good foundations of romantic harmony

in my opinion it is an unrealistic program, made by classics of literature that are not at all suitable for teaching. Reading Schoenberg or Rimsky Korsakov means understanding nothing in particular; they are books you read when you already know everything well and want to understand how those things were taught 100 years ago...

If his goal is to understand Mahler, Strauss and Scriabin, the best path seems to me to be the simplest one: a good manual of complementary harmony (any), a good manual of musical analysis (Bent?), the usual harmony manual by De La Motte, and then listening and analysis of specific scores

Before studying Romantic harmony, one studies Baroque harmony. How is it handled with imitated and fugato bass?

Here, the point is to follow a path and not be projected into Wagnerian hyperchromaticism... by the way, "hyper" compared to what?

Look, first you learn the "thing," and only then will you know how Mahler, Strauss, and Scriabin broke free from it

I do not agree with Zazza, in the sense that I don't think one necessarily has to know the entire diachronic body of knowledge. That said, it makes sense to understand what he needs this knowledge for. Does he want to compose? Does he want to build a personal culture? Does he want to study those composers coming from other disciplines?

Sorry Thallo, I agree about knowing beforehand what the studies will be aimed at. But if you permit me, I studied composition, I know harmony, I have students and I believe I know what is needed to understand late Romantic harmony.

If one doesn't know how a triad is constructed, how to use it in a tonal context, what the tonal functions are... how to evade them as the Romantics did?

thallo wrote:

Does he want to compose? Does he want to build a personal culture? Does he want to study those composers coming from other disciplines?

It seems obvious to me, Composition Student, but perhaps I am wrong... so let's wait for Feldman

My opinion is very close to Zazzà's in the sense that I read an "error" in the title:

"good foundations of romantic harmony"

Good foundations of romantic harmony are what comes before... romantic harmony is not the beginning but the end of a process. It is difficult to start from the roof ... and call it the foundation

So, thank you for all the very useful answers.

The young man in question, who wants to write music, has already studied complementary harmony using textbooks that I have seen, in particular the harmony manual by Ettore Pozzoli and that of Francesco Tissoni.

Personally, I find Rimsky-Korsakov's manual totally exhaustive for choral writing and the chromatic harmony of late Romanticism. Furthermore, I would advise against Schoenberg for studying harmony from scratch, but in this case, I consider him fundamental because he is the only treatise in the world that explains in practice how a musical modulation is realized. I do not think they should be snubbed because they are "old," given that gentlemen like Webern, Berio, and Boulez studied these books and learned something.

That being said, I find Schoenberg's Structural Functions of Harmony to be a true Bible of nineteenth-century harmony, much more exhaustive than De La Motte, who offers excellent insights but is written by a theorist and not by a real composer, so he "fails" from a practical point of view.

I also believe that claiming Schoenberg's manuals are useless today is like calling Schoenberg a poor teacher, when instead we well know that he is the exact opposite, namely one of the greatest teachers of musical composition in History. I prefer to entrust a young student to "his hands" rather than to those of any De Ninno or Tissoni.

Naturally, Schoenberg explains harmony in a complex way, so if this young man who asked me for advice has talent and good intuition, he will be able to follow the lessons proposed by Schoenberg in these books; otherwise, he will have to leave composition and do something else entirely (Schoenberg himself rejected students who requested simpler, more scholastic lessons). The same goes for Rimsky-Korsakov; we are not talking about some old trombone player but the Master of two figures like Stravinsky and Prokofiev.

Personally, I prefer to steer young students toward the path of great composers and masters rather than the path of the great academic unionists, as I call them, authors of cheap little treatises that teach how to harmonize figured bass with anti-musical solutions completely detached from musical reality.

Those who criticize Schoenberg's manual tooth and nail (and there are many who do) have evidently not managed to understand it deeply or use it in a useful way.

I repeat, those who consider Schoenberg's manual too "advanced," difficult, complex, etc., do nothing more than doubt the pedagogical value of Schoenberg himself, given that he used that book with his students.

It could be Feldman, I don't know how long you have been teaching, but from my point of view students are all different and there is no method... there exists the teacher's ability to adapt methods in literature for the purpose of teaching composition.

I doubt that everyone is Stravinsky and Prokofiev, and even less that Stravinsky and Prokofiev were Stravinsky and Prokofiev only by merit of their teacher's method... proof is the fact that both did not express themselves in a traditional romantic aesthetic in line with the contents of the chosen reference text .... at most one can say that Stravinsky had his neoclassical period.

This is absolutely true, but the path that Stravinsky and Prokofiev took as composers is absolutely far from the one taken by students. I am not talking about personal poetics but about the study path that any student must undertake: I believe that studying textbook treatises is useful at the beginning to acquire the elementary basics of tonal harmony, namely connecting chords, reaching the first modulations to related keys, dominant sevenths, and progressions. After this, it is necessary to go beyond, and to do so, I think that on one hand, the analysis of repertoire alone is limiting; for this reason, I believe that the only useful texts for understanding chromatic harmony are those just mentioned, with De La Motte to be taken with a grain of salt.

