Interesting point, Whilst I agree entirely that there's a huge danger of loosing touch with the art of real, live musical performance - It would be a catastrophe if that were to happen - ...

@Another User said:

but lets not call this music making for the sake of the musicians that are playing the works of debussy(and the like) and have worked for 8 hours a day there whole life and born with talent to do it.

This is where the debate becomes interesting: does music-making stop when the instrument used is not a violin, a clarinet, a flute...? To me, if the artistic elements of musical expression are all there, then I'm happy to apply the term 'musician' to the person responsible. Of course, the work was meant to be played by 70 or 80 musical personalities, brought together by one more: the conductor. In this case, we heard the result of just one musical personality 'performing' the work. But that's not enough to me to invalidate it as a work of artistic musical performance.

I'd add just one more thing: you mention live performance, and this is something completely irreplacable, both musically and experientially. But compare this track to an orchestral recording, and the edges get blurred. Records are [often] one big illusion. There might be 800 edits on the CD. That's 800 notes, the timing of which was NOT a result of the musicians who played, but of the editing engineer afterwards. That's 800 moments where the artistry of the editor 'played' the music. Let's put it another way: the CD was 'played' by the editor using 800 'samples'! I know this is bending the terms a long way, but the divisions are far from clear-cut. Using samples is like a recording made with an edit for every note (happens sometimes in difficult passages, BTW). The more edits (extreme case: sampling) the more the musicality has to come from the editor (or Andy B in the case of the track we're discussing), rather than the instrumentalists. We've shifted the centre of music-making - but we've not REPLACED it. And I'm confident that we never will.

That's all. Long answer, but I felt this should be said.

Thanks,

Simon

Nafai 23

You are profoundly wrong.

This is NOT computer programming. It is first of all knowledge of Debussy, secondly, knowledge of orchestral conducting and performance, thirdly, being a good musician, and not fourth but somewhere down the line, computer programming.

If you get a Debussy score yourself and "punch it out" you may find it isn't quite as easy as you think to create this kind of musicality.

William Kersten

well william I agree but the order is mixed up in what it takes...

Listen I am a professional classical musician full time...juilliard the whole deal.....and..
I think what this guy did is great and I think the software is great.
I think this could start a war and I mainly wanted to address that people are forgetting what real music is more and more in today's society....
If this person had composed this music and used GS to make his ideas come to life I would not discredit him in the slightest...
transcribing a score to a sequencer on any level no matter how advanced is nothing compared to the work a full orchestra does or the gifts that are present in a room full of musicians that could play La Mer at a professional level....not even close. Lets not forget that.
As a professional orchestal musician I will say this though about the work discussed here.....the tech is impressive and the job he did is very impressive.......or to use a better word....scary for me.
It still sounds sterile and cold to a trained ear but nonetheless the best I have heard at a symphonic level to date and a brillant job.

Using samples is like a recording made with an edit for every note (happens sometimes in difficult passages, BTW).


uhhh....sorry no....not in the classical world...in other arenas I do not have the knowledge to comment.
I recorded La Mer in tokyo in suntory hall...each mvt one take....no edits...
no conductor would ever allow such editing at any professional level....
that type of editing destroys the music.
There is editing but not to this extent and only when totally nesscary...

ok I should not write on this topic anymore [:)]....it is what I do and I will just go on and on...
Ill shut up now.

nafai23,

Your comments are most welcome: that's what the forum is all about.

Dave Connor

@nafai23 said:

no conductor would ever allow such editing at any professional level....

Well, sorry to talk back, ... , but this is dead wrong. I´m also working as a sound engineer and music editor, and the only time I only made two edits in half an hour of music was on a recording of a russian orchestra. Russian discipline is amazing....

However, I absolutely agree with your feeling of scareness. It really makes one think. But I don´t believe that in the near future the cheapo classical CDs will be produced by means of sampled orchestra. Still eastern european orchestras are more dangerous to western europe orchestra life than samplers...

The funny thing is that in my experience, it is often the ARTIST who insists on "editing on that scale". (I am a producer, editor and also a cellist, so I've seen the recording process from many angles). I was exaggerating maybe a little with the 'note for note editing', but it happens more than anyone is normally prepared to talk about. A recording made up of complete takes with virually no edits because the performance was so fantastic - great! If only that were always the case. But as I was trying to explain, true artistry can take place (and NEEDS to take place) not only on the stage but in the postproduction studio. It's a fact that performers often like to hide from. Editing is not just cleaning up problems, it can also be a constructive process - raising the level of the performance to a higher level than any individual take recorded.

