Reddit reviews Analyzing Classical Form: An Approach for the Classroom

I find it frustrating that there are so many comments responding to this question, and may others like it, that go along the lines of, “it’s just you’re intuition/your natural expression”, “just learn scales”, “study Bach chorales”, etc. Those sorts of answers are either completely unhelpful, counterproductive if practiced or, at worst, completely untrue.


What you’re looking for is not under the title of “theory of melody” but “Counterpoint”, and “Form” and/or “Composition”.


The study of counterpoint covers the use of multiple melodic lines that occur simultaneously. The desired outcome of counterpoint is to create a set of melodic lines that all have their own individual character and retain independence from one another. This is achieved by using a very large set of rules for each voice. Studying counterpoint will also cover an understanding of structure tones, and their importance within larger structural frameworks (Schenkerian Analysis). Their are two types of counterpoint, “Strict”, which is like a set of basic musical exercises and extremely limiting, and “Tonal”, the latter is the kind I’m talking about.


The study of Form and Composition covers the construction of musical forms on a macro level (Sonata Form, Ternary, Rondo, etc), the construction of individual phrases on a micro level, and the specific functions (presentation, continuation, cadential, how these functions can be expanded upon or edited, and more ambiguous functions) of certain phrases.

Both subjects require an advanced knowledge of harmony and voice leading, most of the discussions on the sites and in the books listed below assume this.

Resources:


(The web)


http://openmusictheory.com/contents.html


^ Look under “Form”


http://www.schenkerguide.com/whatisschenkeriananalysis.php


https://monoskop.org/images/d/da/Schoenberg_Arnold_Fundamentals_of_Musical_Composition_no_OCR.pdf


https://imslp.org/wiki/Exercises_in_Melody-Writing_(Goetschius%2C_Percy)


(Books)


Analyzing Classical Form: An Approach for the Classroom https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/0199987297/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_i_XQe0Cb65B4NP5


Formal Functions in Perspective: Essays on Musical Form from Haydn to Adorno (Eastman Studies in Music) https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/1580465188/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_i_MWe0CbRJMCJ0H


The Craft of Tonal Counterpoint https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/0415943914/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_i_DRe0Cb19ZTSMF


https://www.amazon.co.uk/Melody-Songwriting-Berklee-Guide-Perricone/dp/063400638X

Here is a list of books that I own and were recommended to me.

Harmony and Voice Leading by Aldwell/Schachter/Cadwallader

Classical Form: A Theory of Formal Functions for the Instrumental Music of Haydn, Mozart, and Beethoven by Caplin

Study of Orchestration by Adler

20th century Harmony by Persichetti

The part of theory that made composition most accessible to me was studying form. By that I mean the high-level organizational structure. For example, Sonata form, verse-chorus form, 12-bar blues form, etc. It's not just about those specific templates, but rather why they actually work. For example, what is it about verse-chorus form that makes it so universal for most of pop music. Once you feel comfortable analyzing form, it's easier to start composing with that sort of road-map ahead of you. For example, with a song, if you know you'll want to use verse-chorus form, it's a lot easier to proceed with writing music with those pieces in mind (the chorus should be catchy, the verse should properly showcase the lyrics, maybe I want a really unexpected bridge to build up tension before the final chorus, etc). Without having form in mind, writing music ends up being sort of free-form and doesn't have a sense of direction or "journey" (which of course can be intentional).

If you're ok with learning from a very classical point of view, I highly recommend "Classical Form" by William E Caplin. (There's also a workbook version). This book has nothing to do with teaching composition directly, but it really opened my eyes in terms of understanding how a piece of music is structured so that it "makes sense." Simple things we might take for granted but actually make a big difference in keeping music sound coherent, like how do you introduce a melody but highlight its importance? How do you develop a melodic idea so that the listener can follow along with your thought process? etc.

It does require a decent amount of theory background though. There is a classroom workbook version that goes over a some of it, but you'll need to feel comfortable at least with reading sheet music and analyzing chords. I would say at the very least, you want to be familiar with everything past a college Music Theory 1 course.

textbook:

https://www.amazon.com/Classical-Form-Functions-Instrumental-Beethoven/dp/019514399X

workbook version:

https://www.amazon.com/Analyzing-Classical-Form-Approach-Classroom/dp/0199987297

Caplin’s Analyzing Classical Form is a great textbook on the subject. It starts from the smallest structural units (usually 8 bars long) and works it’s way up to full length sonatas and symphonies, as well as other forms.

