Customer Reviews

Theory of Harmony (California Library Reprint Series)

5 star:		(18)
4 star:		(4)
3 star:		(4)
2 star:		(3)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

No...Schonberg's Harmonic works are not where anyone should start when trying to learn standard western harmony. Let's get that out in the open first. You should not read this book as a way to learn the rules of figured-bass style harmony. For that, better to read Piston. This book is a philosophical tome. As such, it is verbose, but it is also extremely instructive, mostly for the composer.

I first read the Theory of Harmony as a grad student. My composition teacher suggested it. (He was always correcting my chord spelling in ways that didn't make sense to me, until I read the Schonberg.) This book opened me to the "mystical" side of harmonic theory. It also was a great clarifier on the relationship between harmony and counterpoint in voice leading. And, most harmony texts really are based on the rules of Rameau, which amazingly work up until the post Wagnerian era, when they begin to break down. Schonberg's work is the best examination of post-Wagnerian tonal harmony that I've come across. So to me, this is more than an historical artifact, it is a useful tool for the experienced composer. But definately not for your usual undergrad!

This book is a must for a musician.

It is not a textbook. You need another standard one for this purpose. But it is essential as a companion, if you want to UNDERSTAND the reasons behind the rules. And you better read it in parallel with a standard textbook.

Schoenberg starts from the most ancient sources to the most modern and EXPLAINS everything! You are his pupil because this book was written for his real pupils. (And btw a 6th chord is a 6th chord for every classical harmony manual...).

I agree that sometimes some digressions may be questionable and some "rules" are introduced and then eliminated in a questionable way, but he is undoubtely an artist, and this book reflects it. The way he explains, for instance, the minor mode is unsurpassed.

You can't break harmony rules if you don't know what's behind them.

AMM

Overall, I would rate this book as "good". It starts out by presenting basic music theory and even goes so far as to explain WHERE it all comes from (which many other texts do not (explains overtones, how they are created, and how they were used to create scales)) which I found fascinating. However, the book is more useful for historical purposes than for actual learning of music theory/harmony. It was written by a master who completely rewrote the way we thought about music and it is fascinating to see his thought process as he came to these conclusions. However, the English translation is not really very well done, often making it difficult to follow, and the writing tends to ramble on for pages and pages at a time often making me wonder "what exactly is he talking about?" midway through page 5 of the same extended paragraph. Also the examples tend to be very confusing and the rules regarding chord resolution, etc. are not presented clearly.

If you are interested in Schoenberg's ideas about twelve-tone music, etc., and already know at least a fair amount of music theory, this book may be an interesting read. Otherwise, I'd recommend one of Kostka's texts, as they are much more clear and concise.

I think not.

Schoenberg's theoretical approach is not the approach accepted as as standard in American music schools. He was an independent thinker. In this reviewer's opinion, Schoenberg was right.

I would not recommend this volume as a primary textbook for the study of tonal harmony; it is too rich and complex for that, and undoubtedly way beyond the reading level of most college undergraduates. Schoenberg's thought is subtle and elegant to a degree rarely found in books of this sort.

I would recommend this volume to anyone willing to dig more deeply into the subject than is done by most three chord pop musicians or Schenkerian purists, but it takes time and patience and an open mind as well as a firm command of complex sentence structure. Schoenberg does not provide the reductio ad absurdam desired by many.

This is one of the most important books ever written on the subject of music theory. It is essential reading for any serious student of early 20th century tonal music.

I studied this book as a popular music writer when I was younger. The book was very difficult to grasp in the musical sense. What kept me reading it was the philosophical overtones to the book. Upon becoming a student of philosophy I realized why I had liked the book so much. Shoenberg defines "the enlightenment" in historical terms. His thinking is fresh and lucid, although he rambles. It is the ideas that jump off the page not his clarity in expressing them. Today he may seem "old hat" but for the time his willingness to question the past and invent anew were revolutionary.

