# Small Concerto for Piano & Fake Orchestra



## re-peat (Aug 4, 2005)

http://users.pandora.be/re-peat/Re-PianoOrchestra.mp3 (Small Concerto for Piano &amp; Fake Orchestra)

An older piece of mine which I already posted once before on Sonikmatter, but maybe some of you here would be interested in hearing it as well.
Like I say, it's fairly old and it shows in that the overall sound is a bit dense and muddy. I would prefer it to be much more open sounding, more airy. That's why I'm currently revising it completely - and also because I've got quite a few new tools and libraries since I first recorded this (plus Synful as well of course). Until this revision is ready however, here's the original version.

Libraries: SonicImplants Strings, SAM & QuantumLeap Brass, Westgate Woodwinds, London Percussion (just timpani & xylophone) and the piano-part is played with a GEM Promega3.

Thanks for listening!


----------



## PaulR (Aug 4, 2005)

re-peat said:


> Thanks for listening!



Very accomplished. Are you playing or is the piano mostly programmed?


----------



## Trev Parks (Aug 4, 2005)

re-peat said:


> Paul,
> 
> Thanks!
> Most sections of the pianopart originated as free improvisations, but my technique is so dreadful that I had to do some major cleaning and editing afterwards. Besides, it's terribly difficult, if not impossible, to sequence a virtual orchestra onto a haphazard pianopart anyway. So, in all honesty, what you hear - pianistically - is not me. There's no way I could ever play that part live.



You should try and find an accomplished pianist who could pop in to the studio for you and do it as it all sounds so fiercely quantized. I really like it, it reminds me of the later Prokofiev piano concertos and I'm sure it would sound good live (athough there's one bit that sounds like it would be devilishly difficult to try and play without a third hand!). It has that real early 20th century neo-classical punch to it that I've always been partial to. Are there any other movements?.


----------



## PaulR (Aug 4, 2005)

re-peat said:


> Paul,
> 
> Thanks!
> There's no way I could ever play that part live.



I could. :D 

That's a pleasure re-peat - really. Not really the kind of music I understand. Presumably then, you did the piano part into the sequencer in sections? I understand.

Great sylistic writing too - I couldn't do that compositionally - I envy it! 

For some mad reason, this makes me think of Shostakovich - don't ask me why - I have no idea.

But from a compositional and just all round fascinating sound point of view, imo this is one of the most interesting pieces I've heard in a long time and makes a change from the usual filmic rips one usually hears - although this could be used filmically in parts quite easily given the appropriate subject matter.

I am jealous - which is rare. :twisted:


----------



## Trev Parks (Aug 4, 2005)

josejherring said:


> I've performed many pieces that are similar to this in style with some of the finest players and I can say that there are quite a few people that would lay down the timing of this piece in that precise of a manner. So the "over" quantize is a bunch of bunk in my opinion.
> 
> Jose



LOL!. Jose, there isn't a human on this planet who could punch in the notes that precisely over such a duration. I think Zappa would like it though.


----------



## José Herring (Aug 4, 2005)

Trev Parks said:


> josejherring said:
> 
> 
> > I've performed many pieces that are similar to this in style with some of the finest players and I can say that there are quite a few people that would lay down the timing of this piece in that precise of a manner. So the "over" quantize is a bunch of bunk in my opinion.
> ...



Hmmm. I wouldn't be so sure about that. Rhythmically speaking anyway. Velocity I would probably agree but perhaps not.

I once did a piece with a pianist (I'm a clarinetist) and it was nothing but constant 16th notes. The two parts where written a lot in canon with many times the canon being only 1 or 2 16th notes apart. When we first started to rehearse I told him that I didn't think we could be that precise and that we should just go for the broad stroke. He looked at me like,"really, why not?" So I went with it. And I'll be damned if he wasn't right. We had that thing so damn metronome tight. In the performance eveybody was floored. People in New York a year later would come up to me on the street and wonder what we did to lay it down so tight.

All you gotta do is believe that it could happen. I actually find midi to be a lot sloppier timing wise than the best professional performers. 

I heard a pianist named Efim Bronfman play the Shostacovich here in Los Angeles and it was spot on tight.

The only thing lacking in Re-peats piece above isn't that it's over tight is that it lacks expression within rhythmic patterns. But over quantize? Nah.

