but by playing and listening and absorbing style. And this happens in more "classical" music as well, depending on the composer's own method of learning. The important thing is to be open to new ideas and techniques: to have a hunger to improve and encompass more and not be stuck in a rut of repetition due to ignorance.

Indeed - nothing should be inferred in any of my posts that I advocate a single way or source of learning.

All:

Here is the correct text of my favorite quote on Harmony. It is from "Twentieth Century Harmony" by Vincent Persichetti" and is paraphrased in my signature.

@Another User said:

Any tone can succeed any other tone, any tone can sound simultaneously with any other tone or tones, and any group of tones can be followed by any other group of tones just as any degree of tension or nuance can occur in any medium under any kind of stress or duration. Successful projection will depend upon the skill and soul of the composer.

Alan:

I have faith in your judgement about the worth of these volumes on Orchestration by Koechlin and I do read French though not fluently. The monetary value of anything is based on what the buyer considers worth the cost (did anyone see the latest art auction at Sotheby's? Record prices - 22+ million USD for single paintings!!!). I have certainly paid what others considered an excessive price for items I condered valuable. So, what else is there to say about it?

Be Well,

Poppa

@PoppaJOL said:

All:

[...]

Alan:

I have faith in your judgement about the worth of these volumes on Orchestration by Koechlin and I do read French though not fluently. The monetary value of anything is based on what the buyer considers worth the cost (did anyone see the latest art auction at Sotheby's? Record prices - 22+ million USD for single paintings!!!). I have certainly paid what others considered an excessive price for items I condered valuable. So, what else is there to say about it?

The Koechlin is divided into 4 fat volumes. The first book covers instrumental techniques and ranges, very throughly. Incidentally it is the ONLY orch.book I know to discuss the human voice in any depth. There follows a VERY detailed (>100 pages) discussion of problems of balance between instruments, famiies, etc..

Vol. 2 is a exhaustive study of orchestral combinations. You want to know about combining saxophone, flute, and solo viola? You'll find it discussed here!

Vol 3 is "real" orchestration, ie all about musical textures and how they can be realised orchestrally. Melodic combinations, acct. figures, etc..

Vol. 4 is about all sorts of special situations, e.g. orchestrating with choir, concertos, chamber music, etc..

The books are absolutely full of musical examples, but unfortunately many of them are from all but unknown works by Koechlin himself. I would say that's the biggest defect of the work.

Incidentally, K. also wrote books on counterpoint, fugue and hamony. The 3rd volume of the latter is exceptional in its coverage of 20th century techniques (up to when it was published, of course). In fact it is one of the 2 main (book) sources I use for my 20th century harmony course, the other being Persichetti. (The rest of the material I composed myself as needed.)

I hope this helps.

Alan

What a good thread -- I agree with everything expressed. On a more superficial note, all I can add is what I sometimes say to novice Harmony students, who rightly ask "Why is this supposed to be good, and that bad?" "It isn't about "good or bad", I respond, "it's about what to do if you want to imitate the style of that [common practice] period. It's the same thing in any genre - if you want to use a style, you have to learn it properly, whether it's baroque or blues." I agree, though, that on a deeper level it's really about 'what makes this musical system work'.

I found the Schillinger books in a second-hand bookstore back in 1995, or so... I ran through them dilligently, but my attention started to wane a little in the second book., so I think I should go through them again.

About a year ago I revistited them for the first time since I bought them and found them incredibly inspiring. His idea of tonal exansions as connecting harmony and melody is quite possibly the most concise description/explanation I've ever encountered.
I also got a great deal of mileage out of his notion of symmetric scales.

Thanks for reminding me of these books -- they're sitting right here on the shelf above my computer! Time for a glass of wine and a thumb-through!

cheers,

J.

Here is another quote, and something of a warning about rules. From G. W. Chadwick, "HARMONY: A Course of Study", 1897. Chadwick was the Director of the New England Conservatory.

@Another User said:

The dominant triad is always succeeded by that of the tonic (never by that of the subdominant), when its third (leading tone) is in the upper voice.

This is a rule unique, so far, in my recent reading. It is extremely specific, yet wrong, I think (at least, it omits any mention of the notion of deceptive cadence, which -- I think -- allows the third of the dominant to progress to the third of the vi chord).

But it is attempting (at least, by my reading) to address the problems of the dominant followed by the subdominant, and the outlined tritone that will be likely to occur.

As a result of all this recent reading (12 harmony books in 24 days), I just recently used a consciously-chosen augmented sixth chord for a consciously-identified modulation problem. Benefits, therefore, somewhere ....

Persichetti, btw, was a jerk! And a bad composer, imo. He did reputedly have an extremely good ear, however. I've never looked into his harmony book, and I'd never program any of his music, for personal reasons.

Why do you say he was a jerk? I don't know anything about him personally. Just curious. I remember playing a piece of his in symphonic band that was good. Though I never heard much else of his.

Just personal interaction: he was pointlessly rude to me when he was a respected (?) composer and I a student.

Back to Piston, one very good quality of his book is the breadth of examples from music. Another of the old harmony books I've been reading also has a wide selection of examples -- but from composers whose names I've never heard: alongside Schubert and Wagner and Mozart, I get "Cadman", "Lwoff", "Nevin", "Page", and ""Kroeger". These from William J. McCoy, 1916.

