You formulated the idea perfectly. In fact this could be a statement of a whole school of thought. I agree completely about the idea of artists in painting, sculpting and other visual arts, not to mention poetry and writing, being able to put down ideas - maybe a great masterpiece, or maybe just a minor work - but all of them can be appreciated. However the composer, at least in the past, was never able to work this way. It is truly a paradigm shift, because you are talking about applying a different way of working - the personal expression of one artist - to a medium that has always be a mass or group performance art. Masses of musicians, or at least groups, determining what is "playable."

One additional way I noticed the same thing in a very personal example - I had written as a student an absurdly ambitious piece, portentously titled "Apotheosis" - yes, I was an enthusiastic nerd. Well, it got played in a rehearsal by some students and was completely destroyed, both in front of everyone, and within my own mind, since I thought it was just a lousy piece of juvenilia. So about 20 years later I found the score, and almost as a joke did a sample performance of it, and was shocked. It was a piece of music, that had never been expressed, and had been dismissed totally even in my own consciousness - BECAUSE OF PERFORMERS and the whole mentality of music as a performer's art. Because what they do dominates everything a composer does. So if a composer can be freed from this kind of thing, and do a little sketch, or a simple watercolor, or maybe a big oil painting if he wishes, but with pure sound, then it really is a completely new field of expression.

Anyway, thanks for your thoughts on this!

@William said:

It was a piece of music, that had never been expressed, and had been dismissed totally even in my own consciousness - BECAUSE OF PERFORMERS and the whole mentality of music as a performer's art. Because what they do dominates everything a composer does. So if a composer can be freed from this kind of thing, and do a little sketch, or a simple watercolor, or maybe a big oil painting if he wishes, but with pure sound, then it really is a completely new field of expression.

I hear you, William. I've been to rehearsals and/or performances of my works which simply were *not* the same piece. It's truly painful. What made it almost worse is that, in some cases, I already had a VSL version, so I knew exactly how it could (and should) sound, yet all those present in the audience had no idea. Mind you, I also realize that they did hear something, and that it may have been quite interesting and enjoyable to them... so I just smile, and bow, and say "thank you" to those who comment, and go home and put it out of my mind! [;)]

ps -- Please don't think that I blame performers for the above. It's difficult to approach a new work, by a composer whose music you have no knowledge of, and to do it all with the bare minimum of rehearsal time. Actually, I'm generally in awe of performers. But until they really get to know a piece, it's an uphill battle trying to hear one's work as it was intended to sound -- at least if one's musical style makes performance reasonably demanding... but I feel the water getting murky now, so I'll shut up! [;)]

J.

@William said:

So all this sort of discussion disturbs me, since I love samples and digital virtual orchestra. In fact, I think it can be an art form unto itself, not just a substitute for live.

That is a good point. We should just name it!

@PoppaJOL said:

[quote=William] There is a group of composers emerging who will use sample technology as their primary means of musical expression. These composers are not thinking of sample based composing as a substitute for a "real" orchestra, as a poor second best. Rather they conceive of this medium as the musical pallette with which they can actualize their true vision with no intention that it be performed by a live orchestra. This is a HUGE paradigm shift in the world of music. It is an entirely new conception in the creation of music.

Well, it seems to be that composer associations accept those "musical pallette" users as composer who write the notes by themselves. But not those people who also put the technology to create notes on scores. Do you think that it will change in respect?
(In fact computers can't be copyright owners, either).

I guess next to a crappy orchestra a virtual one is an improvement... at least my instruments will be in tune...? Compared to the finest orchestras, there is absolutely no comparing the two - virtual orchestras, no matter how good they "sound" never feel anything like the real thing. It's like having the most realistic blow-up doll ever, of your wife: may look a lot like her; may fool people in photos or from a distance; but it doesn't feel anything like her. And for the same reasons: it's not living, it doesn't respond, it doesn't articulate in a billion ways on its own... And what's crucial is that while the experience is relative, it's also absolute. I've noticed this time and time and time again with non-musicians, directors, my family, etc.: few of them could recognize the virtual orchestra by sound alone, especially without a comparison. As soon as a live recording of the same piece was placed back to back, there was absolutely no question which was real, and more importantly, no question that the real recording was far more emotionally powerful. They just weren't aware of what they were missing until they heard it. But the virtual recordings had absolutely not affected them as deeply.