Jose


----------



## Trev Parks (Aug 4, 2005)

I've never played alongside, heard or watched any group of performers who could play so mechanically. I'd argue that its humanely impossible. Sure, if you turn pages for C3PO.....then maybe 

OK, personal preference then. I think it just needs the human touch to make it sparkle and sound alive.

I just played it to my wife and she really likes it too. She said she can hear elements of the Ravel concerto in it.


----------



## José Herring (Aug 4, 2005)

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B000038ICW/qid=1123184117/sr=1-2/ref=sr_1_2/103-1917357-9360663?v=glance&s=music (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/de ... ce&amp;s=music)

Listen to the Shostacovich here track #4. 

I think for the most part the performers are dead on. The pianist doesn't even play a 16th note out of time. The only thing that is changing is the velocity to create expression and of course slight expression in the tiny cresc and decres that's a natural part of playing.

Players can play really precise. It's usually not heard in groups that often because quite frankly most groups are very badly under rehearsed due to economics. But, trust me if you have the time and decent players timing can get really tight.

Jose


----------



## re-peat (Aug 4, 2005)

Trev,

Thanks! Yes, it has been mentioned to me before that I've nearly quantized the life out of this thing. And to some extent it's true, I suppose (although I quite like a certain amount of crispness in a performance.) Too much occupied with all the other aspects of the music - and working for weeks and weeks on end on it - which is why I lost sight of that element, I guess. Anyway, another good reason for redoing it and making it slightly less stiff while I'm at it.

It's also true that there's a bit in there which might be physically impossible to perform by even the most accomplished player: the solo fugato section in the middle. I paid special attention to it so that most of it would be playable 'for real', but during that particular section, it does indeed verge on the limit of what is humanly possible and even the best of players would welcome some assistance from the person who sits besides them to turn the pages. Would be a fun sight to watch though, no?

Prokofiev, Shostakowich, Ravel, Bartok, .... yes, it's an extremely eclectic piece, I know. (The very ending is even a straight quote from Ravel's PianoConcerto.) but that's the sort of music I love, so that's what inevitably comes out of me. I can't help it.

Yes, there are two other movements on the way. It's a very slow process cause you can't imagine how inhibited I am by my severely limited technique. Very, very frustrating at times. But I'm crawling.

Paul,

Thanks again! Yep, it was done in sections and over a long period of time as well. The thing is: I very often just sit down at the piano, put Logic into record mode and improvise away. I've been doing this for years (ever since I started with computers, using some ancestor of Cubase - forgot the name of that software - on a Commodore64) and it has resulted by now in a huge collection of loose fragments, sketches and unfinished bits and pieces. Every now an then, I browse through some of these pieces and if I hear musically interesting relationships between various fragments, I start putting things together and slowly turn them into a coherent whole.
Having said that, this particular piece is actually more than a rhapsodic collage of unrelated bits: the opening piano-theme for instance, often returns as a countermelody behind other motifs and also contains the intervals with which most of the other themes and harmonies are built. So even though it might sound a bit disjointed, I've actually worked quite hard to give it a hopefully solid and musically satisfying architecture. But, and now I'm turning to Jose ....

Jose,

Thanks too! A very pertinent remark you put forward about 'developing thematic material'. In fact, that is precisely my main misgiving about this composition: it's underdeveloped. A better equipped composer than me would definitely travel a more interesting (and probably longer) road with this material. 
Then again, I'm quite partial to Strawinsky's cell-based composition style (or maybe that's me being lazy?) where he juxtaposes various wildly differing - yet connected - bits next to one another and ends up with a kaleidoscopic, fascinating sum-total. Or to put it differently, I like a bit of compositional cleverness but not too much or too elaborate, cause that can often become very tedious, especially when done by a mediocre composer such as myself. I have no novel in me, you see, only short stories.

Trev (yes, you again),

Pleasantly surprised to see you mention Zappa, even though he wasn't being mentioned as a musical reference. Still, another musical hero of mine and I do believe his name rightfully belongs amongst all the other names which were dropped during this thread. (Except for Hans Zimmer that is, cause that the sort of music I really don't care for. I'm sorry, but I dislike it profoundly. I apologize, but I hate it immensely.) 

Anyway, thanks a lot again to all of you! Much appreciated.


