That's right. Notation maybe the most knowledgeable, sophisticated, and detailed way to write symphonic music, but there is nothing wrong with people that can MIDI and/or perform what's in their heads themselves (see my signature). There is nothing I can respect though - indeed I find it almost as harmful as radiation - in the relentless dumbing down of creative thought and activity in today's society.

I agree that this far the scraps on offer can only result in monotone, uni-dimensional, utterly uninteresting and heartless music, but still it is disheartening to see how little self-respect people have nowdays, and how they seem to be condoned by a very affluent - and hence what should be an equally demanding - industry. But like I said in an earlier thread, music is the least understood and the most revered of the arts.

 Well, this sort of thing is a short cut that they are hoping to sell for cheap film scoring.  That's all it really is.  However it may have an effect that the people who created it did not necessarily intend, in lowering the level of scoring to the generic even more than it already is.   And producers being what they are, will hear an original piece of film scoring, and it won't sound like Symphobia, and so they will reject it.  They don't care about music- one guy said to me "I don't know from music!"  when he told me the score I'd worked on for months was wrong compared to the guy he could get who would re-do it in a couple days.  So it is an unused score for a film never released - the story of my life.

@hetoreyn said:

...Not to make it easier to do nothing 😛

(^_^) I couldn't have put it better myself...

@hetoreyn said:

Yes I can only agree. At least with the way we have to write with midi, we're still having to write all of the actual music, butler recorded loops and stuff make me unsettled. I came upon something similar a while back where you could just hold down a key and get entire riffs .. I thought it was a nice sound but it totally takes away from any writing you might do. I want the libraries to improve the sound .. Not to make it easier to do nothing 😛

You can do that I believe and the other side of the coin might be that it (library phrases) could give inspiration. I understand that riffs are tempo unspecific. In other words, as you increase or decrease the tempo on your Logic or Cubase ect. the tempo of the riff changes accordingly. And apparently you can change the keys. Some of these riffs are almost impossible to program I would suggest - so in terms of good sound - that would be hard to beat.

Look - we're not talking here about art! We're surely talking about specific specialist libraries that are designed for writers that work in certain genres of tv or film, whereby stock phrases are always used. A bit like photography for example. How many times do you see the same type of photograph over and over again.

Put another way. What's the difference between using stock phrasing thats been purchased, versus recording tons of these type of phrases yourself on say, VSL libraries? And then just storing them on your hard drive and calling them up whenever required? I could tell you the answer to that, but would rather wait. Hahaha.

Is it there a difference? Is it a purist thing. I know what this discussion could become. It could easily transmogrify into the reality of working quickly versus what is really good music and how people should go about creating that.

[C]

I disagree. Even if you want to have stocks of LOOPED clicheds on your HD (which proper composers never have, but anyway), create them yourself! And keep them as you need them, but at least you will have learned something(s) in preparing them; even if you sound just like Hans or Nyman. The composters that purchase these libraries are (for the most part) deaf and inept, and couldn't programme these simple subphrases if their simian lives depended upon it... 

I know that Paul's really saying that today's filmography doesn't require - and is unworthy of - any real scoring, and again I object. The Star Wars, Indiana Jones, and Harry Potter (I, II, III) series are not Bergman or Antonioni exactly, however the music that dresses those films is absolutely masterful, goes far beyond the call of duty, and stands as a monument to the composer being more important than the director, the stars, and the script put together on those occasions, and taking it upon himself to "make" the movie, as it were.

In essense, I am saying it doesn't matter how trivial the script or the acting is; composers must always write the best possible music to any mediocre or crap film:

Home Alone, Pink Panther, Cinema Paradiso, any 007 film up to The Living Daylights, Top Secret, Under Fire, Brainstorm, Bitter Moon, etc., etc.

I was engaged last week in a great fight online; there are people in the EDM area of music that actually tried to argue that approaching the, erm, production of music from the vantage point of knowing an instrument or instruments in no way guarantees being better at it than only ever sitting in front of a computer at their DAW (a music theory board at an audio plugin forum which will stay nameless). By the same people that rely on people that do know something to answer their questions what someone with a half-assed band class in fifth grade should have a better grasp of, if they were interested.

it's an historical process. the less we can get away with doing, the less we'll do. We'll become weaker and weaker still until, right, no one remembers, no one knows, it will be a regurgitation of old loops - ie., ultimately who'll make the loops?

