Interesting conversation. Another spin on the subject...

I read a fascinating article in the New York Times this weekend. A study reveals that listeners respond to live music in a manner quite different than listening to recordings. And there are brain scans to prove it!

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/31/arts/music/31thom.html?ex=1168146000&en=396d2061e43fff7a&ei=5070&emc=eta1

(Free registration required, unfortunately)

Fred Story

Hello William, and Happy New Year.

You're right on the money by agreeing with people's discomfort. To me, this fellow would basically be a programmer/technician, and I have yet to see a production where the lighting designer, sound operator, or stage manager gets up for a bow.

I'm also completely with you on the idea that samples can be a special musical entity unto themselves. But we've gone over that before, so I won't elaborate. I think, if they're used live, then the operator should only be acknowledged in the credits for the show, along with the rest of the technical support. If the person running the samples is the composer as well, then s/he could certainly bow, but as a composer, not a tech. For me, samples belong to a virtual world, though. So I'm only really interested in using them in a completely disembodied way -- heavily mediated stuff: cd, dvd, interactive music programs, art installations, and so on. Those all work for me. And even "live" performances in which the medium being put on display is NOT specifically the musical performance -- so, dance, theatre, and so on. I have no problems with samples in those contexts. But having the computer technician bow after a performance using sample-based music is just like having the sound-op bow after a performance using "canned" music. It's a tech support gig, and should be treated like one, IMO.

cheers,

J.

Happy New Year to you too!

I find all these posts very encouraging and thoughtful. Thanks for your insights and I wish all you guys a very Musical New Year.

One other thing - I think that what disturbs me is that people like this newspaper writer and those writing letters of agreement with him do not understand is that there is something else that can be done with samples besides faking a missing orchestra. Even though they were right in that context. All these issues have become very complex today, and someone using samples risks getting lumped together with things that have no bearing upon what that person is trying to do.

For example a little thing I did today for muted trombones legato, which I wondered "will that work?" because it was rather odd, and then I tried it with VI and the performance was exactly right. How could it not be with these players we have thanks to VSL at our beck and call 24 hours a day? This piece is for a live theater production, which explains my paranoia. And I sure as hell am not taking any curtain calls! But the music is appropriate for the production and it actually does not matter whether a live orchestra is sitting there very bored (as in my past experience as a horn player), or samples are doing it. Though I agree that the problem in that other production was the disjunct between technicians and live perfomers.

Not to mention the distinction between pure recording and live performance. There are people who insist live performance is always better.

It is not! Because first of all, there are live performances that are terrible, but even with great ones, they are only performances. A recording is forever. 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 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

You formulated the idea perfectly. In fact this could be a statement of a whole school of thought. I agree completely about the idea of artists in painting, sculpting and other visual arts, not to mention poetry and writing, being able to put down ideas - maybe a great masterpiece, or maybe just a minor work - but all of them can be appreciated. However the composer, at least in the past, was never able to work this way. It is truly a paradigm shift, because you are talking about applying a different way of working - the personal expression of one artist - to a medium that has always be a mass or group performance art. Masses of musicians, or at least groups, determining what is "playable."

One additional way I noticed the same thing in a very personal example - I had written as a student an absurdly ambitious piece, portentously titled "Apotheosis" - yes, I was an enthusiastic nerd. Well, it got played in a rehearsal by some students and was completely destroyed, both in front of everyone, and within my own mind, since I thought it was just a lousy piece of juvenilia. So about 20 years later I found the score, and almost as a joke did a sample performance of it, and was shocked. It was a piece of music, that had never been expressed, and had been dismissed totally even in my own consciousness - BECAUSE OF PERFORMERS and the whole mentality of music as a performer's art. Because what they do dominates everything a composer does. So if a composer can be freed from this kind of thing, and do a little sketch, or a simple watercolor, or maybe a big oil painting if he wishes, but with pure sound, then it really is a completely new field of expression.

Anyway, thanks for your thoughts on this!

