@Another User said:

The entire history of music is one of performers and conductors dominating the composer, who even has to admit the indignity of starting out as a servant enslaved by aristocratic amateur performers. Beethoven started to change all that, but until the present time, composers were still enslaved to the wretched indignity inflicted upon the typical classical composer who is assumed to go with his hat in his hand, begging for a performance from arrogant idiot conductors and music directors. For the first time in history, this is no longer necessary. A composer can fulfill to exacting specification every element of musical thought. There are still some compromises, but these will be erased in time. Samples represent the ultimate purification of musical tone to the highest artistic level. Anyone who thinks they are a mere cheap subsitute for a live orchestra is an unimaginative idiot.

Soon, if live orchestras can perform half as well as the definitive sampled performance by the composer - they will count themselves lucky.

Who do we have here? Professor William! Wow! All that is SO revealing!

chill out you guys. I think guy's points are valid and you're all jumping down each other's throats at the drop of a hat, that's not healthy argument it's kind of silly. [:O]ops:

You all make valid points.

What's this about Guy crying all the time? [*-)]


Miklos. [8-)]

Just to sum it up, Clark and William are as much insecure with my comments as I might at times get defensive. Nobody here on this forum can deny that it is a sensitive issue for them. Personally I don't give a shit! But I don't like to be told in so many words that I don't know what I'm talking about when I'm just voicing an opinion! Both of you guys first response to me was so out of proportion!

Now I must go back and do more crying on my pillow... [:'(]

Guy,

You had written that "99% of the time the comparison will be inevitable because the ear is used to hearing real orchestras."

I'm saying that there will ALWAYS be comparisons and most of the time people will make associations that are way beyond the things we worry about. You've never had a client ask for more "smiley" or "graciousness" or "orange" from the track? I've had directors wanting more oboe when they really meant clarinet. That kind of thing.

So what I'm saying is that YOU GOTTA DO YOUR THING and who cares if it sounds exactly real or not? That's what I meant when I said "So you act according to your aesthetic." That means SO WHAT if you have to layer your synth strings under the VSL strings to get more warmth. If it works it works.

You will find out very soon that these forums will become your greatest resource for research concerning sequencing tips, discussions about arranging and finessing these sometimes difficult tools (anyone care to chime in about their perf_rep adventures?) and you may even find something about getting the most out of your strings.

As you know you can also get excellent technical advice on hardware. It's easier to re-start a discussion on gear because after a few months the gear changes anyway. However, you would be missing out on a lot more than just string sound advice by not doing some homework on this forum. So jumping into the middle of this discussion and basically hijacking this thread from "VSL is too real" to "the strings are suffering" is probably not the best way to get information on how to deal with your problem.

Clark

I would like to site vangelis in this argument, who sounds very orchestral at times and yet totally not and sometimes his synths sound like orchestras and other times his orchestral insturments like synths either way he uses it as a creative producer, a digital musician if you will and I don't think there are comparisons with a real orchestra there even though the sound often gives the allusion to a full orchestra but is clearly not people go "Vangelis" and people are not "comparing" him to a real orchestra, quite the opposite, they are hearing his music.

William,

I would have to disagree somewhat with the "samples are superior" statement because I believe that performers can bring something extra to the music given the proper circumstances. In an orchestral setting where you act as virtual conductor, I believe that your sentiment is more applicable.

So maybe my corollary would be "where there is a larger ensemble represented (or some such thing) samples are superior..."

The reason for my point of view being this: smaller ensembles can suffer from a sequenced treatment. The interplay of a jazz trio rhythm section is notoriously difficult to finesse with real players. I can't imagine doing that with samples, no matter how good they are.

Also, imagine certain 20th century performance practices that rely heavily on the element of chaos and/or improvisation by the performers. Even if there was a way to program some of these random elements in I believe it would lose a bit of its soulfulness or human aesthetic that would govern each of the (virtual) performers' instincts.

