# With all the "scoring libraries," is it not okay to compose in that style anymore?



## Lunatique (Jan 9, 2011)

I was just listening to Harry Gregson-Williams' Phone Booth score from 2002, and while listening, I immediately noticed that the entire score could today be put together very easily with all the "scoring effects libraries" we now have like the ones from Heavyocity and Vir2 and so on. So, with all these scoring libraries that are pretty much like loop construction kits to get you that same sound, is it now considered bad form to actually be using all those libraries and composing in that style? I mean, it seems like even non-composers can now put together a score in that style, so do composers feel like they have to "rise above" it in order to remain credible as composers? Is it ever even an issue among composers or clients?


----------



## Dan Mott (Jan 9, 2011)

Lunatique @ Sun Jan 09 said:


> I was just listening to Harry Gregson-Williams' Phone Booth score from 2002, and while listening, I immediately noticed that the entire score could today be put together very easily with all the "scoring effects libraries" we now have like the ones from Heavyocity and Vir2 and so on. So, with all these scoring libraries that are pretty much like loop construction kits to get you that same sound, is it now considered bad form to actually be using all those libraries and composing in that style? I mean, it seems like even non-composers can now put together a score in that style, so do composers feel like they have to "rise above" it in order to remain credible as composers? Is it ever even an issue among composers or clients?




Hello.

Just do your own thing - That's what I'd say. Don;t use loops and such, just expand your creativity and think of new ways to sound fresh.

There are alot of clones of people these days. It's pretty tought to create a different sound which I understand, but why use all the latest libraries when you could try make your own. Try record sounds by slapping your body, using tools around the house and prehaps beat boxing and completey process it up to the max. Think out-side the box of habits that composers stick with and start to sound boring.

It's not bad to use the libraries though, by all means use them! because they are great.

I do feel for film composers though. If I were one, I'd do short alternative films and do as many as I can. This way, one composer can sound unique and stretch the boundary a little more instead of doing what you have to do. I'm pretty sure it would be great pay, and the director would be more flexible to work with IMO, that's if you can get enough work in that area which would consist of you putting your self out there every day.

I don't think it's an issue.............. hmmm, what would I know, but I couldn't imagine it being one if you aren't using the same loops everybody else is.

So yeah, I'll be silent now and let a more experienced person take over.

Peace.

Anyway.


----------



## Lunatique (Jan 9, 2011)

I think part of the issue is that there are only so many ways to mangle a sound source and still have it remain musical, so if someone were to compose in that style, even if he samples everything himself--from kitchenware to body slaps to traffic noise--once you process them and turn them into a usable musical palette, they will sound very similar to what Vir2, Heavyocity, Spectrasonics and the other developers have made, because that's just how these types of processed sounds end up sounding like. Essentially, you'd be trying to reinvent the wheel when these developers already took years of their time creating huge palettes of these types of sounds for you to use. What you'd create will sound so much like what they've made that it's almost pointless. There are now thousands of these types of patches among all the libraries and no one will be able tell if you rolled your own sound or used a pre-made patch from a library, so what's the difference?

The dilemma then becomes, they've turned what was once an interesting and creative approach it into a fastfood type of thing, and while some people have no problem using these types of libraries in order to get work done and sounding like every other score that uses this type of approach, there will be those that are now put off by the whole thing (and we've had similar discussions here in the past about this). 

I guess my questions really is, has there been a backlash against this style of scoring? Is it looked down upon, not by fellow composers (because obviously some do look down on it, as we've seen around here), but by clients, because they know how easy it is to do with today's products? Are scores not done in that style now more valued because it's harder to do? Or no one ever gives a $hit except us overly sensitive/paranoid types?