>Also, you brought up William Caplin's Classical Form. I think I might benefit from reading something a bit more modern and familiar in its language and teaching style. Would you recommend that book? What are its strengths and weaknesses? I'm a poor high school student and it's kind of expensive for a book, so I'd like to feel a bit more certain about the book's value before I spend what little money I have on it. I'm mostly interested in practical value for use in understanding composition, so that I can apply it in my own writing.

The textbook version, Analyzing Classical Form, is a bit more approachable. That said, Classical Form is incredible. I don't know how much you will get out of it as a high school student, but it certainly does have a lot of great knowledge and perspective locked up inside of it.

To summarize Caplin in one sentence: The process by which (Haydn, Beethoven and Mozart's) music unfolds is based on progression toward a musical goal, and the shape the music takes at any given moment is based on a passage's formal function. If you think of the progression beginning–middle–end (or initiating–medial–concluding in Caplin's terminology), then there are certain characteristics that make something sound like it's a beginning, middle, or ending. Caplin's theory is interested how composers manipulate temporality. Here's an explanatory blurb from Analyzing Classical Form:

>The concept of formal function is central to the theory and analysis of classical form proposed in this textbook. Since it is not an easy term to define, the “Focus on Function”
text boxes will help to clarify the concept.

>Most fundamentally, formal functionality relates to some general notions of time. In many situations in our life, we can experience the sense of beginning something, of being in the middle of something, or of ending something.

>For example, you are now at the beginning of your course on musical form, and at some point you will experience the sense of being in its middle (especially around the time of a midterm exam). Eventually, you will come to the end of the course (with great success, we hope!).

>These general temporalities can also apply to passages of music.Within a theme, some portion of the music expresses the sense of initiating the theme; other portions suggest being in its middle; and other portions bring the theme to a close.The specific terms that we apply to these portions of music refer to the formal functions of the theme.
At this point, we have identified three phrase functions of the sentence theme type: presentation, continuation, and cadential. And we have identified these functions as initiating, medial, and concluding. In addition, we have also recognized two idea functions—basic idea and cadential idea— that operate at a lower level in the structural hierarchy of the work.These functions express a sense of formal beginning and ending respectively. (47)

---


>I definitely can agree with that. I just felt frustrated when I was reading the book because I feel like I already do have a decent understanding of music theory. To expand on the literature metaphor, I feel like I am definitely able to form sentences and understand grammar, etc. But when I was reading the book I felt confused a lot of ideas/concepts/terms that IMO were advanced/obscure enough to need a bit of explanation. I can't think of any examples right now (I haven't read in like 2 weeks) so I guess it's not a very strong argument.

I agree with you, and I wouldn't use Fundamentals of Musical Composition to teach someone new to music. I might recommend it to a budding composer though (as my teacher recommended Structural Functions of Harmony to me; we did a little book club for a while). There's nothing wrong with trying to work through it at whatever level, however. And frustrating terminology is part of the game in music theory, unfortunately, especially in these mid-20th century books. It's not like any of this terminology ever really gets standardized anyway. That said, if you read enough of these things, you start to realize that Schoenberg is much clearer and more concrete than a lot of the other figures. I make a case for Schoenberg's practicality in this thread.

---

There's another really good music book, one that I think could be good for beginners, but is mired with awkward and outdated language because it's old: Tchaikovsky's Guide to the Practical Study of Harmony. (Keep in mind this was translated from Russian to German to English.) There are little conventional things, like calling C major and A minor "parallel" keys rather than "relative" (because in German, they refer to that as a "parallel" relationship). I have to remind myself of this when I read, for instance, on page 21: "The Harmony of the minor scale is built up on the so-called "harmonic minor scale" and consists of the same notes as its parallel major scale, with the exception that the 7th step is raised by half a tone."

Also, it's more common nowadays to indicate chord quality (major, minor, diminished, augmented) in the numeral: I ii iii IV V vi vii° for major and i ii° III iv V VI vii° for minor (adjusted for conventional use of harmonic minor) as opposed to Tchaikovsky's flat I II III IV V VI VII for major and I II III IV V VI VII for minor.

If you're willing to hack through sentences that sound like they were written by space aliens who studied Shakespeare, it's a great little book. I think it's especially good for learning the principles of voice-leading at the keyboard in an easy and practical way..

I really hope no one ever talked like this, but I can't be so sure:

>Hitherto, in all our examples, the movement of the middle voices was determined by the upper voice and thus no opportunity for independence was offered. But as soon as it is no longer dominated by the upper voice, each voice gains in significance, deriving, as it were, a distinct physiognomy and character of its own, which entirely determines the positions of the voices in a chord; so that an arbitrary use of close or wide positions is not practicable. (38)

---

>Again, thank you for spending so much time to respond to my comment, it means a lot!

Aww, you're so welcome!