Steinke, Schenker, Rameau, Piston, help me decide...

[Ignacy]

Thanks again for all the responses!
I've just placed my order (2 days late..) and am looking forward to the new material.
You'll most probably hear from me again
All the best!

Ignacy.

[Ignacy]

Hi all.

It's been a little while since I've posted here, but I wanted to share some of my experience of the materials you friendly people recommended

I feel that both Kostka/Payne and Steinke/Harder complement the Piston Harmony book very well.
I really like the self-learning method of the Steinke/Harder book. Everyday I work on the exercises in the Steinke book for about 10-20 minutes. I like how the book keeps refreshing the older stuff I've learnt so far and also provides some new information. I haven't yet reached the chapter that surpasses what I know already.
Kostka/Payne has a slightly different angle at looking at Harmony than Piston, but I like it a lot. Unfortunately I've had to order the (slightly expensive) audio CD (Why isn't it included in such an expensive work?!). Some examples are a little difficult to play, so I have to hear them.

I experience both of these works as very "FRESH" and I currently don't feel the need to consult any other harmony book for quite some time to come. Even though Rameau and Schoenberg are sitting on my cupboard's shelf. Maybe in a year or two I'll glance into them, but not now. I'd lose focus..

The Robert Gauldin (A practical approach to Eighteenth Century Counterpoint) book is great! I've only read the first chapter thus far but it has taught me a lot already. The information is very condensed but clear. I've had to reread some passages (not because of Gauldin's writing style but because of my not all to strong knowledge in this field) but it proves to be very satisfying. Very different indeed to the one and only other counterpoint work I was studying thus far, which is Mann's translation of Fux's Gradus at Parnassum.
(Of course both works are different (the former deals with 18th Century CPT (Bach mostly) whyle the latter deals with Palestrina style CPT).

Next to this I'm studying various orchestral scores, doing Synthesis, Sampling, Sequencing, doing eartraining every day... Also going through the Bach Chorales (albeit slowly) for about 20-30 minutes per day.
On some other forum someone told me to study 1 Bach Chorale per day but I have not yet finished studying the first 3 and it's been a month now!

I have to admit however that I am a little fed up with Gradus ad Parnassum. I've started studying this exactly 1 year ago ad I've more or less gone through all the exercises. What bothers me is that every time I take a few days off, I have lots of difficulties getting back to my former level. Whereas the stuff I learn from the Harmony books flows into my memory and hands much more intuitively, the CPT rules as stated by FUX feel very rule laden and I'm not that good at memorizing all these rules. 2 and 3 part voicing are not that difficult and can sound nice. But some of the 4 part voicings tend to sound unmusical (even Fux's examples) and often prove to be very time consuming.
I wonder if I should continue doing some of these CPT exercises everyday. For example, recently I had a double Ear Infection again (have had this problem since childhood. Sounds terrible I know ) after a summer holiday with too much swimming. During the worst period I was unable to do anything music related. For about two weeks I simply stopped ear training, harmony training, CPT training, etc. When I got back to selfstudy I noticed I had lost a lot of the feel/work-method that I had developed over the past year on Fux's work. It's not simply a matter of remembering the rules.
Currently I despise doing the Fux exercises (I've not yet regained the level I was at and I have so many other things to do!) and "a part of me is telling me" I should drop the study of this book. It's not that I want to give up on CPT but I feel as if Fux has become unhealthy. Is this crazy?
(I've always had difficulties in long term remembering of study related material, unless I find it very interesting. The Fux book I liked at the start but currently I feel as if it drags me down since I find it boring).

I've by the way found two other famous Counterpoint books dealing with CPT in a second hand bookshop (Kennan and Piston's takes on Cpt) and am reading these through, although very very very slowly (Can not afford to do too much at the same time).

Biggest problem is still that I do not compose enough. Up until last year I composed a lot. This year however I've done very little except for some exercises and 1 or 2 pieces near the end of 2007.
My plan is to study 2 more years (3 max) and then stop reading music theory (or keep it to a bare minimum of below 5% daily activity).
I find it very difficult to compose. Everytime I have some spare time and try to do so, I always end up reading and doing exercises
Everything I compose feels so amateurish. I know it's best to do something nevertheless but it is so terribly difficult. The more time I spend composing, the more I feel as if I forget the latest theory I have just learnt etc etc. I just need to make 1 piece in order regain confidence. This is most important to me.

