to the "jerermyroberts" personage- I am certainly not contemptuous of musicians.  That is absurd.  I am currently organizing a chamber ensemble for some original compositions. Some pieces that were also played by VSL samples.  You, in your dead-set hatred of everything I say and attempts at finding the negatives missed the point I was making about composers needing to be given more credence, especially in an age in which performers are lionized to ludicrous extent, such as the string quartet made up of fashion models who do a glamour photo-shoot for each CD they release.  I am also tired of overrated, posing, foppish conductors whose faces are always plastered over recordings instead of composers.  The composer is the true creator of music, and it is his imagination that performers  try - and I repeat TRY -to recreate.  

Also, in addition to the incredible arrogance and obnoxiousness this "aerovons" person has shown - being totally hypocritical in calling ME abusive - he also makes the mistake of thinking that he is the only one here with experience.  I also started BEFORE samples even had been thought of.  I come from a totally non-digital, non-sample, classically trained background.  I wrote all music by hand, including all orchestral and symphonic band parts, xeroxing them for the players.  Then I used an Roland S-50 with a few megs of samples and a dx7, then an Emulator IV with Miroslav Vitous, little sound modules, Proteus, Proteus II, then finally went to VSL first edition and on from there. 

This person also equates all sample libraries.  They are NOT equal.  A quantum leap (no pun intended - a true quantum leap) was made when VSL began sampling, and all other companies are struggling to compete with it.   There are some other good string and choir libraries now, but no full orchestral library.  But this equation he makes reveals completely what he really thinks:  samples are nothing but a generic replacement for the "real deal."

I hate to break this news to you, but samples ARE real.  They are not synthetic.  The early use of analog synthesizers was both a pathetic attempt at falsely reproducing orchestral sound and an abuse of the true character of the analog synth which has since been reborn for its own unique qualities now that samples have supplied the REAL DEAL to composers. 

of course this person is so implacably stubborn and entrenched in his narrowmindedness he will absolutely overlook anything I say, but I don't give a damn and am simply stating my opinion.   I do wonder - WHY IS HE POSTING THIS ANTI-SAMPLE STUFF HERE?  Why doesn't he put it on a website for something OTHER than a sample library?  Like Stop_Samples_Now.com  or whatever.  In fact, he ought to form that website.  With the other person who thinks that music is ONLY  performers collaborating with a composer who is their humble servant.  Beethoven would have a few choice words for you if you tried to tell him that.  I am in fact a disciple of Beethoven and Wagner in insisting upon the composer being the center of musical creation, and I am truly DISGUSTED at the overvaluation of prancing, preening, cutesy, sexy, phony performers and conductors that exists now in the shallow pop-driven culture. 

My philosophy - and I don't care in the slightest whether jeremyroberts and aerovons like it and in fact I HOPE they hate it -  is based on the realization that with the development of technology two new artforms have been created that are of immense significance for the composer and the filmmaker.  In the latter case it is the advent of digital HD, which gives a near-film level of quality but with extreme economy and controllability far beyond the old-fashioned studio/lab approach, thereby opening up huge possibilites for the truly independent and even INDIVIDUAL filmmaker or film-poet.  The kind of filmmaking that Cocteau wanted - pure, uncompromised artistic creation with cinema - but could only do sporadically because of the very expensive realities of the studio system and photographic film costs.   All this has changed tremendously  with the advent of HD, NLEs,  Blu-ray mastering, etc.  An individual can now create in uncompromised form, beholden to no one and nothing but his own inspiration, a complete motion picture.  This has never been possible except in the most impoverished, infrequent or crude ways in the past.  

The other development has been that of sample libraries, and as I pointed out the one that has taken an intensively artistic approach has been VSL.   The sounds with the samples are REAL.  They are vibrant, powerful, beautiful and perfected tones that exist in a nascent, as-yet-unformed state, waiting to be born into a musical composition.  Because of the astounding detail and consistent supreme quality of the playing, recording and programming these sounds correspond in a wonderful way to pure imagination of sound a composer hears in his mind when thinking of, for example, a fortissimo trombone ensemble chord, or perhaps an ethereal, mysterious solo flute.  This imagination of sound, still not-fully-formed,  finally jells into a section of music.  I have actually derived huge inspiration from listening to the REAL sounds of these instruments.  Though most of my pieces I have programmed were written years ago - for example the Invocation excerpt - without the benefit of this.

This magic - to use the often-quoted Clarke dictum that "sufficiently advanced technology is indisitinguishable from magic"  has given the composer the ability to realize directly musical ideas without being forced to alter, truncate, compromise or ignore his original intentions.  And when one looks at musical history - examples such as Schuberts C major symphony sitting in a drawer unplayed till long after he died - one can see the huge significance of such an innovation as what VSL has done.   This is why I have developed an aesthetic which enthusastically embraces it as a near-miracle of sound creation.

I pasted those URLs into Safari and they led right to the videos. Try again.

