Hi Gang,

I just heard the Debussy piece, and my congratulations to Andy B.

My comment on the ensuing discussion is this:

The computer and samples are an instrument, like any other. I disagree with the notion that Andy did not display outstanding musicianship. He did indeed, and fine taste as well. His interpretation is delightful.

I have, by the way, also done my share of live playing.

When we come to this "putting musicians out of work" argument, I tune out. More musicians are working now than at any time I have ever seen, and it is a privelege to be working at a time when many people in many professions are not.

At any rate, I felt the need to jump in.

A gifted musician can bang two rocks together and create something of beauty. Whether a person is scratching a bow across an assembly of wood and wire, or stringing together one-note recordings, the proof of the musicianship is in the listening.

This is some fine musicianship--on a difficult instrument. Congratulations.

Ditto, Bruce. Well said.

Fred Story

I agree very much with Bruce about how the sampler - with a specific library - is a musical instrument in itself, of great complexity and difficulty. And this performance of Debussy is a wonderful demonstration of mastery of this new instrument.

@Bruce Richardson said:

When we come to this "putting musicians out of work" argument, I tune out. More musicians are working now than at any time I have ever seen, and it is a privelege to be working at a time when many people in many professions are not.

How come that?

@Bruce Richardson said:

When we come to this "putting musicians out of work" argument, I tune out. More musicians are working now than at any time I have ever seen, and it is a privelege to be working at a time when many people in many professions are not.

How come that?

Why do I tune out, or why do I think it's a privelege to be working?

Well, I tune out because it's tired. In the 1970s people complained that musicians were being put out of work because no one was hiring big-bands in the studios to do commercials any more. Then it was "synthesizers" putting players out of work. Now it's samplers (actually that bitch has been around for years...it's just getting revived online).

I just don't believe it, and I think it's kind of an annoying, whiny position to take. When a person enters the music business, it's business. Music business, to be sure, but still "music" is secondary to "business," when it comes to being in the "music business."

You do what it takes to be a successful businessperson, or you don't stay in business. So that means being flexible and open minded, and learning to enjoy whatever it is you have to do to make a buck. And the great thing about being in the music business, is that you can still make a lot of satisfying art, and nourish your soul and touch others while making your money.

I'm a trumpet player--that is what I do better than anything. But I mostly play the "computer" now. I could get uptight about it, but why? That's the gratitude part, I guess. I feel extremely fortunate to wake up every day, make coffee, and walk to my studio to make my living. For me, that is enough, and I consider myself lucky beyond imagination to be able to do it.

So, I guess that's why I tune out when I hear about musicians being put out of work. If you're just making art for art's sake, and you believe the only way to do it is scraping a bow across a string, or buzzing your lips into a monstrosity of plumbing--well, I guess that's one way to feel. But it seems to me that it ignores the larger picture. Media is everywhere. It all needs music. Everyone must adapt to his environment, whether it's a cockroach or a musician. To me, adapting to the current music business environment has always been painless enough, and a pleasure compared to many worse fates.

Bruce,

This is a post I wish I'd written...only I think you said it better than I could have.

If I'm ever in Dallas, I'd like to take you out for a beer. We think alike.

Fred Story

Bruce, I agree with you. And as a composer, I find it much more satisfying and enjoyable being able to work this way. Staying up all night to copy parts after you were exhausted from writing so you could hear a bunch of students make a mess of it was never all that much fun (well, it was fun, but it had serious drawbacks). There are ten billion reasons why samples and synths are a great thing, and I agree with all of them (because I love the medium). The most important one is that a lot of music that would never get heard otherwise is being created.

However, the argument to what you're saying is that close as you can come, there's nothing like a real orchestra. It would be sad if bow-scraping and razzing into plumbing, etc. became a lost art. There aren't enough orchestras to support all the great players around now...and in fact the audition process favors young people just out of school who have been doing nothing but practicing the audition literature all day long; older musicians who play with more depth because of all their experience are at a disadantage.

So how are those cockroaches going to adapt?

I'm not saying you and I should look back, just saying that I can't dismiss the discussion as easily as you can!

I have never heard this put more clearly than what Bruce said here. There always WAS a whiny tone to that complaint. I never thought consciously about that, but felt it.

Like the arrogant jerk who came on here to trash the Debussy recording, then left because he realized the people here weren't a bunch of pushovers. They are actually working musicians! What a shock.

After all what is a violin? I hate to inform the whiners, but it is technology. Very old, and very perfected technology.

I agree with Nicks balanced assessment.