----------



## PaulR (Aug 4, 2005)

I must admit to never really noticing over quantization on a piece like this to be honest. I guess I just don't listen for it and really switch off from anything but the composition.

However, like Jose mentions - the old machine gun thing can be more of a problem. Although, over quants on works that have say, dense string/woodwind/brass passages. can and does sound problematical at times.

With the piano in this, coming and going, it's not so much of a problem for me personally and less noticable in this style of more modern working.

Edit: Ahh! Simul Sync posting.

I think what Trev means about Zappa is the way he would do this - only different style naturally - reagrding many fast and furious notes that appear in perfect time.

Anyway, 2 ex RCM guys and 1 ex Juillard commenting Re-Peat - you must be pumped :lol: 

I think everyone on this board should give this a listen and comment actually, whether they like it or not - otherwise they should all be treated as peasants.

:lol: :lol: :lol:


----------



## Sicmu (Aug 4, 2005)

Your piece is is very good, the string writing is amazing and the SISS sound very realistic (did you keep the violins in the middle register because it sounds better or was it intended like this). 

Compositionally it's well constructed and logical, with some nice counterpoint, you have good orchestrator skills.

The piece is strongly influenced by the neo classic-Bartokesque school and I must confess that I don't like very much this kind of "intellectual" period but on the other hand I admit that you demontrate an absolute mastery with this kind of writing. 

Are the others movements available for listening ?


----------



## Craig Sharmat (Aug 4, 2005)

I liked this a lot. I agree with some of the critiques above but in all I really liked it, and thought the string work was also very effective and realiistic. i think this is as addvanced a piece i have heard on the forum in a while.


----------



## Trev Parks (Aug 4, 2005)

josejherring said:


> http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B000038ICW/qid=1123184117/sr=1-2/ref=sr_1_2/103-1917357-9360663?v=glance&s=music
> 
> Listen to the Shostacovich here track #4.
> 
> ...



I hear all sorts of timing instability both with the pianist (the repeated note rhythm part for one example) and the orchestra compared to what would happen with a quantized version. Its not simply the rhythmic precision, its the duration of the notes themselves, that's what really marks a quantized piece. They're all the same, one sixteenth note sounds like the next. Here I hear the pedal being employed for accenting and all manner of effects that mark the performance as being performed by a human. 

Really nice performance though. Not too rushed, bright playing with plenty of Russian vibe. I wonder if the whole concerto is on a release somewhere.


----------



## Tod (Aug 4, 2005)

PaulR said:


> I must admit to never really noticing over quantization on a piece like this to be honest. I guess I just don't listen for it and really switch off from anything but the composition.
> 
> However, like Jose mentions - the old machine gun thing can be more of a problem. Although, over quants on works that have say, dense string/woodwind/brass passages. can and does sound problematical at times.
> 
> ...



Hi re-peat,

I almost never make comments regarding other peoples compositions because I don't feel adequate to do so. However, PaulR's comments about being peasants made me feel I had to, even though I am part of the Peasnts Revolt. :D 

I love everything about it. I love the intensity. I must admit, in a few places it does have that sound like an old, old movie where the piano is speeded up a little but I could care less. I love it. (Two thumbs and two toes up)  

Tod


----------



## ComposerDude (Aug 4, 2005)

Cool. 8)


----------



## synergy543 (Aug 4, 2005)

Hi Piet,

As I said before, I think this is really a marvelous piece! Very intruiguing and interesting to listen to. I eagerly look forward to hearing more of your compositions in the future.


----------



## jc5 (Aug 4, 2005)

Very solid composition! Impressive use of your sampled libraries. What libs are you planning on using for your revision? Will the revision be purely of the mockup, or also of the piece itself?
The solo part sounds quite playable actually, and I don't find the midi version to be so particularly mechanical at all. Especially considering the style, any regularly performing professional should be able to play it with very similar precision.


----------



## christianb (Aug 4, 2005)

hey mr -peat,
I loved it. While people can point to shost and strav as influences, I don't have much of that sitting on my drive in high rotation so it comes across as very inventive and original. You make posting a 4/4 stormdrum trevor zimmer type cue a very difficult proposition.  A very enjoyable listen man.


cb


----------



## rJames (Aug 4, 2005)

Let me pick my jaw up off of the floor for a second. OK, there its back forming my mouth.

