# When everybody is using the same libraries...



## Bluemount Score (Jan 12, 2020)

...do you think that's a problem?

How many people use e.g. CSS as there main string library? How many times have we heard the same samples being played over and over, just in a different order and with little different processing? Do you feel like it lacks some sort of uniqueness when composing with the same libraries as hundreds of others? Maybe it's a good thing that developers keep pushing out basic string libraries and so on, even though the competition is high. A big palette of choices helps to stay unique as an individual...


----------



## filipjonathan (Jan 12, 2020)

Bluemount Score said:


> ...do you think that's a problem?
> 
> How many people use e.g. CSS as there main string library? How many times have we heard the same samples being played over and over, just in a different order and with little different processing? Do you feel like it lacks some sort of uniqueness when composing with the same libraries as hundreds of others? Maybe it's a good thing that developers keep pushing out basic string libraries and so on, even though the competition is high. A big palette of choices helps to stay unique as an individual...


I don't see the problem in that. Everyone has their own style of composing. Doesn't matter if you have the same samples, it hardly sounds the same. It's all about what you create with it. The same with paint. Artists use the same brand of colors, but that doesn't mean what they make with them is not unique.


----------



## John R Wilson (Jan 12, 2020)

Bluemount Score said:


> ...do you think that's a problem?
> 
> How many people use e.g. CSS as there main string library? How many times have we heard the same samples being played over and over, just in a different order and with little different processing? Do you feel like it lacks some sort of uniqueness when composing with the same libraries as hundreds of others? Maybe it's a good thing that developers keep pushing out basic string libraries and so on, even though the competition is high. A big palette of choices helps to stay unique as an individual...



I personally dont think it is a problem. It's more down to the orchestration and compositions themselves I think. It's what you do with the samples.


----------



## erikradbo (Jan 12, 2020)

filipjonathan said:


> I don't see the problem in that. Everyone has their own style of composing. Doesn't matter if you have the same samples, it hardly sounds the same. It's all about what you create with it. The same with paint. Artists use the same brand of colors, but that doesn't mean what they make with them is not unique.


Excellent analogy.


----------



## Jimmy Hellfire (Jan 12, 2020)

Fundamentally I don't think it's a problem, since sample libraries, plug-ins etc. are just tools, much like music instruments, and it's not as if you had to buy a guitar that nobody else owns to be able to write a song or an album that's distinctively "you".

It's a problem when everyone's writing the same music. Which is IMO the far greater problem. The competition, as you say, is high, and everyone's trying to beat each other at the exact same, vapid game. I've never seen supposed artists be so much concerned about not standing out under any circumstances, and how much it has become valued to optimize everything one does towards being able to produce something that's as uniform, retort product, a rip-off of a rip-off, truly unremarkable and inherently disingenuous as humanly possible, in all thinkable facets.

This thinking of course also affects the choice of tools to a very high degree, and you can definitely hear this double effect in the music too.

Theoretically it's true that more choices can help towards a more unique expression, but to be honest, I'm under the impression that people who are really very uptight about having and maintaining some relative idea of success and doing everything "right" are truly doing everything in their might to prevent any kind of standout quality and have an almost panic fear of individuality - even if they think they're actually trying the opposite.


----------



## filipjonathan (Jan 12, 2020)

erikradbo said:


> Excellent analogy.


Thank you. Very rarely I say something smart


----------



## Bluemount Score (Jan 12, 2020)

Thanks for your comments - What I personally don't like is using pattern or phrase-based libraries like Action Strings and so on.
I liked the color analogy by @filipjonathan
That's just something that has been on my mind lately after seeing stuff like the "favourite string library" thread that has been up lately. I like and dislike that my favorite string library CSS is performing best.

I swear, as I heard it so often, I will recognize a D4 played by the CSSS Solo Chello anytime (in a not too busy mix). And for somehow I don't like the idea that listeners recognize the tools I used. Ark Strings are very recognizable as well, just as an example, because of the way the were recorded. Again, I would recognize the lowest note in Ark 1 Low Strings anytime.


----------



## Jimmy Hellfire (Jan 12, 2020)

It's always a weird feeling when you can exactly make out the samples used in a piece because you're listening to them all day yourself when you're writing. We spend so much time extremely closely and intensely listening to very short phrases, even single notes, because it's just part of what we do, and that just gets branded into the brain.

But the listener out there doesn't even have a 1000th of that experience. Also they don't perceive music in an analytical way to begin with, and rarely even hear such microscopic musical details - in my experience, most people I talk to, whether that's in everyday conversation or with a client, for the most part hear music as "one big sound". They don't consciously listen for individual parts or instruments much. And they shouldn't either. Contrary to that, I think for us, analytical listening is probably "on" 100% of the time or close. I very much doubt that any significant number of listeners would ever go "hm, I feel I heard that sound before".


----------



## Bluemount Score (Jan 12, 2020)

Jimmy Hellfire said:


> It's always a weird feeling when you can exactly make out the samples used in a piece because you're listening to them all day yourself when you're writing. We spend so much time extremely closely and intensely listening to very short phrases, even single notes, because it's just part of what we do, and that just gets branded into the brain.
> 
> But the listener out there doesn't even have a 1000th of that experience. Also they don't perceive music in an analytical way to begin with, and rarely even hear musical details - in my experience, most people I meet, whether that's in private conversation or with a client, for the most part hear music as "one big sound". They don't consciously listen for individual parts or instruments much. Contrary to that, I think for us, analytical listening is probably "on" 100% or close to that most of the time. I very much doubt that any significant number of listeners would ever go "hm, I feel I heard that sound before".


I like that. That really makes the difference between an active listening musician, and the big other percentage of average listeners. Not sure where I belong, but it probably depends on the genre. When it comes to composing - you are right - I tend to listen to every little note and round robin so often up to the point where it fits into the mix perfectly. Of course I know how my samples sound, even though it is unsure whether or not this makes an actual difference for the average listener in the final result.


----------



## Richard Wilkinson (Jan 12, 2020)

Is it a problem when many different composers use the LSO? Do their scores all sound the same?


----------



## Bluemount Score (Jan 12, 2020)

Richard Wilkinson said:


> Is it a problem when many different composers use the LSO? Do their scores all sound the same?


I've heard too few LSO compositions and don't own the library myself, but I guess the answer you want to hear is no  (irony alert)

The thing is - a real orchestra has unlimited round robins and never plays exactly the same, even the same piece, even if they wanted too. Libraries consist of (a couple of) pre-recorded audio files that are repetitively used over and over.


----------



## Arbee (Jan 12, 2020)

I'm old enough to think things really haven't changed much to be honest. I can date music by hearing a DX7, Oberheim, gated snares etc. And a strat is a strat, a tele is a tele and a les paul is a les paul. The listening public are oblivious, only we know we're using the same tools in the same era.


