@stephankanyar said:

I tryed to work with the EWQL-Choires, but it was not to satisfying. They sound good as long as you use them as a pad. When you try to use the wordbuilder-tool (the only feature why I buyed it), what means, to let the Choire sing words it sounds really terrible.

Shure, the EWQL-Choires are a reallity, but if you need a more or less realistic choir in my opinion you still have to book real people.

I heard, that VSL is working (and recording) on a Choire, but that they are right now not shure when or if it will work out.

Best regards, Stephan Kanyar

Somehow that doesn't surprise me. Glad i didn't buy it yet. I guess the EWQL got away with some good promotion making everybody dream about this. But seems to me that without certain elements very similar to legato functions as in VSL instruments, a choir will always sound like a machine.

Guy

In all fairness... EWQLSC sounds really good when used by a skilled user. It takes time to master.

AND HOLY SHIT!!! Ethnic Cube, Modern Cube, Choir Cube.. I think i'm going to faint... both out of sheer joy, and thinking about all the money I have to set asside [:D]

@Christian Marcussen said:

In all fairness... EWQLSC sounds really good when used by a skilled user. It takes time to master.

Well, the demos certainly sounded good, but I was affraid it might be like seeing a "movie trailler" that's super hot [H] and then you go see the movie and it sucks! [8o|]

Guy

Good to see you haven't left us,Guy. [[;)]]

The choir needs legato more than any orchestral instruments, since singers slide on at least half or more of the notes they sing. Integrating legato with word building seems a nightmarish problem though, since both are nightmarish problems in themselves!

It don't work with logic! [8o|] OR DOES IT? [*-)]

The need in the choirs is to have separate S, A, T, B and for those voices to be benchmarked using the Bach chorales, some Palestrina and Carmina Burana. This would cover a variety of styles for straight choral writing.

Following the VSL Strings approach, I'd like to see a full choir (say 8 voices per section or better) and then a chamber choir (smaller), and then soloists.

It would also be sensational to have a children's choir recorded, too.

Surely a full choir is at least 150 singers or say at least 32 per part we would then need half choir (16) chamber choir ([H] and small ensemble (4) and of course at least two of each soloist.

@Peter Alexander said:

The need in the choirs is to have separate S, A, T, B and for those voices to be benchmarked using the Bach chorales, some Palestrina and Carmina Burana. This would cover a variety of styles for straight choral writing.

Following the VSL Strings approach, I'd like to see a full choir (say 8 voices per section or better) and then a chamber choir (smaller), and then soloists.

It would also be sensational to have a children's choir recorded, too.

Excellent point! We often think too much, especially for films in terms of Carmina Burana type choir. I must say, from one of the libraries i had, i used "solo boy" voice as part of a theme in a film, and it sounded so real and gave the chills every time you heard it! (But too bad it was the ONLY voice in the entire library that sounded real). Children choir? Absolutely!

Guy

I have not upgraded from VOTA to the new choir in anticipation of this one. Knowing VSL - it will be groundbreaking [:D]


Rob

@DaveTubaKing said:

Surely a full choir is at least 150 singers or say at least 32 per part we would then need half choir (16) chamber choir ([H] and small ensemble (4) and of course at least two of each soloist.

As a former choir director, let me assure you it's difficult enough to field 32 competent professional singers. 32 is a really big sound especially if they're well rehearsed and motivated. 60 would be optimum. To define a full choir as being at least 150 singers, to me, is quite unrealistic.

@DaveTubaKing said:

Surely a full choir is at least 150 singers or say at least 32 per part we would then need half choir (16) chamber choir ([H] and small ensemble (4) and of course at least two of each soloist.

As a former choir director, let me assure you it's difficult enough to field 32 competent professional singers. 32 is a really big sound especially if they're well rehearsed and motivated. 60 would be optimum. To define a full choir as being at least 150 singers, to me, is quite unrealistic.well I've rarely played with a choral society of less than a hundred most choral societies are 100 - 150. I've played most of the standard orchestral and choral works and a choir of less than 100 would be a very poor show. I've done the big stuff such as Mahler 2, Carmina Burana, Verdi requiem, Belshazar etc with choirs well over 100 and for the really big stuff like Mahler 8 almost always there are two choral societies with the numbers up to 300 singers.