Ouch, that felt great to my ears though!!


----------



## fictionmusic (Aug 4, 2005)

Very nice! I agree with the comments Sicmu made about the Bartok influence (although unlike him I love that intellectual Bartok stuff). It seems that you are going to be compared to some Russian or Hungarian eh?

I think there is a stiffness to the piano part for sure, but I have 2 CDs of Prokofiev playing Prokofiev, and if people were to hear him playing his concerto, I'm sure they would think it quantized as well. He is precise to the point of being almost metronomic. I like that.

I totally disagree with Jose's comment about developing a theme before introducing a second one. In this case the abruptness from the first theme to the second was transfixing. We live in a modern age and I like it when someone can get to the point without a lot of "I state the theme now I develope it" kind of thinking.

The only complaint I have is the string sound around the 30 sec mark (to about the 35 sec mark) and again at 40 secs to about 50 secs (the ending of theme one ie). While I really like the writing and the brass swells and staccato perc accents behind it, I find the strings themselves seem too close (or too fake). I really like the stereo perspective though.

Whatever....I love the piece, it is exciting, dramatic and incredibly well written (and programmed). Thanks for sharing.


----------



## Patrick de Caumette (Aug 4, 2005)

I love it!

Great job. Sure, having the chops to pull it off in real time would be nice but the quantizing only bothered me at around 3/4 of the way (I can't get this @#$%^quicktime to show me the time)

Hat off to you! 8)


----------



## José Herring (Aug 4, 2005)

@ Trev

The duration of the notes themeselves, hmmmm, never considered that. I was thinking of the attack of the notes. The orchestra is well, being an orchestra.:wink: 

I just like the way he lays down the timing. I think they did record the whole thing. Perhaps with Chicago and James Levine.

Jose


----------



## José Herring (Aug 4, 2005)

fictionmusic said:


> I totally disagree with Jose's comment about developing a theme before introducing a second one. In this case the abruptness from the first theme to the second was transfixing. We live in a modern age and I like it when someone can get to the point without a lot of "I state the theme now I develope it" kind of thinking.



To be clear I didn't mean theme if I said theme. I more mean motive. You can get wild with motive and still have it be logical. That's all I'm saying. You wouldn't wear a shirt with one green sleave and one red one. Would you? :? 

Jose


----------



## rJames (Aug 4, 2005)

josejherring said:


> You wouldn't wear a shirt with one green sleave and one red one. Would you? :?
> 
> Jose



You might if you wanted to be noticed or wanted to piss off your parents (if you were young enough to do that sort of thing).

Maybe if you wanted to make a statement about how everyone's shirt is beginning to look the same.


----------



## fictionmusic (Aug 5, 2005)

josejherring said:


> To be clear I didn't mean theme if I said theme. I more mean motive. You can get wild with motive and still have it be logical. That's all I'm saying. You wouldn't wear a shirt with one green sleave and one red one. Would you? :?
> 
> Jose



Yah, I'm not sure you said theme either, but what I took your original observation to be was the abrupt change from the first motives (or "theme group" which is a phrase I really like) to the second (at around 50 secs into it if I recall), as if to say the first could have stood some more elaboration or material in a similar vein.


Maybe you didn't mean that, in which case I'll backtrack. IN any event, I really liked the introduction of the second theme group (or motives). It was startling and beautifully abrupt. I guess I was just thinking how nice it was to have a "Russian" sounding piece that didn't take all day to state its case (a la Mr Shostakovitch).

As far as "one green sleeve and one red", chances are I would wear it, if only because I am colour blind (especially with those two colours). I still remember getting laughed at wearing bright pink pants to college, when I thought I had chosen a very respectable, very mature, subdued grey look.


----------



## handz (Aug 5, 2005)

I love it! Surely one of the best things I heard on this forum! Compositionaly very nice - it recalls shostakovich to me in some parts. And also mix is IMHO very nice and clean. Nice piano sound! Hope we hear more things from you!


----------



## Dr.Quest (Aug 5, 2005)

Beautiful, wonderfully complex piece. Lively writing and good realization.
Very cool stuff.
J


----------



## Leon Willett (Aug 5, 2005)

Great stuff! I love the finale... I would agree with the overquantised critiques, particularly velocity-wise, but it's a small criticism. Great writing.


