# Are we still listening to compositions?



## midphase (Jun 5, 2006)

When I listen to someone's piece of music, I find myself more and more affected by the quality of the samples more than the quality of the music. This is really lame of me....if the samples are not at least reasonably decent, and the mix good, I find myself developing this snobbish attitude and I realize that I'm really not paying attention to the musical content at all.

What's wrong with me?

Trouble is, I get the feeling that this is quite common amidst many composers. So it's almost getting to the point where programming skills, having great samples, and mixing skills are taking over the compositional part of things.

I think that a guy with a slick sounding (but not very unique or interesting) demo is more likely to get the gig than the composer who writes truly exceptional music, but whose recordings sound fake and MIDI-ish.

Sometimes I wish we could go back to the times when a simple piano arrangement was what sold a composer to a director!


----------



## PaulR (Jun 5, 2006)

Yes- that's a very good point and an interesting post. You may have just opened a can of worms. I will sit back and see how this develops.


----------



## Ed (Jun 5, 2006)

Worms dont taste very nice.


----------



## Niah (Jun 5, 2006)

Jackull @ Mon Jun 05 said:


> > ... I find myself developing this snobbish attitude and I realize that I'm really not paying attention to the musical content at all.
> > What's wrong with me?
> > I think that a guy with a slick sounding (but not very unique or interesting) demo is more likely to get the gig than the composer who writes truly exceptional music, but whose recordings sound fake and MIDI-ish.
> > Sometimes I wish we could go back to the times when a simple piano arrangement was what sold a composer to a director!
> ...



Exactly !!!


----------



## Frederick Russ (Jun 5, 2006)

Personally I listen to music that makes me feel an emotion. I've heard many brilliant compositions that wasn't able to accomplish that. I've heard many well done mockups that lacked the excellent writing that again didn't accomplish that. However I've heard both brilliant and simple compositions that nailed it - some done with better mockups than the others, but work nonetheless.

The pro composers that I respect are the ones that can nail the emotion through simple or complex writing. Their tone and production is also excellent. When I hear an excellent piece from a writing angle that's quickly sketched out I perceive it for what it is: an excellent example of writing that needs to be finished on the mockup end. Same goes for addiction of parallel fifths and bad writing - one can spend all their time trying to make a bad piece sound good through samples but it is what it is: a bad piece of writing that sonically sounds more complete - it doesn't change the fact that the piece itself is weak.

When I come here to listen to pieces, when people such as Thomas J, Craig Sharmat, Aaron Sapp and the many other mockup artists put together a good mockup, it isn't just about having something sonically that is pleasing; its more about the marriage of excellent writing, good sonics, and realistic midi mockup skills working together in unison. Its pretty much a given that for a piece to be at a certain level it will include all 3 elements: excellent writing, good sonics, and realistic midi mockup. Plus one more: the ability to transfer an emotion and help the listener feel it. 

It's the magic of these 3 elements plus the emotional element that makes listening to both mockups and real musicians work for me. Personally its also probably some of the main reasons I listen to and respect pro composers John Williams, Marc Shaiman, Joel McNeely, Don Davis and Ed Shearmur - they seem to consistently nail their music as a complete package.


----------



## Alex W (Jun 5, 2006)

midphase @ Mon Jun 05 said:


> When I listen to someone's piece of music, I find myself more and more affected by the quality of the samples more than the quality of the music. This is really lame of me....if the samples are not at least reasonably decent, and the mix good, I find myself developing this snobbish attitude and I realize that I'm really not paying attention to the musical content at all.
> 
> What's wrong with me?
> 
> ...



Nothing's wrong with ya dude 

MIDI based expression, sample quality, the mix, and overall production are just as much a part of the composition process as the notes themselves.


----------



## José Herring (Jun 5, 2006)

midphase @ Mon Jun 05 said:


> When I listen to someone's piece of music, I find myself more and more affected by the quality of the samples more than the quality of the music. This is really lame of me....if the samples are not at least reasonably decent, and the mix good, I find myself developing this snobbish attitude and I realize that I'm really not paying attention to the musical content at all.
> 
> What's wrong with me?
> 
> ...



I think this is spot on. It get's to a point where I'm afraid to post any music on this site cause all I get is, "you should have used xyz library for that line" or whatever.

It's a new world for composers that I'm still trying to get use to and understand a bit. I find that compositionally and theory wise I'm competent enough to hang with the best of the best. Give me a live orchestra and I can give you killer compositions and performances. But, in the midi arena put me next to Thomas J. and my compositions sound like a highschool orchestra while his sound like the London Symphony. And conversely I go back to the paper and hearing it my head I know that with live players it would sound incredible.

I heard that Aaron Copland once said that composers of the future are going to have to be great engineers and recording artist as well. Of course he didn't know much about midi then but it's true that the production arena is more important than the composition arena. Take some of the top film composers. If you put their music on stage with a live orchestra, trust me, you'd be laughing yourself out of the hall. To a certain degree even the late great Jerry Goldsmith suffered from this problem. Basic Instinct sounds great recorded but I heard it live and it sounded, eh. So I got the score and I found huge problems in the orchestration that would make the piece hard to pull off live. But, get somebody like Hans whose music performed by a traditional symphony orchestra is incredibly flawed but mix those samples, with his knowledge of recording and Alan Myerson and you've got a really great end product.

But, such is the way things are and in the end it's the final product that counts and for us that final product is a recording. So anyway anybody can get there is up to that individual. What counts is what ends up on "tape".

What's really funny is that non musicias are way better at seperating the music from the samples. People I work with will say things like, "I like the melody but I don't like the way that string patch sounds, do you have another?" Honest. My jaw dropped the first time I heard that and it continues to drop. Because from other composers there's no such distinction. Like you say, midphase, we won't even listen to the music if we don't like the samples.

It's sad.

So I've decided not to post anymore for that reason.

Best,

Jose


----------



## kid-surf (Jun 5, 2006)

Can we be straight forward and real w/each other? Ok, cool..... 

For me:

I feel like the 'sample thang' is outta control on composer forums. With all the micro nit picking, forsaking the "emotion" of the music so often (it seems like). It's like "who friggn cares if the verb isn't perfect, the cue makes me feel absolutely nothing". So what if there's a billion and a half runs and thick counterpoint if it doesn't make any sense. Frankly, the realism that many seem to strive for is not something I care about. The "ONLY" thing I care about is what a director/producer/executives etc will notice. (meanwhile I think my 'product' _sounds_ good)

But more importantly "WHO CARES WHAT OTHER COMPOSERS THINK OF YOUR WORK". I continually say I don't care what other composers think of my work. If they think I suck, so what? If they think 'you' suck, so what? Maybe I think _they_ suck. Again, who cares. :D

Seriously........

I'm not doing this to try and please other composers. I don't believe that should be a concern to any of us. We've all got different sensibilities, therefore we're not necessarily gonna like the same things of music.

Yes, I believe there is a specific kind of cue that gets praise and interest on composer forums (i.e. epic-y / fast orchestral). Yet, and I said this the other day, those types of cues only kick ass 'for me' when they are good to excellent. Most of them sound hollow to me. Meaning the notes aren't supported by.... a "voice".... a "point of view".... "EMOTION". And that's pretty rare all those elements are there for me when listening to cues online. 

Let's face it, not every composer is good. Not every composer was meant to do music. (and if you think that's me, I'm ok with that  ). I believe that some composers simply learned the "Craft" of composing (through training/schooling) yet don't have much of any "talent" for music. Anyone can learn to compose, not just anyone can become great at it. My opinion.... (and thank goodness, I'm not referring to anyone at our site.  But I am trying to be real about all this.)


For me --- when I first click on someone's music if it doesn't sound like shit, then my ears go directly to the music. That all happens with in a few seconds. I'm not the type to micro nit pick someone's cue though. I listen for the emotional content first and foremost. I believe those that nit pick should maybe become orchestrators. 


Am i going OT. :D




> I think that a guy with a slick sounding (but not very unique or interesting) demo is more likely to get the gig than the composer who writes truly exceptional music, but whose recordings sound fake and MIDI-ish.



Maybe... But it really depends. I'd say that if your stuff flat out sounds like shit (speaking in general terms) that you're probably not gonna land a gig. But once it's at a certain threshold, then it sorta becomes immaterial. Then it becomes about what "moves" people.

Yet! I feel that a lot of it depends on the experience of the 'director'. There are plenty of directors with not much experience with music (directors who've obtained pretty decent budgets). I have a theory on a specific type of cue that will reel those sorts of directors in.... yet I have to keep that a secret due to the fact that we are all against each other... more or less.  But I'm sure of it.

