Workbook For Composing Original Four-Part Chorales?

I've just completed the classical section of an excellent self-study course that has familiarized me with the fundamentals of music theory, including scales, keys, intervals, chords, nonharmonic tones, cadences, figured bass, Roman numeral analysis, chord progressions, modulations, and voice-leading principles. I'm especially happy with what I've learned about traditional four-part voice leading, including voice ranges, inversions, doubling, objectionable motion, and how to connect scale degrees. I've taken extensive notes, and I'm confident in my ability to use these notes to perform analysis and to check voice leading for "correctness" according to the norms of the common practice period.

However, the course has given me no experience generating original melodies or harmonies of any length. Since my purpose in learning is to become a composer and producer of original music, (music for video games, as well as pop music) getting such experience is very important to me. I would like a solid grounding in classical techiques, and I don't want to move on to the jazz section of this music theory course until I've written some classical music. It seems, based on the way the course has stressed four-part voice leading, that I should focus on writing (or at least harmonizing the melodies of) some Bach-style four-part chorales.

I don't have money for an instructor, so I'm wondering if anyone can point me to a workbook that would provide some kind of direction and/or a framework for writing chorales? I really like the style of the book Composing Music, by William Russo, because it is made up almost exclusively of writing exercises presented within extremely limited bounds, giving the student only a few creative options at a time so as not to overwhelm him or her. However, Russo's workbook is not focused on chorales, and I haven't found one that is. My research has turned up the following resources:

The Study of Counterpoint, by Alfred Mann

Harmony, by Walter Piston

Counterpoint, by Walter Piston

Harmony & Voice Leading, by Carl Schachter and Edward Aldwell

Preliminary Exercises in Counterpoint, by Arnold Schoenberg

Counterpoint in Composition, by Felix Salzer and Carl Schacter

Counterpoint, by Knud Jeppesen

Fundamentals of Music Composition, by Arnold Schoenberg

The Complete Musician, by Steven G. Laitz (actually, this one is probably too expensive for me right now)

Four-Part Chorals of J.S. Bach, by Charles Sanford Terry (already planning on buying this one, unless there's a better edition)

If a workbook of the type I'm looking for does not exist, which one of these books should I start with, taking into account the style of instruction I'm partial to, my level of experience, and my goal of doing some kind of original classical writing as soon as possible?

Any input would be appreciated. Thanks in advance!

Ah yes, 4 part harmony is imperative to composition, Try P. I. Trychaisksky text on Harmony. It is concise and offers better advice on the subject, and, yes, the Schoenberg harmonic texts are good...read then later, for they will confuse you.

...Try P. I. Trychaisksky text on Harmony...

You mean Tchaikovsky, right?

You are correct, sir. Russian names are horrid to spell. :P

Good books! I have almost all of them.

You've touched the classic problem of teaching composition - much stay so focused on the rules and analysis, and forget to exercise creativity, intuition, curiosity... it's always great to analyse something, but if you don't try to compose something like you've analyzed, you'll only be training to become a music analyst.

Fortunately, some scholars perceived that flaw in the system and wrote books about it. The methodology you're seeking you'll find in Stefan Kostka's books, mainly Tonal Harmony, that comes with a workbook.

Or, if you're looking minus pages of text, look out Alan Belkin's books, mainly: Practical Guide to Musical Composition (https://www.webdepot.umontreal.ca/Usagers/belkina/MonDepotPublic/bk/index.html), which comes with a workbook too (https://www.webdepot.umontreal.ca/Usagers/belkina/MonDepotPublic/PDF/FormWKBK.pdf).

Very pedagogical, very practical. Enjoy!

P.S.: Try after this to begin the study of orchestration too. You'll find this very useful.

Yes, I have to agree to with on Belkien text's. They're are free and great text.

Thank you very much for the recommendations, Alfred, Aniolel, and kenhimura. I have added the Schoenberg, Tchaikovsky, and Kostka books to my list for future reading. My plan based on the advice in this thread is to start with Belkin's texts. After that, depending on how much Belkin's stuff advances me, I will most likely work through one of the other recommended books before returning to the jazz section of my self-study course. (And very soon after that I will study orchestration--most likely the Rimsky-Korsakov course at NorthernSounds.) I hope to read all of the books on my list at some point, as I intend on studying and learning about music for the rest of my life, but it is nice to have my focus narrowed down a bit at this point so I can begin engaging in creative work without losing my overall sense of direction. Best wishes to you all!

