@dagmarpiano said:

The purpose of these libraries is not to have idiots holding down a button and calling it their composition.  It's to solve a problem, where the big great sample libraries can have certain giveaway moments of sounding unrealistic.  Certainly my purpose in making my libraries was just so that in my productions I could blend in something that sounds very real over the top of VSL or HS, to paper over the cracks so to speak.

Now, if some idiot who has no understanding of music wants to hold down a few notes and make compositions by trial and error, well, good luck to them but they won't get very far before it makes no musical sense.

VSL need also to hear what the idiots need,by improving the product,to become easier to use again for the idiots.

@whlederman said:

VSL need also to hear what the idiots need,by improving the product,to become easier to use again for the idiots.

That way there will be more idiots to buy product and we all can enjoy the nice sound of VSL

No no no no no no no no no no no, absolutely and resolutely not!! What the giftless one-note-triggers-a-hundred-events / copy-paste / "press enter to generate" / arpeggiator masters really need, is a brave look at themselves in the mirror and subsequent bowing out of the industry ASAP. VSL and other companies don't need to be responsible for even more bad and cloned music in this world; this is not comparable to world hunger, their music is not necessary, indeed it is unfathomably harmful. The giftless, DJs, etc. already got more tools than they ever should have, and that's why the world of commercial music is following the world of 'serious' music down the barracks-toilet drain. Yes, the $ carrot is dangled in front of VSL's face continuously (and they do care about money - see fiasco of Pro Edition to Cube upgrades a few years ago, the post with the most pages and fury ever in the history of the forum...), but money isn't everything (otherwise why isn't everybody out on a street corner every night for additional income?)

This recent idea that every epic movie scene is expected to sound a certain way, every horror movie scene (not just the deadly ones, but also the narrative scenes, the follow-up scenes, etc.) to sound a certain way, every action movie scene to sound a certain way, etc. It is a disease these days, I mean where is the room for some imagination anymore? For some idiosyncrasy and character? For creativity as opposed to re-creativity? And you're asking VSL to help the giftless? To do what? Usurp even more of the industry using other people's skills? To what end? To keep propagating, forcing Quarterpounders down directors'/producers'/audiences' throats, when they could instead be dining finely if all orks were left to their own devices and naturally left to perish, leaving the deserving practitioners available? Wouldn't everybody except the orks benefit? And no, there sadly isn't enough planet around for everybody, as they don't have a niche, they are a gangrene, eating away the whole body of work by methodically and geometrically reducing the standards and plunging aesthetics to a bottomless septic tank some mistake for a well. Bottoms up!!

P.S.: Unless you're requesting VSL to keep making their software 'easier' in terms of keep removing computer-related clutter and problems, making it even more intuitive for a musician to use to its potential. There of course I would be in complete agreement.

@Errikos said:

they are a gangrene, eating away the whole body of work by methodically and geometrically reducing the standards and plunging aesthetics to a bottomless septic tank some mistake for a well.

So does this mean you are opposed to them?

Having just relished Barcelona's masterful, ingenious Champions League win, I thought, how great a parallel to musical creativity their game was. They unravelled M.U. completely and that's no small feat. The constant accurate passing, the exploitation of the geometry of the football field, the peerless elegance of their solutions to any structural problem posed, the imagination that made every other team during the rounds seem pedestrian by comparison... The exquisite solo efforts reminded me of great lyricism (totally absent in today's soundtracks), their mid-field game was beautiful counterpoint (as opposed to a comatose arpeggiator), their unexpected action combined with bravura of execution was a majestic display of scintillating modulations and vibrant (as opposed to catatonic) rhythms.

In sweaty, muddy, monosyllabic football those qualities get both recognized and incalculably rewarded. In fine arts....

Errikos, you clearly prefer the older film music style, which is more lyrical, complex and subtle than the current minimal style favouring lots of 8th staccato notes playing minimal chord progressions.