Musically, I gained a tremendous amount from the book. Again I was very young and the music was simple in relation to "classical" pieces, but I did learn 4 part harmony that worked and was a little different sounding. I ended up writing a few songs from the material that were well received (within my circle of friends). So, for people just intested in playing around with music, you may find something of use. It is terse however. I only studied a couple of chapters, it took me about 40+ hours of intensive reading and note taking to get anything out of those chapters.

I did read read the entire text of the book for the philosophy and that is much easier, although still difficult.

I am certain there are better ways to learn what I did from the book (musically). Nevertheless inspiration can come from strange places. Maybe it is worth a shot for you.

Schoenberg presents a systematic method for learning/teaching traditional harmony. He gets into fairly advanced levels of harmony, but does not really get into 12-tone composition, except fleetingly toward the end of the book. You have to remember that at the time he wrote this, he was still only beginning to work out his ideas about serialism, and all his works prior to and surrounding the publication of this book were still written in his earlier harmonic style. One of his major premises is that it is necessary to the _craft_ (a very important word) of music to be intimately familliar with the older ways, because it guarantees the ability to at least write music of "established effectiveness."

He leads the reader from scales and diatonic triads, through modulations and diminished chords, and into "wandering" non-diatonic chords. He does not have the student realize figured bass lines, or harmonize chorales, and he goes into great detail describing the fallacy of these teaching methods. Rather, he has the student composing from the outset, manipulating musical materials in a manner more like the act of "real" composition.

I have read most reviews below...and I find most of them incomprehensible. Someone compares Shoenberg's Treatise to the Treatise by Rameau,for example. A rather irrelevant comparison,because both books have their area of undeniable expertise. How do you compare a book about building a Ferrari and one about building an aeroplane? They both talk about aerodynamics,but there are differencies,I think!

Then there is the person that finds the book very hard to grasp. Well,I doubt this is Mr. Shoenberg's fault!
This is a books about CLASSICAL harmony! It seems that nowadays people playing popular pop or doing songwriting or jazz-rock fusion guitarists (nothing wrong with any of this ) think,for some strange reason, that Shoenberg's book is actually a whatever course of harmony and because he was so open-minded and wide ranging,that actually anyone after learning a Beatles song just starts on Shoenberg? Or that in the book the technique of 'atonality' is taught ?
No,no....there is some very real confusion here. Not many people know that Shoenberg practiced and learned the traditional techniques in an amazingly diligent and through way for years....incredibly hard work. On his own! The 'serialism' part it's entirely his own quirk and style,and it is not the main point in this book...it's only people that see it this way. It is basicly an assumption.

So basicly,if you want to fly,learn to run properly on your own ground first. That is the philosophy,and this is exactly what he does in the book: he starts and progress VERY logically. Some people may be puzzled ,but again,if you dont understand,well,read it 'till you do. Do not forget that Shoenberg had unsurpassed experience in teaching ,and that he started teaching in universisites WITHOUT the help of titles or master degree's but ONLY because of his SKILL.

And that has to be kept in mind too,so,if they appear ramblings,I am sorry,it's only laziness on the part of the student. Sure it's not easy to keep pace,but if you do,you will be rewarded.


If anyone actually STUDIED seriously even part of the book,he would realize that ,in fact,this is exactly what Shoenberg says:

''I bolt the door against the bravado which would like to burst in absolute disregard for the rules. I bolt the door by developing his sense of form,according to the rigorous old rules.''

The people that say that 'it's not a textbook' ,dont know what they are talking about. This is a course in harmony prepared by a real artist,a real composer,not by an historian,not by a teacher in a university,master's degree or otherwise. You make out of this whatever you want. Of course I am not saying that the other people are bad ,or good. I am only saying that this book was written by a real composer,not by a theorist. He just happened to study most major harmony texts and compose in his mind for 14 instruments while going for morning walks!

People who think of his book as having a place as a theorist treatise did not really know the book in question.This book was written for people that want to learn about harmony. Very simply. But not to the extent that a guitarists may really study it on guitar! Otherwise,as some reviewer mentioned ,it will not be understood why Shoenberg calls a first inversion chord a 'sixth' chord. This is classical method,Rameau for example calls it the same way. It is simple: because the bass ,being in first inversion,forms a sixth with the root above it.
It cannot be studied by a guitarist if that guitarist does not know the difference between a root and a bass note. In popular music it's just the bass,but not in classical.