----------



## Dan Mott (Jan 9, 2011)

Lunatique @ Sun Jan 09 said:


> I think part of the issue is that there are only so many ways to mangle a sound source and still have it remain musical, so if someone were to compose in that style, even if he samples everything himself--from kitchenware to body slaps to traffic noise--once you process them and turn them into a usable musical palette, they will sound very similar to what Vir2, Heavyocity, Spectrasonics and the other developers have made, because that's just how these types of processed sounds end up sounding like. Essentially, you'd be trying to reinvent the wheel when these developers already took years of their time creating huge palettes of these types of sounds for you to use. What you'd create will sound so much like what they've made that it's almost pointless. There are now thousands of these types of patches among all the libraries and no one will be able tell if you rolled your own sound or used a pre-made patch from a library, so what's the difference?
> 
> The dilemma then becomes, they've turned what was once an interesting and creative approach it into a fastfood type of thing, and while some people have no problem using these types of libraries in order to get work done and sounding like every other score that uses this type of approach, there will be those that are now put off by the whole thing (and we've had similar discussions here in the past about this).
> 
> I guess my questions really is, has there been a backlash against this style of scoring? Is it looked down upon, not by fellow composers (because obviously some do look down on it, as we've seen around here), but by clients, because they know how easy it is to do with today's products? Are scores not done in that style now more valued because it's harder to do? Or no one ever gives a $hit except us overly sensitive/paranoid types?




No.... they wouldn't sound like evry other library, they would if you did that exact same technique. It's thinking outside the box and alot fo people have done it and continue to do it today. Each individual has a puprose they want to serve and if they taek their own road, they can invent something new whihc is their own sound, so NO, I disagree with you.

Anyway, if there were a blacklash and clients though it was a bad thing, then do you think many composers would have jobs???


----------



## adg21 (Jan 9, 2011)

I think for scores like that you have to play sound designer, not just "slapping your body, using tools around the house" etc - in fact you'll probably sound bad if you just do that - but there are tons of things you can do with existing sample libraries, effects processing, synth/sampler programming, transforming stuff, creating you own sample sets, combining libraries, processing them in different combinations. Hans Zimmer and composers at Remote Control (like Harry Gregson-Williams) will all be creating there own custom libraries, almost constantly, and will always be looking for new sounds. 

It seems the gap between the composer and developers is narrowing anyway. I'd go as far to say the sample developers _are _ the composers in many cases. 
http://www.heavyocity.com/ Harry Gregson Williams publically endorses this product, uses it in his scores, I think he even created some presets (along with some other composers). I wouldn't be surprised if they were all friends and, at some point, made music together. The founder of tonehammer is a composer. Thomas J and Nick Phoenix who created Hollywood Strings also own Two Steps From Hell making probably the best trailer music in the world. They work closely with Remote Control, and might have one day worked with Harry Gregson-Williams (it's possible). 

From what I can see/hear commercial 'construction kits' and sample CDs _are_ useful and are being used by lots of the top composers, but used mainly as tools, rather than as complete all-in-one solutions, often altered, combined with other libraries, not to mention all the live instrumental elements that will be added to the final recording.

I wouldn't want to place too much importance on custom built orchestral libraries, the sort self-recorded with your own mics in a studio - I think this might have been more important for composers working 10 years ago (in the hardware sampler and gigastudio days) when there wasn't much out there, but now there;s so much and everything you can think of has been sampled, unless of course you can make better ones, but it's expensive, and you need to be a good engineer and programmer. My view is if you're going to spend time with instrumentalists in a studio you're better off just recording music. 

I just think combining all the available resources you have in interesting ways, and recording soloists, is the best you can do until you get big, and the results you can get from that can be world class.


----------



## Ed (Jan 9, 2011)

I think its just a question of how fresh do you want your music to sound, libraries like Heavyocity force us to be more creative to stand out. In a way that's a very good thing. That's how I think of it anyway.


