undefined

>> [Forte's book on traditional _Tonal Harmony_ though is quite
>>good...]
>
>Much better than the Walter Piston that most students get.
>

Hmmmm. . . hey Paul, weren't you dissin' the American Schenkerians
a while back? (i.e. Forte, et al). Still, maybe you're right, it's
better than Piston. . .

However, I believe it's inaccurate to say that "most students"
nowadays use the Piston. . . I think Aldwell/Schachter has replaced
Piston from what I've seen (at Eastman and Columbia, anyway. . . .)

A professor of mine once said that the American Schenkerians
"sucked the life" out of Schenker, or something to that effect. (Of
course, this professor was a Schenkerian himself, to some extent. . . )

I suppose in the end, any harmony book's gonna do some
"life-sucking". It's in the nature of harmony books. . .

--- In metatuning@y..., Christopher Bailey <cb202@c...> wrote:
>
> >> [Forte's book on traditional _Tonal Harmony_ though is quite
> >>good...]
> >
> >Much better than the Walter Piston that most students get.
> >
>
> Hmmmm. . . hey Paul, weren't you dissin' the American
Schenkerians
> a while back? (i.e. Forte, et al).

I don't think I was, since I have no idea what the "American
Schenkerians" are, though I was pointing out the fact that Salzer and
Schachter or someone else whose name began with S clearly botched the
Schenkerian philoshophy.

But I've repeatedly recommended Forte's book _Tonal Harmony in
Concept and Practice_ on the Tuning List -- it's a great remedy to
the vertical-oriented thinking that tends to go on there.