Does Classical Harmony Really Have Nothing More To Say?

...you try telling your composition teacher to go to any movie theater and listen to any soundtrack, you decide, just a Morricone piece will do 😉. They will find all the tonal harmony they want, alive, well, and in good health.

Dante wrote:

I still like conventional harmony and I would like to hear the opinion of other people as well.

The problem, I fear, is a modern tendency that sees your teacher as a primary authority, according to whom "conventional harmony" would be outdated and therefore one "must" proceed towards more extreme atonality.

But according to him, when someone whistles a little tune they like, is it a conventional or atonal whistling?

Dante wrote:

Maybe someone can give me a useful suggestion.

The only thing I can tell you is to think for yourself... if you can.

To me, it seems like a somewhat questionable way of setting things up. I believe that to overcome something, one must first know it, so generally it is better to study the system of traditional harmony very well before moving on to more modern harmonies that provide for a different use or otherwise.

Your question particularly strikes me. A few years ago, I too wondered about many things regarding musical language, and after a few years I can say that one must discover the origins of what they call tonal music, tonality, atonality, etc.

Read the debates on dodecaphony, the discussions related to crude economic affairs... regarding music of a religious character and the like, the pale fire of

"neo-romantics", etc..

Since your question seems profound, I do not want to dwell too much on tracing the various cultural paths that have gradually made musical language increasingly abstract and, in my opinion, unaffectionate.

One must go to the roots of things without fear. This can be a first step toward separating oneself, first and foremost, from the ideologies that oppress musical expression. To discover that the problem lies not primarily in the music but in the musician in relation to the know-how of music and also when they teach it.

Debussy's old saying that: masterpieces generate rules, but masterpieces are not generated by rules, finds me increasingly in agreement, deeply in agreement.

One must discover why tonality was "fixed" and the reason for its origin beyond sociological reasons, which have a very relative meaning and provide no answer regarding the composer's personal creativity. Finally, to discover that the origin of musical language (which they have always denied as a true language in its own right) has a specific origin in the life of every human being, and this origin concerns the first year of life; it is a pre-verbal language.

But as you can see, the discussion becomes increasingly complex, and a space like this, even if generously granted to us, would not be enough to exhaust an entire discourse concerning the freedom of the artist once they are skilled at making music.

Regardless of the fashions and/or personal tastes of each of us, the study of composition should, for educational purposes, embrace ALL the compositional techniques of the past … and only after one knows something deeply can one attempt to surpass it or even deny it. Therefore, an "a priori rejection" of the past finds me in complete disagreement.

It is true that, theoretically, composition cannot be taught, but the lack of a solid foundation does not allow one to later express everything that could be expressed.

Thank you for the ideas and opinions, it comforts me. Knowing what your experiences are helps a bit to understand certain settings; sometimes I wonder what teaching would be like if, for a moment, we pretended that key signatures had never existed.

Dante wrote:

sometimes I find myself wondering what teaching would be like if, for a moment, we pretended that tonality had never existed.

A question that cannot exist ... and besides, teaching is not only concerned with tonality

Eagle wrote:

... and then teaching is not only about tonality

...I am probably too young, but it doesn't really seem so to me

Dante wrote:

...I am probably too young, but it doesn't really seem so to me

What would you mean by "it doesn't really seem so to me"? If your teacher (teacher = instructor) told you that you must "detach yourself from conventional harmony," I imagine they will want to teach you something else... therefore: pedagogy is NOT only about tonality.

as always the truth lies in the middle and one must distinguish teaching from actual compositional practice.

i will repeat myself, but

compositional technique without talent is arid.
talent without compositional technique is too free (to put it all in one word)

Study must necessarily embrace all compositional styles from the dawn of time to the present day and on this I would say everyone agrees ... furthermore, study must give you the means with which you will then find your personal style that will distinguish you ... and I add that you can study everything you want, but your style will remain such and there will always be distinctive characteristics ... if you look at our workshops you will notice it.

I think that a good teacher should absolutely not impose on the student to write "in a certain way" unless they are exercises inherent to the study, but that, as a top priority, they should teach you the subject in the best possible way and when they tell you that you must "break free from tonality because it has nothing more to say" I personally think you should tell them straight out:

"mind your own business!"

Carlos wrote:

What would you mean by "it doesn't really seem to me"? If your teacher (insegnante = didactician) told you that you need to "detach yourself from conventional harmony," I imagine they will want to teach you something else... therefore: pedagogy is NOT only about tonality.

True, but I have heard his other students and it seems that in that field "everything is tolerated," I mean that in the end it doesn't matter how the piece will sound, but only the criteria that one puts into practice.

This isn't pedagogy and it makes me detest the subject, etc. etc.

rstrauss wrote:

i personally think you should tell him straight and clear:

"mind his own business!"

... that way he'll ruin it for me

Dante wrote:

True, but I have heard his other students and it seems that in that field "everything is tolerated," I mean that in the end it doesn't matter how the piece will sound, but only the criteria that one puts into practice.

This isn't pedagogy and it makes me detest the subject, etc. etc.

Has it crossed your mind that your teacher might not be significant for an evaluation on pedagogy? I know that many teachers in advanced courses focus precisely on self-referential criteria, leaving the student stranded, and it often happens that the student themselves is literally disconnected from the perceptive sphere of the potential listener... but one can also do a different kind of work

Dante wrote:

... that's how he/she saws me off

tell him/her with kind words, or, write a sonatina in the style of Clementi and bring it to him/her ... let's see what he/she tells you ...

Frank wrote:

Has it ever crossed your mind that your teacher cannot be significant for an evaluation on pedagogy.

Well, at this point I would say yes. Furthermore, if the only example of Dante is his teacher, he still wouldn't be in a position to maintain that "pedagogy only deals with tonality." Pedagogy is not your teacher, and your teacher is not pedagogy, and this would hold true even if it were Walter Piston himself...

I find the term 'classical' misleading, since everyone agrees that late Romantic harmony is not classical; under this umbrella, one could even include Donatoni by now.

Therefore, I think it is just a problem of the "didact"; certainly, it is much easier to teach something highly codified rather than a field where, as it happens, there are very few composition manuals (see 20th-century styles).

So what should a good composition teacher do?

... everything is silent

Given that I do not attend a conservatory, but rather a private teacher, as a student I demand to be informed about everything that allows me to make my own choices. One does not study to be "channeled," but to be free to formulate one's own path.

I would gladly welcome the invitation to "break free from tonality" (which, frankly, must also be understood...), if it were consistent with a particular phase of my studies, because that would be necessary for the completeness of my training. Otherwise, no.

It is true that a student is not able to question the subject of teaching; however, in my opinion, they can discuss its purpose.

Einaudi studied with Berio, yet he has always dedicated himself to something else entirely (while he was his pupil, among other things, he played progressive jazz with Venegoni & Co.).

My teacher tries to teach me everything, but always has the attitude of a waiter who presents you with a menu from which you can choose what you prefer, not one who tells you what you must eat. And I like this very much.

He tries to understand if he is only asking you to do one single thing to help you learn it (which seems more likely to me, sincerely, without wanting to doubt what you are saying...), or if your feeling of being "molded" in his image and likeness is well-founded.