# How Important is Realism to You?



## robgb (Jan 15, 2020)

I've seen a couple developers tout "realism" in their libraries in recent days. So I'm curious.

Do composers want sample libraries to be practically indistinguishable from a real orchestra (a nearly impossible feat unless you're highly skilled)? Or does it matter when most laymen are fooled by something like GPO 5?


----------



## GPlowman (Jan 15, 2020)

Realism is important to me for my own interests, but I don't make it the be-all-and-end-all. I'm working on a game soundtrack right now and it doesn't require I create realistic tracks, just well produced tracks.

I try however overall in my productions that afford me the time, to keep chipping away at realism. If I do a mock-up of a well known piece I usually attempt realism. Something I aimed for just recently after getting the new JXL Brass and tried it out on a Star Wars piece.


----------



## mralmostpopular (Jan 15, 2020)

robgb said:


> I've seen a couple developers tout "realism" in their libraries in recent days. So I'm curious.
> 
> Do composers want sample libraries to be practically indistinguishable from a real orchestra (a nearly impossible feat unless you're highly skilled)? Or does it matter when most laymen are fooled by something like GPO 5?



As realistic as possible. I don’t have access to an orchestra, and likely won’t for the foreseeable future. When I hear some of the glaring things, it takes away from some of the enjoyment of the music. Obviously, it’ll never be exactly the same, but it’s getting closer. If you’re trying to do more complex things, I can imagine it being very frustrating.

I also go through phases of wanting my orchestration to be completely realistic to what an orchestra could actually play to just doing what sounds good to me because I know it’s not going to be recorded.


----------



## youngpokie (Jan 15, 2020)

mralmostpopular said:


> As realistic as possible. I don’t have access to an orchestra, and likely won’t for the foreseeable future.



agree 100%. As realistic as possible.

Otherwise it’s just an expensive synthesizer with an orchestral-inspired soundscape


----------



## Sarah Mancuso (Jan 15, 2020)

Either way I'm going to try to make it sound as convincing as I can, so a library that makes it easier to get the results I want is always going to be a better choice than one I have to struggle against.


----------



## GPlowman (Jan 15, 2020)

Sarah Mancuso said:


> Either way I'm going to try to make it sound as convincing as I can, so a library that makes it easier to get the results I want is always going to be a better choice than one I have to struggle against.


Yes - when it it comes to purchasing a library, realism is my top priority. Depending on the type of track I'm writing though, aspects of realism might be creatively subverted for a reason.

However, I mostly do orchestral music, so..... realism!!


----------



## nas (Jan 15, 2020)

Agree with as realistic as possible, however, a good deal of realism is achieved not only by the samples but solid orchestration technique and good harmonic practice. That IMHO trumps everything else and I've heard more conniving mockups with inferior libraries because of this along with great programming chops, and of course a very moving composition. Having great "realistic" sounding and well scripted libraries is an added bonus.


----------



## Alex Fraser (Jan 15, 2020)

Not realism here. Maybe for my own stuff, but usually only a “flavour” of the orchestra is all that’s required for the work I’m paid for, or the work I do for my own library.

That said, it's nice to have libraries that will deliver a realistic line, but it's as much about workflow and "deliverability" for me. So, stuff like Albion ONE works in my world.


----------



## Uiroo (Jan 15, 2020)

I'm aiming for decent realism, but lots of scores I like are not really recorded as a whole but striped, so that's not realistic either. 
What I value are proper dynamics and stuff as default, and if I want to hype something I've got to actively do it, instead of needing to change the library so that it behaves similar to live players.


----------



## Thomas Kallweit (Jan 15, 2020)

Realism is overrated : o
But in the context here I'm expecting that most of all will want it to sound as realistic than ever.
For myself I don't know. Crappy Samples will sound like them, so more good samples for certain cases are appreciated. But that's not all for making good compositions I hope.


----------



## dsblais (Jan 15, 2020)

For me at least, it’s about creativity, first and foremost. The realism is important as the context evoked by symphonic instruments (esp.) is a very powerful creative dimension. If a violin doesn’t sound like a violin, I can’t communicate the cultural meaning of a violin, meaning that’s much richer and more multifaceted than just a particular sound. This is part of why synthesizers, despite their astounding sonic range, can become very boring. All sound is contextualized by living experience.


----------



## Jeremy Spencer (Jan 15, 2020)

As realistic as possible.


----------



## Sears Poncho (Jan 15, 2020)

Both. I have my "realistic" libraries (Spitfire, CSSS etc) and then my weirdo libraries (Heavyocity etc). Ultimately, I'd like to be able to mix reality with non-reality. I like the idea of "illusion", where the listener ends up being confused about what is real and what isn't. I throw in real strings too. At some point hopefully there will be a "wait a second, is this real or not?" LCO strings are great for that because it is real playing, all those sounds are playable.


----------



## constaneum (Jan 15, 2020)

for me, it's more towards the sound of the recording. realistic sound, not realistic performances. lots of strings libraries still dont sound that nicely captured, i'll say.


----------



## Polkasound (Jan 15, 2020)

Speaking from a non-orchestral perspective, realism is of the utmost importance to me. It's what has driven me to continually upgrade to more complex (and more expensive) libraries through the years. I'm not satisfied with simply making tracks that are convincing to the general public. I strive to wow other musicians.


----------



## mralmostpopular (Jan 15, 2020)

Polkasound said:


> Speaking from a non-orchestral perspective, realism is of the utmost importance to me. It's what has driven me to continually upgrade to more complex (and more expensive) libraries through the years. I'm not satisfied with simply making tracks that are convincing to the general public. I strive to wow other musicians.



Thinking a bit further on it, there is a balance. New libraries can sound better, but there’s also a lot in programming. I’ve heard demos from libraries that blow me away, followed by demos that sound really bad/fake. I want new libraries to push the boundaries, but I also continue to work on my midi performance/programming skills.


----------



## Ashermusic (Jan 15, 2020)

I don’t want it to sound obviously fake, but realism is _way_ beind musicality as to what is important to me, and no, they are not synonymous.


----------



## Polkasound (Jan 15, 2020)

mralmostpopular said:


> Thinking a bit further on it, there is a balance. New libraries can sound better, but there’s also a lot in programming. I’ve heard demos from libraries that blow me away, followed by demos that sound really bad/fake. I want new libraries to push the boundaries, but I also continue to work on my midi performance/programming skills.



Absolutely. Amazing tracks come from a combination of things: good libraries, good MIDI composing skills, good engineering skills, good mixing skills, etc. I would actually rate owning a high-end library toward the bottom of the priority list, because no library cheap or expensive will result in stellar tracks in the hands of a novice. It's really the other way around. A cheap library in the hands of a skilled MIDI composer will always come out on top. But a great library in the hands of a skilled MIDI composer can't be beat.

What has driven me to invest in better libraries is when I've pushed a library to its limits trying to get more out of it than it can deliver.


----------



## Sears Poncho (Jan 15, 2020)

IMO, sometimes when we strive for realism, we're aiming the wrong way. I attached a very crude clip of LCO strings.

Does it sound "real"? IMO, pretty much.
Does it sound "good"? No, not at all. Obviously I played it intentionally sloppily etc. But the attacks aren't quite together, intonation is spotty. This is good.  It's what a small handful of strings would sound like in a very dry, small room. I could easily fix it with quantize, eq, a glorious reverb etc. But at its core, it has a "real world", sloppy, rough sound that is far more realistic than "epic, 90 piece violin section in luxurious hall with 12 second reverb".

This makes for a tough sell.  
"Would you like the Yo-Yo in Carnegie library?"
"No, I'd prefer the Joe in my basement library."

But there is a "reality" to it. I heard "Disco Inferno" on the radio today. It's probably 5-6 strings in a back room studio in Philly. And it's real. Many libraries today are too pretty to pull it off.


----------



## JohnG (Jan 15, 2020)

Sears Poncho said:


> This makes for a tough sell.
> "Would you like the Yo-Yo in Carnegie library?"
> "No, I'd prefer the Joe in my basement library."



I agree. Some kinds of music really does sound "symphonic-nice" and is convincing that way. 

Quite often though, if one wants gritty reality (or just reality), one needs to throw in a bit of rough stuff -- samples or other sounds that are a bit wobbly or out of tune or deliberately weaving around. Bowed things that were not originally intended to be bowed.


----------



## Sears Poncho (Jan 15, 2020)

JohnG said:


> Quite often though, if one wants gritty reality (or just reality), one needs to throw in a bit of rough stuff


Sometimes in life, ya gotta break a string or 2. I just made a quickie chart of Purple Haze for string quartet, for a friend. If it sounds nice when they play it, they are really missing the point.


----------



## Kony (Jan 15, 2020)

Sears Poncho said:


> Sometimes in life, ya gotta break a string or 2. I just made a quickie chart of Purple Haze for string quartet, for a friend. If it sounds nice when they play it, they are really missing the point.


Presumably there are some hammer-ons and pull-offs, string slides and bends - and whammy bar action! Wondering how you can get a string quartet to feedback - maybe mic them up and put the violinists in front of amps-cabs etc 

EDIT: For realism, might want to get the players to put the strings on in reverse order and play left-handed as well (I'll get my coat).


----------



## IdealSequenceG (Jan 15, 2020)

As realistic as possible and I should be able to cheat myself, as well as the general public, and practice myself to create realism beyond the developer.


----------



## Jimmy Hellfire (Jan 16, 2020)

My main goal is to achieve a captivating and engaging musical experience. In the case of acoustic instruments, the samples and production should of course "real" enough so that the listener isn't thrown off, distracted or disengaged by a implausible or plain "fake" sounding experience. So yes, a certain degree of realism is important, and high quality tools as well as due diligence are a must, but I don't treat that as the non plus ultra or as something absolute.

I don't obsess over it and I'm not making it a sport - in the sense of, how can make this as indistinguishable from a real recording as possible. I believe that when the music is truly interesting and captivating, and the sound and programmed performance are "real enough", it's gonna do its job better than a piece that's just not really connecting with the listener, but sounds so real that it could fool professionals.

To me, this is proven time and again when I listen to stuff that was done with primitive tools by today's standards, but the music itself is awesome, serves the purpose and just works. On the other hand, when I listen to the incredible amount of absolutely faceless, idiotic music that sounds really great sonically in today's media, it just means nothing to me, no matter how great the tools and the production are.


----------



## lux (Jan 16, 2020)

Speaking orchestral-wise realism is a multi faceted word. You can have a beautifully recorded library and horribly orchestrate your composition, thus sounding fake as hell. On the other side you can have an old and limited sample pool with a decent orchestration, which probably will sound differently unrealistic (although more believable and pleasant to my ears).

As a matter of fact having a bad orchestration sounds more unrealistic to my ears, simply because in the old days you were not supposed to spend 30K, put together a big orchestra in a pricey hall for days and simply avoid orchestrating it properly. It simply didn't happen...well not often to say the least.


----------



## TomislavEP (Jan 16, 2020)

For me, realism when using virtual instruments and sample libraries is a relative thing and a matter of personal perception. First of all, I firmly believe that the biggest value of virtual orchestration lies in democratizing the creation of orchestral music, as it provides the means for composers who are not classically trained to express themselves too in this manner. I'm aware of the fact that in a world of big-budget projects, virtual orchestration is often just a temporary solution. But at the same time, this is a far too complex and frequently quite costly discipline, that should always be perceived as the art in its own right instead of just an inferior substitution for a real orchestra and composing in a traditional sense.

I often read comments on how nothing can replace the real musicians and live orchestra and that virtual orchestration is only a "necessary evil" for those who don't have enough budget for that. I think that this not an always valid excuse - there are many of us who prefer composing by performing and editing of these performances rather than using more traditional methods, and the virtual orchestration gave us the means to do so whilst enabling us to potentially achieve "realism" as never before (using synthesizers and other electronic instruments to "simulate" the orchestral music is now a long time present and valid method of composing).

Back to realism. I think that the most important thing is to follow the aesthetic guidelines when using virtual instruments - don't use the patches of certain orchestral instruments in a style that is completely unsuitable for them, or is physically impossible in reality. For me, this is far more important than doing back-breaking work with a primary goal of trying to fool even the most experienced ears that they're listening to a performance of a real orchestra rather than a virtual one.


----------



## ryans (Jan 16, 2020)

robgb said:


> Do composers want sample libraries to be practically indistinguishable from a real orchestra



Not me, no sir, I like my sample libraries to sound as fake as possible.


----------



## DS_Joost (Jan 16, 2020)

robgb said:


> I've seen a couple developers tout "realism" in their libraries in recent days. So I'm curious.
> 
> Do composers want sample libraries to be practically indistinguishable from a real orchestra (a nearly impossible feat unless you're highly skilled)? Or does it matter when most laymen are fooled by something like GPO 5?



I said this before on here: I use a computer to do what a computer can do uniquely, as in treating it as an instrument. Thus, my computer is not an orchestral emulation box. What sounds good sounds good, realism be damned; we have orchestras and very well trained players for that that a computer (no matter how good the composer) can NEVER match. Trying to is a futile effort that in my opinion is both disrespectful towards those who have trained their instrument for 10+ years and a waste of such a wonderfully versatile instrument as is the computer.

One of my main criticisms of musicians and composers today are that we use very revolutionary tools in the most mundane ways, over and over and over again.

Which is why so many people sound totally indistinguishable from one another.

Edit: to clarify, I make a stark difference between "sounding real" and "sounding convincing". There are times when you hear a unique, never heard before instrument asking yourself what it is, and it turns out to be a really organic sounding synth. That is convincing, but it's not "realism". (It's as real as any instrument though, of course).