I actually went through a thing on a film I did in 2004, where after the film was done, the producers started complaining about the music budget not being worth it. They had heard the entire score in my studio, virtually, before we recorded it - it was there that they "signed off" on the score. Of course, during the 3 or 4 days of recording, they were like kids at Christmas - stars in their eyes, hugging everybody - it's always like that. A year later, looking over the returns, they're doubting the 200k they spent on the music. So I sent a CD to them of their 3 favorite cues from the soundtrack, in virtual form, and from the live recording. I got an email the next day: "Nevermind."

_Mike

never mind - a waste of time

For a reminder on why not to post angry, please refer to the above post.

Nonetheless -

There's one thing I try never to do: talk about things I don't have experience with. I have been using sampled instruments since my first Ensoniq Mirage, now I use Gigastudio, and on the other hand, I've been fortunate to track with arguably the finest film and studio musicians on the planet, here in LA. In my experience, in the experience of working with directors and on projects professionally for 15 years, there's no comparison, whatsoever. That's my experience, upon which I depend to satisfy my clients, uphold my professional reputation, and make a living. So it's an opinion, albeit an informed one. There's no other place I can speak from.

That being said, I own Gigastudio! And I just had to use it for a TV gig, and a couple more upcoming. It has been an invaluable tool for communicating ideas to younger directors and nervous studio executives. But I also think the best use of electronic instruments is in contexts that precisely CAN'T be replicated by any other means; as truly unique instruments unto themselves.

I grew up "digital," and have no elitism about it - I use technology and virtual instruments every day, and love it. But there's absolutely no way I can pretend, after an entire career's worth so far of information to the contrary that sampled orchestras could ever hope to communicate musically what human beings do. In fact, the mere suggestion is so utterly dismissive of the mastery of craft exhibited by the world's best players, that I can't believe it's coming from a musician. I know one thing; it isn't coming from a virtuoso.

Anyway, if I'm full of it, and elitist, blah, blah, blah, then you have certainly nothing to fear from my ignorance and shortsightedness. Hardly seems to merit getting upset over. Clearly, you have nothing to fear.

Unless you put your virtual stuff up against my live stuff, that is.

Then again, we can always agree that wisdom - as in all things - is in the middle somewhere - and that electronic instruments have a unique place in music. However useful the approximation, thus valuable, ultimately that place just isn't in trying to replicate what it can never replace. That's where I come down.

_Mike

It is very strange - I read these posts and was actually inspired by the attitude of the people like jbm, Alex, DG, Dave, mathis, and the wonderful statement of poppajol who practically created an imaginative credo for a new art form. I find what they said inspiring and encouraging.

But then this mverta person posts this statement, that samples are only a mediocre substitute for a live orchestra, and it is depressing. Thanks mverta. I am getting older, and as I do, I notice that there are always people like you out there - the negative ones. And I am avoiding your type like the plague these days. So post whatever devastating rejoinder you want - it won't have too much effect because I am used to your type.

"Unless you put your virtual stuff up against my live stuff, that is." - mverta

First of all - what is "your" live stuff? What the other musicians did? how is that "yours" ?

Secondly - try me. Anytime, anywhere. How about right here? I will match my best sampled stuff against your best live. Let's do it. I 'm ready. Are you?

I notice you didn't actually address anything I said. But you seem to have no problem hurling out the personal insults.

I'm sorry you find my opinion "depressing," but surely you wouldn't recommend I misrepresent my experiences for the sake of blowing sunshine up your ass? Especially because if I'm not mistaken, the idea that electronic instruments have a unique and valid place in music seems to be a major point we agree on.

Ah, well, at least you're steeled against "my type." That should serve you nicely.

