First of all, hello everyone!

Traditionally conceived, instruction in musical composition (in "classical" music, anyway) rests upon the disciplines of harmony, counterpoint, form and fugue. To get a good grounding in compositional techniques, you'll need to study each of these disciplines thoroughly.

All of Schoenberg's textbooks, including his Fundamentals of Musical Composition (Faber, expanded from his earlier pamphlet, Models for Beginners in Musical Composition) are eminently worth reading, but I would not recommend them unreservedly to "beginners in musical composition".

A better course of action, I think, would be to defer reading them until one has read (and worked through) some more recent textbooks on harmony, counterpoint, form and fugue.

Harmony Textbooks:

This is a vast field. At school I was instructed from C. H. Kitson's three (slim) volumes of Elementary Harmony (written and published in the early 1920s, these were still just about lingering on in the early- to mid-70s), and the first harmony textbook I actually owned was Stewart Macpherson's Practical Harmony. (Having decided to become a composer in my teens, I followed the advice of Aaron Copland in one of his books - probably What To Listen For In Music - in deliberately pursuing instruction in harmony and counterpoint.)

In my late teens I discovered the music, and some of the textbooks, of Schoenberg, including Structural Functions of Harmony, Preliminary Exercises in Counterpoint, and Fundamentals of Musical Composition. I already knew of his The Theory of Harmony by reputation, but it was too big and expensive for me to buy for myself (and I erroneously thought that it had been summarised in, and superseded by, Structural Functions in Harmony). (Eventually my parents bought me The Theory of Harmony, for my twenty-first birthday, and I belatedly studied this remarkable book.)

At about the same time I had found a copy of King Palmer's Teach Yourself Orchestration, which directed me towards Walter Piston's far larger and more detailed Orchestration, and thence to his Harmony and Counterpoint textbooks. I had also acquired from secondhand bookshops some of Ebenezer Prout's highly detailed textbooks (written in the late 19th century): Harmony - Its Theory and Practice, Counterpoint - Strict and Free, Double Counterpoint and Canon, Musical Form, Applied Forms, Fugue, Fugal Analysis and The Orchestra (this last in two volumes).

Fine as all these books mostly are, I would advise a beginning student of composition to work through one or other of two modern harmony textbooks, viz. Robert Gauldin's Harmonic Practice in Tonal Music (W. W. Norton & Company, New York, Second Edition, 2004) or Edward Aldwell and Carl Schachter's Harmony & Voice Leading (Thomson Schirmer/Wadsworth, Belmont CA, Third Edition, 2003). Both are excellent, but Gauldin's has the added advantage of coming with a CD-ROM containing many of the musical examples.

Counterpoint Textbooks:

As with Harmony, this is a crowded field. As a young man I was lazy, and wanted to learn a sufficient amount of counterpoint as quickly as possible, and so I bought (in addition to the bigger textbooks of Schoenberg, Prout and Piston) such outlines as R. O. Morris's Introduction to Counterpoint, Eric H. Thiman's Practical Free Counterpoint and Ernst Krenek's Tonal Counterpoint in the Style of the XVIIIth Century (which, fascinating as it is, does not teach a technique that any 18th-century composer would recognise as characteristic of the time).

However, there's no substitute for real hard work. Eventually I forced myself to go back to Prout and Schoenberg (and the earlier edition of C. H. Kitson's The Art Of Counterpoint). Had it been available to me at the time, I would have saved myself a great deal of trouble by first studying Felix Salzer and Carl Schachter's Counterpoint in Composition (Columbia University Press Morningside Edition, 1989). As a preliminary to Schoenberg and Prout, this teaches all the basic contrapuntal technique you are likely to need.

(An intriguing book on more modern contrapuntal technique, Bernhard Ziehn's Canonic Studies, was reprinted by Kahn & Averill in 1976. This book, originally published in Chicago in 1912, is known to have been influential on Bartok, but I also think that Franz Schmidt must have studied it.)

Musical Form:

There are two widely-used textbooks of musical form: Stewart Macpherson's Form In Music (Joseph Williams) and Douglass M. Green's Form in Tonal Music (Holt, Rinehart and Winston). The former is more familiar in Britain, while the latter is better-known in America. Both are good presentations of the subject.

(Schoenberg's Fundamentals of Musical Composition can also be regarded as - in part - a textbook on musical form.)

