# Where do YOU draw the line?



## Ashermusic (Dec 20, 2010)

I hope this can be a nice discussion about this issue without rancor and people calling other people elitisits, etc. 

In recent years we have a rash of quite wonderful sounding products like Symphobia, Morphestra, Stylus RMX, DZ Strings, Apple Loops, and now CineOrch, that make it possible for a "composer" to make pretty darned great sounding stuff without much real knowledge of orchestration, composition, harmony, counterpoint, etc. I have no interest in debating whether this is a bad thing or a good thing because it is just reality, just as I have no interest in debating whether Autotune is a bad or good thing for singers who cannot sing in tune. These tools are here to stay and no one has to pass a test to buy and use them.

And in no way do I mean to criticize the very talented developers who are creating these remarkable products. 

What I AM interested in is where various members draw their own lines as to how they use the tools, nakedly or more artfully. Speaking for myself, I am not a purist. Back in the day I used a Korg Wavestation SR with its "sequences" and I use Stylus RMX and some string runs, harp glissandi, etc. BUT:

Back to when I had the Wavestation: It had some sequences like "Pharoah's Jig" and "Midnight Run" that became fairly ubiquitous. I heard them all over the place. The thing was rather difficult to program and some composers would hire guys to make custom sequences. I learned to do a little programming and would always try to change it or put it in the mix in a way that it sounded quite different. Why? Because in my own mind simply holding down a key and letting a sequence play did not feel like composing and was not emotionally satisfying.

A very successful TV composer whose work I generally liked was scoring a good show where he was doing precisely that, holding notes to trigger the sequences just as they were, totally unadorned, with maybe a string pad underneath. First of all, I didn't think it worked with the picture. But secondly, in my mind, that just was not composing. Had I asked him, he probably would have said something like, 'Jay, I have 5 shows on the air and a lot of minutes of music to turn out. I think it works and so do the producers."

And while he would be right in terms of the end result, I could not live with it (I don't think.) Call it ego, call it pride of authorship, whatever, I would feel compelled to do more or at least bring in another composer to help.

When I use RMX i.e. I always change or add/remove some MIDI notes, re-quantize, change the FX, etc. A friend said to me,"Are you sure you are improving them?" My response was "I may be making them better or I may be making them worse but at least I am trying to make them mine."

A distinction without a real difference? Perhaps, but it allows me to continue to feel like a composer and I do believe it keeps my music from sounding just like everyone else's. WHich is the OTHER real danger. If we all buy and use these libraries, is there not a danger that everyone's music is going to start to lack an individual personality, or will the composer's personality always shine through, regardless of the tools? And even when using these tools, is the outcome likely to be more musical with a composer who really knows what he is doing than one who does not?

I think this is worth a thoughtful discussion. If you think you will feel compelled make comments attacking not just an argument but the person making the argument, do me a favor and stay out of the thread. This may or may not be the basis of the next column I do for Film Music Magazine.


----------



## wqaxsz (Dec 20, 2010)

Ashermusic @ Mon Dec 20 said:


> Where do YOU draw the line?.




:arrow: _________________________________________


----------



## dinerdog (Dec 20, 2010)

I guess where Eric Persing does with the vocal sample in the Mercedes spot. I couldn't use a bare sample just played as it is unless it was mine or had some additional elements.

It's not so much drawing the line as I just don't like patches/sounds that I can't put my imprint on. If I can't play some notes to make it funky (or whatever I'm trying to do) I just don't usually write with it.

In the end, I don't draw the line on ANYTHING as a tool, but 99.9% of the time I'd 'like' to make it mine. I think we'd all like to do that, but these days you may have to weigh that with how you continue to make a living. In a way it's like being asked to ape a certain sound/style/composer etc., just a different side of the coin to deal with.

btw, I think it's tooooo big a discussion to even have and not (to me) worth having because it takes time away from writing/promoting/learning/seeking/ etc... : >


----------



## JohnG (Dec 20, 2010)

Loops and similar quasi-composed building blocks take over when I try to use them, and it ends up taking me longer to work around them and try to make them my own than it would to start from scratch. 

Plus, I like to write in 5/8 7/8 and what-not and it can be time-consuming to corral elements that have a pulse or pattern into a non-quarter note (crotchet) metre.

So that's the main reason I don't use them or, at most, sparingly. 

My philosophical perspective is that I generally am less impressed with Garageband musique concrete than by a string serenade. I admire something that is not just conceptually cool but also difficult to accomplish (or at least the execution requires skills that have built up over a period of extended effort and study). So, in ranking two pieces of work, I usually rate the more-difficult-to-execute/make piece more highly, even though both may be arresting. 

I realise that this is arguably arbitrary, but I would rate a "found art" collage or a photograph below an oil painting if required to assess its "greatness," by way of comparison.

And I think there is actually a reason. Works that are mostly one idea, even if the idea is as engaging and vivid as a Brancusi sculpture, seem to me less susceptible to revealing different truths on repeat experiences. By contrast, Rembrandt portraits for me have been marvelous since I first saw them in a picture book as a child. Fairly recent visits to the Rijksmuseum in Amsterdam and the National Gallery in London have, if anything, underlined the richness of those paintings, as I think I see new things every time I look at them.


----------



## lux (Dec 20, 2010)

in all honesty i feel those discussions are loosing every sense. Fact is that composers are not sincere on this matter. Expecially those who actually work.

In reality is not up to composer to draw the line, but its up to those which choose and use the music, being them directors or supervisors. If you have to work on someone thats the place.

Composers are already loosen off. Nothò  ã   } á  ã   }  ã   }b  ã   }Å  ã


----------



## wst3 (Dec 20, 2010)

Until recently I had a personal rule that I did not use patches, sound effects, or the like as-is. Like others here, I had to put my personal touch on it - probably just the way I was 'trained.'

I also wanted to avoid sounding like "everyone else" - which was a direct result of nearly everyone using the same 15-20 DX7 patches<G>. That used to drive me nuts. It wasn't a big deal for a cover band, heck they were often trying to reproduce the recording (another idea that makes no sense to me), but to hear the same FM based electric piano on song after song on the radio?

There is a place for copying other peoples work! I can play many of my favorite guitar solos note-for-note as they were recorded, and trust me, in some cases that was no small feat. It was, however, a great learning exercise to transcribe them. Same goes for learning to re-create synthesizer patches, and transcribing arrangements (something I still struggle with.)

But when a composition or recording goes out with my name on it I try to make it as much mine as I can. So I program my own patches, sometimes I am trying to capture a feel or vibe from a factory patch, other times I am trying to create something new that I hear in my head. I find it very rewarding.

And I'm not quite as strict with my Use No Factory Patches rule, I have used a bunch of patches that came with FM7 and Pro-53. They sounded great, and I simply could not imagine improving upon them.

Which leads us to sample libraries... 

going back to the bad old days, I did fiddle with EPS/ASR libraries sometimes, but that's when I started using things 'stock' - with the complexity of libraries today for Kontakt, and GS before it, well, I just don't have the bandwidth to customize them for myself, or even learn to customize them for myself.

Since CineOrch seems to have been the catalyst here... I have spent more than a couple hours trying to create exactly this sort of sound using the libraries I own. I have not succeeded.

Might be that I am voicing the chords differently, but I think the single biggest factor is that they sampled live players playing the chords. It IS different, and if you want those sorts of stabs this may be the best way to get them, today. I'll buy it, and I'll use it, in conjunction with other libraries I own, but for that sound it seems to me that sampling exactly that sound will win 9 times out of 10.

Sound effects remain the one area where I absolutely have to create my own, whether it is from material I recorded myself or from the SFX libraries that I own. These are simply raw materials to me, and I combine them, chop them, filter them, whatever, till I get the sound I want.

This past spring I created sound effects for a play called "Ghost Train" - I ended up using material from a bunch of sample libraries to create the various train sounds. I ended up using no "real" train sound effects. My only failure was that I made the whistle sound a bit too modern, some audience members were disappointed that it sounded like a whistle on a diesel engine, and not a steam engine. That's pretty bad actually, but you have to learn from your mistakes too! (I thought it sounded fine, still do, but I am not the final judge.)