----------



## adg21 (Jan 9, 2011)

Lunatique @ Sun Jan 09 said:


> I think part of the issue is that there are only so many ways to mangle a sound source and still have it remain musical, so if someone were to compose in that style, even if he samples everything himself--from kitchenware to body slaps to traffic noise--once you process them and turn them into a usable musical palette, they will sound very similar to what Vir2, Heavyocity, Spectrasonics



The combination of sounds will be nothing short of infinite, you will not sound like Heavyocity or any other sample library.


----------



## José Herring (Jan 9, 2011)

poseur @ Sun Jan 09 said:


> Lunatique @ Sun Jan 09 said:
> 
> 
> > I think part of the issue is that there are only so many ways to mangle a sound source and still have it remain musical, so if someone were to compose in that style, even if he samples everything himself--from kitchenware to body slaps to traffic noise--once you process them and turn them into a usable musical palette, they will sound very similar to what Vir2, Heavyocity, Spectrasonics and the other developers have made, because that's just how these types of processed sounds end up sounding like.
> ...



I agree ( I think, sometimes I have a hard time getting your post  )

Anyway, phone booth is a good example of being quite unique for the time. Unfortunately then everybody gets a hold of it and the sound then gets into every tv score.

So, I'm a big proponent of rolling your own sounds. It's tough and sometimes I doubt my efforts aren't even as good as commercially available sounds. But, at least when I hear what I've done I know that I did it. And, you then get better and better.

I think everybody during their down times should just create their own libraries. that way come gig time you got a pallet of stuff that's yours to use.

best,

Jose


----------



## poseur (Jan 9, 2011)

josejherring @ Sun Jan 09 said:


> I agree ( I think, sometimes I have a hard time getting your post  )
> 
> Anyway, phone booth is a good example of being quite unique for the time. Unfortunately then everybody gets a hold of it and the sound then gets into every tv score.
> 
> ...



it seems to me that you understood my post, completely, j.

dt


----------



## Ashermusic (Jan 9, 2011)

It seems to me obvious that the more the software makes the decisions for the composer with more composers using the software the more similar composers music will be.

It is not insurmountable to prevent that from happening but I think we already hear that trend becoming prevalent.

I just did my first trailer for Lionsgate. I don't usually post my stuff but since it is perhaps germane to this discussion:

http://vimeo.com/18589044

I spent a fair amount of time on it. Whether anyone likes it or does not is a subjective thing of course but I don't think it sounds particularly like most of trailer music.

It was temp tracked btw with "Habanera" from Bizet's "Carmen" and I was told to keep it somewhat operatic. The guy who hired me was happy with it.


----------



## David Story (Jan 9, 2011)

Nice work Jay, a _musical_ trailer. Sells me on the story.

IMO, a sound library can be manipulated in plenty of different ways. With available tools.
"texture & usage can mean much" , maybe all it takes to have a unique sound. You can make your own sounds from scratch, or from existing libraries.

If you have a specific sound in mind that you're not getting from a library, simply record live players. Or if you don't know what to do, improvise with live players. 

I still hear guitar sounds that seem fresh, coming from live players and from libraries. Even though there's lots of guitar libraries, I'm going to continue writing for guitar. Personally, I prefer working from live sound, I think it's more expressive, creative and fun.

I believe every style has a future.


----------



## lux (Jan 9, 2011)

from my perspective I only partly agree with what have been said here.

Sure the inner intention and gesture of the "good" musician working with those type of tools is having a personal voice and pulling off artistically valid creations out of them. 

But in all honesty i think we would do a favour to ourselves and to our future admitting that those tools, and all the trends they created, keep us prisoners as nothing did before. 

Actually i can evaluate in about 70% of my potential musical ideas being a no-no production wise. Recently most styles have been killed by the sliced/mangled mania, so that you hear producers expressely vomit at everything different, was it funky, rock, afrobeat, trance, smooth jazz...(put here hundreds more styles). Sliced diarrhea, industrial rock/metal, epic hornish orchestra and big sized percussionism are leading styles, in a way that explicitely excludes every other style and refuses any contamination. 

in my opinion this happens as it never did before. Also it introduced a new frontier for music supervisors, which is "skip the musician". So, assuming that money is involved in that process, skipping a guy means maximizing incomes, having access to royalties and so on. You can easy understand how that leads to a trend where the most "technological" the current style is, the easiest to access it for non-musicians.

