Metro, I read your post carefully and offer the following....
Is sympathetic resonance really that high on the list?
In my opinion, yes. It's part of the mechanics of sound that create that 'live' sound.
Does a W/W quintet lose something because there's no strings to resonante through?
Yes. And i've played in many. W/W players the world over will tell you how difficult it is to creat a full and complete sound without the presence of other instruments. In a chamber of some sort be it large or small, the W/W RELY on the resonance from surrounding objects to enhance the sound. It's even worse playing outside, with little or nothing to aid the sound picture, and the lack of resonance makes playing and trying to give the audience a complete sound, hard work.
If you've played in a chamber group, you would understand string players in particular have to do more work trying to 'fill' the sound so it sounds complete. This is difficult to describe, but it's as if there is a instinctive acceptance that resonance is an important part of the complete sound, and players do their best to fill that resonant space dependent on dynamics and good balance of sound.
As you have described, bad mixing, bad orchestration, bad composition, all by USER.
So why do sampled libraries get the blame for these?
Tedious articulation process. You probably won't like this, but the fact that we have a library CAPABLE of seperate articulations is for me at least a wonderful step forward. When computer music was in its infancy, there were no articulations and the sounds were, compared to today, hopelessly synthetic. (I speak as one who writes orchestral music)
Much of the sampled technology we have today is young, maybe the last five years. There were attempts before then to provide a 'reality of sound', but in today's marketplace the standard has gone through the roof. And who knows what will happen in the future?
Predictive articulation selection.
I have a problem with this, at least in part. If yiu want to write in a particular style on a regular basis, then your suggestion has merit. If you wish to follow the same articulative pattern each time then ok.
But what if you don't? And if you wish to produce a unique sound of your own, you'll still have to build another 'automated articulation template' which may be beneficial in the long run, but as current music trands change and grow, may become redundant very quickly.
In one sense you are right though. The articulation input process in any library is a challenge to musicians and developers alike. And again, i refer to the days when we didn't have such a wonderful selection, and we had to work very hard, for long hours to reproduce the same articulated sounds you take for granted now. Imagine having to build your own each time, because there was little or no choice 10 and twenty years ago.
Automated Mixing process dependant on the style of the score?
Hmm...
Interesting concept. Only problem is, you would be bound to the same 'mixing style' as everyone else, and if an audience were to face a choice between your 'cloned' mix of a composition, and one that's maybe a little bright, or not neccesarily 'right', they may well choose imperfection over repetition!
I like the fact that things never turn out the same way twice, and i also appreciate the skill it take to mix well. I've met many a fine sound engineer in my earlier days, and discussions between them about the merit of brighter brass, or more sonorous strings was as passionate and loud as our discussions about articulation, or compositional worth!
Each one had his or her own 'style', unique, sometimes flawed, but individual just the same.
As for a good ear, sadly, no one can help you with this. Study and a lot of listening may help, but a good ear, the same as an instinct for composition, and a gift for orchestration are abilities not only reliant on study and learning, but your own natural ability or lack of it.
My regards to you,
Alex.