But there is an extreme that you, errikos constantly represent here that's really not very reasonable.  I have been involved with music for over forty years. A lot of it - most of it - was quite outside the classical realm. I make things, as a matter of course I could not notate, in fact the process of notation would just never enter into it. It would be an academic exercise, utter waste of time. There was music over half a century ago that people tried to develop notation for completely beyond regular convention.

I improvise directly onto the timeline. I certainly have the acumen to be able to transcribe as well as can be expected. I learned music first of all by transcribing off of records. I am just not deficient in that area. BUT, not all music is notatable to a meaningful degree. (For one thing I'm not necessarily restricted to 12 equal divisions of the octave.) Notation for me is a middleman in the thought process I don't need or desire. It just isn't the thing in itself. Before DAWS, it's how we recorded the idea we know we'll forget, and beyond that the convenient means for communicating the idea to another musician. It is utterly inadequate insofar as communicating it to the machine, it's just not precise. We learn better ways that precisely describe it, in piano roll editing if we can't nail it on the keyboard.

The constant harping on that aspect doesn't really get you to seem superior to people that have other interests, guy. It's really tiresome to see that same rant. You take every opportunity to trot it out. If it's about 'VSL should make a sequencer for symphonic composers', if there's an opening for this rant you'll detect it it looks like. It just doesn't come off as "I, Elitist" as you want it to. You come off as someone with a daft little axe to grind and that signature really reveals a gaping chasm insofar as an understanding of advanced music, and a crap attitude to forms you don't seem to have even a cursory understanding of. And your lack of comprehension that someone would use prefab materials when they're trying to make a living, have deadlines is also revealed.  

"why some people insist on "becoming" composers when they don't feel the inner impetus to create something that is their own to a great extent..."

what people? everyone that would ever buy that software pkg? Some people will be happy to pretend they did something and never get busy with making their own choices. Some will buy that for particular reasons, to save time, that are quite capable at the craft.

There is one lib by Zero G that consists of quite drastic extended techniques in the strings, which aren't provided in any VSL or regular library. Some will find value in it as a starting point, of inspiration. In either case it has utility for people that aren't your straw man.You dissed it as widely as you could reach to. I would absolutely bet the rent you can't notate half of what I heard there, or a whole area of what I compose.

& you're bashing a straw man. pretty trollish. People frequent this board on a more serious level - some come here to try and help the next person - but here is your sandbox. It stinks.

@PaulR said:

There are samples with every library for instance, that have tremolo strings. You couldn't do it any other way.

and it extends to techniques such as in the other Zero G library that's just for inept deaf people, that  otherwise you will have to hire people to do or it never happens. 

@Errikos said:

I disagree. Even if you want to have stocks of LOOPED clicheds on your HD (which proper composers never have, but anyway), create them yourself! 

I agree, the loops addicts will be better off where they make their own. Actually many do, you just can't fit them into Manostraw there. You should get out more.

 civilization3 - you should not be insulting Errikos.  He is a brilliant composer and musician.  

@civilization 3 said:

Notation for me is a middleman in the thought process I don't need or desire. It just isn't the thing in itself. Before DAWS, it's how we recorded the idea we know we'll forget, and beyond that the convenient means for communicating the idea to another musician. It is utterly inadequate

Yes, notation is so inadequate -  like Mahler's 2nd Symphony for example.  I was just watching a very well-done documentary on it, so it came to mind.  Anyone today would have done so much better with a DAW, wouldn't they?  Notation is so old...

Well everyone had a good Easter I hope? I'm off to visit the Benedictine monks down at my local Abbey and ask forgivenes for swearing. I always get that too. It's a great deal and I've never understood Henry VIII's problem. [:@]

Anyway........

Very interesting post(s) there from civilisation3. I have a duty to protect Erik however. Erik doesn't rant. Ranting is a different thing. Erik has high musical moral standards that you and I certainly will never be able to fulfill. 

