Hi Paul,

Thanks for listening to both versions and offering your always honest opinions.  I value your input and as I've said in the past, I agree with you that criticism can be helpful and necessary.  My feelings toward the forum were based on a very select few knowledgeable, albeit very mean-spirited individuals that regularly incited negativity toward an otherwise overwhlemingly positive/productive group of composers.  In any case, they appear to have moved on, and I am rejuvenated and re-inspired to create and share music, so all's good here :)

About your preference for the VSL version vs. the live version, I'd at least like to offer a couple of caveats.  First, the live musicians were doing a first read-through together (having only looked at the score individually for a week or so prior), and also had never played together prior.  Second, as Jasen mentioned, the recording was done with a single Zoom handy-cam recorder, with a single XY stero mic capturing the rehearsal.  Compared to the pristine VSL samples and the complete control of the end product we are fortunate to have in our digital world, it's not surprising that the overall aesthetic might be better with samples.  For me, personally, I was quite pleased with the live experience, honestly, expecting a less tight performance (the video was caught at the end of the 2 hour rehearsal).  

I was thinking about how both you and Jasen prefered the VSL version, and where that leaves us as composers seeking live performances.  If we can attain a higher quality performance through samples than the "average" live performance, what incentive is there to work relentlessly to seek out musicians and organize concerts, etc.?  One person connected with this project I'm working on said, "even if you have great digital performances, what are you going to do, sit an audience in a room to stare at speakers for 90 minutes while you play your digital masterpieces?"  It was an honest question, and sadly, one that left me with a few philosophical musings:

As composers, we already know that nobody cares more about our music that we do ourselves.  If we are willing to devote the time necessary to improving our skills, it is likely that our virtual orchestrations will technically trump virtually any live performance, save for those high level musicians/ensembles that are relentless in their preparation.  Knowing this, however, still leaves that empty void that comes from the inability to share that music with a live audience.  However, as has been my experience with a few recent live performances of pieces that I had already realized using Vienna instruments, those live performances were so woefully inadequate that I had almost wished I could pull out a CD of my virtual compositions to let the audience hear what the pieces were supposed to sound like.  I have many more things I'd like to discuss, but I'll stop here for now.

What are your thoughts on this?

Dave

p.s. I listened to your Summer Symphony a while back, and while I didn't comment on the forum at the time, I definitely wanted to let you know that it was a wonderful work that you should be very proud of!

I was also hoping Dave continued putting things on here as they are so good, also his ideas are very valuable.  

What that musician said is a good point asking what are you going to do - just sit and listen to a digital recording?  But I think the answer is of course not, the digital performance is part of the musical process just like a print-out of the score is, and hopefully a live performance followed by others if the piece is good enough to interest people.  One thing that is definitely a huge positive about digital performance is how the musical ideas can be heard clearly and expressively immediately after they are composed. That was never possible in the past.   People are getting more and more jaded and forget how amazing it is, compared to the past when even a great piece of music would often be literally unheard in any way for years, or longer.  For example Schubert's C Major symphony, one of the greatest symphonies of all time, sat unplayed in a drawer for almost a hundred years.     

Hi Dave,

For better or worse, I would still prefer to get a live performance. But I also give thanks that we have excellent sample technology also.

For many years I did custom arrangements for my church. We were a medium size church and always had unusual instrument combinations. For example, for several years we had an outstanding flute player, mediocre viola, my son playing first trumpet (moderately good) a beginner second trumpet, and myself playing the trombone (I was pretty good, with a very wide range and silky smooth legato). Creating an arrangement that worked for everyone was a challenge, but also a joy because my work was performed in front of 800 people every single week. But the music director would never use anything of mine that was original. He wanted arrangements of old hymns, or of the praise songs currently on Christian radio. 

Anyway, one interesting thing is that the flute, and my son, kept getting better, but the viola and the second trumpet never seemed to improve. 