----------



## Batrawi (Jan 12, 2020)

Bluemount Score said:


> ...do you think that's a problem?


if it's phrase based libraries, then it's a problem (that's why I never use such libraries)...Otherwise it's pretty much like using real instruments...your style, your rule!


----------



## CGR (Jan 12, 2020)

There are numerous examples of the same synth sounds (ie. Yamaha DX7 & Roland JV series) from the 80's and 90's which were all over various hit songs (and non-hit songs). Same with the 50's & 60's with the popular electric guitar & amp combos which numerous bands used on their songs. Still didn't dilute the uniqueness IMHO.


----------



## Bluemount Score (Jan 12, 2020)

Arbee said:


> ...and a les paul is a les paul.







?


----------



## CGR (Jan 12, 2020)

Having said that, the Roland "Orchestra Hit" really wore thin quite quickly in the 80's!


----------



## Bluemount Score (Jan 12, 2020)

CGR said:


> Having said that, the Roland "Orchestra Hit" really wore thin quite quickly in the 80's!


I'm not from the 80's but I thing I still got it in my head


----------



## Jimmy Hellfire (Jan 12, 2020)

Bluemount Score said:


> ?



That's not less Paul. That's definitely more Paul than it was in 2012!


----------



## Henning (Jan 12, 2020)

Doing music for games for about two decades now I worked with quite some audio directors that were also composers. Not even once heard from any of them I should not use a certain lib because everyone else is using them. Actually more the other way round. Working in a team with other composers some audio directors specify even the libs to use so the sound is more cohesive.


----------



## Saxer (Jan 12, 2020)

We have a lot of very different libraries today of nearly every instrument or section. It‘s more the way how samples at all work and don‘t interact with each other like real musicians or the room that makes sample music different from “real music“. In the 80s people thought 16th quantized DX7 slap basses and Solina strings sounds modern and absolutely like the „real thing“. In the future todays sample music will be recognized as „early to mid 21th century music“ like we recognize 80s or 60s music. Not because we use the same libraries but because we use libraries at all.


----------



## CGR (Jan 12, 2020)

Saxer said:


> . . . In the future todays sample music will be recognized as „early to mid 21th century music“ like we recognize 80s or 60s music. Not because we use the same libraries but because we use libraries at all.



As in the "ostinato string/epic drums/generic choir phrase/build up-drop/stripped back main theme on a solo instrument & end" routine.


----------



## Geoff Grace (Jan 12, 2020)

I think we're focused entirely too much on timbre these days and not enough on other music elements such as harmony, melody, and rhythm. It's understandable because there's been a real explosion in sound development and audio processing during the last 50 years or so. Before that shift, timbre had the least focus of the musical elements I mentioned. Musicians were far more interested in counterpoint, chord voicings, playing in the pocket, etc. 

If someone else uses the same sounds as I do, I sure hope that I can distinguish myself by my writing and arranging choices. That's what I tried to do back when most of us keyboard players were gigging with a Fender Rhodes. 

Of course, YMMV. 

Best,

Geoff


----------



## Akarin (Jan 12, 2020)

Bluemount Score said:


> ?



Nah. That's LE Paul.


----------



## Bluemount Score (Jan 12, 2020)

Akarin said:


> Nah. That's LE Paul.


Ah! Le francais! Je suis une croissant!


----------



## Mike Fox (Jan 12, 2020)

Give 10 different composers the exact same libraries, and their composition/mixing skills and techniques will make the libraries sound different.

Orchestral fx are a different story. I've had to stop using Symphobia, because it's heard all over the place.


----------



## Bluemount Score (Jan 12, 2020)

Mike Fox said:


> Give 10 different composers the exact same libraries, and their composition/mixing skills and techniques will make the libraries sound different.
> 
> Orchestral fx are a different story. I've had to stop using Symphobia, because it's heard all over the place.


That's what I agree on and was hoping to hear from others.


----------



## Ashermusic (Jan 12, 2020)

Mike Fox said:


> Give 10 different composers the exact same libraries, and their composition/mixing skills and techniques will make the libraries sound different.
> 
> Orchestral fx are a different story. I've had to stop using Symphobia, because it's heard all over the place.



Yep. But still, that is why I like mixing libraries together to create a more individual sonic palette.


----------



## John R Wilson (Jan 12, 2020)

Mike Fox said:


> Give 10 different composers the exact same libraries, and their composition/mixing skills and techniques will make the libraries sound different.
> 
> Orchestral fx are a different story. I've had to stop using Symphobia, because it's heard all over the place.



Their is certainly some sounds especially orchestral FX as you mention that do seem to be quite recognisable and used a lot. I've also heard Damage being used a lot and can usually recognise it within a piece. However, most listeners would probably never know this or recognise this whatsoever. They are not going to be thinking about whether that sound was from that library or from that sound pack which was also used in another song they listened to just the other day.


----------



## Tice (Jan 12, 2020)

By mixing and matching libraries and making some less-than-straight-forward choices I tried to make an orchestral sound that was enough it's own thing to not be super obvious. But unless I do my own sampling of orchestral instruments, it's never going to be truly unique to me. As long as the compositions and orchestrations themselves are unique I'm not hugely worried though. Just be as good at your craft as you can be and the tools you use will matter less and less.


----------



## Ashermusic (Jan 12, 2020)

Johnrwilsonmusic said:


> Their is certainly some sounds especially orchestral FX as you mention that do seem to be quite recognisable and used a lot. I've also heard Damage being used a lot and can usually recognise it within a piece. However, most listeners would probably never know this or recognise this whatsoever. They are not going to be thinking about whether that sound was from that library or from that sound pack which was also used in another song they listened to just the other day.



True, but as a craftsman I would be embarrassed if I heard a stock sound used just as it is coming out of a library from ten other guys in a month.

i remember that when I got Stylus RMX I immediately starting screwing with the patterns. A friend asked me, “Are you sure you are making them better?”

I responded, “No, but I am making them mine.”


----------



## John R Wilson (Jan 12, 2020)

Ashermusic said:


> True, but as a craftsman I would be embarrassed if I heard a stock sound used just as it is coming out of a library from ten other guys in a month.
> 
> i remember that when I got Stylus RMX I immediately starting screwing with the patterns. A friend asked me, “Are you sure you are making them better?”
> 
> I responded, “No, but I am making them mine.”



I have avoided certain stock sounds for the reasons you mention. I have also done similar with Stylus RMX in the past as well


----------



## Ashermusic (Jan 12, 2020)

Johnrwilsonmusic said:


> I have avoided certain stock sounds for the reasons you mention as well. I have also done similar with Stylus RMX in the past as well



This is not a new issue btw. When the Korg Wavestation first came out it was a phenomenon. But it was really difficult to program. I was appalled when a very well known TV composer, who had a half dozen or so shows on the air, scored a great show and I heard two nakedly used patterns, “Midnight Run” and “Pharoah’s Jig” with no other sounds used as cues.

