I think Paul's point has been missed on this.
As a former concert piano and orchestral W/W player, I've relied on what skills i have left (after a bad vehicle accident) to input speedily, and maximise the use of time. The knowledge of form, theory, orchestration, etc is still there, but plonkiing in three notes, then changing articulations, then doing another two notes then changing etc. is less like music for me and more like data input, a job i don't relish, as the boredom would drive me nuts. I do this now with samples i have, and setting up a score with multiple tracks for the same instrument is a real chore, albit for income's sake, a neccessary one.
I'm quite excited about the potential of the VI, but for me objectively, it's the repetition and multi articulation input on the fly that represents the most important part of the new library.
In reality, i'd like to set up the patch and articulations, adjust the speed, and press record.
How much inputting i can do in one run is important to me. If, as the VI tutorial seems to imply, i can do this, then i'm thoroughly interested.
If i can only input 50% of my work, it's still a step forward, but if i were a large sample library owner, i would naturally ask if the step forward was worth it. (I think the step is worth it, but i don't have a large sample library to make a comparison with travelling, as i am, to study).
I've also read much about the challenges presented using the performance tool. Given that technology is still a step ahead of the rest, it would still present to me a long and detailed program of inputting pieces at a time. This would be ok in work that wasn't on a time limit, but for work that has a schedule of completion, the VI's potential gives more monetary value if the inputting is almost all automated. e.g. 4 weeks to finish a normal project, 2 weeks to finish a VI project, Do two jobs in the same time, double the income, you get the picture.
I think Paul's question is entirely reasonable, and, as he's already said, it's not a shot at Herb or the team, but a request for a more detailed and objective report on the efficiency, level of automation, and potential increase in ease of use, of the new VI format.
As for what seems an assumption that keyboard players are restricted in understanding or emulating the particular techniques that other instruments use,
I have spent a lifetime either playing (piano and W/W) or working hard to gain an understanding from my fellow orchestral players as to exactly how their particular instrument works, how it's played, etc., and i'm absolutely sure i'm not the only one. Please let's not assume a keyboard player is just a keyboard player, and has little or no practical knowledge outside of that particular instrument, or method of computer input.
Regards,
Alex.
As a former concert piano and orchestral W/W player, I've relied on what skills i have left (after a bad vehicle accident) to input speedily, and maximise the use of time. The knowledge of form, theory, orchestration, etc is still there, but plonkiing in three notes, then changing articulations, then doing another two notes then changing etc. is less like music for me and more like data input, a job i don't relish, as the boredom would drive me nuts. I do this now with samples i have, and setting up a score with multiple tracks for the same instrument is a real chore, albit for income's sake, a neccessary one.
I'm quite excited about the potential of the VI, but for me objectively, it's the repetition and multi articulation input on the fly that represents the most important part of the new library.
In reality, i'd like to set up the patch and articulations, adjust the speed, and press record.
How much inputting i can do in one run is important to me. If, as the VI tutorial seems to imply, i can do this, then i'm thoroughly interested.
If i can only input 50% of my work, it's still a step forward, but if i were a large sample library owner, i would naturally ask if the step forward was worth it. (I think the step is worth it, but i don't have a large sample library to make a comparison with travelling, as i am, to study).
I've also read much about the challenges presented using the performance tool. Given that technology is still a step ahead of the rest, it would still present to me a long and detailed program of inputting pieces at a time. This would be ok in work that wasn't on a time limit, but for work that has a schedule of completion, the VI's potential gives more monetary value if the inputting is almost all automated. e.g. 4 weeks to finish a normal project, 2 weeks to finish a VI project, Do two jobs in the same time, double the income, you get the picture.
I think Paul's question is entirely reasonable, and, as he's already said, it's not a shot at Herb or the team, but a request for a more detailed and objective report on the efficiency, level of automation, and potential increase in ease of use, of the new VI format.
As for what seems an assumption that keyboard players are restricted in understanding or emulating the particular techniques that other instruments use,
I have spent a lifetime either playing (piano and W/W) or working hard to gain an understanding from my fellow orchestral players as to exactly how their particular instrument works, how it's played, etc., and i'm absolutely sure i'm not the only one. Please let's not assume a keyboard player is just a keyboard player, and has little or no practical knowledge outside of that particular instrument, or method of computer input.
Regards,
Alex.
