@newbiebigtime said:

. You aren't trying to sound like a sampler....you're trying to sound like a real orchestra. Everyone wouldn't be going out of their way to make the most "realistic" sounding recordings with VSL possible if they weren't really after the sound of a real life orchestra.

Most of the demos I hear that are going into uncharted areas...do so because of lack of musical knowledge. Not to rip on anyone, but Jonathan Vandergrifts demos often have unrealistic expectations of the instruments. Trombonists with lighting fast slide and legato-tonguing technique. Balances of instruments that are unreal...etc. VSL can produce it, but a real ensemble couldn't. Now maybe for Jonathan, VSL is his live performing group. But, those of you writing logically within the realms of the orchestra; cross-fading for realistic dynamics, and alternating articulations....you want a real orchestra and can't have it as much as you want. So be honest and admit it!!!

Well, I think you make some interesting points Newbie. Perhaps a little naively, I would ask - why the heck do people actually WANT their computers and sample libraries to sound like a REAL orchestra? Why? What is the point of that - I keep wondering. And I keep going back to that great New Yorker Bernard Herrmann (please humour me). Herrmann obviously had real orchestras and orchestral combinations - but they didn't sound 'real' most of the time, in the purist sense because of the way he mic'd up individual instruments that couldn't possibly be heard under the normal course of events i.e a live rendition. It was all done in the mixing room.
So maybe those that want to sound like a real orchestra need to be honest and admit it, as you say - they can't have as much as they want - at these stages of current technology. As I say, all of that doesn't bother me personally. If people want it to sound real -get a real orchestra in - and even then, disappointment may ensue because of expectation levels (thats a whole thread in itself). [:D]

Regarding Jonathan's demo's I have to say I always enjoyed listening to them as I'm sure you did. I tend not to listen for unrealistic nuances, but the pieces as a whole performance. Unless its rank bad balancing or whatever, all this kind of thing never worries me. After all, we're supposed to be musicians and we don't really write for other musicians as a listening audience - worst audience on the planet in general. A lay audience -maybe regarding a film score or whatever you wish - don't understand or even care about the vagaries of what's realistic. They don't know what actually is realistic in the first place. That's not patronising btw - that's lucky.

PR

OK...enough with the electronic composition talk....if you really knew anything about the electronic composers you mention in these posts you would stop comparing VSL users to them

Now to my next point.
A little off topic of what we were all debating here (and thanks Newbie for actaully reading what I typed, not just reading what you wanted to see like everyone else).

The fact that we cater so much to the lay-audience who doesn't understand nuance is part of the reason music is getting worse in general. Great composers used to write for films. As a result people were exposed to great composition. Now that isn't the case. There is only a handful of film composers that are frequently used today that I would consider great or even good composers. It seems like music for films doesn't have to be good anymore, just get the job done and cater to a culturally deficient segment of the world population.....sad.

"They don't know what actually is realistic in the first place."

UNFORTUNATE....not LUCKY
I think the reason people don't know what good writing is....I.E. most people....is because they are exposed to films with hacks as "composers" who know very little about composition. They listened to music and wrote some...I guess they are qualified to be composers. I'm glad that we don't qualify doctors that way. He grew up watching ER, and I hear he played doctor a few times.....I guess you are qualified. Now take out my appendix.

However, it isn't just film...which I've found most of the people on these forums discussing. Music for wind ensemble is suffering the same problems as film music....because it is trying to cater to a specific type of person. One who knows very little. Why don't us composers try to change that trend and educate listeners, and help them come to love and appreciate good music. The problem is too many untrained hacks are getting sequencers and things like VSL and trying to use them. They think it sounds ok, but it is crap. Just because you hear music in your head does not make you a composer. Composers have many more responsibilities, responsibilities that it is clear to me now many people on this forum don't understand....either because you choose not to truly study your craft, or because you are unable too. I have more respect for the latter. If you can't you can't....if you won't, your ignorant.

I understand what you are going for here Paul...but naively?

About what?

The fact that most of us here were willing to spend thousands of dollars for recordings of every single dynamic level, articulation, and note length of every single instrument in an acoustic performing orchestra.

Why would we want to sound like an orchestra? I mean hell we only want every single nuance they can produce, but I don't really ever want my music played by the real thing. No way....why would I want my music to be played by a real version of the Frankenstein orchestra I create with a string of computers and dismembered fragments of biological timbres translated into binary code????


