@William said:
I know, it is ridiculous of me to think of these things, but I actually do. Because I come from a background of playing in, writing for, and conducting live orchestras. But I love samples because they give a composer incredible power and expression, immediately. Just like an oil painter has huge power right at his fingertips with his pallette, his paints and the canvas. I suppose I need a little reassurance that I am not investing huge amounts of time and labor and enthusiasm in a fake. What do the experts here think of this extremely elementary question? Are we all indulging ourselves in an artificial phony fad?
I can't believe that, because I think day and night of ideas that I want to test out and then really do with VI. But I also know that there are classical purists who think sampling is garbage. Are they snobs? Somehow I think they are, after doing a huge orchestral work and programming with more detail all of the nuances of the performance that no conductor I ever played under ever bothered with...
I don't think you have anything to worry about my friend. (Bill, Daryl,Happy New Year to both of you!)
For the same reason that the piano and then pipe organ (both viewed as 'Orchestras' in their infancy) eventually took off as viable instruments in their own right, so i think it will be with sample perfomance instruments. From a purely commercial perspective, it's my opinion that we, as composers and musicians eager to embrace this technology have perpetuated the sample evolution (revolution?), and so given the commercial operators the opportunity to chop their bottom line and basically save money. It's also worth remembering that audiences in general haven't had enough time or exposure to sample performances at an orchestral level to 'get used' to, and evaluate a performance on its merits. There's a 'magic' in going to a live performance that the average Joe Blow enjoys, as he or she watches another human being express creativity in playing. And as we're on the 'inside' so to speak we can sometimes forget that our view is different to the punters.
Daryl also makes a very important point about flexibility. At the stage we're at in performing with samples, we lack a RELIABLE method of varying the tempo live to enhance the nuance of a particular performance and give conductors and performers alike that 'fluidity' that can often be the difference between an average/good/great performance. I don't think this insurmountable, and will come.
The example of a pallette is a good one too. Instead of focusing on comparisons (which is inevitable), maybe we would be better served, in developing a mindset that thinks of sample performances as a different animal, and i say this as a former orchestral player as well. It's far too easy for me to slip into comparison, just based on experience and memories, but i'm learning fast to treat a sample performance as a 'solo', complete within itself, and written as a encapsulated entity. I still draw on past experience in terms of articulation, nuance, tone, etc...when considering an orchestrative decision, but try to keep ths within a mental sample realm of its own.
But the problem remains of audience perception in its CURRENT awareness.
And Bill, as for the example you gave, the theatre would have done better (IMHO) to present the sample performer as the 'music director' or something like that, acknowledging his contribution to the whole, and not presenting his sample performance as 'live' (At least, not until audiences are prepared to evaluate such performance in its own right, within new mental and emotional parameters of playing 'live' with samples, as a viable subject for intelligent critique.)
As for the classical purists, don't get me started, lol. 99 percent of 'purists' i ever met were more interested in enhancing their own egos with public pontification than a genuine objective and knowledgable critique of performance.
('No i can't read music, dear fellow, but i know what i'm talking about. That chap playing that bundle of sticks thingy was defintely waving it further side to side than the player next to him. A lesser player, to be sure.' ......Yeah, right.)
Most of these people are more interested in being seen to be 'cultured' , than actually connecting with the music, between powderbreaks, pink gins, and boring people to death.
So don't take your foot off the pedal, pal. There's a validity to what we do, that given its curent historical infancy, and the precedent of instrument development, (a pipe organ is really a mechanical 'sample library', with an active performance interface. You could say the same about an accordian) will take time to mature, not only in technological terms, but in the minds and hearts of punters. They still like the idea of 100 plus musicians in penguin suits sawing and blowing, banging and gasping for all their worth, as its a show, and they can 'see it happening' in front of them, and for what its worth, i'm still very fond of attending live performances regularly, be it a full orchestra, or a kid with a violin doing wondertful outrageous things with the music of Paganini, or Tchaikovsky, etc...
Pianos and Organs are 'mature' technology with hundreds of years of use between them.
How old are current sample instruments?
Give it some time my friend.....
Right, time to dust the parchment, light the candle, and sharpen the quill!
Regards,
Alex.