@ Errikos

Since the amount of time required to further engage in detailed discussion of the points you have made has to go into other activities, I'll just sum up what seem to me to be the most important differences between our views on the issue:

a) You consider talent and innate musical personalities as naturally given factors which can be refined, but not developed in the strict sense of the word. I don't - I have no belief in crucial or even dominant importance of any innate talent whatsoever, and believe that what we refer to as talent is essentially developed by a combination of factors, all of which have to be at least partially present to lead to excellent results. To put it short: what you call talent is in my opinion innate only in very limited and elementary sense, the major part of what we understand under talent is actually developed through a combination of experience, skill and acquired insight, theoretical as well as intuitive.

On a sidnote, the examples you bring I find to be unconvincing, as they leave some of the crucial aspects of the whole story aside (Mozart-Mendelssohn-Prokofiev-Chopin starting with the best of the best quality of musical education and guided composition and starting studying musical literature at an extremely early age, that is, amassing a 10 or even 12-year of intensive listening and composing experience until the age of 16 (the same BTW goes for Korngold), Mussorgsky not being self-critical (which is incorrect, Mussorgsky was a vey self-critical composer, the booze notwithstanding), Scriabin talking of his "inertia" etc.)

b) This is, I guess, to a certain amount a level of personal preference: I would gladly give up Chopin's Op.10 for any single one of Taneiev's mature chamber works, Les Troyens, any symphony by Draeseke or any Bruckner symphony beginning with the 1st. I also don't consider Draeseke to be a minor composer: in my opinion, his 2nd and 3rd Symphony (not to forget the Gudrun Ouverture) stand on the same level with the very best of Brahms' symphonic movements, and at times even surpass them in terms of originality of their formal solutions and their motivic intricacies (the 2nd Movement of the 2nd Symphony particularly being a case in point). The same goes for Taneiev, whose best chamber works I find to be no less masterly then any other I know of.

P.S. The assesment of Stravinsky and Bartok as having no melodic gift strikes me as strange - I find many of their melodic as well as harmonic solutions and idiosyncrasies very memorable as well as very refined (not that I could care less if they didn't posess any "melodic gift" at all, as melody is not the dominant or decisive factor in how I percieve music). Beethoven on the other side seems to me also to be quite "unmelodic" in this sense - which, again, doesn't exactly bother me when listening to Diabelli Variations ;-)

@Errikos said:

So I disagree that the incalculable difference of quality and substance in Ravel's work compared to his classmates can be attributed to them "not possessing the same amount of self-criticism, cultivated the same musical sensibilities, or worked on those as well on his technical proficiency with the same rigour and consistency". The first goes straight out the window when we consider the example of Mussorgsky vs. Balakirev and Rimsky

That is a great point, as Mussorgsky was steeped in the same milieu and yet is savagely, uniquely individual in all of music.  His music is like red hot coals or brilliantly gleaming ice compared to the tepid, carefully controlled temperatures of Rimsky Korsakov.  Though I do like Rimsky, Mussogrsky is on another plane of untouchable genius.  And of course, he was totally out of control in his personal life.

One thing on this I disagree with in general is Beethoven's melody - he did truly great themes, such as the main theme last movement of the 9th,  or several in the 7th or 3rd, but I think because of his extreme mastery of symphonic development they are so perfectly subsumed into the structure  that one stops thinking of them as isolated melodies.   Very interesting discussion by Errikos and Goran...

@Another User said:

The same goes for Taneiev, whose best chamber works I find to be no less masterly then any other I know of.

I think that sentence says it all. I won't argue against Taneev's (or even Draeseke's) mastery, when I have seen and heard the incredible technique he imparted to his students, especially polyphony (Rachmaninov, Scriabin, etc.). That is not what I've been arguing about. There's a lot of mastery in his works sure (as in Draeseke's, as in Franck's, as in so many others'), but little genius, and that makes all the difference.

Anyway, I always say that a lot of worthy composers are unduly neglected, hopefully people like Goran can get together and form societies for different such composers, and perhaps there can be series of concerts organized dedicated to them, or labels recording them (ex. BIS is recording the complete works of Skalkottas - opus numbers comparable to Beethoven's!), how about it sponsors?

