Hi mh,

no need to mourn at all. I will never dispute any well done interpretation at all. of course we have had in history in many centuries impressing musicians who knew to convince with exactly those musical means and instruments which were available for them and made most impressing music as well as interpretations as far we can still listen already in pretty much recordings we nevertheless hear to day for 99% through any kind of loadspeaker.

And of course I would enjoy as much a good performance with what instrument ever as soon it is convincing. The only imho "misbelieve" I try to put a bit in question is the assumption, that historic instruments are in any way per se superior. No for me they are not and there is a pretty simple reason, it is the musician and not the instrument who makes the music.  It is the musical intenttion which searches for nuances not the wood or specific data who does that at any kind in any instrument for the musician.

It is true, that we presumably all learned to speak the language music with traditional instruments and our tradition is rich enough to teach us very very much impressing, important and deep things about music.

But guess what imho you even can learn, that there is from all th centuries of our tradition scarcly any greater Composer or musician still known who was not interested in exploreing and using the most modern instruments of his time, so if we would like to follow their great example we should learn to speak their language with our own words with all means available in our time just as they did in their time.

the questions about the significance of the life performance could Imho be consideredd more and more  like the significance of the storyteller in the centuries after Gutenberg has introduced the printing press. Yes get  a fairy tale toldby your grandpa or grandma still might have its own irreplaceable attraction. But sorry, you can't comunicate with how many however loveable grandmas and grandpas all the knöwledge and intellectual creativity good libraries have transmitted since they could be printed on paper.

Would I disregard or  even want replace the lecture (in music - the performance ) therfore in any way. No of course not. But wake up the reality is, that the performance of a composition has already now not much more quantitative relevance compared to the amount of music which is heard through loudspeaker and the more orless digital way to get in it as the fairytale telling grandma for the litareature we know (oh I forget even she uses for lang times books she just read it loud instead of giving their version of the "authentic" aural transmission) and why did even she use this less "authentic" modern cultural technic? simply because it is more powerful and more precise and so our reading grandma is always sure their version is not less convincing told than the Version how the Brother Grimm printed it. 

Yes to travel by foot is pretty good to keep an eye for all details of your travel, but the USA would scarcly ever had become the most plural and powerful nation if all ancesters of those who live ther today had remaind with traveling by foot only because this is regarded as the only  traditional  "authentic" technic to use. Come on guys, stay a bit more confindent about the great instruments especially VSL provides and we all use with great pleasure. They  are new and yes they can be used to make good music. That is at least my strong personal opinion. And yes I confess I still comiserate those who are not open to use all the powerful means and technics  which are available today to unfold their Ideas and express themself.

"Have you had much experience of your own music being played live and well? It may be a bit crass, but if you feel so inclined, listen to my Partita Concordia on my site and tell me you could programme that better. " mh7635

You are just so superior aren't you?  Looking down on everybody from your high "professional" viewpoint with orchestras lining up everywhere to play your masterpieces. I again wonder - why are you on this website?  So you can tell people your live performances are better than sampled performances by VSL?  It is tacky and arrogant. 

I want an apology from you. I do not like people calling me "idiot" in public.  

I do not believe mh meant his apreciation of this certain performance in any arrogant way. Obviously this interpretation meet in an extraordinary way what the composer intended that music to be. This is great, but I do not see any necessity to generalize that.  Neither conventional nor digital artitst are worth to be disregarded in any way. I personally even think both could learn from each other very much. And the great VSL-Samples are notably of distinctive quality since they rely on an extraordinary living tradition of classical orchestramusicians in Vienna.

But we should definitly avoid to miss the respect for any kind of musician whatever instruments he uses.

Thanks fahl5, that is kind of you to say.

Another statement at mike hewer -  not discussion, just statement:

you list a trio as your expressive work doing what samples can never do.

I was NEVER talking about solo works or tiny chamber ensembles.  ORCHESTRAL music was what I have always been discussing and made perfectly clear.  

You believe you are the only person with live music experience on this Forum? What orchestras did you play in?   I played in orchestras - symphony, opera, chamber, concert bands, chamber ensembles for 35 years.  I conducted live performances of my own works including film scores and concerts.  I composed and received commissions for many live performances.  Also the performance I mentioned was not a bad one.  TRY AND GET A PERFORMANCE WITH RENO CHAMBER ORCHESTRA.  Do it!  Let's hear how fast they get back to you.