There is nothing like the feeling of a live performance. So my answer is to keep trying to get live performances. You can tip the scales in your favor by trying as much as possible to make your music less challenging for the performers. Musicians know when something is beyond them and they just sort of shut down and go through the motions. Don't push them too hard and they will be more likely to become invested in the music.

Cheers,

Paul

Thanks, William, for the kind words.  I'm happy to be part of the forum and the always interesting discussions.

You make a great point on how lucky we are to have the tools at our disposal to realize authentic performances of our music immediately after writing it.  Further, in spite of the fact that most trained musicians should be able to hear a piece in their heads from examining a score, much like many other skills that have dissipated with time due to the advent of new technology, I find that the virtual performances (in conjunction with the score) get musicians far more excited than simply imagining what it might sound like.  Of course, there's also a fine line that must be walked in terms of the midi production:  too rudimentary (as in, old school, plunky general midi sounds with no musical shaping at all) and those musicians are immediately turned off and won't even attempt to imagine how the music might sound performed live...too good (as in your productions, William) and many musicians might be intimidated to perform the music, feeling like they won't be able to outdo what they heard.  

Paul, thank you also for sharing your experiences with church music arrangements.  There were a couple of telling points there, especially how the music director wouldn't program any of your original music, favouring instead, known arrangements.  This is literally everyone's story when trying to get their own creative work heard.  You'll find endless advice on how to market your original work by first doing covers/arrangements.  Heck, I know it first hand as well...from several of my Acclarion duo's CDs, the works that bring in all the royalties for me are my arrangements of "That's Amore", "Flight of the Funky Bee", "Nessun Dorma" and several others.  I think, by definition, a living composer's music cannot possibly be accepted until after death, as William even mentioned with the Schubert Symphony.  :)

One final point you made that was quite thought-provoking:  writing music that's easily executable by musicians.  There is definitely merit to that, although, I think that the desire to be challenged technically with difficult music (that is still idiomatic/playable, but nonetheless has a high degree of difficulty) lies in the individual performer's personality/skill.  As a performer, I often enjoyed music that at first, appeared beyond my technical abilities, but because I enjoyed the sound of it, and because I could sense the composer had attempted to write idiomatically for my instrument, I learned it.  Other times, I would be presented pieces that I just knew the composer had little/no understanding of the idiosyncracies of the accordion and would write passages so nonsensical that I tuned out/went through the motions, as you mentioned.

Composers need to find the balance between writing notes that fulfill the goals of the music, without the need for excess.  If the piece is meant to be a display of technical prowess and wizardry, so be it.  If the piece needs blazing 32nd note passages with intervalic leaps that leave the performer feeling like they'll fall flat on their face, so be it...as long as the composer realizes they'll limit their pool of potential performers.  That said, one thing I've always been personally against, is the over-reliance on polyrhythms that not even a mathematician could solve.  I've played new music where the composer was writing endless 9 against 16, 32nd note sextuplets with rests on the 4th and 6th tuplet, a 3 minute piece with 42 time signature changes, ties that floated over bar lines and landed on a dotted 64th note...you know, stuff that looks like you took a sequenced performance, didn't quantize it, and exported the midi data to a score file :)

Cheers,

Dave

This post by Dave is  so interesting concerning musical ideas.  This is dangerous - you should not encourage me.    I agree with Paul about things needing to be playable but also with Dave.  I was recently thinking some things about the greatest composers -  Bach, Haydn, Mozart specifically, though there are others - these composers have three things that you must have if you want to be as good as they are:

1 Genius

2 Utility

3 Productivity

In other words, they had great ideas, their ideas were usable by anyone, and they had a huge output.  Many people have one or two, but very few all three.  

What I mean by "huge  output"  can be seen with "Complete Bach Edition" or "Complete Haydn Edition" or "Complete Mozart Edition"  anywhere. It is mind-boggling to consider how much music was done by them on that level. 

I went away for a while but was pleasantly surprised to see what an interesting discussion this has evolved into.

