Rating: 
Summary: maybe 3 stars--worthwhile as an historical curiosity
Review: Again: Schoenberg's stated "[reason] for writing a text on harmony and voice-leading" is to teach it. I doubt anyone who has ever tried to use this text to teach harmony finds it "endearingly verbose". He is much more likely to find it obtrusively verbose. Whether or not Schoenberg "knows that the tendency of a diminished fifth is to cave into a major third" he is not in the passage cited attempting to explain why it does, he is attempting to explain why the seventh of a seventh chord resolves downward, not upward. This is a different thing. Walter Piston and Arnold Schoenberg proffer alternate explanations, and if you actually READ the passage cited you will see that for all Schoenberg's verbosity and for all Piston's pithiness, Schoenberg's explanation goes no further in its way than Walter Piston's does (and is less, not more, "researched": Schoenberg was largely an autodidact). It just so happens that Schoenberg-here-is wrong and that Piston-here-is right.
Rating: 
Summary: Philosophically good.
Review: I studied this book as a popular music writer when I was younger. The book was very difficult to grasp in the musical sense. What kept me reading it was the philosophical overtones to the book. Upon becoming a student of philosophy I realized why I had liked the book so much. Shoenberg defines "the enlightenment" in historical terms. His thinking is fresh and lucid, although he rambles. It is the ideas that jump off the page not his clarity in expressing them. Today he may seem "old hat" but for the time his willingness to question the past and invent anew were revolutionary.Musically, I gained a tremendous amount from the book. Again I was very young and the music was simple in relation to "classical" pieces, but I did learn 4 part harmony that worked and was a little different sounding. I ended up writing a few songs from the material that were well received (within my circle of friends). So, for people just intested in playing around with music, you may find something of use. It is terse however. I only studied a couple of chapters, it took me about 40+ hours of intensive reading and note taking to get anything out of those chapters. I did read read the entire text of the book for the philosophy and that is much easier, although still difficult. I am certain there are better ways to learn what I did from the book (musically). Nevertheless inspiration can come from strange places. Maybe it is worth a shot for you.
Rating: 
Summary: fine in its way, but that way is eccentric
Review: I suspect the prospective purchaser may be mislead by certain of these reviews. 1) I'm not sure what is meant by "his attempt to put written parameters on atonalism", but it is important to understand that Schoenberg's "Theory of Harmony" says nothing whatsoever about atonal music. 2) Does it "[show] that if [Schoenberg] had wished, he could have written popular pieces in the key of C major that would have been some of the finest music ever written"? It shows, I suppose, that Schoenberg had a solid grasp of traditional elementary harmony, but as far as I know this has never been in question. Before he wrote atonal serial music and before he wrote free atonal music, Schoenberg wrote a reasonable quantity of tonal music, so you don't have to speculate about what he could have composed "in the key of C major". Just listen. (It's a thickish sort of tonal music and not really my cup of tea.) 3) Whether or not you admire the author or his music, you would be very foolish to assign this to your undergraduate students or to try to teach yourself theory with it--and not just because a number of the author's speculative notions are dubious. 4) If you elect to read it you'll be in for quite a bit of haranguing. Brace yourself.
Rating: 
Summary: "Invariably wrong?"
Review: I think not. Schoenberg's theoretical approach is not the approach accepted as as standard in American music schools. He was an independent thinker. In this reviewer's opinion, Schoenberg was right. I would not recommend this volume as a primary textbook for the study of tonal harmony; it is too rich and complex for that, and undoubtedly way beyond the reading level of most college undergraduates. Schoenberg's thought is subtle and elegant to a degree rarely found in books of this sort. I would recommend this volume to anyone willing to dig more deeply into the subject than is done by most three chord pop musicians or Schenkerian purists, but it takes time and patience and an open mind as well as a firm command of complex sentence structure. Schoenberg does not provide the reductio ad absurdam desired by many. This is one of the most important books ever written on the subject of music theory. It is essential reading for any serious student of early 20th century tonal music.
Rating:
Summary: Theory of Harmony form traditional method to atonal method.
Review: It deals with all harmony thoery from traditional theory to mordern atonal music such as twelve tone system. Traditional part is well organized relatively to other text. It attach great importance to not only theory but also practice of composing. The most superior stuff to other text is, reader will learn how to compose music by only following the text even beginner. It will be suitable for beginner, advanced student and teacher.
Rating:
Summary: Excellent book for Theory of Harmomy.