@William said:

It was a piece of music, that had never been expressed, and had been dismissed totally even in my own consciousness - BECAUSE OF PERFORMERS and the whole mentality of music as a performer's art. Because what they do dominates everything a composer does. So if a composer can be freed from this kind of thing, and do a little sketch, or a simple watercolor, or maybe a big oil painting if he wishes, but with pure sound, then it really is a completely new field of expression.

I hear you, William. I've been to rehearsals and/or performances of my works which simply were *not* the same piece. It's truly painful. What made it almost worse is that, in some cases, I already had a VSL version, so I knew exactly how it could (and should) sound, yet all those present in the audience had no idea. Mind you, I also realize that they did hear something, and that it may have been quite interesting and enjoyable to them... so I just smile, and bow, and say "thank you" to those who comment, and go home and put it out of my mind! [;)]

ps -- Please don't think that I blame performers for the above. It's difficult to approach a new work, by a composer whose music you have no knowledge of, and to do it all with the bare minimum of rehearsal time. Actually, I'm generally in awe of performers. But until they really get to know a piece, it's an uphill battle trying to hear one's work as it was intended to sound -- at least if one's musical style makes performance reasonably demanding... but I feel the water getting murky now, so I'll shut up! [;)]

J.

@William said:

So all this sort of discussion disturbs me, since I love samples and digital virtual orchestra. In fact, I think it can be an art form unto itself, not just a substitute for live.

That is a good point. We should just name it!

@PoppaJOL said:

[quote=William] 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.

Well, it seems to be that composer associations accept those "musical pallette" users as composer who write the notes by themselves. But not those people who also put the technology to create notes on scores. Do you think that it will change in respect?
(In fact computers can't be copyright owners, either).

I guess next to a crappy orchestra a virtual one is an improvement... at least my instruments will be in tune...? Compared to the finest orchestras, there is absolutely no comparing the two - virtual orchestras, no matter how good they "sound" never feel anything like the real thing. It's like having the most realistic blow-up doll ever, of your wife: may look a lot like her; may fool people in photos or from a distance; but it doesn't feel anything like her. And for the same reasons: it's not living, it doesn't respond, it doesn't articulate in a billion ways on its own... And what's crucial is that while the experience is relative, it's also absolute. I've noticed this time and time and time again with non-musicians, directors, my family, etc.: few of them could recognize the virtual orchestra by sound alone, especially without a comparison. As soon as a live recording of the same piece was placed back to back, there was absolutely no question which was real, and more importantly, no question that the real recording was far more emotionally powerful. They just weren't aware of what they were missing until they heard it. But the virtual recordings had absolutely not affected them as deeply.

I actually went through a thing on a film I did in 2004, where after the film was done, the producers started complaining about the music budget not being worth it. They had heard the entire score in my studio, virtually, before we recorded it - it was there that they "signed off" on the score. Of course, during the 3 or 4 days of recording, they were like kids at Christmas - stars in their eyes, hugging everybody - it's always like that. A year later, looking over the returns, they're doubting the 200k they spent on the music. So I sent a CD to them of their 3 favorite cues from the soundtrack, in virtual form, and from the live recording. I got an email the next day: "Nevermind."

_Mike

never mind - a waste of time

For a reminder on why not to post angry, please refer to the above post.

Nonetheless -

There's one thing I try never to do: talk about things I don't have experience with. I have been using sampled instruments since my first Ensoniq Mirage, now I use Gigastudio, and on the other hand, I've been fortunate to track with arguably the finest film and studio musicians on the planet, here in LA. In my experience, in the experience of working with directors and on projects professionally for 15 years, there's no comparison, whatsoever. That's my experience, upon which I depend to satisfy my clients, uphold my professional reputation, and make a living. So it's an opinion, albeit an informed one. There's no other place I can speak from.

That being said, I own Gigastudio! And I just had to use it for a TV gig, and a couple more upcoming. It has been an invaluable tool for communicating ideas to younger directors and nervous studio executives. But I also think the best use of electronic instruments is in contexts that precisely CAN'T be replicated by any other means; as truly unique instruments unto themselves.

