# Good Harmony Book



## musika

Does anyone by any chance know of a good step-by-step harmony textbook? One that aims at training your inner ear? I know you need a teacher, but it would still be good to have a textbook which covers it all. Also does anyone know, where would be the best place for to buy stuff like that???


----------



## Yagan Kiely

www.imslp.org

www.wikipedia.org

Textbooks are always disgusting.


----------



## phoenixshade

I disagree that textbooks are _always_ disgusting. A _good_ textbook can bring together theoretical ideas developed by multiple sources and relate them to one another in a meaningful way.

However, a book alone isn't going to cut it, in my opinion. Familiarize yourself with some basic chordal notations, especially scale degree roman numeral notation. You should also be familiar with the circle of fifths, and how it relates to chord progressions, which are the basis of the vast majority of Western tonal music. There are tons of books on these subjects, but if you have the time, I'd stongly suggest you see if your local community college offers any courses in introductory music theory.

From there, I'll make a suggestion that some people have strong feelings about, either for or against. The book is *Introduction to Schenkerian Analysis* by Allen Forte and Steven Gilbert. For a (very) brief introduction to the theories of Heinrich Schenker, check out the *Wikipedia article*. The reason that I recommend this is, broadly speaking, that all too many authors on music theory treat counterpoint and harmony as two entirely separate entites of polyphonic music. Schenker brings these related concepts together in a meaningful way that- for me, at least- makes it clear how the harmonies of the Classical era arose from those of the Baroque. It also helps you understand how pieces with a lot of variation can still feel like a unified whole.

In my opinion, Schenkerian analysis is weak when it comes to some of the more extreme harmonies of the 20th century, but for common practice tonal music, it's hard to find a more all-encompassing approach than his.

OK, anti-Schenkerians, flame away...


----------



## Yagan Kiely

Text books are excellent at letting you no the existence of (in their opinion) extremely strict rules of extremely basic musical language.

Shenkerian Analysis does very little _if anything_ to learn music, it is a tool for those who _alread_ understand music. Plus it's similar to giving someone new to physics a book on quantum physics.

To understand music does no require analysis, you do that once you understand it.


----------



## Yagan Kiely

Also:

http://www.musopen.com/

is writing a basic textbook.


----------



## phoenixshade

Yagan Kiely said:


> Text books are excellent at letting you [know] the existence of (in their opinion) extremely strict rules of extremely basic musical language.


You have to understand the rules before you can learn where, when, and how it is acceptable to break them. Besides, I don't know what textbooks you've read, but most of the ones I've seen mention and even illustrate exceptions to the general rule. Furthermore, the very first textbook I had on music theory in the later chapters delved into such things as serialism and set theory - hardly "extremely basic" topics, by any stretch of the imagination.

Wikipedia, on the other hand, is in my opinion a terrible place to try to learn anything about music theory. You have to trudge through multiple disjointed (and often poorly written) articles, fully three-quarters of the articles that should be in-depth are "stubs," and there are no guidelines or heirarchy to indicate the relative importance of each concept. On the web, there are *much better resources available* to the aspiring music student. (Each word is a separate link.)

But I agree with you about imslp and even posted a link myself in another forum, as it's a great resource for public domain sheet music.



Yagan Kiely said:


> Plus it's similar to giving someone new to physics a book on quantum physics.


OK, perhaps I'll grant you that point... although I was fairly new to music theory when I first discovered Schenker, and I have to say that, although it took some work on my part, I felt comfortable with it fairly quickly. It is quite satisfying when distant measures of music that _sound_ related can be shown to _be_ related in a graphical way.

But, in my own defense, I _did_ recommend a course on introductory music theory _before_ getting the book.



Yagan Kiely said:


> Also: http://www.musopen.com/ is writing a basic textbook.


I'll add that one to my list when they finally get around to, you know, actually _writing_ it!


----------



## Yagan Kiely

> You have to understand the rules before you can learn where, when, and how it is acceptable to break them.


That's it though, its teaching them badly. They aren't rules. Yes you teach them what is generally done, but unless you _also_ tell them (briefly) that there are alternatives they will get stuck in their ways and it will be detrimental to later education as they are not as likely to assimilate 'new' ideas.



> Furthermore, the very first textbook I had on music theory in the later chapters delved into such things as serialism and set theory - hardly "extremely basic" topics, by any stretch of the imagination.


Yes it covers them, but they don't (seem) to cover it well enough to be of any use.



> Wikipedia, on the other hand, is in my opinion a terrible place to try to learn anything about music theory. You have to trudge through multiple disjointed (and often poorly written) articles, fully three-quarters of the articles that should be in-depth are "stubs," and there are no guidelines or heirarchy to indicate the relative importance of each concept. On the web, there are *much better resources available* to the aspiring music student. (Each word is a separate link.)


I've always found that the basics (the only thing that is of any use in textbooks) is found on Wikipedia. With your links, I'd like to replace 8notes with http://www.dolmetsch.com/index.htm .



> But, in my own defense, I _did_ recommend a course on introductory music theory _before_ getting the book.