I *did* completely agree, until I did a couple of TV documentaries for a German director who had what I thought was an obsession with Philip Glass and minimalism. I hated the way that he kept forcing me to remove my melodies, my chord sequences, and replace it with long circles of minimal 8ths, arpeggios and limited chords.

But it gradually also opened my eyes to a different way of seeing music. Music being put into the background, used as if it was a type of image filter; just creating space, emotion, momentum.  Loud in the mix, but something that, via hypnotic repetition, is something that the watcher tunes out of, can't hear any more, because it is doing nothing that takes your attention.  Then in that role it can subtly manipulate emotions without seeming to be there.

I had no idea about this way of working until I was forced into it, not because the director wanted me to be lazy or sound like Zimmer, but because he wanted all the emotional impact but without any distraction from the dialogue and imagery.  It opened my eyes.  If you listen to the music in isolation then you could view it as either hypnotic beautiful minimalism, or some kind of awful lazy repetitive cut and paste of 8th notes.  Either way, this wasn't all about the degeneration of music into some kind of terrible toilet, it was about music performing the role that the director wanted.

@Errikos said:

P.S.: Unless you're requesting VSL to keep making their software 'easier' in terms of keep removing computer-related clutter and problems, making it even more intuitive for a musician to use to its potential. There of course I would be in complete agreement.

http://www.audioimpressions.com/

@dagmarpiano said:

Music being put into the background, used as if it was a type of image filter; just creating space, emotion, momentum.  Loud in the mix, but something that, via hypnotic repetition, is something that the watcher tunes out of, can't hear any more, because it is doing nothing that takes your attention. 

But this is something that great film music has always done.  Listen to any of Herrmann's cues for "Psycho" for instance.    It is not going on and on with irrelevant pretty little melodies or subtleties.  It is creating a mood that has given audiences the jitters all over the world ever since it came out.   And they are not even aware of the music, only the suspense on screen.  So what you are talking about is nothing new.  It is simply effective film music. 

However I don't mean to be as argumentative as some others here as I actually agree with a lot of stuff you have been saying and think that people are just looking at things from different perspectives and refusing to see someone else's point of view.  I have heard some minimalist things recently - like the score to Sixth Sense or some stuff by Silvestri and others that were very good.   Though it is interesting how Silvestri could switch from minimalism - like in "Shattered" -  to the powerful full-tilt brass scoring in "Predator."   That is not something many other so-called minimalists could do. 

Dan: I was initially going to write a small dissertation addressing and arguing every point in considerable detail. However, I thought against it for a number of reasons, not the least of which was that although it would take me a long time to write, most here would ignore it or just scan it for a minute, whereas Dietz or an employee of his would have to tearfully comb through it carefully for potential improprieties (see? I do have a heart after all...)

Instead, I will relate two film-scoring episodes:

1. When Star-Trek TMP was being post-produced, Jerry Goldsmith was contracted to score it. So he did, and following the big symphonic recording cue that scores our seeing the ship for the first time, the director, the editor and a couple of other people were skeptical! Goldsmith himself was really happy with the music, but the director not only told the confident and fresh Oscar winner that there was something wrong with the cue, but that he also couldn't put it in words! Eventually he said that what was wrong with it was the absence of a 'theme'. So, Goldsmith with all his authority and confidence did not fight for his great music, and instead re-wrote it, coming up with - if not the very best - certainly one of the best fanfares in soundtrack history. The director was wise after all (as in Robert Wise).

2. David Lean hired Maurice Jarre to score his adaptation of Dr. Zhivago. He was very happy with Jarre, as he had used him in Lawrence of Arabia and Jarre not only got one more Oscar for his film, but the music became an instant classic. Hiring him again confirmed his acknowledgment of his composer's talent. So when that confident, Oscar winning composer brought him music after music after music, Lean kept rejecting them all, while Jarre obviously thought the tracks were fine! Eventually and in desperation, Lean sent Jarre on a paid weekend away with his girlfriend hoping inspiration would finally strike. Jarre returned from the trip with - if not the very best - one of the best melodies in soundtrack history, which won him another Academy Award, and became an even bigger classic than his L.o.A track. Again, the director was wise, and discerning...