I grew up "digital," and have no elitism about it - I use technology and virtual instruments every day, and love it. But there's absolutely no way I can pretend, after an entire career's worth so far of information to the contrary that sampled orchestras could ever hope to communicate musically what human beings do. In fact, the mere suggestion is so utterly dismissive of the mastery of craft exhibited by the world's best players, that I can't believe it's coming from a musician. I know one thing; it isn't coming from a virtuoso.

Anyway, if I'm full of it, and elitist, blah, blah, blah, then you have certainly nothing to fear from my ignorance and shortsightedness. Hardly seems to merit getting upset over. Clearly, you have nothing to fear.

Unless you put your virtual stuff up against my live stuff, that is.

Then again, we can always agree that wisdom - as in all things - is in the middle somewhere - and that electronic instruments have a unique place in music. However useful the approximation, thus valuable, ultimately that place just isn't in trying to replicate what it can never replace. That's where I come down.

_Mike

It is very strange - I read these posts and was actually inspired by the attitude of the people like jbm, Alex, DG, Dave, mathis, and the wonderful statement of poppajol who practically created an imaginative credo for a new art form. I find what they said inspiring and encouraging.

But then this mverta person posts this statement, that samples are only a mediocre substitute for a live orchestra, and it is depressing. Thanks mverta. I am getting older, and as I do, I notice that there are always people like you out there - the negative ones. And I am avoiding your type like the plague these days. So post whatever devastating rejoinder you want - it won't have too much effect because I am used to your type.

"Unless you put your virtual stuff up against my live stuff, that is." - mverta

First of all - what is "your" live stuff? What the other musicians did? how is that "yours" ?

Secondly - try me. Anytime, anywhere. How about right here? I will match my best sampled stuff against your best live. Let's do it. I 'm ready. Are you?

I notice you didn't actually address anything I said. But you seem to have no problem hurling out the personal insults.

I'm sorry you find my opinion "depressing," but surely you wouldn't recommend I misrepresent my experiences for the sake of blowing sunshine up your ass? Especially because if I'm not mistaken, the idea that electronic instruments have a unique and valid place in music seems to be a major point we agree on.

Ah, well, at least you're steeled against "my type." That should serve you nicely.

_Mike

P.S. As for your "challenge"... I appreciate you making it about me, but it really isn't. If I wasn't a musician; if I wasn't a composer, the differences would still exist. In fact, that was a central point I was making, that even "know-nothings" can feel the difference. But if you want to send me the score to one of your pieces, say 5 minutes in length, plus $40k, I promise to have it recorded properly here in LA. That's assuming of course, that the orchestration is A-level as well, and that's hoping it's a good piece.

The pisser is though, if you can't already hear the difference, this probably won't help you. In fact, if you could feel the difference, you'd never have proffered the point. Personally, I'd like to say that if you're planning on entering the film scoring market, please keep using virtual orchestras wherever possible. Please.

I was in the film scoring market long ago sir.

As to my challenge - I thought so - a coward! I was ready to post something- in fact, I was cogitating excitedly over WHAT to post, since there are so many possibilites for devastating non-entities such as you. But since you have nothing to offer, tsk, tsk, tsk, such a pity - for you.

The first challenge to a Samples vs. Live duel in the history of the world - and the wretch, the beggar, the blaggard is a coward!

Ha-ha!

My seconds were ready to call upon you sirrah, but I suspected as much from the likes of your kind. I spit upon you sirrah, and trust you will no longer show your miserable face in any of the Digital Taverns or Sampling Inns I frequent! Ha-ha!

[[:|]]

Um. You win. Please stay away from my house.


_Mike

I think that we're getting confused here. There is no doubt that my music sounds better when recorded by players than when using samples. There are various reasons for this:

1) I wrote it for players, not samples.
2) I'm not the world's best programmer and engineer.
3) An orchestra full of individuals, with their own views on musicality, is very hard to match with samples, where one brain is "directing" every note.