_Mike

P.S. As for your "challenge"... I appreciate you making it about me, but it really isn't. If I wasn't a musician; if I wasn't a composer, the differences would still exist. In fact, that was a central point I was making, that even "know-nothings" can feel the difference. But if you want to send me the score to one of your pieces, say 5 minutes in length, plus $40k, I promise to have it recorded properly here in LA. That's assuming of course, that the orchestration is A-level as well, and that's hoping it's a good piece.

The pisser is though, if you can't already hear the difference, this probably won't help you. In fact, if you could feel the difference, you'd never have proffered the point. Personally, I'd like to say that if you're planning on entering the film scoring market, please keep using virtual orchestras wherever possible. Please.

I was in the film scoring market long ago sir.

As to my challenge - I thought so - a coward! I was ready to post something- in fact, I was cogitating excitedly over WHAT to post, since there are so many possibilites for devastating non-entities such as you. But since you have nothing to offer, tsk, tsk, tsk, such a pity - for you.

The first challenge to a Samples vs. Live duel in the history of the world - and the wretch, the beggar, the blaggard is a coward!

Ha-ha!

My seconds were ready to call upon you sirrah, but I suspected as much from the likes of your kind. I spit upon you sirrah, and trust you will no longer show your miserable face in any of the Digital Taverns or Sampling Inns I frequent! Ha-ha!

[[:|]]

Um. You win. Please stay away from my house.


_Mike

I think that we're getting confused here. There is no doubt that my music sounds better when recorded by players than when using samples. There are various reasons for this:

1) I wrote it for players, not samples.
2) I'm not the world's best programmer and engineer.
3) An orchestra full of individuals, with their own views on musicality, is very hard to match with samples, where one brain is "directing" every note.

However, in the past there were many times when my demos sounded better than the final result simply because the players were not up to the job.

Now here is where the confusion starts. There are times when composers write specifically for samples, and in these cases I have yet to hear a live version sound better than the sample performance. This is especially true when mixing rhythmic electronic instruments with orchestral instruments. On my current project, without the best players in the country, it would have been impossible. Having said that there are still as many as 200 edits per track....!

The time that "real" players shine is usually where the music is very simple. There are many times that I've heard film cues that are musically ignorant and badly written where the strength of performance actually makes it sound like proper music....! This is very hard to pull off with samples. However when it comes to blood and guts racket, samples can actually be an improvement.

The last point is "does it sound real"? I would say "does it matter"? If you are recreating a standard from the Classical repertoire, then it probably does matter, but for original composition the only criteria is "does it sound good?".

DG

ooh, things are getting a little toasty in here, hey?

I would have to say that, given absolutely *ideal* conditions, in terms of rehearsal time (read: budget), players abilities and attitudes, and a host of other factors, there's probably no situation in which I wouldn't ultimately choose "live" over sampled. I mean, if Ensemble Modern suddenly wanted to record a few of my works, I'd be over the moon! However, meeting these conditions is simply not a day-to-day possibility. Not for me, and not for anyone. The musical and financial resources simply do not exist. So there's a pragmatic side to all of this which is impossible to ignore.

Also, there's the question of process, which DG is getting at in his last post. If I sit down at my (slightly flakey but improving) little VI "farm" and start bashing around ideas, there is direct experience involved. As I continue to compose, I'm hearing and responding in a very direct and almost instantaneous way. In this sense, my "virtual" orchestra is actually more "real" than anything I could auralize and transcribe to a pencil score. Obviously there are those who will argue against this, but I think the ground is pretty stable under that statement. The simple reason is that, if I auralize a passage of music, for a given instrument or ensemble, and transcribe that auralization to paper, I'm still imagining it with a certain performance in mind. And that performance is absolutely personal, absolutely "virtual"; I may never, in all my days, hear a performance like it. (In fact, it may not even be possible for me to hear a performance quite like it, since it's at least partly informed by many mental structures quite foreign to phsyical hearing... but that's another thread.) This is why I agree with DG that there are works that simply *will* sound better in their sample-based realizations, than in live performance... though the word "better" is, of course, slippery ineed! But it would be a mistake, IMHO, to suggest that this is because the work is poorly composed, or poorly orchestrated. It is simply informed by an entirely different process, and I don't think there's any way to completely divorce the product from the process through which it was formed.