I love the purpose of my Frankenstein, but the moment I'd rather play with my imaginary friends, or have dinner with my blow-up doll instead of working with living, breathing creative beings is the day I move up to a wooden shed in hills of Montana and start writing Manifestos...or is it Manifesti? Who is to say?

newbiebigtime,

Glad to humor you. Unfortunately, you have missed my point. I gave two examples of how composer managed to contradict himself. I refrained from including more because I do not wish to embarrass or belittle anyone. So I will attempt to be brief.

The nature of live performance has changed in this last century. Electronic musicians as well as artistic visionaries like John Cage redefined what music IS as well as what it means to perform music.

So when composer said live performance, that could mean many things. Naturally, I take issue with someone who insists that only humans playing acoustic instruments can produce music that has that "something intangible." (composer's words)

He also says that to "take away the real performance element of a piece of music really detracts from what makes music special." That could be true but he ignores the fact that most good VSL composers perform live each line into their compositions to emote the precise amount of music they need.

Arguing one's opinions on these points is fine but don't ignore the fact that you have to understand the nature of what you are saying. For instance, "I think he refers to electronic music that was designed specifically for electronic instruments and the timbres they produce" could mean that a computer with VSL is indeed an electronic instrument, the timbres being the samples.

See what I mean? Especially concerning the fact that %99 of "electronic" composers today use a computer with Max/MSP and samples in Kyma anyway.

I'm glad we agree that VSL is used for acoustic ensemble emulation. That is what I figured the issue was from above. VSL is designed for orchestral mimicry. Most people who buy the library need it to do this for their work. However, to write something that is "outside of the box" or uncharted with VSL does not limit you to writing Jonathan Vandergrift style music. Rather, it is closer to what Paul describes in his reference to Herrman. Taking the VSL timbres and coming up with unusual non-acoustic applications. Not a super-human impossible technique application. You're still thinking of VSL as nothing but a tool for mimicry. That might be its most obvious application, but it doesn't have to be. Use the other end of the hammer.

Clark

P.S.

composer,

Wow. I called it. You ARE turning this into an argument about what constitutes "good" art.

@composer said:

The fact that we cater so much to the lay-audience who doesn't understand nuance is part of the reason music is getting worse in general. Great composers used to write for films. As a result people were exposed to great composition. Now that isn't the case. There is only a handful of film composers that are frequently used today that I would consider great or even good composers. It seems like music for films doesn't have to be good anymore, just get the job done and cater to a culturally deficient segment of the world population.....sad.

UNFORTUNATE....not LUCKY
I think the reason people don't know what good writing is....I.E. most people....is because they are exposed to films with hacks as "composers" who know very little about composition. They listened to music and wrote some...I guess they are qualified to be composers. I'm glad that we don't qualify doctors that way. He grew up watching ER, and I hear he played doctor a few times.....I guess you are qualified. Now take out my appendix.

I have more respect for the latter. If you can't you can't....if you won't, your ignorant.

Well OK Composer! Way to go! Don't embroider it mate, give to us straight! [:D]

Of course, one understands what you are saying and I for one am slightly uncomfortable in saying that I agree with some of what you're trying to say. Although I prefer to stay on the humourous side of eletism. lol.

Just to play Devil's Advocate for a second regarding film/tv composing, I think its fair to say that there's some pretty good writers out there today. The sheer amount of music one hears when just watching say, TV for an evening is actually huge. It's fair to say I think, that from a musicians' perspective it's easier to pick out little gems every now and again as opposed to the non - musician. Then of course, musicians that write for images are usually unable to write their symphony because of time, money, director's wishes and temp tracks.

However, there's one thing I can't respectfully agree with you on. For God Sake - whatever you do - if it's the last thing - DON'T try and educate a listening public. They won't thank you for it and whether we like it or not, music, or musical appreciation has NO logic. It's almost a case of genetics when it comes to what the public like. Forget it and save your sanity. The public by sheer definition are fickle. Ask Mozart.

So I will stick to LUCKY and perhaps that makes me ignorant and a hack. If that's the case then I will have to live it and that's the way it goes.

Anyway, I'll take your appendix out for a fee - cheap -no rubbish.

PR

@newbiebigtime said:

I understand what you are going for here Paul...but naively?

About what?

The fact that most of us here were willing to spend thousands of dollars for recordings of every single dynamic level, articulation, and note length of every single instrument in an acoustic performing orchestra.