But I will say that I've heard plenty of intentional "rip off" cues that are totally half ass, and lazily done. Cues that are simply there to say "hey I can give you this style Mr. Director, I'm super versatile". Yet when "I" hear them I think "ok ... so there's the muzak version of _______, the watered down version". (those type of cues aren't REAL "to me"). The people that do those sorts of cues may get the lower end jobs now, but they sure as hell aren't gonna get you in the long run.....

Eventually you'll pass those guys up because you'll have created a "unique voice" and found enough directors with the confidence to have a point of view _themselves_. Meanwhile they'll continue on satisfying those directors looking for the sound alike stuff. I feel that the better directors look for something unique, the shittier directors tend to like the sound alike stuff. And the films usually display that at the end of the day.

IMO --- the best results come from both the director and composer being confident in what they are doing in spite of the nay sayers, in spite of the fears, in spite of the pressures and stresses of the industry. As soon as this starts to be about second guessing, that's when things start getting dumbed down, watered down, that's when the sound alike stuff starts becoming attractive to people and that's when the movie plain SUCKS! Because if a director is that skittish about the music, what do you think he was like with the script etc...


I could keep going but I'll spare everyone. :mrgreen:

Don't let me fool you though. I'm very content in my musical choices. And very positive about the film experience / industry. No, nothings perfect. And yet, I'm glad it's the way it is currently.... This way I can take on some of those "classically trained" guys who I don't feel are very good. :D

Good luck ya'll! (sincerely) 

Hey, no hard feelings... and may the best man/woman win!!! :D


----------



## kid-surf (Jun 5, 2006)

In case it's not clear --- those are my thoughts on the entire industry on the lower budget level. Not just the state of sample mixes. :mrgreen:


PS... Generally I feel that the Class-A composers kick ass..... even the guys that get slammed on.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jun 5, 2006)

> But more importantly "WHO CARES WHAT OTHER COMPOSERS THINK OF YOUR WORK". I continually say I don't care what other composers think of my work. If they think I suck, so what? If they think 'you' suck, so what? Maybe I think they suck. Again, who cares.



I care, in all honesty. Of course I agree 100% that it's way more important for music to have a voice than just to be impressive on the surface. But if people who understand what I'm doing like it, that means something to me. If they think it sucks, well, I know better than anyone on the planet whether something I've done sucks.

And I also care very much about the quality of the production. I'd rather have an unpolished diamond than a polished turd, but polished diamonds are best.


----------



## midphase (Jun 5, 2006)

> It get's to a point where I'm afraid to post any music on this site cause all I get is, "you should have used xyz library for that line" or whatever.



BINGO!

I never post anything anymore because I'm totally intimidated!


----------



## kid-surf (Jun 5, 2006)

Nick Batzdorf @ Mon Jun 05 said:


> > But more importantly "WHO CARES WHAT OTHER COMPOSERS THINK OF YOUR WORK". I continually say I don't care what other composers think of my work. If they think I suck, so what? If they think 'you' suck, so what? Maybe I think they suck. Again, who cares.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Ditto that..........


I'm not meaning to say I hope other composers DON'T like my music. :D Just that it's the least of my concerns whether they do or not.

If other composers DO like it, cool! Glad they liked it. In fact when other composers (some of whom I've enjoyed their music) have given me props I do appreciate them saying so. I generally let people know when I like their work as well. 

Like you alluded to, I think 'we' know best whether or not we achieved what we wanted to achieve. So the fact that I think the other guys thing wasn't very good really doesn't matter. Maybe he meant for it to suck. :mrgreen: (please allow me to crack jokes) 

But seriously.... sometimes we just have to be ok being our own critic and trying to see our works for what they really are. After all, we're all competing so I think we're looking for reason why the next guys work isn't as good as our own when we're listening. I mean let's be honest, I'm not hoping I hear something that slams my stuff. :D But if I do, I'll admit it (to myself or the dude)............ 

Competition --- all in good fun.


----------



## kid-surf (Jun 5, 2006)

midphase @ Mon Jun 05 said:


> > It get's to a point where I'm afraid to post any music on this site cause all I get is, "you should have used xyz library for that line" or whatever.
> 
> 
> 
> ...










Really? That sucks! What do you feel people will say to you? Not saying you'd be wrong I'm just curious....

Like I said, I don't post stuff simply because I don't really care what other composers think :D And I don't feel like hearing how I could'a, should'a, would'a. For me it's not so much about being intimidated, it's that I simply am not interested in feedback all that much. 


Kays, I don't think you should let other composers intimidate you if you feel like sharing some music. But it's true that you go into it at this point knowing that the thing other composers (on this level) seem to care about most is ... 1) does it come close to fooling me? 2) is it fast and epic-y?

(Btw --- not true of my sensibilities)

If you do both of those (on this level) you'll get plenty of atta boys from other composers.... too bad we have no power to get films made.  (sarcastic -- I can't stand Epic films) 


Anyway.......


----------



## PaulR (Jun 5, 2006)

midphase @ Mon Jun 05 said:


> I never post anything anymore because I'm totally intimidated!



That's ridiculous. Imtimidated by what - or by whom?

There's only one person who could intimidate you - and he's been dead since 1975.


----------



## choc0thrax (Jun 5, 2006)

midphase @ Mon Jun 05 said:


> > It get's to a point where I'm afraid to post any music on this site cause all I get is, "you should have used xyz library for that line" or whatever.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Ok everyone go to Kays website and let him know what you think of the demos.


----------



## synergy543 (Jun 5, 2006)

midphase @ Mon Jun 05 said:


> I never post anything anymore because I'm totally intimidated!


Well I saw this movie from the DAVE school and it was quite professional looking with great music. It didn't sound like a student production to me. So, I check out the credits and it was composed by this guy named "Kays". Anyone heard of Kays? :wink: 

I don't know where the link to that is but it was pretty cool. You should post it.


----------



## rJames (Jun 5, 2006)

kid-surf @ Mon Jun 05 said:


> midphase @ Mon Jun 05 said:
> 
> 
> > > It get's to a point where I'm afraid to post any music on this site cause all I get is, "you should have used xyz library for that line" or whatever.
> ...



Kid and Midphase...Opinions of other composers won't affect your clients at all. So, if someone says its not good enough, no one will know. You have nothing to lose.

But you might get valuable input that will help you improve.

A composition is "composed" of elements. One of those is the structure. But another (dare I say major) part is the production. So, it is natural (as has been said numerous times in this thread) to hear the midi mockup. 

If a major work is performed by bad players, we would naturally focus on the players.

Critique is good...on both the writing AND on the mockup.

A jury of your peers awaits. If the verdict is bad, then you've got some great information on where to spend some effort. If the verdict is good...same thing.

Consider this forum a requisite, "continuing education" for the modern composer.

Kid...I have to wonder about your statement about not being particularly interested in feedback. 

Do you mean the people on this forum or people in general? Do you only listen to feedback from a director on a specific project?


----------



## kid-surf (Jun 5, 2006)

> Do you mean the people on this forum or people in general? Do you only listen to feedback from a director on a specific project?




rJames---


I _thought_ that comment of mine may need to be clarified... 

I just meant other composers on my level. I don't think you can work in this business if you are closed off to feedback from a director/producer. Nah, I'm the type that wants the director to keep talking, keep telling me what you want. I prefer bluntness. You hate it? Tell me just like that "I friggn hate that". Tell me that Mr. director if that's what ran through your head. No prob let's dump that.... no offense taken at all. At least that way we know we're on the same page. Then I know when you like it and when you don't


that's my sensibility. That's what I prefer when dealing with people in a professional situation. My skin is pretty thick in that regard.


As for the other. 


I can see the benefits of being critiqued, but there are also negatives being judged by your peers. One of those negatives is when you aren't like minded. They may tell you a cue needs this and that when in fact it doesn't, and is perfect just the way it is. See, some composers like to compose in ways I don't. So if I give them feedback I'd be telling them to do XYZ the way "I" want to hear it, ò]   ;û]   ;ûŽ]   ;û]   ;û]   ;û‘]   ;û’]   ;û“]   ;û”]   ;û•]   ;û–]   ;û—]   ;û˜]   ;û™]   ;ûš]   ;û›]   ;ûœ]   ;û]   ;ûž]   ;ûŸ]   ;û ]   ;û¡]   ;û¢]   ;û£]   ;û¤]   ;û¥]   ;û¦]   ;û§]   ;û¨]   ;û©]   ;ûª]   ;û«]   ;û¬]   ;û­]   ;û®]   ;û¯]   ;û°]   ;û±]   ;û²]   ;û³]   ;û´]   ;ûµ]   ;û¶]   ;û·]   ;û¸]   ;û¹]   ;ûº]   ;û»]   ;û¼]   ;û½]   ;û¾]   ;û¿]   ;ûÀ]   ;ûÁ]   ;ûÂ]   ;ûÃ]   ;ûÄ]   ;ûÅ]   ;ûÆ]   ;ûÇ]   ;ûÈ]   ;ûÉ]   ;ûÊ]   ;ûË]   ;ûÌ]   ;ûÍ]   ;ûÎ]   ;ûÏ]   ;ûÐ]   ;ûÑ]   ;ûÒ]   ;ûÓ]   ;ûÔ]   ;ûÕ]   ;ûÖ]   ;û×]   ;ûØ]   ;ûÙ]   ;ûÚ]   ;ûÛ]   ;ûÜ]   ;ûÝ]   ;ûÞ]   ;ûß]   ;ûà]   ;ûá]   ;ú ]   ;ú¡]   ;ú¢]   ;ú£]   ;ú¤]   ;ú¥]   ;ú¦]   ;ú§]   ;ú¨]   ;ú©]   ;úª]


----------



## rJames (Jun 5, 2006)

Alright, I think we see it much the same.