Have I personally used studio calibre musicians? Well yes, when a client pays me for real instruments I don't use amateurs or go to the local high school orchestra. There are pros in every city, unfortunately like everything, their experience varies re recording, and unless you are in NY, Nashville, Chicago or LA it's hard to find an entire roomful of players who are really tops. And it gets harder all the time because less and less live sessions are used because of sampling, and the fact that it saves everyone so much money no one seems to care much anymore what it sounds like, again, as long as it is delivered by Friday.

What they needed to play, whether you consider it "sophomoric" or not, is immaterial, there's that snobbish attitude again that always rears it's head in these conversations, as if there is a standard of composition that is acceptable, and another, which is not.

Is there a "roll your eyes" icon anywhere around here?

TH

" I've already conceded the 'Great Orchestra' vs. great emulation point."

Again it's not always about a "great orchestra."

I did something, as I mentioned, recently, that only needed french horn and flute in one section, and good as my VSL mockup sounded, I had the opportunity to use the real guys on the part and had them do it, just for fun, at the end of another section. It was only a few bars long in the middle of a pop piece. The violins remained VSL/Lass, but it was interesting hearing the real horns and flutes vs the mockup. Both ended up sounding great, both entirely usable, but I preferred the real instruments. Just me I guess.

William...I see you've worked yourself into a lather again....

Do you always just make things up as you go along?

Please show us all where I EVER stated "ALL SAMPLE LIBRARIES ARE THE SAME."

Let's start there, THEN...let's move on to where you misrepresent me again and state they I have said

"I AM ANTI SAMPLE"

You absolutely sound like someone who should consider medication. This isn't passion, it's just weird.

TH

You're no fun to debate with since you don't want to hear what everyone else is saying. Your URLs point to Jay Bacal and the Boston Pops; I know! That's not what I was talking about - read my posts carefully; you'll become wiser. Further, you inadvertently answered my questions about the music you do. Snobbish attitude? Since when having clear aesthetic preferences is snobbery? Would you say that your preferring real orchestras/ensembles to samples is also snobbish, or is snobbery as selective as your retention of information? "When a client pays me... blah...blah..." I'm not talking about a flute and a horn. What do you do when the client wants an orchestra and doesn't pay for it. Do you go to your high-school since you prefer live musicians, or do you sample? 

Also, would you say that there is a minimum standard of performance that is acceptable and anything below it is not? Of course you do, you don't accept 'run-throughs' as finished products. The same goes for composition, and these days most of it is sub-standard.

P.S.: Is it that hard for you to compute that we also prefer the real thing? We just can't afford it (and neither can you), and so we sequence instead.

P.S.2: the word I used was 'soporific', but 'sophomoric' will also do.

Errikos I've heard what you all have to say, and I know you are all huge sampling fans, to the point where unless one compares the samples to the London Symphony, then the samples win (and I dare say with William they would probably win against anything).

Having aesthetic preferences has nothing to do with whether sample libraries sound as good as real orchestra, that was my point. I could care less whether you like Bach, The Beatles, or both. It has nothing to do with the discussion, I responded only because of what seemed like a dismissive attitude by yourself when you said "Unless it's some....whatever it was." Just sounded like elitism to me. Go reread it again yourself and perhaps you'll see how it could have come off. There is a lot of high horsing around these parts, and a lot of REALLY sensitive people it would seem.

No... preferring real instruments is not "snobbery" unless you've gone off the deep end. 

When my clients ask me how much it will cost to do a TV spot let's say, that I've demoed to them with samples, I tell them I will give them two quotes, one with real strings, brass, etc, and one with a better sounding version of the demo (meaning I'll go tweak the samples and programming and give them a good mix). Most say "The demo sounds really good" when they hear the difference in price. A few say "It's worth it, go for the real guys." Those are generally agencies whom have taken a chance on going with real instruments at one time or another and loved the results.

Is that hard for you to understand that I and many other pros I know ALWAYS prefer real? Even in small sections? Even in a flute solo? Does that mean we are ANTI SAMPLE people, filled with large egos? I think you know that's just silly.

TH

(Dear all: Once again - please stick to a friendly, respectful and polite tone in this thread. Thanks!)

Yes Dietz, I'd be all for that, I'm afraid it's gotten a bit heated, as we are all passionate about one thing I think we can all agree...and that is music and it's creation. I do apologize if anyone has taken anything personally and for going over the top in some replies to posts which I considered in themselves personal attacks.

TH

My call for moderation wasn't aimed at you personally, but at all participants of this nice "heated" discussion. ;-)

Kind regards,

Did someone ask about the meaning of life? [:)]

Thank you Dietz, I'm aligning my chakras right now... Wait, I just made a new year's resolution. I'm going to be nice from now on, even when provoked by sorriness; after all, one's not responsible for one's lack in grey matter.

" after all, one's not responsible for one's lack in grey matter."

Still with the insults when someone disagrees with you, eh? lol

TH

The meaning of this thread.

@aerovons said:

" after all, one's not responsible for one's lack in grey matter."

Still with the insults when someone disagrees with you, eh? lol

Far from me to insult anybody for just disagreeing with me. The "insult" was a result of my frustration caused by your lack of comprehension, which is really not your fault, so I apologize.