So my take on original thread question is: you need absolutely to write in that style. As you have no other chances. At the same time you keep yourself trained for different writing styles, in the remote event changes occurr in actual scenarios.

In my own vision a good way to keep youself trained and fresh on writing with a personal style is probably writing in the rock/pop/electronica realm, or writing concert works. 

The historically blamed labels are probably the most free lands you can find today, which is funny per se.

my 2 cents
Luca


----------



## impressions (Jan 9, 2011)

i'm saying it again, zappa said it all on the 70's at an interview, about the producers being chicken chit with new music since the history of what style "sold" is "proven", so no need to try something else.
but it will always be like this. producers and directors that go for some royalty free music libraries get something totally unrelated to their film/project and will never get that unique sound that differs them from the others, leading them to produce quantity and not quality, since it'll be cheaper.
but i don't think this is that common, maybe on soap operas where they have 365 chapters a season..


----------



## Lunatique (Jan 9, 2011)

While I agree that rolling your own sounds can be very satisfying, and can possibly lead to a more unique result overall, but the issue is still the same--regardless of whether you created a more unique sonic palette for your glitch/slice/loop/mangled/found object creatively processed style, it is still the same style. 

Let's say two different composers--composer A is using all his own sampled sounds that he creatively processed, sliced, mangled...etc, and composer B is drawing from the thousands of patches now currently available from the various libraries. Composer A's sonic palette will likely be a bit less in terms of creativity and quality because he's not dedicating years of his life to concentrate on the most effective and interesting ways to mangle/process sounds like a professional sound designer is. I mean, guys like Diego Stocco dedicated their lives to the art of making unique sonic palettes. 

So now composer A has a lesser pool of sonic palette to draw from, while composer B has a superior and larger pool to draw from. They then both proceed to compose in the same style. If assuming they are similar in skill/talent/knowledge, then composer B's result will likely have the edge due to using sounds designed by professional, dedicated sound designers. 

Now, if scoring effects type of libraries are very few, then it'll be easy to identify all the sounds that composer B is using, and soon it becomes trite because we've heard the same sounds used over and over by other composers, but because there are now so many of these products out there (to add to the previously mentioned Vir2 and Heavyocity, there's also Native Instruments, Zero-G, Sonic Couture, EastWest, Best Service, etc. You couldn't swing a dead cat without hitting a library that's got the "Cinematic" prefix before it), it's unlikely people will be able to identify the sounds you are using when it's spread out among all these thousands of available sounds. And of course, as already mentioned, you can further process these already available sounds, which further disguises their origins. 

At this point, these types of libraries are so numerous that it's getting very close to the same discussion as whether one should synthesize their own presets or use the countless available synth presets that's available among all the commercial and free synths and preset banks. And even just doing some minor tweaking to already available presets, it's so easy to make them sound just different enough that it's now unique to your usage. So maybe what I'm talking about is nothing new--it's merely that it's now happening to composers instead of electronic artists.

Before I learned how to properly program synthesizers, I used to think that ideally, I would roll all of my own sounds, but once I spent enough time doing synth patch design, I realized that it's a double-edged sword. As soon as you start to do sound design, your feelings about the sounds you've created are forever altered--now you are subconsciously trying to "feature" these sounds in your compositions more prominently as opposed to feeling neutral about them, and that desire may not be the best thing for the composition. When using patches designed by others, you tend to be more objective, and you still have the freedom to tweak them as needed, whereas when you slaved for hours and hours on a perfectly balanced and musical patch that sounds just perfect, the last thing you want to do is alter it.