Remember, a lot of players were put out out work by the sampler phenomenon NY (Broadway etc.) and LA (session.) The motivation here was greed. Prior to samplers/home studios, a low budget feature would have a budget of over $100,000 typically (composer and small orchestra.) When the Producers/Directors realized they could hire one guy with some gear, they were thrilled to pay half or less than before. Then they figured out that they could always get someone cheaper and the standard price for a small feature became $10,000. Then they figured thay could get someone who would do it for royalties only and the fee went to 0.00. This is exactly how things went.
It also opened the door for guys with equipment and zero training to score films while other guys who paid their dues learning the craft were pushed aside.

So it's not all good folks. Sure there may be benefits and new markets and mediums but if the quality of music and music making suffers it won't go unnoticed by players or public.

Dave Connor

I agree Dave, as all the show orchestra players in my town Reno Nevada were put out of work. I was one of them. Played french horn at a casino. There used to be an orchestra at all the casinos, with strings, brass, horns, woodwinds, etc. Now there isn't one.

However, the symphony orchestra here is much better than it used to be. There are no symphonies anywhere that have been put out of business by samplers. Not one. If they have gone out of business it is because of the same problems of funding they've always had.

It is ridiculous and a complete waste of time to complain about samplers because it is like saying the car should never have been invented because it is noiser than the horse. This is purely and simply a financial thing, NOT the art of music at all. The art has not been harmed in the slightest - it has been immensely helped by samplers which are the greatest thing in the history of music ever created for the individual composer.

@William said:

There used to be an orchestra at all the casinos, with strings, brass, horns, woodwinds, etc. Now there isn't one.

In the spirit of the casino, how shall I say? - Bingo.

This is unfortunate to say the least. Particularly for the younger generations who are being deprived of a centuries old tradition: live music ensembles.

We all know the benefits of samplers since everyone here uses them and can't add another fast enough. It should have been an addition to the musical vocabulary not a replacement for the sake of someone's pocketbook getting a little fatter and someone else's a little thinner.

DC

Same here. I totally agree with the advantages of sampling.
And I´m surely no whining personality. I´m a composer and producer which loves working with computers and technologies but also is able to do decent music by hand. I´m actually kind of prototype for this "new" kind of musical personality.
But, however, I love working with *real* virtuosos on an instrument. And you simply don´t become a real virtuoso if you don´t devote your life to your instrument and play on every opportunity you can get. And it´s the todays lack of these opportunities which hinder you living of playing and therefore hinder you devoting your life to your instrument.
(Weird english...)

Ah, forget it.... I´m too tired.

As a recovering trombonist, I've played in orchestras, I've played in Big Bands, I've played in marching bands, I've played in rock bands. (Dug the Chicago/Blood Sweat & Tears era - at the risk of dating myself.) These experiences help me every day as a composer. And I think that those who have ONLY used synths and samplers are at something of a disadvantage.

Since I put down the horn, nothing thrills me more than bringing in great players - who ALWAYS elevate my ideas beyond what I could accomplish with samplers. But, economic realities don't always allow. And in many cases, it's not a case of the sampler putting a musician out of a gig. It's a matter of the client being able to afford original music or not. The gig wouldn't be there for the musician in either case.

Fred Story

Well, I don't know, guys. There was a time when you'd graduate from school as a decent player, and if you had any chops and smarts, you could go find a gigging situation where you made quite a bit of cash for basically doing what you did in school, plus money minus homework.

But in any business field, "cush" jobs tend to evaporate as the budgetary axe begins to chop away at fluffy expenses. No one else has it any easier than we do. If you want the cush-factor in your job, you always have to be somewhere on the leading edge, able to provide a lot more for a lot less...and when the market catches up to what you're doing you have to know "when to fold 'em" as they say, and go on to the next thing.

I agree completely with that, Bruce.

I also think that the live shows where bands or orchestras were put out of work have simply shifted to another instrument - the sampler. A computer didn't create that music - a musician did.

And anyway the main use of samplers is not in shows, but in recordings. Because of this the question is NOT replacing a violin with a sampled violin. It is replacing a RECORDED violin with a sampled violin. I do not see a great dehumanizing tragedy there. It is simply a more abstract level of recording done one note at a time.

William, I have a hard time believing you're 100% sincere. We all know that it takes years of study, starting from early childhood, to get good enough at an instrument to play in a professional orchestra. You don't just toss that away like smelly garbage because you see the market changing.

I'm 28.5% sincere.

I toss many things away as smelly garbage.

Most comments I make are about 18.6% sincere. Sometimes a little more though.


Dave Connor

I'm never sincere, but when I accidently find myself being sincere, it makes me want to hurl. [:O]ops:

I'm sincere 89.2% of the time. The problem is that I'm 100% insincere when I'm not being sincere, and you only have a 50% chance of being right when you think you know when that is.

What's more, this post is 100% smelly garbage. And I say that sincerely.