What takes longer? VSL or a Real Orchestra Production?

[A.L.]

Hi there,

by your experiences, what type of production takes longer, e.g. for a classical cinematic music score?
A normal recording of a "live" Orchestra, or a production with the VSL?
Where do you see the advantages of a VSL production, besides the financial aspect?

Kind Regards

Andreas W.

[Carter]

the ability to change the notes in real time (if the director doesn't like something) and for example if we want to double a violins line with trumpets , so let's double this line and see how it sounds [:D] , it's difficult to change something on your score when you are in front of the orchestra.

[fredproggh]

From what I've read and heard, the real problem with a live orchestra is getting them to tke the time to actually learn and rehearse your music. Frank Zappa has written extensively about his prolems with orchestras that thought they would learn his stuff in one three hour rehearsal. I live by these words: if you want it done right, do it yourself. [:D]

[GTBannah]

.... then there the tuning isues. You're assured better tuning with VSL. You're free to de-tune a track or an instrument for effect if you want, with VSL.

Try tell ing the second violins to detune by 35 cents .... [[;)]]

[ManuelR]

Hi there,

I do not own VSL myself, but have very often used it in other Studios (I am a classical composer and usually work with pen and paper). As far as I can say, I always found it much easier and faster to record with a real orchestra. Apart from the composing process I could always record at least 15-20 Minutes of music per day in an excellent quality (my "highscore" was 39 Minutes...). Mixing would take a few days, because you don't have to "pan" or sort of these things... To achieve the same sound and the same quality I would need weeks with VSL.

And of course you are also free to detune an orchestra... it's done in fractals of a second. The Orchestras I worekd with didn't have to learn their stuff - for classical trained players filmmusic or pop is very easy to play.

But - hey: I am really fond of the VSL and planning to buy it some day. I didn't need it so much yet, but it's by far the best orchestral library I have met so far.

Best wishes
Manuel

[SyQuEsT]

The best trick is to create an orchestral template. So, you can have your own virtual orchestra and compose very very """""easily"""""

[:)]

[aristote797]

the problem is not real or not real orchestra.

The problem is :

1. What is my budget ?
2. Which time I have ?
3. Am I able to write a partition for orchestra ?

If you're not a good orchestrator… and you don't have money : you need
1. VSL
2. a little time ! [[;)]] - a little because your score won't be difficult -

If you are a good orchestrator… and you don't have money : you need
1 VSL
2. a very long time !! [:O]ops: - very long because your score will be sophisticated.-

If you are not a good orchestrator and you've got money : you need
1. a good orchestrator
2. an orchestra

If you are a good orchestrator and you've got money : you are a happy man
[:D]

/aristote the frenchie

[hermitage59]

My fellow european Aristote,

what a wonderful sense of humour you have!

Regards,

Alex.

(viva le' VSL!)

[rawmusic]

@ManuelR said:

Hi there,

I do not own VSL myself, but have very often used it in other Studiosl

Mmmm....I thought my license was for my own personal use [:)]

[Dietz]

I think I don't want to brood over this issue ... the line is so hard to draw (... that's my personal opinion, of course). I'm already happy when only legit copies of our products were involved. [8-)]

Actually, our EULA says something like that, Rawmusic is right.

[Guy Bacos]

Learning to orchestrate well for a live orchestra takes years of training.
I think we could apply this for VSL as well: A side from being able to orchestrate you must learn to be as skillful as an orchestrator using a real orchestra but using machines instead. This could be years. Only then the comparason is fair. In my short experience of 2 years with VSL I can't say it sounds as good as a real orchestra, although close, but some things I've written, virtuosic passages, would be extremely if not impossible for an orchestra to play precisely in a single rehearsal of 3 hours or less. That is one big advantage I found.

Guy

[magates]

In most cases you have to do both if you are going to use live orchestra. I mean really who is going to pay for a live orchestra when they haven't heard a mock up of it. jeez... So its a moot point.

[DG]

@magates said:

In most cases you have to do both if you are going to use live orchestra. I mean really who is going to pay for a live orchestra when they haven't heard a mock up of it. jeez... So its a moot point.

You are unfortunately correct in the most part, but it is a failry recent phenomenon. FWIW I know three composers who never sequence anything in advance of the orchestral sessions.

DG

[Peter Alexander]

Live orchestra is always faster especially for extensive film cues. Depending on how extensive the cue, you can do 2 minutes or more of music per day with the focus on the writing.

A cue is different from a complex orchestral score like Rite of Spring or what Frank Zappa mentioned. In a recording session for a film score, you're governed in the US by how many minutes can be recorded in a 3-hour session.

A concert situation is different. Here, only so much time is available. If you're a major composer, you can get the rehearsal time. If you're not a major composer, the issue is simply getting a performance of the work, in which case, you're probably better off doing it yourself.