----------



## lux (Dec 20, 2010)

edit: nevermind


----------



## dcoscina (Dec 20, 2010)

I use Symphobia 1 & 2 and will use CineOrchestra as an accent more than a fundamental musical element in my music. Sometimes it's great to end a section with a powerful unison that does sound better with the whole group sampled together as opposed to building it. The challenge is to fuse these parts sonically with the separate sections and instruments so that they don't call attention to themselves. I think that takes a similar mind as one that composes- basically it's bending and varying the raw material to make a cogent musical statement out of it. 

I recently completed a cue for a film where I used some string swells from S2. Yes, I did my own chord voicings but it's not too dissimilar to grabbing a tutti patch to add to the mix. The chord options for me might be a little tricky as I like to work with a lot of harmonic extensions that go past the major, minor, augmented chords. I might have to get inventive with those.


----------



## jeffc (Dec 20, 2010)

Hey Jay - 

Interesting topic, that I'm sure all of us deal with everyday. I'm sure we all strive to be original in our own way, and it's great hypothetically until you're in the fire with huge deadlines and then your 'morals' are put to the test. I can at least to myself say, and I'm sure someone would disagree, that I've rarely used just a stock, push button, type of sound no matter how busy, even I don't even know how different the end result sounds than if I had. But I really try. And it's funny, on the 'crime' type stuff that I do, I don't even use Evolve or all that type of stuff, even though I'm sure it would make my life a hell of a lot easier!

But, as a personal aside, I've found another issue with using Symphobia and the sorts. I've done two films recently, that were eventually recorded with a real orchestra. And using some Symphobia full-keyboard string,brass, and ww patches - still playing the notes - made ten times more work in the end, in having to decipher it all and spread it out to the real instruments. What seems like a time saver in the demo stages, ends up costing more time in the end, because you have to extract what was played to the individual instruments, which would have been easier to just do from the start! 

So, as I begin on a new film, I find a question that I will always ask at the beginning of a project is "will it eventually be played live for real?" If so, I will seriously try not to use any ensemble stuff, because of all the busywork it creates later in orchestrating. If it's all synth, then great, no worries and the stuff sounds great. I'm literally doing something now, where hearing CineOrch, I'm like, man that will make the demos sound great, but figuring it out later - is it worth it?

Anyway, back to your topic!


----------



## José Herring (Dec 20, 2010)

I draw the line at products like symphobia and the new cinesamples instant chord stuff. 

First, as Jeffc mentioned it's impossible to figure out the orchestration after the fact if you do eventually go to live players, but for me more basically it's just a musician thing. At what point does your personal integrity kick in an you say, "this is no longer composing". I kind of feel the same way about Autotune in the pop world. Listening to new R&B stuff, at what point do you need to step up and say, yes it's making money, but this is no longer music making.

Well, I think it's for every person do decide for themselves. I think there are advantages to using products like Symphobia and the Low Chord patch of that cinesamples release. The one note traid patch is worthless to say the least, but the low chord patch sounds good. But, for me there comes a point where you have to say to yourself, "if I go below this line, then it's no longer worth doing it". For me personally if I'm not taking the time to figure out my own chord voicings and I'm relying on Martin S. or Mike B. to figure it out for me, then for me you've given up the job of composer and have gone into the yet unexplored field of digital arranger. Which is a field that I've never had any interest in.


----------



## rgames (Dec 20, 2010)

I rarely use loops in my tracks and almost always modify pre-sequenced material (e.g. from Stylus). However, I don't think there's anything wrong with using the push-button approach. It's just not a creative approach.

If a composer has spent time learning what's available in the various libraries, push-button or otherwise, then he has value to the producer/director who needs something that works right away. Sure, it blurs the line between composer and music supervisor, but the customer doesn't care.

I've drawn parallels between music and photography before and I'll do it again here: nowadays, anybody can take a decent photo and meet the needs of most people. Is it a creative protrait? Probably not. But most people don't care: the push-button photographer knows which button to push and he's spent money on the equipment, so people pay him to do it.

Same thing with, say, an auto mechanic. You may have a common problem that has a simple solution that the mechanic has employed hundreds of times. It doesn't require any creativity on the part of the mechanic but people are willing to pay for that bit of knowledge.

I think the fundamental issue you're driving at is recognition for creativity. Sure, it seems like the guy who writes a very creative piece of music should be held in higher regard than the guy who uses the push-button approach. Again, though, most people don't care.

The good news is that creativity *is* rewarded by history. Unfortunately, duplication is rewarded by the present.

rgames


----------



## wesbender (Dec 20, 2010)

I generally agree with pretty much everyone here so far.

I never use loops for drums/percussion simply because I enjoy making my own parts, and I think they sound/work better than any loops could. I'll occasionally use a tempo-synced shaker or something though.

As far as ensemble stuff, I think it's effective as kind of a 'thickening' device, to add some texture to the orchestration, but I never really have it exposed on it's own.

I'm guilty of using many Omnisphere patches though that have probably already been used to death, just because they sound so damn good.

Having said all that though, I have absolutely nothing against people who use this stuff exclusively. The way I see it, good music comes from someone who knows how to make good music, not someone who knows how to make a slick production with fancy 'pre-assembled' orchestration.


----------



## David Story (Dec 20, 2010)

The engineer mind-set is en vogue. The tool, the object itself is the goal. "It sounds just like an orchestra (for 5 seconds)!" "Beautiful interface." "Superior programing"

And the people I work with will accept naked technology sometimes. But they usually prefer music that has specific emotion and a POV(theirs). And a shape that fits the scene.
Those can't be preset, most of the time. That's part of composing.

I welcome tools that are both user-friendly and flexible. So the goal is helping me achieve creative musical storytelling.

The orchestra in a box gives you a known sound that works at your fingertips. Saves time and money. 

The hidden cost is lowering standards, and lost jobs. Time saving here also means putting composers, performers and engineers out of work. If you can't conform to preset sounds, or adjust the plugins to make it sound great, you can't compete. Why use live, the box is cheap. That other guy did it in a day, he said he just used "x".
And who needs music knowledge, just make friends with the producer and push the button. 

People can tell quality, if given a choice. Automated composing make it harder to provide a choice. Fast and cheap often come first. But what about integrity? Do you respect tradition, look ahead to the future?

My line is I always hire live players. But composers who are determined to engineer a better fake make it hard for us to survive. I think that's one agenda here, to replace composers with engineers. It's working. We're becoming China-ish


----------



## David Story (Dec 20, 2010)

I agree Jose, a unique sound is vital. It's easier than ever to have a polished, stock sound. In my experience, what will sell is 10% unique and 90% familiar. Good unique goes a long way.

Every era has a standard sound, and I'm fine with that.

I'd like a virtual orchestra with live players. I make a 4 line sketch, and send it to the players, who get a wav back the next day, or faster. An engineer mixes. If it needs to be bigger, we go to live orchestra, or mix in more samples. 4 good players can do a lot.

I want samples that are easier to play. Right now that means either constraint to a particular sound, like a loop or fixed orchestration. Or a synthy sound. I'd rather have the sampler do what only it can do. Like distorted textures, or techno leads. Otherwise take a supporting role.

What bugs me are libraries that are expensive, have a steep learning curve, and whose purpose is to replace musicians with hardware and software. Can't we all just play together?


----------



## mikebarry (Dec 20, 2010)

Throwing on my composer hat:

2 Words

Get'r done. 

I'll do anything to get a cue approved and move on with my life. If i want to do art I'll go the symphony. Just to add, every time I do something artistically creative the director usually cringes "can it be more like the temp?"


----------



## P.T. (Dec 20, 2010)

While I can see people on short schedules and time restraints using these tools, I can't but think they are ultimately bad for music.

Eventually you are just getting pre-packaged music that gets rearranged here and there.


----------



## Ashermusic (Dec 20, 2010)

mikebarry @ Mon Dec 20 said:


> Throwing on my composer hat:
> 
> 2 Words
> 
> ...



Mike, surely there is at least sometimes a middle ground between "art" and just "get the cue approved" for you, no? 

And as for "move on with my life" composing for picture is what I choose to do with my life and frankly there is little I would rather do. So "move on" to what, golf, tennis?

I am not being critical of you, just seeking to understand where you are coming from.


----------



## mikebarry (Dec 20, 2010)

Jay you should know me! Hockey Baby! 