I would never,ever, ever have done that, no matter how tight the deadlines.


----------



## 5Lives (Jan 12, 2020)

One of the most successful songs in history, Umbrella, is based around a drum loop that comes with GarageBand / Logic. That loop didn’t write the melody, harmony, lyrics though. It inspired things. And hasn’t stopped a million songs being written subsequently. Samples including pattern libraries are there to provide inspiration and tools, but the music is more than the sum of its parts.


----------



## Sears Poncho (Jan 12, 2020)

CGR said:


> Having said that, the Roland "Orchestra Hit" really wore thin quite quickly in the 80's!


Yeah, but it moved a lot of units!


----------



## Ashermusic (Jan 12, 2020)

5Lives said:


> One of the most successful songs in history, Umbrella, is based around a drum loop that comes with GarageBand / Logic. That loop didn’t write the melody, harmony, lyrics though. It inspired things. And hasn’t stopped a million songs being written subsequently. Samples including pattern libraries are there to provide inspiration and tools, but the music is more than the sum of its parts.



True, but now, years later, I cringe when I hear it.


----------



## Greg (Jan 12, 2020)

Thats why EQ is my orchestrator


----------



## gamma-ut (Jan 12, 2020)

CGR said:


> Having said that, the *Roland* "Orchestra Hit" really wore thin quite quickly in the 80's!



Wait, what?

Are we talking orch5? Because that didn't go near Roland hardware for some time.


----------



## lokotus (Jan 12, 2020)

Bluemount Score said:


> ...do you think that's a problem?
> 
> How many people use e.g. CSS as there main string library? How many times have we heard the same samples being played over and over, just in a different order and with little different processing? Do you feel like it lacks some sort of uniqueness when composing with the same libraries as hundreds of others? Maybe it's a good thing that developers keep pushing out basic string libraries and so on, even though the competition is high. A big palette of choices helps to stay unique as an individual...



how many composers wrote for a bassoon, solo violin etc.... You make the dead samples unique to you by programming, voicing, sound design etc. You are 1) The composer and 2) the performer in one person.
You find it boring how it sounds ? Get a real player after programming it.
You find it boring what it plays, change the notes.
You find it has to be done on budget ? Write the notes that sounds best with the library for that purpose.
Way more options than Bach or Beethoven or Mozart had in their individual career. Do you really think they were always happy with the players they had in front of them or even with the audience  Way more options to change if you find it lacks uniqueness today...

Cheers, lokotus


----------



## Bluemount Score (Jan 12, 2020)

lokotus said:


> Way more options than Bach or Beethoven or Mozart had in their individual career. Do you really think they were always happy with the players they had in front of them or even with the audience  Way more options to change if you find it lacks uniqueness today...


You got a point here!


----------



## Ashermusic (Jan 12, 2020)

lokotus said:


> Way more options than Bach or Beethoven or Mozart had in their individual career. Do you really think they were always happy with the players they had in front of them or even with the audience  Way more options to change if you find it lacks uniqueness today...
> 
> Cheers, lokotus



But the musicians in a symphony orchestra, and the instruments they play, are way more consistently excellent than in Bach or Mozart or Beetoven’s day. If they could work with them now they would be in heaven.


----------



## ism (Jan 12, 2020)

Geoff Grace said:


> I think we're focused entirely too much on timbre these days and not enough on other music elements such as harmony, melody, and rhythm. It's understandable because there's been a real explosion in sound development and audio processing during the last 50 years or so. Before that shift, timbre had the least focus of the musical elements I mentioned. Musicians were far more interested in counterpoint, chord voicings, playing in the pocket, etc.
> 
> If someone else uses the same sounds as I do, I sure hope that I can distinguish myself by my writing and arranging choices. That's what I tried to do back when most of us keyboard players were gigging with a Fender Rhodes.
> 
> ...



On the other hand, something like this:



operates in a musicality in which timbre is entirely essential (and which I doubt any sample library could remotely approach). I doubt there would be any point in playing it on a piano, or even with CSS. (My attempts to mock it up ended badly).

I also think that it's only very recently that recording technology makes it even possibly to capture the subtitles of timbres that make this work as a composition.

So while there's a lot of focus on timbre that I don't find especially interesting either, not all focus on timbre reduces to the excessively Zimmer-esque, anti-Williams ambient approaches to film score (including a lot of Hans' own work).

Not that I wouldn't like to see more decent counterpoint in film scores.

But I'd also like to see more focus on timbre - in the right ways.


----------



## Pianolando (Jan 12, 2020)

Even if you use the same library yourself it’s kinda hard to even tell if someone else is using the same...even if the samples are the same, the music, arrangements and performances are not. I don’t think it’s a problem or even noticeable. On the other hand, lots of people seems to write pretty similar, epic, ostinato-based music...that is more problematic in my opinion.


----------



## filipjonathan (Jan 12, 2020)

Pianolando said:


> Even if you use the same library yourself it’s kinda hard to even tell if someone else is using the same...even if the samples are the same, the music, arrangements and performances are not. I don’t think it’s a problem or even noticeable. On the other hand, lots of people seems to write pretty similar, epic, ostinato-based music...that is more problematic in my opinion.


This.


----------



## Geoff Grace (Jan 12, 2020)

ism said:


> On the other hand, something like this:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Certainly as an individual style or musical statement, it's perfectly valid to take one musical element and focus on it. Drum cadences would be another example of this. My concern is more about a societal shift, like we have in this time period. 

Don't get me wrong, I'm grateful that we have so many timbral options now. It's just that I feel in general we get too distracted by the shiny new objects in the room and as a result, often give too little focus on the other musical elements. Again, YMMV. 

Best,

Geoff


----------



## ism (Jan 12, 2020)

Geoff Grace said:


> Certainly as an individual style or musical statement, it's perfectly valid to take one musical element and focus on it. Drum cadences would be another example of this. My concern is more about a societal shift, like we have in this time period.
> 
> Don't get me wrong, I'm grateful that we have so many timbral options now. It's just that I feel in general we get too distracted by the shiny new objects in the room and as a result, often give too little focus on the other musical elements. Again, YMMV.
> 
> ...



How do you see this societal shift? Do you mean vacuous pop, or sound-design film scores, or something broader?


----------



## Geoff Grace (Jan 12, 2020)

ism said:


> How do you see this societal shift? Do you mean vacuous pop, or sound-design film scores, or something broader?


You name it.

Compare the rhythm and other musical elements of today's pop or dance music to that of the disco music of the '70s or the techno of the '80s. Contrast that to the differences between the big band era of the '40s and the rock era of the '60s. In the latter case, change happened on all levels in just twenty years. On the other hand, the main differences between today's popular music and that of fifty years ago are technological. True, technology has affected more than just timbre: quantization has mechanized rhythm and Auto Tune has mechanized pitch; but the types of rhythms and the styles of melody have shifted far less in a half century than they did in the previous two decades.