Perhaps there's a misunderstanding when you refer to a professional outift. In the UK all all the big choral societies that perform with all the big pro orchestras are amateur. Perhaps your thinking of professional singers doing film work.

So what will VSL be doing - smaller professional groups or big choral societies - perhaps they will have to do both.

Ah, Choral Society!

That's different. The situation in the UK is not the same as here in the US. Yes, there are choral societies here, and in larger cities you can raise a good sized group, but even so, some of those groups would range from 30 - 60, or possibly a 100 or more depending on the situation.

For me, without numeric definition, a full choir would be a group large enough to execute all parts with clarity and gusto. If you could field 8 competent singers per voice (SATB) that would be an amazing opportunity.

Really, Dave, we should drop the word "full" and change it to small, medium, large, very large, and quite possibly, WHOA! And then define by those descriptions.

Regardless of recorded size, for me, the benchmark is can a sampled choir perform a Bach chorale at tempo, and pieces by Palestrina.

PA
[/i]

One thing though, and that would apply for orchestral instruments also: I wish the recordings of these samples where not done so tight! Why not have them just a bit less perfect. When recording one sample at the time perfection is tempting and seem necessary although I think it makes it sound a bit less human and not as smooth in a piece context. But VSL is still a great treat! My 2 cents.

Guy,
I'm of the opposite view, not just with VSL but sample bases in general.
When sample use was in its infancy, we all wished for that tight sound, as past sample bases were considerably less refined than they are now. Trying to write a chamber music piece, or a full orchestra symphony? Twenty years ago this would have sounded awful and hopelessly synthetic.
Now, today, we are lucky to have precise samples, well recorded, and a much truer representation of a naked live sound. (Generally)
It's then our choice how, raw or less perfect we want the sound to be, and we have the option of manipulating the samples, and groups of samples, to emulate what we each consider is the sound we are seeking.
It's far easier to work from excellence down, than from inferiority up.
The sample library is just the start of a long and challenging process, and once that library is in place, it's entirely dependant on our own ability to create music, be it with one sample, or layers of samples. Today, the synthetic sound is not generally a result of poor samples, but inadequate programming, and it's our responsibility to imorve our own skills to 'come up to' the standard of the library.
And finally, when everything is written and recorded, that masterpiece can only be truly finished when mastering, application of effects, and final mix are of the same exacting standard as the quality of the samples, our performance, and clever programming.

All Mozart (genius) and Beethoven (THE genius) had to do was write the notes!

regards,

Alex.

[H]

@hermitage59 said:

All Mozart (genius) and Beethoven (THE genius) had to do was write the notes!

AND! Without electricity!

I don't see it that way, I look at it from a different perspective. The issue may once again flirt with aesthetics with me receiving a few tomatoes! [:@]
What the hell! Personally I think you need some referrence to aesthetics in music. I have to go along with what's been done in the last 5 hundred years which brought music, sound, aesthetic, recordings etc. at its peak. Much of that depended on a live orchestras, and that is what we hear and appreciate today. I don't think anybody can deny that. We also know that an orchestra does not play tight to the millisecond close, that would sound awful. Part of the beauty is all the reasonable imperfections (not talking about quantize) which blends everything more naturally. Of course, one can say that is your job to this through blablabla... and I personally already do that, but it would be interesting to have some sounds in the future that could take that into account, which to me is related to the warmth issue. Ok I better duck now, here comes the eggs and tomatoes!!!! [:O]ops:

Guy,
No need to duck just yet.
In fact the inter relation of notes and the possibility to automate all or part of the process has been discussed elsewhere in the forum to length.
But it's the transition between notes that determines much of the sound we call live, and i speak as an ex orchestral player.
As my orchestration tutor once said, playing the notes is the easy part, it's the gaps that create life, imperfection, and the most noise!

Regards,

Alex.

Peter,
I'm fairly sure the absence of electricity would certainly sort out the dedicated from the hopeful in our age too! I confess to still enjoying the sensation of writing on parchment, using a fountain pen, with only a piano for checking. Seems right somehow......... at least sometimes!

Regards,

Alex.

@hermitage59 said:

Guy,
As my orchestration tutor once said, playing the notes is the easy part, it's the gaps that create life, imperfection, and the most noise!

Regards,

Alex.

Smart teacher!

Guy