In all seriousness i've been practicing piano again so that takes a large chunk of my day - but I do love hockey, I watch 1-2 games a day. Other then that normal social stuff, gym, hang out, poker etc.. I guess I get my artistic reward via playing piano, always have. Thats why I have 3 different editions of the Beethoven sonatas when I am practicing.

I can see where you guys are coming from a purely theoretical level, but no one enjoys having cues being rejected or panicking over a deadline.


----------



## P.T. (Dec 20, 2010)

I write everything except for some drum/ percussion things because those are a completely different skill set.

I will use one measure midi loops and arrange them sort of like using a drummer and having him play different patterns and then me saying, OK, play that one here and that other one in this part, etc.

I don't use the type of evolving pads that sound almost like a song in themselves.
I want to make the music and those types of pads just seem the same as assembling other people's music and rearranging it.


----------



## Mr. Anxiety (Dec 20, 2010)

> Throwing on my composer hat:
> 
> 2 Words
> 
> Get'r done.




Ouch! I at least make it about the music, regardless of the external forces involved; it's not that hard to do. And who knows, you might even influence the approval rate.

Sorry............. drawing an "off topic" line


----------



## midphase (Dec 20, 2010)

At the risk of repeating a cliché....with great power comes great responsibility.

What I mean by that is that these new tools are providing an unprecedented level of realism and production value to everyone, they are the true democratization of the art form. But just because we can, it doesn't always mean that we should.

One of my biggest concerns arising out of these new breed of tools is how much easier our jobs have become, and when about 10 years ago, it was pretty accepted that it would take about 2 days to churn out a finished 1 minute of music, fast forward to 2011 (soon) and we can easily churn out about 10 minutes in 1 day if we need to...and it will sound damn good.

So what this could create is the ushering of an era where movies are scored in days and not weeks (or months), and where composers' rates drop even more significantly because of this accelerated (yet easier) process. So whereas a few years ago most of us would have turned down a low paying film, now it's becoming more "doable" since at least it won't require too much of our time...and this is a bad thing. Why? Because it will lead to an even more homogenized sound, more lack of melodies, and more bland scores--which in turn will become more accepted by various directors and producers and the downward spiral will keep feeding unto itself.

So how do we police ourselves? How do we purchase and use these tools, but not allow them to use us? Good question. I think one way is to hold on strongly to our wages and deadlines and refuse to budge even though we know we can. Another way is to strive to always be musical and not become lazy.

As I say this, I also would like to present a flipside. I am not always compelled to make the loops and phrases my own. There are times where that Stylus groove simply works as is, and me messing with it just makes it not work anymore. Change for the sake of change can be just as dangerous of a thing as utter lack of change. Eric P and the rest of the gang have labored long and hard to create some very useable sounds right out of the box, and to change those sounds without a good reason seems as silly to me as wanting to repaint Ikea furniture because otherwise my home will look like every other home.

Remember this...we (composers) are not the audience. We might pat ourselves on our collective backs for our keen ear in recognizing all the Stylus loops and Omnisphere patches in TV shows and various ads...but rest assured that the rest of the World doesn't notice nor care.


----------



## Dan Mott (Dec 20, 2010)

1. Don't use loops for percussion - Boring otherwise, not to mention that is doesn't make me feel very good, nor I like the loops that are out there because I want my own flavour.

2. Would never use loops for orchestral stuff. Would never buy something like cineorch, even though I think it's an awesome idea. I couldn't stand just playing a key and it plays some nice chord for me which is already pre mixed. In this part of composition I like to creative everything on my own. I suppose it's a little different in my case because I make songs with lyrics which are not for film or a picture, just out of my own pleasure. I suppose it's awesome for composers who need to get stuff done quick and I have no issue with this because I could completely understand if one would have to draw the line in this situation.

3. I use Omni pad presets - I really like them so much, and pretty much alot of them are exactly what I'm thinking in my head. So I start with a preset and than I might layer another, or morph it and such. These patches create moods for me, then I pretty much write to that mood because I think it's a great starting point for what mood I chose in the first place. Basically, playing around with presets at the start really get's me inspired to expand and use my own creativity because it's sometimes hard to start. I don't think this is a bad thing.

4. If I ever chose a loop for my song, I would use it to add on to something else. Pretty much I use loops to fill the gap which generally are some of the softest parts of my mixes.

5. I just like to hear good music and I personally do not really care how it's done. I know some would hate me for saying that, but I just like what I hear and if it's doneò  ç   ¶®  ç   ¶ò  ç   ¶¸  ç   ¶Û  ç   ¶»	  ç   ¶»ç  ç   ¶É´  ç   ¶Ê—  ç   ·XJ  ç   ·X


----------



## windshore (Dec 21, 2010)

I find that the line is often drawn for us.

As already mentioned, it continues to be faster & faster to create good sounding scores. This speed continues to drive pricing and time allowed further down. Because clients need to spend less time and less money to music means that Music continues to have less and less value in the "food chain" of production.

Few composers in certain sectors of the industry, particularly TV are given the time, much less the budget to use live players, or spend much time creatively nurturing a particular piece. I play many instruments, yet there are more and more circumstances where I'm under such a time constraint that I can barely even overdub my primary instruments. 

These great new tools will continue to replace more and more of us. Just wait till the 4th generation of *iComposer*.


----------



## mikebarry (Dec 21, 2010)

Just want to post a lovely email we received today:



> Ha ha ha..
> 
> You guys have just made my Christmas!!!!
> 
> ...



The part in bold is what its all about!


----------



## Ashermusic (Dec 21, 2010)

I am going to reply to several posts in one post.

@Kays: 
I agree with most of your post. The dangers are indeed how you have outlined them. 2 points I will take issue with: 3 minutes a day was pretty much the standard 10 years ago. It would escalate up to 5 near the end of a tight deadline but then we would use come sopra instructions to our copyists.
Secondly, the "audience" for film composers is only secondarily the film's viewers. We ourselves and our clients are the primary audience so I still am going to alter those Stylus loops and Omni patches

@ windshore: 
Yes it is true, and yet you already have Jeff C who I know has tough deadlines but manages to work to put his own stamp on things. So I still have hope.

@ Mike Barry: 
I hope you do not think we are trying to put you on the defensive here. In no way is anything being said here a knock on you or what you are doing with your products, anymore than an auto manufacturer who makes an affordable fast and stylish car is responsible for those who drive too fast and injure people in a car crash. That said, I am a little dismayed about how little enthusiasm you seem to have for doing work that a lot of folks would kill to have, tough deadlines and all.


----------



## Frederick Russ (Dec 21, 2010)

This sounds vaguely familiar to some of the arguments that ensued when Symphonic Adventures came out with fully orchestrated slices that you could basically arrange to make a cue.

In a perfect world, you will of course have all the time necessary to fully orchestrate, write, detail and arrange every aspect of the cue with loads of time to do so. Deadlines are given with plenty of time to spare to finish a project. You sleep 7-1/2 hours a night. You have a life other than composing and your health is good.

Its not a perfect world. It seems that the demands of television run on really intense production schedules - sleep? What's that? And you wanted it when? These new products address a particular market of composers in the trenches especially in light of tight deadlines made worse by multiple revision hell.

I don't see this as a replacement for good orchestration chops. The only caveat I see with these time saver devices (essential one one hand to tv composers) is the risk of being overused by several dozen composers who end up sounding alike. In my opinion however, the only tie breaker in that case will always end up leaning upon old fashioned sweat equity in writing, arranging and orchestration. That said, having props to help a composer in the trenches does help as long as it doesn't become an addiction for obvious reasons.


----------



## windshore (Dec 21, 2010)

Ashermusic @ 12/21/2010 said:


> @ windshore:
> Yes it is true, and yet you already have Jeff C who I know has tough deadlines but manages to work to put his own stamp on things. So I still have hope.


We have to have hope!

In the daily reality of working as a composer today, we're rarely asked to be original. We need to sound like the temp.

And yes no knock to Cinesamples in my comments. It's about a race led by technology to a place that scares many of us who really care about "Music."


----------



## synthetic (Dec 22, 2010)

Ashermusic @ Tue Dec 21 said:


> @ Mike Barry:
> I hope you do not think we are trying to put you on the defensive here. In no way is anything being said here a knock on you or what you are doing with your products, anymore than an auto manufacturer who makes an affordable fast and stylish car is responsible for those who drive too fast and injure people in a car crash.





