Having gotten the previous post out of my system, I began exploring the links. If Schillinger really is the driving force behind some of the compositions I heard, then I'm all for it. There's much to be proud of in those.greeny wrote:Wow thanks for all the reactions!
It is true that this text is a bit obscure, shadowed by many other well known theoretical works.
The main difference with most other competent books is that Schillinger brings us a new view about the functionality of music theory and the various ways it can be put to use to create an infinite number of approaches to composition. It's mainly about creating new materials for oneself and not about repeating that which has already been done copied and redone by others in the past.
Here are a few links which I believe might shed some light on the text.
http://www.ssm.uk.net/index.php" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
And yet another society mainly interested in selling you a certificate:
http://www.schillingersociety.com" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Here's a piece of music composed by someone utilizing some of Schillingers techniques:
http://danielsimpson.com/schillinger-r3-2-UK.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Next, a site where a composer/arranger well versed in the System has a few Pdf's available for downloading: one illustrating the Theory of Rhythm and the other one of the Theories of Harmony.
http://www.fransabsil.nl" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
>go to >archives> and scroll down to:
"Hybrid 5 and 4 part Harmony", and,
"Guide to the theory of Rhythms Vs 1.2"
I'm afraid there isn't much more information available on the web other than Wikipedia.
Here's the publisher:
Clock and Rose Press, Rose's Books, Inc.
P.O.Box 342, Harwich Port, MA 02646
info@clockandrose.com
Well, I've decided to get it.
I was a bit surprised to notice how my initial post swiftly triggered a discussion about sight-reading and the reading of music in general.
Reminded me of….
... A long time ago one of my mentors told me: "one reads as well as one writes"
I guess that can also be extrapolated to: "one plays as well as one hears".
Thanks for all the comments.
Sometimes that 1% of what's great in academia just knocks you out of the park and scores a home run. Some of the above mentioned works (or others found on the same sites) do that for me. That doesn't change my opinion of academia in music, but reinforces the fact that the really, good stuff will always stand out. I read where Dick Grove used some of Schillinger's methodology, and I've had a number of friends study there and say it changed their lives. Maybe S. is really one of the exceptions.
I personally have always used math in my analysis, performance, creation and appreciation of music. I'm sure it's not as sophisticated as Schillinger's in any way, but hey… phi is phi, and it's everywhere. Best to pay attention to it when being creative. It's one of those things like inverse square laws that really get to the root of creative, generative issues, no matter where they are found or applied. Bach used it, and everyone else of importance appears to have also.
I have trouble with anyone who wants to lay claim to being "first" or "best" at it. Like fractal geometry, its universality is only slowly being revealed, but it has been known pretty much as long as there has been a system through which to reveal it and perceive it.
Thanks for posting the links, Greeny, and thanks to all for the discussion. I hope I haven't thrown too many monkey wrenches into the works. I'm just very cautious about endorsing academic principles unless I really believe them myself. And while I don't know enough about Schillinger's System to criticize it, it would appear that the students who have used it have a strong likelihood of becoming quite competent at the art of music.
Shooshie
PS: The writings of F.G. J. Absil are inspiring. There's a guy who has done some serious work in the field of music, elevating academia in the process. So far he has my utmost respect. —Shoosh