May I also assure you, having recorded some tracks using VSL too (Classic demos section/Hans Gal), that there's nothing to be scared of: to really make music with samples is incredibly hard and immensely time-consuming. I created those tracks precisely to encourage REAL LIVE PERFORMANCES of these works. In fact, they are already arousing interest in the music. But they will never replace those real performances.
So in the end I see it simply as a tool to be able to present an idea of how a piece will sound, so that conductors, soloists, concert programmers, etc. can perform music that they otherwise wouldn't dare to. There are conductors who can judge a lot by looking at the score, but few who really take the trouble to fairly evaluate new repertoire. That's where this technology can help. Surely.

Simon

@nafai23 said:

If this person had composed this music and used GS to make his ideas come to life I would not discredit him in the slightest...

Naff,

I don't think you're trying to discredit anyone, are you? Don't forget, this forum, whilst enjoying discussion about real music played by real musicians, is, in the the main, about the use of samples and the computers used to utilise them. These sampes are played by, and then recorded by, professionally trained musicians. I remember when I first heard Andy's 'mock up' of the Debussy, I described it (carefully) as a serious piece of 'work'.

Your point about not being able to replicate a real orchestra is well made in my view, and you correctly show great regard for the musicians who are able to perform these great works. So why is the Debussy mock-up scary for you?

As a matter of fact, Andy very kindly posted some of his original works that had been mocked up on his rig, and then recorded by a BBC orchestra. They are on another Forum and well worth downloading and listening to, in my opinion. As Andy pointed out, producers/directors want to hear good mock ups first before they commit to expensive sessions with a real orchestra.

The mock up of La Mere, is simply to show what can be achieved with the current technology in the hands of an expert. I defer to your trained ears, but I have to say, it didn't sound cold and sterile to me. I will say though, that a lot of the euphoria about the piece, was perhaps not just based on Andy's work, but Debussy's orchestration. That kind of orchestration could seem a bit mind blowing to a lot of people, who are perhaps more used to hearing general run-of-the-mill 60 second film score mock-ups.

With regard to to recording La Mere in one take per movement, well, thats unusual.

As Dave says, this is a Forum, and everyone is glad of input, especially from a classically trained Juilliard musician, so welcome. [:)]

Finally, do you use the VSL sample library yourself, and if you do, what do you use it for?

Paul Robbins

@Simon Fox said:

...I created those tracks precisely to encourage REAL LIVE PERFORMANCES of these works....But they will never replace those real performances....There are conductors who can judge a lot by looking at the score, but few who really take the trouble to fairly evaluate new repertoire. That's where this technology can help. Surely.

Simon

Absolutely, there's the rub.

Audio technology such as Sibelius/GigaStudio/VSL is a fantastic resource for neglected composers and repertoire. I am involved with two neglected composers Havergal Brian (he of the 32 symphonies more than half unperformed and only in manuscript) and Kaikhosru Sorabji (he of the opus clavicembalisticum and hundreds of other unperformed works).

Being able to present conductors with not only pristine performance scores but also decent virtual renditions is only going to make the chances of performance that much better and in some cases virtual renditions may be the only chance of hearing neglected works and I would rather here them virtually than not at all.

@Another User said:

I am involved with two neglected composers Havergal Brian

Great.I am in labour for a mockup of Tcaikowski symphony(for instance n.1 ,final)but this classical works are too abused.I think is best to spend our time to mockup neglected works.

So i am available to work on this .I like to encourage this practice(the Hans Gal symphony is a example).
Please let me know some composer you like to ear.

@DaveTubaKing said:

[...]
Being able to present conductors with not only pristine performance scores but also decent virtual renditions is only going to make the chances of performance that much better and in some cases virtual renditions may be the only chance of hearing neglected works and I would rather here them virtually than not at all.

Which was one of the explicit goals of Herb (and all of us) when the whole VSL-project launched.

/Dietz - Vienna Symphonic Library

I believe the whole set of definitions we've learned are challenged by nowadays technology.

I think that a music student with probably two years of training (about the time it takes being able to read decently a score), and who has skills on computers, and who uses to hang at NorthernSounds forums and here and has enough money to buy a computer, a sequencer and a lot of sample libraries could make a mockup of a classical symphony. This is of course NOT the case of Andy B, but this might happen.