> Just to clarify, I have NOT taken a position that people should not use these kind of libraries. I have only raised the issues of what do you guys see as the consequences of using them and how far do you individuals who use them feel compelled to find ways to personalize them.



WTF, you first brought this subject up in the thread he made announcing CineOrch. "I'm going to have to write a column about this." How does that not put him on the defensive? And why do you insist on trolling people in their proud moment of announcing a new library?


----------



## autopilot (Dec 22, 2010)

I think patches like these (and I put it with OSR) are awesome for the three notes you might use them for in a whole peice. 

And you may well be wise to write a piece around those three notes that sound great - we all write for our samples (which I think is kinda like writing for a violin's open G - a recogntition of the individual characteristics of instruments) 

Some will overuse them, but we all do that at times as we get to know our instruments (you should hear how many runs there are in my last piece) 

But - IMHO good varied sample based composing will use all of that, but also all the other varied colours that you may need to assemble from a much larger number of samples. 

So I have no problems at all with it. We'll use it, or overuse it, or use it well, and then eventualy stop using it as the next group and generation of cool samples comes online.


----------



## Ashermusic (Dec 22, 2010)

synthetic @ Wed Dec 22 said:


> Ashermusic @ Tue Dec 21 said:
> 
> 
> > @ Mike Barry:
> ...



It is interesting Jeff that others says things like "interesting topic", "cool thread" and one member called me and told me it should definitely be a column." Out of over 40 responses, you are the only one who reacted this way.

So who is the troll?


----------



## synthetic (Dec 22, 2010)

Reread the CineOrch announcement thread, especially the last few pages. You derailed the discussion from "check out our cool new library" to your own topic. I know you love to make every discussion about you, but it's rude to the developers who spend so many man hours making these libraries for us.


----------



## synthetic (Dec 22, 2010)

As you did with the Gnomehammer announcement thread. And you certainly stoked the "EW Towers" thread as well.


----------



## David Story (Dec 22, 2010)

I like Jay's thoughtful questions and posts. Gets me thinking from a fresh perspective, like this thread.


----------



## autopilot (Dec 22, 2010)

provocative, but not trolls. 

Either of you.

It's Christmas. 

Lighten up.


----------



## autopilot (Dec 22, 2010)

Now back onto the question. 

It's a tool. Like a nail gun. 

Some will use it well. 

Some will use too many nails. 

Some will decry the death of the hammer. 

Others will keep using the hammer for the times when a nail gun won't work. 

Some won't be able to build without a nailgun

Some won't want to use it. 

Some will make spice racks, some will make heirlooms.

It's a tool.

Love yas all


----------



## Ashermusic (Dec 22, 2010)

Folmann @ Wed Dec 22 said:


> 99.999999999999999999999999% of the people we are making the music for truly don't care about this, so why even bother discussing whether its right/wrong? There are lots of things that multi-samples cannot do. So why not enjoy the best of both worlds instead of spending your precious time wondering whether its ethical or not?



Are you talkin' to me? 

Speaking for myself, I didn't raise the issue of ethics, I was only asking people to discuss what their personal approach is to using these tools is that still makes them still feel like they are composing. 

Why bother? I just think it is interesting to see the diversity of opinions and apparently so do about 30 other people.

Once again, I am not trying to discourage anyone from using these tools. I use some of them myself.


----------



## synthetic (Dec 22, 2010)

By all means ask these questions – just *not in the announcement thread!!* Of course you're entitled to your opinions. I'm just tired of cool library announcements being derailed by vanity.


----------



## Ashermusic (Dec 22, 2010)

synthetic @ Wed Dec 22 said:


> By all means ask these questions – just *not in the announcement thread!!* Of course you're entitled to your opinions. I'm just tired of cool library announcements being derailed by vanity.



I started a new thread just to avoid that but there is no winning with you. Frankly I don't care as you are not a person I hold in high regard.

Mods, Jeff is right about one thing, we need an ignore button.


----------



## synthetic (Dec 22, 2010)

Ashermusic @ Wed Dec 22 said:


> I started a new thread just to avoid that but there is no winning with you.



Are you delusional? You posted this on the first page of the CineOrch thread: 



> While it does sounds great, I have such mixed feelings about this kind of product. I am not criticizing the developers of them as there is a market for them and several including the Mikes are doing a great job.
> 
> Actually, this is grounds fro its own topic which I will start. There might be a column for me in it.



And that sidebar is the dominant conversation on the library. 



> Frankly I don't care as you are not a person I hold in high regard. Mods, Jeff is right about one thing, we need an ignore button.



Nice, another personal attack? I suppose I shouldn't expect better.


----------



## Ashermusic (Dec 22, 2010)

synthetic @ Wed Dec 22 said:


> Ashermusic @ Wed Dec 22 said:
> 
> 
> > I started a new thread just to avoid that but there is no winning with you.
> ...



I see, so when you said it was all about me and my vanity, that was not a personal attack?

I made a comment that I was conflicted about such libraries and would start another thread to discuss it. If others then commented on my comment, it means it struck a chord with some. I am not responsible for the fact that it continued to be discussed in the commercial announcement.

What happened to the idea that you would just ignore me? I thought it was a fine one.


----------



## David Story (Dec 22, 2010)

...The question is also about credit and authorship. If you push a button that activates a complex process created by someone else, you might give that person credit in the result. I like when people put a gear list in their credits. 

Some products are in a grey area. Writing, recording and programing a big orchestration patch is getting close to a credit threshold. 

I agree that removing all barriers to use of powerful tools has dangers. A symphony orchestra is more than a toy. You devalue music when you flood the market with quick knock-offs of quality music. 

But I know there are guys who think it's all good; maybe. 

Dom Perignon tasts different than Thunderbird.


----------



## José Herring (Dec 22, 2010)

David Story @ Wed Dec 22 said:


> Dom Perignon tasts different than Thunderbird.



Personally I prefer Veuve Clicquot. 

Funny though. I'm working a cue today. I'm using low chords as a bed for a horn solo. Was thinking that Cineorch might make my life easier.....hmmmmmm

:lol:


----------



## David Story (Dec 22, 2010)

josejherring @ Wed Dec 22 said:


> Personally I prefer Veuve Clicquot.



I'll drink to that.






http://www.veuve-clicquot.com/


----------



## Peter Alexander (Dec 23, 2010)

I wasn't offended by Jay's comment in the original thread as it did bring up a point for some of us. 

However, before I say anything, for the record, I still have a Korg Wavestation A/D and I remember those patches!

Now - the discussion!