However, it was prompted by your not realizing that a) Your points were not well-made, b) I took the time to address your inconclusive points and asked you questions that would help clarify them and to which you did not respond, c) I explained my points in many different ways and you still wouldn't get them (proof of that is that you always talked about other things, never counter-arguing).

You see, it's not that we disagree - we don't in some respects, it's that you are incapable of making and sustaining a cogent argument, and if my mixes weren't also completely frustrating me for the last 24 hours, I wouldn't have even bothered.

Sorry Errikos, I thought I'd answered all your questions, I believe you just didn't like the answers so ignored the fact I had responded to them.

Again, there is no reason for people to slam others because they disagree, I don't believe the same things you and William do about sampled instruments vs live players, it's as simple as that. 

TH

-

My original question was motivated by an earlier thought experiment proposed by Alan Turing in 1950.

“The Turing test is a test of a machine's ability to demonstrate intelligence. A human judge engages in a natural language conversation with one human and one machine, each of which tries to appear human. All participants are separated from one another. If the judge cannot reliably tell the machine from the human, the machine is said to have passed the test. In order to test the machine's intelligence rather than its ability to render words into audio, the conversation is limited to a text-only channel such as a computer keyboard and screen.”

If you substitute music vocabulary in the quote for intelligence and sample sounds for computer keyboard and screen and If the judge cannot reliably tell the sampled sounds from the human performer the sampled sounds/sequencer combination passes the test.

This particular experiment was a keystone in the subsequent pursuit of artificial intelligence.

Perhaps it would be useful to use the term “artificial music” to describe the music resulting from the use of sequencers and sampled sounds in the digital environment in contrast to “performance music” resulting from the traditional performer based environments.

If we consider the question from the composers point of view, the primary effect of the “artificial music” is access to compelling realistic representations of instruments which is the process of composition inspire and enable the composer to create the intended work. I am assuming that the composition is created from a keyboard in real time using the instruments to be included from start to finish. Once the shape of the composition is established, it can be edited and orchestrated while preserving the overall shape of the piece.

I think we can all agree that the sound of “artificial music” created in the early 1980’s with 8 bit samples and the Mac SE has been transformed by a quantum leap using the 2010 versions of Vienna Instrument’s sample sounds and MIR venues. Does it sound like “performance music”? To this composer the answer is a resounding yes! I think the multiple impulse responses of the venues put the system over the top. It is finally possible to perform your own original chamber music as credible “Artificial Music”. I find the environment both musical and inspiring!

Now to access. I live in Wheat Ridge, Colorado, a suburb of Denver, i.e. the “wilde west”where the stock show is still the biggest event of the year. Finding affordable competent players and venues equivalent to the venues in MIR for recording are non existent. Since July of 2010, I have posted 80 original compositions performed in the various venues of MIR and with the Vienna Instruments on Youtube. (http://www.youtube.com/user/Bachbeatty) This would not have been possible without VI and MIR. For this access, I am eternally grateful to Herb, Dietz, and all the others who made these softwares possible. They have been a source of unending inspiration and at the pragmatic level enabled the work to be elevated to level that is believable musically even though it is “artificial music”. It is all about what fiction you choose to believe.

I apologize for the late response, The original message was posted on 12/1/2010 did not receive an response so I assumed the question had been ignored. So you can imagine my surprise at the scope of the discussion when I returned to the site yesterday. In reading the messages I am impressed by the level of passion and commitment that the respondents have for their art, I experience the same feelings.

Regards,

Stephen W. Beatty

@Stephen W. Beatty said:

think we can all agree that the sound of “artificial music” created in the early 1980’s with 8 bit samples and the Mac SE has been transformed by a quantum leap using  the 2010 versions of Vienna Instrument’s sample sounds and MIR venues. Does it sound like “performance music”? To this composer the answer is a resounding yes!  I think the multiple impulse responses of the venues put the system over the top. It is finally possible to perform your own original chamber music as credible “Artificial Music”. I find the environment both musical and inspiring!

I am no longer arguing with anyone on this Forum, but  simply wanted to say --

Stephen, that is beautifully put and it is exacty what I feel and think.  I think you expressed it precisely.

Thanks William,

I think we are all in a state of "Future Shock" especially if you are in your seventies as I am. We all have models of how things are suppose to be and when something comes along that is completely outside the model, humans have a tendency to go into a state confused disbelief. Thirty some years ago I was at a home show looking for windows and I heard this Dixie Land Band playing on the other side of the petition. I went around into that space and here was a guy at a keyboard and the band was playing but there was no band. He explained about midi and I took the literature home and It had to cook for almost three months before I could get my head around it. Pianos came with keys, strings and hammers but no band sounds and that was that! Wrong again. That was my first introduction to midi, I bought a Mac Se and and 8 bit emax keyboard and starting composing music, I was 45 at the time.  

I enjoyed your symphonic mix and hope your album goes well. 

Regards, 

Stephen W. Beatty