----------



## re-peat (Aug 5, 2005)

I wish I could reply to each and everyone of you individually, beginning each reply with a huge and sincere personalized 'thanks!', but that would probably result in a bit of an awkward post, so forgive me if I'll begin instead with a massive opening salvo of global gratitude and continue with some answers to a few of the questions raised.
(And I also want to apologize for this rather lengthy reply but I just haven't got enough grasp of the English language to be able to answer concise and to the point without somehow sounding awfully pretentious and arrogant. It's bad enough as it is already, I think. So, sorry for that. Many sentences don't come out like I wanted them to.)

- About those strings: 2 reasons, I believe, that they sound the way they do. First of all, they're the Sonicimplants, which is still, by far, the most musical collection of stringssamples there is. I just can't get over how beautifully and intelligently this library is recorded and assembled. A work of sampling genius, as far as I'm concerned.
Secondly, I always try to make sure that samples don't have to do things that they don't have in them. This is often an extremely tricky and thin line to walk because, before you know it, the samples are actually dictating what you write, but still, it remains my number one axiom when doing virtual orchestrations: never force samples into doing things that they don't have in them.
And a third reason why things (not just the strings) sound like they do (good or bad), is - and this may sound a bit weird - that I have had no formal musical education whatsoever. Now, don't get me wrong, I do not subscribe to the romantic notion of the 'na?ve, instinctive artist' being more authentic, powerful and/or expressive than the formally trained one - absolutely not - but I am quite convinced that classical textbooks on orchestration, harmonisation and musical practice in general (and I've read a few of those) are of very little use (if not downright inhibiting and misleading) when trying to create an orchestral soundalike with samples, synths and computers. After all, despite some external and superficial similarities between the real and the virtual, these are two totally different aural worlds, each one governed by a totally different set of aural (and technical) laws. So, when I'm working, I don't care one bit for textbook orchestration rules. I only care for how it comes out of the speakers. It's good to know how an orchestra functions of course, just like it's good to know about harmony, structure and whatever else there is to know, but particularly in the case of orchestration, I think most of the traditional rules are of surprisingly little value to a 'virtual orchestrator'.

- Yes, the strings were kept most of the time intentionally in the middle and lower registers because that sound I felt had just the timbre and the right amount of weight to counterbalance all the other elements with. Again, this is a decision that is based on a multitude of considerations, some of them obviously purely 'musically intuitive', but some of them hardly having any direct relation to the content at all. (Which touches upon one of my favourite topics for discussion: how, in the context of virtual orchestrations, a lot of unavoidable decisions will have a profound influence on how the music turns out, even though those decisions may have intrinsically nothing, or very little, to do with the music itself.)

- Some libraries which I'm definitely including in the new version are: the 'Horizon Chamber Strings' (superb though the SISS are, the HCS will add more detail, colour and perceived depth to the string section - and it's just amazing how well those 2 libraries combine), the 'Horizon Woodwind Ensembles' (a splendid and very expressive set - highly recommended), the Donnie Christian Harp (a somewhat bitter experience purchasing it, but a fine library nonetheless) and SAM's TrueStrike. 
Next to those, I'll also include Synful wherever it is appropriate to do so. I've fallen totally and utterly in love with this instrument and if mr. Lindemann manages to finish his much anticipated update to Synful (which will include new instruments, techniques and articulations) before I finish my revision, Synful might very well turn out to be one of the main players in the new version.
And last, but certainly not least, I'm dying to find out how the pianopart will sound when performed by either the new ArtVista or the Ivory. I have both and they're just fantastic. The current Promega3-rendition is certainly not bad (I rather like its crisp percussiveness, very well suited for this sort of 'scherzando' work), but perhaps lacking just a bit in depth and character.
Another very important improvement will be - I hope - the overall production. I've recently bought the TC VSS3 and it's just unbelievable how huge a difference it makes to use a top-of-the-line reverb (yes: the first of 'Thonex's Trade Secrets' and absolutely true it is). Also, like I said at the very beginning of this thread, I would like to give the whole thing more 'air', make it as open-sounding as possible while still maintaining the impression of having a medium-sized orchestra.