And it's not that these two top professionals had turned out bad music and had to be straightened out... However for me there is a far bigger problem than the avaricious proliferation of softwares like 'Orch' ('Ork'), MacSessions Strings Pro, Dispiritoso, etc., or the Zimmerization-locomotivation-STANDARDIZATION of film-music. It is the complete absence of aesthetics and discernment on the part of current directors and producers. If they are happy with soundtracks like Tron 2, Star-Trek (latest), Inception, etc., there is no way any of them would have asked Goldsmith and Jarre to re-score their already great cues. Hence, no great film-music is likely to be composed henceforth (nor any has in my opinion during the past 20 years save for Williams, Morricone who still write 'music', and a couple of singular exceptions - but count how many great scores were written in the 20 years before that), however people will argue that films can be served with this universal minimal drone-like writing.

If you want to talk about real minimal and effective AND characteristic soundtrack, have a look at Eyes Wide Shut. Plus, arguments can be made how any epic, action, romantic, comedy movies could have been scored by a rock band, a solo sax, or fully electronically (even period movies). So they could. So what? Why take ten steps back? Why not serve the movie AND have a track in the end that can stand alone on its merits AND is characteristic AND can only have been written by the one composer (one recognizes Williams, Barry, Morricone instantly). Why not? You want to know why not Dan? (And I ask you because if you had anything to do with the notating of those Animato orchestral cues, you can write music) 

Because today's composeurs just can't do it!!! They do not do this "minimal" scoring by aesthetic choice or like you because a director demanded it. They don't have the vocation's chops to do otherwise. Hell, they don't even have the chops for the Zimmer-Trevor crap!!! That's why the aforementioned softwares get developed for them; not for the justifiable reasons you gave. All they can hear in their inspired brains is (someone else's) chugga-chugga-chugga-chugga, some vapid top violin line, some feebly harmonized brass chords (no counterpoint), and the banging of their richly resonant heads against some toms and taikos (as if all movies must have "ethnic" backing). That is the extent of their creativity, and they even need help to sequence that....

If you (not you personally) are a good/professional composer that occasionally/when required writes a minimal score (a la Sixth Sense), it will be a good one, and good for you. If you just "want to be" a composer because your girlfriend is impressed this way or because you think "anyone can do it", well, I can't stop you, spontaneously combust you, or banish you into a black hole of another universe; but I wish someone would...

Directors and producers: It's really your fault those people are not rotating my tyres or laying tar. Will you  p l e a s e  begin to cultivate yourselves by listening to great music as well?...

@whlederman: Yes, I know, I am childishly awed by the operational idea, but I am one of the last persons that should offer opinion regarding interface-comparisons, I am not computer-savvy compared to many people here.

@Errikos said:

1. When Star-Trek TMP was being post-produced, Jerry Goldsmith was contracted to score it. So he did, and following the big symphonic recording cue that scores our seeing the ship for the first time, the director, the editor and a couple of other people were skeptical! Goldsmith himself was really happy with the music, but the director not only told the confident and fresh Oscar winner that there was something wrong with the cue, but that he also couldn't put it in words! Eventually he said that what was wrong with it was the absence of a 'theme'. So, Goldsmith with all his authority and confidence did not fight for his great music, and instead re-wrote it, coming up with - if not the very best - certainly one of the best fanfares in soundtrack history. The director was wise after all (as in Robert Wise).

I didn't know that about Goldsmith and it is startling since that is truly one of the great film melodies of all time.  Though this story is quite the opposite situation to Herrmann's, who was never told what to do and always left to his own devices.  The famous example being the Psycho violin screeches for a scene that was originally supposed to have no music. 