For me, I like to hear the stiffest critique I can get but then I have to see what resonates within myself.

Sometimes it takes a day for me to get my ego out of the way and realize that there may be truth in a critique. I think it pays off.

And I think it is one advantage that we modern (internet era) composers have over predecessors. Instantaneous peer review.

I take it all with a grain of salt but grow (I think, I hope) by leaps and bounds by leveraging everything I can.

Jose, you are the first to send out critique (which I enjoy), I'd think you would appreciate the peer review.

My wife is in human resources. She has verified that "we are our own worst critic."

We can't do it. It is not humanly possible. (exaggeration, but close to truth)

In business they have 360 degree review. Review from superiors (old school), review from peers and review from below. Valid criticism comes from each. Not always perfect, but valuable.

BTW I think there is valid review here at VI, not only on mockup and technology, but on structure, orchestration, and all the rest.

And in more areas that just orchestra. We have some pretty amazing people here in all genres of music.


----------



## Niah (Jun 5, 2006)

midphase @ Mon Jun 05 said:


> > It get's to a point where I'm afraid to post any music on this site cause all I get is, "you should have used xyz library for that line" or whatever.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Sorry but I don't get this, we have many composers on this board that are beginners and are not intimidated by the amount of pros here. In fact most of the music they post here gets reviewed by pros who give some valuable ideas and suggestions to their music.
I remember the first piece I posted here, generally people liked the compo but the performance and production of the samples was awful. I was given some pointers and suggestions to improve this and almost two years later I believe I have taken a quantum leap. (I still have a long way to go though)
I owe everything to the people of this forum, everything I know about sample technology, music production and how to use these products I owe it to them.

Vi's motto "musicians helping musicians" is not just a saying, it's the truth.


----------



## fictionmusic (Jun 5, 2006)

excellent topic!

I don't care about the quality of someone's midi mockups at all. So little of the actual gig has anything to do with that when it is all said and done. That is not to say I am not impressed with a lot of what I hear, but mostly I care about how well it is written (realizing of course we all have different standards and tastes).

The real gig isn't about samples anyway, it is about how well the music you write works to picture. Most directors care about that more than if the library you use is x or y. Of course that is not to say that the more realistic an orchestral mockup sounds isn't going to land you a gig in the first place, but that in and of itself will not help you keep it if the music you write is unsuitable.

The other thing about mock-ups is that in almost all cases the orchestra most people strive to emulate is not actually a very common one for a lot of composers. I have had quite a bit of orchestral stuff played but mostly by small orchestras. These large Hollywood Romantic sized orchestras are expensive to assemble and in my experience, it is far more likely that a smaller sized orchestra will play my music. Spending a lot of time trying to get a big Hollywood-sounding mockup serves very little real purpose for me in that regard.


I don't post many tunes here because I realize the most popular stuff here is in the Hollywood film-scores and trailor style. I have heard a lot of brilliant mockups and some really great writing too, so the intimidation aspect probably has a lot of merit, but mostly, a few times I posted something in the composition section no-one ever responded. Instead I find posting stuff in related threads seems more appropriate as the orchestral mockup aspect isn;t as important as the compositional point of the thread.


----------



## Frederick Russ (Jun 5, 2006)

I don't think we should feel intimidated to post pieces here. That's not the idea. In several instances I've heard vast improvements over time in composers willing to share their pieces with others. Sometimes we can be so close to our compositions as to not hear things because the music is resonating so loud in our brains (but not in the final audio signal.) 

Having honest critiques of our music and production can be valuable - if our ego gets in the way we learn nothing. I have to agree with Ron - if the critique resonates within and we're willing to set aside our ego to hear it, the resulting information can be very valuable. 

We've been here almost two years and I've yet to see many mean-spirited critiques here. What I am seeing however are many people willing to share an honest opinion truly in the spirit of helping - especially to those who want the help. 

_Musicians helping musicians._ That's not only been our motto because I've seen it happen in so many ways since our inception: for some here at VI it has become a way of life, where those formerly helped eventually become the helper. I believe that those who consistently help others leave a strong legacy by making a difference that's musically tangible - not only in their own music but in the music of others as well. To me, that's really cool.


----------



## José Herring (Jun 5, 2006)

I'm all into the spirit of helping. I welcome the critique when I get it. I've grown quantum leaps and a large part of that is this forum as well as a few others.

What I do perceive is a bias towards certain libraries for certain sounds. Of which I can hardly understand. As of late I get a litte irritated by that. It makes me feel that if I don't post the right libraries ie. SISS strings, SAM brass, VSL woods, ect. I'll inevitably get the comments that I should use those libraries.

The wierd thing is to my ears those libraries don't really match eachother. So I feel that if the opinion differes from the biases then a piece posted doesn't stand a chance of honest critique.


----------



## kid-surf (Jun 6, 2006)

It's not so much about ego, at least not with me. With me it's, well, the closets analogy I can think of is "engineering"... let's say you feel you've met your objective. Now what? Now you show other engineers and they'll sincerely try to "help" you by telling you all the ways you're off the mark. Ways to improve it, ways you don't agree with perhaps. Who's right who's wrong? BOTH, right? Yet, at that point it amounts to nit picking over subjective qualities. 

That's the way I view it pertaining to myself. Maybe it's lofty of me, but I feel like I know when I hit it and when I didn't and why.

And like Jose said, I really don't feel like hearing about better libs choices for what I've done. I have most of the libs, and well, this (whatever it might be) is what I've chosen to use.


Now on the other hand, let's say Class-A composers posted here (composers "I" like, and even ones I'm not super stoked on), I'd probably hope they'd give me some advice. I'd probably post music in that case (if I knew they took time to give feedback).


But I think it's a little more difficult to get meaningful critiques from peers that are essentially in the same boat as you. That's just my opinion.

Having said that --- i do have a couple composer friends I go to in a pinch if I'm feeling self-conscious. But I ask for advice/critique only when I'm unsure of myself (which doesn't happen all that much, as egotistical as that sounds --- I don't mean for it to be. And like I continually say, I'm not trying to imply that I'm "the man" -- No, I'm just not insecure or intimidated).


It's true we all have different goals, different "voices" as composers. How effective is the critiquing under those circumstances? I really don't know, but it seems to help some, so, cool! I think it's the type of thing where some may see more benefit than others. Perhaps once you sift through the comments you may find some of them my apply to your sensibilities, and others not applicable. Yet, I generally notice that people don't really say much anyway. "Hey, good work..." and that's about it. Which is fine, but I personally don't need that to feel like I'm on the right track.

I have a feeling that people sometimes post music to get "atta boys" as well.... which I think is perfectly fine. Every composer has a little bit of an ego to feed. Nothing wrong with that.


But please know that I'm not trying to convince anyone to not post. I think for those that wish to, I think they should do so without reserve. And if those that do the Epic-y/Fast stuff get more responses, well that shows you what people heò]E   <V]E   <W]E   <X]E   <Y]E   <Z]E   <[]E   <\]E   <]]E   <^]E   <_]F   <`]F   <a]F   <b]F   <c]F   <d]F   <e]F   <f]F   <g]F   <h]F   <i]G   <j]G   <k]G   <l]G   <m]G   <n]G   <o]G   <p]G   <q]G   <r]G   <s]G   <t]G   <u]G   <v]G   <w]G   <x]G   <y]G   <z]G   <{]G   <|]G   <}]G   <~]G


----------



## TheoKrueger (Jun 6, 2006)

What a nice thread and oppinions expressed.

Personally i avoid listening to music in forums because when i used to do so, it influenced me negatively. Like others, instead of listening to the music i fell into the trap of caring too much about the sound, but also i compared my music to the music here, which is something bad for the soul as one should take his own road.

But i have some questions; if most people in these forums are inclined towards commercialism and target their music towards the masses, can one not say that it is not original or honest music? How can music that is targeted for the masses express something personal, delicate, or to any extreme? As the average of the masses is mediocre, such needs music to be so it appeals to them.