However, in the past there were many times when my demos sounded better than the final result simply because the players were not up to the job.

Now here is where the confusion starts. There are times when composers write specifically for samples, and in these cases I have yet to hear a live version sound better than the sample performance. This is especially true when mixing rhythmic electronic instruments with orchestral instruments. On my current project, without the best players in the country, it would have been impossible. Having said that there are still as many as 200 edits per track....!

The time that "real" players shine is usually where the music is very simple. There are many times that I've heard film cues that are musically ignorant and badly written where the strength of performance actually makes it sound like proper music....! This is very hard to pull off with samples. However when it comes to blood and guts racket, samples can actually be an improvement.

The last point is "does it sound real"? I would say "does it matter"? If you are recreating a standard from the Classical repertoire, then it probably does matter, but for original composition the only criteria is "does it sound good?".

DG

ooh, things are getting a little toasty in here, hey?

I would have to say that, given absolutely *ideal* conditions, in terms of rehearsal time (read: budget), players abilities and attitudes, and a host of other factors, there's probably no situation in which I wouldn't ultimately choose "live" over sampled. I mean, if Ensemble Modern suddenly wanted to record a few of my works, I'd be over the moon! However, meeting these conditions is simply not a day-to-day possibility. Not for me, and not for anyone. The musical and financial resources simply do not exist. So there's a pragmatic side to all of this which is impossible to ignore.

Also, there's the question of process, which DG is getting at in his last post. If I sit down at my (slightly flakey but improving) little VI "farm" and start bashing around ideas, there is direct experience involved. As I continue to compose, I'm hearing and responding in a very direct and almost instantaneous way. In this sense, my "virtual" orchestra is actually more "real" than anything I could auralize and transcribe to a pencil score. Obviously there are those who will argue against this, but I think the ground is pretty stable under that statement. The simple reason is that, if I auralize a passage of music, for a given instrument or ensemble, and transcribe that auralization to paper, I'm still imagining it with a certain performance in mind. And that performance is absolutely personal, absolutely "virtual"; I may never, in all my days, hear a performance like it. (In fact, it may not even be possible for me to hear a performance quite like it, since it's at least partly informed by many mental structures quite foreign to phsyical hearing... but that's another thread.) This is why I agree with DG that there are works that simply *will* sound better in their sample-based realizations, than in live performance... though the word "better" is, of course, slippery ineed! But it would be a mistake, IMHO, to suggest that this is because the work is poorly composed, or poorly orchestrated. It is simply informed by an entirely different process, and I don't think there's any way to completely divorce the product from the process through which it was formed.

Lately I often find myself concerned that my concert music is becoming too dependent on my studio setup. But my setup is now intimately tied to my compositional process, so I try to understand it and refine as much as possible. As long as I have some awareness that the manner in which I'm working is a primary influence on the work I produce, then I retain some hope of keeping a relatively clear head about what my music is all about. But I do sometimes miss the idealized world of pencil and paper composing... Perhaps someday I will find my way back to it.

btw, I realize that got a bit off topic, but I think it's sort of relevant... no?

J.

Regarding this topic. Today, I see four ways to compose music to be performed and recorded:

1) You compose for a known orchestra or ensemble. You obei to what can be performed with this particular ensemble. You don't write melodies, lines or rhythms who can not be played by all members of a section. In this scenario you have to know the niveau of each ensemble member.

2) You make a model (mock-up) for later being recorded with an orchestra or ensemble. Here the same scenario as under 1), you have to know the niveau of the performers.

3) Compose and arrange pop music. The music is simple. It can be played by an orchestra or ensemble as well can be realized with synths and samples.

4) You compose exactly as complex as you hear it. No reduction and compromise to the niveau of an orchestra or ensemble. That's often my scenario. The music can not be played by an ensemble, not even when the ensemble or the whole orchestra would consist of soloists only.

.