@Acclarion said:

I was thinking about how both you and Jasen prefered the VSL version, and where that leaves us as composers seeking live performances.  If we can attain a higher quality performance through samples than the "average" live performance, what incentive is there to work relentlessly to seek out musicians and organize concerts, etc.?  One person connected with this project I'm working on said, "even if you have great digital performances, what are you going to do, sit an audience in a room to stare at speakers for 90 minutes while you play your digital masterpieces?"  It was an honest question, and sadly, one that left me with a few philosophical musings:

I did enjoy the sampled version but probably would have enjoyed watching the live performance even more.  My comment was more about the recording and not the performance itself.  The players were very talented skillful and performed the piece competently.  Even the guy turning pages for the pianist was good.  I mean have you ever seen pages being turned with so much expressiveness and depth of feeling?😃 

If ever given the choice between listening to a master recording of a Classical work or watching it performed live by a professional orchestra, well that's a no brainer, I would definately watch the performance live.  However, I must admit that technical ability with an instrument doesn't impress me nearly as much as the ability to compose a piece of music that touches me in some way or leaves an emotional impression on me. 

I have a friend who is a huge YoYo Ma fan and, one day, he was going on and on about how great Yo Yo Ma was and just for grins and giggles I asked him "How much would you pay to watch Yo Yo Ma play scales? Just an evening with Yo Yo Ma and the Major and Minor scales.  How much."

He thought about it then said, "However much he wanted because those would be the best damn scales I've ever heard."  Now, don't get me wrong, I have a lot of respect for Yo Yo Ma and other musicians as technically skilled as he is but I think he would have to pay me to come in and watch him play scales.  I guess some people just like watching a skilled performer up on stage working his or her magic.  It's just not the same as listening to a recording of Yo Yo Ma you have to see him live like sports fans who'll fly all the way across the country/world to watch their favorite player.  I'd rather just watch it on TV.

There was a similar thread like this some years back and I think it was Errikos who said something to the effect of one nice thing about having your music performed live as opposed to programming is that sometimes the players will surprise you with their handling of your music.  Much like a screenwriter or playwrite is surprised when an actor performs a part he wrote in a completely different, but better, way than the writer imagined.  So you could find yourself pleasantly surprised with not only players but with arrangers too.  Somebody could take your music and shine an entrely different light on the piece making it better than you imagined.  So that's possible but not with samples. 

Those are some good points - what it boils down to is the interest or perspective of the audience.  Are they interested in seeing their favorite  performers do their thing, or are they interested in the musical ideas of the composer?  Obviously both, but sometimes I think it is almost entirely  focused on the performers.  The person who wants to watch Yo yo ma play scales is involved in hero-worship, not music.

But without wanting to be contrary I have to add that it has never happened to me that a live performance was better than I imagined the music, or surprised me.  I suppose that happens with a truly great orchestra (?) or having some big shot soloist play your music,  but I think the real situation is more that maybe the players can go so far as to reproduce - maybe - what the composer imagined.  On the other hand, out of tune playing or wrong notes or lack of expression have happened a lot and then the live performance DOES surprise me  -  disturbingly.  😢

And what you said about it being impossible for samples to surprise one - no, it has happened to me repeatedly.  In fact, what is hilarious is I had written off a number of pieces in my mind because I heard them played live and not very well.  I had concluded, well that piece isn't so great...  But when I later did a sample performance of it, I was not only surprised but SHOCKED - it was actually not bad at all!  and I heard the ideas I had imagined coming back at me instead of getting lost in the bad live version.  So that does happen with samples at least to me.  

What an interesting discussion!

I think jasensmith's analogy of actors and playwrights is spot-on.  I used to be a playwright (and actor) myself; I was always delighted to see what a good performer could do with even the most carefully and specifically worded dialogue and stage direction.  I was also subsequently disappointed and embarassed when a bad performer crushed my words into mundane, emotionless drivel.  I suppose it all boils down to who is performing your works.  If they're good, they'll elevate your ideas to a new level you never thought possible.  If they're bad, well...don't hire bad performers 😊

I think it's also worth noting that the more room for improvisation, the farther a good performer will go towards elevating a piece of music.  In my opinion, great soloists in classical music tend to serve as virtuosic vehicles for the realization of precisely defined musical ideas, whereas in realms like jazz a great soloist is part of the compositional process itself since the musical ideas are so skeletal by design.  This is probably why samples go so far in the classical realm but often fall quite short when attempting to mock-up jazz.