So, if music here is not original or honest as it is not solely the personal creation of someone, why should we listen to it and not listen to other artists? Do we perhaps listen to other's people music in these forums just so we can get the same back in return?

And why are people afraid to post their music, while they are not afraid to post of that fear itself? They go around expressing strong oppinions, not beeing afraid of what people will say, either their oppinions are of agreement or disagreement. But to post their music, which is again themselves, they are afraid?

So i wonder what is not the real thing of the two; The music that people make, or the words that they say.


----------



## Alex W (Jun 6, 2006)

TheoKrueger @ Tue Jun 06 said:


> But i have some questions; if most people in these forums are inclined towards commercialism and target their music towards the masses, can one not say that it is not original or honest music? How can music that is targeted for the masses express something personal, delicate, or to any extreme? As the average of the masses is mediocre, such needs music to be so it appeals to them.



Interesting points Theo...

Do you consider the Starwars soundtrack to be commercial, and "for the masses?"


----------



## TheoKrueger (Jun 6, 2006)

Alex W @ Tue Jun 06 said:


> Interesting points Theo...
> 
> Do you consider the Starwars soundtrack to be commercial, and "for the masses?"



Not exactly. The masses loved it because John Williams understood the feel of Star Wars as he was there since it's infancy, he gave birth to the theme for each character and wrote music for the feelings the movie evoked to him. Even though he had his own influences from the classics or elsewhere, i believe it was a personal creation for him - even if he was serving the larger picture.
But someone who puts on a Star Wars soundtrack and says "i want to sound like John Williams", afterwards brainwashes himself by listening to it all day. will end up making a lifeless rip-off that has no sentimental or personal background other than "i want to sound like John Williams".

Commercialism is following a recipe that leads to success without doing your own thing. It's the shortcut.


----------



## midphase (Jun 6, 2006)

> Trying to attain more expression or realism with samples is exactly the same thing as a clarinet player trying to improve their playing technique.
> 
> Therefore how can that be silly?



Analogy is not quite correct. In this case we'd be talking about a clarinetist who is trying to sound like a trumpet. As piano players, or guitarists, we're not striving to improve our playing technique, in many cases our playing is going out the window! 

What I'm talking about is this eagerness to replace real players with imitation chicken, and being obsessive about it. I think it's fine to grow with the technology and I myself look forward to what the developers have in store for us over the next few years. But I know several people who have become so intrinsically sucked into the idea of emulating the orchestra so precisely, that I have to seriously wonder if they realize where this is leading to.


----------



## Alex W (Jun 6, 2006)

midphase @ Wed Jun 07 said:


> > Trying to attain more expression or realism with samples is exactly the same thing as a clarinet player trying to improve their playing technique.
> >
> > Therefore how can that be silly?
> 
> ...



My analogy is that both a computer and a clarinet are instruments. How is this not correct?

The fact that a computer is more versatile in the variety of sounds it can create is irrelevant to my point.


----------



## Jackull (Jun 6, 2006)

> midphase...What I'm talking about is this eagerness to replace real players with imitation chicken, and being obsessive about it. I think it's fine to grow with the technology and I myself look forward to what the developers have in store for us over the next few years. But I know several people who have become so intrinsically sucked into the idea of emulating the orchestra so precisely, that I have to seriously wonder if they realize where this is leading to.



I agreed that we should grow with the technology if it would help us become a better composer. And those people that you know who are obsessive about precisely emulating the orchestra, might just have plenty of time to do that. I'm sure they understand that the real orchestra is irreplaceble no matter what. 
I myself would do the same thing if I got the TIME, improves my craft which includes composing, arranging, orchestrating, emulating orchestra, engineering, as well as playing the instruments.

So, good luck & wish all the best to those lucky composers who got all the time to do what they wanna do, whether they are a sample tweakhead or a phenomenal orchetrator/arranger...

jackULL


----------



## midphase (Jun 6, 2006)

> My analogy is that both a computer and a clarinet are instruments. How is this not correct?
> 
> The fact that a computer is more versatile in the variety of sounds it can create is irrelevant to my point.



You're comparing apples to oranges. 

It's like comparing an athlete who is practicing for a sporting event to someone who is practicing his controller moves in a sporting videogame. You can say that both individuals are spending time to improve their relative skills, but to go as far as saying that the two are (and I quote) "exactly the same thing" is...(insert politically correct term here).


----------



## midphase (Jun 6, 2006)

> And those people that you know who are obsessive about precisely emulating the orchestra, might just have plenty of time to do that. I'm sure they understand that the real orchestra is irreplaceble no matter what.



I wouldn't be so sure. Isn't the whole idea of what they're trying to do is to eventually minimize the differences between live and memorex to such a minute degree that only their mothers could tell them apart?

To me the latest Star Wars movies are an excellent example of why this is a bad idea. The great looking CGI spaceships and effects simply IMHO don't have the same "soul" as the original models from the old movies.

If you look at where this is all going, we can look foward to in about 10 to 20 years (probably 10) where having a real orchestra in a movie score would be as proposterous (or a vanity thing) as building spaceship models for a sci/fi movie.


----------



## Alex W (Jun 6, 2006)

midphase @ Wed Jun 07 said:


> You're comparing apples to oranges.
> 
> It's like comparing an athlete who is practicing for a sporting event to someone who is practicing his controller moves in a sporting videogame. You can say that both individuals are spending time to improve their relative skills, but to go as far as saying that the two are (and I quote) "exactly the same thing" is...(insert politically correct term here).



Of course it's apples and oranges . Comparing a trombone to a clarinet is also apples and oranges, just like comparing any other 2 musical instruments.

What I'm saying is that a computer is a musical instrument. Do you dispute this?


----------



## midphase (Jun 6, 2006)

Yes.

A computer is a tool....there is a difference!


----------



## Alex W (Jun 6, 2006)

midphase @ Wed Jun 07 said:


> Yes.
> 
> A computer is a tool....there is a difference!



Riigghhtt...!

So a computer is a tool, which it just so happens can create and play music, but it's not a musical instrument :roll:


----------



## kid-surf (Jun 6, 2006)

Kays, thanks for clarifying your point of view.... and thanks for starting a healthy discussion.



> BY MIDPHASE --- Hence, I am intimidated about posting here against some of the guys who spend weeks tweaking their orchestral mock-ups to sound as great as they can possibly sound. I'm not in the same category nor do I really want to be. To me, the whole idea of trying to create an ultra-believable fake orchestra is silly and ultimately counter-productive.



I'm not intimidated by those guys, but I do think it's a waste of time to tweak for weeks. I give myself a couple days max even if it's just a demo/spec, that way I'm always used to a tight deadline.




> BY MIDPHASE --- I hope they don't take this the wrong way...but by pushing the limits of the technology, they are getting further and further away from their dream (if that is the case) of eventually working with a real orchestra.



Seems that way sometimes... then again it may be the goal of some to simply make samples sound real. They may not even be trying to work in film. I really don't know where everyone is coming from.



> BY THEO --- Personally i avoid listening to music in forums because when i used to do so, it influenced me negatively. Like others, instead of listening to the music i fell into the trap of caring too much about the sound, but also i compared my music to the music here, which is something bad for the soul as one should take his own road.



I think it's fine if you compare your work to others. You just have to make sure you don't let mob mentality influence "your" voice if you happen to be a different than the music people praise. (In other words, I've not heard anyone I'd trade with. Hopefully they/you all feel the same way. I'd say that's normal.)



> BY THEO --- But i have some questions; if most people in these forums are inclined towards commercialism and target their music towards the masses, can one not say that it is not original or honest music? How can music that is targeted for the masses express something personal, delicate, or to any extreme? As the average of the masses is mediocre, such needs music to be so it appeals to them.



Yes, commercial music can certainly be honest IMO. I don't think many people set out to write dishonest music.

For the record, when I say "Epic-y/Fast", I'm not trying to imply that that genre is, to me, bad or dishonest. I like it when it's done well. I simply don't get excited just because it's loud and fast, in other words. Most of the composers I like are commercially successful. $$$$$$$ 

As for your second question: I think John Powell just did a great job expressing himself in a film designed for the masses. If he'd posted one of those cues here I would have said "Hey, wow, you're great... you're going to be a star composer". :D 



> BY THEO --- And why are people afraid to post their music, while they are not afraid to post of that fear itself? They go around expressing strong oppinions, not beeing afraid of what people will say, either their oppinions are of agreement or disagreement. But to post their music, which is again themselves, they are afraid?
> 
> So i wonder what is not the real thing of the two; The music that people make, or the words that they say.



I posted a cue the other day here, but it wasn't for feedback, it was to give someone an example of the way I use Altiverb. So, for me, it's not that I won't post music, or that I'm scared to. I believe in what I'm saying (as do others I'm sure) and I believe in my music. But I don't think you/we need to necessarily post our music to, sort of, support our thoughts. I mean we can, but it doesn't lead me to believe people are full of crap if they don't.