Next, look at the types of discussions we have around here. Do we discuss chord voicings, meters, or melodic writing as much as we do libraries?

And that's just off the top of my head.

Best,

Geoff


----------



## Quasar (Jan 12, 2020)

Ashermusic said:


> But the musicians in a symphony orchestra, and the instruments they play, are way more consistently excellent than in Bach or Mozart or Beetoven’s day. If they could work with them now they would be in heaven.


No. If they complained then they would still be complaining today, because that's how people are. If you're a complainer then you're a complainer, and you'll adapt to the circumstances.

But on the OP topic, Beethoven didn't demand a whole different orchestra so as not to sound like Mozart or Haydn.


----------



## Mike Fox (Jan 12, 2020)

Ashermusic said:


> True, but as a craftsman I would be embarrassed if I heard a stock sound used just as it is coming out of a library from ten other guys in a month.



This.


----------



## Ashermusic (Jan 12, 2020)

Quasar said:


> But on the OP topic, Beethoven didn't demand a whole different orchestra so as not to sound like Mozart or Haydn.




No, but Berlioz did


----------



## PerryD (Jan 12, 2020)

Ha! Everybody has the same libraries and covers the same John Williams tracks. How about an old _Johnny_ Williams track?


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jan 12, 2020)

There's nothing wrong with using stock sounds, just with, well, stock music.

Stock patterns and loops are another matter, but I don't care if someone else uses the same string sounds or whatever.

Really, I care about having something unique to say (not that I'm too proud to accept money for paraphrasing other people if that's the gig).


----------



## cqd (Jan 12, 2020)

I keep hearing the same spitfire string evolutions patch on bloody everything I watch on TV..


----------



## Polkasound (Jan 12, 2020)

Right now, there's someone from a prop department somewhere complaining about how every TV crime drama on TV uses the same clocks inside their interrogation rooms. You'll notice things like that if you work with props all the time. Likewise, only people who work with XYZ String Library a lot are going to know when it's being used on TV, and that's probably .00001% of the population.


----------



## Sears Poncho (Jan 12, 2020)

Geoff Grace said:


> Contrast that to the differences between the big band era of the '40s and the rock era of the '60s. In the latter case, change happened on all levels in just twenty years. On the other hand, the main differences between today's popular music and that of fifty years ago are technological.



IMO, the biggest changes have been corporate. Few individual radio stations, huge corporations owning too many interests, greed not seen since the Robber Baron days, on and on. We see it in movies that take far fewer risks, Broadway putting out too many "Mamma Mia" shows that are just repackaged music, etc.

For those of a certain age, we had "ABC Movies of the week". Amazing stuff with real actors, real plots. Lots of thriller/early horror themes like "Trilogy of Terror" with Karen Black. Compare that to a Hallmark movie: "Uptight city girl moves to small town, meets handsome hunk, learns the true meaning of Christmas. Someone has a dog". 

With Spotify et al, creativity rarely pays any more. The number of session players on Sgt Pepper would be serious $$, only to make back $19 in plays in this day and age. Nobody would do it. This is for mainstream and non-mainstream. There are lots of creative people, about the same as any other time. The reward system has changed. I suppose a lot of previously "classical" composers end up in LA since there is still opportunity there.... but end up being told by 9 producers to "write a theme like that Spiderman theme". 

Rite of Spring, Appalachian Spring, Firebird, Petrushka etc.... they were ballets. This is gone forever, no ballet co. has the money to commission anything like them, and most just use recordings now. NEA funding was more in 1984 than today. I don't mean "in today's dollars", I mean straight up. 

In the Symphony world, we had Pops concerts with new, original music by guys like Leroy Anderson etc. Now, it's "The music of the Eagles with Symphony!" Pre-packaged, some tribute band comes and brings the charts, the symphony isn't even involved artistically beyond "Show is at 8, concert dress". "Sleigh Ride" was written for a Boston Pops show. We rarely have anything like that now, a new chart written for artistic reasons to increase the pops rep. Very few are willing to pay for it, or take any risks. Orchestras don't really record any more.

Rant over, stay off my lawn.


----------



## Geoff Grace (Jan 12, 2020)

Wow, Karen Black. I haven't thought about her in decades.

Nice rant, *Sears Poncho*. No doubt, money has influenced what we hear (and write).

Best,

Geoff


----------



## cqd (Jan 12, 2020)

Yeah.. 'the ... Orchestra plays green day' is offensive on several levels..to everyone involved..


----------



## Sears Poncho (Jan 12, 2020)

Geoff Grace said:


> Wow, Karen Black. I haven't thought about her in decades.


Didn't need no steenkin' CGI.


----------



## Dr.Quest (Jan 12, 2020)

PerryD said:


> Ha! Everybody has the same libraries and covers the same John Williams tracks. How about an old _Johnny_ Williams track?



I loved Johnny Williams Lost in Space music! So good. Your is fun! I can’t help but hearing Bill Murray crowning to it, ’Lost, they were so Lost Is Space! Lost, they were so Lost in Space! Lost...... in Spaaaaaaaaaa... ace!


----------



## imagegod (Jan 12, 2020)

Polkasound said:


> Right now, there's someone from a prop department somewhere complaining about how every TV crime drama on TV uses the same clocks inside their interrogation rooms. You'll notice things like that if you work with props all the time. Likewise, only people who work with XYZ String Library a lot are going to know when it's being used on TV, and that's probably .00001% of the population.


You know, I absolutely agree with you in principle, but here's a strange thing: There's a cheap brand of gooseneck desk lamp that I own, and for some reason, it's used practically everywhere as a prop on TV. (Sorry, I have no idea what brand it is).

Anyway, you are right, but that lamp bugs me everytime I see it!


----------



## GtrString (Jan 13, 2020)

Compared to live musicians, there are lots of reductions with even the top virtual instruments. You rely on one fixed sample set, compared to many, many small variations in live playing from a variety of players, so you spend time editing the triggered samples to come close to just some of the standard playing techniques from one player. That is a huge reduction of complexity, variation and nuance. Huge.

I think the years with samples has revealed that it is the musicians that makes music sing, rather than concepts, note choices, arrangements and production techniques. The player is the most valuable in music.

That is reflected in the price of live tickets, compared to the price for recorded music as well. The public knows.


----------



## purple (Jan 13, 2020)

Using the same sample libraries as everyone else is only a problem if your music has nothing to offer besides just the "sound" of it.