Wow, I'm getting off-topic here. Sorry about that. But I hope this is still an interesting discussion. :D




lux @ Sun Jan 09 said:


> So my take on original thread question is: you need absolutely to write in that style. As you have no other chances. At the same time you keep yourself trained for different writing styles, in the remote event changes occurr in actual scenarios.



That is definitely the ironic other side of the issue--that you're almost forced to have to work in that style because it's what's trendy. 

Personally, I don't mind that style at all, as long as it is done well and is musical, expressive, and actually goes somewhere instead of just an infinite loop that has no real development or emotional resonance. Even when just listening to the demo tracks for the various scoring effects libraries out there, you can hear immediately which ones are repetitive and emotionless, and which ones actually have a developed musical idea behind it.


----------



## Markus S (Jan 10, 2011)

I don't think it's considered bad to compose this style using those tools, if this is what you need, and it's really what your creative director wants. If there is a tool that gives you exactly that, why not use it?

I would agree with many here, that if you create your own loops and sound design you wouldn't end up anywhere near Omnisphere or Heavyocity. Your won design will have the plus that it will be unique and potentially timeless, while tools that are so easy to use, will age more quickly, but it also has the downside that it takes more time to recreate your own libs. Also if a loop is rejected you really lose a lot of your effort, while with Omnisphere you just switch to another loop. Producers might get used to this type of possible quick change, that it will get impossible to follow if you are building up your own loops. 

What worries me a bit about this is the standardisation of sound. As you can hear Stylus, Omnisphere, Heavyocity in so many production, producers start expecting this sound, and will be a lot less tolerant for any other proposition, and I think it's a pity. It becomes a "globalistion" of sound, so that everything else may seem less "good sounding", while it's rather "different sounding". That is in no way a critic of Omnisphere and/or this type of product - the production is absolutely top notch and highly creative - it is rather the reaction on it, that I'm talking about.


----------



## adg21 (Jan 10, 2011)

Lunatique @ Mon Jan 10 said:


> While I agree that rolling your own sounds can be very satisfying, and can possibly lead to a more unique result overall, but the issue is still the same--regardless of whether you created a more unique sonic palette for your glitch/slice/loop/mangled/found object creatively processed style, it is still the same style.



I still think the variation, and possible combination and processing of sounds will be infinite, both in the world of the guy who produces sounds himself, the guy who works with sample libraries, and the guy who does both. But this depends upon your perspective.

Look at Harry Gregson Williams music list in 2005
http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/dec05/a ... lliams.htm

Software synths and plug-ins include

Arturia ARP 2600, Minimoog V and CS80.
Antares Filter and Auto-Tune.
Applied Acoustics Lounge Lizard.
Gmedia Imposcar and Oddity.
GRM Tools.
Korg Legacy Collection.
Native Instruments Absynth 3, Battery 2, FM7, Kontakt 2, Pro 53, Reaktor 4.
Ohm Force Ohm Boyz.
Spectrasonics Stylus RMX, Atmosphere and Trilogy.
Steinberg D'Cota, X-Phraze, Virtual Guitarist, VG Electric Edition, Groove Agent and Halion. 

Today, this list would probably include all the current libraries too. And he will use them in all his scores, constantly, in interesting, creative, and original ways, and more often than not in combination with other stuff, like soloists, or an orchestra, or maybe hardware synths. But I wouldn't be surprised if he had written cues entirely made up of software synths and software sample libraries (it's possible) and doing it effectively.


----------



## Lunatique (Jan 10, 2011)

One thing that's kind of sad is that even though if you use a bunch of original sounds, if you use just one commercial preset/loop/patch, and someone happens to recognize it and "call you out" on it, then spread it all over the internet, all of a sudden, EVERYTHING you've done is now considered suspect, because they can't be sure if something that was really cool in your composition was created by you or someone else. 