Anyhow...

It used to be an inevitable fact that composers had to put their works into the hands of others for them to even be heard (poor Rachmaninov...).  Now, samples give us every increasing fidelity and flexibility in bypassing that limitation.  So what's the point of live performance in the era of recording and digital audio?

I think William hit the nail on the head:

@William said:

Those are some good points - what it boils down to is the interest or perspective of the audience.  Are they interested in seeing their favorite  performers do their thing, or are they interested in the musical ideas of the composer?  Obviously both, but sometimes I think it is almost entirely  focused on the performers.  The person who wants to watch Yo yo ma play scales is involved in hero-worship, not music.

I don't believe for a fraction of a second that most people who go to a live performance do so just because they want to hear the music when it's so much cheaper (and often more sonically pleasing) to listen to a recording.  They want to see the music performed, to bask in the glory of the performer(s), to share an experience with friends/family, to get drunk and dance (at a non-classical show), to take selfies and post them on instagram, etc.   

Now, lest I be mistaken for a misanthrope, I don't think any of the above are bad things.  I just think it's the reality of live music; the music is only a fraction of the whole experience.  It's why I personally don't enjoy going to most live performances.  I want to hear the music, not watch the performer, and I can almost always do this more effectively on a good stereo system listening to a well-mixed and edited recording.  I also find watching performers - especially singers and pianists - incredibly distracting, but that's probably just a quirk of mine...

This is where I think the analogy to theater/film breaks down.  If we see a movie, we're obviously going to see it so we can watch a story unfold.  If we go to see music, are we going to listen to the music of the composer?  To dance to it?  To study how a particular soloist performs a passage we're working on?  To enjoy room acoustics that can't be enjoyed any other way?  To flaunt our wealth and social status by posting our 7th row seats on facebook?

So what's the point of live performance? 

I think the answer is this: can live performance do something for the music and the experience of listening to said music that digital audio reproduction cannot?  If the answer is yes, then live performance is worth chasing down.  If the answer is no, then we are incredibly, incredibly lucky to live in a time where we have affordable access to technology that can realize our musical ideas to increasingly accurate degrees.

Jus' my 2 cents

- Sam

That's almost exactly how I look at it.  I think with a performance you go to see "performing" whereas with a recording you are listening to "composition."  If you go to a good enough performance ou can hear those ideas it is true, but even then  it is more "performing" you are attending to.  For example, instead of thinking "what a great contrapuntal accompaniment in the cellos" you are thinking "wow, those cellists are so good."  

Probably the best live performance I've heard was the San Francisco symphony playing the Planets under Seiji Ozawa.  It was wonderful and beautiful, and fascinating to hear the complex sound being created right there on the stage.  But I have to admit I wasn't thinking as much about Holst's orchestration or listening to how good the composition was, as much as just enjoying what the players were demonstrating.  

Another example is how I have listened to Mahler's symphonies.  If you went to a concert it would be an ordeal - your butt would be hurting probably, you would be distracted by the audience many times, there woud almost inevitably be errors in even a great orchestra because the music is so hard to play.  Whereas, compare that to listeniing to Georg Solti conducting the Chicago Symphony in Mahler's 8th - the famous recording that has been called the greatest recorded performance of all time - on headphones in a dark bedroom.  No one else around.  Only you and Mahler's music.  That experience is like going on a musical journey, or even a musical dream.  And it comes totally from it being a recording.  

To think that a composer can do something similar with VSL is very exciting and inspiring. 

