ok Nick. I trust you, coming from the loops perspective. [[;)]]

My opinion is still that notes are parts of composition, and a fast legato patch (ie: grace-perf) should suffice for the actual intention of runs, ... and it will give the freedom of doing them differently on each and every occurence as well as in all potential permutations of musical composition.

Sampled runs are therefore a waste of disk space.

Evan Evans

But for some people, myslef included Flute runs would be really helpful. I love them, and dont know how to compose them so they sound just as great

@evanevans said:

The whole idea/notion of sampled composition fragments is disgusting to me. Play/Compose them yourself!

Evan Evans

Yes, but as you may or may not know, when you have a very limited amount of time to turn around a massive orchestral piece, adding a few looped fragments iwithin the composition is hardly "disgusting". This is merely an accent - something that will save memory and add a bit of depth to your piece. I do agree with you about playing all the rest yourself though and as a general rule, avoiding looped material.

S

@evanevans said:

The whole idea/notion of sampled composition fragments is disgusting to me. Play/Compose them yourself!

Evan Evans

Just to satisfy my curiosity...and give the benefit of the doubt...

What is to be accomplished by looking down one's nose at ANY method used to achieve a desirable result? Did you mean for this comment to sound so condescending?

Fred Story

I think the idea of using samples is completely and utterly distasteful

I think everyone should learn to play every instrument and record/play them themselves. They shoudl also learn how to engineer complete sessions, and record on big stages/in large halls

... you should add that one has to build these instruments with his own hands, of course. 8-]

/Dietz

[:P] ... and what about the tools to build them? [6]
christian

Yes, yes.... mine the metal and grow the trees.

S

You guys have inspired me! I have a ten pound sledge hammer in my shed. I'm going to smash all this stuff and start my new path to musical purity today!

As a recovering trombonist, I already have a good start!

Fred Story

Or better yet, a robot to write your music for you!

wimps.

[8o|]

Evan Evans

@Fred Story said:

Did you mean for this comment to sound so condescending?

Certainly and certainly not. The condescending nature of it depends on how much on teh other end of the debate you are. But would it have been more or less condescending if Mozart told you it? Think about that.

Evan Evans

@SMP3602 said:

when you have a very limited amount of time to turn around a massive orchestral piece, adding a few looped fragments iwithin the composition is hardly "disgusting".

It is entirely what is disgusting. I have nothing wrong with the existance of such samples. It's the people who use them, the music that it's used in, and what it does to teh value of the art, that DISGUSTS me. Although nice guys finish last, and I could "write" many composers under the table, it is still quite DISGUSTING to see people to use crutches, sellout, and succeed doing SO LITTLE. Anyone who is on teh other end of this argument is someone perhaps to blame.

Evan Evans

Evan-

Let me create a scenario - You are hired to produce a sample based orchestral piece for professional presentation. This compostion is not strung together loops, but, something that took a long time to construct relying on quality sample based libraries (VSL, for example). You are saying, even with this in mind, to add a simple portamento on the top of, say, two beats is "disgusting" ?

You work within sample libraries as well as live musicians, correct? How then, are you able to produce a heavily orchestrated score using all conventional and unconventional orchestration techniques and deliver in a timely manner? When I say "timely" of course, I am saying you know, 12 - 14 hour days laboring to get original sample based music to sound as real as possible. Unless, you have no deadlines, I am confused how this can be seen as doing "so little".

I do admire your passion for film music.

S

The other thing is that recorded runs, rolls, glisses, etc. sound different from what you can play/program.

And in the case of the octave string runs, I think the effect is fuzzy enough that a listener would only hear it was sampled if you were to repeat the lick over and over with no time in between - and then probably only if it was exposed. It's just an ornament, and more often than not you'd have a cymbal, harp gliss, flute or picc, etc. doubling it anyway.

Now, i thoroughly think this matter needs some differentiation unless we head for broad strokes the likes of 'samples suck', in which case the discussion is truly pointless.

I do subscribe to the point that it's not the nicest way of going 'Hm, i have no idea what to play next, let's have a look at the Loops & Licks department, this will certainly help me out... yeah, this sounds nice, i wonder what's it made of..ah, never mind, there it goes. Next !'