I take all your points on board though. One of the really big issues that sampling brought to light all those years ago now, it seems, is the interface. The interface is almost always a keyboard. I have been guilty on many occassions of getting uptight because people can't play. When you think about it, a lot of musicians are NOT keyboard players. They have had to learn in one way or another to play the damn thing as best they can, or more usually, they get into doing it through Sibelius or Finale etc. In other words, notation. For instance, if you're a guitarist, playing a keyboard into Logic etc must be horrendous when you've really no way of getting anything near what you're hearing in your head.

Yes - the keyboard interface has a lot to answer for. Any sole interface would.

That said, I am a pretty good keyboard player and it was my first instrument when being taught. And I still can't get anything to sound the way it should because I can't be assed with programming. You get taught an instrument but you don't get taught programming. So what's happened over the sample library invasion -  to make up for the lack of being able to play the interface and the inability to play it the way they would want, programming became the next best substitue. If you can play AND program, you're going to get these incredible sounding works done with samples that you hear from time to time. It's no good anyone saying that samples will never be as good as a real orchestral section. That's become a waste of time because hardly anyone has the budget for the real thing anymore, and sample libraries are a sound and rule unto themselves and further comparison is futile.

But programming, like civ3 alluded to just isn't going to be enough for working writers that have deadlines. They need stuff that sounds and fits into their musical panorama that's QUICK. And Erik is going to have live with that and it's not going to go away. You can't uninvent the bomb Erik.

  Please Errikos, correct me if I am wrong, but I think the point here is actually the attitude with which many composers face composition nowadays. The kind of sample libraries he mentions are just expressions of an increasingly dominant current in which creativity is willingly being replaced by productivity by both parts, composers and library developers alike, maybe under the pressure of that "reality" we call music industry (we are accepting, creating and supporting it in this way in any case, so we would be indeed under the pressure of our own creation)

  I think the problem has nothing to do with clichés. We need clichés; our cognitive process and communication abilities rely upon them. The only problem is the level of abstraction of these clichés. Take a Romanesca, for example. It's a harmonic schema found everywhere in Baroque and Classical music. Every composer used it at that time. There was no problem or confict about it. Or an Alberti bass, an instrumental pattern every keyboard composer used. It's in fact a loop. The library developers of the time could have done much money sampling them. Mozart, Hadyn, Beethoven... not bad composers (^_-)... would have surely used these libraries.

 The main thing here, I think, is just this: the Alberti bass was an accompaniment figure, so it was quite concrete; even then, library developers should have allowed not only key and tempo changes in their lopps (as Paul said) but also implemented the entire harmonic classical vocabulary with its different inversions, spacings, etc. in order to be used by those composers. Still, no one is regarded as a great composer by having written great Alberti basses... It's just absurd. But if we take the Romanesca, that's another story. As a harmonic figure, it was much more abstract, and not only any key, tempo, inversion, voicing, spacing, etc. changes could be applied to the schema, but composers were free to use any melodic or rhythmic motive, any contrapuntal texture, not to mention instrumentation. There were not enough hard disks at that time to record so many variations... so no serious composer would have used a sample library for that. Still, no one is regarded as a great composer by having written great Romanescas... We could go on to any level of the musical structure, but I think you all understand what I'm trying to say. Composition is much more than that. A dictionary can't make a Shakespeare. That's is not to say we shouldn't have better and more comprenhensive dictionaries. We certainly should. It would help good composers. But in the process, we are bound to remember we can not make one thing into another, because if we do, instead of helping good composers we can create a myriad of mediocre ones. Anyway, I don't actually think we can avoid that. It's just the price we have to pay.

  So, I think Errikos is furious against the lack of creativity, or even more, the lack of perception we are indeed sacrificing creativy for productivity. He put as an example this new library, because it's part of this game (not the game itself). I myself don't have a problem with commercial music and its many aspects. But I am not deaf enough to deny the fact that any of these various aspects has barely anything to do with the actual quality of the music. We can not uninvent the bomb, Paul, that's true... but how would it be if we could just not throw them every two senconds? Are we bound to be that compulsive? (^_-)

  Just my point of view, anyway.