I learned a big lesson from Henry Mancini when we talked about orchestrators one day. He said to me that he had reached a place in his career that when he put his name on something, all the notes hò  ð   ÖÅ  ð   ÖÅh  ð   ÖË™  ð   ÖË«  ð   ÖËà  ð   ÖËõ  ð   ÖÕ’  ð   ÖÕé  ð   Öø  ð   Öø'  ð   ×®  ð   ×  ð   ×€:  ð   ×€N  ð   ×‚Ù  ð   ×„&  ð   ×¯t  ð   ×¯Ý  ð   ×Å@  ð   ×Å©  ð   ×ÉÆ  ð   ×Ê’  ð   Ør  ð   Øƒ  ð   Ø™%  ð   Ø™x  ð   Øž%  ð   Øž1  ð   Øž=  ð   ØžE  ð   Ø¦Z  ð   Ø¦œ  ð   Ø§f  ð   Ø§Ã  ð   ØÙ  ð   ØÙ«  ð   ØÙÇ  ð   ØÙä  ð   ØàÞ  ð   Øá,  ð   Ù  ð   Ùy  ð   Ù5l  ð   Ù5×  ð   Ù^¸  ð   Ù^à  ð   Ù“n  ð   Ù“¸  ð   Ù§I  ð   Ù§f  ð   Ù²÷  ð   Ù³7  ð   Ù»ñ  ð   Ù¼  ð   Ùè¾  ð   Ùèõ  ð   Ùìs  ð   Ùì¦  ð   Ú,  ð   ÚN  ð   Ú	R  ð   Ú	~  ð   Ú(  ð   Úe  ð   ÚË  ð   Ú&  ð   Úh“  ð   Új‘  ð   Ûx‚  ð   Ûy  ð   ÛƒJ  ð   Ûƒî  ð   Û»æ  ð   Û»ý  ð   Û¼U  ð   Û¼„  ð   Ü1»  ð   Ü2w  ð   ÜdÂ  ð   Üdî  ð   ÜƒØ  ð   Üƒö  ð   Ü†_  ð   Ü†Ž  ð   Ü‡  ð   Ü‡í  ð   Üö  ð   Ü:  ð   ÝÊ  ð   Ýò  ð   Ý±  ð   Ýâ  ð   ÝY  ð   Ýr  ð   ÝAH  ð   ÝAc  ð   ÝHÀ  ð   ÝI=  ð   Ý§³  ð   Ý§Ô  ð   Ýï·  ð   Ýïñ  ð   Þ„  ð   Þx  ð   Þ¼  ð   Þð  ð   ÞG  ð   Þª  ð   Þ  ð   Þ[  ð   ßÈo  ð   ßÈØ              ò  ð   à”  ð   à8+  ð   à8•  ð   à®½  ð   à¯  ð   à³ü  ð   à´  ð   à¼–  ð   à¼î  ð   àÇë  ð   àÈ  ð   áÍ  ð   á   ð   â¤(  ð   â¤]  ð   â§Í  ð   â¨U  ð   ã`ñ  ð   ãa‰  ð   ãn•  ð   ãn£  ð   ãa  ð   ãž	  ð   ãµ  ð   ãµñ  ð   ãÊ(  ð   ãÊY  ð   ãÎË  ð   ãÎì  ð   ãÔ§  ð   ãÔÓ  ð   ä&  ð   äX  ð   åž  ð   åž  ð   å«’  ð   å«ß  ð   åÂ’  ð   åÃA  ð   æ&n  ð   æ&Ž  ð   æ2~  ð   æ3~  ð   ç?¢  ð   ç@1  ð   çƒ  ð   ç„  ð   ç¥ß  ð   ç¦ƒ  ð   çß}  ð   çß¸  ð   çè¤  ð   çèÛ  ð   çý€  ð   çýÖ  ð   èv®  ð   èvô  ð   èá­  ð   èáÑ  ð   èä,  ð   èåÑ  ð   èêE  ð   èêˆ  ð   èóŠ  ð   èó§  ð   èùŠ  ð   èù¥  ð   é X  ð   é Å  ð   é/  ð   é  ð   é#ª  ð   é$


----------



## johncarter (Dec 23, 2010)

One day a friend or a musician will ask us about our last cue done with CineOrch or any other pieces of software : "how did you voice the chords, could you show me on the piano ? "

And we'll answer "oh I dont know a program did it for me " ? 


No , seriously, Cineorch sounds great ... and if it sounds better than the samples, so lets use it. But one should at least learn how to voice chords properly. I mean , it's like a writer who couldnt write properly !!! ( I hope i didnt do any grammar faults as english is not my native language  ) 

With these softwares we're shooting ourselves in the foot... imo. 
Because, at the same time, it's pretty useful to us , in case of tight deadlines, etc ...
but we're also showing directors, producers, that music is "easy" to do. That you just have to play one note to get a 70 pieces orchestra playing.

And it's NOT good for us. We need to show people that music is hard to do, that it needs lot of knowledges... and not simply getting the right software..


----------



## Ashermusic (Dec 23, 2010)

LOL!

If I use this in an article can I change it to "I do not like having sexual intercourse with a woman with another man's penis?"


----------



## noiseboyuk (Dec 23, 2010)

johncarter @ Thu Dec 23 said:


> One day a friend or a musician will ask us about our last cue done with CineOrch or any other pieces of software : "how did you voice the chords, could you show me on the piano ? "
> 
> And we'll answer "oh I dont know a program did it for me " ?
> 
> ...



OK, I get the argument here, but....

I'm still perplexed, in the first place, as to how this has blown up over CineOrch. Have you listened to any of the Symphobia multis? S2 is even more ridiculous than S1. And of course there were forerunners that sounded amazing 10 years ago, There is nothing new in CineOrch at all - it's just cheap, well done and useful, that's all.

But the other point is this. What is your suggestion as to how to respond? You can't put the genie back in the bottle. Symphobia and CineOrch are with us. Are you hoping, by debate here, to dissuade developers going down this road? If so I think you'll be falling on deaf ears. Like it or not, these sorts of products WILL increase, it's inevitable. They produce better results in less time for more people, so there's no real debate about that.

So where does that leave this argument? I know for a fact that some composers don't get so much work now because they didn't stay with the times technically. I see no option but to embrace this stuff, because if you don't others will. Let's not forget - CineOrch is mighty impressive, but is very limited in what it can do. It's whole conception was to help in a few specific areas, which it does brilliantly. IMHO, one of it's greatest strengths may prove to be a compositional aid, the chord patches give you a great kick to start and will suggest melodies on top. Might be a little compositionally backwards, but if it works for some people why knock it?

If it saves you no time and / or doesn't make your stuff sound any better then of course don't buy it. All it can ever do is plug a gap. Sure, anyone vaguely musical with a finger and a modwheel can know sound, you know, a bit Lord Of The Ringsish. But there's a huge gulf between that and scoring a whole series. So it remains the case that the composers with talent will use these tools better than those without.

I suspect in time Cinesamples will provide voicing info for their patches, btw, so transcribing wouldn't be too hard.


----------



## MichaelL (Dec 23, 2010)

mikebarry @ Mon Dec 20 said:


> J I guess I get my artistic reward via playing piano, always have. Thats why I have 3 different editions of the Beethoven sonatas when I am practicing.



It's a little known fact that Beethoven often said, "I've got to finish those damn sonatas, before everyone gets one of these pianos, and we all sound alike." 

I will use Cineorch in good conscience.

Cheers,

Michael


----------



## Peter Alexander (Dec 23, 2010)

MichaelL @ Thu Dec 23 said:


> mikebarry @ Mon Dec 20 said:
> 
> 
> > J I guess I get my artistic reward via playing piano, always have. Thats why I have 3 different editions of the Beethoven sonatas when I am practicing.
> ...



Bravo!


----------



## midphase (Dec 23, 2010)

noiseboyuk @ Thu Dec 23 said:


> So where does that leave this argument? I know for a fact that some composers don't get so much work now because they didn't stay with the times technically. I see no option but to embrace this stuff, because if you don't others will. Let's not forget - CineOrch is mighty impressive, but is very limited in what it can do. .




The main concern that I have regarding these types of products is...are they leading composers to take on gigs for less and less money and righter deadlines because it takes less and less effort to create the product?

I'm afraid the answer is a resounding "yes" which is creating an even quicker erosion of our industry. 

With a few more of these products, in a few years' time it will be standard for film scores to pay a pittance and be done in little over a week....you think I'm joking? Some of that is already happening...and the results are spectacular considering the circumstances.


----------



## JohnG (Dec 23, 2010)

Mike Connelly @ 22nd December 2010 said:


> Also, there's no reason these libraries can't be used as an addition in spots to fatten parts up - a fully orchestrated part can sound great, but if you need a big beefy sound, are you going to be able to get it as big with just your orchestrated individual parts, or with those parts plus another "tutti" library layered in? If you throw out your other libraries and just use the "tutti" libraries, sure, but if they become additional tools in the workshop, isn't the potential there for them to improve the end result?



This is a good point, Mike. If it's "seasoning" then it seems quite as valid, creatively, to me as writing "everybody plays here" to the orchestrator. Or just writing doubles into the score.


----------



## noiseboyuk (Dec 23, 2010)

midphase @ Thu Dec 23 said:


> The main concern that I have regarding these types of products is...are they leading composers to take on gigs for less and less money and righter deadlines because it takes less and less effort to create the product?
> 
> I'm afraid the answer is a resounding "yes" which is creating an even quicker erosion of our industry.
> 
> With a few more of these products, in a few years' time it will be standard for film scores to pay a pittance and be done in little over a week....you think I'm joking? Some of that is already happening...and the results are spectacular considering the circumstances.



Again though, I ask - what's the response? The genie is out of this particular bottle. Should we print campaign stickers that say "Booo, down with VIs that are really well orchestrated"?