Fugue:

There are two outstanding studies of fugue:

i) Fugue by Roger Bullivant (Hutchinson, 1971);

ii) The Technique and Spirit of Fugue by George Oldroyd (Oxford University Press, 1948 with many reprints).

The Bullivant does not purport to teach you how to compose fugues (or even fugal expositions) but still contains a vast amount of useful information. The Oldroyd does offer a practical course in fugal composition, using the two volumes of Bach's Well-Tempered Clavieras its authority.

There are also Ebenezer Prout's Fugue and Fugal Analysis (Augener), highly detailed late-19th century textbooks, and Alfred Mann's The Study of Fugue (a compilation of fugal writings by such authorities as Fux, Marpurg, Albrechtsberger and Martini).

Books on Musical Composition, per se:

There are famous 19th-century treatises on musical composition by Czerny and A. B. Marx (the inventor of the term "sonata-form") that I confess I have not read.

One famous 19th-century textbook that I have read is Charles Villiers Stanford's Musical Composition (Macmillan/Stainer & Bell). This small book can be dipped into and returned to as one's command of the basic techniques grows.

Schoenberg's Fundamentals of Musical Composition is a very brilliant book, founded on a profound knowledge of 18th- and 19th-century repertoire. It would certainly be most useful to someone who already has the kind of harmonic and contrapuntal knowledge presented in Gauldin (or Aldwell and Schachter), and Salzer and Schachter, or, indeed, in Schoenberg's own Theory of Harmony and Preliminary Exercises in Counterpoint. (You'll also need access to scores of the earlier Beethoven Piano Sonatas, among others.)

The Composer and His Art by Gordon Jacob (OUP, 1955) is an intriguing read, if you can find a copy of it.

Although I am not hugely enamoured of most twelve-note music, I have a curious soft spot for Serial Composition by Reginald Smith Brindle (OUP, 1966). (Some years late Smith Brindle wrote another, more general book, Musical Composition (OUP, 1986), which, while a little thin, is certainly worth glancing at.) Schoenberg himself never compiled a complete textbook on 12-note composition, but there are Josef Rufer's Composition With 12 Tones (Barrie & Rockliffe, 1954) and George Perle's Serial Composition and Atonality (Faber, 1962).

Schenker:

The field of Schenkerian study is vast. The best general introduction is probably still Analysis of Tonal Music by Allen Cadwallader and David Gagne (Oxford University Press, New York, 1998), which supersedes and replaces Allen Forte and Steven E. Gilbert's often confusing and infuriating Introduction to Schenkerian Analysis (W. W. Norton, 1982).

Study of this will lead to Schenker's own writings, including the famous Five Graphic Music Analyses (reprinted by Dover Publications), Harmony, Counterpoint (in two volumes) and the celebrated Free Composition (in two volumes).

Bach and Beethoven:

Bach compiled his keyboard collections The Well-Tempered Clavier and the Two- and Three-Part Inventions as much to teach musical composition as to impart keyboard technique.

If Bach's Well-Tempered Clavier is the Old Testament, then Beethoven's Piano Sonatas are the New Testament. It's also essential to know Beethoven's String Quartets. There is a cheap Dover reprint of all the Breitkopf & Haertel scores, and a budget-priced CD box-set on Nimbus featuring the Medici Quartet. There are studies of these amazing works by Joseph de Marliave, Daniel Gregory Mason, Joseph Kerman and (in The Beethoven Quartet Companion (University of California Press, 1994)) Michael Steinberg.

Good luck!

This is an extremely informative post, thank you! It's all a bit above my head I'm afraid at the moment but I'm sure some of the people reading this forum will have found it useful.

Welcome to the forums!

Thanks skylark!

You're welcome I'm very envious of where you're at... I've got such a long way to go and I don't think I've got enough lifetime left!

Thank goodness for that, I was getting worried there thinking that I should know all this, I can't wait until I do though. What grade would a person have reached to have this knowledge Dr J?

I have printed this out for future reference

I don't know, but having got a humble Bachelor's degree in Music I could say I might have covered one twentieth of all this at most!!! (But then again perhaps I spent too long in the student bar )!!!

I agree with dcmbarton. Most of the books on Dr J's bibliography codify certain compositional practices or promote specific theoretical/analytical viewpoints. Studying these books will surely enrich one's musical knowledge. However, for aspiring composers, the only way to learn to develop their craft is to compose and have their own music performed. It is also important to listen and study the music of their contemporaries.

Incidentally, most of the items on the bibliography are typically surveyed in doctoral-level seminars called "History of Music Theory."

