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

@Another User said:

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

It was really nothing. I am composing in the background and have a poker game going on my PC. And watching my son on a beautiful Sunday in Carmel California. Anytime is fine for me! I live for myself, and my philosophies are part of me, and deserve my own attention.

[:)]

Evan Evans

@Nick Batzdorf said:

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

yes I agree. As long as what it is doesn't inhibit the writing. But it's about 1 in one Million that the pre-recorded cresc/dim are appropriate for a particular piece of music. With crossfaded velocity layers, and dynamic layers you stand a much better chance getting what you want from your MIDI gear, and they do not inhibit the writing at all.

Evan Evans

Evan,

You completely missed my point. I am not talking about beginning and ending notes. I am talking about the actual legato performance, which is CONTAINED IN THE CONNECTION BETWEEN NOTES. That is a performance indistinguishable aesthetically from a run. The only difference is it is very fast and almost imperceptible. But it is the exact same principle, and you are contradicting yourself by allowing one but not the other.

For the person who doesn't like the fact I pointed out Evans music was good -

that's my opinion. You can have your own, but don't act as if that is ridiculous. I don't appreciate that attitude one damn bit.

This whole thread has become truly like arguing how many angels can fit on the head of a pin. All I was tryng to do was state how valuable the dynamic change samples are and also that I haven't been able to use complex performance elements like runs, but I don't think this is a hard and fast thing at all. What Fred said is perfect and sums it up completely. I've often noticed how all the great artists in history have been first of all practical workmen, and only after that "artists."

Legato (as in the Performance Set) is a 'recorded performance'.
Portamento (same) is a 'recorded performance'.
Timpani rolls and cymbal rolls are, well, recorded performances.

Hmf. A simple sFz note is a 'recorded performance' as well.

I'd say that anyone 'morally capable' of using samples is also capable of using runs.

-René

Yes!

Everything is a performance! It's all artifice. Everything is fakery. Nothing is real. There is no true universe. There is only illusion, and a short-lived illusion at that. And then only darkness... and silence...

And no performance elements whatsoever.





(My apologies for the outburst. Perhaps there IS an afterlife and you don't even need samples there. Though I would still like to take HO-4_02leg_mp with me.)

This is typical forum´s thread of our time. So I don´t want to be oldfashioned and will continue... [:D]

1) Evan, technically: your approach is of course working very well on strings, since there the layers can be blended nicely. But how do you do with woodwinds and brass?

2) Perfomance tool: Actually I have bigger problems getting out of it exactly what I want than with the crescendo samples. The perfomance tool seems to be kind of a random generator which might be appropriate for Cage, but not for the philosophy strictly representet here by you. (I still use performance instruments...)

3) Repeating crescendo samples is of course a problem, when you recognize the same sample again. I might suggest for the interested to tweak every crescendo sample in the mix with different volume curves. It´s a bit of a hassle, but serves the needs. Cut it, shorten it, lengthen it, splice it etc. (I actually do a lot of perfomance related things in my audio editor). The advantage over a looped sample is that you still have the modulation in tone.

4) William, Evan won´t read things which don´t fit into his system. I mean, mabe he reads them, but he will introduce constantly new arguments to divert from legitimate and therefore just only distracting objections. I think he would make up a very good politician. [:D] Yes, Evan for president! [:D]
(It can´t get worse, can it? [8-)] )

5) And, Evan, believe me, everybody is understanding your approach here. But also everybody is asking: Why on earth is he making his life even more difficult? Ok, shit, I shouldn´t have asked this. folks, prepare for another page of answers...

6) Still I like Evan. [:D]

Bests,
- Mathis

Mathis,

You are strangely wise for someone on the internet. Seriously.

You must have learned it from that hobo.

(they know a lot, you know. Even though they live mainly in boxcars. I now have incorporated hobos into my orchestra. They are doing an excellent job, by the way. Though they tend to play only Hautbois. Hobos on Hautbois. Though these particular ones I have contracted (on whiskey rations) have a moral and ethical committment to music that is second to none. Everything they do is in support of the composer's personal artistic expression, as opposed to sampling merely for the sake of realism. They use no performances. They do them. Though sometimes they get a little carried away, what with all that whiskey.)

Hi, first time poster - long term troll.

Fascinating reading this all makes. As a full - time composer I rarely have the opportunity to meet too many others in my field (other than the occasional award night etc) and so I find these raves highly interesting.

I make a pretty good living composing highly commercial music and soundtrack for...well, anything really (my business cards should really read 'musical prostitute).
I rarely turn work down and usually will find something worthwhile and challenging in just about any musical situation.

Subsequently I have no implicit feelings about samples one way or the other. To me its the result that ultimately matters regardless of the methodology employed. I have recorded using full orchestras (and then doubled large sections using samples purely for the extra 'body'.

Sometimes a sample run is employed because, in that particular instance, it just worked better as an 'effect'.
I realise that this attitude places me somewhat near the bottom of the composers elitist food chain but at the end of the day I live in a great house, drive a wonderful classic roadster and do what I enjoy for a living...and (and perhaps in Evans' world this is delusory) I actually believe that what I do is musically worthwhile regardless of whatever technique I employ to get there.

Loving the vsl and enjoying the debate!

Dave C