As far as I know, the Wagner tuba does have a French Horn mouthpiece, therefore performed by French horn players. But it's not a big French Horn.

In scores of Wagner, Strauss, Bruckner, Janacek the instruments called Tenortubas, should be performed using a Wagner tuba.

I don't know this exactly for Holst.
Maybe German based composer mean with Tenortuba the Wagner tuba,
and english based composers the Euphonium?

To be honest, I don't know which instrument Andy used for the Tenortuba part. It's not so easy to detect this instrument.
I would have used automatically the Wagner Tuba because of my culture background.

best
Herb

Brilliant programming!
But...
I've set an experiment. I gave to listen to Debussy and to Holst to some of my friends and asked them: "which one do you think is the real orchestra and which one sampled?". All of them said that Debussy is real.
Actually, that is my opinion too.
Mathis is right. Mixing is the clue.
Trully to say, i had an impression, that conductor splashed cymbals by himself. And as you mentioned, you used the same rev for all percussion (so it applys to all section). Must say, Woodwinds are perfect, what i can't say about strings (lack of Rev and EQ).
I'm more sound engineer than musisian, so forgive me my fault-finding.
The whole thing is OUTSTANDING.
BTW: Your Debussy mockup midi file, is some sort of my MIDI Bible.
Any chance to see Holst midi file?
Thank you for inspiring all of us.

This is a language barrier problem with the Wagner Tubas vs/ tenor tubas which are of course hugely different instruments. Both Dave Tuba King and Herb are correct. The Wagner Tubas are modified horns, but Wagner actually called some of them "tenor tuben." This is in sharp distincition to the current Euphonium, otherwise known now as a "tenor tuba." Bruckner writes specifically for Wagner Tubas, which do use the horn mouthpiece and can be played by horn players, but he certainly does not write for the modern tenor tubas which never could be played by a horn player unless he was also a trombone player - the one who usually doubles on "tenor tuba" - the instrument Holst wrote for.

Mathis,

You are of course invited over to my place anytime you'd like to show me how you can "move my balls".

LOL

Evan Evans

Herb,

here are a couple of links.

http://www.hornplanet.com/hornpage/museum/history/horn_history5.html

http://www.csupomona.edu/~dmgrasmick/mu330/EuphoniumTubalect.html

The Wagner Tuba as used by Wagner and Bruckner particularly are bass french horns. They are played by french horn players and always sit with the french horns.

Holst in the planets and Janacek in the Sinfonietta wrote for proper tenor tubas (or euphoniums) and they always sit with the tuba and trombones.

In Jupiter it only bulks out the brass but in Mars of course it has a very important solo. This is never never never played on a Wagner Tuba.

the only reason I am so passionate about this is because I have been waiting and hoping that VSL will include a Euphonium sample at some Point. In the wider musical field it is used far more extensivley than the wagner tuba. the Wagner Tuba only appears in a Wagner and a small handful of other mostly germanic orchestral repertoire.

The euphonimum (tenor tuba) probably appears more frequently. Richard straus wrote an important solo for it in Don Quixote.

The Euphonium (tenor tuba) is used very extensivley in British style brass bands (which can also be found extensivley in europe and New Zealand and Australia) It is also used a lot in American Wind and Concert banda and Military bands all over the world as well as thousands of Tuba/Euphonium ensembles - there s a very very big market out there waiting for a sampled Euphonium.

Gotta dash - off to play Carmina Burana - no euphonium or wagner tuba but a great tuba part.

I'm sorry to hijack Andys thread.

Dave(still panicking)TubaKing

Hi,

Thanks again for your comments. Just to clear up the Tenor Tuba thing, I think Holst was referring to a Euphonium, so I simply used the high registr of the Tuba. It wasn't a big deal as it only ever doubled and there were no solo parts unlike 'Mars'.

I really don't want to get into a Holst versus Debussy debate - after all they're both my babies [[;)]] - but regarding mixes, I intentionally mixed them very differently. If you listen to recordings of the pieces you'll find that the majority are mic'ed differently, with the Debussy quuite close and the Holst more distanced. Often a larger acoustic location is chosen (or added!) for the Holst as well. In terms of perspective I've noticed recordings where Cymbals and Glocks (for example) appear closer than they should, if it's the real deal then not many question this - but as it's a mockup there's often the pressure of it almost having to sound better than the real thing [[:|]] ! Mathis. What monitors are you using? I've just received a new set of Adam P22A monitors, so I'll check the bottom end on those first. [:D]

Thanks,

Andy.