----------



## purple (Jan 13, 2020)

GtrString said:


> Compared to live musicians, there are lots of reductions with even the top virtual instruments. You rely on one fixed sample set, compared to many, many small variations in live playing from a variety of players, so you spend time editing the triggered samples to come close to just some of the standard playing techniques from one player. That is a huge reduction of complexity, variation and nuance. Huge.
> 
> I think the years with samples has revealed that it is the musicians that makes music sing, rather than concepts, note choices, arrangements and production techniques. The player is the most valuable in music.
> 
> That is reflected in the price of live tickets, compared to the price for recorded music as well. The public knows.


I don't know if I agree with the idea that live players are more important than note choices and arrangement. Some of my favorite video game soundtracks are 100% MIDI and it is in the energy the composer put into the work that the ideas sing. Perhaps they would be better if played live, but I'm not certain of that for _all_ MIDI mockups.


----------



## kociol21 (Jan 13, 2020)

purple said:


> I don't know if I agree with the idea that live players are more important than note choices and arrangement. Some of my favorite video game soundtracks are 100% MIDI and it is in the energy the composer put into the work that the ideas sing. Perhaps they would be better if played live, but I'm not certain of that for _all_ MIDI mockups.



Yeah, I think a lot of people, me included would rather listen to good music made with samples than bad music performed by good players. When I listen to music and it's really good my analytical mind shuts down and I don't really care if strings are sampled, is this amp sim or real amp, wheter it's live drums or Superior Drummer etc. I just like the music. On the other hand you can collect buch of amazing players and let them play some boring, generic music and everyone just goes 'meh' and turn it down.


----------



## purple (Jan 13, 2020)

kociol21 said:


> would rather listen to good music made with samples than bad music performed by good players.



Or good music performed by bad players :/


----------



## kociol21 (Jan 13, 2020)

purple said:


> Or good music performed by bad players :/


----------



## GNP (Jan 13, 2020)

If there's no one to write the music, what are the players gonna play?

If there are no chefs to cook the food, what are diners gonna eat?


----------



## TomislavEP (Jan 13, 2020)

I agree with the philosophy that the sample libraries are primarily tools just like the physical instruments, although historically there were countless examples of the specific equipment being associated with the work of certain artists. 

My main criteria when buying music equipment was always been: get the best gear you can afford yourself to buy at the moment, but only if it will motivate you to work and develop yourself further. 
While I firmly believe that it is possible to be creative and achieve excellent results with relatively modest tools, it is often the case that the more expensive ones are simply easier and more intuitive to use. I deliberately won't mention the sound quality here, which is seemingly always related to a specific instrument or its price tag because this is also a matter of personal perception and preference. At the same time, some things simply become a standard over time due to their proven quality, reliability or suitability in certain cases, at least "objectively" speaking. And while many of us can't afford ourselves to be always led by the standards, let alone the trends, an individual should always strive to get the tools that will inspire them personally, regardless of these facts or circumstances which may or may not coincide.


----------



## Bluemount Score (Jan 13, 2020)

TomislavEP said:


> I agree with the philosophy that the sample libraries are primarily tools just like the physical instruments, although historically there were countless examples of the specific equipment being associated with the work of certain artists.
> 
> My main criteria when buying music equipment was always been: get the best gear you can afford yourself to buy at the moment, but only if it will motivate you to work and develop yourself further.
> While I firmly believe that it is possible to be creative and achieve excellent results with relatively modest tools, it is often the case that the more expensive ones are simply easier and more intuitive to use. I deliberately won't mention the sound quality here, which is seemingly always related to a specific instrument or its price tag because this is also a matter of personal perception and preference. At the same time, some things simply become a standard over time due to their proven quality, reliability or suitability in certain cases, at least "objectively" speaking. And while many of us can't afford ourselves to be always led by the standards, let alone the trends, an individual should always strive to get the tools that will inspire them personally, regardless of these facts or circumstances which may or may not coincide.


There are some very thoughtful and interesting posts in this thread, I appreciate the inspiring input by you guys!


----------



## ProfoundSilence (Jan 13, 2020)

hmm I own a lot of SF products - and im not andy blaney yet. 

what gives! it's almost as if A.B.'s works with SF libraries are received completely different than 99% of the stuff the people who own the libraries make with them. 

I'll agree that overtime you start to hear the different sample libraries clear as a bell - but that's more of a problem for people who make the music rather than listen to it.


----------



## Geoff Grace (Jan 13, 2020)

GtrString said:


> I think the years with samples has revealed that it is the musicians that makes music sing, rather than concepts, note choices, arrangements and production techniques. The player is the most valuable in music.
> 
> That is reflected in the price of live tickets, compared to the price for recorded music as well. The public knows.


That's not the model I grew up with, when people paid for records and recording artists could be watched live at affordable prices. People used to tour to boost album sales. Now, they release albums to get people interested in watching them play live. 

I paid $5 in the early '80s to watch XTC warm up for The Police at a state fair. That was about the price of one of their LPs back then. 

A composition needs some kind of performance (MIDI or otherwise) to be heard, and players need a composition (of some sort, even if one is improvised by the player) to have something to play. It doesn't make any sense to me to be dismissive of either. 

I myself have earned a living as a player and as a composer. I'm grateful to have both skills. 

Best,

Geoff


----------



## GtrString (Jan 13, 2020)

I would rather hear a good musician play anything, than hear a good composition with inferior performance and sounds any day. Thats my stance on the pecking order. After all compositions are just playing fixed in time. Digital models isnt an improvement of quality, its an improvement of convenience.

The world has been flooded with compositions the last century, and I think that plays a part of the devaluation of music. Streaming may not be the cause, but rather the symptom. That market mechanism is valid in any business. But the value of players has gone up in the meantime.

I dont think that is bashing composers, but rather factual, even though I get the reluctance to acknowledge it.


----------



## Geoff Grace (Jan 13, 2020)

I sadly can't agree that the value of players has increased, especially in film music, where there are well documented attempts to reduce the cost of hiring an orchestra. Famous musicians, on the other hand, can comand higher prices from people who want to see them in person. 

I'm not sure it's because they wrote good songs or because they perform them well though. The Beatles were drowned out by screams when they tried to play live, for example. 

I won't argue against your personal preference to listen to a good performance rather than a good composition. That's your right. However, I don't agree with your claim that the facts support your preference. 

Best,

Geoff


----------



## kociol21 (Jan 13, 2020)

GtrString said:


> The world has been flooded with compositions the last century, and I think that plays a part of the devaluation of music. Streaming may not be the cause, but rather the symptom.



Well yes, there is a joke that this day we have more writers than readers and sometimes it seems like this with music. Making music overall got insanely easier and more approachable in last 100 years and making orchestral music in last 30 years switched from option available only for elites to something available for every average guy in his bedroom. Same with mixing, mastering etc. Then we have youtube, souncloud, streaming platforms etc. Our world is flooded with music.