Don't go dismissing everyone here with your goddamned arrogance.  You don't know what the fuck you're talking about.  THE FACT IS that when players are in a large orchestral group - and this is something you don't get but need to - they do not play the same as when playing SOLO or in a small chamber work.  Their sound becomes homogenized. Often totally so, even in great orchestras.  Thisis something samples can reproduce often far better than live.  But you attempt to dismiss that idea with solo performance.   It is impossible to compare soloistic playing ot three players to a 40 piece swtring ensemble. That is absurd - and it is what YOU are conflating.    Also - You insulted me and I demand an apology.

William Kersten

www.williamkersten.com

William Kersten,

I was going to try and explain in words your fanboy addled brain might understand, the point I've been making all along, but your knee-jerk emotional, bitter and insulting reactions blind you to the possibility that other well considered opinions are available, let alone understand them. Your attitude also seemingly renders you insensible, curt and incapable of discerning context in a forum post when responding to opposing points of view.  A shame, really.

Likewise I was going to list examples of the false assumptions and assertions you have made in this thread about me ( which started this argument) and refute each one, but it is not worth the effort because you are beyond any civility or sense in this matter....and you want an apology from me?

You will understand I trust, if I do not change my opinion about you in order to satisfy your offended self.

Fahl,

Thank you Fahl for seeing my self-reference how it was intended to be. I enjoyed your post but can't agree fully with it. So be it, at least it was civil, reasonable and well thought out - the sort of thoughtful response one would like to read when polar positions are being aired.

David,

My apologies for the spiral away from the threads original topic.

@Acclarion said:

Hi all,

Second, also tying in to this was an article I read that tried to argue that percussionists are not musicians but rather technicians, because many aspects of musicianship are not required to "bang on a drum in time" (as a distilation of the main argument).

Dave

 

Hi Dave,

first off, excellent topic. I havent had the chance to comment but there is plenty of interesting posts already.

One thing that caught my attention, and that William mentions too, was the article you mention about percussionists not being real muscians.  Whoever wrote that must be ignorant not only of western music, where percussionists simply dont just "bang on drums" but rather have a wide range of muscianship skills, but they probably couldnt face an indian percussionist like Zakir Hussein. Some of the greatest indian muscians I know are percussionists, they have a mastery of rhythm that is quite other wordly AND they have amazing ear for melody as well.

My resposne to the idiot who wrote that article would be this: Without rhythm, there is no music, and good percussionists are masters of complex rhythms. So without them there is no music!

Could you point to that article? I really want to hate that person who wrote it (well, my brother is an Indian classical percussionist, so this is a bit personal for me;))...but no worries if you prefer not to share it.

Cheers

Anand

Hi Dave

no worries, just wanted to make a point. 

Cheers

Anand

Actually the statement that popular music drummers are worse is even more offensive.  

The great drummers of both jazz and rock are supreme artists and for someone to say that stuff is profoundly ignorant.

delete

One of the people on this Forum was listing as his example of how live players are vastly superior in performing to samples a tiny trio composition. It is obvious that espressivo playing by individual players - if they are good enough - will be better than samples most of the time. Simply because their instantaneous expressions suit the music better at the moment, not because they actually play better.

But I was never talking about small-scale chamber music played by individuals, even though there are solo strings and Dimension players, etc., by VSL that can actually give many good live players a run for their money. Listen to Jay Bacal's John Williams cello and you will understand what I mean.

But this person conflated two different things - massive orchestral composition such as what I have done with VSL, and tiny solo pieces such as what he has done. There is no possible comparison in difficulty, practical, musical or otherwise.

Some of the greatest composers in history have large scale orchestral works ignored until they die. Schubert's Ninth - probably the greatest romantic symphony ever being a case in point., etc. etc. Yet this composer-troll here on this forum implies that if you don't have everything you composed played live - like his tiny little trio - you are an "idiot" as he calls me.