I have found it very hard to find books on theory. Seems that the same names seem to pop up, lets not forget adler. I have alot of respect for all. Although find it still hard to find true theory for the piano. Allan is a wonderfull addition, and a discovery for me. A chest full of suffisticated compositions. Yet to discover.
True theory for piano is is a rarety. I gave up on trying to find whats out there. So I took it on myself to uncover the true formulas that the great composers used.
The only way was to figure them out by ear. And ofcourse many years of gigging live piano. I started with just the sonata form, and over the span of about 5 to 6 years. I had enough material that if I linked them from their time span in which they were created(1600-200) from one end to the present, that they made sense mathematically. And thats how you check and recheck the formulas from one key to the other. I found that the age factor is essencial, since it is physics thats involved. And also the fingering is also essencial, because every key is different in handling, thus offers a different story. I did document all my findings in my Quick and easy To understand book. Some of the paragraphes were wraped from one page to the other in printing, thats because I really don't have the time to spend to make information look very presentable. Although it would have made sense, or taken up about 3 month's that I chose to compose instead. I also have notes from my Experience as a pianist from age about ten to present. I found that there are no books on using or understanding the human body for playing the piano. Talking about finding things out the hard way. Most of the best music ever written to date were created from 15 years of age to 40. So i think to the respected composer who started this string. Maybe its age that counts as a factor than breaking the rules. Physics is mathematics, and Musicians have their ear and sound to prove theory, but only with the physical ability in tact. I don't mix any music anymore to post because it takes it out of me. Unless its going to the press with thousands at hand. Enough said, I think, Thanks to all.
http://homepage.mac.com/robsnob/

Gugliel
I agree with you that the qoute about the dominant triad with upper third cannot go to a subdominant seems falls to me also,especialy when the upper third is the subdominant. it does sound like a cadense, that of beethoven in fact. If I understood it correctly. maybe at given point in time in history , the taste for music changed and opinions flared. Henry cowel was mentioned whom was a driving force in the modern disidant movment. And that broke all the rules.

i think that your first statement of playing theory can sound dull, Is actually, what the author meant that if you just play the theoretical rules and nothing else then it will sound redundant and repetative, and I think thats maybe a better explanation of what he meant by breaking the rules, which he should have stated, one should use a melody line and imply the rules or harmony in adjunct with the theorerital
elements thus relinquiting the redundancy or dullness as he puts it. In which you also mention in your melody writing classes. Also Beethoven did not break the rules, he broke the style as somone mentioned already. He was an advocate of following the music, it led him. If you break the rules continously then its abstract. Beethoven shook the earth's acces with his harmonious fury. In my studies, I have found that classical music is the inventor of theory. "Theory gives you the key to solvent Mathematical equations that circle eternaly". "Theory is Math". "Using Math is harmony"

The diminished is the connecting element in which one can jump from one theoretical formula to the other using the Harmonic minor scale. This is true
harmony that circles forever. what the original statement refered to as breaking the rule. Which is actually very much as staying within the rules.

Here is a formula that i had to figure out. Because I could not find it anywhere else.
If you take a diminished flattened seventh in circular fourth. then you
are in perfect harmony that of chopin style.
1. take any 5-1-3 minor triad
2. Drop the 1st. note 1/2 step and play a diminished b7 from that target note.
3. Now go up from the first note 1/2 step to play a 5-1-3 minor of that target note.

Add a melody to it, in a harmonic minor scale. so it doesn't sound dull. And its perfect harmony in the style of
chopin.


You know I just thought of something. The young wrestlers don't break the rules, Its the old ones who can't keep with them. They get a chair from ring side and wham. the'yre on top again.

I'm glad i'n not a wrestler,because I would break every rule possible.!

Sincerely

RK, Here is Jadassohn's way of putting your rule:

The most universal medium for modulating easily and rapidly from one key into another is the diminished chord of the seventh. It may enter freely anywhere, without preparation of the seventh. It admits of very various resolutions and progressions in major and minor, and by means of the enharmonic change of one or several or all of its tones it can pass over to the most diverse keys.

Let me, with all my musical 'unknowledge', chime in for a moment.

To me, working with rules can have advantages as well as disadvantages. Any great artist should at least be aware of rules specific to his/hers working field, yet following them should be left to their creative drive. I believe, most great art is still a matter of feelings, or conceptualising/realising feelings, wether they are vague notions, associations or clear images/sounds.

Personally, especially in my visual works, I have to restrict myself, set out certain boundaries which I may or may not cross, in order to create a workable 'canvas' to paint on. If I just start working I 'drown' in all the possibilities and choises I can make. I have learned that if I don't have a clear set of 'tools' and 'canvas', my work gets polluted by too many ideas, directions and 'styles' creating a mess (or utter garbage).

Musically, I lack a decent education and am still learning each time I start working on a piece. I'm aware of many rules being out there and mostly of their functions. But instead of trying to apply them I've chosen to create. As long as I'm making sounds I would like to listen to myself, like when it was created by somebody else.
Here, I restrain myself by setting boundaries concerning instrumentation and the use of specific motives.

I do not condemn studying musicical theory. I just can't overcome the sickmaking urge to create. I will never write anything like Beethoven, Stravinsky, or a decent song. But as long as I'm enjoying making and listening to my own music, I'm perfectly happy.