Just been in the bath thinking about the above. Other MAJOR differences between the Debussy & Holst. The Debussy is a quieter piece than the Holst and allows the ambience track to really add to the realism. The Debussy is swamped in the legato tool - it simply wouldn't have been possible without it. The Holst has only several phrases of legato in the whole 8 mins. Even the string based middle section is marked non-legato. The Legato tool is so amazing that it's relatively easy to create realistic passages. The Holst was so much harder to mockup than the Debussy because of its popularity also. The Debussy is a great advocate of the Performance set and the Holst of the Cube.

Andy.

Evan, I´d be delighted to move your balls. But it will be a very special experience, mind you! [:D] (you don´t know what I´ll be using... [6] )

Bill, I understand right that you make a distinction between "Tuben" and "Tuba"? In case yes, I´d like to clarify that "Tuben" is just the correct german plural of "Tuba".
Which is of course very funny for children and me, because "Tuben" is also the plural of "Tube", tubes. Wagner tubes. HAHAHA

Andy, unfortunately I can´t compare to the Debussy since I can´t seem to download it. But, again, as far as programming and relative mixing is concerned I´m hugely impressed.
I have a very good setup based around Hifi boxes which I know very well. So my judgement is based upon comparison. But the low end is in fact quite strong and deep, so I immediately missed it.
Andy, I really would like to hear a snippet without the Behringer. Maybe the last 30 seconds. Because I´m also really curious to hear what exactly the Behringer does with the distance. I mean after the Debussy thread I immediately wanted to buy it but then I found mixing methods which made me quite satisfied. But still I´d love to learn what exactly makes you using it.
Well, and recently I did some tests with Behringer mixers and other devices and I decided to abandon everything with the name Behringer on it because it really soaks out the musical energy in the way I would describe it "flat". So I am really curious if that´s also the case here. (However, it´s starting to be a very personal investigation so if I annoy you, just ignore, please.)

Bests,
- Mathis

Mathis, I did not make any distinction between those words! I said WAGNER USED THE WORD TENOR TUBEN and that causes this confusion. They are - DUH! - the same root. They both derive from the Latin word for the ancient Roman straight trumpet. This difficulty is similar to the insanity of the English Horn, which is neither a horn nor English.

Also, everything Dave tubaking said was correct of course - it ought to be from a tuba player - and I tried to make those points earlier.

You know, I just thought I could use this opportunity to show off my splendid knowledge of German. [:D]

Very nice, as are all of Andy's mockups.
I just have one little suggestion. Bring the mix in closer. Especially string levels seem to be too low, but overall just a bit thin. The programming is brilliant, but I think the recording could be improved quite a bit with just a little more mixing work.
Then again, I've been listening to the CSO recording a lot for the past several weeks before this came onto the forum, so maybe I'm spoiled.

~Chris

Holy shit...

Amazing

Andy you've done it again. Splendid. When I listen to this or the Debussy I'll catch myself laughing out loud at how great VSL can sound in the right hands...

One question: How long did this take? Give me a schedule. I'm dying to know more.

Mathis you make some interesting points. I while I'm not personally against ball moving (I'll let you work that out with Evan) I tried some basic EQ on the file and found that its easy to achieve some of what you prefer with just some gentle teasing[;)]

I've only listened a little bit to this as compared to the Debussy so I hesitate when I say that I like the Debussy better, but from your comments, Andy, I do appreciate why it was more problematic. I just can't imagine what you're going to do next.

I think this is also why there is an issue with the reverb from some points of view. I am a big fan of the "section slop" meaning that when a brass riff sounds just a bit too articulated for the space it emphasizes the reverb and I get the impression that the two (instrument and space) are disconnected. Just the perception that things sound too perfect or precise can betray whatever ambience you are creating. In a real hall with real musicians the space will to an extent influence the performance. This doesn't mean that a given ensemble will play more "sloppy" but the entire orchestra will adjust because they are dealing with a space that resonates their sound a certain way.

