Schillinger’s Errors: 

An ever-evolving list [Version 1 by Matt McConnell and Eric Taxier].

The printed version of the Schillinger System of Musical Composition is not unproblematic. The following is a list of various reasons why the System needs a re-presentation. We call these errors due to their inconsistency with his overall approach.  We continually seek to endorse, expand, and improve on that approach, and we hope to do that by uncovering the problems and developing solutions.  In that sense, we follow Schillinger’s example unswervingly.

We will not include ridiculously small faults, like notation errors or incorrect page references.  We’re looking for the real deal.  If you have any additions, comments, or questions, please head over to the community forum. 

Note that many of these problems are not inherently Schillinger's fault.  This isn't about blame – we look to the future.

·          Orchestration book left unfinished.

·          Ignores process of composition (i.e., doesn't start making it “come together”) until the very end – that’s over 1200 pages. Readers like to know what the System can do for them before that point, and outside of the introduction.

·          Confuses pedagogy and compositional tools with the actual composition process (see also the review of Jeremy Arden’s thesis).

·          The title is misleading (see above point)

·          The explanations for some techniques are left out; small bits of conflicting and confusing explanations for some others add up

·          He goes light on explanatory diagrams and examples from the literature

·          He strongly implies or downright claims that some rhythms and pitch structures are inherently “better” than others – outside of their context.  Note: some of his related claims regarding composition as a whole and musical semantics are entirely consistent with his theoretical framework, and don’t need a place on this list.

·          He does not consistently follow through with some of his generalizations, which include (for now): 

1.      counterpoint – limited to primarily classical notions of consonance;

2.      counterpoint – not expanded beyond two voices;

3.      techniques placed sporadically throughout system without any culminating general classifications;

4.      semantics and related philosophical points only discussed twice (not the case in Mathbart);

5.      semantics and related philosophical points in Mathbart badly organized;

6.      techniques for building harmonies and correlating with other components not generalized;

7.      unfinished orchestration books – timbre techniques and theory (such as density of timbre) not fully developed and generalized;

·          The book doesn't replace the tutelage of such a gifted teacher as Schillinger

·          Math tends to discourage non-mathematicians. Although the math used in the System is not difficult, opening a page and seeing an algebraic formula frightens many people who have not used the math skills they learned in high school for many years. This could be one of the reasons why Taneiev’s treatise on convertible counterpoint (which uses algebraic statements) -- praised by eminent composers such as Rachmaninoff and Walter Piston -- is out of print.  All uses of math should be supplemented by plenty of examples and metaphors.

·          A better understanding of the System could be produced by overlapping and rearranging various sections.

·          Occasionally ignores a more objective philosophy with occasional aesthetic criticism of beloved composers.  Even when used for demonstration, anything construable as a personal value judgment (even positive) should be left out.

If discussions on the forum prove lively enough, we may add a list of “non-errors,” or common problems from the student end that deserve some extra attention rather than dismissal.