@julian said:

Problem with very good fx is that they would almost certainly suffer from over use and would be immediately recognised as "from that Vienna Library" so it could become more caricature sound design rather than composition.

Currently there is a reality TV series running that features a Spectrasonic drum loop "(just press the C key!) who's composition is this? Eric Persing's or the commissioned writer?

Now if VSL provide the raw material to construct the fx well great but straight out the box just add water then try Apple Loops!

Julian

currently, mercedes-benz uses a "just press the C key"-sound from spectrasonics as their main sound-logo. so what? shouldn´t eric have done his library then? was it too good? damn...

(i hope) we do not talk about loops and press-the-button-underscores, but about articulations that are not yet represented in vienna instruments, for those concentrate on "classical" use.

@Tripit said:

I was asking for this 2003. But, how many fixed prerecorded risers and FX do we really need? Symphobia has pretty much given us everything you could want in that department. 

What I would like to see now is the ability to build FX from a wide selection of articulations broken down into performance parts - if it could even be figured out. Things like greatly expanded and controlable gliss articulations and other performance controllable articulations instead of a single performance of the same. 

The key really is performance control more than anything else. That's the future. And I would gladly pay for that. 

yep. i agree.

 yeah...  they should do things the "VSL" way offcourse.

Perf-legato clusters, crescendos, glisses , repetition fx etc etc.

The more control the better, but since people treat Vsl instruments different in regards to panning, eq and reverb, etc...a vsl fx lib would be much more personalised then a Spectrasonics loop?

And it would\should be used in conjunction with exisiting libraries offcourse... be it Symphobia or VSL :a song composed entirely with FX isnt exactly the goal ...its just the idea of a wider pallet of sounds that is appealing, not a one-stop-shop instant "cinematic" type thing....

@Pzy-clone said:

 yeah...  they should do things the "VSL" way offcourse.

Perf-legato clusters, crescendos, glisses , repetition fx etc etc.

The more control the better, but since people treat Vsl instruments different in regards to panning, eq and reverb, etc...a vsl fx lib would be much more personalised then a Spectrasonics loop?

And it would\should be used in conjunction with exisiting libraries offcourse... be it Symphobia or VSL :a song composed entirely with FX isnt exactly the goal ...its just the idea of a wider pallet of sounds that is appealing, not a one-stop-shop instant "cinematic" type thing....

soooo true.. I totally agree! and apart from everything, since these will all be fx, they can be freely combined, and I'm sure VSL will come up with some innovative new ideas, and the possibilities will be endless. I have other libraries like EWQL Voices of Passion for instance, and I'm not afraid that certain licks can be identified instantly. Therefore if, a patch can be combined with others, use only certain parts, morph it into another, add some processing, some fx and so on, I wonder how much easily identified will it be anymore. And btw, since VSL samples are dry, everyone gives the samples his own touch, according to personal tastes, everyone uses his own favourite ambient hall, psyco acoustic processing, etc... The same staccato sample sounds different from one to another, so why bother with fx? Also, I know that if this will become available, it would not be so cheap, but guys lets face the facts now, who has ever purchased the latest brand new Benz for $7K?

I feel that I should speak like this over here, because we all have been proven, that these guys are the ones who make the impossible, possible, and the unexistent, exixtent.

@Tripit said:

I was asking for this 2003. But, how many fixed prerecorded risers and FX do we really need? Symphobia has pretty much given us everything you could want in that department. 

What I would like to see now is the ability to build FX from a wide selection of articulations broken down into performance parts - if it could even be figured out. Things like greatly expanded and controlable gliss articulations and other performance controllable articulations instead of a single performance of the same. 

The key really is performance control more than anything else. That's the future. And I would gladly pay for that. 

+1. Performance control is the future. Ever since I heard my first VSL scale patch or performance repetition patch always longed for some sort of "time controls" within VSL. For example, I believe Kontakt has a time machine capability that can time-stretch/condense samples via a assigned midi CC. Imagine this capability in VSL VI, where suddenly all our scale rips, glissandos, etc can be time controlled to fit your piece from directly within VI itself! Now THAT would be awesome! (note: Once can still do this today, but you have to bounce down the midi as audio and time-stretch in your host, but looses your ability to edit as midi.)

+1.

As far as where to start, perhaps you can check Symphobia for a reference and hear the feedback of it's users.

Most Definitely +1. This should be a must! A MUST!

count me in, too. But instead of making another lbrary of more out of the box stuff I would prefer you to do it the vienna way ; )

Means to me: more legato patches in "creepier" string playing thechniques, more flexible glissando patches, ....

This might be only possible only in combination with another wish of mine: for the fututre I really think VSL should make an effort to combine their great library with some physical modelling or some other audio tweaking science in the VI-player. VSL still sounds best in most cases, but in some ways others have made more advancements towards "real" playability (e.g. Sample Modelling). Not that a a legato patch doesn't sound great, but it sounds alway the same way. Of course there are only a few examples and we are far away from an orchestra. 

But I think something like that might already be under the hood ; )

Fritz.

+1[Y]

 Yes please +1.

If VSL wants to make such a library, and people want to buy it, that's fine.

Products like Symphobia (and others that came before it), however, do cross over a line. When you start using products like that, you've taken off your composer hat, and put on your music editor hat. That type of product gets the job done, but you're really just adding small pieces of someone else's composition to your piece. One drawback is that if you're selling your work to your client as something unique, it would be easy for someone else to duplicate the track by just combining the same segments.

Maybe this should be a totally new product line, such as VSML "Vienna Symphonic Music Library." It could include larger, pre-composed loops, segments and massive orchestral effects, allowing music editors to quickly build custom scores without the involvement of composers. There might be a significant market for this.

I use VSL and Symphobia is a great tool for the FX. And funny enough the 2 seem to mix well togeather despite differences in size and orchestration. I'd definitely buy into a VSL Cluster package. I'd suggest seperate elements to mix and match !

[:D]

I'm not for a "loop" library for a number of reasons. I would rather see VSL push the articulation performance envelope and break new ground instead of wasting time compiling a bunch of pre-composed or pre-orchestrated loops. Music editors have enough of that stuff already. There are tons of composers (I know quite a few personally) pumping out of the box generic cues, hits and effects libraries to sell to music editors. It's been completely flooded the last few years, and I think in the long run, it's not a great thing overall for composers, nor for the quality of film or TV music for that matter either. 

I think VSL should focus on composers, not music editors. 

But that's just my 2 cents.