Now, i thoroughly think this matter needs some differentiation unless we head for broad strokes the likes of 'samples suck', in which case the discussion is truly pointless.
I do subscribe to the point that it's not the nicest way of going 'Hm, i have no idea what to play next, let's have a look at the Loops & Licks department, this will certainly help me out... yeah, this sounds nice, i wonder what's it made of..ah, never mind, there it goes. Next !'
I don't think this scenario is really a point of debate here.
But then there's the other case where you have, say, an octave gliss in your mental or tangible score, and you want to deliver this as convincingly as you can. Now, the obvious way is to hire the proper players in the proper room and record it properly. But there's the production budget that doesn't allow for this. So you say 'Nope, then you're not getting an octave gliss from me.' ? Or do you go ahead and try to build it from the raw samples, as you propose ? Perfectly knowing that that distinct quality of a performed gliss with all its quirks is just not in there ? No, wait, by using samples at all you *do* actually SO LITTLE, so pulling it off on a home entertainer GM keyboard will certainly bump up the artistic value of achievement. Right ?
>I could "write" many composers under the table
While this is undoubtedly true, i utterly fail to see the connection of this statement to this thread. There's not much art in literally 'writing' an octave gliss, or is it ? Figuring out if, how and where it goes is the work and you can't delegate that to the sampler.We're not talking about composing, we're talking about bringing the composition to sound. Please enlighten me.
Christian
[URL=
http://uk.geocities.com/christianobermaier/Gearlist.htm]gear list [/URL] [URL=http://uk.geocities.com/christianobermaier/Studio.htm]studio pics [/URL] [URL=http://www.artofthegroove.com/logic/mp3/Christian_Obermaier_demo.mp3]show reel[/URL]