----------



## mikeh-375 (Jan 13, 2020)

kociol21 said:


> Well yes, there is a joke that this day we have more writers than readers and sometimes it seems like this with music. Making music overall got insanely easier and more approachable in last 100 years and making orchestral music in last 30 years switched from option available only for elites to something available for every average guy in his bedroom. Same with mixing, mastering etc. Then we have youtube, souncloud, streaming platforms etc. Our world is flooded with music.



This is all true, but let's not forget quality, the 'elites' as you call them have a well deserved advantage that doesn't need really spelling out when it comes to orchestral writing - they've put the work in. Music production has got easier as you say, but _good _orchestral writing is still only hard won over time no matter the quality of the samples.


----------



## Bluemount Score (Jan 13, 2020)

mikeh-375 said:


> This is all true, but let's not forget quality, the 'elites' as you call them have a well deserved advantage that doesn't need really spelling out when it comes to orchestral writing - they've put the work in. Music production has got easier as you say, but _good _orchestral writing is still only hard won over time.


Leaves yet another question, how important _good_ orchestral writing is when it comes to success and reaching people's interest these days.


----------



## mikeh-375 (Jan 13, 2020)

Bluemount Score said:


> Leaves yet another question, how important _good_ orchestral writing is when it comes to success and reaching people's interest these days.



good question...how about another..How important is it to the composer to be the best they can be? what are they prepared to settle for?


----------



## Bluemount Score (Jan 13, 2020)

mikeh-375 said:


> good question...how about another..How important is it to the composer to be the best they can be? what are they prepared to settle for?


I think the ultimate goal for many is "to make a living" out of it, what that means in specific might vary from person to person. I think there is more to it. A truly passionated musician never settles. The road is the goal.


----------



## mikeh-375 (Jan 13, 2020)

Bluemount Score said:


> I think the ultimate goal for many is "to make a living" out of it, what that means in specific might vary from person to person. I think there is more to it. A truly passionated musician never settles. The road is the goal.




Thing is, I _did_ make a living from it. I also studied hard prior to doing so _and_ whilst I was working. Even now I keep learning. The extent and reach of the personal musical journey can be happily conflated with the effort put in. You're right though, it's not practical or even desirable for everyone to learn with a view to attaining mastery. The journey is the goal as you say, but one has to travel as best they can imv.


----------



## mralmostpopular (Jan 13, 2020)

Bluemount Score said:


> Leaves yet another question, how important _good_ orchestral writing is when it comes to success and reaching people's interest these days.



It depends on what you mean by good and what you mean by success. It seems possible to make a living creating enjoyable music, but not doing anything really new or interesting. It’s also possible to be a fantastic composer and make no money. If by success you mean highly regarded, I would say yes, you need to be able to do new and inspiring things.


----------



## Sears Poncho (Jan 13, 2020)

GtrString said:


> The world has been flooded with compositions the last century, and I think that plays a part of the devaluation of music.


It's greed.

The Olympics tried to get musicians for free (Think of the exposure). Greys Anatomy (I think) wasn't paying for some music, setting off a trend. The world has been flooded with crappy films as well, the producers of Greys Anatomy still make the same $$. It's greed, combined with an ineffectual musicians Union. If anyone doesn't believe that, read up on our pension saga.

Art just mirrors society. What goes on in the real world is the same in every world. CEO pay rising 6 gazillion in the last 40 years, that shiat affects us too. My buddy has an annual Christmas gig at a local "Arena" church. He did it for a few years then they asked him to "consider returning the check as a gift to help the church" or something. The pastor there makes 2 million. 

I had an orchestra gig years ago, fulltime, with an executive director that was an incompetent assclown that ran the thing into the ground. The orchestra musicians eventually agreed to cut 6 weeks from our season to make up for the damage. The board, which is made up of biz types, said "(the exec director) is doing such a great job, let's give him a $50K raise". I was there in the room when it happened. _This _is music and the arts. No different from the real world I assume.


----------



## mralmostpopular (Jan 13, 2020)

Sears Poncho said:


> It's greed.
> 
> The Olympics tried to get musicians for free (Think of the exposure). Greys Anatomy (I think) wasn't paying for some music, setting off a trend. The world has been flooded with crappy films as well, the producers of Greys Anatomy still make the same $$. It's greed, combined with an ineffectual musicians Union. If anyone doesn't believe that, read up on our pension saga.
> 
> ...



I think it’s more complex than even just this. Music is everywhere. We have it on our phones, in our cars, at the mall, in the elevator, and even while we’re on hold with customer service. It has gone from performance to background atmosphere. I bet you a lot of directors today couldn’t tell you why they use music. It’s being used to fill a spot. Some directors care a lot about it and seek out creative composers who can express the story musically. That’s becoming more and more rare. The situation with Discovery shows that plainly. Their stance on simply being able to replace the music with cheap stock music reflects a growing attitude.


----------



## fahl5 (Jan 13, 2020)

In the 20th century the most Pianists used the Steinway for their recordings and concerts and that was also true for many decades, .
And guess what, in my opinion, you still hear a difference in which decade a certain recording playing a steinway D is made just depending on the studiotechnic available, no matter who ever was the pianist.
So in my humble opinion, you will always hear the time a recording is made by the strength but of course also by the shortcomings of the available technic.

But how about the induvidual character of the artist?

In my humble opinion, you wont recognize it in future unless it was such an strong and important musical character, that he burned his good and bad habits in our musical memory to become recognizable.
For instance would anyone recognize Bill Evens or Glenn Gould, or Keith Jarret playing a Steinway D of course.

But who would be able to make the difference between anyone posting here no matter what software he will use unless he is really doing anything absolutly important and extraordinary no one else does (but how many job's would he get then to pay his bills  ) ?

Of course nothing would be ever become recognizeable unless it has become dominant in any way. In so far, for the most of us the most probable would be that - if ever anyone would bother himself with listening anything so oldfashioned at all - that he would presumably not recognize much more than the technical standard available in the time the recording would be produced.

to sum up:
What and why ever your are doing the only thing that counts if it is ok for now; do not think that much about tomorrow, since tomorrow will have its own heros. That means for me: no one will keep me from using those tools which I like best no matter how much or how few would do the same


----------



## Sears Poncho (Jan 13, 2020)

mralmostpopular said:


> We have it on our phones, in our cars, at the mall, in the elevator, and even while we’re on hold with customer service. It has gone from performance to background atmosphere.


Wherever it goes, someone is making a buck off of it. If the musicians take less $$ or even no money, someone else gets the money.


