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

[Ignacy]

Actually,

I've already made a few choices..

Quick background info: I have a common knowledge of basic theory (Various modes, harmonies, intervals etc) and am currently studying Piston's Harmony (4th ed.) book.
I've nearly finished chapter 5 (doing the exercises right now..).

So far I've gone through the following preliminary chapters on :
1.Intervals
2.Triad,
3.Major Mode,
4.Minor Mode &
5.Modality & Tonality.
Next one up is "figured bass (1st inversion)".

I'm doing all of this alone without a harmony teacher and I'm doing pretty well from my vantage point, although I know (and have been made aware) that there are many pitfalls one has to avoid while doing so.
I had some difficulties in the 4th chapter with harmonizing bass progressions in the minor mode (augm. 2nds etc), and posted "a few" questions in a self-created thread at soundsonline where I got some very friendly help.
"Check this out": http://www.soundsonline-forums.com/s...ad.php?t=12957 .

Dalek3, the best helper there pointed me to this forum, which is exactly the kind of forum I have been looking for in a long while!!!...

In this thread I was advised to not base myself solely on Piston's work in my study of harmony.
Some have gone so far to say his work is rubbish. I have difficulties concurring with this opinion since I really like Piston's approach so far. It's true however that I have no material to compare it to (I have a Stockhausen Harmony book lying around somewhere but won't be studying that for the next few years, at least).

Although I agree with the idea that studying another work next to Piston is the thing to do, I was wondering what the thoughts of the people on this forum are concerning this matter.

One thing I consider of big importance:

I am going though all this theory to become a better composer. I do not intend to become a theorist (although a good composer needs to be at least a little of both I agree).

Of all the advise given in the thread I created at Soundsonline, these two works seem most interesting to me (with an emphasis on the former).

Steinke's "Harmonic Materials in Tonal Music" (1&2).
Rameau "Treatise on Harmony".

Currently I'm thinking of buying the Steinke books. I have not done so yet since they are pretty expensive, I want to be absolutely "sure" about this purchase. Most probably I'll buy more works in the future, once I'm more at ease with the material.

What do you people think of this decision?

Please, if at all possible, don't give me a big list of alternative works to consider. Currently I want something that is "good enough", wherewith I can continue my work. My workload is already pretty severe and I can't be studying to much at the same time.

I've also heard of Schenker's original approach to harmony and counterpoint. Should I look into his work now or at a latter date? It looks very interesting, but I'm afraid it will at this stage in my study only confuse me even more.

One thing I will definitely do, and that everyone at Soundsonline tended to agree upon, is studying the Bach Chorales.

Finally, I would also like to let you know that I'm currently also studying Fux's Gradus ad Parnassum - The Study of Counterpoint.
I'm progressing well (over half-way through the book).
Here also, I've been advised to cross-reference/study another theorists work, namely "Counterpoint" by Knud Jeppesen.

What are your thoughts?
Is Steinke & Piston a good enough combination?
Any other recommendations? [Please not too much at the same time, it will drive me nuts].
Should I also consider Jeppesen's Counterpoint?
What about Schenkers approach to counterpoint?

A big thanks in advance already!!!!!

PS: What kind of music do I want to write? I am a great admirer of the early to late romantic repertoire (Beethoven, Mahler, Sibelius,..) so that will give you an idea. I've recently written a simple mazurka and nocturne for the piano.

[Ignacy]

[stevel]

Steinke's "Harmonic Materials in Tonal Music" (1&2).
Rameau "Treatise on Harmony".

I'm a theory instructor who holds a composition degree (well, two). Never even heard of Steinke.

The first book you should consider is Kostka/Payne Tonal Harmony.

Second I'd say the one you have - the Piston.

I've also heard of Schenker's original approach to harmony and counterpoint. Should I look into his work now or at a latter date? It looks very interesting, but I'm afraid it will at this stage in my study only confuse me even more.

You will be lost forever. Schenker is for "theorists", not "composers" - or at least, that's true at this learning stage.

One thing I will definitely do, and that everyone at Soundsonline tended to agree upon, is studying the Bach Chorales.

Absolutely. Get the Reimenschneider edition of the 371. It's not the only thing you should study, but it's something you should study.

Finally, I would also like to let you know that I'm currently also studying Fux's Gradus ad Parnassum - The Study of Counterpoint.
I'm progressing well (over half-way through the book).
Here also, I've been advised to cross-reference/study another theorists work, namely "Counterpoint" by Knud Jeppesen.