----------



## Ashermusic (Jan 16, 2020)

Jimmy Hellfire said:


> My main goal is to achieve a captivating and engaging musical experience. In the case of acoustic instruments, the samples and production should of course "real" enough so that the listener isn't thrown off, distracted or disengaged by a implausible or plain "fake" sounding experience. So yes, a certain degree of realism is important, and high quality tools as well as due diligence are a must, but I don't treat that as the non plus ultra or as something absolute.
> 
> I don't obsess over it and I'm not making it a sport - in the sense of, how can make this as indistinguishable from a real recording as possible. I believe that when the music is truly interesting and captivating, and the sound and programmed performance are "real enough", it's gonna do its job better than a piece that's just not really connecting with the listener, but sounds so real that it could fool professionals.
> 
> To me, this is proven time and again when I listen to stuff that was done with primitive tools by today's standards, but the music itself is awesome, serves the purpose and just works. On the other hand, when I listen to the incredible amount of absolutely faceless, idiotic music that sounds really great sonically in today's media, it just means nothing to me, no matter how great the tools and the production are.



Bingo.


----------



## Bluemount Score (Jan 16, 2020)

Jimmy Hellfire said:


> My main goal is to achieve a captivating and engaging musical experience. In the case of acoustic instruments, the samples and production should of course "real" enough so that the listener isn't thrown off, distracted or disengaged by a implausible or plain "fake" sounding experience. So yes, a certain degree of realism is important, and high quality tools as well as due diligence are a must, but I don't treat that as the non plus ultra or as something absolute.
> 
> I don't obsess over it and I'm not making it a sport - in the sense of, how can make this as indistinguishable from a real recording as possible. I believe that when the music is truly interesting and captivating, and the sound and programmed performance are "real enough", it's gonna do its job better than a piece that's just not really connecting with the listener, but sounds so real that it could fool professionals.
> 
> To me, this is proven time and again when I listen to stuff that was done with primitive tools by today's standards, but the music itself is awesome, serves the purpose and just works. On the other hand, when I listen to the incredible amount of absolutely faceless, idiotic music that sounds really great sonically in today's media, it just means nothing to me, no matter how great the tools and the production are.


Absolute bingo.


----------



## Sears Poncho (Jan 16, 2020)

DS_Joost said:


> One of my main criticisms of musicians and composers today are that we use very revolutionary tools in the most mundane ways, over and over and over again


This is a good point. I would hope someone would be a modern day Tomita, who by comparison was using rocks and sticks and conjuring up amazing soundscapes. I can only imagine what "Snowflakes are Dancing" could be with Heavyocity, Spitfire and Omnisphere libraries.


----------



## Paul Grymaud (Jan 16, 2020)

*How Important is Realism to You?*
Imo, Realism is virtually important 

Joking aside, I try not to play a cello (for example) with 10 fingers simultaneously on a keyboard ...
And, I try to remember that every once in a while the flutist has to take a breath!
Realism depends on the quality of the sound but also on the way the instrument is played.

I just worked remotely with a cellist. She copied exactly what I played on the keyboard but with the musicality, the vibrato and especially the glissendi and portamenti. I simply asked her to make her cello cry and be herself. The result is spectacular. Difficult to do so well with a virtual cello but you can get a result, let's say convincing with a little knowledge of instrumentation and by replaying a hundred times if necessary the passages until the result is fluid.


----------



## sluggo (Jan 16, 2020)

Yes, to Mr. Jimmy Hellfire's point...I've been watching this thread waiting for someone to talk about MUSICALITY and not realism. 20 years ago, many of us here made music with sample libraries that would be laughed off the planet as a total joke if used today. (A lot of that music is being 're-purposed' today.)
Any yes...sadly there is so much terrible music being made with live orchestras all the time. That is your proof right there that realism is not going to be your endgame. 

I used to keep a post-it note on the bottom of my monitor. 

It read "Is it musical?"


----------



## Jeremy Spencer (Jan 16, 2020)

sluggo said:


> Yes, to Mr. Jimmy Hellfire's point...I've been watching this thread waiting for someone to talk about MUSICALITY and not realism. 20 years ago, many of us here made music with sample libraries that would be laughed off the planet as a total joke if used today. (A lot of that music is being 're-purposed' today.)
> Any yes...sadly there is so much terrible music being made with live orchestras all the time. That is your proof right there that realism is not going to be your endgame.
> 
> I used to keep a post-it note on the bottom of my monitor.
> ...



True, but even in expert hands, a cheap library like GPO is still going to sound fake.


----------



## Ashermusic (Jan 16, 2020)

Wolfie2112 said:


> True, but even in expert hands, a cheap library like GPO is still going to sound fake.



But maybe still more enjoyable to listen to than what some do with the elite libraries.


----------



## pderbidge (Jan 16, 2020)

My fixation on "realism" is what has kept me from realizing my dreams of being a "real" musician (how is that for irony) earlier on in life. Instead of focusing on composing and learning the art of midi composing I stuck to singing only and then later trying out the "rock band" thing. I look back on those times and now realize there was a sea of composers who made do with simple atari sounds and how "fun" those arrangements were and still are for people today. Think of the famous and iconic video game songs that people continue to remix to this day. There are also countless TV shows with backing scores of those out dated synthy sounding orchestras and yet behind all of that was a composer living out his or her dreams, while the rest of us continued to work at a job we hated or at least tolerated.
Realism is still important to me and a collection of the most realistic sample libraries I can get my hands on is still something I strive for but I vow never to let that obsession overtake the things that matter most, which is getting my hands dirty making music with what I have learning to use those tools and pushing the boundaries of what I thought they weren't capable of. So my focus has been more on how I can make what I already have available to me sound the most musical rather than constantly searching for something else to do the job. That's still in the back of my mind to be on the lookout for but in the interim my goal is to push the boundaries of what I already have, or dial it back a bit to make it fit within the constraints of what it can do.
When you think about it, "real" instruments are kind of the same thing. You are limited by your own ability to play the instrument, as well as any nuances that are inherent to the particular instrument. That's why some guitars cost more than others. You just learn how the instrument plays coupled with the limitations of your own capabilities and make the compromise of what is the most musical. As a singer, I do this all the time. Even though I am a decent singer I have limitations whether it be those high notes, low notes or a particular range that just sounds nasty with my voice, I just find a way to change it up enough to where it sounds the best it can within the limitations of what sounds the most musical with "my" voice.


----------



## ism (Jan 16, 2020)

sluggo said:


> .I've been watching this thread waiting for someone to talk about MUSICALITY and not realism



Exactly. There's a kind of "cognitive realism" that will "fool" listeners into thinking its a real cello. But this isn't the same as an emotional musicality that will make people *feel* they're listening to real music.

My perennial example is this noodle on the Spitfire Solo Cello :





If you listen with an analytical/cognative/engineering hat, you can easilyhear the artifacts of the crossfades between the 6 dynamics + vibrato layers. And some people have commented that this ruins it for them (although you probably wouldn't notice the bumps it in context)

But despite this lack of "cognative realism", I feel it to be a wonderfully *musical* passage, and its a sound that I would really want to listen to, far more than any number of other virtual cellos that can avoid the bumpiness of the crossfades by modelling technics.

But such modelling techniques, which they add a certain kind of expressive or cognitive realism, risk damaging the sonority, or the musicality, or the "emotional realism" - or whatever you want to call it. 


My point is that musicality itself can be understood in terms of what we might call an sort of "emotional realism" which at least sometimes trumps "cognitive realism". And honestly, that artifacts of the bumpiness in the "unrealistic" crossfading in the above passage just don't bother me at all. (Though of course your ymmv)

So at least sometimes, a focus on realism in the sense of "fooling" people cognitively into thinking they're listening to a real instrument, is misplaces, when I'd much rather work towards "fooling" them emotionally into thinking they're experience actual music.


----------



## Jeremy Spencer (Jan 16, 2020)

ism said:


> My perennial example is this noodle on the Spitfire Solo Cello :



What a beautiful "noodle"! It sounds great. The thing is, although musicality itself is critical, having a VI that sounds as realistic "as possible" is something I'd say we all search for as composers....especially those who work professionally and don't have the means of using a real orchestra. If you tried that same passage with an inferior library, it would sound fake and cheesy, even with proper programming.


----------



## visiblenoise (Jan 16, 2020)

I appreciate all this talk of realism being useless in the wrong hands, but when we're paying the prices we pay for some of these libraries, I think we're entitled to hope that the developer did all they could to enable realism. What else is there to pay more for, anyway?

Courses??


----------



## Jeremy Spencer (Jan 16, 2020)

visiblenoise said:


> I appreciate all this talk of realism being useless in the wrong hands, but when we're paying the prices we pay for some of these libraries, I think we're entitled to hope that the developer did all they could to enable realism. What else is there to pay more for, anyway?
> 
> Courses??



If we weren't all on a quest for the most realistic libraries, then all of these developers wouldn't be around. It's obvious that's what most of us are after.


----------



## Ashermusic (Jan 16, 2020)

Wolfie2112 said:


> If we weren't all on a quest for the most realistic libraries, then all of these developers wouldn't be around. It's obvious that's what most of us are after.



Obvious to you, not to me. I am looking for libraries with soul that inspire me to compose. If I only wanted realism I would make very different choices than I make.


----------



## ism (Jan 16, 2020)

Wolfie2112 said:


> If we weren't all on a quest for the most realistic libraries, then all of these developers wouldn't be around. It's obvious that's what most of us are after.



Emotional or Cognitive?


----------



## LamaRose (Jan 16, 2020)

I clicked an ad just today on VI for a $19 synth-based library... it had some varying string pads that I played over using the Emotional Violin... just a great, inspiring combo. As mentioned above, it's about musicality, inspiration, and how it just comes together.


----------



## Jeremy Spencer (Jan 16, 2020)

Ashermusic said:


> Obvious to you, not to me. I am looking for libraries with soul that inspire me to compose. If I only wanted realism I Maithili make very different choices than I make.



So when you compose an orchestral piece that requires nice legato, are you going to reach for something like HS, or the old EW Symphonic Orchestra with synthetic legato?


----------



## El Buhdai (Jan 16, 2020)

I care more about how my MIDI programming and mixing services the music than I care about pure realism. My style requires me to pay careful attention to orchestration and certain things that would be dead giveaways to the laymen, but I don't necessarily try to get as close to a real orchestra as possible in terms of sound. I try to do enough to fool the laymen (which is much easier than one might think), and then I add my own spin and sound to it. 

I think at this point my orchestra sounds "believable" rather than "realistic". Think of it almost like an orchestral sound but with cartoonish exaggerations that are sometimes subtle, and sometimes more blatant. Believability to me is usually preferable to realism when it comes to sampled orchestras, because I often hear demos that sound realistic and can't help but think they also sound boring. 

Even samples that move a lot have the potential to sound boring unless you excite them a little bit. I'd encourage my fellow composers to play around with their orchestra and exaggerate a few things, because most of us are likely good enough at MIDI to fool most casual listeners anyway.


----------



## El Buhdai (Jan 16, 2020)

Ashermusic said:


> Obvious to you, not to me. I am looking for libraries with soul that inspire me to compose. If I only wanted realism I Maithili make very different choices than I make.



That's an interesting way to look at it, and you make a good point. We're all after different things from our orchestral libraries. I'm not necessarily after pure realism, or pure inspiration. 

I'm after libraries that allow me to write weird stuff without having to fight them or tinker too much, and I'm often willing to sacrifice some tone in pursuit of that freedom ease of use. I know I'm very much in the minority there. 

If you carefully blend those more agile libraries with the stiffer but more realistic sounding ones, you get the best of both worlds as long as you're careful with how you blend them.


----------



## DS_Joost (Jan 16, 2020)

Sears Poncho said:


> This is a good point. I would hope someone would be a modern day Tomita, who by comparison was using rocks and sticks and conjuring up amazing soundscapes. I can only imagine what "Snowflakes are Dancing" could be with Heavyocity, Spitfire and Omnisphere libraries.



It's pretty funny because Tomita, Jean Michel Jarre, Vangelis, Brian Eno, Michael Stearns and Kitaro are all people who inspired this outlook on how to approach the computer as an instrument for me. All of these are people who are able to paint with tone, many times throwing away how music is "suppossed" to sound in search of new flavours, colors and compositions.

Listening to them changed my fundamental view on what music can be, it's function, and it's form.


----------



## GtrString (Jan 17, 2020)

I dont care about realism, but I like natural and open sounding samples..


----------



## Pianolando (Jan 17, 2020)

Extremely important to me. I want the samples to sound like a real orchestra and am only happy when I feel that I could have fooled myself with it. When it sounds fake to my ears I get the creeps and all the feeling is gone.

EDIT: I realize that making it sound exactly like a real orchestra is an unattainable and unrealistic goal, but in that way it's just the same as all my other musical goals. I am never truly satisfied, and that attitude has kept me evolving for 20+ years as a musician and producer. When I am satisfied and truly can obtain my goals it's time for me to quit.

EDIT 2: Each time I record with real musicians or even an orchestra I'm not completely satisfied with that either. There's always issues: timing, tuning, feel, even with the best of the best. It sounds like I'm a genuinely dissatisfied person, but I am always happy making music and I love it more than . life itself. it's just that it can always get better.

EDIT 3: I don't need realism or inspiring samples to compose. I write with Sibelius 6 crap de la crap sounds or on the piano. The sound is in my head from the beginning, that's why I need the samples to sound realistic, otherwise they don't sound like what's in my head.


----------



## I like music (Jan 17, 2020)

As real as possible. I also want to use my samples as a way to learn about how to write for orchestra, which is kind of backwards I know. It requires me to understand the orchestra first, and then balance the virtual orchestra out using this knowledge, which should hopefully then allow me to write things which I know would sound roughly correct if played by real musicians.

The funniest part of this is that I know that no orchestra will ever play this music, but yes, it is the kind of music I want to write, so I want the closest thing I can get to a full sized orchestra, in my laptop.


----------



## Illico (Jan 17, 2020)

I have a dream and I would like it to become a reality. For me, realistic for a real orchestra.


----------



## Ashermusic (Jan 17, 2020)

Wolfie2112 said:


> So when you compose an orchestral piece that requires nice legato, are you going to reach for something like HS, or the old EW Symphonic Orchestra with synthetic legato?




It depends. Sometimes true legato patches work well for a line, sometimes they do not and sustain patches with a simulated legato work better.

It's music, not ideology.


----------



## shawnsingh (Jan 17, 2020)

Take an analogy of special FX and CG in film. I guess most of us will be able to take on the audience perspective in that case, which I think is missing from this thread a bit 

In that world, there really are far fewer places where CG is accepted to be unrealistic - it needs to be blatantly obvious that the visual style intended not to be so realistic before people accept it.

