@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.

Maybe I'm beginning to show my age! When I was a student, I whipped through my theory classes as fast and carelessly as I could, thinking they had nothing to do with the music that was bursting to pour out of me. But now, like weslldeckers and the palette/tools, it seems fruitful to organize the mental studio I'm in, and to take the time to wonder if puttering with the colors on the palette before painting might lead to new directions. Not trying to proselityze (golly, can't spell that word ...) anyone else, though other opinions are always interesting.

Guglel
Thank you for your prompt quote from Jadassohn. How refreshing it is to make sense.

Also enjoyed Weslldeckers painting.

I also lacked a formal education, and bypassed all rules and theory at a young age, that is why i advocate to others what is in the shadows. and how important it is to understand the picture. when you see the picture its perfect harmony, and you can sleep at night. Its no coinncident, that Beethoven, mozart, Bach, Chopin ect. became what they became. Its because their parents were music teachers. Thats making sense. also a young age. thats the ingredient that creates greatness. I'm forever will try to help what was not available for me at a young age. Today with all the utter glutter of music sounds and machines, how can any young person understand the true sounds of music. confusion , utter waist of time. you can make all the money of the world in the music bussines and not know anything about it. It took me well in my forties before I understood or saw the picture. and could hear sounds and understand them. that is a little late to become great in this day and time,or any time, and that is why I advocate to others that might have a chance. that alot did not have. Painting with colors is a great analogy ofcourse. Now lets use food and taste as another analogy. So that we may understand the over all picture from another angle perhaps. If theory was first introduced during the great composers era. Mainstream average (1776).( Great year to be alive.)
then the mathematical theoretical equations were formed and those who used them gave us the music. And all its harmonies. So if that is taken in analegical retrospect to food. then the main course meal was created for music. And how tastfull it was depended on the educational and age factor. As technology upgraded, as in the musical instruments, their came different styles. thus the food buffe' became the pallet.

then came the style of classical music called Jazz. It was derived from quick improvisation for a couple of extra dollars one could achieve at night without having to prepare. So the desert was now icluded to the buffe'. And the theory and harmony which is essentialy the same is now used by different styles. Ofcourse each style has its own further embelishments and garnishes and gorme items to include. Depending on the education one receives.
And the buffe' is open to any ideas any one has to offer.

With Kind regards to all

One of the things least understood by the untrained composer is the idea of construction. That is weak versus strong construction (regardless of style.) Mainly this has to do with partials and overtones and how they resonate in vertical structures. Also the movement between these structures can be strong or weak. Counterpoint also contains vertical structures that result from horizontal melodic movement. This horizontal movement can itself be strong or weak in it's construction. We have all heard good (strong) melodies and bad (weak.) The balance between these two pillars of musical construction (vertical and horizontal) contains much of the essence of music to the point that a good grasp of them will give the composer much of what he needs to rise to the art.

There is often a debate in various forums about study and rules. When it come to orchestral composition one should consider that the percentage of world class musicians who play this music and have never studied or learned the rules is right around 0%. Yet so many who want to write for these dedicated souls can't bring themselves to take a lesson ot two (let alone the lifetime of study the players have had.)

Sorry to say an untrained composer will usually sound like an untrained fiddle player.

R.K.,

I must disagree with your statement that jazz is "derived from quick improvisation for a couple of extra dollars one could achieve at night without having to prepare."

In every way jazz and improvisational music in general require MORE preparation than the equivalent non-improvised music simply because in order to compose that fast one has to become incredibly fluent in all aspects of whatever style your going to engage.

(Composition) = (Very Slow Improvisation)

(Improvisation) = (Very Fast Composition)

Likewise, one could be a Noble Savage composer, so to speak, but it is likely that it would take that person an outrageous amount of time to compose something on the same level compared to someone with knowledge and skill...

Perhaps THAT is what you mean by prepare: Wallowing in relative ignorance while trying to express oneself.

Clark

Clark
I don't know what nerve i must have hit , But I must have realy upset you.
Please converse, i will be glad to get in it with you. First of all, You sound like the average dude wallowing in the word ignorant. If you have an issue state it please.
What i meant by by no preperation to playing or giging jazz, is just what i meant by it. You get the music or chart early in the night , and you play it, and you get paid. And thats how the Art of improvisation or jazz was invented. If you have the correct way, then say it. One ofcourse takes it to the next level and can make a liftime of work out of it. Which is by al means not done without prepatory. The more you work on somthing the better it is.