Lately I often find myself concerned that my concert music is becoming too dependent on my studio setup. But my setup is now intimately tied to my compositional process, so I try to understand it and refine as much as possible. As long as I have some awareness that the manner in which I'm working is a primary influence on the work I produce, then I retain some hope of keeping a relatively clear head about what my music is all about. But I do sometimes miss the idealized world of pencil and paper composing... Perhaps someday I will find my way back to it.

btw, I realize that got a bit off topic, but I think it's sort of relevant... no?

J.

Regarding this topic. Today, I see four ways to compose music to be performed and recorded:

1) You compose for a known orchestra or ensemble. You obei to what can be performed with this particular ensemble. You don't write melodies, lines or rhythms who can not be played by all members of a section. In this scenario you have to know the niveau of each ensemble member.

2) You make a model (mock-up) for later being recorded with an orchestra or ensemble. Here the same scenario as under 1), you have to know the niveau of the performers.

3) Compose and arrange pop music. The music is simple. It can be played by an orchestra or ensemble as well can be realized with synths and samples.

4) You compose exactly as complex as you hear it. No reduction and compromise to the niveau of an orchestra or ensemble. That's often my scenario. The music can not be played by an ensemble, not even when the ensemble or the whole orchestra would consist of soloists only.

.

In every field I've ever come accross there have been serious, knowledgeable, experienced people with diametrically opposite points of view. This is true even in the hard sciences where one would think the "answers" are concrete and quantifiable. If anyone here has ever spent any time around the field of medicine then you know the level of contentiousness there is legendary.

There are people who feel passionate about their particular point of view. Many of these people are quite competent and base their feelings on long experience. It is fascinating to me that intelligent, sincere, thoughtful people, who may even have similar experiences, can come to hold completely different and often incompatible perspectives on a subject. In the history of the arts, real (not virtual) duels have been fought over smaller differences than the ones being considered here.

I believe the world is large enough for more than one school of thought or artistic practice. I believe it is perfectly acceptable, right and good that various artists should commit themselves passionately to the approach that they feel is "best" for them. I believe that the evolution of art is fluid and constantly changing. It is when there is no change, no evolution and no passionate differences among artists that something vital is lost. I believe we are in the midst of another, major change which I have tried to articulate in an earlier post. There are those who will embrace this new paradigm and those who will reject it. That is the way it always has been and should be. For me, its all music and its all good.

Be well,

Jimmy

I've read through the later posts and offer the following....

Poppa, right on man (You too, Angelo and Bill, for the same point). The means of expression, particularly musical, remains ever fluid, and no one medium could ever be actively dismissed as mediocre, because as we know, its the performer's responsibility for the sound of the final result, and if that performer is mediocre, close minded, and already readily dismissing a potential opportunity for an even wider pallette of medium, then the end result is going to be, well, mediocre.
Daryl nailed a good point too. Which medium do you want to use? Are you writing for live, or sampled? (or the alien gig....Britney Spears)
Live's been done for the better part of 500 hundred years or so, as an orchestral, or ensemble reference. (and of course, several thousand years before that for 'expressing one's self'.)

Mike, personally, i wouldn't send you anything, because i'd have no certainty that you'd take it seriously, given the vast gulf, and credibility gap between live and sampled, that you've expressed as your view in this debate. Too closeminded for me, and the enthusiastic dismissal of performance with samples as a viable opportunity, makes me wonder if you weren't wiser to refrain from mentioning 'virtuoso' as a means of making your barbed and somewhat derogatory judgement of someone else's capability as a musican. There is a small but growing band of sample performance 'virtuosi' who continue to push the limits of this new, and (IMHO) exciting medium, and with further development, and, to put it bluntly, practise, there's no telling just how far we can go. Virtuosi are the outstanding performers in their field, whatever the medium may be (generally), so to make a comparison using this criteria seems, well, somewhat naive. Those in glass houses.......

