Is it ever to early to study composing?

I recently found the book entitled "Tonal Harmony" at a bookstore, which I understand is quite popular in courses. I am fourteen, have had no teaching on composing of any sorts, so I sat down and skimmed it. I found it interesting (if I could not understand fully all of it, I was sure I would understand most of it). So I bought it for two dollars (good deal - it was a used bookstore) and took it home. So my question is, is it ever too early to delve into the more technical aspects of composing. Especially if I am going to read it my self?

Well, learning about theory and learning to compose are not exactly the same things. But regardless of that, I don't see how it could be too early to start with any of those two. Sure, a two years old might not get much out of a music theory book, but it won't hurt him either :P And even if someone may be too young to understand some theoretical concepts, that shouldn't keep them from composing, if that's what they want.

If you feel you can understand most of that book, then go ahead and read it.

lol Marcus. I'm 10, and already started! I didn't have much theory though.

And my answer is NO! Of course it isn't to early! It's never to early OR to late to start. READ THAT BOOK! :P

I've heard that teaching children to play piano at as early as two or three years old is very beneficial in that child's development, so I don't think you can start too early, really.

Thanks for the feedback. And yeah, I have had some theory for the 9 years of my piano career (just lessons) and so I know the basics pretty good. I'm mainly talking about like more advanced stuff. For example in the book I got, some of the units include: "Escape Notes," "Suspensions and Retardations," "Special Problems in the Analysis of Non-Chord Tones," "Conventional Use of the Neopolitan Chord," "Enharmonic Reinterpretation" - all of which I don't have any idea what they are about. Oh, here's a good one - Pandiatonicism. There are probably many people who know what that means, but at the current time, I don't. So should I just read it, and gather what I can. It definently can't hurt.

Definitely give it a read - it certainly can't hurt and it would benefit your piano playing even if you don't use it in composing. Most of that stuff can be interesting to read anyway - if you're a theory lover like me it's one of those books you'll read several times. Any theory book is always a useful read.

Know it like the back of your hand. Don't just "have a read". Absorb that stuff. It's your veggies.

I'd ask the reverse question. Can it be too late to start composing? Hah

That depends entirely on what you want to do. If you want tons of scholarships and be able to participate in all competitions etc., then you're somewhat restricted when you're too old, since many of those have age restrictions - but that really shouldn't stop anyone.

Composition is luckily quite different from being a violinist (or even more extreme: a ballet dancer or athlete), meaning that you don't have to master certain physical aspects at a relatively early age and don't get suddenly less virtuosic after you've "passed your prime", since it's primarily a mental thing. That means you can easily begin to compose when you're fifty or older and still learn as much as if you had started at five. In fact, I know several composers who didn't start any earlier than that, and I find they write some pretty awesome music.

Admittedly, in some competitive areas you -may- have somewhat more trouble being successful than a younger composer, simply because the whole art business is so fond of "rising young stars" and there -is- some bias against older composers who are just starting out in certain circles. But the question here is whether you're mainly composing to be "successful", or whether your main goal is to write whatever you deem good music.

And even regarding success: There -are- plenty of composers who started late and still were successful, so don't let that deter you.

All in all, no, it's probably never too late.

The first thing of course would be understanding that all the things you are talking about in your theory book apply to a specific era of music that can only be used up till about 1900 or so. And the things you are reading are geared to help you understand the composers in those eras. I and V the tonic and dominant ruled these times and composers would never (or almost never) change keys without some sort of cadence I.E (V-I, IV-I, V-IV etc), what you have to understand from studying this type of theory is that the music is governed by leading tones, notes that by "nature" are unstable and literally lead to another note, if I’m in C Major the note B always leads to C, the note F always leads back to E. So this is why V goes to I etc. I believe that learning the fundamentals are essential because it gives you an understanding of where things came from. These basic fundamentals govern not just classical music but pop and rock music as well (I don’t say all, but allot of it, if not most of it). I mean look at Bob Marley, he probably never studied theory but yet all his songs are going I-IV I-V, this is because there is something physical going on in the harmonic series that makes such combinations sound good.

So understanding it means you don’t have to sit there messing around forever to stumble upon the same thing.

In Bachs time every note had an explanation, and if you ever had to write in the style of bach you're music too would have to have an explanation for every non chord tone. In other words if I am in G Major I dont just go C# Major, the two keys are too unrelated even though there’s actually nothing wrong with doing so. In bachs time it was wrong. If I want to however go from G major to say D major I can do so by creating a leading tone not normally in the key of G (F natural) F natural now becomes the leading tone to D major, and by creating a new chord G-B-D-F, I now have a V7 of V, G7 now leads me to my new key D major.

An Escape tone would be a non chord tone that skips in the opposite direction of the musical line

A suspention is a non chord tone that resolves on the next beat, If I have a 4-3 suspension, lets say im resolving a C chord, F would be a 4th up from C, which would reslove down to the third, so I would have C-F-G, C-G would hold over and F would go to E. You will see this happen over and over again. I can also have a 9-1 resolution From D-C in the same fasion,

Anyways I don't remember the others that you mentioned off hand (I have forgotten most of what I havent used) But i think the main thing to take from that book is a way analize music and understand what some of the greatest composers are doing. But bear in mind once you get to 20th century music this type of analysis no longer applys.

I am no way saying that this is the way to write or not to write music but it is critical to have an understanding. So keep it up!

People condone theroy and say it kills creativity. Most of the people who have said this to me have actually never studied. Also it is never too early nor too late to get started though like anything else the earlier the better.

Who's the authors?

Stefan Kostka and Dorothy Payne

I got it at a used bookstore and it was half price off all music stuff so it's list price was $4. I saw about one place where the previous person filled it in, but other than that, it was empty. Not really sure what they did with it; only filling out one.