I disagree. I think it's highly important that aspirant composers, if they are serious about their craft, should study not only Harmony, Counterpoint, Form etc. but also the music of the masters.

Even now when atonal composition is de rigeur, it's still highly important to have a knowledge of the repertoir. Schoenberg insisted that his pupils Berg and Webern had a thorough knowledge of past practice before they ventured into extreme chromaticism and atonality. Furthermore, if a student studies (and obviously listens to) the works of the masters then he will discover why the music is good, what makes it tick, how the composer creates cohesion, and both unity and variety, amongst many other things. So the study of great music is important in forming aesthetic principles and ideals.

This is what Robert Saxton, resident composer at Oxford, has to say:

"What advice would you give to a young composer just starting out?

First, let me quote Schoenberg, from an interview (in English) which he gave to Halsey Stevens not long before he died: ' you must learn from the masters [Bach, Mozart, Beethoven and Brahms]... but you must not imitate. You must take the essence and create something new'. There it is in a nutshell. Your 'Masters' may be different ones granted, but Schoenberg is right here. Forgetting university courses which ponder whether or not history is dead and whether or not post-Hegelian and Marxist ideas about progress are finished, any composer, painter or writer who is truly absorbed in what they are doing (ie: not opportunistically 'using' the arts as a vehicle for 'success' or a 'career') will not only respect their predecessors--- far more, they will love them. The sheer joy that can be gained from studying music from many centuries (I purposely avoid the current over-played 'multi-cultural' politicised jargon and its inferences, which is merely a gloss) and 'feeling 'its progress/transformation is essential. Remember, one must sense the music, not merely learn about it; Bach copied out music by his predecessors, and there's no substitute for learning about correct voice-leading, from Byrd to Webern. I would encourage student composers to do this by hand--- the computer is wonderful, but the 'fabric' of music has to be physically experienced. A painter or sculptor cannot truly learn their craft by means of computer graphics only. Having said this, one must, as Schoenberg says, go on. This is not a 'Modernist manifesto'----- not at all. It is simply facing reality; if you really are a composer, then you will see strategies, imagine new solutions to problems which emerge from a combination of your studies and your imaginative world. This is more sophisticated (and 'true') than any misconceptions about 'originality' or 'creativity', unfortunately prevalent in our education system at present. As for the 'musical world'------ I can only advise from a subjective point-of-view. There's no doubt that, where as 25 years ago or so, any serious listener respected Bartok, Varese and Schoenberg (for example), and would be prepared to listen to, and consider, Boulez's latest pieces with intelligent ( and objective) consideration, we now have a 'fast' environment, where 'instant communication' (which, literally, means nothing where serious art is concerned---- it is non-sense) and a 'down-grading' of the role/position of complex/challenging work have led to a lowering of expectation(s). The voice-leading in much American minimalist music is poor by traditional standards (I won't name names here) and there are naive and untenable concepts of 'tonality' and a host of associated problems. In the light of this, a young composer has to think deeply about what he/she wishes to achieve, and whether or not it is worth the effort and, indeed, sacrifice. Many today opt for the commercial sector--- my advice here is, if doing so, don't treat it as an 'easy' option. If going down this route, do it properly and become a craftsman. All commercial composers that I know constantly complain at the lack of technical expertise displayed across the board by many of those wanting to go into this area of the profession. the answer to all this is simple: take Schoenberg's advice seriously. At all levels, know what you are doing and be an expert, just as a doctor has to."

A thorough study in harmony (amongst many other things) will enable the student to give a name to what he or she sees in the music of Bach, Mozart, Haydn, Beethoven etc.

Counterpoint teaches discipline and control of musical materials, and is also a fantastic form of ear training (if taught properly). In this latter sense, it has much practical use for composers (who ought to eventually be able to compose 'in their head').

Having one's music performed is indeed useful, I but I believe it is mainly useful from the point of instrumentation (because, although it is relatively simple to trace and examine the structure and themes of a piece, it is harder to try and imagine the over all effect of a work, even if it is simply an ensemble piece), and practical issues - players' feedback and advice.

It's interesting to hear students' compositions. I find most fail on account of a lack of knowledge of the canon and Harmony and Counterpoint which evinces a certain sloppiness in the handling of material, and the general structure of a piece. It is interesting that the earnest student say, a hundred and fifty years ago may have had the opposite failing - his music may have been too dry and academic!

