In all fairness, I have to say I have some of the same feelings Evan has - but I draw the line at a different point. I personally am not interested in *phrases* - meaning that I have nothing against anyone else using whatever works for them; I just don't consider octave runs, trills, grace notes, harp glisses, and repeated notes (i.e. the Repetition tool) to be in that category.

Herb,

Thanks. That's cool. I am glad you are giving people the runs they desire and all this great stuff. Keep 'em coming! I am really interested in the Fr.Oboe and the E/Hrn.

Can you say if you are just NOT going to make a 2nd Violins section? if you say "it's not completely vetoed at this point", that would make me happy!

Evan Evans

@Nick Batzdorf said:

In all fairness, I have to say I have some of the same feelings Evan has - but I draw the line at a different point. I personally am not interested in *phrases* - meaning that I have nothing against anyone else using whatever works for them; I just don't consider octave runs, trills, grace notes, harp glisses, and repeated notes (i.e. the Repetition tool) to be in that category.

Yes you do. And I feel the same way. If other's want to use them, "knock yourself out". But my line is drawn at any performance locking you into a sequence of notes greater than two.

That's my line. Drawn. Also I do NOT believe in using sampled crescendos and diminuendos. I use a breath controller with looped dynamic layers instead. Each curve is different and realistic every time and I can go UP and DOWN and back UP, and DOWN a little, etc.

And for runs I can use modes and scales other than 'stock" runs.

Evan Evans

"Also I do NOT believe in using sampled crescendos and diminuendos."

What!!??

Man, you just lost me there. Sampled dynamic changes and the legato are the two best things about the VSL.

@Another User said:

And for runs I can use modes and scales other than 'stock" runs.

Everyone does, but the "stock" runs in VSL consist of all the major and minor modes. That covers a lot of ground.

I do believe in using sampled crescs and dims if they happen to fit. The problem is that you can't control the rate even if the length happens to fit, so I almost always end up going for the 3-lay programs. But when the sampled ones work, they sound better.

Oh, and I really like those combination programs that use the mod wheel to switch between cresc and dim. Most of the time they're the best programs for sustained notes in phrases, I find; there's nothing worse than a sustained note that just sits there without moving (unless it's appropriate, like a sustained pedal).

Outstanding Herb.

So now the only question who remains is... when?

Re: runs.
Piccolo or flute runs are hardly different than timpani rolls, or cymbal rolls. You can't make a run/roll composed of individual samples sound as a real run, with mistuning, clicking and all. Or at least I can't. And I don't want to spend 1 hour to make a Cm7 simple run.

Having a 'useable snippet' of the real thing helps to enhance the lie we're creating: that the music is performed by a real orchestra.

Consequently, I want them. Herb gave me great news.

-René

The cross fade instruments are great I agree, but the cresc/dim samples are surprisingly malleable in useage regarding time values, especially with starting them earlier with a cross fade, or simply cutting them off earlier. In other words you don't have to use the exact timing unless you need the extremes. Also, I have changed tempo just to be able to use the authentic dynamics. This along with the legato is the most crucial element of realism.

@Nick Batzdorf said:

I do believe in using sampled crescs and dims if they happen to fit. The problem is that you can't control the rate even if the length happens to fit, so I almost always end up going for the 3-lay programs. But when the sampled ones work, they sound better.

I'm not into using sampled performances just because they sound better. I prefer to use the legato instruments to do trills, the dynamic layers to do dynamics, etc.

Just because it sounds better to use sampled "phrases" doesn't make it right. This has been everyone's argument all along, and yours about "better sounding crescendos" isn't any better.

Evan Evans

Evan, I don't "argue" that anything I do is better or more right than anything else, I'm just saying how I like to work.

But I don't understand why you would feel that a sampled crescendo is any different from using any other articulation. You just pick the one that best fits what you're trying to express.

And to me the difference is pretty clear: phrases are made out of notes; articulations are ways of playing the notes that make up phrases!

