Rating: 
Summary: Very Dry....
Review: (Note: I've been using this book for independent study, and thus I'm not comparing it to other institutionalized texts). A few reviewers have mentioned that this is a "college text". As a college graduate, I know from experience that "college text" is a euphemism that professors use to describe a boring, poorly written text. Although the information is not presented optimally, it's all there, and you can still learn a great deal from this text (especially if you have a teacher to call upon for clarifications). Each section of every chapter provides a set of exercises, but the authors don't offer many ideas for creative applications, and they don't even feel the need to explain the importance of the information they're presenting or tell you how to use the material to make yourself a better musician. If you have a good teacher, this text isn't really worth complaining about, but if you're on your own, I'd suggest going elsewhere.
Rating: 
Summary: A Decent Book
Review: All in all this book wasn't that bad. It is used at my college for undergraduate theory. Fortunately I was lucky enough to have a good teacher for Theory 1-2 who was able to clear up all the typographical errors and an even better teacher for Theory 3-4 who studied with Dr. Payne and knew off the bat what changes needed to be made. The only problem with this book is the vast (and I mean VAST) amount of typographical errors that could have been cleared up with a good group of proof-readers. The book is set up in a sensical order and generally has adequate definitions to follow important terms. A primary concern, wordiness and typos aside, are the relevancies of the listening examples. In many cases, poors examples are selected for analysis which brings up MUCH debate during class because there really are more explanations (and better explanations) than those given. For example, pg 404 (Augmented 6th Chords part II) gives a Tchaikovsky example that has a Ger+6 in the 3rd to 4th measures. The chord does not really act as a Ger+6 chord, but more as a chromatic mediant (a topic that actually isn't discussed much in this book).If there were to be another edition of this book that featured better examples, I would have given it a 4 star rating. If there were another edition of this book that fixed the MANY MANY typos along with better examples, I would definitely give it 5 stars. Tip-For those of you using the workbook edition as well, just because the directions say that the example is in C major, it doesn't necesarrily mean that it is. Listen to the recordings and ask your professor.
Rating:
Summary: This book has some good points but a lot of flaws
Review: Anybody who has seen the latest edition, knows it's got the theory there, and of all the editions, it was more clearly written than in any of the other ones, however the examples are crap and there are quite a few typographical errors. i guess if they ever proof read their book and make a next edition, it'll get another star from me, and also another thing they did in the book, which is probably not the best of ideas, is in their examples quite often towards the beginning having secondary functioning chords there before they're even introduced in the book. but with the errors in the text it still is probably one of the best in print. i don't think too many people would buy this book for independant studies, so there will be a teacher there to clear the confusion and hopefully spot the errors for the students.
Rating: 
Summary: Beware the Fourth Edition
Review: Be forewarned that the new 4th edition is rife with errors resulting from bad proofreading -- both in the text and in the workbook. Apparently, the publishers (I can't imagine the authors would do this) were in such a hurry to get this out by the start of the Fall 1999 semester, that they unleashed this abortion of botched key signatures and wrong notes. Were these guys swattin' flies on staff paper, or what? The typography and layout are crowded and harder to read than the clean, uncluttered pages of the 3rd edition. Also, I've been told part of the rush was to incorporate more information on reading lead sheets, women composers, and more 20th century techniques. Why does the latter need to be in an introductory text? Save it for the grad students. Please spare us the contemporary and politically correct fourth edition, and give us back the sturdy, error-free 3rd edition.
Rating: 
Summary: Tonal Harmony and a competent professor, make a great team
Review: Being a student at West Chester Univ. of PA's School of Music, I have had ample time to monitor it's effectivness and compare it to "Elementry Harmony," which I have also used. What I have found is that a good professor can do an excelent job while a lesser professor can do a lesser job. It's highlights include it's many useful exercises as well as it's well planed cronologicial order. While some of the text's language can be somewhat confusing, I have found few books that have made it eaiser to explain these same topics. In closing I would like to add that any student who truly has, or potentially has, a clear understanding of music theory should have no difficulty understanding the contents of this fine text.