Let's say that any academic theorist and/or composer "must have" some books on their shelves - the Fux and Jeppesen are "must haves". So is the Piston (he has Counterpoint too, and you should also have his Orchestration). For Theory, Rameau and Schoenberg are must haves too.

But, if you want a PRACTICAL approach to COMPOSING counterpoint, then you need to get Robert Gualdin's "Practical Approach to 18th Century Counterpoint".

The Fux is species-based. Real music wasn't written this way. It's at best, and artificial method. Now, that doesn't mean it's not worthwhile, and in fact, Mozart, Haydn and Beethoven all used it. BUT, as you go through it, you will find very quickly that the exercises (and the examples) soon do not sound like "real" music.

Jeppesen on the other hand is designed to help you create real music - unfortunately, it's very specifically the style of Palestrina. Most people aren't interested in that (though they should be).

Gauldin teaches real music, with real forms, with real examples. (he also has one for 16th century too - Palestrina style).

Gauldin also has a theory text that I consider a must have, but it's not as popular - I think it's Harmonic Practice in Tonal music or something to that effect.

What are your thoughts?
Is Steinke & Piston a good enough combination?
Any other recommendations? [Please not too much at the same time, it will drive me nuts].
Should I also consider Jeppesen's Counterpoint?
What about Schenkers approach to counterpoint?

So to sum:
Counterpoint:
Gauldin: Practical Approach to 18th Century Counterpoint.
Theory:
Kostka/Payne: Tonal Harmony

Other good things to investigate:
For PRACTICAL reasons:
Piston: Counterpoint
Adler: Orchestration
Piston: Orchestration
Gualdin: Practical Approach to 16th Century Counterpoint
Jeppesen*: Counterpoint
Gauldin: Theory (harmonic practice, etc.)
Clendenning/Marvin: Theory (musician's guide to theory and anlaysis IIRC).
Schoenberg*: Theory (or Hamrony)

I think the other books one should have are, not necessarily for their practical strengths, but because of their historical importance (and those* above):
Rameau: Treatise on Harmony
Fux: Gradus ad Parnassum (counterpoint)

Remember - these two books came out in 1722 and 1725 (forget which is which). Their structure, pedagogy, and even language is "old-fashioned". Again, that doesn't mean things can't be learned from them, but think about this - Beethoven was using Chromatic Mediants. Rameau was dead by then. Most of the music most people want to write is from the period AFTER these two authors - even Mozart was changing the endings of the Fux examples to bring them "up to date" for his own time (40 years after Fux). These books are historically interesting, but studying Fux is not going to teach you to compose like Bach or Mozart. Studying Bach and Mozart, and authors after them (like Gauldin) who've dissected their style will help you do that.

PS: What kind of music do I want to write? I am a great admirer of the early to late romantic repertoire (Beethoven, Mahler, Sibelius,..) so that will give you an idea. I've recently written a simple mazurka and nocturne for the piano.

Ok. The NUMBER ONE thing you should study is the MUSIC and the SCORES of these composers. A book is OK, but like they say - a song is worth a thousand words. Immerse yourself in their music and figure out what makes it tick. Learning how to realize figured bass isn't going to really do all that much for you until you get really good at it, by which point you'll have long figured out how to emulate Chopin by ear.

Let me throw out a word of caution - wanting to learn to compose - admirable.

BUT - there are twenty one bajillion and one people out there doing the same thing you're doing. They all want to compose like Beethoven. Yawn. I love Beethoven. But that music is quite old now. Why not compose like Bach, or Palestrina. Why not compose like Bartok, or, hell, Piston. Do you know any Piston? Don't limit yourself. There's this terrible, over-hanging behemoth of "Romantic Music" that people can not get away from. It creates a bunch of people composing the same old schmaltz they think is like Chopin, but it's just cheap imitation. Why not imitate Bartok, or Palestrina - you know why? Because somewhere, hidden away in people's subconscious is this idea that "romantic period symphonic music represents the pinnacle of human artistic acheivement in music". I see it everyday.

Just, do yourself a favor, and give other music a try - we've had music from the year 500 to 2008. 1500 years. Why focus on 1800-1900 - 100 years? Seems kind of limiting, don't you think?

Ok, down off soap box (sorry, it's a pet peeve of mine).

Hope the textbook info helps.

Steve

[stevel]

Originally Posted by Ignacy

!!

PS: What kind of music do I want to write? I am a great admirer of the early to late romantic repertoire (Beethoven, Mahler, Sibelius,..) so that will give you an idea. I've recently written a simple mazurka and nocturne for the piano.