Wiliam, I agree that the crescendos and dims are versatile. My point is that you can't control the rate of dynamic change. So if you want a brass cresc to get into the buzzy range sooner than it does, for example, you're out of luck. But you can layer a solo 3-lay with the dynamic samples and make it work that way. That smooths out the bumps in the 3-lays (especially in the EXS version) as well.

@evanevans said:

Just because it sounds better to use sampled "phrases" doesn't make it right. This has been everyone's argument all along, and yours about "better sounding crescendos" isn't any better.

Evan Evans

Some might argue the mere fact that you deliver ANY final score from a sample library instead of contracting live musicians would not be "right".


Shawn

"Just because it sounds better to use sampled "phrases" doesn't make it right. This has been everyone's argument all along, and yours about "better sounding crescendos" isn't any better. " - Evan Evans

No, but on the crescendos/diminuendos there is one thing that does make it right - it is more expressive. Much more. I think this is the most crucial difference between sampler and live players. On almost every note of a live performance, you will hear dynamic changes. That is why I am so enthusiastic about the VSL's emphasis on them, because they give much more expressive shape and nuance to any musical line.

Nick, I agree completely with you on the layered instruments. I was just trying to point out that just because a cresc. or dim. sample is listed as three seconds, it doesn't mean that your crescendo has to be that exactly. It can be anything from maybe 1.5 to 3, depending on the intensity of the change, and that same leeway applies to all the others. Since you have 1.5, 2, 3, or 6 second ones to chose from, you've got almost everything covered, especially if you do something like fading in or out after a cresc. or dim. has started and thereby further adjust its timing.

I am very adamant about the importance of these dynamic samples. The extensiveness of them is what separates this library from all others, especially the EWQLSO.

@Nick Batzdorf said:

Evan, I don't "argue" that anything I do is better or more right than anything else, I'm just saying how I like to work.

Well that's not what I was saying anyway. I have no qualms with your choice, and indeed, I am sure that recorded crescs/dims are highly useable for you (indeed they are useable for me). I was just saying that the idea of using recorded crescendos in place of the MIDI equivalent (dynamic layers with controller input), is not any better in the argument/debate that seems to have stirred from me bringing my opinion of where to draw the line than the original piccolo run example. It is a sampled performance. Of course it's going to sound better using an actual recorded performance. But my theory/philisophy/moral/ethic stance is that if it can be done with MIDI, albeit worse, than that's all that MIDI qualifies you to do, outside of an actual performance. This is just a purist viewpoint, which mainly has to do with preserving the integrity of the art of composition and performance in a world where MIDI is available and in the future other "things" will be available. But as long as a crescendo is controlled than I am all for whatever technology uses it. I guess this comes from a disdain of digital over analog. I am for controlling the performance and not being a slave to it.

I see someone who uses "phrases" similar to a collage artist. Sure there's a place for it and some people buy it, but I think Picasso, Van Gogh, DaVinci, Michelangelo, etc. would be rolling in their graves. I adhere to a level of standards so as to keep the integrity of my predecessors using the same standards preserved. having a respect for that level of the art automatically creates "lines" to be drawn. And for those fighting to preserve such integrity, IT'S A GOOD THING. Although "collage artists" have a built in bias to argue to the otherwise. Even though Picasso, etc knew how to collage just fine, and chose NOT to do it.

[edit]That's not to imply that Picasso, nor I, do not have respect for it. I love hearing your guys music, however you make it. But hopefully you understand what I am saying, and at that point, then I'll shutup. [:)]

Evan Evans

[*-)]:
question for evans:
i am missing this, so you're saying that by using expression
you can get better dynamic expression then the sampled dynamics and that you would prefer this?.
i haven't had such success how are you accomplishing this??

Evan,
I see what you're saying and like the concept of emphasizing musical control, and not letting perfect realism become the sole criterion. However, there is no way that you can rule out the performance of a crescendo, but still justify legato for example. Exactly how a musician made that leap between two notes is as much of a performance.