Then there's the fantastical realism... I do want my Transformers and sci-fi spaceships to look as real as possible. But I doubt any filmmaker has the budget to shoot a real transformer or spaceship.

And third, probably the vast majority these days, CG is used to render reality in mundane and practical places, and that's where it is crucial for it to be realistic.

i like the idea that musicality is higher priority than realism, but in some ways it also feels like an apple and oranges comparison. There are times where realism will serve the art, there are times when realism can be intentionally shunned as a way to serve the art. Either way requires preparing the audience whether to expect realism or not.


----------



## robgb (Jan 17, 2020)

Wolfie2112 said:


> So when you compose an orchestral piece that requires nice legato, are you going to reach for something like HS, or the old EW Symphonic Orchestra with synthetic legato?


For me, this would depend on what I was going for. EWSO might have a certain sound that speaks to me in that moment.



shawnsingh said:


> In that world, there really are far fewer places where CG is accepted to be unrealistic - it needs to be blatantly obvious that the visual style intended not to be so realistic before people accept it.



I think this is a faulty comparison because while most people can see fake, they can't necessarily hear it. Many people are fooled by libraries as basic as GPO.


----------



## ism (Jan 17, 2020)

shawnsingh said:


> Take an analogy of special FX and CG in film. I guess most of us will be able to take on the audience perspective in that case, which I think is missing from this thread a bit
> 
> In that world, there really are far fewer places where CG is accepted to be unrealistic - it needs to be blatantly obvious that the visual style intended not to be so realistic before people accept it.
> 
> ...



Running with this analog a bit, the first spiderman film was entirely watchable. And the CGI was carefully restrained because (according to a director commentary somewhere that I can vaguely recall) they didn't know what audience would accept in CGI renderings of a man swinging between buildings.


By the third film, the CGI was front and centre. And it had this uncanny over the top excessiveness that, well I suppose you have to also blame the terrible script, but it made for just an unwatchable film.


It's not that the CGI wasn't "realistic", exactly ... just that it tried too hard, and lost the organic feeling of the origional achieved though much less technically ambitious "emotional realism" that the CGI of the first film provided.


----------



## ryans (Jan 17, 2020)

Ashermusic said:


> Sometimes true legato patches work well for a line, sometimes they do not and sustain patches with a simulated legato work better.



Exactly... I find a lot of 'true legato' patches really only work in the static context in which they were recorded... 

For this reason I actually rarely use legato patches. In most cases, (typically faster, flowing, more expressive lines), sustain patches with oldschool overlap work better...

Having said that.. I don't want to disparage legato sampling, I think it can sound fantastic and it's only going to get better in the years to come!

Ryan


----------



## Eptesicus (Jan 17, 2020)

Number one importance.

Its an odd question. When you are writing using a virtual instrument don't you want it to sound as realistic as possible?!

Unless you purposefully decide to orchestrate your music with a fake sound.

So you would consciously be writing for a fake string section, not an actual string section for example...


----------



## Wally Garten (Jan 17, 2020)

I'm on the same page as @DS_Joost -- I started making computer music 15 years ago mixing samples from records with the stock samples in GarageBand. They sounded great to me, and still do! But not realistic, in most cases. Later I came back to writing music through hardware synths. So there's always been an inherently synthetic quality in what I do. 

I often like to play orchestral and other samples in a way that they might not sound in real life -- using a sample library with an unrealistically fast arpeggiator, or playing the same vocal sample over as over as percussive element, or using a tape emulator to make a sample wobble, or applying non-naturalistic echoes and reverbs and pitch shifters. 

So I'm at completely at home being fake. At the same time, one of the real challenges for a largely digital musician is how stay musical, which as @Sears Poncho said involves a certain amount of imperfection and minor chaos. I used to do this in a kind of cumbersome way, manipulating MIDI by hand. Using samples as a sound base also helps a lot, because orchestral samples inherently have some humanity (the players') baked into them. And I've recently gotten into using breath and gesture controllers, which really adds a lot.

And even as a non-realistic musician, one of the things I come to this forum for is to learn more about orchestral music and how it works in real life -- even if I then abuse my orchestral samples. So things like the recent discussion about how hard it would be for strings players to do big leaps in the high register... it's interesting! Partly for its own sake, and partly because there might, in fact, be times where I want at least PART of what I'm making to sound "realistic" -- and then it would be nice to have some sense of how to do that. And, bringing it back around to Rob's original question, the tools to do it. (Though, like many commenters, I think that's at least 50% orchestration and mixing, and only partly the libraries.)


----------



## ryans (Jan 17, 2020)

Eptesicus said:


> Its an odd question. When you are writing using a virtual instrument don't you want it to sound as realistic as possible?!



Agree.. that was my initial response to the question, it's a bit ridiculous... Do I want realistic libraries? Um, of course?

But, without musicality there's no realism in my opinion. Not that I'm in any position to give advice, but if I was, I would say: Develop your musicality, and the realism will come naturally. You will be drawn to the right tools that will help you achieve your goal... whatever it may be.


----------



## Jeremy Spencer (Jan 17, 2020)

Eptesicus said:


> Number one importance.
> 
> Its an odd question. When you are writing using a virtual instrument don't you want it to sound as realistic as possible?!
> 
> ...



This, exactly.


----------



## mralmostpopular (Jan 17, 2020)

ism said:


> Exactly. There's a kind of "cognitive realism" that will "fool" listeners into thinking its a real cello. But this isn't the same as an emotional musicality that will make people *feel* they're listening to real music.
> 
> My perennial example is this noodle on the Spitfire Solo Cello :
> 
> ...




I don’t think it’s either/or. If you tried that same passage on a cell patch that had only one dynamic layer, it probably wouldn’t be all that pleasing. In this case, it’s crossed a threshold for you. It sounds pretty darn good to me, as well.

I think as libraries are able to offer more realism, people with better musicality are going to be able to bring more out of those libraries.


----------



## Cinebient (Jan 17, 2020)

Realism is a limitation in software i don´t need 
All i need is a kind of organic sound which can go beyond what a real instrument can do.
I think realism is nice but i do not find it too important. 
Is is realism if we hear a soundtrack in a movie at all? It´s all about imagination. If a sound can tell a story it does its job....at least for me.


----------



## Ashermusic (Jan 17, 2020)

Eptesicus said:


> Number one importance.
> 
> Its an odd question. When you are writing using a virtual instrument don't you want it to sound as realistic as possible?!
> 
> ...




That isn't the question. The question is, if you have a choice in a passage for a piece between two different sampled or modeled solutions and one sounds more _realistic_ but the other sounds more _pleasing_ to your ear, which do you choose? (And if its sounds _obviously_ fake, then it isn't likely going to sound pleasing to my ear.)

For me, always the latter.


----------



## Eptesicus (Jan 17, 2020)

Ashermusic said:


> That isn't the question. The question is, if you have a choice in a passage for a piece between two different sampled or modeled solutions and one sounds more _realistic_ but the other sounds more _pleasing_ to your ear, which do you choose? (And if its sounds _obviously_ fake, then it isn't likely going to sound pleasing to my ear.)
> 
> For me, always the latter.



Well, it is the question. The OP's question was "Do composers want sample libraries to be practically indistinguishable from a real orchestra". The answer is yes (as much as possible).

The more realistic sample will always sound more pleasing to the ear (unless you think, for example, a violin piece could sound better being played by a violin sample than it could by a great player).


----------



## Ashermusic (Jan 17, 2020)

Eptesicus said:


> The more realistic sample will always sound more pleasing to the ear (unless you think, for example, a violin piece could sound better being played by a violin sample than it could by a great player).




Absolutely not true, depending on the passage, because no sampled instrument brings all to the table all that real player does. It is we entirely possible that in a passage where in a real orchestra you want a great violin section, in the sample based composition world a "violin-ish" sound would work better.

And if you don't think so, then respectfully, in my view you have not spent enough time doing this, as I have.

Back in 1990, when I scored the TV series "Zorro" I had a 24 piece orchestra augmented with synths and samples. I remember that I added a Memorymoog to the celli. Did that make the sound "more realistic" than just the cello or even just the cello and E3 samples? Absolutely not. Did it make it sound better? In my judgement, yes.


----------



## ism (Jan 17, 2020)

Eptesicus said:


> Well, it is the question. The OP's question was "Do composers want sample libraries to be practically indistinguishable from a real orchestra". The answer is yes (as much as possible).
> 
> The more realistic sample will always sound more pleasing to the ear (unless you think, for example, a violin piece could sound better being played by a violin sample than it could by a great player).



The reality though is that

a) there are many, many dimensions of realism, and

b) endemic to the nature of sampling is that design decisions that optimize for one dimension of reality invariably come at the cost of compromising on other dimensions of reality.

So sure, you can say we all want more realism. But we need to break the concept of ‘realism’ apart into all of its many many constituent dimensions.

Inn this sense, I would argue that the real question implicit in the OP is not

“reality: for or against"

but rather:

“which dimensions of reality do you value most and which are your willing to sacrifice in order in exchange for better results in other dimensions.”


----------



## Ashermusic (Jan 17, 2020)

ism said:


> The reality though is that
> 
> a) there are many, many dimensions of realism, and
> 
> ...




Well stated.


----------



## Scamper (Jan 17, 2020)

Jimmy Hellfire said:


> To me, this is proven time and again when I listen to stuff that was done with primitive tools by today's standards, but the music itself is awesome, serves the purpose and just works.



That and the post is what I'd agree with the most.
Further though, I think the purpose and setting for the track really matters. So for me, if I'm gonna write an orchestral track on its own and I'm going for the style of real orchestral soundtracks, I'm trying to make it sound as realistic as I can in a way, that it fits the track.
Otherwise, there are purposes, where I find older and unrealistic sounds way more fitting and appropriate, but then I don't want to care about realism and just focus on this unrealistic nature. 

For example, thinking back to the old Unreal soundtracks, even if this was a result of the technology back then, the old graphics and sound together created this special atmosphere, that I wouldn't want to have another way.


----------



## Jeremy Spencer (Jan 17, 2020)

So I ask then....would anyone here be willing to give up all their “good” orchestral libraries and use only GPO going forward? I didn’t think so. Why? Because we love how we can have a virtual, realistic sounding orchestra at our disposal. The technology these days is unreal, and the gap between the sound of VI’s and the real thing is slowly diminishing. We could have only dreamed of this level of realism 20 years ago.


----------



## ism (Jan 17, 2020)

Wolfie2112 said:


> So I ask then....would anyone here be willing to give up all their “good” orchestral libraries and use only GPO going forward? I didn’t think so. Why? Because we love how we can have a virtual, realistic sounding orchestra at our disposal. The technology these days is unreal, and the gap between the sound of VI’s and the real thing is slowly diminishing. We could have only dreamed of this level of realism 20 years ago.



There is one situation in which the GPO would optimize for realism - if you’re working off a c. 2002 512k laptop. 

The way you achieve realism with the GPO is to layer lots of tracks, preferably with lots of loud trombone ostinatos and hope that all the noise covers up the deficiencies in the library. (You should also just pray that you’re not going to need an exposed solo oboe, for instance).

I’ve heard some highly ‘realistic’ (which is not necessarily to say ‘pleasant’) results of this nature via the GPO.

If you have 2M of ram, then the VSL SE becomes more a better option for realism. 

My point is that even that ‘realism’ is always about tradeoffs of different dimensions of reality.


----------



## NoamL (Jan 17, 2020)

Sometimes there's this argument that realism doesn't matter because the layman can't tell the difference, or he can only tell the difference in a direct A/B against live orchestra.

That may be true but the layperson (including your director, producer or CD) can still feel dissatisfied with your work without being able to pinpoint the reason. Then your cue gets rejected and you lost a day of work. And often IME it comes down the virtual orchestra not being able to sell the musicality. It's just like if you have a great script but bad actors, the end result is still going to be cringe. You only really get one chance to sell your music to the layperson so yeah, realistic mockups are important.


----------



## visiblenoise (Jan 17, 2020)

For me, the simple fact that you can take realistic samples and make them sound unrealistic (weird writing/arranging, external processing, etc.), but not go the other way around, makes realism inherently more valuable.

But, I guess if everyone admitted this, we'd have a really boring thread...


----------



## Eptesicus (Jan 17, 2020)

Ashermusic said:


> Absolutely not true, depending on the passage, because no sampled instrument brings all to the table all that real player does. It is we entirely possible that in a passage where in a real orchestra you want a great violin section, in the sample based composition world a "violin-ish" sound would work better.
> 
> And if you don't think so, then respectfully, in my view you have not spent enough time doing this, as I have.
> 
> Back in 1990, when I scored the TV series "Zorro" I had a 24 piece orchestra augmented with synths and samples. I remember that I added a Memorymoog to the celli. Did that make the sound "more realistic" than just the cello or even just the cello and E3 samples? Absolutely not. Did it make it sound better? In my judgement, yes.



I think you have misunderstood my point. 

I agree that you can make a conscious choice stylistically to choose something less realistic sounding.

But if we are talking about emulating a certain instrument, for that you want as realistic a sample as possible. 

I think this is being overbought by many on here.

It's a rather simple concept.

"Do we want the samples that try and emulate an instrument, to emulate them as closely as possible" yes, obviously.


----------



## Eptesicus (Jan 17, 2020)

Scamper said:


> That and the post is what I'd agree with the most.
> Further though, I think the purpose and setting for the track really matters. So for me, if I'm gonna write an orchestral track on its own and I'm going for the style of real orchestral soundtracks, I'm trying to make it sound as realistic as I can in a way, that it fits the track.
> Otherwise, there are purposes, where I find older and unrealistic sounds way more fitting and appropriate, but then I don't want to care about realism and just focus on this unrealistic nature.
> 
> For example, thinking back to the old Unreal soundtracks, even if this was a result of the technology back then, the old graphics and sound together created this special atmosphere, that I wouldn't want to have another way.




That's just nostalgia.