- Now, about the 'thematic development'. Always a bit of a thin-air discussion this, but I do agree that this piece is, at times, seriously lacking in that particular area. 
I'm not talking about things like the sudden switch from the aggressive first part to the jolly f?gelhornsolo section (which is a transition that I myself like rather a lot) but more about sections like the slow centerpart (right after the solo fugato section), which contains a harmonic progression that I'm particularly fond of and which, to my ears at least, is just crying to be elaborated upon. Up until that slow section, I think the piece is more or less finished as it is. It's from then onwards however, going back to the reprise, that I feel I've been terribly lazy with some of my material. 
Like I mentioned in that other thread (the one about the 'March' and the little 'Waltz'): I always like to hear a perfect structural arc spanning over the entire work. It's impossible to explain exactly what it is and how to realize it, but when it's there, I can hear it. It's the moment when you feel that the work doesn't need an extra bar and would also suffer if a bar were taken away. In this particular case, I don't have that feeling yet. And that's where development comes in: to make sure that the entire work has some sort of organic and logical, well balanced structure all the way through. Definitely the most difficult aspect of composing, I believe.

Anyway, more than enough for now, I think. I wanna thank each and everyone of you again for the kind appreciation and also for raising some very fascinating points about music practice in general and virtual orchestral practice in particular. Many thanks!


----------



## christianb (Aug 5, 2005)

:wink: 
not too bad for a guy with not "enough grasp of the english language."
Also, not to bad for a guy with little or no formal training. 
I will re-peat what I said before... really loved listening to that. Look forward to more.

cb


----------



## Leandro Gardini (Aug 5, 2005)

Wow , loved it...I think you haven?t got as much compliments as you deserve on this piece , but anyway it?s really great...congrats , no more comment!!!


----------



## PaulR (Aug 6, 2005)

re-peat said:


> (And I also want to apologize for this rather lengthy reply but I just haven't got enough grasp of the English language to be able to answer concise and to the point without somehow sounding awfully pretentious and arrogant. It's bad enough as it is already, I think. So, sorry for that. Many sentences don't come out like I wanted them to.)



Uhhhh - right. Ok then.

:lol:


----------



## Frederick Russ (Aug 6, 2005)

Piet, this is outstanding! I love it and its going into my coveted favorites music folder. The mockup works and a nice balance on the engineering. Bravo!


----------



## Craig Sharmat (Aug 6, 2005)

he also no writen de english good


----------



## re-peat (Aug 6, 2005)

Frederick,

Thanks a lot for that! And thanks an equally huge lot for this great forum as well. I've never gotten around to say that to you, cause when I started visiting here, all those months ago, it was perhaps not under the most fortunate of circumstances, but now that things have settled down a bit, I sure would like to grab this opportunity to express my sincere appreciation and gratitude for what you've got running here. Great place.


----------



## Sicmu (Aug 6, 2005)

re-peat said:


> - I always try to make sure that samples don't have to do things that they don't have in them. This is often an extremely tricky and thin line to walk because, before you know it, the samples are actually dictating what you write, but still, it remains my number one axiom when doing virtual orchestrations: never force samples into doing things that they don't have in them.
> 
> - but I am quite convinced that classical textbooks on orchestration, harmonisation and musical practice in general (and I've read a few of those) are of very little use (if not downright inhibiting and misleading) when trying to create an orchestral soundalike with samples, synths and computers. After all, despite some external and superficial similarities between the real and the virtual, these are two totally different aural worlds, each one governed by a totally different set of aural (and technical) laws.



If I can understand your point of willing something realistic to listen to (and it is) , it's obviously a delight for the ears, I disagree totally from a composer's point of view : to me the only reason for absolute realism is when the music is intended for commercial purpose, as some of demo-trailer makers achieve perfectly on this forum (I may be wrong but I think your concerto does not belong to this category).

Your "axiom" makes you a servant of the computers and for me the frustration of not doing what I feel his even greater than the one of hearing some imperfections (It's anyway still possible to recognize the samples even with your high quality mock-up). That means that you can't allow fast repetitions, fast legato playing in upper register, third-fourth trills etc... everything that is in common use for centuries with strings playing. 

I don't mean that it's not possible to compose with such restrictions ( you demonstrate it is) but it's so frustrating and against the inner nature of composition and creativity. 
Even in the 18th and early 19th century, when the brass couldn't play chromatically, composers like Mozart and others used stopped notes to fill the gap and when Richard Strauss was told that the high A4 whas not doable in the Sinfonia Domestica He replied that it will be easy for tomorrow horn players (and today it's doable).