> BY MIDPHASE --- What I'm talking about is this eagerness to replace real players with imitation chicken, and being obsessive about it. I think it's fine to grow with the technology and I myself look forward to what the developers have in store for us over the next few years. But I know several people who have become so intrinsically sucked into the idea of emulating the orchestra so precisely, that I have to seriously wonder if they realize where this is leading to.



I agree, but the thing that does for the rest of us who aren't obsessive is it creates, perhaps, a better end product for "us" too. So it's really a win win, they get to tweak and geek, and we both realize the fruits of their efforts, IMO. 

Yet at the same time you can't let it bother you if their stuff sounds better than yours. If they spent weeks on it, well, who couldn't tweak something to amazing in weeks? You spend long enough on something and it'll eventually 'sound' good. But, still doesn't mean it's a piece that connects to people.... it could be that the dude who spent a day has the more emotional piece (even if it's Epic-y/Fast).

I guess my point is that I can separate the mix/tweaks from the composition/emotion when listening to others music.


----------



## rJames (Jun 6, 2006)

The computer is a musical instrument. It can make musical sounds that no other instrument can. IMHO that certifies it as a musical instrument.

BUT to a great degree it is an instrument as a microscope is an instrument; as a pencil is an instrument. When put to paper correctly beautiful music ensues (if played by good players, in the case of a pencil and music paper) (or if tweaked by good tweakers in the case of the computer)

Technically, we are "playing an instrument" when we cajole our samples to come out in a certain musical manner. No doubt, some are better "players" of the computer than others.

What was my point again?? Oh, yeah...

The goal is to tweak like the week tweakers in time to make the deadline. 

Practice makes perfect. Like the difference in a Porsche and a Ferrarri, for a lot of extra work, a little extra performance will be available.

But remember there is nothing wrong with using a one-finger instrument like Atmosphere if it gets the job done...and it does! No tweaking necessary.


----------



## Ned Bouhalassa (Jun 6, 2006)

Sorry to participate in a little thread-jacking, but I couldn't help meself!:

Computer music has been around for a while now (at least since the 50s). I'm not talking about using the computer to make is sound like a piano or an orchestra. I'm referring to the use of the computer to create new sounds and to _generate music ideas_. Now, FWIW, I happen to find 99% of computer generated or algorithmic music booooorring, but that's just me. :lol: 

When people find out I'm a composer, most of them say, "So... wanna get laid?" - huh... actually, what they say is, "Cool! What instrument do you play?". Even though I was trained as a bass player, I always answer, "These days, the computer".


----------



## Jackull (Jun 6, 2006)

Ned - for a 94 yr. old dude you're looking good  . Me myself am a computer player as I think most of us here.... now back to topic :D

I think midphase point is not about the history of music technology or future of music & how cool what it creates, but instead it's about those tweakledoo who can afford hours after hours to spend on tweaking to emulate the orchestra, that he doesn't bother to post his own music for critiqueing. Not to mentioned he doesn't care about it... personal choice.

So, how come nobody ask me "...wanna get laid?" Oh, maybe I'm saying that I'm a musician not a composer... whatever.. sori kays 

jackULL


----------



## midphase (Jun 6, 2006)

Actually, my point is that I think there is an inherent flaw in trying to consistently strive to emulate a real instrument because eventually that will lead to the demise of that instrument (at least in the commercial sense).

It won't be long before the argument of using a real orchestra on a film soundtrack instead of samples won't be a particularly compelling reason to the producers who are looking to spend an extra $200k (or more) vs. putting that money towards more special effects or promotions

Right now, there are many instruments that I deem good enough to pretty much never consider hiring a session person for it again. 

Is this a good thing?

I guess my original conversation starter was meant as an urge for us to "check ourselves" because it's looking to me like we've begun to lose track of what this is all about.


----------



## ComposerDude (Jun 6, 2006)

kid-surf @ Tue Jun 06 said:


> ... it could be that the _dude_ who spent a day has the more emotional piece



Thank you very much. 

-Composer Dude


----------



## rJames (Jun 6, 2006)

midphase @ Tue Jun 06 said:


> Actually, my point is that I think there is an inherent flaw in trying to consistently strive to emulate a real instrument because eventually that will lead to the demise of that instrument (at least in the commercial sense).
> 
> It won't be long before the argument of using a real orchestra on a film soundtrack instead of samples won't be a particularly compelling reason to the producers who are looking to spend an extra $200k (or more) vs. putting that money towards more special effects or promotions
> 
> ...



I think this is correct. From one vantage point. 

From my vantage point (as someone who has come from a different field into music), I might call it a catch-22. In order to compete, you must learn to make music that sounds great but is more cost effective. And in the end, real musicians and real ensembles become endangered.

A "town" is more well served by mom and pop stores in small communities but "cities" are better served by Walmart.

Should mom and pop lose everything and keep their store that sits next to a new Walmart?

It may not be pretty, but it is evolution. I didn't say it was good. But it is evolution.

I will consider myself quite lucky to have my music performed by real people, if that ever happens. But for now, I will continue to build my mockup skills.


----------



## José Herring (Jun 6, 2006)

Coming from a bit of experience I know that the orchestra to people who can afford one will never be replaced. The advantages are too great. Sure, here and there there have always been and always will be your "synth" score. But try and create a score with real emotions using samples. Not impossible but hard to beat real players. A static recording can't play a note sad, ect.

So, in films like Underworld where emotions are juvenile if existant at all you won't necessarily need real instruments. But on the 99% of the films where the director needs music to span the range of human emotions like say, Spiderman 2, then it's not too hard to convince them that they're going to need a real orchestra.

It's no accident that the weekess mockups I've heard are the "romance" mockups and the strongest are the hit 'em over the head action piece.

Personally I'm considering a new approach for samples. Then when I'm big and can get the full orchestra I'll switch back to writing for real instruments. In the meantime, it's hybrid all the way.

Jose


----------



## Ned Bouhalassa (Jun 6, 2006)

josejherring @ 6/6/2006 said:


> A static recording can't play a note sad, ect.



Then again, aren't emotions and sounds different things altogether? When musicians see the indication, 'play sad', what do they do, really? Do they start to feel sad inside and _hope_ that this gets communicated into his/her playing? How does that work? Or do they add more intense vibrato? Start the note slowly, tentatively?Couldn't you replicate this with a controller? How does one play a 'sad' piano note? What does it really mean when we say that a player has a lot of 'feeling' in his/her playing?

The way I see it, the advantages of using real (good) players are that: they will most probably add their own, unique sound to the mix; they'll make minuscule or not so small variations every time they play the same note; they'll make wonderfully useful human 'mistakes'; it's faster to try things with a bunch of players than to make changes to 8 or 9 virtual instrument tracks at a time.


----------



## Mike Greene (Jun 6, 2006)

Hmmm . . . maybe Jose's not as dumb as he looks! :mrgreen: 

I agree completely about the emotion a real player brings. Especially in, as Jose said, romantic cues. I guess Ned's right too, but now I'm pissed at him because he posted before me so now my little joke isn't right after Jose's post. Drat you Ned!!!



midphase @ Tue Jun 06 said:


> Actually, my point is that I think there is an inherent flaw in trying to consistently strive to emulate a real instrument because eventually that will lead to the demise of that instrument (at least in the commercial sense).


I used to think that. Years ago, my wife's nephew was taking up drums. I kept my mouth shut, but was thinking that he was learning a soon to be useless instrument. After all, drums are SO easy to sample well.

But it turns out drummers haven't died out at all (glad I kept my mouth shut.) It's not just the sounds they bring to the table, it's the performance. Heck, I've got drum libraries up the wazoo, but I still bring in real drummers all the time.

Consider the piano. Today's samples are awfully good, so everyone should have great piano parts. But if you're not a great player, you can tweak the MIDI file all day and still won't sound like even a very good player.

- Mike Greene


----------



## midphase (Jun 6, 2006)

I haven't hired a drummer in about 10 years. Same goes for bass players. On my most recent project, I had budgeted to bring in an upright player, then the director instructed me not to because Trilogy sold him and he didn't want me to change a thing!

There are guys who still do bring in those players...but there is no doubt that since samples have become better and more widely used, session musicians have taken a major hit.

Mark my words, the same will happen to orchestras within film and TV production. Honestly, when I listen to the music on Alias...I can't imagine why Michael Gioacchino would need to bring in a real string section, actually the only reason that I can imagine is that his mock up skills aren't up to par as some of the guys around here!

I think within 5 years (now is actually more likely) real musicians on TV and avdertising work will be a very tiny percentage. Movies will take longer....but I suspect that the next generation of sample libraries that will come out in the next couple of years will change that rapidly.