Anyhow, thanks again for all your help! Just wanted to let you know how I was doing

Good night from Warsaw

[mducharme]

I'm glad that you are liking the Steinke.. it is very thorough and logical in terms of order of concepts.

Originally Posted by Ignacy

I have to admit however that I am a little fed up with Gradus ad Parnassum.

Again, I love species counterpoint as a pedagogical approach but Fux's book teaches you to write like Fux, not write like Palestrina or Bach. This is why I much prefer books like Jeppesen's "Couterpoint" or P. Schubert's "Modal Counterpoint" for modal counterpoint species approach or "Counterpoint in Composition" by Salzer/Schachter for a tonal species approach. I think it is probably not the best use of your time to be studying the Fux book itself. You say you picked up the Kennan secondhand, I would go through that one for Tonal, it's probably the easiest read.

Originally Posted by Ignacy

I find it very difficult to compose. Everytime I have some spare time and try to do so, I always end up reading and doing exercises
Everything I compose feels so amateurish. I know it's best to do something nevertheless but it is so terribly difficult. The more time I spend composing, the more I feel as if I forget the latest theory I have just learnt etc etc. I just need to make 1 piece in order regain confidence.

I would suggest two things - as you learn new concepts in harmony, make sure your ear integrates them to the point where you can identify them and be able to hear the sound of the progression or chord in your head without needing to be around a piano. That way your creative process can integrate the use of those harmonies in your own works.

Second, I would suggest, as Stieinke does, that you not necessarily task yourself with writing a big composition like a Nocturne or a Sonata or even a Sonatina, but write even just a period form or, if you've gotten to the chapter on modulation yet, incipient binary form piece per chapter of the book as a follow up exercise. Those are very very small, and you can do one after nearly each chapter in the Steinke to integrate in concepts you have learned (incipient binary you probably would not be able to do until after having studied how to modulate to related keys).. making sure you use some of the new type of harmony or progression you have learned in that chapter, etc. They do not have to be wonderful or brilliant or groundbreaking, just serviceable will do, with proper voice leading. If you want to write said piece for piano instead of SATB, study some piano pieces by Mozart and Bach and Haydn, or even Chopin, to see how they apply the voice leading rules in instrumental textures (i.e. forbidden parallels can sometimes be hidden by figuration patterns or can occur so briefly that they are not noticed; also frequent orchestration-like octave doublings for power and volume are used without it constituting forbidden parallels because it is just a carbon copy of the same voice and is not an independent voice at all)

[Ignacy]

Ha, trusty old Mike!

Originally Posted by mducharme

Again, I love species counterpoint as a pedagogical approach but Fux's book teaches you to write like Fux, not write like Palestrina or Bach. This is why I much prefer books like Jeppesen's "Couterpoint" or P. Schubert's "Modal Counterpoint" for modal counterpoint species approach or "Counterpoint in Composition" by Salzer/Schachter for a tonal species approach. I think it is probably not the best use of your time to be studying the Fux book itself. You say you picked up the Kennan secondhand, I would go through that one for Tonal, it's probably the easiest read.

Thanks for the relief. I think I have had my share of modal counterpoint for now. I have learnt a lot from the Fux work however, and trust that the gathered knowledge will me help me in my undertaking of kennan (I've gone through the first chapter already but still have to do the exercises which is important ...) and Gauldin (which I really recommend!).
By the way, the Piston book on Counterpoint is like a carbon copy of the Kennan work. If you compare the first chapters of both in any case...

Originally Posted by mducharme

I would suggest two things - as you learn new concepts in harmony, make sure your ear integrates them to the point where you can identify them and be able to hear the sound of the progression or chord in your head without needing to be around a piano. That way your creative process can integrate the use of those harmonies in your own works.

I think I am slowly developing this. I feel how 7th degrees are often needed in a harmony to add tension. I also feel how the inverted triad sounds different and how it is essential as a connective or contrasting element. The ear-training I'm doing will also help in the long term I expect. I've nearly achieved 100% identification of quarters, fifths, mi/ma thirds & octave intervals (harmonic and melodic). It's as if I can also better judge the next harmony in a chord progression I have in my mind ,through my better aural understanding of melodic intervals. Does that make sense?