However, those fine directors and producers of the past were also extreme exceptions.  There were many bad producers in the past who couldn't tell a Herrmann cue from a loud belch.   In fact, if you go back to the "Golden Age" studio era of the late 30s through 40s, you will hear so much utterly banal, pseudo-Rachmaninoff-Liszt-Tchaikovsky drivel that it is as impressive as the current chugga-chugga-boom-bam Zimmerisms.  The conclusion being that film music ALWAYS deteriorates into the laziest, easiest way of getting a job done UNLESS the composer actually wants to make something of it and create something worthwhile. In other words, it is individuals who can create something better even if they live in a  time when technology is making it very easy to produce large quantities of junk.  

The moral of the two stories I related here (three if you add Hitchcock's initial wish for the shower scene to have been scoreless, and his subsequent relenting when the unbridleable Herrmann presented him with a cue anyway), is that a creative man should never take the path of least resistance. Or, if you prefer, that a composer worth his salt, will always rise to the occasion (instead of becoming a dead weight to that occasion, thereby sinking it). Those scores would not have existed if a) the executives were artistic simpletons, and b) the composers were unable to meet those high standards. How many composers can do this today? I have said on another post, that in many of today's flagship expensive A-grade films, the most incompetent, deficient, inept professional to be hired, by far, both in the creative and the technical crews combined, the whole production in fact, is the composer; unequivocally! The worst 'extra' comes a distant second.

Speaking as an owner of the Vienna Instruments Cube, I agree with Daryl that the Appassionata Strings 1 and 2 needs the additional articulations and, from my perspective, the "creation" of a Violins 2.

The next aspect is one of sales and price point. This L1 and L2 business makes Vienna into an expensive library. I would get rid of that, bundle AP 1 and 2, together, and come up with a price point that competes in the US market, even if it means setting up VSL USA and duplicating in the US and shipping accordingly to reduce fees.

The MIR technology is a fabulous thing and I'm looking forward to MIR Pro. But the whole concept is having what Silicon Valley used to refer to as a closed system.

A far more open system approach would be to insert aspects of MIR into the VI player as has been done similarly with the 1.9 release of LASS, and dragging on stage as with WIVI. This act alone would "clobber" the criticism that VSL is hard to mix with, which is why other libraries with pre-positioned seating/panning sell so well.

Power Pan moves stage left and right. Ernest Cholakis' TILT filters move stage front and back. Somewhere a marriage...

@Errikos said:

Those scores would not have existed if a) the executives were artistic simpletons, and b) the composers were unable to meet those high standards. How many composers can do this today? I have said on another post, that in many of today's flagship expensive A-grade films, the most incompetent, deficient, inept professional to be hired, by far, both in the creative and the technical crews combined, the whole production in fact, is the composer; unequivocally! The worst 'extra' comes a distant second.

I wonder how much longer will it take until the audiences finally get fed up with the chugga-chugga garbage they were force-fed the last decade or so and start punishing the producers (and composers) by starting to avoid their offerings?

+1

Peter said this much better than I could have.

@Another User said:

VSL is hard to mix with, which is why other libraries with pre-positioned seating/panning sell so well.

This is contrary to the entire basis of VSL, which was to allow maximum versatility in different audio uses instead of  one TRULY closed system of permanent embedded seating/panning and hall which is the limitation of EWQL.  This may demand a little more mixing skiil.  However, the entire concept of MIR is to address that, and provide a totally integrated mixing system that is simple and intuitive  to use.  And they actually did it!  No hype.  It is the easiest out of the box mixing I have EVER done, with the best results.   

I really don't understand when people say they don't like the VSL strings (or other instruments) .. what's not to like about them. They have the most controllable, and realistic playback you're ever likely to get in a sample library. Over the last several years there's one immutable thing I've learned.

My Virtual instruments performance is only as good as how I write it to be.