Many thanks to William and Paul for their kind words.

@civilization 3: Your posts in this thread are the very first ones I have read where there is a conscious effort on your part to argue intelligently and offer a clear, if different point of view, instead of just saying that Mozart and Tchaikovsky wrote puerile melodies, and other inanities. Even though you still pigeon-holed me again (something you repeatedly accuse me of doing to others - contradiction there), I still have to offer my congratulations. You managed to articulate your thoughts this time.

Pity those thoughts had very little to do with what I was saying... This perpetual inability of yours to discern my points, and thus counter-argue effectively, smacks of lack of intelligence (sorry). Although you came up with a great induction - it's an historical process. the less we can get away with doing, the less we'll do. We'll become weaker and weaker still until, right, no one remembers, no one knows, it will be a regurgitation of old loops - ie., ultimately who'll make the loops? - you just lost yourself again due to ignorance of matters musical. So:

1) I am always referring to Symphonic Music! Can you please try and remember that in the future? It will save us both a great deal of time. I don't expect or require of Beatles, Vangelis, or ethnic musicians to be able to notate their music. Although a lot probably could, it is not a requirement by most means. Do you know why? And pay attention now:

It is because the actual performance/recording of their music is AS important, if not MORE important, than the music itself. It is a package! A cover of Beatles or Vangelis (or whomever you'd care to mention) is NEVER as important as the original. This is not the case with classical/symphonic music which exists in abstraction, as an idea of which the notation is a guide to the performer/s' ATTEMPTED approximation of the unnatainable by definition! For example, Stravinsky's own recordings are considered by most very interesting (for self-explanatory reasons), but hardly definitive... In symphonic music the work is ALWAYS more important than any performance/recording.

So I'll reiterate - for I know you have forgotten already, I am always referring to Symphonic Music in what you refer to as my "rants"... You can sit in front of your terminal for your whole life as far as I'm concerned doing the music you do, for I know it has little to do with what I am talking about - and using some strings and flute in one's composition/arrangement, doesn't qualify that work as symphonic music.

2) Look at my signature again (and as many times as it takes - no one's the same). I have "allowed" for inspired people who can perform/program their ideas into a DAW, as opposed to them having to notate first. I have no qualms with people that are not traditionally trained, although they are missing out on quite a few things, and the smart ones know it. However, lack of schooling has not prevented many of them to become by far greater composers than hordes of trained ones in many cases. It's inspiration that counts, but the training does provide palpable wings to one's imagination. The same could be said for a computer novice that could hardly take advantage of all a DAW can offer, and would not be able to convey his great music through a recording due to his ignorance of things electronic.

So, if you can perform it or program it, it is your composition. HOWEVER,

How can one call themselves a Musician, if they can neither think, nor write, or perform music?! By what warped definition do I have to recognize such a person as a musician?!... In any genre?! And THAT is what I object to! Finally,

3) I have repeatedly said that I have nothing against the pre-programming of all generic and characterless note-groupings (scales, generic arpeggios, etc.). Further, I always say that  S O M E  of the people that buy software like Anemato, Instantaneous Orkestra, Strings MacSessions, Cine Ork, CineScamples, Orkestral Licentials, etc. are professionals without time to waste (as opposed to me writing this).

However, most buyers of those libraries are a chromosome apart from those professionals and myself, and it is for such buyers that those libraries were developed, let's not kid ourselves (like most opium is not grown for pharmaceutical reasons...).

P.S.: I wouldn't make that rent-bet with me if I were you; how will you generate those endless loops when you're homeless and without electricity? You'd have to play an instrument![:O]...

@Paul: I'm with you Paul; at the very end of the day you have to be able to play, and all composers of any note have been able to do so. There are notable exceptions such as Berlioz, Wagner, and a few others, but they are just the exceptions to a rule applying to hundreds if not thousands, almost every rule has exceptions, and even those few composers could play a little (compared to the virtuosi). Even so, they struggled financially for it, as they could not compete in the bread-and-butter publishers' market of the time, which was piano- and chamber-music, and they were unable to concertize (solo or chamber).