As a composer the most important thing is to use all the means to express what you have in mind : it's indeed a paradox that we write for real instruments but with with the restrictions of samples : it's unnatural and your choice IMO, although understandable, is more a sound engineer one than a composer's.

For me there is no virtual orchestration, simply because the samples are made to emulate a real orchetra, so there is only mock-up with imperfections , therefore if you have something to say I can hear it anyway, even with bad samples.

As for the utility of orchestration books, maybe they are not important if you study a lot of orchestral score, but maybe you are not aware of a lot of playing techniques, especially with strings.

Furthermore your choice means that to achieve something very realistic, the composer needs a lot of very expensive hardware and software, so making music becomes a matter of money instead of creativity.

Anyway it's just my opinion and I acknowledge that the way you can make sounding your samples is stunning.

Alex


----------



## PaulR (Aug 6, 2005)

re-peat said:


> it was perhaps not under the most fortunate of circumstances,



What unfortunate circumstances re-peat?


----------



## re-peat (Aug 7, 2005)

Alex,

Yes, it looks like we don't entirely agree on both these points. Let me first underline that I believe total realism to be a vain and foolish goal, to try to attempt with samples. It's even preposterous considering such an attempt, as far as I'm concerned.
Then again, this type of music only communicates well - I believe - if it is rendered in a way which somehow refers to the sound of a real orchestra. It isn't a real orchestra, and it will never be, but it should evoke a similar sort of feel. The style of a composition dictates a certain 'ideal aural presentation' and, in this case, it has to be one with recognizable links to a traditional orchestra.
I've tried doing some of my music with synths and electronic sounds but, while maybe interesting, the results never felt quite right to me. The 'glove' (aural presentation) never quite fitted the 'hand' (musical content).
I strongly believe that one should first carefully consider the best medium to 'render' the music with and then write consequently for that medium. Ideally, sound and content should become one inseperable whole. (Near impossible to achieve with samples, but anyway.) This means that one also has to accept the limitations of the medium and, in the case of orchestral samples, these limitations are big and plentyful. I have no problem with that. And I've learned that the best way to be somewhat convincing with samples is to treat them for what they are. Mind you, all of this ONLY refers to the practice of 'mocking up a real ensemble'. None of what I say applies to the creative use of samples in a more abstract sense.
So yes, to some extent I am the servant of the tools I choose. There's no avoiding that. And, like you say, it can be extremely frustrating but, still, I think it makes a lot of sense to accept that predicament. If you don't accept it, you can't exploit it. Does it hamper my creativity? Absolutely not. I would even say the opposite: it's a fascinating challenge in its own right.

I agree with you that many creative choices I make, during the realisation of a piece, are made from an engineer's point of view rather than a composer's point of of view. But, and this is precisely the point I'm trying to make here: in our situation, the engineer is as much the composer as the composer is the engineer. We shouldn't fool ourselves about this. We're not working with real life sounds that blend naturally and effortlessly, no, we're sweating over expressionless, near dead sounds, constantly trying to manipulate them into what we need them to do (as far as my first axiom allows for that), constantly having to artificially adjust balance and timbre in order to end up with a somewhat pleasing result. 
On top of the lofty act of 'pure composition', we also have to resort to a whole bag of trickery and mundane craftsmanship to make it all sound more or less digestable. And such a process can only be successful if the composer and the engineer are one (or, at least, act as one).

What you say about 'expensive gear' (musicmaking becoming a matter as much of money than of creativity) is true to some extent, I suppose. Especially in the niche of orchestral simulation. There's no denying that better results can be achieved if one has access to the best libraries and the best processors and the best hardware. Should I feel embarassed about that? No, I don't think so. While these things will have a profound impact on how the music turns out, the most decisive element will always be the creativity, dedication and talent of the person behind it.

Thanks again for the appreciation and for putting forward some thought-provoking ideas.


----------



## lux (Aug 7, 2005)

Very nice Re-peat.

Liked a lot your works in the past too.
 
Luca


----------



## gugliel (Aug 17, 2005)

guess I got here too late for this -- the link doesn't seem to work now. would like to hear it if it gets refreshed!


----------

