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

I just found this thread, and all I can say is, holy crap, guys. I would have thought that in the 5 pages of venom I've skimmed over, I'd at least find one post asking about the original topic - the movie Tangled.

I was the orchestrator for the film, I was the one featured in the WSJ video, and I also did all of the mockups. If anyone would like to get back to the original topic, please feel free to either continue this discussion or PM me.

Thanks,

Kevin

Stephen - you're not in your seventies are you?     [8-|]  [<:o)]

Look what the British did to Alan Turing.  [:D]

@Kevin

I thought this was the topic?

@Stephen W. Beatty said:

With the advent of MIR and the ability to acheive a superb realism for instruments samples in a real hall, how different are these sounds from the actual orchestra?  If  you are comparing the digital recording of an actual orchestra with an equivalent live ( not a step edited ) midi performance using MIR and VI can a listener really tell the difference in a double blind test? The problem with comparing a step entered (Jay Bacal)  well known Classical compositions and a digital recording of the same compositions by an live orchestra is not the quality of the resulting sound but the gesture and expressive flow of the music. Are we on the verge of  or in an era of equivalence of sound of the recorded real orchestra and a recorded midi sampled orchestra?

Regards,

Stephen W. Beatty    

The video related to Tangled was just the spark that ignited the OP's question. 

However, if you'd like my opinion of Tangled I'll be happy to oblige.  I thought the movie was fun and refreshing.  My kids felt the same way too.  My favorite character was the horse.  He had no lines but absolutely stole the show.  And this is one film I would have to insist be seen in 3-D.  The visuals were absolutely stunning; some of the best 3D animation ever produced in my opinion.

Believe it or not I didn't even know Tangled was a musical until the characters just started bursting out into song.  There is no mention anywhere that this film is a musical.  I would say that the film would be one of the best musicals ever produced if it wasn't for those annoying songs.  There are only two songs that I thought were above mediocre; the one where she feels guilty and ecstatic at the same time for finally leaving her dominating "mother" and the one about everybody's dreams in the tavern.  The rest of the songs were just filler.  Perhaps the producers are trying to pad Mandy Moore's Pop artist career but, if that's the case, they need to find better songs. 

On the other hand, I did enjoy the original score which I thought worked quite well.  Most Disney movie scores rely too much on cliches and overused devices to the point where it's like they recycled a score from old Tom and Jerry cartoons.  What I heard in Tangled was dynamic, fun and, for the most part, original.  How about that, an original score that was actually original.  Well done. 

Incidentally, after seeing Tangled, I was going to start my own thread about, what happened to musicals?  After seeing a musical I use to be able to sing at least a couple of songs from them or at least the choruses long after seeing the movie.  Who could forget "oompa loompa oopity doo" from the original Charlie and the Chocolate Factory?  "Food, Glorious Food" from Oliver, or "For God Sake's John, Sit Down!" from 1776.  Today, I can't remember any songs from any musicals.  Not sure why.  My guess is because most musicals now try to smash the Pop charts or propel some Pop star's career.  it's kind of sad really.

My family and I did enjoy Tangled but I though it could have been just as effective if it hadn't been a musical.       

@jasensmith said:

Believe it or not I didn't even know Tangled was a musical until the characters just started bursting out into song.  There is no mention anywhere that this film is a musical.  I would say that the film would be one of the best musicals ever produced if it wasn't for those annoying songs.  There are only two songs that I thought were above mediocre; 

Musicals are what Alan Mencken is famous for; I believe he is also the youngest ever to have been awarded the Oscar for music at 25 years of age (Little Mermaid?), and yes, they are mediocre.

Incidentally, after seeing Tangled, I was going to start my own thread about, what happened to musicals? 

Please start that thread! I promise I am going to provide great verbal entertainment in my usual vein... I love musicals - no, I'm straight guys - and I'm asking the same question as you. Actually a huge work on which I'm putting the finishing mixing touches these last few days, is a concert piece based on the overture and finale of a musical of mine. Sadly, musicals also have followed film-music down the same drain in recent times...