I am about halfway the book,and no,I did not read it,I am STUDYING it.That is an ENORMOUS difference. Some people said that they read it...or worse,studied 'a couple of chapters,and then read the rest'. I STRONGLY doubt that you will get much from that book in this way. That is just superficiality and laziness,let's be very clear about this. Again,this is hardly Mr. Shoenberg' fault.You will better off by not even starting on it.

To me he is a unique teacher ,musician and artist. I am learning A LOT from his book,and I am grateful he took so much time and patience to write it down. I really like his book,even going so far as being very honoured that I actually study a book written by such an intelligent artist ,musician and teacher. Someone mentioned that he calls the student of the book 'pupil' as if it's a strange,unnecessary thing....I fail to understand why,I would not really be interested in knowing why either,since the book is a complete course in harmony,if not ,infact, a much better one than even the university one. I feel honoured that he calls the person that decides to study the book, 'pupil',and I only hope I will work even much harder than I do.


It's no-one business if Shoenberg viewed harmony in his own way,he does not have to excuse himself for lack of superficiality or laziness or personal idea.
If you want the book that teaches you modulation in a couple of ways only,then, by all means 'Theory Of Harmony' was definitely not written for you. By all means buy another book.

But ,if you want to became an EXPERT about modulation,then start eating it! It's up to you. Shoenberg it's not making it simplistic for you. But it does not ,ever ,makes it difficult or superficial.

You do not care about the roman empire,fine,but just so you know,Shoenberg was a very cultured person,and he really cared about self-education,musical independence and independence of thought. He knew people like Strauss,Mahler,Brahms,Goethe. He had amazing musical and pedagogy skills. He was a famous and controversial composer from Vienna,and,quite frankly,I doubt that anybody here has even a right about saying what's best or not about him,and I refer even to master's degrees owners here,simply because you cannot be taught such independence in in any school;as Bruce Lee said 'All real knowledge it's ultimately SELF knowledge'. You will not be taught that in any music course,Shoenberg is a real master because his wish in his books is not to create students or historians or theorists,his hope instead is to create creators.

Someone here even said that 'it's not a textbook' ; 'it's a supplement'. I do not think those people understood much about the book. Those are just pretentious assumptions of people who just box the book into a narrow category,and the job's done.

It's funny,but I do not find Shoenberg's book difficult. I have bought it because I wanted to teach myself CLASSICAL harmony. And believe it or not, I learn more from it than going to a music college. Yes,I say that without any doubts because I actually went to a college ,and as I was studying BOTH the book and at the college,I found I was really MUCH better off with the book.

I must say that at the very beginning,I too did think the book was hard and complex and had 'too much philosophy' in it,although I did think highly of it from the start,and never actually went as far as defining Shoenberg's thoughts 'ramblings'...it may appear so only to superficial and green attidudes. Someone with a penchant for doing things quickly rather than throughly,maybe?

There are other misundertandings,I think,about the book,for example the fact that most people do not really know that this book is about TRADITIONAL harmony ,not a manual that makes of a total ignoramus a 'serialist' in a couple of months.

It's your choice...but one last thing I will say; I have seen concepts such as modulation and many other treated with such amazing detail ONLY in this books. I have bought many others,including Rameau,C.p.e Bach,Piston,Kitson,Lovelock and others,but I will stay with this one because it teaches in such detailed way.

I recommend it highly,very highly,but only to people that really want to create ,not to historians or 'theorists'. I respect all of them ,but to me Shoenberg is no mere historian.
So,if you have courage and true dedication,buy this amazing book and go slowly,but actually start it and make sure you keep going. I think it is amazing just as the other books by the same Shoenberg....they are all keepers as far as I am concerned.