As regards the books to which I refer: I believe nearly all of them are still suitable for practical use. I agree that some have been superseded by more recent books (for example, Piston's Harmony by either Robert Gauldin's Harmonic Practice in Tonal Music or Edward Aldwell and Carl Schachter's Harmony & Voice Leading) and indeed, it is these books that I recommend people purchase first. Both are fantastic, and the title of Gauldin's book truely belies the wealth of material in it: he discusses form, counterpoint and even touches upon musical aesthetics and the psychology of music! Both books also serve as an introduction to Schenkerian analysis.
Having said this, there are things in the Piston which inevitably don't crop up in either of the aforesaid books, for example many different quotations from the literature. Likewise with the Prout. Although one does not get this with Schoenberg, what one does get is an extremely interesting, indepth, book of a philosophical nature that is highly rewarding, both practically and ethically! (Though I wouldn't recommend it to beginners).

The best counterpoint text is probably the Salzer and Schachter Counterpoint in Composition, though it would be beneficial to compare this with the Schoenberg and Prout. Essentially the more mental gymnastics the student can do, the better!
One Victorian book which -at least ostensibly- is merely a historical curiosity is Double Counterpoint and Canon, by Prout. But there's no equivalent modern book which addresses these topics to such a thorough extent (and C.H. Kitson's book on this topic is out of print and very rare), so students have very little option but to read this 'historical curiosity'.

I think it's rather unfair to consign these books to seminars about the history of music theory and I don't see how any of these books can go out of date in absolute sense.

In conclusion - please don't feel the need to purchase all these books from amazon. As I said, the Gauldin or Aldwell and Schachter books, along with Salzer and Schachter's book on counterpoint should keep the student busy for a long time (plus the student will only really need the first half of the Salzer and Schachter book). All other books can be studied at a later date.
Probably a sensible thing to do would be to have a schedule where composition, listening and studying these books is portioned out in whichever way feels appropriate.

All of these books are ideal complements to the ABRSM theory exams, and they are more rigorous than Butterworth's Harmony in Practice (pace this books).

Dr J

Everything you say is extremely thought-provoking and you certainly sound very clever!

I think you may have stumbled across a website here and are perhaps a little mistaken about who the members of this forum are?

Most of the people doing ABRSM exams are school children who may or may not be interested in pursuing a career in music. There are lots of adults on here too (like me), who are mostly either teachers or adult re-starters. Without wanting to "dumb" us down at all, I think most members of this forum take a more kind of "fun" approach to music. (I'm still new here, so shout me down if I'm wrong, please!) While most of us are very motivated, intelligent and academically minded, we are still (mostly) pretty much at one of two stages:

still learning or
working as a teacher

I don't think there is a huge number of professional composers or performers on here.

As I said, correct me if I'm wrong!

You might well be right, but nobody actually knows! For all we know, there could be dozens/hundreds of aspiring composers lurking who don't post, and who have found this information extremely useful. And there are also quite a number of students posting who are studying music at university who may find the information useful, and no doubt even more students who don't post. Also, many people arrive at this site through a google search, and if so, they would happen upon a most informative and helpful thread. If Dr J is willing to share his knowledge and experience for the benefit of those who might find it useful, whether or not they are known posters, surely we should be giving him a warm welcome not putting him off!

chopin-bag makes a good point. There are certainly some of us who are interested in theory and even in composition - hence this forum - and Dr J's posts are very welcome. But I think a problem for many of us, especially those who did not have the benefit of a traditional musical education, is that conventional textbooks tend to assume that the reader (a) has a piano and can sight-read reasonably well, and/or (b) can hear the music in her/his head just by looking at musical notation. For most of us, neither of these is the case or is ever likely to be, so conventional textbooks are of limited use or even counter-productive (because, for us, they tend to foster a kind of mathematical approach that has little to do with music). For us, the book with a CD that Dr J recommends might be most use, simply because we can hear what the author is talking about.

Of course, it may be that we should forget about composing at all, because we don't have the basic skills. Many experts would take that view, and they may be right. But we can have fun trying.

Thanks for your comments.

I had no idea what kind of demographic posted on here. Well, obviously I knew it would be musicians; either way I thought I'd contribute with something a little different that may inspire and help students.

Primose: you raise some important points. The most recent edition of Robert Gauldin's book actually features a CD ROM of the music examples (previous editions come with a CD) where presumably you get to listen to and watch the music at the same time on the computer. I say presumably because I don't have it, and I think it's a rather silly idea, since not all students will have access to a computer, whilst everyone will be able to access a CD player.