I love the purpose of my Frankenstein, but the moment I'd rather play with my imaginary friends, or have dinner with my blow-up doll instead of working with living, breathing creative beings is the day I move up to a wooden shed in hills of Montana and start writing Manifestos...or is it Manifesti? Who is to say?

Well, perhaps I'm the only one who's not that worried about this so-called real sounding orchestra thing Newbie. That kinda makes me feel like I'm missing the plot at times. I actually had a conversation with a friend of mine in America yesterday on this very thing about the amazing amount of data and articulations within the VSL library - I only have First Edition and even that is massive to me. Can't imagine managing another 90 gigs or so of Pro Ed.

I like the idea of using a lot less in the way of articulations, only using them when absolutely necessary and of course I'm setting myself up here saying that. lol. To me, it's more about sound quality, rather than a thousand articulations that I probably won't use - because this reality thing has no interest for me. I understand if that's not the case for the majority of course.

Endless looking for articulations etc just gets in the way of writing - even something that maybe bad. I will learn more about them in time hopefully, but it's not top of the agenda.

Montana? That must be an American thing. Whooosh! Straight over my head. lol

PR

Montana is a vast countryside. Basically he's saying, he'd turn into Jack Nicholson in THE SHINING.

[;)]

Evan Evans

quote paulR
"So I will stick to LUCKY and perhaps that makes me ignorant and a hack. If that's the case then I will have to live it and that's the way it goes."

PualR....I'm not calling you a hack. I don't even know you. If you want me to call you a hack I will. [[;)]] Just kidding, I can tell that you have a sense of humor about this.

I understand your point about educating the public. I know that is a near impossible task. However, I refuse to compromise my musical integrity. I will continue trying to right good music....hopefully people will like it, and they will grow a little as listeners for listening to it. I don't think that is a bad goal to have. If I don't stick to that I feel like I've given up and folded under pressure.

@composer said:

PualR....I'm not calling you a hack. I don't even know you. If you want me to call you a hack I will. [[;)]] Just kidding, I can tell that you have a sense of humor about this.

Call me ..... Ishmael.

You can call me a hack. It don't bother me none. Sorry, I'm watching Mississippi Burning and it's had a strange effect. I've written loads of hack material actually and one is bound to. There's no getting away from it. One just can't continue to write good material all the time. It's impossible and music is a compromise, as doctor's and dentists have off days - so do musicians. So I don't torture myself about holding onto integrity at every moment of the day.

So what part of America are you from and what are your favourite filmscore writers of today?

PR

PaulR,
I totally agree. I know that every composer is going to write things that are not so good. I've done it. That isn't really what I'm saying. A piece of music failing is ok, you learn from it. However, the piece should still be written with the intent of being great. The piece stinking doesn't mean you are a hack....it just means that it was a bad piece. Learn from it and move on. Sounds like you do that, and you have the right idea.

As for where I'm from....the Midwest. As for my favorite film composers....lets not discuss that here. I don't want to start another argument.

Clark,
I'm ending this now. I do not want to continue your ego battle. I have better things to do (like writing music). So, you are right....everything you said is right. I hope you feel vindicated. It is clear that you cannot except opinoins if they differ from yours.

PS.....you are correct....maybe I am arguing about good "art" a little bit. So what? That is all opinoin anyway....so I'll agree to disagree with you, and I'm more than comfortable with that.

......so can anyone help me find a sample of a PVC pipe percussion instrument........


[[;)]]

composer,

Please don't be mad.

I am sorry that you feel that I am attacking you. My intentions were only to clarify what I believed to be contradictions in your argument. To be clear, I prefer music to be "performed live." I am a piano player by trade, accompanying ballet, modern dance and tap classes during the day. Nights I play jazz, rock, and country gigs (I live in Dallas Tx so don't hold it against me; there's alot of money here in country music).

Between all that nonsense I write for industrials, commercials and film.

I am surrounded by live music and I love it. Wouldn't have it any other way. Trying to sequence parts in the studio vs. getting a great player to knock out the part in one take well there is no comparison. So you see I'm not really disagreeing with you. I actually do agree with you on many levels.

I must confess that I originally joined this discussion because of your exchange with William. I felt that you misrepresented your own opinions (as well as some of my own) by being less than clear with your language. Plus, oversimplifying issues rarely if ever serves to clarify one's point of view.

I'm sorry. There I go again.

Thank you for being a good sport.