I don't think this scenario is really a point of debate here.

But then there's the other case where you have, say, an octave gliss in your mental or tangible score, and you want to deliver this as convincingly as you can. Now, the obvious way is to hire the proper players in the proper room and record it properly. But there's the production budget that doesn't allow for this. So you say 'Nope, then you're not getting an octave gliss from me.' ? Or do you go ahead and try to build it from the raw samples, as you propose ? Perfectly knowing that that distinct quality of a performed gliss with all its quirks is just not in there ? No, wait, by using samples at all you *do* actually SO LITTLE, so pulling it off on a home entertainer GM keyboard will certainly bump up the artistic value of achievement. Right ?

>I could "write" many composers under the table

While this is undoubtedly true, i utterly fail to see the connection of this statement to this thread. There's not much art in literally 'writing' an octave gliss, or is it ? Figuring out if, how and where it goes is the work and you can't delegate that to the sampler.We're not talking about composing, we're talking about bringing the composition to sound. Please enlighten me.

Christian


[URL=http://uk.geocities.com/christianobermaier/Gearlist.htm]gear list [/URL] [URL=http://uk.geocities.com/christianobermaier/Studio.htm]studio pics [/URL] [URL=http://www.artofthegroove.com/logic/mp3/Christian_Obermaier_demo.mp3]show reel[/URL]

The bells are ringing and the choir has sounded....

Thank you, Christian.

S

Back to serious mode on the subject, obviously.

I totally agree with the notion that if, for example, you need a fast swell into a dynamic change, and you would write a harp gliss/violin octave run/doubled with flutes, what sense does it make to try to recreate the nuance of that sound note-by-note, IF you have an excellent sample of the gliss/runs that sound correct in the context of the orchestration? Sure it's easier...sometimes. But does that in and of itself make it wrong? Or cheating? Even if it SOUNDS better?

It smacks of art for art's sake...and certainly work for work's sake. Geez, of course we'd all LOVE to have an 80 piece orchestra playing on every gig we score. But even the illustrious Mr. Evans seems doomed to the necessity of sample-based scores.

And yes, even if Mozart admonished me, my answer would be the same. Pay for my orchestra and I'd be DELIGHTED to skip to sampled runs.

And "anyone on the other side of this argument is to blame"? Well, despite Evan's occasional egomaniacal rantings, I've always grinned and looked past it because he's obviously extremely talented and intelligent. (Even though I've been doing this for over 20 years, I know I still don't know a lot, and I'm eager to learn wherever I can.) But comments like this? Despite these fine qualities and your musical lineage, I've just stopped paying attention, Mr. Evans.

No doubt you will see this as my loss. But something tells me I'll survive, somehow.

Fred Story

On the Mozart issue:
If he were alive today, he'd probably be using VSL and certainly would use the string runs and harp glisses as that would save him precious time in the bar or pool hall. I mean....damn....he'd dash off a movement as fast as possible just to get out the door and go and get legless.

How can we possibly respect someone with a substance abuse problem like that? If Mozart admonished me, I'd laugh at him.

Bach however would be a different matter.......

Colin [[;)]]

wow- i had no idea that my question would spark such a firestorm of debate. personally, i'm not a big fan of "loops and licks" either, but have been known to use them when they fit the bill and time is tight.

however, my efforts to sequence fast scales, runs, rips and such have been fairly unconvincing (to me) over the years, so i was really looking forward to gaining that facility for the pic in the PE-i've gotten pretty satisfying results from what's included with the other instruments so far. silly me for not scrutinizing the articulation list more thoroughly [:P] (not that i'm at all dissappointed otherwise).

btw-kudos to the Vienna crew for using standard articulation names and consistent naming and articulations across all instruments. it makes the library much easier to learn. i bought qlso gold recently and am finding it's nomenclature somewhat haphazard and confusing to learn.

peace-out
juano

Anyway, this is VSL and the topics here are related to samples. I made my point about my opinion. You guys are welcome to coherse more recorded patterns, licks, phrases out of VSL if you want. I don't believe in using them however. That's all. [edited=apparently that's not all as Iposted some more below. sorry. [:)] ]

Evan Evans