Music Theory/Harmony books

the one in my pic is Akkord 201 mono, probably 80's, got it for under 35$.
condition is great considering it's a shit tt even by soviet standards, i do like the hissy and scratchy sound though.
the upside is that its construction is so ridiculously simple you can keep repairing it forever. also the back is some plywoody cardboard

Attached: IMG_20190415_193744.jpg (780x1040, 86K)

>Schoenberg is kind of veeeeeery abstract and philosophica
Hate to break it to you but music theory is abstract and philosophical, the music is math folks are either larping or leaving harmony and western theory behind and almost all of the successful music is math stuff has one foot well planted in the abstract and philosophical world of western harmony.

You are just at the first hurdle, if you stick with Schoenberg and do some research, ask questions, it will click into place. There a few spots like that in western theory, they seem to make no fucking sense at all and then they click and a for a few weeks you go around thinking you will write the next great work because you just had a revelation and everything is so simple. Stick with it user, plenty of good communities on the web for asking questions.

all right.
and I definitely get what you mean by that 'click'. I re-read a chapter with a guitar on my lap and a keyboard in front of me and it did click.

Harmony and Voice Leading
The Complete Musician

also, you can find audio examples for the first book online if you are a thief

user... come on, don't you have amazon in your country?
amazon.com/Berklee-Book-Jazz-Harmony/dp/0876391420

Schoenberg is written for folks who have a few years training in some classical method such as Suzuki, so knowing the major and minor scales on your instrument, a decent knowledge of chords and being able to read music, perhaps the odd bit of theory, not exactly a high hurdle to overcome if you do not have that already. When he says beginner, he means beginner, no knowledge of music or skill on an instrument. Anything simpler than Schoenberg will just be more superficial and you will just end up reading Schoenberg or something like it further down the road anyways, so no time saved and you will have lost the sense of achievement you would have gotten for working through. Do not expect to understand everything on the first reading, you will have to reread some sections, perhaps a few times, and spend some time scribbling out music and playing on your instrument, but you will get there.

To all those advocating jazz theory books, most if not all gloss over basic harmony, they assume you already have that or just simplify everything to work with that simplified harmony they presented in the book. Jazz is built upon harmony and your understanding of jazz will never be of any depth if you do not fully understand harmony, you will also likely become one of those insufferable people that reduces everything down to a progression and misses all of the nuance.

Harmony and Voice Leading is a pretty good book, but not thorough in its explanations, it looks to have some interesting stuff. I have perused it at the university book store a few times and am just waiting for it to get cheap on the used market, suspect it will have a few interesting perspectives on some things, not sure I would call it easier than Schoenberg though, depends on the person.

People really need to stop recommending The Complete Musician, it reduces harmony down to a stupid level, it really just gives a refresher course in harmony and than moves onto complex subjects. Most of the book lacks in depth explanations and assumes you have a teacher to fill in the holes, it is a terrible book for self study and you will never fully understand most of the book with the simplified harmony it presents.

Must you be spoonfed everything? Did you even make it to chapter four before making this post?

Please, never go into teaching. OP did not ask for answers, just had a moment of frustration and needed some encouragement as shows.

Also, chapter 4 is the most important chapter in the book, reread it as many times as it takes before moving on! The rest of the book builds upon what it teaches you and the better you understand the ideas presented in it, the better your understanding of the rest of the book will be and the easier the rest will be.

based friendly trips

Attached: check.jpg (598x600, 148K)

You’re gonna get it dusty playing without the cover fren

False conflation of music and subjective art, music is absolutely mathematical.

Bullshit, music IS a subjective art, plain and simple, music that can be effectively reduced to math is in the minority, whether that is the songs of people or animals. We all leave the mathematical ideals more than we stick to them, even when playing instruments that play a harmonically derived scale, we bend notes off of perfection and play with a swing to our rhythm or slightly off beat.

Music is not math, but it can be. Just because you can express something mathematically does not make it math.

I think y'all are misunderstanding or at least miscategorizing math. Music is fundamentally mathematical, but that doesn't mean it isn't a subjective art

I was mainly addressing it from the standpoint of the people who say music is math and think it all can be expressed simply with math, this view is based upon a simplistic understanding of music or is just a cash grab. Even a statement like 'music is fundamentally mathematical' has its issues, but it is considerably more accurate than 'music is math.' Personally I would say, music has mathematical qualities.

Schoenberg wrote other music theory books that are surprisingly readable. Start with those (if you want Schoenberg). Otherwise, pic related is good.

Attached: 21073545559.jpg (1008x1500, 206K)

>Schoenberg wrote other music theory books that are surprisingly readable. Start with those
His other books assume a good foundation in harmony and you would be completely lost if you started with anything but Theory of Harmony or some other in depth harmony book. Piston is good but your previous statement suggests you are just parroting and have not actually read Schoenberg or Piston or have any real knowledge of music theory.

One would not go wrong with Piston, while not as thorough as Schoenberg, he does well, but he will not really be any easier.

>Schoenberg bad
>Schoenberg ruined...

Attached: snoring.jpg (400x350, 97K)

Tы из Poccии?

Gradus ad Parnassum, Fux