I remember about ten years ago, I was talking to some co-workers about Kelly Bailey's score for Half-Life. I adore that score, as does many people whose lives were forever changed by that game. But then someone says, "Oh, he used this and that loop--I know which loop libraries he used too," and immediately, the attitude in the room went sour, and some had a look of disappointment on their faces, and mutterings of "Oh well. . .." were heard all around. I felt really sad for Kelley right at that moment. That score is one of the best electronic scores ever, and it's not like he just grabbed a bunch of loops and constructed the entire score that way--obviously there's a lot of originality and creativity in the score. But now because he happened to have used a few loops here and there that were identified by others, his credibility was instantly questioned. 

That was ten years ago though, and I wonder if the same conversation had taken place today, would the attitude be different?


----------



## adg21 (Jan 11, 2011)

Again I disagree. If you make an amazing piece of music that uses some commercial preset/loop/patches, as part of your composition, who cares? people on this forum? I don't think so
No-one is out to "call you out"
You liked the Half-Life score and you recognise the creativity that went behind it, despite recognising a couple of loops. Why were your music friends so scornful of it? Hell, the people that played that game, including yourself loved it, so what's the problem.

I've occasionally heard loops/or patches I recognise in good film music, pop music and other music that I have in my own collection - although I'd like to emphasise rarely. Nearly all of the time it will go unnoticed, and no-one will pick up on it, not even the most discernable VST user/sample collector, not because it's not there but because most people don't bother to listen out for it, all they care about is the end product. And if they do hear something that they recognise they'll, at the most, be chuffed for a moment that they were able to spot it, then recognising their geekness, before applauding the composer for using it effectively (if that's what they did) - rather than trying to undermine that composers whole existence. 

On the far end of the spectrum this tune is entirely made up of a Sony Sound Series Loops CD

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4sjyR-TLvmA 

Does it matter? I'll still play it at parties, and enjoy it. Just like if directors like your music they'll still use it in their films. You're merely suggesting using a single preset as part of a creative choice in your composition. There is nothing wrong, or even lazy, about that. If it's the right sound for the composition then it's the right sound for the composition. More often than not you will want to make that sound even better, but if the answer is 'no, this sound is perfect' then use it.

No-one is out to "call you out". If they do notice a loop here and there (it's unlikely) they will not care (other than perhaps your music peers, whom you should probably ignore based on your last post). If you become a mega super star film composer, still, people wont care, they will only be jealous. I think just make the best music you possibly can with all the available tools you have.


----------



## Lunatique (Jan 11, 2011)

adg21 - Your mentality is the ideal mentality that we wish all people would have, but that is not the reality. There are different factions on different sides of this debate--you may not know people from the opposing side in your personal or professional life, but that does not mean they do not exist. The fact that my co-workers had very negative reactions to hearing that Kelly used recognizable loops in his Half-Life score was a sobering and startling (as well as depressing) reality to me, because I did not expect that kind of reaction. These co-workers were passionate fans of film/game scores, and whether we think their opinion counts or not, is a different topic. We could say that only the opinions of our clients count, and that would be the end of the discussion. 

I'm not advocating anything here--just to be clear. I'm merely asking for the collective opinion of fellow composers, and also your experiences in dealing with this issue when facing clients. I personally use both original sound designs as well as presets, but I do draw a line for myself somewhere, and that is if a preset actually contains too clear of a melodic/harmonic development that I did not compose. Arp and filter patterns is fine by me, as long as there's no pre-determined chord progression or melodic line. I also don't use drum/percussion loops because as a drummer, it's simply a matter of personal pride to perform/program all of my own drums/percussion elements. For the same reason I would never use a guitar or bass or keyboard loop, because I can play or program all those instruments and how they are arranged/performed to me is part of the art. But obviously, for many commercial composers, the commerce often has to take higher priority than the art, and compromises would have to be made somewhere when the deadline is just around the corner.