Review: It is historical book in theory of harmony area. The author wrote detailed explanation about each theory. All harmonic theories are expained in structural and systemic concept. All theories are constructed on the properties of frequency of sounds. I astonished at the systemic, logical explanation about the theory of harmony. The author wrote this book for the his students of composition lesson. The author, Schoeng is the representative great real composer of twenty centry. It is well organized relatively to other text. It attach great importance to not only theory but also practice method of composing. The most superior stuff to other text is, reader will learn how to compose music by only following the text even beginner. It will be suitable for beginner, advanced student and teacher. I strongly recommand this book if you have no chance to consider the ground of harmonic theory. Tis book will give the answers to you why many harmonic rules and theories must be! such like that.
Rating:
Summary: A Philosophical Tome - Not a Textbook
Review: No...Schonberg's Harmonic works are not where anyone should start when trying to learn standard western harmony. Let's get that out in the open first. You should not read this book as a way to learn the rules of figured-bass style harmony. For that, better to read Piston. This book is a philosophical tome. As such, it is verbose, but it is also extremely instructive, mostly for the composer. I first read the Theory of Harmony as a grad student. My composition teacher suggested it. (He was always correcting my chord spelling in ways that didn't make sense to me, until I read the Schonberg.) This book opened me to the "mystical" side of harmonic theory. It also was a great clarifier on the relationship between harmony and counterpoint in voice leading. And, most harmony texts really are based on the rules of Rameau, which amazingly work up until the post Wagnerian era, when they begin to break down. Schonberg's work is the best examination of post-Wagnerian tonal harmony that I've come across. So to me, this is more than an historical artifact, it is a useful tool for the experienced composer. But definately not for your usual undergrad!
Rating:
Summary: overall, good but not great
Review: Overall, I would rate this book as "good". It starts out by presenting basic music theory and even goes so far as to explain WHERE it all comes from (which many other texts do not (explains overtones, how they are created, and how they were used to create scales)) which I found fascinating. However, the book is more useful for historical purposes than for actual learning of music theory/harmony. It was written by a master who completely rewrote the way we thought about music and it is fascinating to see his thought process as he came to these conclusions. However, the English translation is not really very well done, often making it difficult to follow, and the writing tends to ramble on for pages and pages at a time often making me wonder "what exactly is he talking about?" midway through page 5 of the same extended paragraph. Also the examples tend to be very confusing and the rules regarding chord resolution, etc. are not presented clearly.
If you are interested in Schoenberg's ideas about twelve-tone music, etc., and already know at least a fair amount of music theory, this book may be an interesting read. Otherwise, I'd recommend one of Kostka's texts, as they are much more clear and concise.
Rating:
Summary: a collection of rambling ruminations and rantings
Review: Schoenberg entitled this collection of rambling ruminations and rantings "Harmonielehre", which means "harmony teaching". Thus I am obliged--though I find it fascinating in various ways--to review it harshly; for teaching harmony is just what it fails to do. I'll mention two instances (I could have chosen others) of specious reasoning: 1) Here is its explanation of the resolution of the seventh of a dominant seventh chord (in the key of C): "To take F to C would be unfavorable because the unmotivated leap is not convincing. Resolution to G would be no more favorable because G already appeared in the preceding chord, and, as the tone of resolution, would not announce forcefully enough that a new consonance has come about through its influence. Consequently, the F goes best to E [pp.81-82]." This is nonsense. The F of a G7 chord resolves to E, the third of a C major triad, because, as Walter Piston--without Mark Devoto--puts it, "The tendency of the diminished fifth is to contract to a third, major or minor, both voices moving inward by step. ["Harmony", 2nd Edition, 1948, p. 139]." 2) Here is its argument against traditional explanations of the proscription of parallel fifths: "Parallel fourths are [traditionally] permitted, however, if they are 'covered' by a lower third [E-G-C, ascending, in Schoenberg's example]. Could not parallel fifths be just as freely used if they were also covered by a lower third? [Schoenberg actually means, as his example makes clear, "by a lower sixth". His example: E-C-G, ascending.]....CONSEQUENTLY THERE MUST BE OTHER GROUNDS [Schoenberg's emphasis] (for the exclusion of parallel fifths)." In fact, Schoenberg's intended reductio ad absurdum seemed not so absurd to Henry Purcell--for example--who, in the third measure of his "Ground in C Minor" employed just the succession of parallel fifths in parallel first inversion triads Schoenberg describes. These are more rare than parallel first inversion triads voiced as third and fourth only because the wider spacing makes them less likely to congeal, depending on the instrumentation.
Rating:
Summary: use with discretion
Review: Schoenberg is willing to reconsider and rethink every aspect of traditional music theory. It's too bad his conclusions are almost invariably wrong, but this book will help you reconsider and rethink traditional music theory yourself--and come to your own conclusions. Also: this is much too unwieldy for the classroom; use Robert Ottman's texts instead. I recommend as well PENTATONIC SCALES FOR THE JAZZ-ROCK KEYBOARDIST by Jeff Burns--for theory and for practice.
| 