I admit the combination of skills required is very demanding: how to use a sequencer and a sampler, knowledge about sample libraries and special tools for them, knowledge on how to translate a score into a sequencer part. Also, it's almost mandatory to have a target recording of the 'to-mockup' piece, mixing/mastering skills and good ears. Ah, also absolute determination to finish a huge work and near-to-infinite patience.

However... is that person a formal 'musician'? It might happen that the subject would be unable to express him/herself in any other way. Perhaps he/she has zero performance abilities, not being able to perform -any- musical instrument, sing, or compose in a minimum level.

I have to admit that everytime someone around calls a dj a 'musician', my spine gets suddenly frozen. Probably I should have some therapy about it [:)]

However, I realize that most concepts I've learned are obsolete. And I see no replacement yet. Ongoing learning.

-René

I am not sure what orchestras you guys were working with that did all these edits....?
I have recorded countless pieces and in a large scale piece there is not alot of editing. If there is a mistake or something is wrong we always stop and start over not leave it up to the engineers. If someone cannot play clean expressive takes 9 times out of 10...then they should not have the job...there is no need for extreme edits at that level.

As far as the thinking this does not sound cold or lifeless...well that is just it.
People cannot tell. That is the downfall of culture and education in our world today but that is too big a subject for here. That recording of the GS La Mer is dead and lifeless and no doubt a machine but like I said before very inpressive and would it fool my mom? .....sadly probably...
I meant it is scary for a joke...that i was lose my job. Just a light hearted comment.
I was a part of the whole virtual orchestra strike on Broadway too...I am not even going to go there....
hahaha....

@René said:

...I admit the combination of skills required is very demanding: how to use a sequencer and a sampler, knowledge about sample libraries and special tools for them, knowledge on how to translate a score into a sequencer part. Also, it's almost mandatory to have a target recording of the 'to-mockup' piece, mixing/mastering skills and good ears. Ah, also absolute determination to finish a huge work and near-to-infinite patience.

I believe there's a lot of misunderstanding around as to what this process actually involves. To achieve what we're talking about, it is NOT 'knowlege on how to translate a score into a sequencer part'..., but quite simply, musicianship.
The timing of every note, the shaping of every phrase, the interaction of all the parts, the rhythmic pulse, musical intensity, direction, flow... These are musical elements. The knowlege skills you mention are the equivalent to the instrumental skills needed to actually play an instrument. But we mustn't confuse practical skills with musicality. OK, so someone could be a fantastic musician and not feel able (or not want) to express their musicality via samples on a computer. Someone could know everything there is to know about sequencing and sampling, but if they're not a musician, the result will be unmusical. Equally, there are highly polished instrumentalists around who don't play musically! A musician - first and foremost, that is - with the interest and determination - can do this and achieve musical results.

Only one thing scares me: sampled mock-ups done UNMUSICALLY! These are dangerous in my opinion, because the audience is getting more and more used to hearing unmusical sounds passed off as music. THAT could undermine the true art of musical performance in my opinion.

Simon

@Another User said:

I believe there's a lot of misunderstanding around as to what this process actually involves. To achieve what we're talking about, it is NOT 'knowlege on how to translate a score into a sequencer part'..., but quite simply, musicianship.

Well, I don't really think the same way. I know a lot of music 'experts' who can only 'hear' well, as the result of hearing thousands of other's performances. Combining computer skills with a good appreciation of the music, (as you mentioned, how parts should combine, how to articulate a simple frase to transmit the correct emotion, etc) would define that person as a 'musician' in your concept. Probably you are right, but I'm still reluctant to accept it that way.

Looks more like 'a person with good musical appreciation and computer skills' than a 'musician' to me. Definitely not the average Joe, but pretty far from an interpreter, composer or conductor.

-René

@nafai23 said:

As far as the thinking this does not sound cold or lifeless...well that is just it.
People cannot tell. That is the downfall of culture and education in our world today but that is too big a subject for here. That recording of the GS La Mer is dead and lifeless and no doubt a machine but like I said before very inpressive and would it fool my mom? .....sadly probably...
I meant it is scary for a joke...that i was lose my job. Just a light hearted comment.
I was a part of the whole virtual orchestra strike on Broadway too...I am not even going to go there....
hahaha....

