@William said:
I simply have a different outlook I guess, as someone who is interested in trying to create things that last through all the ages of mankind (but admittedly in my case will probably be forgotten BEFORE I die, let alone after). And this sort of creation, which after all every poet, painter and sculptor is also going for, can be done so perfectly with samples, as opposed to the flighty, disturbing transience of live performing, that I naturally gravitate to them like a duck to water. Or a nerd to a new release of Windows. Or whatever simile you wish to apply.
William:
I really feel you hit on an important point here. Painters, writers, sculptors, etc. have always worked in media where their work was preserved, for good or ill, exactly as their vision and ability (and resources) conceived their pieces. There are thousands of such artists who are not world renowned but who created quality work which still exists and can be enjoyed (or criticized) by others. The thousands of composers' works of the past however, are merely paper. Most have never been and never will be heard by anyone, ever, including the composer. Choreographers, dancers, actors, musicians and composers have not had this option until the 20th century. However, even after recording and film/video technology developed, it is a fallacy that this was available to all. Eventually we reached the point where choreographers and playwrights were in a much better position than composers. It costs so little to get a decent camera and a group of good actors or dancers together to perform their works. Also, the culture of performing artists is different to that of musicians. Actors and dancers, including professionals, are far more willing to put time and effort into creating these recordings than are professional musicians. For orchestral composers, getting even mediocre recordings of one's music was next to impossible for most, until now.
Obviously, there are those who use samples for mock-ups, to demonstrate to others what their work will sound like, and for various commercial purposes. The key point though, is that the technology also allows
any composer to do what other creative artists have been able to do for centuries. That is, preserve h/his conception exactly as intended. Sheet music is not the "music" itself. Rather it is a graphic representation, a symbolic guide for performers to use in order to execute the "music."
There is a group of composers emerging who will use sample technology as their
primary means of musical expression. These composers are not thinking of sample based composing as a substitute for a "real" orchestra, as a poor second best. Rather they conceive of this medium as the musical pallette with which they can actualize their true vision with no intention that it be performed by a live orchestra. This is a HUGE paradigm shift in the world of music. It is an entirely new conception in the creation of music.
I believe sample technology will, in time, liberate the composer from almost all externally imposed limitations. Cost will always be something of an issue, of course, but that has moved into the realm of the possible now and is getting more and more manageable as we speak. The technical difficulties are being addressed even faster than the cost issues. Eventually, we will be able to execute virtually anything we can imagine at the highest possible quality level both sonically and musically.
This is the great value of the sample world and why I feel you not only should but
"must" continue. Acceptance may or may not be slow in coming but is really not the issue. The music is the issue and you are a great composer of this music. However, even if you were a Musical Theater hack like me, it would still be important that you do what you're doing. I truly believe that the entire musical landscape of the future will be profoundly affected by this developing technology. We're all a part of that and I find that fact very exciting.
Be well,
Jimmy