However, Aldwell and and Schachter's book still comes with a good old-fashioned CD.

Having said this, it's very important that a student learn to sight-sing, the end of which will be the ability to hear music in his or head, simply from reading it.

I can understand why this may at first appear to be a chimera, but with enough practice, it can be achieved.
I can recommend purchasing a good sight-singing book; simply practising sight-reading on what instrument it is you play is also helpful. I'd also recommend learning to sight-read at the piano. I can understand why those of you who don't play the piano would object to this, but I can tell you as a classical guitar player who has spent many an hour slaving painfully slowly over many a Bach chorale: it certainly pays off in the end!

A course in species counterpoint is the perfect complement to ear-training/sight-singing. Since the cantus firmus and first species of a counterpoint exercise will be in straight semibreves, it means that it makes one hone in on the actual intervals.
A good idea is to sing the first species whilst playing the cantus firmus, and vice versa. Soon enough you'll be able to sing both without consulting an instrument, and mentally superimpose them. This latter ability is facilitated in counterpoint at the first species, since it always starts with the interval of an octave. Absolute pitch is not necessary, and any arbitrary pitch chosen is just as good (in fact often better, as it means that the student can alter the register to suit his or her vocal range). Of course, if you really would like to know you're singing the right pitch, a pitch-fork is inestimably useful.

Dr J,

I do believe that aspiring composers should have a thorough understanding of harmony, counterpoint, form, orchestration, and the works of the great masters. I would certainly encourage every student-composer to read and understand as many books on music theory and analysis as possible. However, given that some of the books are highly technical and that there are only 24 hours a day and 365 days in a year, it is necessary to make choices. Would you want to see a student-composer spending 10 hours a day reading theoretical books and only 1 hour or 2 on actual composing? I hope not.

BTW, I am familiar with most of the books on your bibliography. I must say that Piston's approach to harmony is hardly adopted by theory teachers in North America today. It is not difficult to see that Schenkerian thinking has influenced most textbooks on tonal harmony published in the last 20 years or so. I must also say that the Aldwell and Schachter is the best harmony text in the English-speaking world, for its comprehensiveness, choice of music examples, and the elegant prose. The Gauldin text is nothing by comparison. In fact, I would not recommend the Gauldin text at all because of its many weaknesses.

I must also say that neither the Aldwell and Schachter, nor the Gauldin text was intended as an introduction to Schenkerian analysis per se, although the A&S does provide a good foundation for studying Schenker.

Dear organ dummy,

I cordially invite you to read my third post of this thread, whence you should discover that I suggest students portion their time between studying theory, composition and whatever other musical activities take their fancy, and in whatever proportions, as befits students' different personal needs, weaknesses and strengths.

Please bear in mind that the title 'Bibliography' does not imply that this is exclusively a 'what to read' for students, although I make suggestions along the way. I simply trace my history of purchasing the said books, so invariably I'm going to mention books that aren't exactly paragons compared to modern texts. It is for this reason that I advise students to go and purchase more modern harmony books.

I thought people would be interested in books other than the modern, best ones. And I still stand by the fact that, if one is curious enough after already worked through a modern text book on harmony, purchasing an older book can do nothing but enrich their knowledge and approach to harmony, since each book has slightly different angles to take and particular emphases. Furthermore, as I have already mentioned, each will feature different musical examples. I'm not American, so I'm afraid I'm unaware of what books American theory teachers adopt.

I'd be interested to hear what weaknesses you think Gauldin's book has. It's not as comprehensive apropos harmony as Aldwell and Schachter, but rather prefers to contain other information on such things as form.


P.S. Perhaps 'introduction' wasn't an appropriate description, since it certainly isn't an 'introduction' is the sense that Cadwallader and Gagné's book is. Perhaps the description 'pre-introduction' is more apt!



That should be Gagne, with an acute accent on the letter E.

First, I do agree with your view that various books on harmony (and counterpoint, form, analysis, etc.) approach the subjects from different angles, reflecting the authors' own theoretical biases. In some cases, the structures of the books also reflect the theory curricula at the institutions for which the textbooks were written.

Here is what I believe to be the main weakness of the Gauldin text: The use of Schenkerian analytical symbols. For students studying harmony for the first time, such symbols can be very confusing. They should be introduced after students have attained a good grasp of tonal harmony. I must also say that some of the analytical symbols are used incorrectly, and thus create even more problems for students.