Music theory is good to know sometimes

[BosseJo]

I had a talk with a producer of computer games and perhaps I will compose the music for it. The setting is probably going to "medeival" (around 1500). And they want the music to be genuine. Well were are we? Around that time Palestrina was the theory guru and he stated a lot of rules, for example:

No chromatism, no augumented or diminished intervals, no sevenths.

It was not until 150-200 years later all intervals within the octave were accepted. Why and when were "moving octaves and fifts in parallel "forbidden"? It was not until around 1800 resolving the third (e in a C) to the fifth (D in G7) became widely used. (some composers had used this technique before that, Bach for example).

And so on...If you want to compose film scores or game music and you are asked to compose (or arrange) something specific (and I think that is not so umcommon) like "we want music form this era or from that culture" I think knowing music theory is a must. Another important thing is of course instrumentation. When did the piano of today become wide spread? Maybe you want to compose in the style of a cerain era but someone thinks that the great oboe sample you used sounds strange since the oboe did'nt existed back then?

Sometimes it's very good to know "the rules". And in this context - obey them 100%.

I love music theory I am all for it but training yours ears and learning how to listen is even more important:love:

[JumpingJackFlash]

I agree completely.

(I'm also assuming your questions are rhetorical).

Another point though; sometimes producers will ask for 'authentic' music when they really haven't got the first clue what the 'authentic' music of that time/place would be. For example, for something set in china, they will want to see the pentatonic scale. For something in Scotland, they will want bagpipes. These things are the things we think about when we think of those countries. The reality is of course, there is a hell of a lot of music in these places that doesn't use these cliché devices. The same is true of periods in time as well. - A lot of the time, what people actually want isn't 'authentic' but something that will pass as 'authentic' to the average Western guy.

[BosseJo]

I agree completely.

(I'm also assuming your questions are rhetorical).

Another point though; sometimes producers will ask for 'authentic' music when they really haven't got the first clue what the 'authentic' music of that time/place would be. For example, for something set in china, they will want to see the pentatonic scale. For something in Scotland, they will want bagpipes. These things are the things we think about when we think of those countries. The reality is of course, there is a hell of a lot of music in these places that doesn't use these cliché devices. The same is true of periods in time as well. - A lot of the time, what people actually want isn't 'authentic' but something that will pass as 'authentic' to the average Western guy.

Too true. This western cultural bias is very important to have in mind when listening/thinking about music.

[wrench45us]

my friend of a friend sound editor had an expression
"see a tree, hear a bird"

just part of the vast set of 'sound' expectations that years of exposure to media has set in our minds.
My sense is that a lot of media just continue to perpetuate certain expectations. Western music has the advantage that it was written down relatively early. Most music traditions weren't.
At least there's some slim chance for 'authenticity' with music.

[GatoKonBotas]

This reminds me of the film "The Double Life of Veronique", where music form a fictional renaissance/early baroque composer is "featured", but does not sound remotely "in style" to anyone with minimal knowledge of music history. Incidentally, I did not think much of the tune itself, yet I have talked to many people who went gaga over it, not having the remotest clue about its implausibility.

[vurt]

my friend of a friend sound editor had an expression
"see a tree, hear a bird"

just part of the vast set of 'sound' expectations that years of exposure to media has set in our minds.

gunfire and frogs, two perfect examples of this.
hear a gunfight on a film, totally different sounds to the reality, even on the news when we see gunfights it sounds wrong because were used to the booming big guns of film entertainment.
and every frog in film croaks the same way, when in reality only one species of frog croaks like that.

[JumpingJackFlash]

Western music has the advantage that it was written down relatively early. Most music traditions weren't.
At least there's some slim chance for 'authenticity' with music.

True, but with early music, often only the bare bones are written down, and the earliest music is written in a style completely different to the orchestral staves we use today. The performer participated in the composition as much as the composer did, by embellishing and adding bits to the melody (and in the earliest music even adding accidentals). (To say nothing of the different instrumentation, tunings etc.) This leads to the huge topic of interpretation. - Can modern day performers truly interpret early music 'authentically'? - People have debated this a lot, we can certainly try, but even with early 'notated' music, there still just isn't the evidence to dictate exactly how to perform the pieces 100% 'accurately'.

[VicDiesel]

The setting is probably going to "medeival" (around 1500). And they want the music to be genuine.

I think the middle ages were well over by 1500. The (written by a Dutchman, but fabulous by any measure) book "The waning of the middle ages" is about something like 1300. By 1500 Italy had been solidly in the renaissance for a century.

Is your game developer thinking knights in shining armor? In that case you need to go back some centuries.

And, as several people have already pointed, most people, even musicians, have no clue what's genuine once you get to 1700 or so. The difference between mediaeval, renaissance and baroque is completely lost on most.

You mention Palestrina. He is 16th century; I'd call him renaissance, maybe early baroque. Then, that's church music, and largely vocal. If you go to instrumental secular music, the rules may be different. Though not of course completely.

Btw, renaissasnce music like Palestrina still sounds fairly normal to us. Dig out some Guillaume de Machaut (14th century) or Perotinus (13th) for some still that is really in an earlier idiom, and sometimes pretty bizarre by our notions.

Victor.

[JumpingJackFlash]

The setting is probably going to "medeival" (around 1500). And they want the music to be genuine.

I think the middle ages were well over by 1500. The (written by a Dutchman, but fabulous by any measure) book "The waning of the middle ages" is about something like 1300. By 1500 Italy had been solidly in the renaissance for a century...

You mention Palestrina. He is 16th century; I'd call him renaissance, maybe early baroque. Then, that's church music, and largely vocal. If you go to instrumental secular music, the rules may be different. Though not of course completely.

Yes, Medieval Music is generally considered to be stuff before around 1450, so Palestrina is a Renaissance man.

For truly Medieval composers, check out Guillaume de Machaut, John Dunstable and Guillaume Dufay.

[BosseJo]

The setting is probably going to "medeival" (around 1500). And they want the music to be genuine.

I think the middle ages were well over by 1500. The (written by a Dutchman, but fabulous by any measure) book "The waning of the middle ages" is about something like 1300. By 1500 Italy had been solidly in the renaissance for a century.

Is your game developer thinking knights in shining armor? In that case you need to go back some centuries.

And, as several people have already pointed, most people, even musicians, have no clue what's genuine once you get to 1700 or so. The difference between mediaeval, renaissance and baroque is completely lost on most.

You mention Palestrina. He is 16th century; I'd call him renaissance, maybe early baroque. Then, that's church music, and largely vocal. If you go to instrumental secular music, the rules may be different. Though not of course completely.

Btw, renaissasnce music like Palestrina still sounds fairly normal to us. Dig out some Guillaume de Machaut (14th century) or Perotinus (13th) for some still that is really in an earlier idiom, and sometimes pretty bizarre by our notions.

Victor.

I could probably have written "medieval" (around 900) or "medieval" (around 1731). Sorry if that came out as a history lesson. That was not my point.

There's also a big problem translating the naming of centuries between swedish and english. Even translators on TV (everything is subtilted in sweden, luckily) often get this wrong. It's quite common to (mis)read 19th century as 1900-1999. And sometimes this causes people (like me) to get it even more backwards so they are even 2 centuries off ("Hm, how was it now...") I am sorry if I was sloppy. I have not read about or listend to Leoninus or Perotinus for many years but perhaps I should refresh my memory and also try to get the dates and the names 100%.