Rating:
Summary: Useful, necessarily dry, and best, educational.
Review: I am quite amused by the complaints I hear from students and professors about this text. Perhaps these folks who exude grunts and groans about this text have not had the grave misfortune of encountering Gauldin's bare-bones tonal-harmony survey. I would jump quickly to recommend Piston's original text, but the deVoto bastardization destroyed any sense of "fun" or instructional continuity present in the original version (which I am lucky - and old enough - to own). Let's face it: expository writing is tedious. It is not meant by nature or design to be a page-turning writing device. Nonetheless, Kostka's survey is complete, providing adequate and clear examples, and written in a very succinct manner. True, Kostka does dwell in a few places, but these minutiae-explanations are necessary (if you have ever taught elementary theory, you will understand immediately). The organization of the text is second to none, and the authors are consistent in explanations and refrain from "inventing" jargon or becoming unnecessarily nebulous (Gauldin, for one, is notorious in this regard).
Rating:
Summary: Useful, necessarily dry, and best, educational.
Review: I am quite amused by the complaints I hear from students and professors about this text. Perhaps these folks who exude grunts and groans about this text have not had the grave misfortune of encountering Gauldin's bare-bones tonal-harmony survey. I would jump quickly to recommend Piston's original text, but the deVoto bastardization destroyed any sense of "fun" or instructional continuity present in the original version (which I am lucky - and old enough - to own). Let's face it: expository writing is tedious. It is not meant by nature or design to be a page-turning writing device. Nonetheless, Kostka's survey is complete, providing adequate and clear examples, and written in a very succinct manner. True, Kostka does dwell in a few places, but these minutiae-explanations are necessary (if you have ever taught elementary theory, you will understand immediately). The organization of the text is second to none, and the authors are consistent in explanations and refrain from "inventing" jargon or becoming unnecessarily nebulous (Gauldin, for one, is notorious in this regard).
Rating: 
Summary: My Wish List.....
Review: I wish I could buy the 3rd Ed. with the ultra cool cover on the 4th Ed. As far as it being difficult for college students to understand, I think that is absolutely ridiculous and insulting to MY intelligence. If they can't understand this text, maybe you should send them back to high school. Also, I like the additions to the introductory 20th century material that the 4th Ed. offers. I am quite annoyed though that I have had to wait until the last semester of undergrad theory before getting to dive into some atonality. Freshmen should get to learn about this stuff, it's great! Unfortunately, I read earlier that some people think it should be saved for grad students. Maybe they're the ones who had trouble understanding the text and need that long to let it all sink into their grey matter.......My thought for them, quit teaching! Go make cheeseburgers! You had better not burn my fries either!
Rating:
Summary: review for the fifth edition
Review: I'm a guitar major and this book, to some extent, frustrates me. All the examples are given on the piano. I have a limited knowledge of piano. That aside, I had no problems understanding the book, especially the parts about the various kinds of chords. However, the book features several obvious mistakes, such as an instance where a 32nd note is listed as a 16th note (how obvious could you get? It's not as though you could miss the extra stem!) In a few other instances the book mismarks a few chords. It also has several typos in it, which caught me by surprise. This book is also a little dry. But as far as music theory books go, I have seen far, far worse. This book is the better of the lot. I've seen more errors an mismarkings in my guitar and bass guitar books, so I gave this one 4 stars. It's not too bad.
Rating:
Summary: review for the fifth edition
Review: I'm a guitar major and this book, to some extent, frustrates me. All the examples are given on the piano. I have a limited knowledge of piano. That aside, I had no problems understanding the book, especially the parts about the various kinds of chords. However, the book features several obvious mistakes, such as an instance where a 32nd note is listed as a 16th note (how obvious could you get? It's not as though you could miss the extra stem!) In a few other instances the book mismarks a few chords. It also has several typos in it, which caught me by surprise. This book is also a little dry. But as far as music theory books go, I have seen far, far worse. This book is the better of the lot. I've seen more errors an mismarkings in my guitar and bass guitar books, so I gave this one 4 stars. It's not too bad.
|