----------



## Ashermusic (Jan 17, 2020)

Wolfie2112 said:


> So I ask then....would anyone here be willing to give up all their “good” orchestral libraries and use only GPO going forward? I didn’t think so. Why? Because we love how we can have a virtual, realistic sounding orchestra at our disposal. The technology these days is unreal, and the gap between the sound of VI’s and the real thing is slowly diminishing. We could have only dreamed of this level of realism 20 years ago.



Perhaps not GPO, but if you only left me with Amadeus, I could make my clients happy....or EW QLSO....or Kirk Hunter Diamond.....or VSL Special Editions

And no, the gap is still huge.

Further, the average artistic level of what I heard with sample based compositions 20 years ago is higher than what I hear today.


----------



## filipjonathan (Jan 17, 2020)

Just like some people said, you should aim for the orchestral sound and sort of pay attention to which instruments are playing solo, which are accompanying the solo. But don't stress too much if for example you have violas playing an ostinato and then you play a solo with an ensemble patch that obviously has a viola as well. As along as it sounds good, you're good. At least that's my opinion.


----------



## paularthur (Jan 17, 2020)

I believe it's a use-case question. I want my epic production music to sound epic, so bigger is better - ex: 12french horns + big low brass underneath... But* for scoring projects, (games, films, shorts etc) I want more realism - ex: 4-6 horns or using a 2horn patch for horn pads and such, legit bowing, no ensemble string patches.


----------



## SZK-Max (Jan 18, 2020)

It's important if it means that the orchestral music will make listeners think it's real. However, many listeners consider synth strings and distorted sine waves to be real horns


----------



## novaburst (Jan 18, 2020)

Jimmy Hellfire said:


> My main goal is to achieve a captivating and engaging musical experience



This:

A good feel is very important giving the listener a very nice experience so its more important what your your composition is doing to the listener than how real it sounds.


*But please stop using that annoying Auto quantizing *


----------



## mikeh-375 (Jan 18, 2020)

novaburst said:


> This:
> 
> A good feel is very important giving the listener a very nice experience so its more important what your your composition is doing to the listener than how real it sounds.




I'd say both are equally important....right on about quantise though novaB.


----------



## novaburst (Jan 18, 2020)

mikeh-375 said:


> I'd say both are equally important....right on about quantise though novaB.



I am not trying to do away with realism, i think if you use the instrument with in its boundaries most of the realism would have been captured, speaking mostly of orchestral instruments.


----------



## jononotbono (Jan 18, 2020)

I definitely want all VIs to sound fake and horrible. They need to sound absolutely nothing like what they are trying to emulate so as soon as anybody hears any music, they high five me and say, "That's a really shit sound you've got going on there, man. Nice one!". I also want them to be as expensive as possible.


----------



## mikeh-375 (Jan 18, 2020)

novaburst said:


> I am not trying to do away with realism, i think if you use the instrument with in its boundaries most of the realism would have been captured, speaking mostly of orchestral instruments.



True enough, allied with proper scoring too of course...


----------



## ChrisSiuMusic (Jan 18, 2020)

Jimmy Hellfire said:


> My main goal is to achieve a captivating and engaging musical experience. In the case of acoustic instruments, the samples and production should of course "real" enough so that the listener isn't thrown off, distracted or disengaged by a implausible or plain "fake" sounding experience. So yes, a certain degree of realism is important, and high quality tools as well as due diligence are a must, but I don't treat that as the non plus ultra or as something absolute.
> 
> I don't obsess over it and I'm not making it a sport - in the sense of, how can make this as indistinguishable from a real recording as possible. I believe that when the music is truly interesting and captivating, and the sound and programmed performance are "real enough", it's gonna do its job better than a piece that's just not really connecting with the listener, but sounds so real that it could fool professionals.
> 
> To me, this is proven time and again when I listen to stuff that was done with primitive tools by today's standards, but the music itself is awesome, serves the purpose and just works. On the other hand, when I listen to the incredible amount of absolutely faceless, idiotic music that sounds really great sonically in today's media, it just means nothing to me, no matter how great the tools and the production are.


I resonate with this 100%. If the overall musical experience moves the listener, then the realism plays a part in that, but only one part. The rest comes from arrangement, harmonically, melodically, structurally, volume-wise, etc.


----------



## novaburst (Jan 18, 2020)

novaburst said:


> *But please stop using that annoying Auto quantizing *



If you want a coffee brake on time then i guess quantize is a good thing: 

Sorry coudent resist that one.........


----------



## I like music (Jan 18, 2020)

jononotbono said:


> I definitely want all VIs to sound fake and horrible. They need to sound absolutely nothing like what they are trying to emulate so as soon as anybody hears any music, they high five me and say, "That's a really shit sound you've got going on there, man. Nice one!". I also want them to be as expensive as possible.



You bought EW's solo instruments?

Edit: whoops, included another response in the quote.


----------



## ism (Jan 18, 2020)

Ashermusic said:


> Further, the average artistic level of what I heard with sample based compositions 20 years ago is higher than what I hear today.



Ha! Very true. But important to contextualize with the fact that that 20 years ago the barrier to entry excluded people like myself, which on its own ups the average artistic level of compositions with samples considerably.


----------



## MauroPantin (Jan 18, 2020)

It is important to me. Does it mean everything I turn over completely realistic? No. I don't think anybody does. But I am aiming for it. Sometimes there's production decisions that hinder realism. Like, if you're mixing a rock track, you apply some pretty aggresive EQ on the bass drum. But no one would dare say it sounds fake, it's just the way to get "the sound". 

For orchestral music, the way to get "the sound" is mainly the expressivenes of the musicians. Hence why we care about dynamic layers and all of this stuff. We need the samples to sing.

To put it in perspective, I look at this sculpture and almost fall for the net being real, but it's marble, and if you get close enough you can tell. This forum and most musicians forums are full of people that have huge "magnifying glasses". We care about the details, we have the ears to look for them, it is to be expected. We can only wish some day our mockups will be as close to the real thing as this sculpture is to its subject. BUT, it is still a sculpture, not the real thing. And most people are looking at our "sculptures" 3 meters away or don't really have great eyesight. 

So to sum it up, I am aiming for it, and I want it to be as good as possible but at the same time it is an impossible task and I tend to focus on the 20% of the sonic picture that will yield the 80% of the results.


----------



## Vartio (Jan 18, 2020)

Realism is not important. Realism (and good production values in general for that matter) can be used to make less than stellar music sound more palatable tho, just due to the sheer "impressiveness" of it. It's really all about selling your idea to the listener in the end. There's many effective ways to do it.


----------



## Sears Poncho (Jan 18, 2020)

Iswhatitis said:


> If not for the AFM union, most Broadway producers want to get rid of live musicians already if they could.


I'll try not to derail the thread _too_ much.... but since you brought it up.... The AFM is arguably the least effective union in the history of mankind. It's certainly the most incompetent. The Pension Fund disaster is just beginning to unfold, and there are several lawsuits that they will probably lose, making things even worse...and it's basically impossible to make it worse. I would take "the AFM saves Broadway" with a grain of salt. OK, back to realism n' stuff....


----------



## ProfoundSilence (Jan 18, 2020)

visiblenoise said:


> I appreciate all this talk of realism being useless in the wrong hands, but when we're paying the prices we pay for some of these libraries, I think we're entitled to hope that the developer did all they could to enable realism. What else is there to pay more for, anyway?
> 
> Courses??


to be fair, you can buy a luxurious table saw, but it's not the manufacturer's job to make sure you'll be able to perform any quality carpentry. 

Sample libraries are tools, tools make the job easier but it still falls back entirely on your skill


----------



## ProfoundSilence (Jan 18, 2020)

@Sears Poncho 

you would probably cringe at the way I setup my strings for expressiveness. I made a tutorial for articulation crossfades(I use sul t - vibrato - sul p for instance)
layering pizz eith col legno and bartok on crossfades ect. 

all things that probably make a real string player scream internally, but it allows me to be expressive and musical - and I think that's the single most important thing for me. 

is this expressive??


----------



## Wally Garten (Jan 18, 2020)

jononotbono said:


> I definitely want all VIs to sound fake and horrible. They need to sound absolutely nothing like what they are trying to emulate so as soon as anybody hears any music, they high five me and say, "That's a really shit sound you've got going on there, man. Nice one!". I also want them to be as expensive as possible.



This is very funny, but I wonder if the word "emulate" isn't the crux of the disagreement in this thread. For some of us, the goal is to (a) write orchestral music and (b) create mockups that convincingly emulate a live orchestra playing orchestral music in a real space (or, at least, to emulate a live orchestra that can be mixed with synths for hybrid music). This is a specific art form, a lot of people people here are skilled practitioners of it, and it's an art form in which, obviously, realism is paramount. (Though I also take the point of folks who say that even in that practice, an exciting or inspiring sound may be worth whatever limitations come with it.)

Then there's a second art form, also practiced by a lot of people here, whose goal is not to emulate an orchestra per se, but to find and use interesting sounds. For example, right now there's a library in the "Commercial Announcements" section that is advertised as "a deep sampled Hohner Guitaret." Is it an ACCURATE Hohner Guitaret? I have no clue. I don't know if it plays like one, I don't know if it's got the full range of articulations you could play with one... I mean, I don't even know what a Hohner Guitaret is, you know? But it's a pretty intriguing library. I can see how I'd use that sound. I don't care if a Hohner Guitaret player would be shocked at how "unrealistic" it sounds, because mimetic realism of that kind would simply never be my goal in using that library.

Of course, not everything is like that. There are definitely libraries I've bought to help me create a sound that, even if not technically accurate, is at least psychologically accurate -- I want to engage the listener with whatever associations they have with the instrument "trumpet," so it's important that it "sounds like" a trumpet. But in plenty of circumstances, I don't need that association -- and in fact, sometimes maybe I want to cut against it. I've never used GPO, but I've certainly used, say, strings and vocals from Air XPand!2 (a fairly cheesy rompler) when I wanted something string-like, or voice-like, but with a synthetic or unrealistic edge. And I do a lot of work with physical modeling synths, which sound both real (in the sense of sounding a good bit like an actual acoustic object) and unreal (in the sense of not sounding like any existing instrument).

So I guess the answer to the question really depends on your goal. If you want to emulate live orchestral music, then it is important to use libraries that enable you to emulate live orchestral music. Otherwise, it's all pretty situational!


----------



## purple (Jan 19, 2020)

I don't think it is so much realism as versatility. I think a versatile orchestral patch is going to be by definition realistic but really what I want is a library that can execute musical ideas much like a live player would. My favorite brass library for example, CSB, is not the best sound, nor do I think it can always sound as realistic as something like Berlin Brass can at times, but it is versatile and consistent and I don't have to worry whether my sketches will transfer well to it because generally they do. (and in any key I need them to, on top of that!)


----------



## Alex Fraser (Jan 20, 2020)

*How important is realism to you? *For me, only in very specific circumstances.

You could generously describe me as a "D-Lister" in that I've scratched a living from music but don't have the amazing resume of some of our forum members.

With that caveat thrown down, I can honestly say that in order to earn $$ or get a brief over the line, I have never been asked to make something "more realistic" - even if it was far from realistic in the first place.

Instead, I get abstract directions like _"bigger"_, _"more of a sense of inquisitiveness"_, _"maybe go up at end"_ or even _"the synth-y bell thing is too late 90s and needs to sounds like '93 instead of '96.."_

Never _"the strings aren't realistic" _or _"the ensemble patch you used here sounds too much like a synth." _And this isn't because I'm a master arranger for strings. Far from it.

I totally get there are specific circumstances where realism is desirable, bit I do think it's something that's often more important to the composer than the listener. We listen to our own music with forensic detail in a way that no-one else ever will.

But remember that caveat at the top - this is my experience only. YMMV etc.


----------



## DavidRubenstein (Jan 20, 2020)

While I enjoy making an orchestral piece sound as realistic as possible, that's not always the case. I am presently composing music for a theater production where the music plays a central role. (120 minutes of dramatic music!) What is happening on the stage is very surrealistic. The director wants to emphasize the fantasy aspect of the show. So, I've been asked to write hybrid music; partially orchestral, and partially electronic. With the craziness and beauty of the acting and dancing, coupled with the mysterious underground atmosphere, there is no big motivation for realism in the music. However, when I introduce solo orchestral instruments on top of an electronic orchestra, I try to make the solo instruments as realistic as possible.


----------



## purple (Jan 20, 2020)

I think the idea that directors/audience "can't tell the difference" is silly, because the same argument can be made for any other piece of equipment or software. Should we really spend thousands on monitors, compressors, reverbs, etc. etc. when directors can't tell there's too much 5k in the mix? Should photographers just buy cheap kit lenses, since most people don't notice chromatic aberration on sharp edges? I think having this equipment has an impact not just on the objective quality of our work, but on the process of us _making _it, and that ripples to better music in the end, which _is _tangibly different to others. As someone who knows very well what real instruments sound like, libraries that sound fake are quite honestly more difficult for me to work with. I may write something and later find that samples just can't do it justice, and that causes me to make changes to the music that I might not if I had more "realistic" libraries.


----------



## xanderscores (Jan 21, 2020)

I'm late to the thread, but nevertheless my 2 cents: 
I only do composing-for-hire occasionally, most of the time I make music for music's sake, to create something that I'd want to hear myself. Many of my works find their way to streaming platforms without a real orchestra being involved. That's why I try to make it sound as real as possible. I don't want people to be turned off by the sound before they have a chance to appreciate the musical content. 
That being said, I think having a certain realism to the sound is the most important thing, closely followed by the musical idea itself. And by "certain realism" I mean non-musicians should at least listen closely to realize that it's made with samples.
One more consideration: In regard of sample libraries I think the "real sound" is not the only factor to consider. I think samples should be playable, accessible and versatile as well. If I need an hour to craft a certain 4-bar string figure, something's amiss. At least I want my samples to inspire me immediately. It should be possible to try out different things with them, use them in many creative ways and not get lost in articulation management.