This is a classic in music theory--the 1983 English translation of the Schoenberg's third edition of the Theory of Harmony. Written as a textbook, it almost is never used as such; rather, it is used primarily by Schoenberg scholars and, more generally, academic music theorists. Schoenberg's ideas differ frequently from more "standard," American curricula (Piston, Schenker) and for this reason make for interesting reading. In addition, viewing Schoenberg's output as theorist as compared with a his output as a composer is always a rich topic.

Schoenberg is willing to reconsider and rethink every aspect of traditional music theory. It's too bad his conclusions are almost invariably wrong, but this book will help you reconsider and rethink traditional music theory yourself--and come to your own conclusions. Also: this is much too unwieldy for the classroom; use Robert Ottman's texts instead. I recommend as well PENTATONIC SCALES FOR THE JAZZ-ROCK KEYBOARDIST by Jeff Burns--for theory and for practice.

Walter Frisch writes in the new foreword to Schoenberg's Theory of Harmony that it "should be required reading for everyone interested in Schoenberg, in the history of harmonic theory and practice, or in the Austro-German culture of the first decades of the twentieth century". It is hard to disagree with such a statement, but it also delineates clearly who such a book should be relevant for.

I have to agree with the many writers who have already pointed out that this book, while not entirely unsuitable as a harmony textbook even today, is eclipsed by newer textbooks. I used Piston's Harmony book for learning purposes, but even that one is to be considered almost as old as Schoenberg's book these days; I don't know how the newer books are, but judging from the number of releases during the last decades there has probably been quite a bit of innovation even in such a field. The harmonic language described may not have changed much, but pedagogy definitely have. I therefore cannot wholeheartedly recommend this as a theory book for novices.

What is left, then, is an enormous amount of philosophising about the nature of the rules of tonality, and how they came to rise. Schoenberg himself says that he is a composer, not a scholar, and many of his ideas do, indeed, seem to be taken out of thin air. His thoughts on parallelisms seems particularly pitiable today, but historical benevolence must be granted: In the hundred years since the release of this book an enormous amount of information regarding medieval and renaissance composition and performance practice has been uncovered, things Schoenberg could not have known. For a mere mortal it is of course consoling to see that even a giant like Schoenberg could be so wrong when he acted on his intuition. The book is therefore somewhat flawed when it comes to explaining the philosophy behind common practice harmony, which is the field where this book seems to get the most respect.

In the end, the book's value comes from the fact that it is written by one of the pivotal composers in music history, and gives us a window into his thoughts. I realize that many reviewers state that the book had ignited their interest in harmony, or even composition, an interest previously dulled by more succinct and to-the-point textbooks. I can definitely sympathise with this view, as the book gives a lot more food for thought than your average harmony book does. On the other hand, it has always been my opinion that people who are easily bored by textbooks are so because they are unable to think of it's larger implications and possibilities. Unused is probably a better word that unable, because it certainly is possible to learn. And while one should not scoff at this book in that respect, there are many roads to Rome, after all, it is in a way dangerous due to the fact that Schoenberg's opinions may be taken as fact. Of course, it is a good and thought provoking read, but it must be read as a hundred year old book, that is, with the benefit of hindsight.

In that respect I would have wanted (and sceptically hoped for) a new edition where we were explained, in linear notes, where Schoenberg goes wrong in his musings on the history of theory, and, to the degree it is possible, which contemporary sources (in the broadest sense of the term) made him do so. Alas, such a thing was not to come for the 100th anniversary, and one is therefore left wondering whether it will ever come. Frisch's foreword is interesting, but not exciting enough to warrant buying the new edition, and I can't find any noticeable differences in content between this edition and the earlier one from my university library, save the introduction by Frisch. So while the book is primarily for those interested in Schoenberg it could have been made more useful by a thorough questioning of Schoenberg's claims, but unfortunately it doesn't look like anything like it is in the horizon.

I feel a bit bad about giving three stars, especially since the new binding, though paperback, is very nice, and the print is as good as anything out there. But the bottom line is that this book is useful, but for fewer people than one might presume. For the present day reader I find it first and foremost about Schoenberg, like Frisch.