Oh, I forgot to mention another historically significant text, and that's Rimsky-Korsakov's Orchestration. There's also one by Berlioz. The problem with these is they were written before some of our "modern" instruments were even invented, so they don't address some instruments, and they don't contain contemporary techniques.

By the way, another must have book for composers is Kurt Stone's Music Notation in the 20th Century (out of print though - have to find used ones), and (still in print) Gardner Read's Notation. Great references.

And I want to point out that you don't see any "Composition" books in my list - that's because there aren't really all that many! Leon Dallin wrote one, as did Reginald Smith-Brindle. And I'm sure there are throngs of "pop" "How to Compose" books (the kind people write to make money off of, rather than having any knowledge or insight about composing).

Composing is evolving, and that's why texts on it are so rare. You can't say "this is how you compose" because next week, someone's going to be composing in a completely different way. You might could do "how to compose like Stravinsky" but even Stravinsky himself morphed over his career to where no one set of "rules" will get you sounding much like him.

So it's better to study elements of music that are "more broadly common" - like harmony, like counterpoint, like orchestration, like form, etc.

Later,
Steve

[mducharme]

Stevel - perhaps you've heard of the Steinke under a different name.. Harder/Steinke would be more accurate, as it was originally Paul Harder who started it and Steinke who revised it. Anyhow their college text series of "programmed" texts for study of theory and harmony are quite popular as they are self-grading. In a course where there is a teacher to grade the work there is little benefit to a programmed approach, but I learned from those books by self study years ago and I feel it gave me a good grounding in the basics without a teacher (hence is why I recommended it to Ignacy).

[Ignacy]

Originally Posted by stevel

I'm a theory instructor who holds a composition degree (well, two). Never even heard of Steinke.

The first book you should consider is Kostka/Payne Tonal Harmony.

Second I'd say the one you have - the Piston.

Do I really need to go through the Kostka/Payne book at this stage?.
I have done a search on the internet and it seems to cover similar ground to Piston.
Some of the comments on Amazon are a little negative concerning this work. Mostly because of the dry nature of it, so it seems. I have no problems with dry material so that would not be a problem. Furthermore, one should not take Amazon reviewers too seriously
Have you heard of mducharme's recommendation (Harder/Steinke)?

Originally Posted by stevel

You will be lost forever. Schenker is for "theorists", not "composers" - or at least, that's true at this learning stage.

Good to know right now!! Thanks.

Originally Posted by stevel

Absolutely. Get the Reimenschneider edition of the 371. It's not the only thing you should study, but it's something you should study.

Will do so, very very soon.

Originally Posted by stevel

Let's say that any academic theorist and/or composer "must have" some books on their shelves - the Fux and Jeppesen are "must haves". So is the Piston (he has Counterpoint too, and you should also have his Orchestration). For Theory, Rameau and Schoenberg are must haves too.

Piston's Counterpoint seems not right for now but I will not forget about its existence (later).
Schoenberg is standing on the shelf. I have peaked in it a few times, again> later. Others I discuss below.

Originally Posted by stevel

But, if you want a PRACTICAL approach to COMPOSING counterpoint, then you need to get Robert Gualdin's "Practical Approach to 18th Century Counterpoint".

&

Originally Posted by stevel

Gauldin teaches real music, with real forms, with real examples. (he also has one for 16th century too - Palestrina style).

I have never heard of Gauldin before. This approach looks very interesting and I'm definitely considering it.

Originally Posted by stevel

The Fux is species-based. Real music wasn't written this way. It's at best, and artificial method. Now, that doesn't mean it's not worthwhile, and in fact, Mozart, Haydn and Beethoven all used it. BUT, as you go through it, you will find very quickly that the exercises (and the examples) soon do not sound like "real" music.

Very true, but the training is good (at avoidance of "mistakes").

Originally Posted by stevel

Jeppesen on the other hand is designed to help you create real music - unfortunately, it's very specifically the style of Palestrina. Most people aren't interested in that (though they should be).

I like Palestrina's music and wouldn't mind more study of it, but isn't Fux's approach enough for now? And Jeppesen, possibly, at a later date?
Doesn't Jeppesen also use the Species approach?

Originally Posted by stevel

So to sum:
Counterpoint:
Gauldin: Practical Approach to 18th Century Counterpoint.
Theory:
Kostka/Payne: Tonal Harmony

Not sure about Kostka/Payne yet. Waiting for your reaction (and of others possibly) to my question.