----------



## DS_Joost (Jan 21, 2020)

Y'all should listen to Vangelis' Rosetta and then tell me how important realism is


----------



## Ashermusic (Jan 21, 2020)

purple said:


> . As someone who knows very well what real instruments sound like, libraries that sound fake
> 
> 
> > This is a fallacy IMHO. I cannot think of a single orchestral library that inherently sounds “fake.”. Not one. Zippo. Nada. ALL of them to varying and lesser degrees, in the hands of a skilled user, can sound reasonably realistic. ALL of them in the hands of an unskilled user can sound fake.
> ...


----------



## BlackDorito (Jan 21, 2020)

Sears Poncho said:


> Sometimes in life, ya gotta break a string or 2. I just made a quickie chart of Purple Haze for string quartet, for a friend. If it sounds nice when they play it, they are really missing the point.


Not to digress but I seem to remember that Kronos did Purple Haze.


----------



## Jeremy Spencer (Jan 21, 2020)

DS_Joost said:


> Y'all should listen to Vangelis' Rosetta and then tell me how important realism is



If Vangelis were to re-record his pieces with VI’s that recreate his synths, then realism would be achieved. Can you tell the difference between a real Moog and a soft synth Moog VI?


----------



## DS_Joost (Jan 21, 2020)

Wolfie2112 said:


> If Vangelis were to re-record his pieces with VI’s that recreate his synths, then realism would be achieved. Can you tell the difference between a real Moog and a soft synth Moog VI?



I was aiming more at his use of now decades old samples yet he still manages to make it sound fantastic through composition. Vangelis is a really odd composer because he plays most of his orchestral samples like a keyboard player (because he is) not really caring whether it sounds realistic or not. But the results are stunning every time. People here are talking about serving the composition rather than aiming for perfect realism.

In my opinion, Vangelis' music is the best example of that.

@Wolfie2112 I cannot by the way. I totally can't. I also totally don't care. I think Moogs are overrated, as are most old synths. I love how Behringer copies them and puts those insane prices to rest. Synthheads are as gullible as audiophile people anyway. They ''think'' they hear something in a filter that isn't there or has been emulated so well already that no one can hear the difference. It's magic dust, snake oil, total bollocks and certainly not worth paying thousands of dollars over. They are a novelty, and people love to defend their highly debatable spending practices.

That is my totally not controversial opinion.


----------



## ism (Jan 21, 2020)

I can’t help feeling that ‘real vs fake’ is an overly reductive way to conceptualize this.

How about this as an alternate spectrum: ‘embodied vs transcendent’

The above solo cello example is my go-to example of embodiment. It gives such an amazing sense of spatiality that you can almost feel yourself in AIR, and the air wobbling around you from the performance of a real cellist.

But is it realistic? To get maximize this ‘embodiment’ effect require a very careful mix of close and tree mics - and its amazing how sensitive the effect is to the mix.It needs 100% close and 45% tree. Even varying the tree by 5% reduces the ‘embodiment’ effect. Also the maximize the effect for the viola and violin require a different mix (60-75% tree, although they’re not nearly as sensitive to the precise mix as a the cello).

But is it realistic, in the sense that this is exactly the way it would sound if you were standing in the room? Is there a specific spot in the actual AIR studio that would sound exactly like 100% close + 45% tree? 


In the sense that the very pleasurably sense of spatialization is something we value as ‘realism’, I think it’s at least possible that this mix that aims for maximum spatial ‘embodiment’ is more ‘realistic’ that actually standing in the (real) room. Especially when you consider mixes of Vl and Va with different amounts of tree mic to respectively maximize the other instruments for ‘embodiment’. 

At the other side of the spectrum, we might like a sound ‘transcendent’ in that it doesn’t a sound that takes us into a ‘real’ space, but that takes us to a transcendent plane.

EDM is perhaps the most obvious example of a genre that is produced explicitly to take us out of the embodied realm an into a transcendent space. But a busy mix with Tundra (I conjecture) can also be understood as also blurring the spatialization to the point the the effect is more transcendent that embodied. 

And in fact, this embodied-transcendent spectrum is itself a dimension of composition, and at least arguably the ability of Tundra to seamlessly move from the embodied ambience of the AIR hall into a transcendent ‘holy minimalist’ ethos is perhaps one of the things that makes it such (transcendently) great library.

More concretely, in working with choral counter point, specifically in looking for ways to blend the arcs of Insolidus with the children’s voices of Gensis, there’s a gesture of moving between the transcendent, ethereal oohs and ahhs that blend well between the two libraries, and the much more distinct and spatially embodied sense that get from building words (adding consonants in general) in Genesis.

Now that I think of it, even badly orchestrated real strings can sound synthy - that is perfectly realistic, but not trying to create a sense of embodiment in the way the individual sections are orchestrated.


----------



## BlackDorito (Jan 21, 2020)

When any of us are composing something orchestral for our own enjoyment, not for hire, we may be subconsciously considering it a piece of art music, or concert music. For us, it enters the canon of 'classical' music and thus we judge it on how it conforms to that broad domain. So, instrumental realism, idiomatic use, and many other factors come into play in our assessment of how it sits in that domain. I used to do Coplandesque pieces with a DX7, M1 and Emu Proteus .. and it felt fine at the time. I wouldn't use those today though because I have more realism in the software.


----------



## AndyP (Jan 21, 2020)

I like it weird, and if the imperfection creates a certain realism, then that's fine with me.
Here a big Sakamoto fan, and Ryuichi could do weird things with orchestras and synths. 

If I want to reproduce Bach, Mozart or Beethoven in their purest form, then I want to be as close to the original as possible.
It always depends on the goal, what one wants to achieve.

For everything else, I claim that realism is only created with the imagination of the listener. This is true for experienced Vi composers as well as for amateurs.

A slight detuning here, a creaking there, means living. Repeated every 4 bars it is mechanical.
Furthermore, the degree of realism depends on the composer and how the library is used. One can make a cheap library sound realistic because he knows how to play the instruments best, the other can't get a reasonable sound out of a 10k library. Skills, skills, skills!

Realism is important, composition is more important. But a classical composition with 8 bit C64 sound module will always sound strange.


----------



## Sears Poncho (Jan 21, 2020)

BlackDorito said:


> Not to digress but I seem to remember that Kronos did Purple Haze.


I remember it well. It really put them on the map in the string nerd world.


----------



## jononotbono (Jan 21, 2020)

DS_Joost said:


> In my opinion, Vangelis' music is the best example of that.



It's definitely the best example of music sounding like the 80's.
Regardless of how much I like his music.


----------



## pkm (Jan 21, 2020)

It's all about intention to me. Realism isn't important to me as long as it sounds deliberate. I do plenty of things that aren't realistic, but as long as they were a purposeful, deliberate stylistic choice, I'm happy. But to me there's not much worse than something that sounds like it attempted to sound real but failed.

Most cartoons don't look realistic at all, but they look deliberate. Many hip hop samples are unrealistic and repetitive, no human could play the same phrase over and over in exactly the same way, but they sound deliberate. A lot of fruit flavored candy tastes nothing like the real fruit, but it sure is delicious.


----------



## novaburst (Jan 21, 2020)

Here is a thought, is it because John Williams writes for real orchestral instruments and players that makes him so good to listen to or is it the way he uses his imagination to crafts music.

So if JW used some sample library's to do a piece what would we hear, would we hear a very good piece of music with the JW vibe and flavor or would we hear samples.

I think every one has a flavor, a vibe, that comes through the way we dress, walk, talk, and i think that vibe can transmit through your music too weather it be real instruments or samples, 

that brings us to this how in love are you with your craft, so if you are half hearted with a half arsed approach to music i think it is going to be heard and felt weather you are using real instruments or samples, 

I think it is about getting a message across, so like in a picture, it can be created by a simple pencil, a piece of chalk, a pen, water colors and brushes oil colors and brushes, some times the simple pencil picture can be more striking and is able to send a greater vibe and message than a great oil painting so where does real come in or does it need to be real, is not the realism what the listener feels through what you created.

Yes some will say no no no only real instrument can do it for me, but do we make that stand up until we hear something that touches us or connects to us weather it be real instruments or samples.

So was it the user of the pencil or was it because they used a pencil ..... i think you know the answer.


----------



## DS_Joost (Jan 21, 2020)

jononotbono said:


> It's definitely the best example of music sounding like the 80's.
> Regardless of how much I like his music.



The question is, does it bother you that it sounds 80s? Does it keep you from enjoying his music?


----------



## jononotbono (Jan 21, 2020)

DS_Joost said:


> The question is, does it bother you that it sounds 80s? Does it keep you from enjoying his music?



Yes. For the most part it does bother me. I’m always thinking “this sounds like Casio Keyboards“. Depends how many beers I’ve had. 😂


----------



## jononotbono (Jan 21, 2020)

Obviously I’m only half messing around and there’s no denying his talent and his artistry but I have to be in the mood. Blade Runner, for example, is a perfect example of me loving his music. When I’m watching the film. It’s the aesthetic of the film and I can’t imagine anything else. It was also a film made in 1982. His sound reflects that. Well, obviously in my opinion. These comments will no doubt hurt the feelings of the sensitive folk but hey, I'm just being honest!


----------



## dflood (Jan 21, 2020)

Realism is all important to me particularly for sampled acoustic instruments. I’m all for playability and musicality too but I wouldn’t buy a library if it didn’t sound ‘real’ to me, at least in the musical context of my project. As a hobbyist musician, I attempt to create finished pieces, not demos for eventual performance by live players. The arrangements almost always use traditional acoustic instrument parts. I’ll use whatever I have on hand: I’ll record audio if I have the instrument and am capable of playing the part, I‘ll use sample libraries if I think they are good enough, and rarely, loops or phrases. Until the last decade, I almost never used samples because they all sounded like Casio keyboards to me. But we crossed a threshold, and now I’m all-in with VIs. Although I know that most of you can still spot a sampled instrument performance, the quality of today’s virtual instruments, for the most part, is now more than good enough for my needs.


----------



## Marlon Brown (Jan 21, 2020)

This is a piece by Bach. It's not very realistic but it's pleasant. I think realistic music comes from good orchestration, not just good samples.


----------



## mikeh-375 (Jan 22, 2020)

As a pro


novaburst said:


> Here is a thought, is it because John Williams writes for real orchestral instruments and players that makes him so good to listen to or is it the way he uses his imagination to crafts music................



This is the crux of the matter for me personally. It's both of what @novaburst suggests I feel. JW writes with imagination and knowledge - it's the only way to get to his level. One feeds the other and vice versa. As I am classically trained, I can't divorce realism from the composing and the creative imagination, they are all part of the same thing - that of writing for a medium with as much control, technique and musicality as you have learnt.
I get that deadlines and the heat of the coalface will skew this ideal and I too have said bollocks to realism when a revision needed doing asap, or the clock was ticking, but the central tenet of realism and its importance in creativity goes beyond work pressures when it comes to creating personal music for a supposed orchestra imv.


----------



## Ashermusic (Jan 22, 2020)

I would challenge anyone here to point me to the more “realistic “ sample based compositions they did that are as musical and delightful to listen to as what Vangelis did in his heyday.


----------



## JohnG (Jan 22, 2020)

Well? not everyone likes Vangelis. At least his film music can be listened to as music, away from the picture, and still be enjoyable.

...unless we are talking about Chariots of Blah...


----------



## Ashermusic (Jan 22, 2020)

JohnG said:


> Well? not everyone likes Vangelis. At least his film music can be listened to as music, away from the picture, and still be enjoyable.
> 
> ...unless we are talking about Chariots of Blah...



I will only say this: if someone doesn’t think Vangelis‘ work overall is extremely musical, well,we apparently have very different ideas as to what defines musicality.

And it’s easy to now dismiss “Chariots Of Fire” now many years later, but if you watched how the music played the picture on the climactic race at the time and did not think that the music absolutely _made_ that scene, well, then we have very different ideas on how music works with picture.


----------



## jononotbono (Jan 22, 2020)

I was expecting to wake up and see a deluge of ranting regarding my posts about Vangelis. I feel this forum has somewhat matured. Thank you


----------



## JohnG (Jan 22, 2020)

I couldn't stand the movie and, alas, the score is not something I like either. I didn't like the fake drums or the piano, which felt immediately like the most abject pandering.

Not that I'm above pandering myself, just to be clear.

Blade Runner is another matter altogether, but then I liked the movie.


----------



## Ashermusic (Jan 22, 2020)

JohnG said:


> I couldn't stand the movie and, alas, the score is not something I like either. I didn't like the fake drums or the piano, which felt immediately like the most abject pandering.
> 
> Not that I'm above pandering myself, just to be clear.
> 
> Blade Runner is another matter altogether, but then I liked the movie.



Well considering the movie won multiple Oscars, including Best Movie and Best Score, and was a big box office hit, suffice to say that is a minority view. It doesn’t make your opinion wrong of course but let me be respectful and say I disagree.


----------



## JohnG (Jan 22, 2020)

Hi Jay,

I think we get hired for our taste. What we like and what we _don't _like. So I think it's weird to point out how beloved something is, or how many awards it won whenever someone opines that he doesn't like some Famous Piece of Music.

Are you arguing that, unless we're equally popular, we're not allowed to dislike something? I don't think that stands up to much scrutiny, if so. We can all think of popular things we don't care for, or even detest. Part of what we _do, _as composers, is develop our taste, including some guardrails about what we find tacky or cheesy or distasteful, or simply "blah" (not thinking specifically of CoF in saying that).

Minority or not, I didn't like CoF -- score or movie -- didn't like it then and like it even less today. That is no disrespect to Vangelis, who I think is the bomb, generally, in what he does with electronic sounds, and as a musician generally.

Titanic also won a lot of prizes and, while hats off to James H for scoring a huge win, I detested the movie and, like others, couldn't help noticing that the score was comprised in many cases of retreads from many of his other scores. Maybe temp love? A very memorable main theme and again, hats off to him and Ms. Dion for making it a mega-hit.

FWIW, I also don't like some of Stravinsky's pieces. The popularity and continued wide performances of "_Les Noces_," for example, utterly baffles me; I find it screechy and awful, not to mention interminable. But I have a CD collection of his complete works and love it (generally).