Remember now, I'm thinking about this from the mindset of producers and studios and not composers! Those guys don't give a crap about anything except the bottom line!

Also....with all due respect to Jose....speaking of an emotional score and Spider Man in the same sentence is quite blasphemous!


----------



## choc0thrax (Jun 6, 2006)

midphase @ Tue Jun 06 said:


> Mark my words, the same will happen to orchestras within film and TV production. Honestly, when I listen to the music on Alias...I can't imagine why Michael Gioacchino would need to bring in a real string section, actually the only reason that I can imagine is that his mock up skills aren't up to par as some of the guys around here!



Why would it be hard to understand why Giacchino needs real strings? He knows the importance of real players that bring emotion that samples can't. He convinced J.J. and they went and fought for the money. He's mentioned he hears other shows doing some real orchestra now so he's happy to see it coming back.


----------



## midphase (Jun 6, 2006)

Because I personally don't consider the music to Alias to be emotional in the least!


----------



## PaulR (Jun 6, 2006)

midphase @ Tue Jun 06 said:


> Actually, my point is that I think there is an inherent flaw in trying to consistently strive to emulate a real instrument because eventually that will lead to the demise of that instrument (at least in the commercial sense).



It's not really about the sound at the end of the day. I know everyone on these musician's forums thinks it is - and wishes that it is - but it's not.

This is all musician to musician stuff. Get a load of non musicians - i.e. people that simply listen and don't understand all the in and outs of the technical aspects of musicianship, samples and any other bollocks. You will probably not be amazed at what they think is good or not. I guarantee though - it won't be about the quality of sample sound.

Your highlighted point - it's a massive inherent flaw to try to emulate a real orchestra sound with samples. Waste of time - time that would be much better served writing. Samples will obviously never suceed in getting that huge interaction between players - so samplers and synths should be used as an entirely different animal in my view.

If a guy makes what another perceives to be a better sound using samples than he does - it's NOT a better sound. It's his sound - and a different sound. That is all it is. The writing is the issue - everytime.


----------



## choc0thrax (Jun 6, 2006)

midphase @ Tue Jun 06 said:


> Because I personally don't consider the music to Alias to be emotional in the least!



Oh...I actually think it has some pretty emotional music like- http://www.michaelgiacchino.com/04_Resources/01_Music/alias/alias2_sloane.mp3 (http://www.michaelgiacchino.com/04_Reso ... sloane.mp3)

Same goes for Lost but I guess it helps to be a fan of these shows.


----------



## midphase (Jun 6, 2006)

You tell me that someone like Simon or Thomas wouldn't be able to get that type of emotion out of samples! I totally bet they could!

Also....you have to admit that in shows like Alias, those types of cues represent a fairly small percentage of the total amount of music. Maybe it's just the episodes of Alias that I watched! 

Personally, I'm a Gilmore Girls type of guy!


----------



## choc0thrax (Jun 6, 2006)

midphase @ Tue Jun 06 said:


> You tell me that someone like Simon or Thomas wouldn't be able to get that type of emotion out of samples! I totally bet they could!
> 
> Also....you have to admit that in shows like Alias, those types of cues represent a fairly small percentage of the total amount of music. Maybe it's just the episodes of Alias that I watched!
> 
> Personally, I'm a Gilmore Girls type of guy!



No offense to Simon or Thomas but i've never really gottan an emotional response from their music. About Alias it probably depends on what season you're watching since it gets less techno as it goes on.


----------



## Ned Bouhalassa (Jun 6, 2006)

Clearly, the emotion is not in the music per se, but in the listener. I can feel full of anger, happiness or tension when listening to a techno piece. In fact, techno music from the mid-90s makes me very 'emotional' or melancholic if you prefer, because it 'brings me back' to a memorable and naïve time, when I was more care-free in terms of health, responsibilities, etc. Other listeners may feel that the very same tracks are 'cold' because they don't bring the same bagage as I do when listening.

So, are some soundtracks more 'emotional' because they make the greatest number of listeners sad and/or happy? Should a piece of music that triggers any one of these emotions not be considered 'emotional'?: surprise, pity, pride, relaxation, fear, appreciation, love, happiness, wonder, hate, jealousy, nostalgia, sympathy, distaste, etc.


----------



## midphase (Jun 6, 2006)

Rise with Angels almost (emphasis on almost....I'm not a sissy girlie-man) made me cry.


----------



## kid-surf (Jun 6, 2006)

midphase @ Tue Jun 06 said:


> Rise with Angels almost (emphasis on almost....I'm not a sissy girlie-man) made me cry.



Really? I didn't think the _mix_ was that bad.... :?: 


:razz:


----------



## José Herring (Jun 7, 2006)

A real orchestra will never be fully replaced. I think that that's wrong thinking. Imagine trying to do a score like Sea Biscuit with samples. Cheezy.

Actually in films like Crash where the orchestra was replaced by Atmosphere, that's a far more realistic scenario than the sample orchestra taking over big budget Hollywood. Dealing in a completely artificial medium you can bend and manipulate the sounds with filters and pitch bend and actually achieve real expression. Samples only sound more fake when you do that. It can be done to some extent but not really well. So samples are kind of left in the inbetween world of not quite real, but not really fake either. So you can't apply much processing because it ruins the realness of the samples, but you can't also not apply processing like cc or volume changes because then the samples sound too static.

Funny that you should mention that you're not moved by Thomas J.'s music Choco. I thought that you idolized him. Actually the funny thing about TJ is that the best mockup work that he ever did he did with EW samples imo. But, I gather from his other pieces that he perfers his own library. I don't think that his private library sounds as good as EW. Just my opinion though.

Jose


----------



## choc0thrax (Jun 7, 2006)

josejherring @ Wed Jun 07 said:


> A real orchestra will never be fully replaced. I think that that's wrong thinking. Imagine trying to do a score like Sea Biscuit with samples. Cheezy.
> 
> Actually in films like Crash where the orchestra was replaced by Atmosphere, that's a far more realistic scenario than the sample orchestra taking over big budget Hollywood. Dealing in a completely artificial medium you can bend and manipulate the sounds with filters and pitch bend and actually achieve real expression. Samples only sound more fake when you do that. It can be done to some extent but not really well. So samples are kind of left in the inbetween world of not quite real, but not really fake either. So you can't apply much processing because it ruins the realness of the samples, but you can't also not apply processing like cc or volume changes because then the samples sound too static.
> 
> ...



I always felt that was his worst stuff. His best is by far his custom library stuff but you haven't heard it.


----------



## Synesthesia (Jun 7, 2006)

midphase @ Tue Jun 06 said:


> It won't be long before the argument of using a real orchestra on a film soundtrack instead of samples won't be a particularly compelling reason to the producers who are looking to spend an extra $200k (or more) vs. putting that money towards more special effects or promotions
> 
> Right now, there are many instruments that I deem good enough to pretty much never consider hiring a session person for it again. .



Hi Kays,

Some very interesting points. I disagree with the two above though.

IMO, the use of an orchestra or a live musician in the recording of a piece of music which is supposed to sound like live players will always sound better. This is because it is an artistic collaboration between musicians. Consider the large session orchestra. You are adding 80 extremely gifted musicians' collaborative effort to the composer's vision. This is bound (under ideal circumstances) to create a synergy that is greater than that possible with one person and a computer attempting to make out of context recordings of live instruments into a 'real' recording.

For that reason, I think orchestral - or at least hybrid live/sequenced - will continue to survive in Film where budgets are there. Music (most music) simply sounds and feels better (even to the layman) when it has live players adding their talent and gift to it.

Just my 2p!

Cheers

Paul


----------



## midphase (Jun 7, 2006)

> A real orchestra will never be fully replaced. I think that that's wrong thinking. Imagine trying to do a score like Sea Biscuit with samples. Cheezy.



But you're thinking in terms of today's tools. Yes, it would probably sound cheesy with QLSO and VSL....but what are the tools going to sound like in a few years? I bet that in a couple of years, there will be orchestral tools that will make the current crop of sample libraries sound as inadequate as Miroslav and the PS Advanced Orchestra sounds today.


----------



## midphase (Jun 7, 2006)

> IMO, the use of an orchestra or a live musician in the recording of a piece of music which is supposed to sound like live players will always sound better. This is because it is an artistic collaboration between musicians. Consider the large session orchestra. You are adding 80 extremely gifted musicians' collaborative effort to the composer's vision. This is bound (under ideal circumstances) to create a synergy that is greater than that possible with one person and a computer attempting to make out of context recordings of live instruments into a 'real' recording.



I agree with you and for the most part, we're all just preaching to the choir!

However, will that argument hold water for a producer or studio exec? I have my doubts. I think that those guys are so far removed from understanding any sort of artistic concepts, that if they can't tell the difference they probably will push for the sampled stuff if it means it saves them a whole bunch of money (and union residuals). Plus sampled orchestras for them mean that rewrites and changes can happen all the way until the very last minute.