As simply a fan of music, I listen to just about everything, and there are certainly music I love that are obviously using loops, including commercial ones. I even like music that's entire made of parts sampled off of existing music. It's all in how the loops/samples are used. The same set of loops/samples given to 10 different musicians would yield 10 totally different results, but I think if anyone among the 10 were to actually add their own melodic/harmonic development to those loops to offset their repetitive nature, then that would likely be the best version, because there's a continuing development instead of constant switching of parts.

The example you posted--that's perhaps just a little too loop-oriented for me, since the way the loops are used shows the limitation of that approach. There are melodic elements that my ears were expecting them to develop, but were cut short and repeated because, well, that's how long the loop was, and couldn't continue further. Had he maybe re-pitched certain melodic loops so that they could be used to develop a sense of progression instead of simply repeating, then it would've been more satisfying to me. I'm a big fan of Meat Beat Manifesto, as well as Art of Noise, and they are acknowledged pioneers of using samples taken from various sources, but what makes their music more compelling is that you never feel like there's any limitation, because the sampled elements are accompanying an originally developed melodic and harmonic frame. I think out of all the music I really like, even the ones that are heavily loop-based, there's at least a single originally developed melodic line played on a synth or something similar. But then again, if the loop libraries used contained really long melodic/harmonic elements, no one would be the wiser. Most libraries don't have those though, since they are so easily recognized.

I guess there's a bit of disconnect between how I feel as a composer vs. how I feel as a fan of music. Maybe because I'm self-taught, I always feel like I have to prove my worth and legitimacy as a composer? I suppose if I laid down in some shrink's couch, that's what he'd tell me. :D


----------



## adg21 (Jan 11, 2011)

I agree with almost everything you say, and encourage and respect your artistic approach to stay away from loops, especially contruction kits, but you already recognise the limitations in those. And I see why you didn't like the song I posted - however it was more to give an extreme example of a song made from a contruction kit. I couldn't think of an extreme example of a film or game music piece using a construction kit (perhaps someone else can? or maybe it doesn't exist) - I can find examples of loop fragments, and I can certainly recognise stormdrum sounds in scores. I also think it's wise to set yourself limitations on what you think is acceptable use of a library. 

However - although I'm not a big time composer with lots and lots of clients (so perhaps someone else can chime in) - I must say that I think that most people _don't _ think like your friends and co-workers who rubbished Kelly Bailey's skills as a composer just because they spotted a couple of loops, and that it is _their _reactions that are not the reality.


----------



## adg21 (Jan 11, 2011)

Slightly off topic but have you ever tried making a song entirely made of a construction kit? I did it with an Ueberschall kit a while back. It's actually kinda fun (especially in Ableton), but it can only sustain my attention for about 5 minutes


----------



## Lunatique (Jan 11, 2011)

Nope. I can't even use a single loop without feeling like hell. I tried once where I took a MIDI loop of a drum pattern, rendered out the audio, and then pitched it way down to the point of lots of distortion, and it made me feel like shit because I did not compose that pattern. I don't know why I have strong feelings about it--I just do. 

Maybe I'll relax a bit about this whole thing eventually, but for now, I haven't had any situations where I felt like I had to use a loop or construction kit, and it would be better than what I could do on my own. But with many libraries today blurring the boundaries between everything, I might try and see how far I'm willing to go. Some of the scoring effects type of loops are definitely very nice sounding and it would be a lot of work to try and do your own original versions. I'll see how I feel when/if I finally do it.

While some people argue that using loops of performances or patterns and whatever is not that different from collaborating with other musicians, I do think there's a difference. With collaborations, what's performed will be unique to that one piece of music, and the same musicians collaborating with someone else will get totally different results. With performance loops and what not, other musicians can use the exact same thing you did, and I think that's where if feels really awkward.