Clark

That is quite alright.....a little arguing is good. Helps keep you on your toes.

"OK...enough with the electronic composition talk....if you really knew anything about the electronic composers you mention in these posts you would stop comparing VSL users to them" - composer

"composer" -

If you don't want to offend people, stop writing stuff like this. I do know something about these early electronic composers, and don't appreciate your arrogant and obnoxious implication I don't. Also, I thought it was obvious that what they were doing is different from current digital sampling. My point was simply about creating music purely for RECORDING.

Also, what you say about sampling being "mimicry" of an orchestra - sorry, but that is not how I see it. It is the use of pure, isolated orchestral sound as a musical concept. A profoundly different thing from mere "mimicry."

Finally, the idea you stated that no one here can even think about writing something as good as Bach - every composer aspires to being the best he can be, and should never place limits upon himself or others. Based upon the attitude you display, that may be just about all I have to say to you.

Music is shit.

P.S. I'll be erasing the post above, but it's here for everyone's amusement for 24 hours! LOL [;)]

William,

I apologize for offending you. Just as I think people did not completely understand my point....perhaps I misunderstood yours. So, if I did, I am sorry. I don't doubt that you know about the many prominent figures in electronic music. I think you felt that one of my reactions was addressed specifically to you concerning them, but I don't believe the one in question was. I will try to carefully address my comments in the future. Additionally, my response to your earlier comments was overtly harsh, and not appropriate. I grew frustrated with the way my earlier posts were taken. I felt they misunderstood, but I did the same to you. I feel that sometimes the impersonal nature of a forum contributes to this.

Sorry about the Bach comment....I didn't think it was that offensive. In hundreds of years there has not been many composers of Bach's status. I hope someone on VSL achieves that status. So...bad comparison I guess.

Again...my apologies

@evanevans said:

P.S. I'll be erasing the post above, but it's here for everyone's amusement for 24 hours! LOL [;)]

Thanks Evans! [:)]

Well, I missed this whole thing! Bummer.

I'd say I'm with William on the whole sample thing... at least, in general. I think it's true that the vast majority of VSL use is intended to emulate the "live" orchestra. However, I also think there's a whole world of interesting work to be done in the area of using these samples as individual sounds, with their own inherent musical qualitites. This is potentially a very interesting line of investigation. I'm trying to do a little of it, and am hoping to explore it in depth in future. The difficulty is that I think that it demands quite a different way of thinking about musical form, because once you've abstracted these samples into pure sounds, then suddenly any notion of arranging them based on the parameters of instrumental performance is essentially arbitrary. Not good, not bad. But simply one method of organization among an infinitude.

If one makes this step (which is extremely difficult to make) then I would argue that s/he is indeed in the territory of the early electronic music composers. I say this because to make this step would require a complete dismantling of one's understanding of what these sounds signify, and how they relate to one another... which may, in fact, be impossible to do.

It's even arguable that this is a *more* difficult step to make than the pioneers of electronic music made, because it implies a process of tearing each sound away from a 300 year history of associations. Seriously. To find a new context for a new sound is not such a big feat. But to find a new context for a sound with as much "baggage" as a flute, or violin... now *that's* tough.

Anyway, that's just my two cents.

Here's something I've done that mucks around with VSL a little. Not at all what I'm talking about, but at least it's clear that this is not intended for "live" instrumental performance:

http://rubato-music.com/Media/WFT_orch_morph.mp3

(just an excerpt from a contemporary dance piece I'm working on)

jbm,

Well said. When I previously mentioned the abstraction of conventional samples by "taking the VSL timbres and coming up with unusual non-acoustic applications" I was inferring but not entirely thinking as comprehensively about what you so ably describe.

And your music sounds great. Very modern dance. I mean that in the best way possible. I am around a lot of dance on a daily basis so hearing your music I can almost visualize the choreography. I'm sure others will find it very programmatic in that fashion as well.

I myself recently completed music for my first ballet (and am recomposing it now for the DVD using VSL) and I must say it was very artistically rewarding to experience it complete with costumes and lighting (and a huge sound system). Please post more stuff when you can, too. I will offer up some of my own as soon as I get it done, I would like your reaction.

composer,

I'm glad you said something there to William. When I mentioned that I entered the discussion after your exchange with him I didn't include that I was concerned about some of those rather impassioned remarks. Bravo, man. Believe me when I say I've flamed up shit a lot worse...

Clark