@William said:

And what you said about it being impossible for samples to surprise one - no, it has happened to me repeatedly.  In fact, what is hilarious is I had written off a number of pieces in my mind because I heard them played live and not very well.  I had concluded, well that piece isn't so great...  But when I later did a sample performance of it, I was not only surprised but SHOCKED - it was actually not bad at all!  and I heard the ideas I had imagined coming back at me instead of getting lost in the bad live version.  So that does happen with samples at least to me.  

Since you put it that way William you have a good point and my comment that you're reffering to was a bit premature in retrospect.  Damn it! I hate it when I do that😳  In fact, now that you mentioned it, at times I have been immensely impressed to the point of shock and awe (...er, um, surprised?) of just how much life samples can breathe into my compositions.

In addition, you and Seventh Sam brought up some other excellent points that I hadn't considered.  I really like your "head phones in a dark bedroom" idea because that's pretty much me except most of the time it's in my car driving.  

Considering that the vast majority of Classical music was composed before the miracle of digital recording it was written with a live performance in mind.  A live performance in front of an audience.  Things like, EQ, sound engineering, mastering, balance levels, and reverb never entered Mozart's or Bach's mind.  They weren't worried about putting some compression on the fortissimo part to prevent clipping they just wrote the music and left it to the players for interpretation.  So personally, if I go to a concert, I go to see a live orchestra playing Classical music but I enjoy a professional recording of the music too. 

Even though I come from a Pop background, I stopped going to Pop concerts a long time ago for the reasons that Seventh Sam mentioned.  Not only that, but with Pop music you're missing out on the artistic contributions of the sound engineer and the producer if you just go to the concerts and not bother listening to the recorded material.  With Classical music the recorded version would sound pretty much the same as the live assuming the same orchestra performed and recorded it.

Anyway, I think I'm beginning to ramble so I better quit.  Great discussion! Haven't had one of these on the forum in a while.  Thank you everybody for contributing. 

Jasen you're not rambling!  That's interesting - what you said about pop concerts is true and why the Beatles stopped performing them and went to only recording.  Sergeant Pepper's performed live?  That doesn't even make sense.   (Also, no one could hear the music over the screaming...)  But that album and all their other later ones were crafted as complete works of art, not just performances of the day.   

Now why did Glenn Gould go to only recordings? - that is a different story.  (Probably so his insane humming would be audible.)

Wow, this thread is alive, with the sound of musings :) 

First, Jason, thank you for waking up my baby half an hour early this morning, with your comment about the page turner in my video I shared.  I read it to Becky and she burst in to laughter so loud that the Queen of the Night has nothing on her...and that laughter woke my little girl preventing me from enjoying my morning coffee.  Seriously, that was the funniest thing I've read in a long time!  By the way, that page turner is available for hire, just contact me for details and rates.

To add to the discussion, I think what it comes down to is composers and performers both want their music/ideas to be understood and appreciated by an audience.  As was alluded to by Seventh Sam, people go to watch performers and often, the main way in which an audience interprets the music, is actually through the visual cues on stage, such as grand, sweeping gestures, facial expressions, audience reaction and more.  The general audience member will instinctively react to the music and determine whether or not it sounds good to them, but won't be able to delve deeper in to the actual substance of what they are hearing, especially upon a first listen of the work, which is typical for most classical/new music atendees.  

The composer, on the other hand, works in isolation, creating music that will largely be experienced on a very superficial level by most listeners, whether they consume a virtual recording, or attend a live performance.  I think this becomes the issue that alienates composers from their audience.  Music is a language of communication, and when the message is not fully received by the listener, through no fault of their own, the composer ends up internalizing the meaning of their work, and over time becomes more and more resistant to sharing outwardly with others.  After all, what's the point?  A live performance will potentially resonate with some audience members, but most will be, as has been mentioned, there to be seen.  Most will take away trivial meaning from the performance, talking over drinks afterward about what the pianist was wearing, or the hillarious scowl faces the conductor made as he stared a hole through the orchestra.  