Of course. 

My argument is this: Music Textbooks tend to be too strict on the 'rules' which restricts the education of the student. While they do an adequate job of specifying the 'rules', they do not to a good enough job with the more complex theory articles.


----------



## phoenixshade

Yagan Kiely said:


> That's it though, its teaching them badly. They aren't rules.


Perhaps we just have better textbooks here in the States... (j/k)

They aren't (all) _strict_ rules, but there _are_ rules of a sort (a minor third is a minor third, period), and unless you want to make music that sounds like someone threw the pots and pans down the stairs or sit in front of a piano and do absolutely nothing for four minutes and thirty-three seconds, they should be regarded as such.



Yagan Kiely said:


> Yes you teach them what is generally done, but unless you also tell them (briefly) that there are alternatives...


I think I already addressed this:


phoenixshade said:


> ... but most of the [textbooks] I've seen mention and even illustrate exceptions to the general rule.





Yagan Kiely said:


> [re: Serialism, set theory]
> Yes it covers them, but they don't (seem) to cover it well enough to be of any use.


Well, it is an _introductory_ textbook.

My point is that it introduces the student to some of the directions they may choose to further pursue their studies... not that it serves as a complete reference. If someone tried to encompass all of western music theory in a single volume, we'd be talking upwards of 10,000 pages (and let's not even _start_ to talk about Arabic music, Indian music, 19- and 31-tet, etc.)... who'd wan't to tackle _that_ as a starting point?



Yagan Kiely said:


> I've always found that the basics (the only thing that is of any use in textbooks) is found on Wikipedia. With your links, I'd like to replace 8notes with http://www.dolmetsch.com/index.htm .


I agree, dolmetsch is very good, too (but not always easy to navigate.)

As for Wikipedia: If all you want are definitions, or if you already know exactly what article you are looking for, it's fine. But I still think that a hierarchy is important with music theory concepts, and the very structure of Wikipedia makes that very difficult to convey. Perhaps if they had a Music Theory task team (as they've done with several scientific fields), they could vastly improve in this area. But until they do so, I maintain my position.


----------



## PostMinimalist

phoenixshade said:


> Introduction-Schenkerian-Analysis-Allen-Forte by Allen Forte and Steven Gilbert


Wrong book, right author. Allen Forte has writen the best text book on Harmony I ever read! As mentioned Schenker is for people who already understand structural harmony and functionality. Start with Allen Forte's - Tonal Harmony in Concept and Practice!

Nuf Said!


----------



## musika

*Harmony*

I have been studying music for some years. I understand basic harmony, the circle of fifths, basic chords, cadences, figured bass, seventh chords.
So yes I am looking for slightly more advanced books. Really I haven't found one which goes through things step by step. 
I think that it's important to learn 'polite' harmony before moving onto say, 12 tone harmony, or developing your own stuff.
The music library only seems to have ancient textbooks which skip around a lot.


----------



## PostMinimalist

One text book which takes a nice step by step approach to advanced harmony is William Lovelock's 
'3rd Year Harmony'
obviously it's a continuation of 1st and 2nd year harmony (the two previous books in the series) but if you know already a fair deal of harmony you could try starting here and, if it's too advanced, go to the previous volume to fill in the gaps.

And I agree about learning the 'polite' harmony first.


----------



## Herzeleide

The best book on (tonal) harmony is _Harmony and Voice Leading_ by Aldwell and Schachter.

Alternatively, you could purchase _The Complete Musician: An Integrated Approach to Tonal Theory, Analysis, and Listening_ by Laitz, which covers all of the same ground regarding Harmony as _Harmony and Voice Leading_, but integrates this with such disciplines as species counterpoint, invertible counterpoint, aural dictation, sight-singing and motivic and formal analysis.


----------



## Herzeleide

Yagan Kiely said:


> Text books are excellent at letting you no the existence of (in their opinion) extremely strict rules of extremely basic musical language.


Unless they're based upon an accurate observance of common practice-period tonality, where all the rules are organic and fundamentally aesthetic, as opposed to needlessly strict and arbitrary. Furthermore, there are many harmony texts books which only start in a basic way, but which progress (very much step-by-step) to extremely advanced chromatic tonal music. Both these criteria are fulfilled by the two books I mentioned in my last post on this thread.


----------



## danae

Personally, I would use a good book on Harmony not to practice in 4-part writing, but to understand certain aspects of tonal music that are not self-explanatory. For instance, the identification of a chord's _function_ has always been a controversial subject in theory books and many theorists in the past have completely igonored how music _sounds_ and have focused on the analysis of written notes, as if they represent something other than sound!
I still think that the best textbook is non other than the corpus of 18th and 19th century music.


----------



## Km7

It's good to read more than one book. For example, I like the combination of Schoenberg + Piston, though some may prefer Kostka and Payne, for example.

As for Schenkerian analysis - don't waste your time. This is one of the most pseudo-scientific theories in music. 

Allen Forte - I wouldn't touch anything written by this man, including his Set theory. This is a purely American thing, but it isn't necessary for analysing post-tonal music.


----------