Originally Posted by stevel

Other good things to investigate:
For PRACTICAL reasons:
Piston: Counterpoint
Adler: Orchestration
Piston: Orchestration
Gualdin: Practical Approach to 16th Century Counterpoint
Jeppesen*: Counterpoint
Gauldin: Theory (harmonic practice, etc.)
Clendenning/Marvin: Theory (musician's guide to theory and anlaysis IIRC).
Schoenberg*: Theory (or Harmony)

I don't want to delve to deep into orchestration yet (although I consider them (ranges) when I'm doing voice-leading exercises. At the start of next year I'll focus more on orchestration. I have however gone through an online summary of Korsakov's orchestration (which you've tipped in your second post) some time ago, which I've bought directly afterwards. I read his orchestration book at a slow but intrigued pace. A little sad that Korsakov was only able to actually write the first chapter....
Not sure If I'll be investigating Piston for now and as far as Gauldin's 16th century counterpoint is concerned, I'll check it out based on my experience with his analysis of the 18th.

Clendenning/Marvin: Theory (musician's guide to theory and anlaysis IIRC)>> This looks interesting. Looks like another worthy book for self-study and an alternative for the also promising looking Harder/Steinker Self-Study book.

Isn't one of these a better choice to have next to the Piston for now? Instead of the Kostka/Payne work? Or, should I, really get the Kostka/Payne work?
Thus, a self-study and formal approach vs two formal approaches.

Originally Posted by stevel

I think the other books one should have are, not necessarily for their practical strengths, but because of their historical importance (and those* above):
Rameau: Treatise on Harmony
Fux: Gradus ad Parnassum (counterpoint)

I think I will get the Rameau as you say. Just to put it in my shelf for now. Once I have some spare time and more baggage, I'll look into it.

Originally Posted by stevel

Studying Fux is not going to teach you to compose like Bach or Mozart. Studying Bach and Mozart, and authors after them (like Gauldin) who've dissected their style will help you do that.

Of course.

Originally Posted by stevel

Ok. The NUMBER ONE thing you should study is the MUSIC and the SCORES of these composers. A book is OK, but like they say - a song is worth a thousand words. Immerse yourself in their music and figure out what makes it tick. Learning how to realize figured bass isn't going to really do all that much for you until you get really good at it, by which point you'll have long figured out how to emulate Chopin by ear.

I will definitly be doing so more and more. I am currently studying Beethoven's Coriolan.
I however want to start afresh with Bach's Chorales once It has arrived (thanks for the publisher recommendation).

Originally Posted by stevel

Let me throw out a word of caution - wanting to learn to compose - admirable.

BUT - there are twenty one bajillion and one people out there doing the same thing you're doing. They all want to compose like Beethoven. Yawn. I love Beethoven. But that music is quite old now. Why not compose like Bach, or Palestrina. Why not compose like Bartok, or, hell, Piston. Do you know any Piston? Don't limit yourself. There's this terrible, over-hanging behemoth of "Romantic Music" that people can not get away from. It creates a bunch of people composing the same old schmaltz they think is like Chopin, but it's just cheap imitation. Why not imitate Bartok, or Palestrina - you know why? Because somewhere, hidden away in people's subconscious is this idea that "romantic period symphonic music represents the pinnacle of human artistic acheivement in music". I see it everyday.

Just, do yourself a favor, and give other music a try - we've had music from the year 500 to 2008. 1500 years. Why focus on 1800-1900 - 100 years? Seems kind of limiting, don't you think?

I completely agree with you. I had added the last sentence to my post without giving it much thought. It's not my intention to write unintentional pastiches of "the famous and great composers"
Honestly about Piston, I had searched for some of his music before starting the study of his Harmony Book but it was difficult to come by and eventually forgot about it (although I'm reading his material so often!). Very ignorant and stupid, agreed. Have just listened to some extracts of his music at amazon and his 2nd symphony sounds interesting. Maybe I'll add one of these to my Amazons Shopping List. Any recommendations?

Originally Posted by stevel

By the way, another must have book for composers is Kurt Stone's Music Notation in the 20th Century (out of print though - have to find used ones), and (still in print) Gardner Read's Notation. Great references.

A very good tip. Never thought of actually reading up on this but is very important I suspect. Stone's is still in stock at Amazon by the way. Which of these two would you recommend? Both would be a little too expensive. They both cover the pre-modern notation too, right?

Originally Posted by stevel

Hope the textbook info helps.

Steve

Yes, very much so!! Thank You!!

Ignacy.

[mducharme]

The Kotska/Payne that stevel is suggesting is excellent text and one of my go-to books and is very good for introducing people to harmony. But again, for self study IMO it is much more difficult going with a regular textbook because of not having a person there to check your work except you. Programmed texts essentially check your work for you. Harder/Steinke is not the only programmed series out there (there is one made by another author on harmonic progression) but it is the most complete.