Know this business of taking a long time on something. Leads me to think you are just a follower. because you are playing a game of some sort. Shame on you.
In fact I don't think you are even a musician. Because anyone who have written anything can tell you, that somtimes one page can take 6 weeks. And another time , you can write a whole peace of music in one sitting. I got an E-mail the other day by some nice lady who's trying to start her own forum, and she states that handel wrote his massia in miraculasly 21 day's. Obviously she has no clue that maybe he wrote the piano part in that time but it took a fleet of staff to turn it into what it is. I've writen a whole peice of music in just one improvisational pass. Then i went back and wrote it down later, which took a little time. I wish you people who have no clue would take time and think or study about this subject. Frankly its a waist of time for anyone to get involved with.

But i still love you.

Clark

I had to go out for a minute.

Now I have a little more time to finish.

you seem to think that fast and slow in improvising and composition.
What makes you think you improvise slow in composition. Is it because maybe you havn't seen anybody in your liftime that improvises fast in classical music. I thought you bost on all the knowledge and skills you posses, and you havn't seen anybody compose by improvising quickly. That is precisly the point that everyone was trying to make. If you read up a thread you will see , one gentlmen stated that the percentage of that type of thing going on today is 0 %. And that is why I had to spend over 7 years to find the right formulas, only by improvising and accidental revelation. Which incidentaly the experience came from playing Jazz 4,5,6 hours a night from hotel to hotel. from one classical piece to the other. By the way, I sucked so bad musically. That I now require security 24 hours a day. And I have hatefull people crying something about ignorance and composition. When I was young, I didin't understand why some people needed security. Is this what you call full of myself. I call it real life.

Just a thought to leave you by. Beethoven improvised for mozart the first time they got together. And Mozart thought that he was playing somthing prepared already. Even the best can't tell somtime.

I hope that mekes you happy.

I'll leave you with another thought still.

Record companies these day's can't wait for somthing tragic to happen to their artist, so they can collect. (jack pot).

You fit the discription perfect.

but i still love you.
unless you say somthing bad about me again. Then I will ignore you, and you can wallow in all your great knowledge and skills all by yourself.

R.K.,

I am terribly sorry that I upset you so.

I realized I used the word "ignorant" and I can see why that generated bad vibes. Please understand that I meant that the more fluent one is in the "language" or "rules" or theory than the faster one can generate content. I did not mean to imply this was you.

So to get back to your word "Prepare." I took your wording to mean that Improvisation was something that just happened with out any connection to deliberate, well articulated composition. I only wanted to show that the two ARE IDENTICAL. This does not run cross to anything said before from the others. It actually reinforces a lot of the principles addressed in previous posts on this thread. Allow me to provide context using myself as an example:

I accompany ballet classes (as well as modern, tap and jazz) during the daytime hours, and I improvise everything. Imagine conceiving a Grande Valse Allegro or a Mazurka on the spot to accompany a pirouette combination. Or a modal atmospheric eastern-sounding piece to go along with a stretch combination in modern class in a harmonic-major mode. Or Phrygian or Aeolian mode.

Now, after hours, I go and play a jazz gig. I apply the same principles of composition (melody and harmony, voice leading, counterpoint, texture, etc.) only I understand that there are different conventions to using the same exact building blocks that generate all the other music that I do.

In-between all this I compose a film score. SAME THING.

Please please don't think I was trying to incite you. I was only being blunt.

Clark

I also included as a point of reference a nod to Dave Conner's untrained fiddle comment, stating that knowledge of the technique will facilitate faster creation.

Knowledge CAN be a dangerous thing. People can confuse technique with artistry. It happens to me. I believe it happens to everyone. However, this is the reason that many people who are ignorant (not you, R.K.) have a false pride in their "Noble Savage" approach.

Music theory is just that: Theory.

The true brilliance of a master composer allows for these theoretical models while understanding that the art might bend these things and still maintain beauty in an architectural sense. It is in fact necessary (to paraphrase Martin's Schillinger reference) to maintain structure as much as possible. Consequently the real genius lies in reinventing the rules, much the same way a scientist might discover something that revolutionizes the way we all see the world.

To say that Mozart confused an improvised piece of Beethoven with something prepared also underscores my sentiment exactly. As far as compositional style is concerned, Beethoven merely chose to agonize over notes after the fact. This doesn't mean he wasn't capable of composing "fast." Mozart agonized over the notes before the fact. This was the way he chose to work.

Sometimes I choose to agonize over a melody or the choice of timbres for any given piece I'm working on for days on end instead of racing through at the "speed of thought." Does it mean that the music is better? Usually not. It usually means that I have a fear of commitment concerning whatever artistic decision I have to make. Or I'm procrastinating! I am the laziest person I know.

So please accept my apology, R.K. I realize that my wording was a bit slanted. I did not mean to make it look like I was making you a target. Rather I think we mostly agree on the main points (after reading your responses) so it would be silly for us to argue.

Peace,

Clark