I refuse to be doom and gloom about this. Will deadlines get tighter? Yup. Are our tools getting better? Yup. Are the two things related? Yup. If there is someone out there who can do a better job than me in less time... of course they'll get the gig. Do they have more talent than me or better tools - or both? (in fact, it will probably be cos he or she has better connections, but don't stop me with your realism, I'm in my flow).

If tools mean we can do a great job quicker, we need them. It doesn't spell the end of creativity or composition.


----------



## MichaelL (Dec 23, 2010)

midphase @ Thu Dec 23 said:


> The main concern that I have regarding these types of products is...are they leading composers to take on gigs for less and less money and righter deadlines because it takes less and less effort to create the product?.....I'm afraid the answer is a resounding "yes" which is creating an even quicker erosion of our industry.




On the first point, it's a chicken an egg question. Did the product create the problem, or was the product created in response to time and monetary demands that already exist in the industry? It's hard to think an industry that isn't looking for ways to do things faster and cheaper, in order the maximize its profit margins. Many US Law firms are outsourcing clerical work to India, to cut back on administrative staff. 


On the second point by "our industry" I assume that you mean that of Hollywood film composers. There are many many composers outside "your" industry, e.g. game composers, and the dreaded library composers. We live in places like Colorado, Virginia, Ireland, Australia, Canada and, OMG, of all places, Philadelphia. 

So when this forum transforms into the "Hollywood film composers forum," as if no one else exists, please remember that we outsiders are here too. 

It's a cliche, but our culture values competition. What you see as doom for the status quo, some composer somewhere is seeing as an opportunity.

My 2Cents from the outside,

Michael


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Dec 23, 2010)

Man. I got an email flagging a post, but I have no idea which one it is - or was, because usually there's nothing left by the time I get here.

Was it the sexual references? If so, no, that's not subject to moderation.

And all I can say on this subject is the most money I've ever made per square inch was for putting together a musical sound effect. CBS had gone through their libraries and couldn't find anything that worked; i got a description of the scene and came up with this, and they bought it.


----------



## David Story (Dec 23, 2010)

Composers are the reason composers are undervalued.

We've hit bottom - free music for commercial projects. But we keep embracing new ways to make it faster and cheaper(!)

Yea music. Everybody is doing it.





Let samplers do their unique thing, stop encouraging developers to make cheap fakes of live players. Get ethics, they lead to respect, that leads to value.

The engineers are fine with automating you, and so are producers. If you support it too, well that's the end of professional composers. No one here is so popular that a well done mockup couldn't work just fine. Who will care if it's a kid with a new library? 

When the next gen of AI sampling and composing comes out, I predict we'll hear a different view from a few of the "anything that works" people.

Beethoven lived in poverty, took a long time to raise the value of music.


----------



## midphase (Dec 23, 2010)

MichaelL @ Thu Dec 23 said:


> On the second point by "our industry" I assume that you mean that of Hollywood film composers. There are many many composers outside "your" industry, e.g. game composers, and the dreaded library composers. We live in places like Colorado, Virginia, Ireland, Australia, Canada and, OMG, of all places, Philadelphia.
> 
> So when this forum transforms into the "Hollywood film composers forum," as if no one else exists, please remember that we outsiders are here too.



?

A bit sensitive aren't we? You know what happens when you assume right? "our industry" of course includes every commercial composer living wherever and doing whatever..not sure where you get the idea that I was excluding you or anyone else. The point is the same...tools make the work easier and faster, so there is more temptation to work for cheaper.

Of course most industries are looking for ways to run more cheaply and efficiently...but the difference is that it's for THEIR benefit most of the time, and not for the benefit of their clients. Do you think that the lawfirms that are outsourcing to India are charging any less for their services?

This is the point that I am trying to make and that every body seems to be misunderstanding (what else is new?), that these tools are totally fine, as long as they don't tempt us to erode our industry even worse. 

I say use the tools (and developers keep making them), but use them so that you can finally have your nights and week-ends back to spend with your family and friends...and not so that you can say "yes" to scoring a feature film for $500 in 3 days......You get me?


----------



## noiseboyuk (Dec 23, 2010)

David Story @ Thu Dec 23 said:


> Composers are the reason composers are undervalued.
> 
> We've hit bottom - free music for commercial projects. But we keep embracing new ways to make it faster and cheaper(!)
> 
> ...



...and there's another one. I'll ask it yet again, because at 3 pages and counting no-one has tried to the best of my knowledge...

WHAT DO YOU PROPOSE YOU / WE SHOULD DO ABOUT IT?

Until someone comes up with a single practical idea to discuss beyond bemoaning the state of the musical world, this thread offers nothing except miserable navel-gazing. And it's Christmas.

And one more observation. AI is often invoked as being the imminent destination for... what was it again? Oh yeah, a well orchestrated chord. I'm not saying AI is impossible, but anyone passing the Turing Test seems as far away as ever - about as far away as the army of robot teachers waiting to march into the classrooms of the world. I don't say this to belittle the concept or say that "composing" isn't getting progressively easier, but just putting in some perspective.


----------



## midphase (Dec 23, 2010)

Guy...ease up a bit...relax...it's the holidays.

First of all, the beaut of VI Control is the ability to have useless discussions...if you don't like it...just don't read it.

Secondly, there are two separate discussions, one regards the musicality of using these products, the second regards the impact of these products on our industry.

What I am asking composers to do (at least the ones who give a shit about their future), is to not allow the ease of these products to be a reason to lower our rates and shorten our deadlines even more. I know it's tempting when you know you can pull up a couple of Symphobia patches and pound out a cue in a few minutes...and that is totally fine...just don't give in to the temptation to charge people less for your services.


----------



## Peter Alexander (Dec 23, 2010)

MichaelL @ Thu Dec 23 said:


> midphase @ Thu Dec 23 said:
> 
> 
> > The main concern that I have regarding these types of products is...are they leading composers to take on gigs for less and less money and righter deadlines because it takes less and less effort to create the product?.....I'm afraid the answer is a resounding "yes" which is creating an even quicker erosion of our industry.
> ...



Philadelphia! >8o 

Oh wait! I live in Virginia now! ~o)


----------



## dcoscina (Dec 23, 2010)

midphase @ Thu Dec 23 said:


> Guy...ease up a bit...relax...it's the holidays.
> 
> First of all, the beaut of VI Control is the ability to have useless discussions...if you don't like it...just don't read it.
> 
> ...



I think the difference between me or you and some kid with daddy's credit card who use Symphobia is that if needed, you and I could transcribe those musical phrases out on manuscript for a real orchestra to play if needed. The kid wouldn't know what the hell to do. 

There's another thread on here where someone says he doesn't think Symphobia has lush strings. Really?? I think they are plenty lush enough. If you use the mod wheel to control velocity and shape the lines, it's plenty beautiful. That's kind of what I'm talking about. We're seeing products that are marketed in a way that gives the customer the expectation that anyone can use it and make awesome music when there is still WORK and knowledge that is involved. I see this is more symptomatic of the general dumbing down of our society.


----------



## rgames (Dec 23, 2010)

Technology has always worked its way into the arts and many have resisted it, at least initially, for the same reasons discussed here: it has the potential to disrupt the "state of the art".

But isn't that the point?

These are just tools, guys - in and of themselves, they are neither good nor bad, they're just an option.

Brahms continued to write for the natural horn because he didn't want that fancy new "valve" technology in his orchestra. Are modern horn players destroying the music when they use a valve horn to play Brahm's music?

I've played the Mozart clarinet concerto probably 20 times, every time on an instrument that is far easier to play than that on which it was premiered. Am I any less a musician because I use a modern instrument that makes it easier to play?

There was a time when books were hand copied. Should we bemoan the printing press because it made it easier to mass-produce books?

There was a time when scientists and engineers spent a lot of time learning arithmetic tricks to speed up their calculations. Now they use calculators - should scientists slow the rate of technological progess because of a yearning for the gool 'ol days of hand calculations?

Just because a tool replaces or facilitates some bit of work that used to be done manually doesn't make it bad.

It's just an option.

rgames


----------



## David Story (Dec 23, 2010)

noiseboyuk @ Thu Dec 23 said:


> David Story @ Thu Dec 23 said:
> 
> 
> > Let samplers do their unique thing, stop encouraging developers to make cheap fakes of live players.
> ...



Answered






+1 to Kays' and Nick's suggestions also. 