It is obvious that both Schoenberg and Rimsky-Korsakov did not have only Stravinsky, Prokofiev, or Webern as pupils, but it is also true that those who lack talent, inventiveness, or musical abilities in general should, in my opinion, do something else, abandon composition, and choose other paths. This boy has good talent; I see that he manages to write at least a little, and I recommend these texts to him to help him improve. If he improves, it will mean he is cut out for this activity; if this does not happen, he will have to give it up.

I know Schoenberg's treatise well and I think it is one of the best existing treatises, especially from a practical point of view. Perhaps (and thankfully) it does not adhere to the restrictive programs of a conservatory, but it opens the mind and trains the student in true music-making. As for the chatter, that is a completely different story.

Certain jokes about voice leading found in complementary harmony manuals are simply laughable—certain prohibitions on doubling, certain galactic stupidities that have no basis in contrapuntal practice.

For this reason, I am happy with Arnold Schoenberg's books.

Feldman wrote:

That's why I feel good with Arnold Schoenberg's books.

The important thing is that your students feel comfortable... the rest is a trifle.

Feldman wrote:

If he improves, it means he is cut out for this activity; if this does not happen, he must give it up.

This is Feldman-style teaching! For goodness' sake.

If the boy has to (or will want to?) leave, it will be solely the fault of his teacher who did not know how to value his abilities. As you claim to know, not everyone is Stravinsky; I add: not everyone must change the course of music history.

Therefore, if you are indeed a teacher, I fear you still have a long way to go... and a very long way at that. Start with the method and not the student—a very serious error. And what's more, if they do not bend to the method (but who established the right method for a person?) they MUST leave.

I wonder, but before Schoenberg, wasn't harmony studied? Perhaps there are alternative methods.

I would also recommend playing the piano reductions of Wagner's works. Even if he is not a pianist - obviously with a lot of patience! They are the foundations from which Strauss and Mahler started. I think it is useful for internalizing this harmony. Perhaps he won't be able to decipher it, but it will certainly help him train his ear and his hand.

Feldman, you know how it is, if you already know what to do, why did you come here to ask for our opinion?

in effect this time I agree with thallo.

I remain constantly convinced that with composition one cannot skip steps and one cannot do without classical harmony, just as a pianist who will later play the Romantics cannot avoid studying Bach.

If this student already has the classical foundations, perhaps a good thing would be not only to play score reductions, but to play them at 4 hands on the piano with the teacher. You divide the orchestra and go. I used to do it with my teacher and I assure you that it is extremely helpful.

I also studied, not all of it, Schoenberg's manual and I didn't find it so difficult, having the solid foundations of classical harmony behind me, so perhaps for this student a bit of patience and many scores to analyze would be needed.

The teacher should make the student understand what needs to be done to achieve certain results and if the student, even if gifted, does not understand or gets bored or gives up, the teacher should perform a self-examination.

Sorry, I'm going a bit off-topic, but thinking back to Feldman's friend's request, I was reflecting: self-taught musicians – more or less – have existed in all eras. I don't remember who said that all great composers are ultimately self-taught: and the reasoning holds up. However, the problem raised by Feldman's friend arises from a rather specific perspective: is he a self-taught person who wants to write music from 150 years ago, or is he a self-taught person who wants to write his own music using the "color" of Romantic harmony?

In the second case, it's quite simple: one can give him some tips such as mode changes, third relations, and – if he wants to go towards the Wagnerian style – seventh chords of the second and third species, chromatic connections... and so on. The rest (which is almost everything) is left to his sensibility.

In the first case, the matter is much more complex, because the young man must be consistent not only with himself, but also with the style of 150 years ago. In short, a double constraint arises: internal consistency (the form of the piece he writes) and external consistency (adherence to the Romantic style). But ultimately, I believe this interests him little: why should he write Romantic music – unless it is a stylistic exercise?

In any case, another reading came to mind, not exactly centered on harmony, but nonetheless useful and delightful: Charles Rosen's "The Romantic Generation."

The discussion regarding the student-teacher relationship would then deserve its own thread...

I confirm what RedScharlach said ...

writing music as it was 150 years ago makes no sense, especially because in my opinion we write the music that comes out of our heads and, no matter how much effort we make, that is what it is and what it remains.

Our personal style eventually emerges; we demonstrated this in our workshops, where despite the years passed, the pieces being very different from each other, the different instrumentations etc., more than a few people began to recognize the style of this or that composer.

In this case, the teacher's task becomes more difficult because, taking for granted that the student knows the technical basics and the various compositional techniques, they must help the student find their own dimension, therefore finding "THEIR" music, whatever the style they want to embrace.

At the beginning (I was very young), I also wanted to write like my favorite authors, Chopin, Rachmaninoff, R. Strauss etc., but then I understood that it doesn't work that way.

In a certain sense, we do not choose what comes out of our heads, it is just there ... just as happens with orchestration ... I know the instruments and their possibilities, but everything else is personal and innate.