ic. thats interesting.first of all, what is u want to be able to 'achieve' in music?everybody should hv a certain 'measurement' set up for themselves?so my qns is, my friend...do u want to 1. just learn theory for the sake of it?2. learn theory so u can get awwy with practicing? (trust me, it doesnt work that way my friend)3. learn theory so u can gain a better understanding of classical music?4. learn theory so u can become a jazz pianist/improviser?5. learn theory so u can branch out to different fields of music... conducting/playing other instruments/teaching..think abt it. i m here to help.
The Mark Sarnecki theory books are really good (as long as you have someone knowledgeable to fill in a few minor things). He's got an adult 'all in one book' that parallels the RCM theory syllabus in three levels. There is nothing wrong with the book (no matter what people say about all in one books) because it shows you what level each chapter covers. The explanations are thorough and there are loads of exercises. It covers key signatures, scales, intervals, chords, transposition, rhythm (simple and compound), basic analysis, cadences, and italian/french/german terms (not necessarily in that exact order though). Students I've sent for theory exams who use that book all get high 80's to high 90's on their exams.
Usually you can find sight reading AND ear training in one book. This would be a good tool to compliment theory (it's crazy how you can apply some things you learn in theory directly to sight reading). I've never used a step-by-step ear training book; do you have a teacher or someone who could help you learn ear tests?If not, one of my students mentioned on youtube that there are some ear test traning videos; they'll play an interval, chord, etc, and give you 5 seconds to identify it, then they say the answer. You can probably find sources like this elsewhere online too if you are without a teacher. It's not the easiest thing teaching yourself ear training, but something else you can do is be extra aware when you are playing your pieces. Think of the tonalities, the key changes, the chords, and anything else. If you really know WHAT you are playing, then you may know what you are listening for in your music.
ok great. i would be able to help u...ur definitely very wise to hv picked option 3. (my biasness perhaps lol)but now, here is the contradiction.to be able to understand classical music (or any other genres) of music, u hv to be able to be good in other fields too..-the 'performers' approach to listening (its quite different the way an improviser listens and the way a classical musician listens)-some 'basic' ear training....i would suggest this..its darn good. tried it. expensvie. but definitely worth the money (www.dickgrove.com)- as for sight reading..honstly, the best way is to keep learning more pieces. get them internalised/memorized so that u know that particular pattern when u 'see it again' in another piece of music. now to another qns...wat do u wanna be able to 'specialise' in? theory? performance? composition?...i know ur genre..good choice. i personally love it to. lol
and that problem of urs is?....hearing?... in what aspect my friend? do u wanna improve urself to work as a classical pianist, or an improviser?its rather different u know. they both 'focus' on different things.
Topic: Theory and ear training books 