Beyond this, the composer's relationship with the musicians is also volatile.  The composer knowing that the musicians are the conduit between their ideas and the communication of those ideas to an audience, rely on the musicians to essentially "speak on the composer's behalf."  Since musicians themselves often see a performance as "just another job" (especially work for hire musicians, or orchestras in which individual musicians have no ownership over what they must play), the passion that was poured in to the composition, is often lacking in the musicians, who of course, want to devote as little energy/time to learning a piece as possible (this goes back to Paul's well-founded argument that the music should be easy enough to motivate performers). 

As William said with Glenn Gould, one-of-a-kind performers suffer the same isolation over time.  As the recognition and fame develops, audiences want to come out and see the genius in action.  Despite the fact that the house may be full, someone like Gould is all too aware of how few in attendance actually give a damn about the music.  They're not married to it.  They're not obsessed with every intricate detail.  They don't listen to partitas with headphones in a dark room (love that, William!)  And so, someone like Gould, eventually sick of hearing another candy unwrapped, another whisper, another cough, and another meaningless standing ovation from an audience filled with only a handful of actually appreciative/knowledgeable listeners, decides it's not worth putting himself out there for the lemmings that fill the concert hall because it's the in thing to do.  Of course, with Gould, there's also the desire to explore recording technology and create the perfect technical masterpiece...even with his prodigious technique, he was known for exploring multi-tracking and other techniques to bring out exactly what he wanted in a given performance.  Again, though, the vast majority of listeners wouldn't identify the genius, and so his work belongs to the few that have the ability to interact deeply with it.

Bottom line, from my perspective, the composer/performer that wants to be understood by his/her audience, will have to communicate to them on a level that resonates with that audience.  If one decides to explore music in a way that challenges one's own abilities and helps them grow musically, they likely will suffer the apathy/indifference of the vast majority of people.  There's a reason that a youtube video in which a person fills a hotel room with balloons gets 4 million views, and a performance of Mahler gets 100 views.  The best musicians can do, is find a small, like-minded community and share their work amongst each other, knowing that the feedback of one person that actually was interested in/"got" the music, means more than a concert hall filled with people looking to be seen by others.

Dave

@Another User said:

The best musicians can do, is find a small, like-minded community and share their work amongst each other, knowing that the feedback of one person that actually was interested in/"got" the music, means more than a concert hall filled with people looking to be seen by others.

 

Agreed!  Good thing this forum exists...

One of the greatest gifts an artist could ever receive, I think, is to have another artist analyze and understand their work.  It's nice to have people say things like, "It's so lovely!" or "I really liked it!", but it's pretty neat when someone says something like, "Yo, that tritone you snuck in on bar 52 that works despite being an unresolved dissonance because it's hinting at the parallel Lydian mode?  That sh*t was fire, bro!".

That said, I think the best art (and music) is such that can be enjoyed by anyone of any denominator.  Like Bach.  Catchy and sing-able melodies for the lemmings, super-computer level harmonic and contrapuntal content for the Glenn Goulds!  

- Sam

Ive been away for a while. This thread is quite interesting. I am yet to read all the comments but on the topic of live performance, I thought of sharing a section from "Music in the western world"...even Mozart was not immune to bad performances!

Hope you enjoy:

https://books.google.com/books?id=q1eobgND8H4C&pg=PA265&lpg=PA265&dq=mozart+%22to+general+applause+on+corpus+christi%22&source=bl&ots=3liW2sWtFk&sig=ACfU3U3gDPaSXEsP9Cd03H5gWvKbpii15g&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj70K-w0LjjAhVVCc0KHcE4CBEQ6AEwAHoECAAQAQ#v=onepage&q=mozart%20%22to%20general%20applause%20on%20corpus%20christi%22&f=false

Cheers

Anand

This thread has proven to be cat-like in its quantity of lives, so I'll not feel too weird about re-re-resurrecting it. This has been a most entertaining and thought-provoking discussion on several topics, with input from several musicians whose work I greatly admire. I have opinions on most of the topics you have touched upon but I will have mercy and limit my comments to just a couple of points.