Once again, let's think in terms of a few years from now when the tools and the resulting music will sound that much more convincing.


----------



## PaulR (Jun 7, 2006)

midphase @ Wed Jun 07 said:


> > Once again, let's think in terms of a few years from now when the tools and the resulting music will sound that much more convincing.



Convincing of what? A real orchestra? I don't think so.
Good writing? What? Non musicians?


----------



## midphase (Jun 7, 2006)

A few years from now, the computer tools that we use to create orchestral music will sound effectively indistinguishible from the real thing.

Good writing and musicianship will probably still be required to get decent compositions out of the tools, I say probably because I'm not 100% sure of it.


----------



## Daryl (Jun 7, 2006)

midphase @ Wed Jun 07 said:


> A few years from now, the computer tools that we use to create orchestral music will sound effectively indistinguishible from the real thing.
> 
> Good writing and musicianship will probably still be required to get decent compositions out of the tools, I say probably because I'm not 100% sure of it.


Good writing is always necessary to get decent compositions. It's just that the majority of people are too ignorant to know the difference between good and bad :mrgreen: 

D


----------



## kid-surf (Jun 7, 2006)

The Sample Takeover --- I think it's about as likely as them giving up on 35 mil film.... that doesn't appear to be around the corner, but sure, all things are "possible".... as it's "possible" computers will one day create the music for films. I just don't think it's very "likely", is all.

I find REAL sounds a lot better generally (especially strings).


Hollywood likes to feel like things are GRAND... important! People like to feel smart. They'll say they can hear a diff even if they can't. So, real orchestral will win out over samples (even if they sound the same - in the future) based on principle alone... if nothing else.

Kays, if I'm wrong I owe you a beer or two. :mrgreen:


----------



## Daryl (Jun 7, 2006)

kid-surf @ Wed Jun 07 said:


> Hollywood likes to feel like things are GRAND... important! People like to feel smart. They'll say they can hear a diff even if they can't. So, real orchestral will win out over samples (even if they sound the same - in the future) based on principle alone... if nothing else.


It's not just Hollywood. When Sky News re-vamped, sorry re-branded the channel at the end of last year they felt that it was necessary to get a full orchestra to record the music as it stressed how important the news really is :roll: 

D


----------



## PaulR (Jun 7, 2006)

kid-surf @ Wed Jun 07 said:


> I find REAL sounds a lot better generally (especially strings).



Forgetting the actual writing for a moment Kid - if anyone ever creates a sample library that sounds half - way the same as a real and decent string section - they'll make a fortune.

Just take a string quartet/quintet sound as an example. For instance, download Say You Don't Mind by Colin Bluntstone and think about what you're saying for a moment regarding samples. You'll never get that sound or interaction with samples - so why bother to try. Concentrate more on your own personal sound and writing is my advice. It doesn't matter about sound so much - it's whether it connects with listeners or not.


----------



## TheoKrueger (Jun 7, 2006)

PaulR @ Wed Jun 07 said:


> Concentrate more on your own personal sound and writing is my advice. It doesn't matter about sound so much - it's whether it connects with listeners or not.



Your advice is sound Paul. If a synthesizer can create emotion, so can a well recorded string sample. ( Even if the legato is not perfect.  )


----------



## Waywyn (Jun 7, 2006)

I would say in general that it is pretty normal that we take a good portion of attention to the use of samples, because this is what we all do. We work with IT.

Lets take the example of cars. If you are a car engineer you just don't think how wonderful the car drives and how sneak it goes into the curves etc, i think as an engineer oyu think about how many PS the car got, what the motor is made of, consistency of the rims etc.

And in terms of the hiring and the jobs etc. I think it still counts the fact how you can serve the project (game, movie whatever). Customer just don't want to hear sophisticated stuff when it is about a happy scene. They just want to hear happy feelings, transported well, they just want to feel good while watching the scene.

If there is a composer who just does one big slam for a scene with might and good samples, then i think this guy is prefered to one who is starting to sharpen the strings for a couple of runs etc.

So i think it is all about understanding the scene/project AND the sound. If you do good sound, serve the project, understand what it's about - then you are good.

If you just want to express yourself and compose stuff which seems to be too much PLUS your sound isn't that good, well .. could be of disadvantage.


----------



## Scott Cairns (Jun 7, 2006)

midphase @ Tue Jun 06 said:


> 3. My deadlines are sometimes unbelievably tight, which means I can't agonize over how realistic my flutes section sounds....as long as it reaches a certain level, my client or my audience doesn't care nor hear any difference.



Amen to that! I must admit, before I was a working composer, I had little respect for the fact that its not how well you can write and produce music, but how well you can do it * by the deadline.*

I see other artists music in a whole new light now. How long did they have? What demands did the client place on them? I once posted a piece here that I cranked out in 8 or 9 hours non stop, for a deadline. Kind of wish I didnt in a way. :neutral:


----------



## choc0thrax (Jun 7, 2006)

midphase @ Wed Jun 07 said:


> > Hollywood likes to feel like things are GRAND... important! People like to feel smart. They'll say they can hear a diff even if they can't. So, real orchestral will win out over samples (even if they sound the same - in the future) based on principle alone... if nothing else.
> >
> > Kays, if I'm wrong I owe you a beer or two.
> 
> ...



This is certainly good news for some of us who can't write for real orchestra anyways.


----------



## Waywyn (Jun 7, 2006)

well, might be or not, but i think that there is still a way to have a real orchestra in movies.

if they save money, i think they wouldnt start to save money on first place to get rid of the orchestra.

we had the experience that one company started to use real orchestra here in germany for GAMES ... and others followed. so even if there are saving and low budget movie productions i would still say that (of course if they are clever) save some money on things which makes more sense to save on rather than get rid of the orchestra.

i mean i don't know but i still had that little experience when i was playing in that rockband, they produced a video which was like over 50 grand (yes, 50 grand!! we were a liiiittle rockband in germany but had a record deal) and the looked like complete shit!! i mean really shit!

so even if a movie costs like 2-5 million bucks, there should be money for an orchestra.

i mean i still don't understand why the studio back then charged over 50 grand to do that shitty video. if there would be some clever film students back then, i guess they would have done the video for around 10k. ... and here really wasn't special fx in it. it was just the fact that the producer charged huge sums, only because of his concept or "clever" ideas.

i think for a movie, an orchestra is still the way to go (at least i hope so and hope it still will be)


----------



## midphase (Jun 7, 2006)

can you post the video?


----------



## KevinKauai (Jun 7, 2006)

TERRIFIC TOPIC!

By and large, the VI board is the least vitriolic of almost any other place you can post a sample of your work. Folks are, for the most part, kind here. (And when they are flippant -- yeah, I mean you, Choco! -- at least you know it.)

For me, however, the absolute BEST third-party insight into my work comes from Broadjam.com. For those of you who don't know, it works like this: {1} You put a track up into your "repertoire". When doind that you can make it visible or not and set it "in review" or not; {2} When it is "in review" a peer Broadjam member will randomly get to hear the track and gets to fill out a multi-faceted form (including written "Positive Comments" and "Constructive Comments"). As the artist for the track, you then get an advice email and can go look up the "review". (You also get to "rate the reviewer" as to whether you think the review is fair, whether the review is helpful to you, and whether you would like more reviews from the individual.) And ALL of this is "blind". The person reviewing knows NOTHING about the piece he/she is hearing (except, possibly, the genre the artist has placed the piece in) until AFTER they have submitted their review.



> In business they have 360 degree review. Review from superiors (old school), review from peers and review from below. Valid criticism comes from each. Not always perfect, but valuable.



Get observations wherever you can. Ultimately, the artist needs to pick and choose those which are meaningful to himself/herself and apply those (or not).

my humble $0.02 ... KevinKauai


----------



## TheoKrueger (Jun 8, 2006)

Hey Kevin,

That anonymous Broadjam system sounds really good. I'm sure many people will be suprised after they see to who they gave a low, or high review. Good stuff indeed.