I would love to hear his performances - live or otherwise - of compositions like these -not little solo pieces played by his friends, but massive orchestrations that dwarf his productions.

if he has them, put them on this Forum! I want to hear them! Here are what I have done, the productions of an "idiot" his term -

williamkersten.com

That is a small sampling of my music. I am now working on a feature film score, and am neglecting further classical concert works as a result. I would be able to more properly represent what I've done if I had a publicist but don't have one and am too busy working on music and film to properly present myself. And so I am afflicted by creeps like this guy who want to trash me and do so publicly, to feel good about themselves. I find it disgusting. I thought of quitting this Forum, but I won't give them the pleasure...

Why precisely am I a Troll? 

I called you an idiot because I had commented in the past that I liked some of your music, but that seemed to pass you by in your fury......context Kersten all context. The rest is in your head, nowhere else.

I have no need to trash you publicly because you do a pretty good job of it yourself. You should actually be ashamed of yourself.

Can I request some moderation please VSL as this person has taken everything out of context and it has become cheap and unfounded ad hominem.

"There is no argument between the quality and artistry of a great soloist's or ensemble's rendition of a quality work, to that of the greatest programmer's with the best samples and technology on the planet." -Errikos

I don't care.  I am only interested in the composer's point of view. I don't care about whether a performer is fully represented or not.  If he feels underepresented then he can contact his congressman.  

"Orchestras on the other hand, they do mutate and evolve but in a different way. In fact, there are many music critics that prefer the Berlin and Vienna Philharmonics of old to today's. It's not worth getting into that huge discussion here, but what I am proposing is that those orchestras will sound - comparatiely to samples - pretty much the same thirty years from now, as they did thirty years ago (comparatively!)."  -Errikos

Again, it doesn't matter.   Because I am talking about pure expression of musical ideas divorced from any performer's variance, or ensembles evolution, etc. etc.   That is all fine, but has nothing to do with me as a composer unless I am a sycophant  of orchestra music directors. 

It  is far more purely represented in the fundamental recording of musical tones that a composer can use, totally separate from the mind of any performer.  

"It is my contention that composers of that time will still prefer, not just the NY Phils and the Concertgebouws, but any professional ensemble that will put the requisite amount of time and effort in the performance of their works, than their computer simulations, even with all the anticipated improvements thrown in."  _Errikos

And you are wrong in that contention because of the simple fact that if an artist creates an idea, he wants to control the realization of that idea.  Not cede it to someone else.  Including the great performers who strut around arrogantly in front of their adoring audiences.  

Your argument is premised upon the concept that music is ALWAYS  collaboration. One doesn't need a collaboration to create musical ideas - they are there, right there, without the blessing of any performer.  So what I am saying is the composer is not the inferior of performers and dependent upon them. And the kind of work that VSL has done actually realizes that.  

Do yourself a favour and get help .....oh and don't whine again for an apology.

Actually - I won't joke about it.  

If Hans Zimmer, composer of the most robotic orkestral compositions (that require no expression, nuance, or variety for their execution, and which are further complemented/distorted by being blended with synthesized sounds), who has not just the best, but ALL samples available on the planet (including his own) and can afford the best programmers and studio apparati in the world, if a man of his aesthetics and tastes still engages a real orchestra to perform his locomotive drones, that says something, loudly.

Nevertheless, you refer to "pure expression of musical ideas", bereft of any performer's input. I cannot refute this of course, since only a mechanical device programmed by the composer can come the closest to this particular ideal today. Add to this the efforts on behalf of the programmer to simulate 'Realism' in that performance by using the best samples available to him, Impulse Responses and filters and whatnot in that strife for purity (so no 'Humanizing' features I presume, or any feature that would reflect a real performer's chance, inadvertent deviations...)

Like I said, one cannot argue against this, simply because it is a matter of preference. The same could have been said 30 years ago with the technology that was available then. It doesn't matter that sampled performances sounded inferior compared to good live performances (they still do today, only less so), a composer -such as I was back then- could still contend they preferred the simulation, for it expressed my musical ideas purely. This principle could be further extended to the Casiotone, or a Pianola further back. I don't know whether Debussy would take that over Michelangeli.

Now if you argue that today we have more control over more parameters of performance than we did then -therefore our results are closer to that "pure expression of musical ideas"- then I'll say you're right there, but that expression is not pure yet, it will keep getting purer as technology and individual programming skills keep improving.

To me, samples still sound like what they are, just better than before. At best, as with Bacal and others, they sound glorious for what they are, and I marvel at the programmers' abilities to get this much realism, and generate quasi-living musical organisms out of neutral, mechanical sound molecules.

