question for music theory students/instructors
I haven't posted in a while...
For a while I had to work through STEINKE: Harmonic Materials in Tonal music; but I didn't like the cheap paper, nor the scattered approach of organization, so I researched for a superior book.
Well, I bought GAULDIN's Harmonic Practice in Tonal Music and absolutely love it -- he centralizes each concept to its own chapter, with thorough drill in a separate work book (this as opposed to the Steinke which required constant flipping back); it isn't printed on cheap paper; and the instructional book is hardcover.
Anyway, in terms of the 'technical' aspects of the book, I cannot criticize with much thoroughness since I'm still a student of theory; both Steinke and Gauldin write stylistically clear and compact English, so no complaints on that front.
Like I said, I greatly prefer the order of concepts in the Gauldin, as it seems to gradually build -- whereas the Steinke appears haphazardly constructed at times.
However, there remains extreme ambivalence towards the Gauldin in academia, as many of the reviews have revealed to me -- apparently people do not like the "Schenkerian" slant which pervades the entire book, as well as the so-called nonstandard vocabulary.
So I'm curious what you more professional theorists have to say about all this.
[This message has been edited by Beyond Within (edited 07-13-2005).]
For a while I had to work through STEINKE: Harmonic Materials in Tonal music; but I didn't like the cheap paper, nor the scattered approach of organization, so I researched for a superior book.
Well, I bought GAULDIN's Harmonic Practice in Tonal Music and absolutely love it -- he centralizes each concept to its own chapter, with thorough drill in a separate work book (this as opposed to the Steinke which required constant flipping back); it isn't printed on cheap paper; and the instructional book is hardcover.
Anyway, in terms of the 'technical' aspects of the book, I cannot criticize with much thoroughness since I'm still a student of theory; both Steinke and Gauldin write stylistically clear and compact English, so no complaints on that front.
Like I said, I greatly prefer the order of concepts in the Gauldin, as it seems to gradually build -- whereas the Steinke appears haphazardly constructed at times.
However, there remains extreme ambivalence towards the Gauldin in academia, as many of the reviews have revealed to me -- apparently people do not like the "Schenkerian" slant which pervades the entire book, as well as the so-called nonstandard vocabulary.
So I'm curious what you more professional theorists have to say about all this.
[This message has been edited by Beyond Within (edited 07-13-2005).]
Comment