Let's take the liberty of decent pay and hours, by working together.
Sure, AI can do good orchestration, it's there to hear today. But we can set standards, and pressure those who try to undercut their colleagues. 
The technology is two-edged.

Competition can be fair, or ruthless. It's our choice.


----------



## Peter Alexander (Dec 23, 2010)

@MichaelL
@Kayes

FYI as a point of information only, Film Music Magazine just came out with the first Composer Census and found that worldwide, separate from a few categories, that there are just under 26,000 composers doing film/tv etc 

Another study released in 2009 found that among working composers, those who composed (separate from working with software) an average of 4 hours per day were grossing $100,000 annually or better. 

There is yet a place for musical craftsmanship beyond the cue! I have a friend who was nominated for a Pulitzer Prize in Composition and he mostly writes for concert band, which is a much bigger paying market than writing for symphony.


----------



## midphase (Dec 23, 2010)

Yeap...I agree...however I'm not worried about the kid with daddy's credit card....I'm worried about the veteran mid-level composer who is all of a sudden saying "yes" to gigs he should be passing on.


----------



## dcoscina (Dec 23, 2010)

Richard, I don't quite think it's the same thing. A musical instrument still requires practice and some technique. I know the developers behind products like Symphobia and Cinesamples are themselves very talented musicians and there are plenty of guys who use these products sparingly to accentuate something but there's also a lot of abuse by virtue of their accessibility.


----------



## dcoscina (Dec 23, 2010)

midphase @ Thu Dec 23 said:


> Yeap...I agree...however I'm not worried about the kid with daddy's credit card....I'm worried about the veteran mid-level composer who is all of a sudden saying "yes" to gigs he should be passing on.



I hear you. I guess I cannot get up on the soapbox too much about this because I'm working for almost nothing on a project at present. I guess my day job allows me to pick and choose a bit easier. And I will be working on future projects that will pay so it's an investment.

I did have the luxury of telling a filmmaker back in the late '90s who screwed me out of monies for his film to go fuck himself the next time he offered me a job. This prince wasn't even decent enough to give me copies of the original film for my portfolio which is why I told him to f-himself the next time he called up asking for free music.


----------



## MichaelL (Dec 23, 2010)

midphase @ Thu Dec 23 said:


> Do you think that the lawfirms that are outsourcing to India are charging any less for their services?
> 
> I say use the tools (and developers keep making them), but use them so that you can finally have your nights and week-ends back to spend with your family and friends...and not so that you can say "yes" to scoring a feature film for $500 in 3 days......You get me?



No, the law firms aren't charging any less for their services. They are just trying to stay profitable. 

Yes, I understand where you're coming from. Twenty years ago, I was doing a lot of corporate/commercial work. There was a guy here whose whole business strategy was to undercut the market on price. His musical ability was near zero, so he hired register clerks from a local music store to write his tracks on the side. He started doing flat fee projects for $500 and throwing around hockey tickets. It worked. He trashed the market with respect to fees. He eventually figured out that he couldn't earn a living doing $500 scores, but the damage was done. So no, having seen first hand what lowering fees can do, I would not advocate for that position.

The problem the "we" all face is the problem that I faced twenty years ago, and that is that somebody will say yes to a $500 score, and it will be that event, not Cineorch that is the problem. 

BTW -- the clients who bought the $500 scores 20 years ago got what they paid for --but couldn't tell the difference anyway -- which is the other half of the problem.

Yeah it is Christmas -- and all that rain you got in SoCal is coming this way in the form of snow!

Cheers and Happy Holidays,

Michael


----------



## Cinesamples (Dec 23, 2010)

What about charging more for more realistic sounding scores? What about hiring less ghosters? What about taking a second project? Seems like an opportunity to make indeed more money and spend more time away from the CPU.


----------



## Peter Alexander (Dec 23, 2010)

CineSamples @ Thu Dec 23 said:


> What about charging more for more realistic sounding scores? What about hiring less ghosters? What about taking a second project? Seems like an opportunity to make indeed more money and spend more time away from the CPU.



What you're advocating is accepting personal responsibility for being the CEO of your career and planning and charging accordingly.

On Craig's List, there have been/often are ads for film composers where the buyout fee is $3500. This means that to bring in a little over $50,000 annually to support your family you have to do 15 film scores per year or one every 3.47 weeks.


----------



## givemenoughrope (Dec 23, 2010)

How many composers don't have the foggiest idea what LFOs or VCOs do, the difference between P90s and Humbuckers, overdrive and fuzz, tape delay vs. a chip, etc. yet most of these things are used heavily in scores all the time. 

I don't think there is any line to drawn anywhere except at the how music and sound and silence help or hurt the narrative.


----------



## noiseboyuk (Dec 23, 2010)

David Story @ Thu Dec 23 said:


> noiseboyuk @ Thu Dec 23 said:
> 
> 
> > David Story @ Thu Dec 23 said:
> ...



Sorry... what was the plan again?

Folks, this sounds a little like denial to me. I get the undercutting story and sure. But it kind of ignores the reality that these new VI's enable a quicker result. If you don't adapt with the technology, you will die - plain and simple, because some other talented bugger will jump right in your shoes. The dismissive mythical "kid with Daddy's credit card" is dangerous talk imho... you folks think there aren't hugely talented, hungry, tech savvy composers out there? If someone stayed with the tech and working methods of 20 years ago, how long would they survive today, even if phenomenally talented?

But it really needn't be doom and gloom, and that's what is frustrating me on this thread. Let me give you an example from a parallel debate of the ever-decreasing fees. Supposedly all is terrible. And certainly I can testify that in kids TV, there is pretty much no money to be had from productions, full stop. They just don't have it. The budgets are squeezed so tight, getting anything on tape at all is a near-miracle. The stories I know are almost unbelievable... we are far from unique as composers, indeed we're relatively fortunate.

Because for us there is another side to this. Just as upfront fees have dwindled, royalties (at least in some cases) have increased. With more channels and hours to fill, the stuff that gets made rotates near-constantly. Sometimes for years, on kids TV. And every TX is another payment to the composer. So this is a positive counterbalance to the negative.

I'm just staggered that some people seem to view products like Symphobia and CineOrch so negatively. It makes us sound better, it enables us to do more in less time. Maybe that's time with the family, maybe it's time for that 2nd gig. What I don't think we can do is ignore the fact that - collectively - it takes a little less time.

One other observation here. People seem to have only negative experiences with directors and producers. They all - if this thread is to be believed - are tone deaf, ready to accept the first crap slapped on their productions at the cheapest price. This ain't the world I live in. Sure, some don't know or care, but many do. And those people will always be our greatest allies (and the only ones I want to work with).


----------



## mverta (Dec 23, 2010)

Ashermusic @ Thu Dec 23 said:


> LOL!
> 
> If I use this in an article can I change it to "I do not like having sexual intercourse with a woman with another man's penis?"



Feel free to, especially since it's been deleted by mods and a warning issued to its author. Never give a small man on a tiny hill a little bit of power.


_Mike


----------



## MichaelL (Dec 23, 2010)

CineSamples @ Thu Dec 23 said:


> What about charging more for more realistic sounding scores? What about hiring less ghosters? What about taking a second project? Seems like an opportunity to make indeed more money and spend more time away from the CPU.




That's actually not as far fetched as one might think. I new of a composer who charged on fee if he used sample library A and a lower fee if he used sample library B.

Cineorch is value added -- at least in my world.

Thanks guys.

Michael


----------



## NYC Composer (Dec 23, 2010)

mverta @ Thu Dec 23 said:


> Ashermusic @ Thu Dec 23 said:
> 
> 
> > LOL!
> ...




I _so_ agree (the quote in my sig says it all).

Btw, on the topic of price competitiveness. All of you dudes with Symphobia, which with my limited budget these days, I really could not justify-have you thought about the pricing on CineOrch and how it levels the playing field a tiny bit?

I know that if we're good composers, we're all supposed to be able to create genius with a Roland D-50 , but ummm...having the biggest toys is sort of a leg up, no?


----------



## mverta (Dec 23, 2010)

It is for now, just as it was in visual effects 10 years ago. That will change when the playing field is level; when everyone has basically the same access to libraries and setups, which is inevitable. When that happens - when the how of it is no longer the "thing" - then the what of it matters. I've seen it before; it's only a matter of time. Keep practicing.