Which do I prefer: live performance or VSL? To me, it largely depends on the work. Dave's chamber works, in particular, always sound better to me when they are rendered by a group of skilled musicians playing the instruments, be they Dave and Becky themselves on the accordion and clarinet or these fine string players and pianist from the Detroit area. The reason, I think, is because other musicians than the composer are involved. Even with Dave and Becky's considerable MIDIstration skills, the quartet will not have the unique interpretation and interplay of these beautiful players. I once heard that the American Brass Quintet had commisioned a work that just didn't turn them on and it didn't make it into their rotation. It did get published, however, and they chanced to hear it performed by another quintet. Lo and behold, they liked it! These other guys heard something different and added something beyond what the composer had put on the paper. It gave the piece some magic that the ABQ hadn't heard.

Bill's titanic orchestral stuff is another matter. When the forces are multiplied, the number of factors that can go wrong increase exponentially. We don't just need 4 top-notch musicians, we need 70 (for his Berlioz-conducting-with-a-sword version of his symphony). And to get such a beautifully rendered recording, we'd need days in a world-class recording venue with these monsters, then time, talent, and equipment to do the final mix and production. I sincerely hope that Bill gets a performance by a good orchestra; he and the piece richly deserve it. But I think it is safe to say that we will probably never hear the work performed as sonically and musically brilliant as the version he created on his computer. I got a chance to perform one of Bill's smaller works with about 20 other players. We are decent amateur musicians but we had limited rehearsal and the chart was programmed in the middle of concert with a lot of other stuff that needed our practice-time attention. We did alright but, by any standard of measure, Bill's VSL version is a superior recording. So what is the value of getting a live performance if you can do it better at home? Well, about 20 musicians got a chance to read through the piece and a couple hundred folks in Colorado Springs heard it and enjoyed it. I think that counts for something.

Tom,

As always, I'm truly humbled by the kind words you have for the music I share on the forum, and your encouragement serves as motivation to continue down this path, in spite of the numerous challenges you and I have discussed.

I agree with you that the transparency of chamber music, with the ability to discern every subtle detail and nuance, lends itself to a live performance, as one would hope the individual musicians' skills alongside their ensemble effort to interpret the music in a meaningful and convincing manner, would showcase the music in the best possible light.  One thing I'm guilty of, is writing music without concern for the sample library's strengths/weaknesses.  I rarely write to the samples, as all my concert music is scored first, then imported in to a DAW to create the performance.  It's there that I have to make the samples do my bidding, so to speak...and at times, a missing articulation, or a sample that just doesn't cut it, would be easily handled by a skilled professional. That said, with the sampled version, one can guarantee note/rhythmic accuracy, among other technical elements that are often compromised due to human error in live performance (although, this then begs the question:  is a technically flawless performance better or worse than the imperfections of a live performance that often enhance the "realism/authenticity" of the music?)

As for Bill's large-scale orchestral works, I've suggested the same thing to him as you have: it is highly unlikely that an orchestra would devote the significant time/resources to a one-off performance that would rival the virtual version Bill has so painstakingly created.  He should still pursue it though, for exactly the reasons you suggested when you performed his piece.  Any given piece can have multiple forms of meaning for any individual that comes in to contact with that music.  The more I compose, the more I come to grips with my own reality:  the saddest thing is not writing a piece that doesn't live up to my expectations, or doesn't satisfy me in live performance; it is realizing the vast majority of my music won't be heard at all.  

All the best,

Dave

"So what is the value of getting a live performance if you can do it better at home? Well, about 20 musicians got a chance to read through the piece and a couple hundred folks in Colorado Springs heard it and enjoyed it. I think that counts for something." - tchampe

It counts for a lot!  Any composer wants to get music "out there" so that it has a life of its own.   The goal of the artist - that his art may live on its own.  I often think about how if I have to constantly help a work have some existence, it is not yet alive.   That is the goal of artists  - and Frankenstein.  "It's alive! It's alive!"  😈