I don´t think that´s really a point, Evan. The important thing for your concern is, if you think in score. I couldn´t compose thinking in midi (but, to add, also in audio...).
It´s about imagination, not realization. Imagination takes place in writing the score.
So when I first write the score, I don´t really think about what the library provides, I don´t think in crescendo samples, I think in a hairpin dynamic. And I assume most do so.
When it comes to realization, I take whatever works best. Usual musicians behaviour. When a sampled run sounds better than a self played, great.

In my opinion this comparison to these terribly oldfashioned painters ( [[;)]] ) is not working that way. For me this moralic nostalgia is a case when writing directly in the sequencer instead of writing first a score.

@evanevans said:

I see someone who uses "phrases" similar to a collage artist. Sure there's a place for it and some people buy it, but I think Picasso, Van Gogh, DaVinci, Michelangelo, etc. would be rolling in their graves. I adhere to a level of standards so as to keep the integrity of my predecessors using the same standards preserved. having a respect for that level of the art automatically creates "lines" to be drawn. And for those fighting to preserve such integrity, IT'S A GOOD THING. Although "collage artists" have a built in bias to argue to the otherwise. Even though Picasso, etc knew how to collage just fine, and chose NOT to do it.
Evan Evans

I see this analogy differently. Painters mix different colors to arrive at exactly the shade they want. This is part of the 'art' of painting. A modern-day artist probably has many more 'pre-mixed' colors at their disposal. Does taking this shortcut compromise their artistic vision if the shade on the canvas is exactly the color they envisioned? Using your analogy, they're not really an artist unless they mixed their own colors from base...even though it would have taken more time from the creative process and the end result would have been the same.

I'll bet at least some of the painters you mention would have LOVED to bypass the drudgery of mixing and mixing until the color is just right. One of my best friends is a very successful artist. He agrees on this. He says he'd rather spend more time with his brush on the canvas, so he puts as many colors on his palette as it will hold. Even if he doesn't use a pre-mixed color as-is, starting with one instead of a base color gets him where he wants to be a lot faster...which lets him get to his next idea more quickly. I can relate to his methods. And to me, that's what those runs and phrases are...pre-mixed colors - not a piece of someone else's art. I'm not lifting them from a pre-exisiting work. They were created to be exactly what they are...another color on the palette.

Sure, changing what you wanted to write to accomodate a sampled phrase is probably not the purest way to go, and I can see where there's an 'artistic integrity' argument, (though I'll never buy the 'moral' part of the argument). But if the thing that's there is exactly the thing you heard and you wrote, why would you not use it? Even at the risk of the end result sounding inferior?

Doesn't make much sense to me. My artistic integrity says make it sound like I intended, and make it sound as good as I humanly can...whatever methods are required. I agree with the earlier post on this thread...you can make an argument that by using computers and samples NONE of us have any claim to artistic integrity. Why, if we were any good at all we'd always have the finest orchestras at our disposal for every job we do!

But of course, I present this alternate viewpoint for everyone EXCEPT Evan, since he's right about everything and never changes his mind...and will no doubt go to great lengths to argue how wrong I am.

Fred Story

Well, Evan...

You have finally reached one man. In the past, I wanted to throw a brick at your narrow-minded head after reading your posts, but now I see that this is the wrong emotion to have with you. Rather, I now find much humour and delight when I'm reading a thread and come upon one of your responses. I absolutely love watching you try to split atoms with a butter knife!

Right, piccolo runs. If you want to use them, go for it. If you don't, ok. There's no artistic demotion for using pre-recorded runs in your cues, and to think otherwise is the rationale of a lesser mind [[[[;)]]]] (as if someone that plunks down $4 - 5K for VSL would not know how to write a major scale run for an instrument). Making rules as to how to create? No thanks, but it's nice to see that you can speak for some well-favoured artists. I always wondered what DaVinci would have thought about VSL's inclusion of sampled runs in their library. [[[[;)]]]]

Purist? Evans, you use computers, digital software, digital recorders, digital audio cards, and a million snippets of pre-recorded digital audio. And analog vs digital? I think you really meant to say that you prefer digital! [[[[;)]]]]

Yes, yes, William, Evan is a good composer. Yes, yes, Evan, you're Herrmann reborn. [8-)]

Best regards to all (even to you, Evans),

JMMusic

@Another User said:

I see someone who uses "phrases" similar to a collage artist. Sure there's a place for it and some people buy it, but I think Picasso, Van Gogh, DaVinci, Michelangelo, etc. would be rolling in their graves.