Originally Posted by mducharme

Second, I would suggest, as Stieinke does, that you not necessarily task yourself with writing a big composition like a Nocturne or a Sonata or even a Sonatina, but write even just a period form or, if you've gotten to the chapter on modulation yet, incipient binary form piece per chapter of the book as a follow up exercise. Those are very very small, and you can do one after nearly each chapter in the Steinke to integrate in concepts you have learned (incipient binary you probably would not be able to do until after having studied how to modulate to related keys).. making sure you use some of the new type of harmony or progression you have learned in that chapter, etc. They do not have to be wonderful or brilliant or groundbreaking, just serviceable will do, with proper voice leading.

I have not gotten to the chapter on modulation yet..
I'm currently at page 137 in the Steinke work (chapter on triads in 1st and 2nd inversion). Am going through this rather quickly. I love this self study method. It such a great tip. Thanks again!
Incipient binary form is still an unknown term to me. Is it a 2 part composition exercise with modulation to another key or something of that sort?
In piston I'm finishing a chapter on "melody" (have to do exercises...) and will next move on to chapter 8.: Nonharmonic tones. I have already read a little about this in the introduction of the Gauldin book. It's so fascinating!
The modulation chapter is still a few chapters off. I've peaked into it and read a little on the matter here and there already, so I can recognize (basic) modulations in most pieces.
When I play around on the piano with the theory I've learnt, or simply by improvising, I often find myself modulating into other keys. (the dominant of the dominant in the pre-last bar of a phrase scenario mostly).

Originally Posted by mducharme

If you want to write said piece for piano instead of SATB, study some piano pieces by Mozart and Bach and Haydn, or even Chopin, to see how they apply the voice leading rules in instrumental textures (i.e. forbidden parallels can sometimes be hidden by figuration patterns or can occur so briefly that they are not noticed; also frequent orchestration-like octave doublings for power and volume are used without it constituting forbidden parallels because it is just a carbon copy of the same voice and is not an independent voice at all)

I am currently studying various scores. Beethoven quartets, Sibelius's Pelleas & Melissande, Burgmullers Opus 100 as well as some Chopin pieces. I have noticed such things already but it's always good to hear someone saying it again ("Refreshes" the memory. Something that I need more than other people..).

Thanks Mike!!!

[mducharme]

In Period form you have two phrases.. the first ends in a half cadence or, more rarely, an imperfect authentic cadence, the second in a perfect authentic cadence. The first phrase asks a question, the second answers it so to speak.

Incipient binary form essentially is just like two periods in a row but with a modulation to a closely related key (usually a relative major or minor) partway through the first period and modulation back partway through the second.

[Ignacy]

Originally Posted by mducharme

In Period form you have two phrases.. the first ends in a half cadence or, more rarely, an imperfect authentic cadence, the second in a perfect authentic cadence. The first phrase asks a question, the second answers it so to speak.

I know exactly what you mean now This is similar to the Mazurka and Nocturne I have written. These 2 phrases (Call & Response) ,which I will call the Exposition, are usually also repeated. Response very often differs from the Call by just the last 2 bars. Also these two phrases are generally 4 or 8 bars long. After this Exposition one usually does a contrasting element (with similar structure) and then returns back to the first Exposition.
In studying the simpler nocturnes and sonata's I have encountered this structure various times.

Originally Posted by mducharme

Incipient binary form essentially is just like two periods in a row but with a modulation to a closely related key (usually a relative major or minor) partway through the first period and modulation back partway through the second.

This I have not yet trained, since I've not yet reached that chapter. However, I have noticed it in many (most) pieces. Chopin, Mozart, Beethoven (list goes on).

At the moment I'm still perfecting my Mazurka and was planning to write a simple Chorale like piece afterwards (containing many unaccented dissonances and suspensions and correct sounding cadences. I'll do another Period Form next to this but this time I'll do a more personal variant. I agree, it's a good thing to practice

[mducharme]

Originally Posted by Ignacy

I know exactly what you mean now This is similar to the Mazurka and Nocturne I have written. These 2 phrases (Call & Response) ,which I will call the Exposition, are usually also repeated. Response very often differs from the Call by just the last 2 bars. Also these two phrases are generally 4 or 8 bars long. After this Exposition one usually does a contrasting element (with similar structure) and then returns back to the first Exposition.

