Is there any good books out there about composing classical music? Books that covers basics, as well as more advanced techniques?

One of the more respected textbooks in the field is Harmony and Voice Leading (http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbninquiry.asp?EAN=9780155062429)

There's the books by Robert Ottman and also Walter Piston.

Yes, Harmony (http://search.barnesandnoble.com/Harmony/Walter-Piston/e/9780393954807/?itm=2) by Walter Piston is also a very widely used textbook.

Is there any good books out there about composing classical music? Books that covers basics, as well as more advanced techniques?

The most important sources are not books, they are scores. You must learn to play piano well enough to get through Bach Chorales and easier Preludes, a Sonata or two by Mozart or Haydn, and some of Beethoven's easier short piano works. Some Schubert Waltzes and some of the Chopin preludes are easy, too.

Theory books are fine, but don't and can't teach composition, really. However, I hate say it, but you need a couple semesters of Harmony, Analysis, counterpoint (both 18th c. and 16th c.). Sing in a choir. Do as much ear training as possible.

Listen to live performances (concerts). Get a composition teacher whose music you like. Study with him/her.

As one of my composition teachers, Hugo Weisgall (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugo_Weisgall) once said:

"Write simple music."


Give yourself permission to write music that you don't think is very good. It is the only way you can progress past the initial stages.

As one of my composition teachers, Hugo Weisgall (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugo_Weisgall) once said:

"Write simple music."



That reminds me of a conversation I had with two other composers back when I was in grad school: Arthor Weinstein made the claim "I value simplicity!" and we began arguing over which one of us valued simplicity more, pointing to examples from our works. After about 20 minutes of this we noticed that Steve Norton had not contributed anything to the conversation, and we said "What about you, Steve?"

Steve calmly replied "I value complexity."

I value good music, complex or simple. However, for beginning composers, I feel pretty strongly that they need to learn to handle one or two ideas clearly and effectively before moving on.

"Complexity" is a relative term, and even at times a stylistic designation, i.e., "The New Complexity." I am neither opposed to or in favor of "Simplicity." I value simple music as a pedagogical necessity.

"Complexity" is a relative term

Oh, absolutely! as evidenced by your comment

for beginning composers, I feel pretty strongly that they need to learn to handle one or two ideas clearly and effectively before moving on.

...which implies that there's a correlation between the number of ideas and the simplicity/complexity of a piece. And which also suggests that one can -- or can't -- identify "ideas" independently of voices or themes or motifs or instruments etc etc etc.

Personally I think simplicity/complexity is a false dichotomy anyway. I agree that beginning composers should focus on a narrow range of possibilities until their command is established. But they should also differentiate between Finished Works and Homework.

Oh, absolutely! as evidenced by your comment...which implies that there's a correlation between the number of ideas and the simplicity/complexity of a piece. And which also suggests that one can -- or can't -- identify "ideas" independently of voices or themes or motifs or instruments etc etc etc...

Do you have any suggestions addressing the OP's question?

^^^ Since everyone else focussed on the OP's request for basic beginner stuff, I'll offer up my two favorites for more advanced techniques:

Both John Rahn's Basic Atonal Theory and Charles Wuorinen's Simple Composition are mercifully concise tomes that stress the importance of *audibility* when utilizing the integer model for pitch. I.e., it's not enough to cleverly deploy some fancy modern technique you learned in grad school if the end result sounds like poo (that should be self-evident, but I suspect you know as well as I how often it seems to get missed by composition students)...and also that to claim you used a particular technique as justification for some solutions is to miss the point; the music has to hold together and work sonically irrespective of how it was constructed, not because of the way it was constructed. Both Rahn and Wuorinen get this, and make this a priority in their books.

There are as many different ways to compose music as there are ways to perform music....there is no best way to learn I don't think. I do think you can teach yourself a lot by listening and studying scores.I taught myself to write canons by listening to Hindemith, I taught myself a lot about harmony from listening to Copland, Harris, Stravinsky, Bartok, and many others. I learned an awful lot from reading and listening to Schoenberg. If you are able to find a teacher, that will certainly help. I think youtube is a great resource for this because there is all of the literature you could ever want to hear, accompanied by biographical info about the composers and many times even scores you can follow. Composition is a life-long pursuit, very fulfilling, very much worth the investment of time. You need to write as often as possible, and hear your music played....by humans, not the computer (unless you are composing for the computer). Its helpful to be able to take criticism.
Good Luck

I like the approach used by my comp instructor who studied with a student of one of the masters. What the master did was teach orchestration then composition. In teaching composition he would limited your note choices like to one note. So rhythm, dynamics, and timbre were your main tools. You wrote with one note for ages with different varieties of instruments to orchestra with. When you finally got to use two notes your mind was blown with the huge possibilities now with two notes.

Lucky for me we started with triads, because we didn't have the orchestrion background, but you learn to be creative use less not more.