# Teaching yourself theory



## Sofronitsky

Does anyone know any good resources for teaching yourself theory? Something that covers basic theory very quickly and moves on to more advanced early on would be perfectly suited to me!


----------



## emiellucifuge

Get some books.

I would suggest the following which is essentially an excercise book:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Harmony-Pra...8334/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1330122698&sr=8-1

Then as more of a philsophical overview on harmony, Schoenbergs tome, Harmonielehre.

And simultaneously pick up this book on analysis and begin to learn from the masters on your own:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Guide-Music...=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1330122805&sr=1-1

But im no expert...


----------



## clavichorder

http://www.musictheory.net/ can be helpful in earlier stages, and possibly later ones, I don't know.


----------



## chee_zee

kostka's tonal harmony is what you're looking for. it'll steep you into intros into both classical and jazz


----------



## PetrB

Oh God, the quick fix mentality. I do not care how old you are, how much you would love to 'catch up:' a study such as this, if it is to be of any later worth, takes time. 

At each stage, it needs to be worked so you have familiarity in a number of contexts for the same procedure, premise, and also that it is fully 'absorbed,'because it does become the foundation for the next lesson and development. The study is completely of a cumulative nature.

That cumulative familiarity, and the need for a ready fluidity, starts with the first lesson going into the second lesson.

Self-study books:
I have none to recommend because I always studied with someone. 
I've heard there are 'harmony for dummies' books. I have no idea how far they take you or how well they really do it.

The Walter Piston Harmony book is a staple, 'modern' enough while being common practice. It is so clearly written and well-laid out it is still used in both high schools with music programs and colleges.

But ~ 'Self-teach' ~ now think about that. Your teacher is one who does not know the subject, does not know how to teach it, and cannot answer clearly any of the questions you have which come up, some concrete, some quite in the arena of abstract, and needing individuation to best know how to explain to you 'how to think about it.'

I have seen too many autodidacts who have mistaken some basic theoretic premise, and all their further autodidact study is prone to a further distorted understanding because it is based on the first misunderstanding.

Of course, anyone can get some basics down, the ABC's so to speak, which at least brings you to some tutor or another having to not pay them to learn an alphabet, for example.

The only advice I would give an autodidact is to write out any given exercise not the three times I would recommend to a student who really wanted to 'get it' vs. getting enough to pass a course, but that many more times, since you are under no tutelage, to begin to better solidify what you are learning on your own. (the most basic four-part chorale exercise has at least three or more solutions, all 'correct.')

Then I really recommend, at least once a month, a tutor to keep you from derailing yourself or working with a mistaken notion too long before it is cleared up. Ideally, at least once a week.

Oddly enough, there are two other 'non-traditional' entry points. Modal counterpoint and serial music, before any 'harmony' study. Both are an approach with a set mode or set of pitches; both show, through working them, how lines become consequent 'harmony.' If not an unappealing idea, no harm and some good can be done looking into those first.

Arnold Schoenberg was self-taught, with only a few tutorial lessons in counterpoint with another. Not long after, he held a post as harmony teacher in a conservatory / university. It can be done, if you have his talent and discipline.


----------



## Kopachris

@PetrB: It's ironic that someone who rants so much about classical techniques being outdated would choose such an antique and stringent pedagogy. I contend that in this age, anyone with Internet access should have the resources to learn anything that can be taught. I suggest to the OP to not only read as many books on the same subject as possible (to reinforce the information by getting it several different ways) but to also find a good music theory community on the Internet to help answer questions and clear up confusions (this one isn't dedicated to music theory, but it still may be able to help). That and study music, of course--apply what you read about theory to what you hear while reading scores.


----------



## PetrB

ADD: I have never ranted about classical techniques or a solid classical training being outdated - ever, anywhere anytime. I should really demand satisfaction or that you retract that one immediately  But I never said it and will not say it. [Show that statement to me, please.]

The 'online theory community' you imagine exists is like this and all other open admission forums - completely uneven as to what and who you get, meaning you still 'have to know a bit' before you select the more creditable information or advice. It is truly a free-for all, which is in one way great, but in this instance, not The Source in any way shape or form. END ADD:

The internet is not a teacher, it just has gobs of information: many 'free' tutorials are literally useless and many tutorials or online teaching for a fee are being taught by those with no real expertise (to hell with credentials, just talking about someone who knows the material and knows how to communicate it.)

Then are we talking pop theory, which is often confused with classical theory, and the huge difference between the two? There is no 'C7' in classical theory, it has to be a roman numeral, designating scale degree, and Arabic numerals denoting which position the chord is in. We should throw jazz theory in the mix too. The three sorts of theory suit the needs of each genre, but there is pretty much a no twain shall meet factor there -- often their terminology is at fundamental odds with the terminology of the others.

Younger people tend more to believe everything on 'teh internetz' is good and 'legitimate.' Wikipedia is phenomenal, but is also phenomenally unreliable and often enough downright wrong. (What? Wikipedia incorrect?)

Lets say the internet is more like a calculator - you have to have an idea of what is correct to begin with, or you can push the wrong button and think and take / mistake an incorrect answer (translate information) as good.

A lot of the phenomenon of the exponentially spreading idea one can 'self-teach' is in itself a result of internet myth, whether it is instrumental performance or study of theory. Theory, unlike math, has dozens of 'correct' answers for any problem presented. The most concrete of premises or procedures has dozens of ways of being approached and the problems present solved: Theory, even beginning levels, is that much in flux. If you do know of sites where you get that kind of tutelage, low cost or free, please list them for anyone in need, such as the gentleman asking here.

There is absolutely NO SUBSTITUTE for a one on one interactive situation, where a question can be immediately addressed, the student's thinking is already taken into account as part of the tutor's approach. Some qualified teachers may be available online, for a fee, where it is set up like an old-fashioned correspondence course. Those, if existing, are the optimum the internet could offer. The good ones are not 'free' and often cost nearly the same as taking a course or hiring an in-person tutor.

To think otherwise is to really think all people are equal and all cultures are of equal merit - and anyone can become anything, evidently without the preparation the real ones all have had. Good luck with that one.


----------



## Kopachris

PetrB said:


> ADD: I have never ranted about classical techniques or a solid classical training being outdated - ever, anywhere anytime. I should really demand satisfaction or that you retract that one immediately  But I never said it and will not say it. [Show that statement to me, please.]


Here, I am taking "vocabularies" as a synonym for "techniques" in that a particular vocabulary is essentially a technique for generating a certain effect.


PetrB said:


> If you are writing original music which is nonetheless in any of the older classical or romantic vocabularies, you are writing an academic exercise, of little interest to anyone other than a teacher looking over an assignment, I would not be less interested than you report they seemed to be.
> 
> I remain surprised anyone would bother to write even the briefest of pieces in a mid or late romantic style, other than one of those academic 'model' assignments, let alone compose whole symphonies, concerti and other works in the same vein. But many do. That 'symphonist' thing too, if not dead, is for better or worse wholly out of fashion.


As for the rest of your post, I'd much rather place my faith in a community of people than in just one person. Too often have I come across teachers who didn't know enough about what they teach. Several slightly differing answers to a question will almost always help me form a more correct understanding than any single answer. Have you ever had to write a research paper? That's basically the method I'm suggesting for autodidacticism, but with more practice (composing) and less writing (words).

There's more than one way to skin a cat.


----------