You are describing Ternary form.. Period form is kind of a building block form that makes up all the others. Ternary has a period in the home key (the "A" section), followed by a contrasting period (or sometimes phrase group) in a related key that modulates back into the home key sometime during it (the "B" section), followed by a period in the home key that is almost or completely identical to the first one (the "A" section again). A period that makes up those sections could also be an enlarged period or double period allowing the A or B section or both to be larger than two phrases.

I would just suggest calling it the "A" section instead of the exposition because "exposition" carries a special meaning for Sonata Form and also in Fugues.

This I have not yet trained, since I've not yet reached that chapter. However, I have noticed it in many (most) pieces. Chopin, Mozart, Beethoven (list goes on).

You will find incipient binary mostly in short Minuets. The difference between it and full binary in full binary the periods that it is made up of are enlarged or are double periods.

[Ignacy]

Originally Posted by mducharme

You are describing Ternary form.. Period form is kind of a building block form that makes up all the others. Ternary has a period in the home key (the "A" section), followed by a contrasting period (or sometimes phrase group) in a related key that modulates back into the home key sometime during it (the "B" section), followed by a period in the home key that is almost or completely identical to the first one (the "A" section again). A period that makes up those sections could also be an enlarged period or double period allowing the A or B section or both to be larger than two phrases.

I would just suggest calling it the "A" section instead of the exposition because "exposition" carries a special meaning for Sonata Form and also in Fugues.

I've read up on the various musical forms on wikipedia after your description and its much clearer now
My composition teacher at the conservatory would always advise me to write a call&response, say for the A part. For example 4 bars of Call and 4 bars of Response and both of these when repeated a second time would form the A part.
I sometimes also like to not write in "call and responses" (have done too much of these) and just write a nice 8 bar melody with a progression at the end. This is ok too - I see it everywhere - right?
After which the B part would follow, which contrasts but has a similar structure and finally a return to A which would form what you call the Ternary form.
Is the degree of contrast between the B part and the A part also a criteria of differenciation between the binary and ternary form?
I read that this (as well as a imp.auth cadens vs perf.auth at end of first A) differentiates the Round binary form from the ternary form at wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binary_form).

Are the B part in Binary Forms generally less contrasting than the B parts in ternay forms?

Isn't a Sonata generally a regroupment of 3 ternary forms in a ABA form?
With B modulating to another key (usually dominant if A was major and to a relative maj. or dominant if A was minor)?
I've underlined "generally" since I know there are no "written in stone rules" for the sonata form.

Originally Posted by mducharme

You will find incipient binary mostly in short Minuets. The difference between it and full binary in full binary the periods that it is made up of are enlarged or are double periods.

I'm looking forward to learning more about these..
I have just finished a very simple ternary form in just under an hour by the way. It was pretty simple. Only the modulation from B back to A is not 100% correct sounding. I guess this is because of my little knowledge of modulations as of yet.
Shall I post it?

Good night Mike!
..and thanks for the help (I'll keep on saying it ).

[mducharme]

Originally Posted by Ignacy

I sometimes also like to not write in "call and responses" (have done too much of these) and just write a nice 8 bar melody with a progression at the end. This is ok too - I see it everywhere - right?

The 8 bar "A" need not be total call and response with melodic similarity to be a period.. sometimes the phrases that make up a period are related, sometimes not. The cadences are what is important.

Is the degree of contrast between the B part and the A part also a criteria of differentiation between the binary and ternary form?
I read that this (as well as a imp.auth cadens vs perf.auth at end of first A) differentiates the Round binary form from the ternary form at wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binary_form).

The big difference is that Rounded binary is still divided into two sections, the second half of B just happens to be almost the same as the first half of A. Repeat symbols in the music often give away whether it is rounded binary or ternary. Rounded binary always ends the A section in either a related key or a half cadence in the main key of the piece (in the latter instance the A section is made up of a "phrase group" as opposed to a period because a stronger more definitive cadence on the final phrase is required for it to be considered a "period"), whereas ternary always ends the A section with a perfect cadence in the main key. Also often in rounded binary the repeated A section at the end of the B section is just a small portion of the overall A section, usually just a few bars from the beginning.