Okay .. in some cases that means you've got a lot of hard work if you want something to sound good .. but when've you've learned how to use your tools properly that's hardly a big deal. Personally I LOVE the sound of the VSL. The strings are expressive, realistic and extremely controllable. Between Velocity xfading and cell x-fading you can achieve almost anything.

I've heard demos with Hollywood strings and with LASS and frankly I've been unimpressed by the realism when compared with VSL. Of course I will concede that it may simply have been the composers fault for not doing a better job with the LASS and HS. I've heard just as many bad renderings with VSL .. Hell I've recorded plenty myself :P ... But my point is that any tool take time to learn to use properly.

Take reverb for instance. Man I have spent so many frickin' man hours trying to master this beast. And only nowadays ..after years of experiments .. do I feel like I start to get somewhere with it.

Here's a good analogy. Take the CGI program 'Poser'. It lets you simulate people in 3D .. gets used a lot for fantasy .. (and porn :P), and anyone can buy it. I've seen lots of poser generated pics that look exactly like a CGI character .. absolutely nothing like a true photo real flesh and blood person. But now and again I see a Poser image that is exceptional. And I can usually tell which artist did them because you know these few people have spent years learning how to texture, light, and shade their creations. They know the things to avoid, they know what doesn't look real and what does .. because of experience.

And it's the same with a decent mock-up in virtual orchestra. So many people want a complete out-of-the-box, press the button and everything is perfect straight away, kind of experience. I'm not saying that working with a sample library should be hard ... but I personally like the fact that if I have a recording that sounds really good .. it's because it reflects years of learning and understanding that went into producing it in the first place, and the library was versatile enough to let me do whatever I wanted.

With such a versatile library like VSL it amazes me that there can be negative reactions to it .. you can do anything with it .. if you know how!

I agree.  Demos from Guy Bacos and Alex Temple, both who extensively use VSL, are strikingly realistic, AND musically very solid.  So much stuff I have heard from other companies sounds just like a demo for a new piece of gear- flashy but with little substance.  I find VSL very real sounding and while I would love it if the Appassionata Strings allowed one to control vibrato depth like HS, it's not going to prevent me from using them MORE than HS because it doesn't take 2 years to load or crash because the PLAY engine is finicky....

@Another User said:

I really don't understand when people say they don't like the VSL strings (or other instruments) .. what's not to like about them.

It's pretty simple for me.  I just haven't been impressed enough with the sound quality I've heard from material done with vienna.  No question the range of articulations is phenomenal.  MIR seems to get it the closest but that requires a ton of power and is expensive to get sound quality closer to how other libraries can sound with minimal tweaking.

Again, it all depends on the sound one is after.  If one is after a "real" traditional orchestral and/or especially a chamber music sound, IMO, VSL is as good as, or better than, anything else that is out there.  If one is after a "Hollywood" sound, a sound that remains "in vogue" that is arguably a different question.

The number of articulations VSL provides is vital to achieve realism.  For all its excellent qualities, IMO, the lack of articulations in LASS is a critical weakness for my purposes, and it is therefore not a good choice for me.  Does that mean LASS is a "bad" library?  Obviously, no. 

For me, as a strings player, the number of articulations in VSL comes the closest of any library to reproducing what I actually can do with a bow.  Is it "perfect"?  No.  The way certain articulations end I find less than ideal.  But, nevertheless, an intimacy of sound is possible in VSL that HS, etc., cannot produce  - one is left awash in the "Hollywood" sound.  OTOH, if one is after a strictly "Hollywood" sound HS could be - and has proven to be - of great use.  The point is simply that one needs to use sounds that are designed for one's purpose.

It seems to me that often these types of threads degenerate into "If I like it = good, if I don't like it = bad".  What is easy to forget is that the musical world extends far beyond one's own personal taste and needs.

For example, personally, I have no need or desire to use synth sounds.  Does that mean I will start bashing, to cite one case, Omnisphere, as a useless library, because it doesn't do what I need?  No. 

Anyway, just my $.02.