In all of this, we come back to individual talent. We know of several chaps here and elsewhere who can perform with samples to an extrordinarily talented level.

There's no doubt it's only the hardware and software interfaces that may in fact be holding these fellows (and us?) back from attaining even greater heights of performance, and just as the pipe organ and piano unleashed composers and performers, and gave them a big chunk of creative capacity and freedom, samples, (maybe in the guise of a 'soft' instrument, replete with almost infinite layers, articulative segments, and a realistic means to perform/manage those segments and sounds) have great potential to release modern day composers from the restriction of using a complete, and traditional, 'live' orchestra.

Daryl made another excellent point about the reality of writing for 'live'. It's fairly simple stuff, and when played well, is wonderful. (And i'm a former orchestral player with conducting experience as well.) Ok if you write for live.
But if you want to express something beyond orchestral capacity, and it's not only possible, but creatively neccessary, then a 'virtual orchestra' comes into it's own. We hear the world's best orchestras playing stuff WRITTEN for them, specifically. Of course they're going to sound good. There's a lot of myth attached to symphonic ensembles, and you'd be surprised just what goes on inside a performance, including all the 'humanity' that is touted as a clumsy difference between live performance, and sample instrument performance.
There was also a comment about the differences between orchestras, and their performances. The same thing applies with sample instruments. Although the source sound may be the same, part of sample performing seems to be blending and layering, and it's here, and in the mix, that we'll hear the 'individuality' in sample performance. Those with talent will build their own 'signature', and those who aspire to greater recognition will and/or emulate/plagarise/practise/sit on their arse throwing cheap shots, and failing to understand their own mediocrity.

No doubt this debate will continue, but it still comes down to the skill of the performer and quality of the arrangement, be it a composition with a live ensemble, replete with 100plus muso's all doing their interpretation, or a single performer playing 100 parts from the same thought/emotive/perception source. If you're good enough, the medium of your choice will sound good, provided you can 'play' it well. (virtuoso?)

Regards,

Alex.

Just to add to the above post, i think Bill and others are on the right track, in their perception of the potential in a sample performance setting, and i look forward to hearing the progress they make, and the work they do, specifically written for this medium.

Exciting times ahead for those who can, and are willing, to 'see' that far.

Alex.

Good post, DG.

Some of the replies here are brilliant and inspiring, no joking.

One other thing that occurs to me is specific types of music in this context. Mention was made of 'simple" music being hard to do in samples - I completely agree. An example is an almost childishly simple violin solo piece I once tried to program. It had been played fairly well by a live violin, but I tried later on to do it with some very good samples and it was terrible. I would never let anyone hear it. A single line with piano accompaniment! On the other hand, some massive orchestrations seem to work in an exciting, even thrilling way that I immediately want others to listen to.

I agree on specifically writing for samples being a deciding factor, though perhaps also there are certain types of orchestral music originally written for live that, because of their particular orientation toward sound and timbre, benefit from sample performance or might even sound better. For example, certain modern pieces that put extreme strains upon live players in their emphasis on unusual timbre. I often wonder what would Ligetti's Atmospheres, Lontano and Apparitions might sound like with samples on the level of VSL. These are pieces which treat the live orchestra almost like a tone generator in a fascinating timbral experiment. The Bacall performance of Varese worked very well and seems to demonstrate something similar though with the added element of highly complex rhythm in the percussion.

The exact opposite of this is the terrible, dull music for "Last of the Mohicans" which was simply a huge mass of undifferentiated sound, "scored" (to use the term very, very loosely) for a live orchestra, a group of studio players who must have been so bored by performing the exact same repetitive theme, doubled over and over throughout the ensemble, that they ended up the recording session in comas and had to be taken out on stretchers.

For the people who think that live orchestras are always better - that piece of shit of a score could be represented by a small, older sample library PERFECTLY. The live players represent nothing more than snob appeal and bragging rights for the producer and composer.