@dagmarpiano said:

In my 20s I was obsessed with artistic purity, against anything. I had a great time, met some interesting people, got a big record deal which I frittered away by upsetting everyone who had any power just for my own amusement.

Aged about 33, after a life of poverty, I decided for an experiment to see what would happen if I channeled my energy into making money from music instead seeking artistic nirvana.

Some important things happened:

1. I made money for the first time in my life, more than I ever expected to make (I had small ambitions, so I don't mean millions, I just mean I never expected to have the kind of money I have now; a real living, a nice house).

2. I did music which I found more interesting to make, which took a more open mind, which took more listening, learning and thinking than I ever did before.

3. I did music at a higher level of technical excellence.

4. When I did side projects for old times' sake, for the artistic fun of it, they were better on every level than the stuff I did when I thought I was a tortured artist, because I'd matured and developed while under commercial pressures.

So, in fact during my tortured artist years really I just had ambitions beyond my own ability. I got very closed minded about what I thought was good, I stopped listening to anyone except myself and I got stuck in a rut.  I also ended up depressed and lost my enthusiasm for music.  Ok, I also had some fun and I did make some important leaps of imagination, but I think I progressed further artistically when I stopped trying to be artistic and instead focused on money and the market. It made me work harder, I became happier, I listened more and developed an open mind.

So Tarkovsky's statement is fine for him and his life, but it's not my experience.

😊

Don, I really appreciate the honesty of your sharing. Most refreshing. I had a lot of experiences on the radio/ad agency side of the fence before I went back to writing. I call this period in my 20s, "the other side of the music business," because at that level you see how it all works. I took a lot of that information and created a course called Marketing Your Music and You. It's the slowest selling thing at Alexander Publishing.

There's always this battle between art and bucks. I think in music we need to understand the reality that NASA has had to work with: no bucks, no Buck Rogers. If only we could bring back Leopold Mozart and get his opinion on all this!

I agree to some extent with dagmarpiano's comfortable concept though I certainly have not had the slightest success with that approach.  But you must keep in mind that the forbiddingly uncompromising Tarkovsky is now considered by many filmmakers, historians and critics the greatest filmmaker of all time.  Also, having seen his films which are truly great, and read "Sculpting in Time"  which is the best thing I have ever read about cinema, I tend to take him seriously.  I suppose he represents one farthest end of the spectrum between money and art. 

 I guess Jerry Bruckheimer is on the other end.  

What makes me laugh is when you get a topic like this...i.e. this string library etc and some poor son of a bitch always comes out with..... Vivaldi sounds great on this library etc etc etc.

OF COURSE VIVALDI SOUNDS GREAT!!!!2@@F**K££@@. VIVALDI WOULD SOUND GREAT IF YOU SAMPLED MY FARTS AND PLAYED IT LIVE ON A SYNTH FFS.

Why do you think east west uses Thomas Bergenson for his particular brand of Hollywood throw - back music? Because he's brilliant at it, that's why. And it SOUNDS good and musically it's very good in that genre no doubt. Very few people that can do that though; so buyer beware. You're always going to be disappointed with your results if you're not anywhere near Bergenson's  ability. It's called salesmanship and the east west children love all that shyte.

Edit: And to be fair and balanced - not many people can sound like Guy Bacos does for Vienna either, whether you like the music or not. Liking anyone's music or not is NOT the issue when discussing string libraries afaic. It's all about sound.

 I just told them that on that  thread about VSL vs HS #2 or whatever and they don't get it and never will. 

"John Williams sound"  -   "Hollywood sound" - it's all nothing but imitation. 

@William said:

 I just told them that on that  thread about VSL vs HS #2 or whatever and they don't get it and never will. 

"John Williams sound"  -   "Hollywood sound" - it's all nothing but imitation. 