So whatevah


----------



## Ashermusic (Jan 22, 2020)

JohnG said:


> Hi Jay,
> 
> I think we get hired for our taste. What we like and what we _don't _like. So I think it's weird to point out how beloved something is, or how many awards it won whenever someone opines that he doesn't like some Famous Piece of Music.
> 
> ...



No of course you are entitled to your opinion but when history makes a different judgement than I do, I value mine a little less than you value yours I guess.

I have my judgments but I don’t rate them that highly. I much prefer listening to Poulenc to Shostakovich but I would consider it foolish to maintain his work was not excellent.


----------



## Sarah Mancuso (Jan 22, 2020)

For composers working commercially on orchestral music, the fact that synthetic sounds can be used to great effect doesn't mean much if those sounds aren't what's being asked of us.
And I say this as someone who quite likes the sound of 80s synth music *🙃*


----------



## Ashermusic (Jan 22, 2020)

Sarah Mancuso said:


> For composers working commercially on orchestral music, the fact that synthetic sounds can be used to great effect doesn't mean much if those sounds aren't what's being asked of us.
> And I say this as someone who quite likes the sound of 80s synth music *🙃*



Of course, but the point is that it is illustrative if the fact that a single minded pursuit of hyper- realism may be overlooking the forest for the trees.

OK, I have said all I have to say.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jan 22, 2020)

Plausible realism.


----------



## Jeremy Spencer (Jan 22, 2020)

Ashermusic said:


> Well considering the movie won multiple Oscars, including Best Movie and Best Score, and was a big box office hit, suffice to say that is a minority view. It doesn’t make your opinion wrong of course but let me be respectful and say I disagree.



Awards mean nothing. Dua Lipa won a Grammy last year, does that mean she's the best?

I like Vangelis for what he has done, but I am not a fan (even though I love 70's & 80's synth stuff). Music is such a personal thing, it's different for everyone, and there's no right or wrong opinions.


----------



## Jeremy Spencer (Jan 22, 2020)

robgb said:


> Do composers want sample libraries to be practically indistinguishable from a real orchestra



To quote @robgb and his original question, is this not what we're ultimately after when buying an orchestral library? If not, then why are we still lusting after the latest and greatest? Are you perfectly content with your current orchestral libraries? I bought BBCSO for this very reason, to me adds an extra element of realism to my tracks....along side my other favs like EW Hollywood Strings, etc. It is my goal (with orchestral pieces) to sound as real as possible. And yes, this also requires proper orchestration and musicality.


----------



## Ashermusic (Jan 22, 2020)

Wolfie2112 said:


> To quote @robgb and his original question, is this not what we're ultimately after when buying an orchestral library? If not, then why are we still lusting after the latest and greatest?



OK I guess I do want to address your very specific questions.

I _don’t_ lust after the latest and greatest. When I become interested in a new library it is never because I think it will be more realistic, because it _won’t_ be. 

A perfect example is Afflatus Strings. Does it sound more _realistic_ than HS? No. CSS? No. I became interested because it sounded _different_ and I liked the sound.


----------



## BlackDorito (Jan 22, 2020)

JohnG said:


> FWIW, I also don't like some of Stravinsky's pieces. The popularity and continued wide performances of "_Les Noces_," for example, utterly baffles me; I find it screechy and awful, not to mention interminable. But I have a CD collection of his complete works and love it (generally).


Probably the Sony collection. Excellent collection - but it does contain some of Strav's later serial pieces which IMO are less commercially viable. Not only was I not moved by some of these, but I would say the recording production wasn't always the best. Strav was on his last leg when some of these recordings were made. I'm a fan of Les Noces instrumental music, but less so of the shouty vocals.


----------



## JohnG (Jan 22, 2020)

BlackDorito said:


> Probably the Sony collection.



Yes



BlackDorito said:


> I'm a fan of Les Noces instrumental music, but less so of the shouty vocals.



I keep thinking I _should_ like it...

Maybe in another 10 years.


----------



## JohnG (Jan 22, 2020)

Ashermusic said:


> ... I would consider it foolish to maintain his [Shostakovich's] work was not excellent.



Why? I find Shostakovich totally forgettable. Bartok didn't like it either, lampooning its bombastic emptiness. I could listen to Bartok all day. It's not some kind of arrogance, or lack of humility, as I think you are insinuating. I just don't like it. Or Berio or a bunch of other stuff that I was told I was supposed to like, if we're making a list.

Maybe enough on this anyway -- sorry to derail.

Back to realism: I think the endless appetite for "yet one more shade" of bowing/ blowing/scraping/ whacking illustrates just how nuanced, subtle and endless the sound of real playing is, and how valuable some find every tiny bit of spice we can get our hands on to liven up our electronic renderings.

Why does HZ have a zillion gigabytes of sounds when he has an orchestra and whatever else at his disposal on his projects? To get to real, and then more real than real, if you know what I mean -- beyond real, which is where media music has gone.


----------



## CT (Jan 22, 2020)

I think Vangelis is one of those rare cases where I would not want the sounds to be "updated." They are what they are, and they're an integral part of his aesthetic. In his hands, they're not "80's" to me, they're just "Vangelis."


----------



## JohnG (Jan 22, 2020)

I'm not sure I follow you @Iswhatitis -- I wasn't saying anything negative about HZ.


----------



## BlackDorito (Jan 22, 2020)

Iswhatitis said:


> If you have all that success and money and you weren’t as brilliant as John Williams, who doesn’t use gear and writes directly on orechestral sheets of paper, as Hans is not classically trained to read and write music so he sketches out melodies and rhythms with MIDI gear and sample libraries. He doesn’t have JW talent.


Even if I understood this post - which I don't - I would advise anyone making broad assertions about well-known folks that they undoubtedly have not made their life work to study, to liberally sprinkle 'IMO' throughout their post. Not to suppress opinions, just to be clear that they are opinions.


----------



## BlackDorito (Jan 22, 2020)

JohnG said:


> I find Shostakovich totally forgettable.


When I hear that some people connect with Mahler and some just don't ... I understand that. But I've been mystified by the value people place in Shostakovich's work ... just don't see it myself.


----------



## CT (Jan 22, 2020)

Who doesn't connect with Mahler? Lemme at em.


----------



## BlackDorito (Jan 22, 2020)

miket said:


> Who doesn't connect with Mahler? Lemme at em.


Actually I know several people. They will be dealt with.


----------



## JohnG (Jan 22, 2020)

Iswhatitis said:


> I was not suggesting you were saying anything negative about HZ. But you said why does he use a gazillion samples.



It was a rhetorical question which I then answered. I wasn't asking.


----------



## mikeh-375 (Jan 22, 2020)

Shostakovich Forever, the man was a 20thC. genius.
Likes and dislikes in music between people will hardly ever tally completely. This translates into daily hassle for some here (well it used to for me). A lot of us here have put music to dramatic scenes and we all know that there isn't just one solution to the notes chosen - and that's when just one person (the composer) is involved. The moment somebody else hears a cue we are into like and dislike again only this time with added swearing.


----------



## BlackDorito (Jan 22, 2020)

mikeh-375 said:


> we all know that there isn't just one solution to the notes chosen


Potential for a fascinating thread topic here ... although a bit of a diversion from the original post. I often think, as a composition develops, that there are many interesting paths it could take - there is no inevitability to it, and we shouldn't place too much aesthetic value on inevitability. It was perhaps a bit different in the 17th century for European art music, to a degree.

As far as Shostakovich goes, it's great you're a fan ... I'll still drink your wine.


----------



## mikeh-375 (Jan 22, 2020)

BlackDorito said:


> Potential for a fascinating thread topic here ... although a bit of a diversion from the original post. I often think, as a composition develops, that there are many interesting paths it could take - there is no inevitability to it, and we shouldn't place too much aesthetic value on inevitability. It was perhaps a bit different in the 17th century for European art music, to a degree.
> 
> As far as Shostakovich goes, it's great you're a fan ... I'll still drink your wine.




I'll have to respectfully disagree here @BlackDorito. Everytime you are searching for notes, surely a personal, intuitive inevitability dictates the choice. When an avenue of exploration or a chord, or a phrase is rejected, your aesthetics (which are closely linked to inevitability), are in play and when you find the satisfying solution you do so because in part, this personal sense of inevitability, of what needed to happen next, is satisfied.

In concert art music, inevitability is highly prized and desirable because of its focus on the control exerted by the composer upon the material and the imagination applied. One sure way to achieve inevitability is to compose with an underpinning of technical rigour, teasing out hidden implications by putting the material through technical procedures to see what is possible and to fire the imagination. This ensures a common origin, aids unity and can take the guess work out of composing. YMMV of course.

Good luck in finding any wine left in this household....


----------



## ProfoundSilence (Jan 22, 2020)

**hears shosty boi's name being dragged through the gutter**

unrelated to thread, but while I find Mahler terrific - his music is more pedestrian in terms of appeal. Shostakovich on the other hand can be a little more quirky and his developments feel like they are at a rapid pace, and more of a stretch to follow. Mahler's great works can be easily lumped together as generally being typical 4/8 bar phrasing - Shostakovich grooves to whatever. 



(the 2nd movement is a little more approachable for average listeners)

to someone musically inclined, the pattern has been set and when it overlaps on itself it makes sense - to regular joe and jane, they are still trying to figure out why the melody ended too soon or too late from what they are expecting. It's for a particular musical and emotional effect, but Shostakovich's music often times makes the listener feel uneasy/uncomfortable on purpose. His music embodies his anxiety and paranoia - and the tragedy and oppression he wrote in. Finding ways to express this behind the back of the state, while simultaneously needing it's approval. 

lets not forget that Tchaikovsky's 6th had extremely mixed reviews at it's premier, because it intentionally had that 5/4 waltz(akward and unsatisfying) and had what seemed like it's finale in the 3rd movement quickly sour into a somber bittersweet 4th movement that ends in one of the most depressing ways you can end a symphony(plot twist, SOMEBODY COUGHS IMMEDIATELY, CRINKLES THEIR PROGRAM, AND STARTS CLAPPING TOO EARLY)

Enjoying these composers is not a purely academic feat, you must truly empathize and understand what their art was - and that you've been cultured to think that music is made to make you feel certain emotions, but in reality - very few were masters of exploring the unease, paranoia, removing satisfaction, confusion. Shostakovich isn't some ivory tower nonsense to listen to in order to flex on other students - he's still reasonably approachable, it just takes some people a little longer to make sense. 

granted I listened to all kinds of technical/prog metal prior to getting into Shostakovich - and having been a drummer ect, the less orthodox phrasing didn't make me flinch, which is probably why some of the people(who aren't musicians) I introduced to took a little longer to grow on it. I only felt encouraged to post about this because I've found getting non-musicians to enjoy Shostakovich was unexpectedly difficult. My girlfriend was zoned out for the first shosty piece I showed her for instance(she does listen to some classical, and ofcourse every girl who grew up doing ballet is familiar with tchaikovski) and was really just unable to follow it so it sounded like jibberish. That said, I still listen to stuff in proximity, and it didn't take long until she was humming the motif from shosty's 10th. So there is something to Shostakovich - it just ends up being too much too fast and people might not catch on during the first listen.


----------



## ProfoundSilence (Jan 22, 2020)

mikeh-375 said:


> I'll have to respectfully disagree here @BlackDorito. Everytime you are searching for notes, surely a personal, intuitive inevitability dictates the choice. When an avenue of exploration or a chord, or a phrase is rejected, your aesthetics (which are closely linked to inevitability), are in play and when you find the satisfying solution you do so because in part, this personal sense of inevitability, of what needed to happen next, is satisfied.
> 
> In concert art music, inevitability is highly prized and desirable because of its focus on the control exerted by the composer upon the material and the imagination applied. One sure way to achieve inevitability is to compose with an underpinning of technical rigour, teasing out hidden implications by putting the material through technical procedures to see what is possible and to fire the imagination. This ensures a common origin, aids unity and can take the guess work out of composing. YMMV of course.
> 
> Good luck in finding any wine left in this household....


The balancing act of this is so strange, because the bar of tolerance for delaying the inevitable(or outright denying it) lowers with musicianship - but there are some paragons who manage to keep the act interesting for musicians and still predictable enough to be enjoyable for average listeners. 

Reminds me of one of verta's more recent classes... talking about a big major tonic chord and ranting about how you're done - you can go home. Nothing that you can do from that point will be more satisfying, essentially you've boxed yourself into giving them what they want immediately and it can only go downhill from there. Don't quote me, I'm paraphrasing how I understood it - but it's true. The difficulty is giving them enough to stay interested to bring them to all these interesting places before finally letting them have it. It's like they won't go to the theme park unless you promise them ice cream, even though they would love the theme park if they just went there - but humans are stupid lol.


----------



## mikeh-375 (Jan 22, 2020)

The 10th is a masterpiece all right. DS's work displays all of the traits of a symphonist working his material for expressive means. A perfect blend of technical facility and inspired imaginative rhetoric.
@ProfoundSilence is right to say that DS is approachable, but not if you want a musical _hit_ in 2 minutes and not if you don't like long lines of musical thought.
What always amazes me about his work is the economy of means in all aspects of his work (often a sure sign of a master), from the scoring to the simplicity of some of his ideas - the complexity and stature comes from the application of his mind and spirit to the music.


----------



## reddognoyz (Jan 22, 2020)

I was once hired to score an animated series about bunnies for enough money, but not enough to pay live players. The producer asked me if I was planning on using live instruments as it was her preference(champagne taste, beer budget) I said, "only if you use live bunnies" 

No I didn't...of course I didn't. I assured her it would be nothing but real(sampled) instruments. I do wish I'd had the hubris to say the former though.


----------



## reddognoyz (Jan 22, 2020)

here's the thing about realism as it relates to sampled instruments. It is a struggle always to get them to say what you want because they're notes played, however lovingly and expertly, without intent. A player will play with intent and the details of accent and nuance and emotion is tied to the phrase written.


----------



## DS_Joost (Jan 22, 2020)

BlackDorito said:


> When I hear that some people connect with Mahler and some just don't ... I understand that. But I've been mystified by the value people place in Shostakovich's work ... just don't see it myself.