We were posting at the same time... And in a way I was saying almost the same thing: the scary fact that people may not be able to tell soon what is musical and what isn't.
But this is where I find it very interesting: everyone seems to hear in a slightly different way. I know many people who wouldn't hear beyond the [agreed] slightly 'cold' absence of real players in a room together. In my aural 'filter' the highest priorities are aspects like timing, distribution of accents, emphasis, phrasing, etc. etc. And this is what I was admiring: the perfection of that work, and the care that went into that. And because we all listen to music in different ways, we'll never all agree on what music-making is. You see, the 'La Mer' excerpt is only a machine in terms of following what the creator, Andy, played on his keyboard, and delivering samples in response to this. The lines were not played by a machine. The computer isn't 'playing' anything, it has merely recorded the [edited] input from someone's keyboard playing. I would rather listen to that than a BAD real performance. But of course I'd be lying if I said I always wanted to hear music made that way!!

But I agree in principle that it's a dangerous area in terms of aspects of musical performance being removed from something that many people will believe IS a real live musical performance, or won't bother to care. In fact that already started with recordings. Music is transient in nature. To 'fix' it by making a recording is already a step down this road. Some people never go to a concert!

So in the end I find myself in agreement about the dangers, but still insistent that technology in the hands of musicians can be used to create something musical.

(and BTW that edits only destroy the music if done badly; can bring a recording to life if done by a musician... And I'm not only refering to a bad orchestra/performance, but to getting MORE than 100% out of a top level recording. ie. raising the level beyond that which was offered at the sessions. And I'm not just talking about the removal of mistakes...)

Thanks - this sort of discussion is useful for collating one's thoughts!

@René said:

how parts should combine, how to articulate a simple frase to transmit the correct emotion, etc

These are all "how to's". That's knowledge. Agreed. But I was refering to actually 'doing' - actually performing the music on a piano keyboard (which after all pianists do all the time...). That's where the 'passive musician' (the term I would use for what you described) becomes an 'active musician' - an interpreter. And when fiddling around with note lengths and timing in a sequencer, something which you may say the 'passive musician' could do without being able to 'perform' anything, I would still say that's a deliberate act of interpretation - being inspired to move the fourth note of a clarinet run so it comes slightly later, for example, - not much different from a clarinettist suddenly being inspired to play the 4th note a little later. I say this having been in both 'seats' myself (except cello not clarinet), and realising that I was essentially carrying out the same process - one of making music.
Getting a bit philosophical...!

simon,
As a computer performance and technical achievement I am very impressed and the person responsible certain has listened to many orchestras and has a great ear and great skills with the software...
If you want me to listen to this as a real performance and real musicianship...
well to start...the first oboe solo (30 secs)....phrasing is terrible...monotone and life less...the entrance of the horns..there are hairpins and dynamics not being played or played incorrectly (1:05) wrong horn sound for debussy.
Bassoon solo at 1:30...does not really sound like a bassoon and also no phrasing. Wrong color for debussy...
in general the samples are not suited for debussy...not light and bright. It sounds devoid of the french impressionic style.
Shall I go on [:)]
I think the software/samples is great for the effects type glisses and the such which is why this example sounds pretty nice.

Like I said I am impressed..very impressed but lets not call his work musicianship at the highest level but certainly not slight his work. I retract the statement about "punching it out"....it is more than that...not great "musicianship" but nice ears and skills.

@nafai23 said:

If you want me to listen to this as a real performance and real musicianship...
well to start...the first oboe solo (30 secs)....phrasing is terrible...monotone and life less...the entrance of the horns..there are hairpins and dynamics not being played or played incorrectly (1:05) wrong horn sound for debussy.
Bassoon solo at 1:30...does not really sound like a bassoon and also no phrasing. Wrong color for debussy...
in general the samples are not suited for debussy...not light and bright. It sounds devoid of the french impressionic style.
Shall I go on [:)]

Nafai,

I have 10 recordings of La Mer and not one of them gets everything right. In fact they are full of incorrect tempi, misjudged balancing, suspect intonation, 'fluffed' phrasing, inappropriate dynamics and even wrong notes. I think you are creating an image of the symphony orchestra that few can live up to.

Andy.

Those recordings are choices....phrasing choices...human beings making choices and mistakes.
the bassoon and oboe sound like trash because of limitation in the samples and software.
You did not choose for that bassoon to sound like that.
As a conductor you might say...bassoon lead more from beat 3 to 1 and play with a more legiere french sound.
You got what you could out of the performance.
and you did a stunning job using the tools you had....