----------



## KevinKauai (Jun 8, 2006)

For those of you who might not be familiar with it, I thought I would capture a somewhat random review (of one of my works) and include that snapshot here:






Folks can select a piece (a) totally randomly without preference as to genre, or (b) genre-specific. As I mentioned before, only AFTER they have submitted their review can they see specifics on the piece and artist. (Which is a nice touch, sincò^   <L,^   <L-^   <L.^   <L/^   <L0^   <L1^   <L2^   <L3^   <L4^   <L5^   <L6^   <L7^   <L8^   <L9^   <L:^   <L;^   <L<^   <L=^   <L>^   <L?^   <[email protected]^   <LA^   <LB^   <LC^   <LD^   <LE^   <LF^   <LG^   <LH^   <LI^   <LJ^   <LK^   <LL^   <LM^   <LN^   <LO^   <LP^   <LQ^   <LR^   <LS^   <LT^   <LU^   <LV^   <LW^   <LX^   <LY^   <LZ^   <L[^   <L\^   <L]^   <L^^   <L_^   <L`^   <La^   <Lb^   <Lc^   <Ld^   <Le^   <Lf^   <Lg^   <Lh^   <Li^   <Lj^   <Lk^   <Ll^   <Lm^   <Ln^   <Lo^   <Lp^   <Lq^   <Lr^   <Ls^   <Lt^   <Lu^   <Lv^   <Lw^   <Lx^   <Ly^   <Lz^   <L{^   <L|^   <L}^   <L~^   <L^   <L€^   <L^   <L‚^   <Lƒ^   <L„^   <L…^   <L†^   <L‡^   <Lˆ^   <L‰^   <LŠ^   <L‹^   <LŒ^   <L^   <LŽ^   <L^   <L^   <L‘^   <L’^   <L“^   <L”^   <L•^   <L–^   <L—^   <L˜^   <L™^   <Lš^   <L›              ò^   <L^   <Lž^   <LŸ^   <L ^   <L¡^   <L¢^   <L£^   <L¤^   <L¥^   <L¦^   <L§^   <L¨^   <L©^   <Lª^   <L«^   <L¬^   <L­^   <L®^   <L¯^   <L°^   <L±^   <L²^   <L³^   <L´^   <Lµ^   <L¶^   <L·^   <L¸^   <L¹^   <Lº^   <L»^   <L¼^   <L½^   <L¾^   <L¿^   <LÀ^   <LÁ^   <LÂ^   <LÃ^   <LÄ^   <LÅ^   <LÆ^   <LÇ^   <LÈ^   <LÉ^   <LÊ^   <LË^   <LÌ^   <LÍ^   <LÎ^   <LÏ^   <LÐ^   <LÑ^   <LÒ^   <LÓ^   <LÔ^   <LÕ^   <LÖ^   <L×^   <LØ^   <LÙ^   <LÚ^   <LÛ^   <LÜ^   <LÝ^   <LÞ^   <Lß^   <Là^   <Lá^   <Lâ^   <Lã^   <Lä^   <Lå^   <Læ^   <Lç^   <Lè^   <Lé^   <Lê^   <Lë^   <Lì^   <Lí^   <Lî^   <Lï^   <Lð^   <Lñ^   <Lò^   <Ló^   <Lô^   <Lõ^   <Lö^   <L÷^


----------



## rJames (Jun 8, 2006)

Kevin,
The only thing I worry about in that scenario are all the lame comments that can come from totally uninformed people.

You could say that the general public is your audience but really (if you are looking for work) it is not the public's but the producers/directors/music supervisors' pulse that you want to feel.

I have learned so much from these forums. But I have to admit...I have learned that some opinions are uninformed and are not helpful at all.

I believe that they could lead you astray

As in any situation, I think you have to know who you are talking to before you can take the comments too seriously.

whenever I have received feedback, I give some people more weight than others.

And I take a day to see what has resonated within my self.

I am not talking about who has studied more either. Anyone can be biased, so you have to be as skeptical of the well studied as much as the self-taught. Or the people who just have great ears!

That's why this forum is so helpful. There are enough people with great ears, lots of knowledge about music, lots of knowledge about what is selling, knowledge about strategies AND they are willing to give their time.

Group hug. :lol:


----------



## KevinKauai (Jun 8, 2006)

I thoroughly agree, rJames! It's a corollary to "beauty is in the eyes of the beholder", isn't it? Not every comment (anonymous or not) will be spot on, nor can you "qualify" the veracity of any particular observation without knowing a lot more about the person providing it. Somehow, though, it's fairly obvious to see a "lame" or "out of left field" comment, isn't it?

However, that said, my personal observation about BroadJam is that I get more truly INSIGHTFUL observations. What I also like about the BroadJam approach is that you get a "bio" of the reviewer. Here are a few at random:

State: Oregon
Country: United States
Gender: Male
Age: 36
Studio Musician

Talents:
Engineer, Publisher, Music / Film, Industry Professional, Song Writer
------------

State: (Non USA/Not Applicable)
Country: Croatia
Gender: Male
Age: 32
Live Performer

Talents:
Engineer
------------

State: (Non USA/Not Applicable)
Country: United Kingdom
Gender: Male
Age: 49
Live Performer

Talents:
Record Producer, Engineer, Music / Film, Song Writer
------------

State: Indiana
Country: United States
Gender: Male
Age: 59
Studio Musician

Talents:
Engineer, Music / Film, Song Writer
------------

 KevinKauai

_P.S. Find me another pay site that does it better and I'll sign up TODAY! _


----------



## gamalataki (Jun 8, 2006)

Are we still listening to compositions?

A better title for this topic might be, "Are we still giving our music away for free?" If you don't know that producers are using your music in countries that have no enforceable copyright laws, then I can tell you some eye opening facts. There are full time employees that do nothing but download, label and catalog music from the Internet. They refer to it as Free music and fear no repercussions for using it. Some even resell collections to other producers.
Surely anyone who lives in this day and age knows this happens. Sites like this one are being farmed.

Since the discussion has turned to replacing real players, perhaps you should think about being replaced yourself, perhaps by yourself. I'm waiting for the day when one of these Eastern block or Asian productions break into a Western market and a composer notices his music in it. Would it be unreasonable to assume that, in a court of law, the defense could make the arguement that the music was distributed free of charge?? How many of you copyright your uploaded works?? If the above scenario took place with your music being used and you didn't copyright it, what would be your legal options? (it's quite another subject if you upload something you sold to Sony, for example, and have their permission to share it - major studios have worldwide reach and lots of clout).

Replacing an orchestra with samples, would be like replacing a composer with one of these new prefab cuemakers that are coming to market recently, like
http://www.smartsound.com/sonicfire/index.html
http://www.sonymediasoftware.com/produc ... p?pid=1013).
It just can't be done! Will it mean less work for composers? Probably. There's plenty of powers that be who are focused on the bottom line and perhaps ignorant of music. Will more composers generate cues for these types of programs and will they get more sophisticated? Sure, they will probably mature just as sample libraries have and composers will consider writing these cues as gigs, even though it will have the same result that sample libs have on live players. Players get work recording samples that may replace them later on. Around we go; this is nothing new.

Music can be a very valuable cash commodity and the people who know how to turn it into cash can take advantage of those passionate composers who see music as more a valuable emotional commodity.

If you don't know what your music sounds like or just want to share your latest creation with someone, may I suggest putting together a team of people, who's opinion you respect, and use them as your second pair of ears to help stop the flow of "free" music to the undesirables. After all, music, especially as it applies to film & TV, is a team sport (effort) and you'll need that team eventually anyway.
My dos pesos,
_Scott


----------



## rJames (Jun 8, 2006)

KevinKauai @ Thu Jun 08 said:


> What I also like about the BroadJam approach is that you get a "bio" of the reviewer.  KevinKauai
> 
> _P.S. Find me another pay site that does it better and I'll sign up TODAY! _



Now you're talking!


----------



## fictionmusic (Jun 8, 2006)

Broadjam is a good place but even still one person's opinion, no matter how qualified, is still just one person's opinion. Any one can call themselves anything there, so someone may not have the qualifications they purport. The real validity in my opinion is getting a lot of reviews and seeing what the majority thinks. For that Garage Band might be a better approach.

Broadjam is a cool place though nevertheless.


----------



## fictionmusic (Jun 8, 2006)

Scott Cairns @ Wed Jun 07 said:


> I see other artists music in a whole new light now. How long did they have? What demands did the client place on them?



How true! Or when seeing a piece withoput picture it was written to, what are the reasons the music is making such strange transitions. That is why I see a HUGE difference in music that was written for clients and music that was written for music's sake. Stuff written for client's may not have the resonance (to borrow a cool term) that other music has.

Ironically, I think even some client's prefer music writen for it's own sake. I don't know how many times I have been asked to write a sound-alike for some song the director (or someone else in control) has a hardon for strictly personal reasons. While I think they prefer the custom made angle all in all and having the music tailored to theoir production, I still think they give more respect to music that had other considerations in its genesis.

That is one of the reason's I have a custom library available and why I also write a lot of cues for other libraries. No matter what, the cue stands on its own and its form isn't driven by plot or other non-musical considerations.


----------



## kid-surf (Jun 8, 2006)

rJames @ Thu Jun 08 said:


> KevinKauai @ Thu Jun 08 said:
> 
> 
> > What I also like about the BroadJam approach is that you get a "bio" of the reviewer.  KevinKauai
> ...





That's totally the last thing in the world I care about...


----------