I haven't had a chance to read all this topic Bill. But the way I see it - and I have to come clean and say I am in fact banned from the east west forum - is those particular clientele desperately want to sound like Hans or any of the disciples - like Trevor for instance. What they don't understand is that a string library should really have nothing to do with the way anyone WRITES the music in the first place. This is SOUND we're talking about. You can sound like Hans using VSL, HS or even a cheapjack synth. But they think HS will make them WRITE like Hans. You can't sound like a fucking clone of anyone unless you WRITE like them.

Why do you think no one EVER sounds like Bernard Herrmann? Because they can't WRITE to that standard in the first place. A 2 chord ostinato section just isn't going to cut it if you're trying to emulate say, Vertigo. You need to understand particular brands of minimalism, romanticism, immense amounts of musical study, maybe a touch of blood pressure, heavy drinking, several wives and 100 cigs a day etc - and phenomenal orchestration technique, before you even attempt that. Too difficult. With HZ it's all about sound and effect. It's the equivalent of a chinese takeaway. Too easy. I admire Hans - he's good at what he does. I don't admire fucking clones and that's not his fault after all.

What I like in a way about VSL is they don't constantly jack you up with cheap sales routines. It's always the  music with them. Not just the sound. I listened to the recording of the sales routine yesterday for HS with Bergenson and it's a great sound. But the majority of these poor saps will never in million years get anywhere near that SOUND because they can't WRITE.  Bergenson WRITES better music than HZ - probably. Bacos does - probably. But when you're a clone none of that matters. Forget about studying the width and breadth of music. Just get right in there and study HZ and forget everything else, although I doubt if HZ did when he started. East West are clever and they play to that - everyone has to make living after all. Most filmscore music today is like going to the dentist.

Years ago on this forum I believe, there was a topic about the so-called Hollywood strings sound. It's a a sound that is brought about by the WRITING - if nobody believes that then you might as well start asking the players what make of violin or cello they use.

Yours

Mark Antony,

Good day.

@PaulR said:

What I like in a way about VSL is they don't constantly jack you up with cheap sales routines. It's always the  music with them.

Yeah, that is it exactly and why VSL is superior.  It has always been an intensely musical study with the creators of VSL  - determining how exactly to capture what the instruments do in playing almost any style, which is an awesome challenge that they took on straight, with no shortcuts.  That is why the VSL library has such depth that it can do any style.  So that is what I objected to about "Hollywood sound" or "John Williams sound" - those sounds are simply musical sounds. 

@Another User said:

Years ago on this forum I believe, there was a topic about the so-called Hollywood strings sound. It's a a sound that is brought about by the WRITING - if nobody believes that then you might as well start asking the players what make of violin or cello they use.

They won't write any better with VSL or the Berlin Philharmonic at their feet, that's the point. They worry about the mix instead of how rueful their compositions are. They're in the wrong profession these people, perhaps they should become mixing engineers... Why are they so obsessed with so-called realism instead of being obsessed with music? Because it's easy to demand the former from developers and engineers; they'd have to take 10 years off their middle-earthen lives to learn about the latter though.

If we're to be honest, what they're after is not the "Hollywood Sound", at least not most of them. They call it that for they don't want to call it something else - like the "Clones' Sound". For let's say that today's computer/samples technology was available 15-20 years ago, and people were trying to get their mixes to sound "Hollywoodian" then too... What would the right paradigm be? What was the "Hollywood Sound" back then? Was it Basic Instinct's? Dancing with Wolves'? Saving Private Ryan's? Edward Scissorhands'? Titanic's? Even though these scores were recorded and mixed specifically for Hollywood, they sound pretty different to me (not just compositionally - but could the perceived sonic differences themselves be epiphenomenal due to the great heterogeneity of the actual compositions?)

In short, these people today have as their specific and primary goal the emulation of other people's music (say Hans'), to the point of indistinguishability. They want to contribute nothing themselves (well, they couldn't...), but they can't even get that quite right either (that's how numbingly hopeless they are), which is why they persist in covering all bases so to speak, asking for symphonic forces that have been sampled with the right kind of frequency responses, ambience, etc. If they could, they would ask for recordings of 2-4-minute, fully orchestrated generic chugga-chugga passages. What am I thinking?... Dan, great money opportunity here!...