I suppose that is why we all track solo instruments with our section sounds to get a little more variety and space to the texture and articulations (if that is what is needed).

Once again, tremendous job. You are truely insane.

Clark

This is technically very skillful and a difficult piece to do with samples. It shows how good the VSL is in a big way.

However musically it sounds too perfect, too sampled, and artificial. Everything is played easily. There is no indication of the lungs and muscles that are needed to perform this difficult orchestral showpiece. The notes and articulations are there, down to the last detail, but the coarse, powerful emotion of this piece is missing.

Only a few spots have that overly precise/easily-played sound and I think that could be massaged to help create a more wild or coarse (I like that word) feeling. I think it is a bit strong to say that it sounds too perfect, etc. except if you are comparing it to the Debussy. If I could make the Holst sound that real--lookout.

Yeah, the perf tools really make a difference which is why I can admire this mockup all that much more.

Clark

@William said:

Everything is played easily. There is no indication of the lungs and muscles that are needed to perform this difficult orchestral showpiece. The notes and articulations are there, down to the last detail, but the coarse, powerful emotion of this piece is missing.

[:D] This is one of the funniest things that I've read about this mockup. Although it isn't meant to be, it's actually a back-handed compliment. Some of the passages were incredibly hard to play in and yet I've made it sound too easy! [:D] I know exactly what you mean William about certain mockups sounding too perfect, but I disagree with you here. I think it's a piece that everyone feels very close to and therefore if it doesn't comply with the listener's familiar interpretation, then it's in danger of not working musically for them. In fairness, I'd probably react to it in a simlar fashion [8-)] .

The great thing that the Holst mockup has is homogeneity. To me the Debussy sounds sonically all over the place. I'm always amazed by the 'as one' sound that an orchestra can create and only using VSL helped to create that.

The piece took about 18 days to mockup - it was very tricky and probably explains why I'm a bit more protective over this one [H] .

Andy.

Andy,

I have enormous respect for what you've done - you are a genuine master of MIDI performance as Herb pointed out.

Also, I didn't mean it was easy to do. I've done too many orchestral things with samples to ever think that. I know this was an incredible amount of difficult work.

I meant it sounds like every instrument plays easily. Having played horn in several performances of this, I know it is definitely NOT the case. This is a difficult piece to play, and that is what I was referring to.

I totally disagree with your comparison of this and the Debussy. And I feel this is the whole problem with Jupiter - that view of yours. It MUST be all over the place. If you took a recording by the New York Philharmonic, and could magically convert all the individual parts, exactly as they were played, to unquantized MIDI - you would be disgusted at how much they were "all over the place." That is the naturalness of musical performance. It is "all over the place" at certain points, and exactly on the spot at others.

You captured that beautifully in the Debussy. You will notice I had nothing but nearly raving praise for that performance - so don't be offended. Also I know my criticisms are very lacking in specifics and the reason is to accomplish what I'm talking about is the hardest thing of all to do with MIDI. It cannot be formulated. It is just musical performance which is sometimes expressive, sometimes not.

However I hope you realize the only reason I make this criticism at all is because of how good what you've done is. I don't care enough with most MIDI performances, but yours are brilliant, and demand more criticial attention.

Thanks William. I used the word sonically when talking about the Debussy being 'all over the place'. I didn't explain it very well. What I meant was that, to me, the fushion of the different libraries either doesn't work as well, or that I didn't get them to blend very well.

Anyway no offence was ever taken [:D] .

Thanks,

Andy.

That is very interesting to me though - I remember now how I was shocked at the fact you used single note samples from other libraries, and the performances of the VSL. You may not accept this, but I seriously wonder if that is one of the reasons I like the sound of that Debussy so much - it has a richness and actual lack of fusion that comes from the actual clash of different library recordings. Of course that is a HIGHLY debateable suggestion, and Im not too serious in suggesting it. But I wonder about it...

This reminds me (oddly enough) of one reason I think the Lord of the Rings films were so good. They are not seamless and perfect examples of one technique. They blended almost every technique ever learned in the history of cinema - not just CGI, but real miniatures and props as well. Not just digital video, but composting onto 35mm photographic film, etc., etc. A rich and fruitful blend of so many different mediums.

How did I ever get off on that topic - sorry!

I think it´s a very interesting thought.