Herb,

Blake is spot on - its up to the composer to find the work-around and there are so many possibilities.

Perhaps it is best to leave - say we say tonal and lenght adjustments to the user. Certainly the editing function of the ESX will allow you to do so many things [Giga is probably the same] Additionally there are other tools such as ReCycle that a user can easily use to extend/change/whatever.

Like many people these days my main instrument is the Sampler - and just like any other instrument it takes time to learn and master - and in doing so you find that there are many possibilities for expression and intonation. [And just like any other instruments - the composer should strive to understand what it is capable of]

And tongue in cheek -- perhaps our friend who started this thread should go and get himself a Melotron [:D]

--- on the subject of non standard Orchestral instruments - would love to see samples for of the Melophonium and Ondes-Martenot if you ever come across them.

tattie

@tattie said:

[...]
--- on the subject of non standard Orchestral instruments - would love to see samples for of the Melophonium and Ondes-Martenot if you ever come across them.

tattie

... I hear you! ;-]


/Dietz - Vienna Symphonic Library

Blake wrote:

If you are waiting around for looped samples to arrive, then you are probably writing music that is unplayable by real musicians and therefore will sound fake regardless of how good your samples are.

Well, why only imitate reality?
Let's also transcend and surpass it!

If you are a "purist" and only use a sampler to play what could be played by live musicians, that's fine. I believe we live in an amazing time where music can also be played by instruments that do not exist in the physical universe.

So, let's have loops, filters, reverse the samples, whatever allows the composer (and the listener) freedom.

Regards - Colin

While I believe in the world of workarounds, I *DO NOT* agree in the idea that one is writing music that is unplayable if you are relying on loops.

Loops are just a convenience. One doesn't have to stagger notes as they do in real sections if you have loops. Doesn't mean I dont KNOW that the notes ahve to be staggered. Also what about unison notes in an ensemble?

Looping is just a a standard in libraries, and most custromers are used to this fact.

now does NOT having loops make the library unusable. NO!. Thats one of the most ignorant comments I've heard. It just makes it less convenient to write/play certain phrases.

You can retrigger notes fairly easily with VSL. It sounds pretty good with most ensembles too.

tattie & Blake:

I strongly disagree.

We midi studio composers have our midi orchestra to work with. A library is supposed to help us not hinder us. For many years we have gotten used to the idea of having samples LOOPED. Advances in technology should NOT hinder us or a library in its usability. Advances should take us forward, not back.

Its been said "you don't need loops in Gigastudio". That doesn't mean we SHOULD NOT use loops where we need it. Like King was saying: in the real orchestra of course the ensemble staggers the breathing. THAT is what should be sampled!!!

And failing that, it should be looped, becuuse if a LONG staggered sustain was NOT sampled, then we DON'T have the real thing anyway!!

Change our music to accomodate the library?? Well, a lot of us composers have had to do that in the past o certain degrees. But VSL is SO CLOSE to NOT HAVING to change our music to accomodate our usually limited libraries. We should be able to write how we would for a real orchestra or soloist. Believe me: the legato clarinet can NOT currently do what ANY clarinet player can: play 2 notes and have the second one sound longer than about 3 seconds!!

King is working on example art files etc (multiport solutions), and Herb has responded to requests for loops, which is wonderful!!!

But no, we do NOT want to change our music to accomodate a lack of longer sustains. I am not talking about solo tuba with 10 seconds of long note legato without a breath for 2 minutes. I am talking about very simple, slow melodies and slow brass lines, and woodwinds (solo and ensemble) that VSL cannot currently perform without a multiport or multi channel crossfade solution.

These issues are raised in the interest of wanting VSL to reach the perfection it almost gets to. It's almost there, and we want to see it go all the way.

Try playing a slow melody with the clarinet and you will soon see what I mean. Its a beautiful sound and the legato is a BREAKTHROUGH in sampling realism. The short legato notes (much shorter than what a real player is capable of) brings the whole thing down when it was sooo close.

Keep up the great work Herb, and thanks for responding to the tasks of accomodating our sincere wishes.

Robert,

Thank you for writing this in such a clear way! Personally I do not like loops so much, so I would like some of the samples to be longer. And this is valid in a big part of the library. But the statement to not want any looped version seems kind of egoistic. Their are people writing music, making a living with it who just need looped versions and IMHO they are entitled to get them. As an example I would mention Garritan Strings, which did provide all the looped versions which are useful to many and not disturb anybody. As long as there are unlooped versions of all the patches, I can not see any kind of problems for anybody, but maybe did I miss something?

Iwan

I have no difficulty with LOOPS per say - (heaven knows I have used enough of them in the past) – My first hardware sampler had a massive 32K of RAM and Root Notes were scanned across several octaves.

My point is that perhaps the user should loop those samples that they need rather than rely on a library to provide them.

In practical terms where would it stop - in reality Herb and the Team would have to loop just about everything - that is a huge overhead.

Modern tools make looping very easy and by researching and learning to do this yourself you will probably discover more and more about what can be done. And we have quite a few attack free samples in the current library to play with.

To get on a soapbox for a moment or two – Composing /Arranging/Playing using samples is a wholly different ball game. I suspect that many of us cut our teeth using Synthesizers - where infinite timbres are possible; from out of compass short duration notes to those long sweeping faux string pads etc. All of this has extended (enriched) the vocabulary – In a one sense using samples brings us back down to earth - but we can apply that extended vocabulary to our samples to push the sonic boundaries and adapt our techniques.