Maybe a bit off topic but this is what I always feel with Jazz. I am supposed to connect with it... Yet I absolutely don't. It does nothing at all for me. Nothing. Even if I appreciate it on a technical level (and even then I am not that impressed mostly). Emotionally? Zilch. Nada.


----------



## ProfoundSilence (Jan 23, 2020)

DS_Joost said:


> Maybe a bit off topic but this is what I always feel with Jazz. I am supposed to connect with it... Yet I absolutely don't. It does nothing at all for me. Nothing. Even if I appreciate it on a technical level (and even then I am not that impressed mostly). Emotionally? Zilch. Nada.



To be fair, some jazz sounds like wankery more than interesting. Some sounds like jazz standards and is on par with the vast majority of music written with I V I/I IV V I/I ii V I. Although an argument could be made that a lot of is also ii V I 

Much of what I enjoy in terms of jucy harmony is romantic era and jazz based - but is mostly something I enjoy spinkled in other genres, or film score.


----------



## KEM (Jan 23, 2020)

DS_Joost said:


> Maybe a bit off topic but this is what I always feel with Jazz. I am supposed to connect with it... Yet I absolutely don't. It does nothing at all for me. Nothing. Even if I appreciate it on a technical level (and even then I am not that impressed mostly). Emotionally? Zilch. Nada.



Completely agree with you, the songs I find most emotional usually don't even really have full "chords", just some guitars playing power chords with a vocal melody on top, and the song structures are usually always verse/chorus/verse/chorus/bridge/chorus in 4/4, nothing complicated. I've always felt like jazz and other more "complex" styles of music lose any sort of emotion in exchange for technicality. In all honesty I'd say pop is probably the most emotional because it strips everything down to its core, throw out all the excess and showmanship and just give the emotion and nothing else, and it seems like the masses agree because those are the songs people are listening to everyday.


----------



## ProfoundSilence (Jan 23, 2020)

KEM said:


> Completely agree with you, the songs I find most emotional usually don't even really have full "chords", just some guitars playing power chords with a vocal melody on top, and the song structures are usually always verse/chorus/verse/chorus/bridge/chorus in 4/4, nothing complicated. I've always felt like jazz and other more "complex" styles of music lose any sort of emotion in exchange for technicality. In all honesty I'd say pop is probably the most emotional because it strips everything down to its core, throw out all the excess and showmanship and just give the emotion and nothing else, and it seems like the masses agree because those are the songs people are listening to everyday.


that's a pretty narrow viewpoint.

people listen to music that isn't even music these days - just an atonal vocal hook works for them. Are they the experts?

by that analogy tons of people eat fast food more than any other type of food - is their opinion of the quality superior to that of a chef or dietitian?

people also cant make the things they like. Reading a thousand books doesn't make an avid reader any good at writing. Consumption isn't some sort of authority - and the people "designing" pop music do so with absolute intent and manipulation. Something much less emotional than grabbing a guitar and singing to a few bar chords.

compare that to the emotion oozing from rach's isle if the dead which opens in 5.

based on what you've mentioned listening to, an example you're probably familiar with is glorious nosebleed, from circa survive's first album. Chorus in 5/8, vocal melody opens on a leading tone(half step dissonant from the 3rd) and has sections that kind of float around 11/4.

I don't think anyone ever said "gee, this song is sterile and technical. I wish they would just focus on simpler more emotional music instead of these wacky meters and meter augmentation"





examples mentioned posted


----------



## KEM (Jan 23, 2020)

ProfoundSilence said:


> that's a pretty narrow viewpoint.
> 
> people listen to music that isn't even music these days - just an atonal vocal hook works for them. Are they the experts?
> 
> ...




I mean yeah those are all good points, and I certainly listen to music that isn’t even “music” really, but I think it still stands that that vast majority of people would rather listen to something that they can easily grab onto. The only artists who’s music I was able to find an emotion in while still being complex in some ways are Underøath, Periphery, and Radiohead. If I were to play something complex when I’m in the car with my friends or family they’d all complain and tell me to turn it off, but if I played a simple pop tune they’d all start singing along with it.


----------



## Ashermusic (Jan 23, 2020)

KEM said:


> I mean yeah those are all good points, and I certainly listen to music that isn’t even “music” really, but I think it still stands that that vast majority of people would rather listen to something that they can easily grab onto. The only artists who’s music I was able to find an emotion in while still being complex in some ways are Underøath, Periphery, and Radiohead. If I were to play something complex when I’m in the car with my friends or family they’d all complain and tell me to turn it off, but if I played a simple pop tune they’d all start singing along with it.



Ypu need to start hanging out with a more sophisticated group of friends


----------



## Ashermusic (Jan 23, 2020)

JohnG said:


> Why? I find Shostakovich totally forgettable. Bartok didn't like it either, lampooning its bombastic emptiness. I could listen to Bartok all day. It's not some kind of arrogance, or lack of humility, as I think you are insinuating. I just don't like it. Or Berio or a bunch of other stuff that I was told I was supposed to like, if we're making a list.



As I have written many times before, as craftsmen, we should be able to separate our taste from our critical evaluation. I like lots of stuff that I recognize is of inferior quality to stuff I don’t like.


----------



## mikeh-375 (Jan 23, 2020)

Ashermusic said:


> As I have written many times before, as craftsmen, we should be able to separate our taste from our critical evaluation. I like lots of stuff that I recognize is of inferior to quality to stuff I don’t like.



I tend to agree with this. One can easily discern good work regardless of taste.


----------



## BlackDorito (Jan 23, 2020)

reddognoyz said:


> here's the thing about realism as it relates to sampled instruments. It is a struggle always to get them to say what you want because they're notes played, however lovingly and expertly, without intent. A player will play with intent and the details of accent and nuance and emotion is tied to the phrase written.


Very nicely put. The Modwheel helps a little bit. All the same, Cage and Eno didn't need no stinkin' intentionality in music. [I'm having trouble sticking to the main topic]


----------



## BlackDorito (Jan 23, 2020)

mikeh-375 said:


> One can easily discern good work regardless of taste.


It helps to be familiar with the musical genre in question. I remember reading a concert review concerning various Metal songs that didn't exhibit any craftmanship to me in equal amounts, but the reviewer called one of them good and the other terrible.


----------



## BlackDorito (Jan 23, 2020)

KEM said:


> I've always felt like jazz and other more "complex" styles of music lose any sort of emotion in exchange for technicality.


I think jazz can definitely be more 'head' music than 'heart' music. But back in the day, jazz was the popular music and people danced to it. Personally I like to listen to small-combo bebop jazz because there is always a flow of rhythmic nuances that keeps me engaged .. more of an intellectual engagement. For emotional engagement, I often listen to female jazz singers doing standard ballads. Never connected much with modern jazz.


----------



## JohnG (Jan 23, 2020)

Ashermusic said:


> As I have written many times before, as craftsmen, we should be able to separate our taste from our critical evaluation. I like lots of stuff that I recognize is of inferior quality to stuff I don’t like.



Jay. Please stop putting words in my mouth.

I am describing what I like, not "evaluating" someone's music. You have continually implied that I'm not 'umble enough or something to recognise the greatness of Composer X because of his craftsmanship. That is not what I said.

But even if I take on your point -- that because millions love and critics laud some piece of art or music -- I reject it. We all can appreciate the craft that goes into something and still dislike it.

*Craft Does Not Equal "Good"*

It is possible to argue that a piece is "well crafted" but nevertheless dismiss it for ultimately feeling insincere, overly fussy, sentimental, artificial, over-baked, boring -- a million adjectives can describe pieces that are written by accepted "experts," even loved by many, but nevertheless we find "bad."

We can also think of artists or writers whose work was widely admired and critically prized in their time, but at whose popularity, today, we scratch our heads. c.f. Salieri vs. Mozart

*What are You Waiting For?*

You have been at music for decades, so have many here. How long are you supposed to study and write music before being allowed to critique it? Again, I'm not condemning these composers -- I simply don't like their music. Just because we're not all famous / more famous doesn't mean we can't have an opinion that's valid.

*Time*

For me, the greatest artists, playwrights, and composers somehow get through both gauntlets -- popular and critical -- and both learned and "unwashed" audiences still find something in them a hundred, two hundred years later. If I could return in 100 years, I would be very surprised if some of the "giants of 20th century music" haven't been utterly forgotten. Who knows which ones? I'd bet on Bartok over Shostakovich, but who knows.


----------



## Wally Garten (Jan 23, 2020)

BlackDorito said:


> I think jazz can definitely be more 'head' music than 'heart' music. But back in the day, jazz was the popular music and people danced to it. Personally I like to listen to small-combo bebop jazz because there is always a flow of rhythmic nuances that keeps me engaged .. more of an intellectual engagement. For emotional engagement, I often listen to female jazz singers doing standard ballads. Never connected much with modern jazz.



Yeah, it's funny -- I know the stereotype is that jazz is all intellectual, but it was always a very emotional connection for me. When I was young, John Zorn was my head-banging music, Dizzy Gillespie and Ella Fitzgerald were my happy music, and Coltrane was my dark/sentimental music. I didn't have much musical education, and I didn't realize until a lot later how sophisticated jazz harmony could be. (TBH I still don't really understand it!) I just knew that I FELT something when I listened to "Lush Life."


----------



## BlackDorito (Jan 23, 2020)

Wally Garten said:


> I just knew that I FELT something when I listened to "Lush Life."


Love that song. My go-to is the Linda Ronstadt rendition on the album of the same name.


----------



## Violeiro (Jan 23, 2020)

Im recently doing music with an accordion doing the melody, i started listening to much accordion music, which i find great, but How much more i pay attention, more i find what i do is different from an instrumental accordion session/recording. Im switching to think that if my music is not made to a public that is fan of accordion music - in that case, i would better record in a studio with the instrument - but the accordion is used as a nice expressive instrument to a general public, i guess focusing on realism ( i mean using instrumental accordion recordings as reference) is not so important as the general music to balance well.


----------



## Matt Damon (Jan 23, 2020)

ProfoundSilence said:


> Reading a thousand books doesn't make an avid reader any good at writing.



Not really a good comparison. Your ability to write is actually directly linked to your ability to read. The more you read, the more your own grammar, punctuation, vocabulary and writing in general improves.

For the same reason that exposure to spoken language is how you learn it.



ProfoundSilence said:


> that's a pretty narrow viewpoint.
> 
> people listen to music that isn't even music these days - just an atonal vocal hook works for them. Are they the experts?
> 
> ...



Ironically, I'd say this is actually the "narrow viewpoint" 

You're taking this fact that some people do listen to music that was not born of a highly-skilled craftsman and extrapolating it onto the general public's taste. You're also making a bad-faith assumption that such people would not be able to recognize a "better" result, were it presented to them, just because of one aspect of their tastes.

Almost every study ever done on the subject has shown that people prefer traditional architecture over modernity. Are they wrong?

How many people do you know who'd say that Notre Dame, Neuschwanstein Castle, Michelangelo's works, The Valley of Tears in Iceland or in-her-prime Diane Kruger are not beautiful?

The truth is that most people can recognize beauty when they see it.

I've always found this assertion that when it comes to music that ordinary people can't recognize it — when they're perfectly-capable of recognizing it in seemingly every other art form — to be self-elating of composers. The reason why people listen to so much "crap" these days is not the fault of the listener — it is the fault of composers, and the declining standards thanks mostly to technology and globalization making things too accessible.

To actually answer OP's question: I want as much realism as I can get, but the reality with samples is that often "real" can come at the cost of musicality because the developer focuses too much on legato transitions and less on fluidity between articulations. There is an acceptable level of "phony" in the performance of samples. I don't know exactly where it is, or how to objectively describe it (perhaps it can't be described) but much like when it comes to a beautiful building or painting — I know what it looks like when I see it.


----------



## CT (Jan 23, 2020)

Hi Matt, welcome to the forum. You were a jerk in Interstellar.


----------



## mikeh-375 (Jan 24, 2020)

BlackDorito said:


> It helps to be familiar with the musical genre in question. I remember reading a concert review concerning various Metal songs that didn't exhibit any craftmanship to me in equal amounts, but the reviewer called one of them good and the other terrible.



Quite right @BlackDorito . Play me music by one of you kids modern beat combo heroes and I'd be lost in assessing it apart from my usual (and old fart prejudice) "that's shite remark".....  (I am joking honestly, I mean I really like the Beatles and Sinatra, c'mon). Such is life, you young'uns reading this 'll find your own generational prejudices in the fullness of time....
Seriously though, I couldn't assess the efficacy of current pop even if I like it (and I really _do_ like some of it), but show me a score -any score - and one glance will tell me if it is done well, done meh, or done badly.


----------



## ism (Jan 24, 2020)

Matt Damon said:


> The reason why people listen to so much "crap" these days is not the fault of the listener — it is the fault of composers, and the declining standards thanks mostly to technology and globalization making things too accessible.



You forget about the entire ideological superstructure of the culture industry which uses music, for instance, to aggressively forge us into consumers receptive to their marketing messages. 

The up side is that great artists and performers can still, however occasionally, find ways to subvert the industry and deliver genuine art, no matter how commercial and exploitative the genre.


----------



## Jeremy Spencer (Jan 24, 2020)

Matt Damon said:


> The truth is that most people can recognize beauty when they see it.



I beg to differ. Sadly, a lot of people I know cringe when they hear any type of "classical" music, they just can't stand it, period. Is that wrong? Absolutely not, they just don't like it.


----------



## Violeiro (Jan 24, 2020)

Matt Damon said:


> Not really a good comparison. Your ability to write is actually directly linked to your ability to read. The more you read, the more your own grammar, punctuation, vocabulary and writing in general improves.
> 
> For the same reason that exposure to spoken language is how you learn it.
> 
> ...



People prefer old architecture but not to build or mobile their houses. Similar to enjoying classical music on movies themes but not listening to this on the radio. Not a conclusion, just an observation.


----------



## DS_Joost (Jan 24, 2020)

Wolfie2112 said:


> I beg to differ. Sadly, a lot of people I know cringe when they hear any type of "classical" music, they just can't stand it, period. Is that wrong? Absolutely not, they just don't like it.



This begs the question: what is beauty?