Are the B part in Binary Forms generally less contrasting than the B parts in ternay forms?

I suppose you could say that, because often (but not always) in binary the B section is made up of the same motivic material, just in a different key.

Isn't a Sonata generally a regroupment of 3 ternary forms in a ABA form?

No.. even though Sonata form is overall in 3 sections and thus may resemble ternary when you first look at it it is a form in on itself. It grew out of rounded binary - the first section (exposition) introduces (usually) two themes and ends in the new key or a half cadence in the old, the second section develops the themes from the first section and puts them through twists and turns and the third section reiterates them, slightly varied, after the development has put them through those twists and turns.

I have just finished a very simple ternary form in just under an hour by the way. It was pretty simple. Only the modulation from B back to A is not 100% correct sounding. I guess this is because of my little knowledge of modulations as of yet.
Shall I post it?

Sure, post it, it will likely be fairly obvious how to correct the modulation so it sounds better (as it will be to you after you get up to that chapter).

[stevel]

Rameau and Schoenberg are sitting on my cupboard's shelf. Maybe in a year or two I'll glance into them, but not now. I'd lose focus..

Yeah - I'll say again that the Rameau is more of historical interest, and the Schoenberg is getting that way (as it ages).

The Robert Gauldin (A practical approach to Eighteenth Century Counterpoint) book is great!

I'm glad you liked it. I did.

I've only read the first chapter thus far but it has taught me a lot already. The information is very condensed but clear. I've had to reread some passages (not because of Gauldin's writing style but because of my not all to strong knowledge in this field) but it proves to be very satisfying.

Watch out too - there are some typos or errors - especially in the examples themselves (like a C chord with a D root note or something).

On some other forum someone told me to study 1 Bach Chorale per day but I have not yet finished studying the first 3 and it's been a month now!

Don't worry about it. Keep at them. They're their own reward!

I have to admit however that I am a little fed up with Gradus ad Parnassum.

Do I hear Handel in the background? Yes, it's good, but it's not all that everyone makes it out to be.

I've started studying this exactly 1 year ago ad I've more or less gone through all the exercises. What bothers me is that every time I take a few days off, I have lots of difficulties getting back to my former level. Whereas the stuff I learn from the Harmony books flows into my memory and hands much more intuitively,

That's because harmony books use REAL examples, not stuff Fux made up.

the CPT rules as stated by FUX feel very rule laden and I'm not that good at memorizing all these rules. 2 and 3 part voicing are not that difficult and can sound nice. But some of the 4 part voicings tend to sound unmusical (even Fux's examples) and often prove to be very time consuming.
I wonder if I should continue doing some of these CPT exercises everyday.

Only if you're doing Jeppesens or Kennans, or someone elses :-)

I've by the way found two other famous Counterpoint books dealing with CPT in a second hand bookshop (Kennan and Piston's takes on Cpt) and am reading these through, although very very very slowly (Can not afford to do too much at the same time).

Yes - these will give you a fresh perspective on the Fux.

Biggest problem is still that I do not compose enough. Up until last year I composed a lot. This year however I've done very little except for some exercises and 1 or 2 pieces near the end of 2007.
My plan is to study 2 more years (3 max) and then stop reading music theory (or keep it to a bare minimum of below 5% daily activity).
I find it very difficult to compose. Everytime I have some spare time and try to do so, I always end up reading and doing exercises
Everything I compose feels so amateurish. I know it's best to do something nevertheless but it is so terribly difficult. The more time I spend composing, the more I feel as if I forget the latest theory I have just learnt etc etc. I just need to make 1 piece in order regain confidence. This is most important to me.

I went through (or am still going through) the same problem - back when I didn't know anything, I didn't know how amateurish my music sounded, so I wrote tons of it. Now, if it's not what I think is "worthy", then I throw it out - so I'm a little more (or rather, much more) self-critical now. I think it comes with the territory - the more experienced you become, the harder you try to "out do" yourself.

I too compose very slowly, except when doing exercises. But I've found it's easier for me to get a piece out if I just try to do something simple and fun, not try to write "the next great symphony" or try to hold myself to those kind of standards.

Best,
Steve