@Errikos said:

They worry about the mix instead of how rueful their compositions are. They're in the wrong profession these people, perhaps they should become mixing engineers... Why are they so obsessed with so-called realism instead of being obsessed with music?

CCCs (Chugga-Chugga Composers) should really be assigned a special place in Musical Purgatory. Nothing eternal mind you - I am not unfeeling - but a Period of Punishment of around 6 months, in which they would be forced to play cello in a section of one thousand, doubling at the octave the basses (250 players) for 24 hours a day an ostinato consisting of sforzandi staccati a-c-b-g-a-f-e-g repeated without cessation.  The Punishment would be monitored by Dr. T.  Here's a recent photo of him with his guards behind him supervising some punishment of boys who never practice their piano lessons:

@William said:

CCCs (Chugga-Chugga Composers) should really be assigned a special place in Musical Purgatory.

[:D] CCCs! Fantastic! All that remains now is a CCC controller to be added in Logic, Pro Tools etc., for automating the automata...

@devastat What you say has been my predicament exactly and you didn't realize that by reading my post? That's what I meant; that in the hypothetical15-20 years ago, you would still be mixing/mastering your composition to give as a finished product, but directors/producers would be far more interested in the actual music, IF your mix was professional. However, they wouldn't have been after one specific "sound", as the uneducated, uncultivated of today. These days the mix - as you say - is as important (if not more important) than the music, precisely because the music has become so streamlined, so uninspired, so generic, so automatic, that the roles have been reversed. Now, they will be more interested in your "sound", IF the composition is professional, meaning that it is exactly what they have heard before.

I am not a good engineer (I never cared to be), and even if I were, my musical setup is too modest for the "expected standards" of the industry, i.e, I would have to hire a master engineer or even a mixing one if I were to score a mainstream feature with samples. But that has nothing to do with the quality of my compositions. I shudder to think that some hackwit would secure a contract over a young Herrmann today, because the turdirector would mistake the hackwit's better engineered track for better music! God help us!!

@Another User said:

Years ago on this forum I believe, there was a topic about the so-called Hollywood strings sound. It's a a sound that is brought about by the WRITING - if nobody believes that then you might as well start asking the players what make of violin or cello they use.

Hang on a second - did VSL ever name any of their string libraries using the prefix "Hollywood"?????

That's right Erik and a good point. Most of these tossers should be studying to be tea boys and then recording engineers. SOUND. That's what it's become all about if wasn't already that for the last 30 years. Don't get me wrong - I love the idea of sound and and am lazy enough to simply rely on sound or sounds to fool any potential purchaser of what I loosely describe as a 'musical composition' in my case. If I use more that 15 tracks on a recording - I've done something wrong.

But I'm a snobby bastard. If I, for one nanno  second thinks a guy calls himself a musician - BUT CAN'T ACTUALLY PLAY A FUCKING NOTE ON ANY GIVEN INSTRUMENT - then that person needs to be electronically tagged and thoroughly persecuted. 

@devastat said:

My russian teacher in the music institute hated me for being exceptionally talented....

Exceptionally talented?

And you now want to write trailer and game music using Hollywood Strings?

I see.

About this thread. It's interesting to me that a discussion about Hollywood Strings and VSL has blended into a discussion about degenerative modern film scores vs more artistic older scores.

The implication seems to be that HS represents the degenerate present, while VSL represents the classical past, the lost glory of finer days.

On some level this is therefore an implication that VSL is behind the times, a library for the older, cast-off generation of overlooked detail-focused geniuses, while HS is stepping forth into the mainstream with the boldness and stupidity of youth.

My own opinion is more simple. I like HS for its lush sound, and its extra velocity layers. I dislike HS for its limitation of ONLY having that big, distant, lush sound. Sometimes you want more edge, smallness and closeness in the sound.

I think the best, but most expensive thing to do, is own both libraries and then use what you want when you feel like it, without getting too hung up on the collapse of beauty, the fall of society, the rise of the idiots and so on.

@Another User said:

Exceptionally talented?

And you now want to write trailer and game music using Hollywood Strings?