Additionally, I will say that if for some reason I was only allowed to keep only one version of my each orchestral composition thus far (simulated vs. live), in most cases I would keep the simulated one, only because they are better in many respects to the live performances. However, that is because the live performances were so far below par. Were they par or above, I would opt for those instead, as a) There is no fakeness in the sound which hugely detracts from the overall enjoyment of the work, and b) The music sounds alive, breathing (it sounds so in the bad performances as well, but sick and dying unfortunately). Sadly, the main issue is that the fakeness in sampled performances is most pronounced in the strings, which are the most important section and half of the orchestra. I am sure this shortcoming will be ameliorated in the coming years/decades. As we stand now, I have to say I am unable to make that 'leap of hearing' and pretend it is actually an orchestra performing and not Cubase. It's not even close. It's like in that other thread with the trio(?) where we are asked to pick which version we prefer. I immediately went for the live performance, I am suprised that it was even a question since the simulation was not good; it sounded very fake and plastic from 'Go'. I am only mentioning this since I too am not a great programmer.

Finally, I have experienced quite a few instances where performers actually improved on the purity of my musical ideas (ex. change of tempo in a section, rendition of a line, etc.), and I would be sorry to have missed out on those. And if you remember, I ended my post with the idea that we have not been put in a position where we have to choose between one world or the other, but in one where ideally we can take the best of both.

@Errikos said:

It's like in that other thread with the trio(?) where we are asked to pick which version we prefer. I immediately went for the live performance, I am suprised that it was even a question since the simulation was not good; it sounded very fake and plasticfrom 'Go'. I am only mentioning this sinceI tooam not a great programmer.

Dave,

If I may interject....you seem to have taken Errikos's comment personally but I dont read anthing personal in what he said about your piece. I read his comment as being about the samples  and not the programming. I think your programming of this piece was as good as it possibly can be, particularly the performace shaping was excellent. 

I think the fakeness that Errikos is referring to relates to the tonal quality of the string instruments, and I tend to agree. As much as I did not like the intonational and rhythmic inaccuracies of the live performers, I loved the tonal purity. There are rich overtones in string instruments that are possibly the hardest to reproduce in sampling. While VSL is remarkable in its ability to mimic real performance (e.g., smoothness in dynamics during transistions in articuluations, etc.,), and is probably the best out there, to my ears it still falls short in terms of the tonal fidelity. And often this is so jarring to me. 

So while I admire the performace accuracy of the VSL rendition of your trio, if someone were to shut me in a room and make me listen to this over and over again, I would choose your live performance. It sounds more natural and pleasing.

(I should note again that none of this is about you as a composer or a programmer...I have achieved nothing in music but you are all professional composers, so I am even unqualified to comment. My comment is purely as a listener and hope it makes sense)

Now going back to what I said previously, I do see why you were frustrated with the live performance and prefer the VSL version because VSL does exactly what you want to do. This is something I learnt on this forum, that its not easy to get a good live performance of ones work. So in that sense your comparison is highly informative as to the pros and cons of live vs samples. Maybe I will face this one day!

Cheers

Anand

One thing that seems fundamentally wrong to me in this whole argument is the concept of "fake" being applied to VSL samples.  They are not "fake" they are REAL.  This is not an old style digital synthesizer which WAS fake, the wave forms ripped away from their original context and changed into an artificial sound.  But VSL avoids this  and is extremely, even obsessively careful and scrupulous in being faithful to the original musical sounds.   They are real, incredibly good players, many virtuoso, being recorded.  That is the whole attraction  in that the real players expressive sound has been captured and made available to the composer.  It is actually an insult to those players to place them on the "fake" side and live performers on the "live" side!  

The real comparision involved in this whole argument should be with recorded pieces of music vs. recorded samples of music ---  not actually present live players.  Obcviously if you have standing in your studio Perlman ready to play your violin composition it will be better than VSL.  But that is not the point.  To me it is a comparison of a recording of an orchestra playing an entire piece vs. a recording of individual samples, and one can often create a better overall recording with samples. 

But the debate is now irritating and pointless. If somebody thinks samples are inferior musically then fine, go ahead and think that.  It is utterly meaningless to me and I am so finished with this argument.