Clark

@Guy said:

Just to sum it up, Clark and William are as much insecure with my comments as I might at times get defensive. Nobody here on this forum can deny that it is a sensitive issue for them. Personally I don't give a shit! But I don't like to be told in so many words that I don't know what I'm talking about when I'm just voicing an opinion! Both of you guys first response to me was so out of proportion!

Now I must go back and do more crying on my pillow... [:'(]

That's crazy Guy - seriously. Even I started thinking at one point - heck, this fellow doesn't trust anything anyone advises.

This has been proven by your tendency to ask the same question over and over again. I can understand that, naturally, being not the world's foremost expert on computers and how to use samples properly. Definitely now very interested in hearing some of your work examples.

Ok let's get one thing clear: you guys one track mind on this made you go completely of course with my original and intended point.

I specifically said: "WHY MUST ONE INTERFERE WITH THE OTHER?"

What the hell did I mean by that? Are some of you paying attention, Clark, William and Paul to what I'm saying, or are you too busy rebuttling?

I also said: "I ENJOY WORKING BOTH WAYS!"

What the f. am I saying here?

Hello? Is anybody home???

I've been defending myself in the last 10 posts against stupidity, not even relating to my point anymore.

But I'll explain it again since Paul, Clark and William seem to want to jump quickly to conclusion and before you know it we are completely of course...

I happen to work both ways. Meaning that sometime I like to work using sounds, effects, interesting combinations, new ways of approaching insruments and orchestration etc... that the ear is not accustom to , and I love it, it's refreshing, and in this case it becomes a different tool than the traditional orchestra and is not meant to have a "traditional orchestral sound".

On the other hand:

VSL is just as appropriate to do more traditional orchestration: Tchaikovsky type or John William, and it still sounds great, at least my own results. Although in this case the comparason with real orchestras will be inevitable! Where the f. is the problem?

Having said that, I'd like to say that I have been discusted with a few comments making me wonder if I'm waisting my time here.

(Quote)Paul: "Guy you should think before letting your fingers type..."

(Quote)Clark: "Guy it is difficult to have an intelligent conversation with you..."

Maybe you guys should take a little more time to see what the other person is trying to say. And if I didn't spare some feelings I'd go ahead and say some of the really stupid things Paul have said on some of the posts, and that Clark is not quite as intelligent is he thinks he is.

But crazy or no crazy on these forums, I think people should be careful in what they say, stupid comments such as Paul's and Clark's just lead to more stupidity, and it just builds up to even more stupidity.

@Guy said:

I think people should be careful in what they say, stupid comments such as Paul's and Clark's

Hey - be my guest. Knock yourself out.

[:D]

Paul, You're not the same Paul as the "Paul moderator", right?

@Guy said:

Paul, You're not the same Paul as the "Paul moderator", right?

No - I'm slightly better looking, but with a similar accent!

[:P] [:D]

You both drink Salada tea with After Eights?

[[;)]]

Clarkcontrol - yes I was making an overstatement there saying they are superior, period. What I mean by that is they are superior in many cases, especially NOT theoretically, but practically. In my own case, and the case of many, many others including probably most of the people here, it is impossible to get live players capable of creating sounds as good as samples on a daily basis, in the areas of intonation, tone quality, range and even espressive articulations. I played for decades in orchestras, bands, ensembles of every kind, and most of them had difficulties just playing in tune let alone higher musical accomplishments. People are very spoiled (not you, just in general) by the widespread availability of the work of virtuosic musicians in recordings, and accept this almost as a "standard" level of playing when it is incredibly rare. So obviously, samples can not successfully replace the New York Philharmonic or some such great collection of virtuosos, but they can replace the Peyoche Symphony and even improve upon it.

This sounds like a subtle distinction, but when you hear music of yours being played for the first time, correctly, in a sampled performance AFTER having it played poorly live - it is not subtle at all.

The other aspect of this is my idealism concerning samples as an art form in itself, and I agree strongly with the concept of the SLI mentioned above -Miroslav Vitous first talked about a collection of samples being something to study, practice and master like a traditional instrument, and it has become that and even more in the years since his library was introduced. Also, I love the idea of 16 horns, 12 flutes, 30 bassoons, etc. and feel that this approach - of using traditional instrumental sounds in non-traditional ways that would be grossly impractical live, has a tremendous potential for artistic expression.