----------



## kociol21 (Jan 13, 2020)

On the topic - lot of people tend to forget that they don't compose for other composers. Well, they often do here and on other forums. So if you and other 10 composers use same libraries then sure, you'd probably feel like the sound is a bit same-ish especially if you A/B these tracks. Your average listener doesn't care and doesn't A/B different compositions. If you ask him/her if these two tracks have similar sounds they'd say "Well, yeah, that's strings, sounds like strings all right, seems legit to me" 

AND we slowly approaching the point when the average listener becomes more familiar with sound of samples than sound of "live" orchestra. So imitation of something becomes the "real thing" and the real thing becomes imitation of it's own imitation


----------



## purple (Jan 13, 2020)

ProfoundSilence said:


> hmm I own a lot of SF products - and im not andy blaney yet.
> 
> what gives! it's almost as if A.B.'s works with SF libraries are received completely different than 99% of the stuff the people who own the libraries make with them.
> 
> I'll agree that overtime you start to hear the different sample libraries clear as a bell - but that's more of a problem for people who make the music rather than listen to it.


I think my ability to recognize sample libraries is due to spending too much time listening to comparisons/demos on this website rather than the music I hear sounding samey as a result of using the same libraries. For anyone outside our small bubble, I doubt there is even a whiff of an idea that everyone is sounding the same at all.


----------



## Bluemount Score (Jan 13, 2020)

kociol21 said:


> On the topic - lot of people tend to forget that they don't compose for other composers. Well, they often do here and on other forums.


You are right! We are here to help and blame eachother, but we are not here to be eachothers costumers.


----------



## Quasar (Jan 13, 2020)

GtrString said:


> I would rather hear a good musician play anything, than hear a good composition with inferior performance and sounds any day. Thats my stance on the pecking order.



Interesting, because I am exactly the opposite. Music that I perceive as existing primarily to showcase the virtuosity of the musicians immediately turns me off. I'd much rather listen to, say, The Fugs (who could barely play their instruments at all, certainly not on a "pro" level) than Rush, who were all outstanding in terms of craft and technique.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jan 13, 2020)

Sears Poncho said:


> IMO, the biggest changes have been corporate. Few individual radio stations, huge corporations owning too many interests, greed not seen since the Robber Baron days, on and on. We see it in movies that take far fewer risks, Broadway putting out too many "Mamma Mia" shows that are just repackaged music, etc.
> 
> For those of a certain age, we had "ABC Movies of the week". Amazing stuff with real actors, real plots. Lots of thriller/early horror themes like "Trilogy of Terror" with Karen Black. Compare that to a Hallmark movie: "Uptight city girl moves to small town, meets handsome hunk, learns the true meaning of Christmas. Someone has a dog".




Whether or not monopoly power is the whole story - and I think it isn't - it's definitely big in the mix. And yeah, there's a lot of crap being produced.

But I also have to say that we're in the golden age of television. Some of the shows on the "premium" networks are incredible, for example Westworld, Billions, Succession, House of Cards, Bosch, Ray Donovan, Homeland...


----------



## Casiquire (Jan 13, 2020)

mralmostpopular said:


> I think it’s more complex than even just this. Music is everywhere. We have it on our phones, in our cars, at the mall, in the elevator, and even while we’re on hold with customer service. It has gone from performance to background atmosphere. I bet you a lot of directors today couldn’t tell you why they use music. It’s being used to fill a spot. Some directors care a lot about it and seek out creative composers who can express the story musically. That’s becoming more and more rare. The situation with Discovery shows that plainly. Their stance on simply being able to replace the music with cheap stock music reflects a growing attitude.



Curious, which Discovery situation?


----------



## mralmostpopular (Jan 13, 2020)

Casiquire said:


> Curious, which Discovery situation?











Discovery Networks Corners Composers in Music Royalties Battle


Shows on the Discovery Channel, Animal Planet, HGTV and Food Network may sound very different in the coming months. That’s because Discovery Networks, which owns those and other cable channel…




variety.com


----------



## Casiquire (Jan 13, 2020)

mralmostpopular said:


> Discovery Networks Corners Composers in Music Royalties Battle
> 
> 
> Shows on the Discovery Channel, Animal Planet, HGTV and Food Network may sound very different in the coming months. That’s because Discovery Networks, which owns those and other cable channel…
> ...



That's hideous. Thank you


----------



## redlester (Jan 14, 2020)

CGR said:


> There are numerous examples of the same synth sounds (ie. Yamaha DX7 & Roland JV series) from the 80's and 90's which were all over various hit songs (and non-hit songs). Same with the 50's & 60's with the popular electric guitar & amp combos which numerous bands used on their songs. Still didn't dilute the uniqueness IMHO.



At a slight tangent here, but whenever I hear songs using classic Moog, Roland, etc. sounds it doesn't scream out to me any particular era, but when I hear that distinctive mid to late '80's DX7 sound on the pop music of the time it sounds so incredibly dated. Probably because as I say it was so distinct and also over-used at the time. Also I was in my 20's when the DX7 came out, am now in my 60's, so the unmistakable sound of it brings home how much I've aged!


----------



## Sears Poncho (Jan 14, 2020)

redlester said:


> but when I hear that distinctive mid to late '80's DX7 sound on the pop music of the time it sounds so incredibly dated.


For me, it's also the use of quantize, especially in bass lines. Fortunately there was no auto-tune back then. I still enjoy listening to the music, I'm 55 so it was part of my "youth". But I use it as a cautionary tale- leave that damn quantize button alone. 

I can't listen to today's music due to auto-tune. It's the Wonder Bread of music, it extracts all the "music" and leaves a pile of crap.


----------



## Ashermusic (Jan 14, 2020)

Sears Poncho said:


> I can't listen to today's music due to auto-tune. It's the Wonder Bread of music, it extracts all the "music" and leaves a pile of crap.



And even singers who sing well in tune have to use it now because the engineers are told that people _like_ that sound.


----------



## JPQ (Jan 14, 2020)

Actually so many who uses real orchestra uses same orchestra its this problem ? no same for examples. and i think we should use best tools what we can. and best is very personal thing.


----------



## Ashermusic (Jan 14, 2020)

JPQ said:


> Actually so many who uses real orchestra uses same orchestra its this problem ? no same for examples. and i think we should use best tools what we can. and best is very personal thing.




No, not the same, because humans don't play identically each time.


----------



## JPQ (Jan 14, 2020)

Ashermusic said:


> No, not the same, because humans don't play identically each time.


i mean one level but of course this and how conduct orchestra means also something and strings get old etc and even hall can changed.


----------



## Jeremy Spencer (Jan 14, 2020)

Sears Poncho said:


> I can't listen to today's music due to auto-tune. It's the Wonder Bread of music, it extracts all the "music" and leaves a pile of crap.



What do you mean by "today's music"?


----------



## Sears Poncho (Jan 14, 2020)

Wolfie2112 said:


> What do you mean by "today's music"?


The big groups and stuff. Dave Clark 5, Herman's Hermits, Peter and Gordon, Melanie. Those long hair kids with the new sound.


----------



## JohnG (Jan 14, 2020)

Sears Poncho said:


> We rarely have anything like that now, a new chart written for artistic reasons to increase the pops rep. Very few are willing to pay for it, or take any risks.