I know that some will say that a DAW can be considered as a musical instrument, but most of these people will be ones that don't play, thus cannot know the immeasurable differences between the two. I generally feel sorry for the composer who cannot perform on any instrument, as performance offers a tactile outlet of one's ideas (it is you who are making the music - not a machine whose button you've pushed), it is a great compositional tool through improvisation, it offers the capabilities of making music with others in the same room (no, it's not the same as people tapping on the mouse at the same time), and of expressing the actual moment - as opposed to a final mix, which has more in common with conducting.

I'm a scheiße programmer, and now that film-music has shifted into the Gaga paradigm I mentioned before, where the performance/recording of a work is as, or more important than the work itself, orks can bowl a stupid director over with a polished recording of an utter fartloop much more efficiently than I can with a lackluster recording of a great track. Because directors today (drowned in MTV) will "look" at the demo as a package (like a band performing), and not as a composition that can subsequently be recorded properly by their engineer. Congratulations to all of us!...

P.S.: My Easter is coming up. I hope you had a good one, and that you went to confession exhaustively... [:$]

@Servandus: I think I have mentioned the Alberti bass in one of my erstwhile posts. I also found the comparison quite apt. There are differences (some of which you mention or hint at): a) the people who used it were musicians; i.e.: they didn't use the device as a crutch, and b) the bass itself wasn't the main subject of the works.

The vast, motley armies of Zimmer-worshipping clones are following that particular composer, not because he is great, but for the simple reason that he's a peach to imitate. His spewccati are the main/only musical idea in a lot of his soundtracks, and that enables the orks to entertain notions of writing for orchestra. Whomever thought that one could write for orchestra using loops exclusively?! - Don't think Glass, Reich, etc. Huge disparities there...

If you bother (don't really) to check the web-videos of those libraries I mention above, you will find that they don't just offer spewccati, scales and arpeggios, but complete and fully orchestrated chunks of music (sometimes comprising 4-5 bars!), with many a successful passage that SOMEONE ELSE came up with, and a lot of the time you can tell who it was too...

While you and I can hear it when a piece of music is splashed and collated together (for the chimps don't realize that no matter how well they audio-engineer it, stacking musical slabs next to one another with spewccato-glue always shows at the seams), directors and producers for the most part cannot, and they hire these people on false premises, and that is just unfair and charlatanistic, and that's exactly what they all are!!

@William: Mahler's 2nd Bill?! A lot of people here couldn't make heads or tails of it... Where are the loops man?! Where's the beat? I can't find any "stabs" or "runs" in it... And wtf are those strings doing?!?

I agree with Errikos - there are many good types of music that either do not require, or exist outside of, notation.

But, here is where it gets interesting, and an example of the "dumbing down" process that really hurts.  At the church I attend interest lies more or less strictly in loud/contemporary electronic music.  To the best of my knowledge, only one of the main musicians is even able to read music.  There is a desire to put together some sort of cohesive musical for next Christmas (text already provided), but from what I have heard, no one has any idea how to even begin to approach that sort of project (the one person who does read does not feel up to the task).  I did not go to the previous Christmas presentation - I value my ears, and there are certain types of performances I prefer to avoid, but there was some indication that what was achieved was rather less than what was hoped for.

While some types of music can excel apart from notation, as in the case above, other types of musical expression become extremely difficult, unless notated, even if using just a series of lead sheets to develop melodic motifs, etc.  In the above situation, even a lead sheet would be near useless, given the ensemble's limitations.

@noldar12 said:

But, here is where it gets interesting, and an example of the "dumbing down" process that really hurts.  At the church I attend interest lies more or less strictly in loud/contemporary electronic music.  

What church is that??....

Errikos, while the church question is a fair question, I'd rather not answer that in a public forum.  I will simply say that the ensemble is indeed very good for what they do.  The intent was simply to point out that however "good" they may be, the lack of a traditional music skill - reading - limits what they can do in certain ways (just as my own limitations mean that I will never be a good contemporary/rock/pop musician).