Composition education

I'll also endorse Tonal Harmony (authors are Kostka and Payne).

For a beginner studying orchestration for the first time, I would recommend Sam Adler's book. (I started with Rimsky-Korsakov myself, but Adler writes a lot more clearly.)

For counterpoint, I prefer Kent Kennan's book.

I have Adler and Tonal Harmony, and I recommend both. Although, I must admit, Tonal Harmony and such books aren't written by teachers, they're written by theorists and composers. I've been tutoring theory for several years, and I find the book's methods to be more likely confusing for the beginning theory student. I've developed my own ideas of how to teach the stuff, so eventually I might be writing my own textbook on the subject, perhaps for a doctoral dissertation. If that happens, I'll let you know; in the past, students haven't learned from me for long before they're able to grasp things on their own. It all has to do with how you think, so as you read, that's the FIRST thing I'd advise you to study - your own way of thinking about theory!

yeah i've read about sadler's book. Definitely getting that one. Also will keep an eye out for Johan's book. Sorry to go off topic, but I've got a theory question - the II-7/5 of key and IVmaj7/5 of key can apparently 'be seen as chord structures derived from the extended structure of the V7(sus4)'. I was thinking wouldn't a VI-/5 of key also be similar to V7(sus4) because it consists the same notes? Am I right or wrong?

edit: ok i get it...they were using subdominant-sounding upper structures (II-7 and IVmaj7) with a dominant-of-key root....VI- is a tonic-sounding chord. I didn't read enough.

Well, in ionian and aeolian modes, supertonic isn't major (II), it's minor (ii). V7sus4 might as well be I11, depending on how close up the bass note is. VI-/5 doesn't look like anything at all, you're either missing a number or you're tonicizing VI over an Arabic numeral.

ii7 and iidim7 certainly aren't derived from V7 of any kind, since they each resolve to V, same with IVmaj7. Subdominant upper structures with a dominant root are just V11 chords.

Sorry to be such a pain, but I had no idea what you were talking about most of the time. Please, if you're going to ask a question, make sure you're notating properly. But it does sound like whatever you're reading was written by somebody who's trying to be WAY too complicated for the reader's good! Also (question for mods), don't we have a separate theory forum?

thanks, johan, again. Your explanation makes sense.
Sorry for posting the question here. I will make a new theory questions thread.

I've got about 9 books with me about counterpoint, harmony, and orchestration. My question is, can anyone tell me if there is a proper order i should study these topics?

Good question.

I would study them in this order: harmony, then counterpoint, then orchestration. Knowing how to orchestrate will not do you any good if you don't know how to put sounds together harmonically. Counterpoint is much more elementary to composition that most people believe. It is a linear extension of harmony, IMHO.

I guess I should study counterpoint. I've studied harmony extensively and some orchestration, but I have a huge amount of trouble writing, and I think counterpoint is where I'm hurting most. I'll check at my library... any books you would recommend?

I think a what-not-to-do book isn't exactly helpful, to be honest. I write contemporary music, and have never put much stock in the what-not-to-do's of counterpoint and voice leading. I find them restrictive. I do, however, follow the "what TO do's" as they form a great foundation of organizing separate parts. I would recommend hardly paying attention to what they say not to do, unless you're writing period or neo-period works - neo-renaissance, neo-classical, etc.

As far as order of study.

I learned/am learning/will be learning:
Melody
2-part counterpoint
Rhythm/Texture
Harmony
3-part counterpoint
Experimental music
(2 other modules I'm not certain about)
note: this order may not be exact - it tends to vary from year to year - but by the end of my second year of college, I'll have studied all of this.

I would study them in this order: harmony, then counterpoint, then orchestration. Knowing how to orchestrate will not do you any good if you don't know how to put sounds together harmonically. Counterpoint is much more elementary to composition that most people believe. It is a linear extension of harmony, IMHO.

Hmmmm. gutfeeling (not bothered by any extensive knowledge 1st learning about harmony - might limit the development of counterpoint skills. I certainly dont regard counterpoint to be a extension of harmony but more as a counterpart that must be in balance with harmony.

Quote:
PRINCIPLES OF WRITING
The study of Harmony examines the structure and relationship between vertical
combinations of musical tones and their succession, Counterpoint examines the structure
and relationship between horizontal combinations of musical tones and their succession.
When these successions center on a key they become progressions that establish a tonality.
Therefore:
harmonic progression establishes tonality vertically; melodic progression establishes
tonality horizontally. In practice they are directly related.

I guess I should study counterpoint. I've studied harmony extensively and some orchestration, but I have a huge amount of trouble writing, and I think counterpoint is where I'm hurting most. I'll check at my library... any books you would recommend?

counterpoint by Walter Piston
(still to difficult for me, but the learned gradually falls into place and becomes knowledge and hopefully someday skill)