Harmonic analysis book?

Superblonde DotOrg I'm not sure what you mean by 'false' method but harmonic analysis does not strictly mean functional analysis (what you are calling 'roman numeral').  It can include chord / quality analysis (similar to what is provided in a lead sheet), or even more academic approaches such as Schenkerian analysis for understanding harmonic systems at a macro level. Often, as musicians and musicologists, we combine approaches in whatever way allows us to have a deeper understanding of the music and its stylistic harmonic syntax / grammar.  None of these approaches are strictly how the composers viewed harmony at the time but that does not make them false - they are largely based on looking back on trends and common practices in how "horizontal" melody lines were joined to create specific "vertical' combinations. Understanding these different forms of analysis along with principles of voice leading are important skills to have as a musician, particularly at high levels of performance or musical academia. 

Dustin Anderson if you dont know what I mean about it being false (which is what it is) then how can you claim anything else.  Seriously.  Academia and those trained by it will fight to the death to defend a system which has been thoroughly debunked as a method to understand the music studied here on this platform.  RCM, ABSRM, etc, are moneymakers for the test administrators and institutions who make healthy profits instructing then testing invalid methodology to give certificates to those learning their useless and broken system, worse than the biased SAT's for university admissions.  None of the composers admired here used, or would give any credence, to those systems taught as 'harmonic analysis', thus it is a falsehood to use such to 'understand' their music, no more valid than running a statistical analysis on the number of times a type of sonority is used and trying to comprehend the music that way.

Superblonde DotOrg The tone of your writing is very confrontational. You have a number of pointed opinions but they are not supported by facts so I feel compelled to counter a few of your statements with some information:

• No one has "debunked" harmonic analysis. It is understood by musicologists and musicians around the world that theory and analysis are fields that developed well after most of the' music that we study and play was composed. What makes the music so remarkable and celebrated is that there are so many ways to come at it in terms of both understanding its construction and performing it with one's own interpretation.
• RCM, CCM, ABRSM etc. are not methodologies at all, they are curricula / curriculum guides. RCM for instance is a curriculum guide because it does not even mandate  what specific music you must teach. Its main value is that it provides a suggested difficulty (not unlike what Tonebase has). The purpose is to provide structure for comprehensive learning and they are highly adaptable to any teacher's approaches / methods (and comparing music curricula to SATs is a non-sequitur because they do not have a similar process or intended outcome). 
• RCM is a non-profit organization and ABRSM is a registered charity so they aren't "money-making for administrators" - RCM fees are cost recovery and they employ hundreds of teachers and performers to travel and provide encouragement and assessment for students across the country. No institution is perfect but implying that they have only malicious intentions is, at best, discourteous to thousands of excellent performers and pedagogues that seek to nurture and celebrate music. 
• It is true that composers did not necessarily employ contemporary forms of analysis but they certainly understood the concepts of voice leading on which they are based. They would absolutely recognize the elements of figured bass that are employed by modern harmonic analysis, as well as the contrapuntal techniques that were common practice even in their day. There is considerable evidence in how composers wrote music, and wrote about music, to suggest that they would not be particularly upset about modern analysis practices.
• Comparing harmonic analysis to statistical analysis is another non-sequitur argument. They do share the word "analysis" but they are very different in both their execution and intention.

I hope you consider learning more about some of the systems and resources that you seem so determined to be an adversary to. I do agree your underlying point; modern harmonic analysis is something that did not exist in its current form when many of the composers we study were alive and producing music. However, you disregard the fact that harmonic analysis is derived from their practices and is a well-substantiated theory.

All the best to you and apologies to the original poster for the tangental conversation.