Eww, I didn't realize someone had recommended the Kostka-Payne. That's a terrible text.

I don't think so. One of the best books on this topic of 20th century. Far better than Schönberg's. It has its problems, like confusing sections and strange examples (and some are wrong, it's true), but it stills great.

Professional music theorists laugh at this book.

Professional music theorists laught too much, produce so little. They laught like hyenas from everything they can... academicism this way is a virus.

I recommend check it out every good book on a topic, and if not satisfied, elaborate a personal reviewed version. It's a win/win situation.

Yes, people who read and write books about music for a living are the worst places to find opinions on books about music.

I love how anytime you find ignorance there will be someone complaining about schools being terrible and people who have taken a personal stake in learning being wrong.

Irrelevant, argumentum ad verecundiam. Academicist speech, as usual. But you got me wrong, I don't dislike the school or academic space - instead, I'm doing research currently in 2 projects of composition at university, and building my way to the phd. What I really dislike is the cynical and elitist that many academics have, the academicism.

It's time to think out the box.

I would reccomend Piston's harmony text. Piston was a composer like schoenberg, and it is quasi modern. It also comes with a workbook. He also has an counterpoint and a orchestration text. Thus, look into Piston.

You aren't thinking outside of the box by dismissing the opinions of experts as elitist academists. I called my professor an elitist once, he asked me why I thought there was something wrong with being part of an elite.

It means having a deeper understanding of a subject than most other people. Music theory elitists laugh at the text because they understand the subject well enough to see how weak a text it is.

Yes I am, or at least trying to figure out things at practice. I don't trust in what you call "experts".

There's no problem in being part of an elite, but behaving like a jerk. This is completely unnecessary and only shows how the subject is frustrated, professionally, sexually or both. So, this is what I call "academicism" is this: a lot of frustrated people who thinks are superior (but aren't really, or not in the sense they think), acts as idiot when arguing in a discussion and only sees values in academy - dividing the world in two: the real world and the academy.

Happily, I don't have neither colleagues, teachers and advisers who are this way.

But this is another topic, let's go back to the main subject here.

I don't trust in what you call "experts".

Nobody trusts experts. That's why their work is peer-reviewed before being published. It's not in an editor's best interests to put work into print that is likely to be wrong.

I'm not saying it's always correct, but surely the work of these experts at least deserves serious consideration rather than being dismissed because of some sort of inverse academic snobbery?

Totally, people who have devoted their entire lives to researching a topic are not to be trusted on said topic.

Argumentum ad verecundiam again. Spend your lifetime doesn't prove nothing - just proves that you've spent your time. If it was worthy or not, only the results can tell... not the time.

Nobody trusts experts. That's why their work is peer-reviewed before being published. It's not in an editor's best interests to put work into print that is likely to be wrong.

I'm not saying it's always correct, but surely the work of these experts at least deserves serious consideration rather than being dismissed because of some sort of inverse academic snobbery?

It's exactly what I'm saying. If someone spent much time researching to produce a work, or a book, it at least deserves consideration. Even if you just take a look, but deserves. Not what was said in this topic, taking a book as gibberish because they don't like it. This is a commom "idiot academicist" behavior. That injustified arrogance...

No, I have this book and the workbook that goes with it. I've read it cover to cover multiple times. I dislike it because I know it to be gibberish, and the fact that every musicologist I've talked about this book to agrees that it is gibberish is simply reinforcement.

Ha! Now we have a sort of real argument.

You and your colleagues think it's gibberish, you have this right. I don't, neither a lot of people I know. Who is wrong? Nobody and both of us. That's the point. If you don't like the book, just had to say "I don't like it because this, that and that". But you behave as an average frustrated chump, like many musicologists around the world. =P

The main point is: like or not, deserve a reading. If you don't like it, don't use as source of constant referring. Just so.