Picasso used pieces of things in some of his sculptures - tin cans, etc. The result couldn't have been anyone other than Picasso. You know it's him before you read the placard. And when Matisse couldn't move a brush anymore, he had his assistants cut up pieces of paper that he put together. Again, the result was obviously Matisse.

I agree with Mathis - it's the thought behind what you do that counts,since it determines the outcome! And I say that without trying to be pretentious. After all, the name of my publishing company is Derivative Music. [:D]

(Really! I was surprised it was still available.)

By the way, I've had this discussion about loops before, when someone compared using loops to Andy Warhol. I think that's a good analogy. What I said was that I like Warhol, but you get the idea pretty quickly and move on to the next thing in the museum. By comparison, one can stare at many of Picasso's paintings for a long, long time and keep seeing something different.

The part where the analogy breaks down is that there's nothing to prevent music that uses loops from being really interesting, as long as there's other stuff going on. What I don't like is when one loop is the whole thing. I'd been listening to Weather Report at the time we had that discussion, and I said that you're constantly going "ohh, ahh, ooh, wow" - and half the time what's going on is implied. Someone might come up with one bar like that (and when it's only one bar, nothing is implied), probably watered down, repeat it over and over, and that's their tune. Or maybe they'll put a pad on top or drop something out for two bars.

Anyway, I prefer to come up with my own 1-bar pattern and cut and paste if I'm trying to get that feel! It's just the way my brain works. Every time I've tried to start wtih a loop, I end up piling on stuff, and then it ends up sounding better without the loop anyway!

So much for saving time.

Sorry for getting carried away when we're talking about sampled phrases rather than loops, but I think it's the same idea.

@mike harper said:

i am missing this, so you're saying that by using expression you can get better dynamic expression then the sampled dynamics and that you would prefer this?. i haven't had such success how are you accomplishing this??

No. You are definitely missing my point. if you understood what I am fundamentally saying than you wouldn't have needed to ask this question. OF COURSE, there will always be a better way to perform your music. The ultimate "sometimes" being to record it all LIVE with orchestra.

But I am not taking the route of using prerecorded phrases. I would rather do things MY way, the way of getting MIDI to emulate orchestra as best as possible, rather than splotching together patches of orchestral recordings. People could do that even as much as 30 years ago. This does nothing to advance both the art of composition, nor the technique of technology.

So I prefer to do things the harder, more complex, more advanced, way, and if my result is not as GOOD sounding as yours, I am still happy with that.

Goodness, someone here must understand what I am harping about? (William? even if you don't agree?)

Evan Evans

@William said:

Evan,
I see what you're saying and like the concept of emphasizing musical control, and not letting perfect realism become the sole criterion. However, there is no way that you can rule out the performance of a crescendo, but still justify legato for example. Exactly how a musician made that leap between two notes is as much of a performance.

Of course I can. Absolutely. The performance tool, only allows you to play YOUR notes legato, still in the time and velocity that you wish. The crescendo samples DO NOT and certainly do not play back differently everytime. Legato perf insts allow for the continued use of base fundamental music theory and compositon. Recorded Cresc/dim don't even come close.

Also, statistically what do you think the odds are that in YOUR piece of music that crescendo that it calls for is EXACTLY the one found on disk? Likely you will be in a different tempo, need an arc that is different than the one given, and you may even wish to come down/up again during it (please don't remind me about volume futzing it, I'd been using that method for years). With the dynamic layers you can write the lung/breath strength curves that you need. WHICH is how the actual playing of the instruments works.

Evan Evans