You may also hear from others about the Aldwell/Schatler harmony book.. it is good as well but is very heavy on detail. That is good if you want a reference but not so good if you are learning for the first time. I find Gauldin's counterpoint books much the same way, personally. For tonal counterpoint I would suggest Kennan. For modal counterpoint I would suggest Peter Schubert, as he uses a step by step species method like Fux/Jeppesen but in greater detail but that would have to be augmented with something Palestrina specific (like Jeppesen or Gauldin) if you were specifically interested in the Palestrina style.

There is also a book called "Counterpoint in Composition" if you are interested in a tonal species approach, but it doesn't cover such things as fugue which are normally covered in counterpoint texts.

[Ignacy]

I am thinking on similar lines. A book like Piston's Harmony proves to be a heavy load at the present time (next to all the other work & study I'm doing). Kostka might make it to heavy for now..
Mike, have you read the Clendenning/Marvin: Theory work? What are your thoughts on it?
As for Tonal Counterpoint... I was browsing on the internet to find out how this differs from Modal Counterpoint and stumbled upon this book at amazon: http://www.amazon.com/Modal-Tonal-Co.../dp/0028721454
Looks interesting but way over my budget.
Anyway, I've yet to discover the difference between the 2 forms.

My current guess is that tonal counterpoint differs from modal counterpoint in that it stands for a later period occurence of counterpoint where the emphasis was on the major &minor tonalities (17th & 18th century) as opposed to to the renaissance church tone modalities. It's the distinction between the two Gauldin books on Counterpoint right?

Anyhow, I'm yet again puzzled as to what I should get

Still many thanks for the info Mike

[mducharme]

Originally Posted by Ignacy

I am thinking on similar lines. A book like Piston's Harmony proves to be a heavy load at the present time (next to all the other work & study I'm doing). Kostka might make it to heavy for now..
Mike, have you read the Clendenning/Marvin: Theory work? What are your thoughts on it?

I've seen it before in bookstores but it's always been this sealed package so I didn't really get to flip through it.. I find both Kostka/Payne and Harder/Steinke much easier reads than the Piston.. Not necessarily because of Piston's writing, but because of the larger number of musical examples and visual aides made possible/easier by modern printing.

As for Tonal Counterpoint... I was browsing on the internet to find out how this differs from Modal Counterpoint and stumbled upon this book at amazon: http://www.amazon.com/Modal-Tonal-Co.../dp/0028721454
Looks interesting but way over my budget.
Anyway, I've yet to discover the difference between the 2 forms.

I have that book, it's so-so. That book is essentially designed as two books in one.. it doesn't really take you through modal and then tonal like you would think. It assumes you are new to counterpoint and takes you through modal as a beginner. Then you get up to the tonal chapters and it assumes you are new to counterpoint again and takes you through the tonal counterpoint as a beginner, so there is really no "bridge" between the two.

My current guess is that tonal counterpoint differs from modal counterpoint in that it stands for a later period occurence of counterpoint where the emphasis was on the major &minor tonalities (17th & 18th century) as opposed to to the renaissance church tone modalities. It's the distinction between the two Gauldin books on Counterpoint right?

Yes that is the distinction.. but also tonal counterpoint incorporates harmony, whereas modal counterpoint was pure melodies and looked at intervals alone. There are many who believe that counterpoint is best studied in its modal form at first as then there is an ability to focus on melody and not have to worry about the harmonic progression because there is no such thing. Learning counterpoint not being based on harmony is also useful for writing atonal or serial stuff.

With tonal counterpoint you have to keep the harmonic progression in mind from the get-go which means one extra factor to have to balance. Rhythmically renaissance counterpoint almost tries to avoid a consistent rhythm, with dotted notes and things taking place offbeat, and avoidance of accents on a strong beat, while baroque and classical are very rhythmic and have lots of forward drive. Today most of the music we hear is rhythmically like the baroque and classical so the rhythmic essence of renaissance music is one of the hardest properties of it for us to grasp.

[stevel]

Originally Posted by mducharme

Stevel - perhaps you've heard of the Steinke under a different name.. Harder/Steinke would be more accurate, as it was originally Paul Harder who started it and Steinke who revised it. Anyhow their college text series of "programmed" texts for study of theory and harmony are quite popular as they are self-grading. In a course where there is a teacher to grade the work there is little benefit to a programmed approach, but I learned from those books by self study years ago and I feel it gave me a good grounding in the basics without a teacher (hence is why I recommended it to Ignacy).

It's not "Master Theory" is it?

Steve