I guess it also depends on priorities. Some folk songwriter guy who strums an acoustic guitar would not give a shit if he used drum loops for his songs, since he doesn't play drums and don't know any drummers, and he couldn't be bothered to learn how to play or even program drums. But for whatever reason, I always strove to be a muti-instrumentalist and felt I had to be able to perform/program everything I do, otherwise I'd feel like crap.

I tend to always have very clear idea of exactly what I want in my head when I compose, and to try to find loops or construction kits that actually fit what's in my head would be very unintuitive for me. I do like synth arps though, and I have no problem using those since you still have to decide which notes to play, and no melodic/harmonic information was predetermined for you. There are some synth presets that are like chords though, like the ones Korg loves to design--those techno house stab chords. I don't mind those either since you still have to decide how the progression should take shape.


----------



## Dan Mott (Jan 11, 2011)

Just don't use loops then, it's that simple.

Create your own constructions and you'll feel better about it. Who cares what the library is. I like to think of it like this = I cannot play a Taiko for shit, so I use TAIKO from Nine Volt Audio, or the Taikos from Drums of War 2. Now I do not feel bad that I'm using a sound already recorded because it's pretty much almost the equivilant to hiring Taiko players to play for me which I'd do if I have the money. I don't think anyone could put you down for that. No one could put you down for using someone elses sounds.

Loops. Well these can easily be subtle if you know how to use them. Loops for someone like you would be just a fill in. Don't be afraid to use loops to blend with other sounds you constructed your self. You'd be suprised as you may already know that it can really fill the gap that was missing.

The main thing is, who should care or notice if they're enjoying your piece. I'm pretty sure if you made a piece that somebody loved then they probably wouldn't be thinking about what you used. There''s endless amounts of things you can do to sound different from the sounds that's already avaliable to you.

Make music and let it flow.


----------



## Ashermusic (Jan 11, 2011)

After all this discussion over several threads and my column. I think where I have finally come down on this is pretty much where I started: use whatever you have and have to to make the music please the client and please yourself. If that means that you incorporate loops, construction kits, etc. then unless you are under a horrendous time crunch, do the extra work to make them sound like your own, not just out of the box.


----------



## JohnG (Jan 11, 2011)

I come back to what Jay, poseur, and others were saying. Making your own sounds that you personally think are cool creates a layer of excitement that is hard to pin down but is a lot of fun.

Plus it might create the possibility of sounding like oneself a bit more, instead of like everyone else.

Every gig is a chance to be personal and individual, even if they love the temp. Personally, I have squandered some of those chances but I try not to any more. Using loops or whatever is fine but can really interfere with sounding like "you."


----------



## Jimbo 88 (Jan 11, 2011)

Personally I think loops and sample libraries are great for doing mock-ups and if you work in low end cableTV like I do it is a way to simulate a bigger budget sound.

But to create an aural stamp that is unique there is no way you can do that out of, what I call, a box. You need to use a mic and create an original sound that does not exist.

If i'm ever lucky enough to do a decent film I would consider using loops and sample libraries only as a supplement to my live recordings. I would owe that to the film.


----------



## adg21 (Jan 11, 2011)

Ashermusic @ Tue Jan 11 said:


> After all this discussion over several threads and my column. I think where I have finally come down on this is pretty much where I started: use whatever you have and have to to make the music please the client and please yourself. If that means that you incorporate loops, construction kits, etc. then unless you are under a horrendous time crunch, do the extra work to make them sound like your own, not just out of the box.



I remember a student a while back asking John Altman http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0022903/ in a lecture, "how do I make a good film score using these crappy Midi sounds [paraphrase]" [when we can't hire an orchestra. and those sounds really were crappy]. His answer was simple; just use everything you possibly can to get it sounding the way you want. Use every sound source you can, every soloist you know, your friends, local orchestra. Pure and simple, do _anything _you can, to get the best sound you possibly can. Nothing especially profound there, just thought it echoed your point.


----------



## Ashermusic (Jan 13, 2011)

Thank you David and Brian for the kind words.


----------

