Theory of Harmony

[MaestroX]

Grade 5 theory? I remember doing that. I got distinction in it

I'm working on grade 8 theory now.

[reith]

I'm in two minds about too many, too detailed books on 'music theory'. There's a danger it becomes an end in itself. Perhaps that's fine but it does seem just a way of perpetuating an academic cycle so often, and a money spinner. Does it help the composer and/or performer? Yes, well, a performer has to understand the instructions embodied in a score and I admit the basics do help a composer but once moving out of the realm of conventional harmony then, what? It can be limiting, make people too self-conscious. They get themselves tied up in nomenclature.

I'm reminded of the Beatles, like them or loathe them - they had no music lessons, no theory, and proved that you don't need an academic education to come up with winning music.

I learned from the Kitson books on harmony (all I could afford secondhand in the absence of help from parents), have looked at a few others but so many seem just waffle, trying to over-cook innocent little musical phenomena. I got more from Gordon Jacob's "Orchestral Technique", given me at school, than I did from the Piston (though I have it as a reference).

I'd love to see more effort spent on aural training - for composers, developing an inner ear, learning to be able to analyse what you hear and write it down. Ok, it'll never be easy but even roughing something out can snatch an idea otherwise lost.

Sorry, I seem to have gone off topic....

[Composer]

Originally Posted by reith

I'm in two minds about too many, too detailed books on 'music theory'. There's a danger it becomes an end in itself. Perhaps that's fine but it does seem just a way of perpetuating an academic cycle so often, and a money spinner. Does it help the composer and/or performer? Yes, well, a performer has to understand the instructions embodied in a score and I admit the basics do help a composer but once moving out of the realm of conventional harmony then, what? It can be limiting, make people too self-conscious. They get themselves tied up in nomenclature.

I'm reminded of the Beatles, like them or loathe them - they had no music lessons, no theory, and proved that you don't need an academic education to come up with winning music.

I learned from the Kitson books on harmony (all I could afford secondhand in the absence of help from parents), have looked at a few others but so many seem just waffle, trying to over-cook innocent little musical phenomena. I got more from Gordon Jacob's "Orchestral Technique", given me at school, than I did from the Piston (though I have it as a reference).

I'd love to see more effort spent on aural training - for composers, developing an inner ear, learning to be able to analyse what you hear and write it down. Ok, it'll never be easy but even roughing something out can snatch an idea otherwise lost.

Sorry, I seem to have gone off topic....

I dont really understand you.

The manny theory books are not a money thing - if you read the good ones. Those who often are made by composers.

(By the way I dont concider the music of Beatles, as good music.)

I dont see why not to study theory. If you look all through the composers, they all have systemized their music. Why break that system. Why compose music without system. I really dont get it. And training the inner ear - you can do that too! Its not theory or inner ear - you can do both!

[reith]

Originally Posted by Composer

I dont really understand you.

The manny theory books are not a money thing - if you read the good ones. Those who often are made by composers.

(By the way I dont concider the music of Beatles, as good music.)

I dont see why not to study theory. If you look all through the composers, they all have systemized their music. Why break that system. Why compose music without system. I really dont get it. And training the inner ear - you can do that too! Its not theory or inner ear - you can do both!

Yes, sorry, that wasn't honestly the right forum for my remarks - I should have started a new thread, so I'll try to keep it short.
Fine, some theory books can be good and, for example, Schoenberg's might be a good read. Indeed he might broaden readers' perspectives - good but that's a philosophy issue, no?
But I meant too many going into too much detail. I really have been party to discussions about what IS the interval between E# and F flat (and there was someone ready to quote an instance); and I've seen attempts to analyse chromatified chords in isolation leading to... honestly, gibberish, once placed in a context.
Now, fine, if the theory student likes that but it seems of marginal interest to most performers and composers. Four-part harmony is fine (to me) because it does give students a glimpse of how to lay out chords and deal with progressions. Counterpoint is fine and (just my view) strict counterpoint is the royal road to good harmony. But once you get past the main chromatic triads with added bits and pieces, the augmented 6ths... I mean, the composer is on his own.
I can only speak of my own experience though. Glad I learned the basics but the rest is more nomenclature and over-zealous observation of phenomena that most composers grasp intuitively (or through study of works). And it keeps the academics in a job so they can set examinations.

The Beatles - well, I said winning rather than good music though few would dispute the achievement of Sergeant Pepper. And they did demonstrate the correct use of melodic and harmonic minors in "Yesterday", which is more than you can say for most musicians from then until now - not all but most.

However, this has detracted from your excellent start to the thread and maybe it's time to split it off. Or should I start a new one such as "How useful are books on theory?" or some such.

thanks
Reith

(I had such a problem getting this post here so excuse any mistakes, I'll come back later to see if it needs editing.)

[Bassoonery]

Beatles - I know it's off topic but just thought I should say that it's a shame they have become synonymous with mid 20th C pop music as if they represented what the general style was at the time. In fact they were amazingly innovative in their music (chords, inversions, modulations, the lot) and considering none of them had had any formal composition or theory education they are much to be admired, even if the music is not to our taste. Personally I think it is "good" music in terms of being well written but it is not music I choose to listen to, in the same way that I appreciate baroque music as "good" but not necessarily my personal choice. Oooooo did I offend someone by mentioning baroque and Beatles in one breath.....?

[MaestroX]

I think it is "good" music in terms of being well written but it is not music I choose to listen to, in the same way that I appreciate baroque music as "good" but not necessarily my personal choice.

A very good idea to have there and I think mnay people should adopt this approach.

On to theory book, my honest opinion is that almost any musician can read a harmony book and understand it, but it takes a "real" composer to use that idea in their own concept and context.

So for example everyone knows what a diminished 7th is, most people know how to use it, but it takes a true composer to take the "idea" and the knowledge and thoery to create somthing new from it. The line: "you learn the rules so you know how to break the rules effectivly" was said to me when I first questioned the need for music thoery.

Do other people feel this way?

[Ballaw de Quincewold]

Originally Posted by Bassoonery

. In fact they were amazingly innovative in their music (chords, inversions, modulations, the lot)

Maybe if they lived in the 1600's you could say that.

[Bassoonery]

haha should have explained myself better.
What I meant was (as I'm sure you know) the way pop music had become so unimaginative and based on 3chords and everyone using the same sequences etc, the Beatles broke from that mould and were more creative. They were innovative in the way that they used approaches that had slmost become obsolete due to mass production of music and lack of education or genuine passion.
Hmm maybe I should give up explaining myself. It's very difficult...

[MaestroX]

Hmm maybe I should give up explaining myself. It's very difficult...

Don't worry about it. I think I understand you now. In the context of pop music they were very innovative.