@Iwan Roth said:

but maybe did I miss something?

Yes. In our industry, you missed deadlines and producers! It may not be the purist thing, but in our industry, loops are required of every library. If it's missing from the library, the library starts developing a reputation for being hard to use.

In an ideal world. we should learn how to loop. But LA professionals don't live in an ideal world. It's pressure, pressure, pressure. When you find you have to loop something, it adds to the pressure, because instead of scoring, you're screwing around with GigaStudio trying to get the instrument to loop right.

After a while, it's just faster to go, "next!" and grab a program from another library that does what you need.

To some degree, I hope this clarifies the writing experience of one group of VSL customers and their needs.

PA

This is an exerpt of my last Post:

But the statement to not want any looped version seems kind of egoistic. Their are people writing music, making a living with it who just need looped versions and IMHO they are entitled to get them.

Peter,

Maybe I do miss something again [[;)]] , but in this case I do actually think that it is you who missed to read my post carefully, because I did write more or less exactly what you also do write.....But maybe you only confuse me with somebody else, because I never did write anywhere that a library should not have any loops for those who need them, which I fully do understand. Just that I personally do not like them very much.

Iwan

My apologies.

One thing that hasn't been mentioned in the discussion of non-looped samples is an interesting problem I've faced.

When I write something and hand it off to an orchestrator, it's tedious to have to explain to that orchestrator that he's going to see a lot of repeated notes that I don't want to be repeated.

It then becomes a matter of having to go through each cue and each track in that cue, to remember if I had any "retriggered" samples for the purposes of playing a MIDI mockup for the director/producer/etc.

Inevitably, my scores come back to me from the orchestrator with repeated notes that I have to tie together or get rid of myself. And I really don't want to have to go through my orchestrator's work, line by line, to see if he's missed anything (this just happened on a major motion picture. It wasted a LOT of my time). It's not only a huge time-waster - it also gives the orchestrator (who's generally a friend) the impression that "Your work isn't trustworthy enough to send on to the copyist without having it checked first."

So, while I know Herb and Co. have their hands constantly full with updates, etc., I think maybe this problem should be given just a bit more attention.

As I said earlier, my initial questions have been answered, but I wish to clarify some things in light of recent posts.

Although I am currently surrounded by computers in my studio, I cut my teeth on putting notes on paper and hearing the orchestration in my head, not synthesizers. Most of the music I produce now for film/TV is done with samples but, if it's an orchestral score, always with how a real orchestra would play in mind. I completely agree with the feeling that if you're going to write orchestral music, you should have some idea of how the instruments are played, hence my years spent in formal and private study. Sure, you can use orchestral samples in non-idiomatic ways and create hyper-realistic sounds and gestures if that's the effect you're going for. Then, the orchestra becomes another sound module/synth, which I have no problem with. Just don't confuse that with writing for "live" orchestra.

Of course, brass and wind section players must stagger breathing in order to sustain long unisons/chords. As Rob points out, the ultimate in realism would be to sample sections doing just that, but barring this, the next best option is to loop the sections. (I still have concerns that looping the 1-2 second sustains in the trombones and tuba are going to yield static results, but King Idiot's work on the GOS Grand Detache strings is pretty convincing and musical, so maybe it will work.) As far as triggering the sample again, re-articulating a trombone section sample, for example, is not the same as 1 player re-articulating while the other players in the section hold. KI's workaround may mitigate the problem somewhat, but I still don't wish to double my sequencer tracks and/or Gigastudio slots to accomplish this. Kevin's issue is yet another problem that I haven't personally encountered, but based on how most professional film scores are written these days, could frustrate composers and orchestrators away from the library.

Having said that, I go back to the reason I bought VSL and why I posted originally. I'm doing mockups for a film which will ultimately have a 95-100 piece orchestra, heavy on the brass. The composer is a talented orchestral guy from Australia who has been writing film and concert scores for quite some time, and has a good idea of what is and is not possible with live players. He does not use synths/samplers to write, hence my gig for the month. In fact, he expressly told me up-front that he would not be writing with samples in mind.

VSL seemed like the best choice to get the job done due to its "realism" reputation, but I hit a wall on the very first cue. The score called for a 2 bar sustained chord in the trombones at 71bpm, beginning at forte and swelling to ff on the last two beats. None of the trombone patches could cover the part at this dynamic. I must point out that no one is expecting the live players to have to stagger breath their way through this part. Such writing is a staple of homophonic music found in many scores. The contention that, if it can't be done with VSL's current release then it shouldn't be written, is off the mark to say the least.

As to making my own loops, there is no time, nor do I have much interest since most of my energy is spent either producing music or looking for work. As Peter points out, if a product can't help me meet a deadline, then I'm going to use something else. That's what I meant by the library being unusable. Yes, there are many things about VSL that many people can use, but if it can't do what I need it to do, i.e. something as simple as sustains, then it's of no use to me for that task. That is truly disappointing since, as Rob says, the library is groundbreaking in several ways, yet falls short in rudimentary areas. If this were a $99 brass set, you would have never heard from me, but my expectations have been raised by VSL, and rightfully so. Here's to continued development and improvement.