Ask Aristotle or Plato and you'll get two vastly different answers...


----------



## Violeiro (Jan 24, 2020)

DS_Joost said:


> This begs the question: what is beauty?


Beauty is the depuration of a dream.


----------



## mikeh-375 (Jan 24, 2020)

DS_Joost said:


> This begs the question: what is beauty?
> 
> Ask Aristotle or Plato and you'll get two vastly different answers...


....truth.


----------



## jononotbono (Jan 24, 2020)

Let's all just export bounces from Sibelius and use those as final mixes. Sounds awesome.


----------



## Ashermusic (Jan 24, 2020)

JohnG said:


> Jay. Please stop putting words in my mouth.
> 
> I am describing what I like, not "evaluating" someone's music. You have continually implied that I'm not 'umble enough or something to recognise the greatness of Composer X because of his craftsmanship. That is not what I said.
> 
> ...



I am not trying to say you specifically John just because it is your posts I am responding to. Of course, we are allowed to critique it. What we should not do, that many do ,in my opinion, is make the argument that “because I like it, therefore it is good” or the converse.

Personally if something is well crafted, that is the entry point for further evaluation. If I deem something to be poorly crafted it’s hard for me to get past that.

And yes, time makes its judgements. In their heyday Teleman was considered greater than Bach.

But perhaps sometimes even history errs?

Burt Bacharach made a very cogent point. He was asked, “Which of your songs do you thin are the best and will be played a lot over the years?”

He replied that those were two different questions. He considered songs like “Alfie” to be among his best but believed the ones that would be performed more were those that were easier to sing and play, like “Raindrops Keep Falling On My Head”.


----------



## DS_Joost (Jan 24, 2020)

Ashermusic said:


> I am not trying to say you specifically John just because it is your posts I am responding to. Of course, we are allowed to critique it. What we should not do, that many do ,in my opinion, is make the argument that “because I like it, therefore it is good” or the converse.
> 
> Personally if something is well crafted, that is the entry point for further evaluation. If I deem something to be poorly crafted it’s hard for me to get past that.
> 
> ...



I do get your point Jay but I think you are overcomplicating something. I believe the merit of any artistical work is determined by whether it achieves what it sets out to achieve. That's what determines to me whether something is "good" or not.

That also enables me to appreciate things that I don't like, but on another level.

For example, Drake's music I think is absolutele godawful shite but then again it's not made for me. It's made for a younger crowd wanting to get sexed up on a dancefloor. Well, it achieves that. So that's why it's effective. It's not exactly Mozart, but it's not trying to be.

Edit: for further clarification, ask this question: what is the craft of Drake's producers? Is it producing technically superior or "good" music? I think not, it's producing chart bangers. And they succeed in that craft. It cannot be judged by it's technical merits because that simply was never the goal.


----------



## Jeremy Spencer (Jan 24, 2020)

Can you tell the difference between a well crafted Rap tune and poorly crafted one? Music (and all art, for that mater), is all interpreted by the ear (or eye) of the beholder. There is no right or wrong judgment IMO.


----------



## ryans (Jan 24, 2020)

Wolfie2112 said:


> Can you tell the difference between a well crafted Rap tune and poorly crafted one?



Yes. But I love rap/hip-hop. There are just as many nuances in which to judge the craft of hip-hop as any other genre.. in my opinion.


----------



## Jeremy Spencer (Jan 24, 2020)

ryans said:


> Yes. But I love rap/hip-hop. There are just as many nuances in which to judge the craft of hip-hop as any other genre.. in my opinion.



Of course, just saying that it's not just "classical" that has well crafted material, but every genre. But if someone strongly dislikes a certain genre, it's easy to dismiss as being inferior.


----------



## jononotbono (Jan 24, 2020)

Wolfie2112 said:


> But if someone strongly dislikes a certain genre, it's easy to dismiss as being inferior.



A classic example is one of the many that slags off HZ's music and then when you ask them to do an impression of HZ's music, they absolutely can't. Suddenly those "2 notes" in Batman become very difficult to write. 

And I listened to Vangelis today. Just to check back in on it. Good for him for being him. People actually like this Brass "realism"? Ok. Fair enough. I'm glad we all like different things...


----------



## CT (Jan 24, 2020)

jononotbono said:


> People actually like this Brass "realism"?



Again, I can only speak for myself, but I doubt anybody is listening to Vangelis at this point for "realism." It's just part of his sound.


----------



## Ashermusic (Jan 24, 2020)

Well now I could go down the rabbit hole of higher vs lower art but in this era of anti-egalitarianism, I know how that plays out so I will pass.


----------



## BlackDorito (Jan 24, 2020)

mikeh-375 said:


> you young'uns reading this 'll find your own generational prejudices in the fullness of time....


In my case, the fullness of time is in my rear view mirror.



mikeh-375 said:


> but show me a score -any score - and one glance will tell me if it is done well, done meh, or done badly


Well, that's quite a feat. I'm poring over scores all the time, and I can easily discern common practice (at least for the styles of scores I have) visually, but if 'done badly' means 'sounds bad', I need to take a listen.


----------



## jononotbono (Jan 24, 2020)

miket said:


> Again, I can only speak for myself, but I doubt anybody is listening to Vangelis at this point for "realism." It's just part of his sound.



Of course. But this thread is about realism in samples and how important it is to the people that buy them. It would appear some people like samples that sound dated and some like samples that sound the best they’ve ever been. I love where technology is headed and never want to sit still in the past. It’s honestly amazing what we can do behind a keyboard now and anything that gives me musical joy is worth owning. Old or new.


----------



## DS_Joost (Jan 24, 2020)

jononotbono said:


> Of course. But this thread is about realism in samples and how important it is to the people that buy them. It would appear some people like samples that sound dated and some like samples that sound the best they’ve ever been. I love where technology is headed and never want to sit still in the past. It’s honestly amazing what we can do behind a keyboard now and anything that gives me musical joy is worth owning. Old or new.



Ah but here's the point of why I brought Vangelis up. To you it sounds dated. To me it sounds like Vangelis. Vangelis is an interesting artist for this conversation exactly because he is so polarizing. I can understand both viewpoints though. I just happen to really like his "dated and unrealistic" sound.


----------



## DS_Joost (Jan 24, 2020)

Ashermusic said:


> Well now I could go down the rabbit hole of higher vs lower art but in this era of anti-egalitarianism, I know how that plays out so I will pass.



Honestly Jay I would love to go down there. You are an experienced composer whose viewpoint I and others greatly admire and are interested in. So please, without any sarcasm, let's go down that rabbit hole. It's exactly the kind of deep discussion that I love VI-Control for!

Edit: just to be clear I don't want to lick anyone's boots but after all the deal deal deal threads I could use some serious discussion.


----------



## jononotbono (Jan 24, 2020)

DS_Joost said:


> Ah but here's the point of why I brought Vangelis up. To you it sounds dated. To me it sounds like Vangelis. Vangelis is an interesting artist for this conversation exactly because he is so polarizing. I can understand both viewpoints though. I just happen to really like his "dated and unrealistic" sound.



I’m enjoying this whole thread and Vangelis is a great composer to bring up.

It’s not that I find his music dated, I’m just not very much into his music. And because of this, the sounds he uses don’t really do much for me. Of course, this doesn’t detract from my appreciation of his talent and his writing. There is a lot of music in this world that I don’t really care for but I still appreciate it. I’m not really into Hip Hop but watching Jay Z at the Isle ofWight festival a few years back turned out to be one of the best gigs I’ve ever seen. I’m very open minded when it comes to music and often listen to stuff I’m not in love with. Which is why I have no problem saying what I’ve said about Vangelis.We like what we like right? And something having Oscar award after Oscar award isn’t going to change that.

Hands up who loved Black Panther? That’s right that little film with countless awards, mass media frenzy, probably the biggest release in modern times. Maybe of all times. Is it wrong to think that film looked like the TV show Power Rangers with a splash of Lion King.And what about the music? It won best score. Should it have? Plenty of people think it deserved an award. By this yard stick, it’s up there with Chariots of Fire, right? It has to be. Unless they are meaningless. Probably a minority view here. 😂


----------



## mikeh-375 (Jan 24, 2020)

BlackDorito said:


> In my case, the fullness of time is in my rear view mirror.
> 
> 
> Well, that's quite a feat. I'm poring over scores all the time, and I can easily discern common practice (at least for the styles of scores I have) visually, but if 'done badly' means 'sounds bad', I need to take a listen.



Not necessarily "sounding bad" as genre requires certain ways of doing things and in that regard there is no right or wrong I suppose. Rather that scores could be better in more technical ways (which would make the music better and are essential if realism or the real world itself is involved). 
For example, I'm sure a lot of us can discern poor voice leading, un-idiomatic writing, (I've even been in a session where impossible things had actually been written - that was embarrassing for the composer), lack of detail in the parts, a lack of good combinatorial knowledge, a lack of imagination, poor spacing etc. etc. In other words all the vital, important stuff, the stuff that makes an ensemble sound well together.


----------



## novaburst (Jan 25, 2020)

jononotbono said:


> . I love where technology is headed and never want to sit still in the past. It’s honestly amazing what we can do behind a keyboard now and anything that gives me musical joy is worth owning. Old or new.



This


----------



## Ashermusic (Jan 25, 2020)

DS_Joost said:


> Honestly Jay I would love to go down there. You are an experienced composer whose viewpoint I and others greatly admire and are interested in. So please, without any sarcasm, let's go down that rabbit hole. It's exactly the kind of deep discussion that I love VI-Control for!
> 
> Edit: just to be clear I don't want to lick anyone's boots but after all the deal deal deal threads I could use some serious discussion.




Thank you for the kind words, but we have had that discussion multiple times in the past and it always comes down to two camps: those who, like me, believe that there _is_ such a thing as higher and lower art and those who don't, and minds never get changed, even after page upon page of discussion.

You could start another thread I guess.


----------



## VivianaSings (Jan 25, 2020)

I have Joshua Bell. I like it - it sounds great. I went on tour last year as part of the pit band for a huge, well known celtic christmas tour. You know the type - where beautiful Irish ladies sing Christmas and traditional Irish songs? So I spent months on tour sharing the stage with a top shelf violinist. I came off tour, fired up Joshua Bell and almost cried - it sounded like a GM patch on a midi sound module. 

Of course two months off tour and not around the violinist, Joshua Bell sounded good again. Funny how that happens! 

I'm fortunate enough to work on a lot of major projects so a lot of the stuff I get called to do, whether it's orchestral, big band, or various combinations like wind quintets, etc. eventually get recorded by live groups, so I'm in a position to hear mockups that I've slaved and sweated over get recorded by live musicians and every time it's the same pattern. The mockup sounds amazing, the people I'm writing it for love it and are thrilled, then we go into the studio, record the stuff, then I realize the mockup sounds like cardboard.

I guess everyone has their own opinion, but mine honestly is that we're really not that close to achieving great realism in sample libraries. In fact, we're only slightly more further along than we were decades ago with giga sampler. On top of it, the very low barrier to entry to making sample libraries mean we're swamped with a lot of badly recorded libraries. Bum samples, noise, artifacts, out of tune samples, even serious recording issues like bad rooms, bad mic placement, and phase issues that plague even very expensive libraries, so if anything we're even further away from realism. Unless your idea of realism is recording a questionable orchestra in a bad room with broken equipment. Actually that reminds me of when 8dio released their legato strings and a lot of people were fawning over it. I was listening to the demos of it and my fiancee, who's a first chair musician with an accomplished orchestra walked in the room and said instantly, "Why the heck are you listening to a high school orchestra?!" I realized that for some libraries, they actually try to push bad playing and technique as an indicator of how "realistic" the library sounds!  Because, you know, only "real" musicians would have sloppy technique in their playing - A sample library would be too perfect! So therefore our library sounds realistic!

Nonetheless it was very freeing to acknowledge that sample libraries are no nearer to realism than they were decades ago. Things sound slightly better but still nowhere near a live orchestra. Of course it's all relative - if you have your stuff recorded by a community orchestra then yes, your mockup might sound better. But really, if you have your stuff recorded by a really good orchestra or group it becomes instantly apparent how far from realism we are. 

Honestly it became a lot less stressful to admit that and instead go the other way - instead of attempting realism and being disappointed, I just use whatever tools we have at the moment to the best of their ability, realize it's gonna sounds as good as it does, and be fine with it and stay away from tools that sound bad instead as that's infinitely more distracting. 

TL;DR: Sample libraries are still a long way off from achieving realism. Instead, it's much better to look for libraries that sound so unrealistic as to be distracting during the composing / mockup stage and stay away from them.


----------



## jononotbono (Jan 25, 2020)

VivianaSings said:


> . I came off tour, fired up Joshua Bell and almost cried - it sounded like a GM patch on a midi sound module.



It’s so depressing after working with an orchestra and then going back to samples. However, like you said, it doesn’t take long to get right back on the Horse and love life again. Booze also helps on the first night 😂

I also remember trying one of those cheap Boss (Fender Licensed) Spring Reverb pedals. And loving it. Till I A/Bed it with the real thing.

Still use the pedal though as it’s a similar scenario. It sounds good. But different.


----------



## Ashermusic (Jan 27, 2020)

VivianaSings said:


> I have Joshua Bell. I like it - it sounds great. I went on tour last year as part of the pit band for a huge, well known celtic christmas tour. You know the type - where beautiful Irish ladies sing Christmas and traditional Irish songs? So I spent months on tour sharing the stage with a top shelf violinist. I came off tour, fired up Joshua Bell and almost cried - it sounded like a GM patch on a midi sound module.
> 
> Of course two months off tour and not around the violinist, Joshua Bell sounded good again. Funny how that happens!
> 
> ...



Exactly.


----------



## Jeremy Spencer (Jan 27, 2020)

VivianaSings said:


> Nonetheless it was very freeing to acknowledge that sample libraries are no nearer to realism than they were decades ago



Although I agree we will never replace the real thing, I think this is an understatement. Decades ago? Personally, I think virtual orchestral sounds have improved immensely, even in the past decade. Just me, I guess.

What libraries from decades ago are you comparing to?


----------