That's why I didn't pursue concert music. Hats off to you, SP, for succeeding in that arena.


----------



## Rtomproductions (Jan 14, 2020)

Bluemount Score said:


> ...do you think that's a problem?
> 
> How many people use e.g. CSS as there main string library? How many times have we heard the same samples being played over and over, just in a different order and with little different processing? Do you feel like it lacks some sort of uniqueness when composing with the same libraries as hundreds of others? Maybe it's a good thing that developers keep pushing out basic string libraries and so on, even though the competition is high. A big palette of choices helps to stay unique as an individual...



Do you know how many clients have complained to me that I'm using libraries that are too popular?

None. Don't worry about it and use what sounds best.


----------



## Jeremy Spencer (Jan 14, 2020)

Rtomproductions said:


> Do you know how many clients have complained to me that I'm using libraries that are too popular?
> 
> None. Don't worry about it and use what sounds best.



Couldn't agree more. I still use the old EW Symphonic Orchestra quite a bit. No one cares.....or even notices, for that matter.


----------



## Ashermusic (Jan 14, 2020)

Sears Poncho said:


> The big groups and stuff. Dave Clark 5, Herman's Hermits, Peter and Gordon, Melanie. Those long hair kids with the new sound.



LOL!


----------



## purple (Jan 15, 2020)

Ashermusic said:


> No, not the same, because humans don't play identically each time.


You have a point...

But also none of my sample-based mockups play identically every time.


----------



## givemenoughrope (Jan 15, 2020)

I rented Trilogy of Terror on VHS back when you could do that. I was a teenager. When that little cannibal monster guy appeared my little brother and I just about hyperventilated laughing. 

Nice posts from SP. Brown shoes don’t make it/Don’t eat the yellow snow/etc


----------



## givemenoughrope (Jan 15, 2020)

Anyone out there revamping their libraries a bit? Removing dynamic xfades, using other scripts, using them for sound design, etc?


----------



## Bluemount Score (Jan 16, 2020)

purple said:


> But also none of my sample-based mockups play identically every time.


I don't quite get your point - are you talking about round robins? Don't they usually reset themselves after a few seconds, so it IS the identically same thing every time you play it? Despite most libraries only have like, let's say 5 per note, in comparison to "unlimited RRs" of a real orchestra


----------



## kociol21 (Jan 16, 2020)

Bluemount Score said:


> I don't quite get your point - are you talking about round robins? Don't they usually reset themselves after a few seconds, so it IS the identically same thing every time you play it? Despite most libraries only have like, let's say 5 per note, in comparison to "unlimited RRs" of a real orchestra



Some libraries have ability to randomly choose from a pool of round robins. That would count as "not the same every time" but ultimately that's not very relevant. Also you use modeled or semi modeled stuff, SWAM, Sample Modeling, MODO BASS, MODO DRUM, PianoteQ, OrganteQ etc. Different play every time.

Anyway, I find it funny, when I talked to studio engineer few years ago when I was recording demo with my band, and he told me about drums, when he started in the 80-90' everyone tried to rule out drummer as a person. People would devote their studio time to make sound drums as much consistent as possible. Gating, quantizing etc. Basically "what can I do to make it sound perfect as it was played by machine". And now everyone goes "what can I do to make my drum library sound like real drummer" and people passionately humanize every note doing all the stuff that they desperately tried to get rid of years before. Some relevance to topic here


----------



## stixman (Jan 16, 2020)

Sometimes i wish drum machines were never invented :(


----------



## Casiquire (Jan 16, 2020)

Live players don't play the same every time, but in a sense, sample libraries aren't identical every time either. Sure maybe the note G4 played by itself on one instrument at a particular dynamic will be the same sample. How many different pieces of yours play just that one single note by the same instrument at the same dynamic on its own? There will be other instruments. Other dynamics. And your pieces will (should) be EQd and compressed differently. And the listeners' ears will hear it differently depending on the context of the music directly before it. Everything around that sample changes the listener's perception of it.

And that's just within YOUR body of work. Now factor in a different person who layered it with another library and EQs it differently and it's in a different room with different panning and a different style and different arrangement, etc. Now multiply that times dozens of libraries of every type. I consider this a non-issue


----------



## Ashermusic (Jan 16, 2020)

purple said:


> You have a point...
> 
> But also none of my sample-based mockups play identically every time.



A sample responds to MIDI information identically every time.


----------



## purple (Jan 19, 2020)

Ashermusic said:


> A sample responds to MIDI information identically every time.


_A sample_ yes... But any good sample library has round robins, and parameters can be changed anyways.


----------



## DSmolken (Jan 20, 2020)

As a developer who occasionally also produces music, I have access to sounds the rest of the world doesn't, when they're working but not quite yet ready for release. Beta testers also get that, so their opinions on this question should be worth a lot.

The way I see it, it's an advantage if the sounds are a better fit for something than what I had before, and fill a specific need that a specific track has. The advantage that they're unique and different and nobody else has them - that's not big enough to be important IME. If I make a small private library, it's because sampling something didn't really work out but there are still a few usable sounds, or because I'm making it using a specific singer's voice for use in that singer's music only. Definitely not to have a competitive advantage.


----------



## Ashermusic (Jan 20, 2020)

purple said:


> _A sample_ yes... But any good sample library has round robins, and parameters can be changed anyways.



You can have forty round robins and it still is not even in the same universe of variation a real player plays when re-playing a part.


----------



## Peter Williams (Jan 20, 2020)

Arbee said:


> I'm old enough to think things really haven't changed much to be honest. I can date music by hearing a DX7, Oberheim, gated snares etc. And a strat is a strat, a tele is a tele and a les paul is a les paul. The listening public are oblivious, only we know we're using the same tools in the same era.


You have hit on a solid point there. The technology used eventually reveals itself as it is added to or replaced. Today's sample based sounds are evolving into less static, evolving textures and expressions, requiring many more layers and controls, while modeled instruments are also progressing, albeit more slowly. In 30 years, most of us won't care so much about CSS versus Berlin or Spitfire or Sam, we'll notice the general sound that they had and how they reflect these times.


----------



## Shagal (Feb 7, 2020)

Bluemount Score said:


> How many people use e.g. CSS as there main string library? How many times have we heard the same samples being played over and over, just in a different order and with little different processing? Do you feel like it lacks some sort of uniqueness when composing with the same libraries as hundreds of others? Maybe it's a good thing that developers keep pushing out basic string libraries and so on, even though the competition is high. A big palette of choices helps to stay unique as an individual...
> 
> ...do you think that's a problem?




No.


----------



## Bluemount Score (Feb 7, 2020)

Shagal said:


> No.


Ok.


----------



## purple (Feb 9, 2020)

Shagal said:


> No.


If your music is unique enough, the sounds you use should be pretty much inconsequential, unless the focus of your music is on timbre, and even then probably not an issue.


----------