How hearing some your demos?

"How hearing some your demos?" - Guy

I don't understand this question. Is this a question? It seems like something that might be represented as a chimp's use of language in a scientific study. Or perhaps a reconstruction of the earliest phases of human language that might have been spoken by an apeman named Trog.

Joan Crawford worked with him once and he was a lot of trouble.

@William said:

"How hearing some your demos?" - Guy

I don't understand this question. Is this a question? It seems like something that might be represented as a chimp's use of language in a scientific study. Or perhaps a reconstruction of the earliest phases of human language that might have been spoken by an apeman named Trog.

Joan Crawford worked with him once and he was a lot of trouble.

[:D] [:D] [:D]

Oh dear oh dear - I've just cracked. Thank God it's tea-time.

@William said:

"How hearing some your demos?" - Guy

I don't understand this question. Is this a question? It seems like something that might be represented as a chimp's use of language in a scientific study. Or perhaps a reconstruction of the earliest phases of human language that might have been spoken by an apeman named Trog.

Joan Crawford worked with him once and he was a lot of trouble.

I put it that way 'cause I though it might be easier to talk chimp language to a chimp. [:)]

Here's the real question:

How about hearing some of your demos? [6]

Guy, bear with me, I'm going to try again.

Re: "working both ways" (sounds vs. orchestra imitation)

I was attempting to convey that there are not just two ways of doing these things. There are infinite. If your aesthetic tells you that the strings are not warm enough but you could layer in some warm synth strings--then do it. Who cares if people draw certain comparisons or associations? One doesn't have to be a purist.

Now I'm sure you're not a purist (unless you choose to be as the situation dictates) but my point was that association is inevitable so make it work to your advantage. Layer the synths in real low so they still sound like strings but just warmer.

I provided the studio anecdotes as a way of indicating my success with this approach (paradigm).

So I was trying to help you find and rationalize a method of working this string thing of yours out, tying it into the fact that the general public won't hear the artificial sound of the synth.



William,

Yes I have to confess I am spoiled not just by the level of musicianship on commercial recordings but also by the musicians I surround myself with. The fact that I can take a friend out to lunch in return for some killer overdubs really makes me appreciate my lot in life.

I should have known you were thinking in a real-world scenario with that samples over-statement. After all, that was partially my point with the mock-up vs. real (bad) orchestra anecdote.

Clark

Clark,

You may have to try a 3rd time, 'cause what you're saying is not strange to me. For the past 2 years I've worked with someone whos seen Hans Zimmer work, and he did share several of his tricks. So I am aware of how to approach "warmth"...although I'm sure nobody does it better than Hans.

Anyway, what's this about studio anectodes?

Guy

@William said:

So obviously, samples can not successfully replace the New York Philharmonic or some such great collection of virtuosos, but they can replace the Peyoche Symphony and even improve upon it.

True.

IMO a good real orchestra is better than a bad computer rendering and viceversa. But sampling will never take the place of a real combo. You can't improvise neither search for "your" sound, for instance, nor you can get the genuine and sophisticated imperfections of Bregovich's band.

A friend of mine conisdered that uman kind would like a lot replacing God and take control over any aspect of life (genomics, CAD and so on). This could even happen in 100, 1000 or 10000 years.

But the question is: to which scope?

Sometimes, sampling appears to be riskly overstimated. It's a great opportunity and innovation either for the amateur (as me) and the professionist. But when you get a perfect copy of a Bosendorfer in binary code, you get... a Bosendorfer again.

Moreover, before you can accurately sample a Bosendorfer and sell it on Dvd, you need experienced craftmen capable of assembling a Bosendorfer by gluing together pieces of wood: a computer can't do that (so far). And if even a computer would become able to assemble a Bosendorfer after having accurately choosen the "right" pieces of wood... well: to which scope?

I think our mind needs our body, and taste, and... the pleasure of doing something with our hands...

[;)]