_Mike


----------



## synergy543 (Dec 23, 2010)

mverta @ Thu Dec 23 said:


> It is for now, just as it was in visual effects 10 years ago. That will change when the playing field is level; when everyone has basically the same access to libraries and setups, which is inevitable. When that happens - when the how of it is no longer the "thing" - then the what of it matters. I've seen it before; it's only a matter of time. Keep practicing._Mike


According to my friends in visual effects, the demand never returned. The work is done overseas.

Gotta love the moderation policy here. Rude accusations and insults from ephemeral anonymous trolls are OK, but the slightest sexual reference to "that special part of the male body" and the mods jump in. 

Mirrors our society I guess - violence is OK, sex is not.


----------



## mverta (Dec 23, 2010)

synergy543 @ Thu Dec 23 said:


> mverta @ Thu Dec 23 said:
> 
> 
> > It is for now, just as it was in visual effects 10 years ago. That will change when the playing field is level; when everyone has basically the same access to libraries and setups, which is inevitable. When that happens - when the how of it is no longer the "thing" - then the what of it matters. I've seen it before; it's only a matter of time. Keep practicing._Mike
> ...



Fortunately, that's not the case. There is no "overseas" anymore, actually. I've been recruited from nearly every continent on Earth for work on films. In the end, people are all on the same internet; it's easy to find people who are good. But truly, the skill level of painters, sculptors, modelers, lighting guys, etc. has done nothing but gone up. You don't have guys who "know how to use ZBrush" modeling characters anymore; you have guys who can actually sculpt fighting other guys who can actually sculpt. It took awhile. But the days of working constantly simply because you could afford a Silicon Graphics computer and a seat of Maya are long gone...

Fortunately.

_Mike


----------



## noiseboyuk (Dec 23, 2010)

Agreed re mods, seems a bit MPAA - some clarity here, folks?

Surely the vis-fx comparison isn't quite on the money? That might compare with the musician, but not the composer?


----------



## mverta (Dec 23, 2010)

Actually, it's freakishly on the money, if you know the whole story. I'll do a podcast on it, because having had parallel careers in it for 15 years+ now, I'm struck by the sheer equivalence of the dynamics across the board. I truly believe therein lies a forecast of the vi future.


_Mike


----------



## noiseboyuk (Dec 23, 2010)

I'd be interested to listen!

As a total vis fx outsider, I'd have thought that the modern smaller composer is comparable to both the vis fx supervisor and artists rolled into one.


----------



## synergy543 (Dec 23, 2010)

Mike, you'd be amazed at the number of people that cannot tell the difference between crafted composition and someone pressing a key on CineOrch - they'll hear both and say "wow!" I find this extremely sad but true. Unfortunately, I don't think this will change anytime soon. And certainly not with leveling the playing field. What we get is more crap and dumbing down.

But I hope you're right and I'm wrong.


----------



## Hans Adamson (Dec 23, 2010)

Nick Batzdorf @ Thu Dec 23 said:


> Man. I got an email flagging a post, but I have no idea which one it is - or was, because usually there's nothing left by the time I get here.
> 
> Was it the sexual references? If so, no, that's not subject to moderation.
> 
> And all I can say on this subject is the most money I've ever made per square inch was for putting together a musical sound effect. CBS had gone through their libraries and couldn't find anything that worked; i got a description of the scene and came up with this, and they bought it.


Go to your room, Nick! (o)


----------



## synergy543 (Dec 23, 2010)

Yeah, its not like it was a violent threat or rude insult.

Nick get your priorities straightened out, you left-winged commie.


----------



## midphase (Dec 23, 2010)

MichaelL @ Thu Dec 23 said:


> That's actually not as far fetched as one might think. I new of a composer who charged on fee if he used sample library A and a lower fee if he used sample library B.



But isn't that a bit like saying that it's really all about the gear and not the people? I mean, the idea is that a good composer can create a great score regardless of the limited technology, but a lame composer can't regardless of the unlimited technology...right?


----------



## José Herring (Dec 23, 2010)

Well I certainly hope Mverta is right.

But, what I see happening now is this. Got a call the other day from some post production sound mixers I know. They wanted to know how to fill out a cue sheet. Apparently, they were mixing a film and as an added bonus they decided to do the music for the film. Moderately budgeted film. Not a no budget film but not a huge budget either. Guaranteed Cable play due to the stars as well as lot of foreign TV exposure. Well I went over to his house and crowded in his closet was his music studio. He did the entire score there with his partner. They figured why not do the score. They didn't have much in the way of talent or musical knowledge. But, they figured what the heck, after all they had Stylus and Symphobia. What more could you need to score an action flick?

Their fee for doing the score. Nothing. Zip. Included in the post package an added bonus, they'll do the score for free.

Lame. These are some of the guys that I've worked with in the past on some of my highest royalty earning films. Guess, I won't be getting the call any more. Probably won't be calling them either.

Just sayin'.

Products like these do have damaging effects, putting the access of music in the button pushers hand.

But, you know what do I matter? After all it's the end product that counts. Not the skill of the musician, Right?

The way I see it it's been a steady climb downward, not for the people at the top who can charge huge sums based on their credit, but for those in the middle and at the bottom, trying to scrape together a living as they climb to the top, if they can make it there. What it means is that there's going to be less and less people who actual know what they're doing and more and more people like the sound mixers above. Using the latest prefabbed library to do music that should rightfully belong to people that actually give a damn about scores. 

I fully expect that when these sound mixer guys get to busy scoring films they'll have their interns pick up the slack. Why not? It's not like it takes any special skill to be a composer any more.

Call me cynical all you want. But, this really does suck.

Jose


----------



## NYC Composer (Dec 23, 2010)

josejherring @ Thu Dec 23 said:


> Well I certainly hope Mverta is right.
> 
> But, what I see happening now is this. Got a call the other day from some post production sound mixers I know. They wanted to know how to fill out a cue sheet. Apparently, they were mixing a film and as an added bonus they decided to do the music for the film. Moderately budgeted film. Not a no budget film but not a huge budget either. Guaranteed Cable play due to the stars as well as lot of foreign TV exposure. Well I went over to his house and crowded in his closet was his music studio. He did the entire score there with his partner. They figured why not do the score. They didn't have much in the way of talent or musical knowledge. But, they figured what the heck, after all they had Stylus and Symphobia. What more could you need to score an action flick?
> 
> ...



It's not that I'm unsympathetic-I think anyone who's worked steadily in the music industry has similar stories. I certainly do. However, that's the nature of changing technologies and business. No more typewriters, cheaper creatives.

There's a saying at the end of a long story-"and then one day they came for me", etc etc. Well, illustrative of that, before there were orchestral simulation programs there were-orchestras! So in a sense, we all have been putting musicians out of work for years.


----------



## José Herring (Dec 23, 2010)

I've had the saying going around in my head since the cineorch release.

Well, I've made a grand decision today. I'm reversing the trend. Replacing my samples with live instruments.


----------



## noiseboyuk (Dec 23, 2010)

So here's the question, Jose. Does it make financial sense from the mixers' perspective, or are they just bored and doing it for fun?  At a wild guess, I'd say it makes sense. This is part of what I'm talking about. If good broadcast deals are in place and they are on a full or high percentage royalty share, then they may well have figured out that that it pays well, even with no upfront fee.

I've no idea about this specific case obviously, but in general terms composers have to be canny and play the same game, where the deal is right.

At the risk of repeating myself, I'm quite shocked that no-one has a good word to say about producers/directors. Seemingly without exception, peoples experiences here are that they couldn't care less about the music. Are these sound guys any good, really? You can make a terrible score with Symphobia and Stylus, or a perfectly good one. Certainly the producers I know would tell the difference.

EDIT - just read your post above. Good luck! Still possible with the bigger budgeted stuff... not at my lowly end, sadly.


----------



## MichaelL (Dec 23, 2010)

midphase @ Thu Dec 23 said:


> MichaelL @ Thu Dec 23 said:
> 
> 
> > That's actually not as far fetched as one might think. I new of a composer who charged on fee if he used sample library A and a lower fee if he used sample library B.
> ...




In the situation to which I'm referring, it wasn't a question of a great score or a bad score. The guy wrote the same music, but he charged more if his clients wanted the high end, better sounding samples. I don't know how successful he was with that approach. I can't imagine he got very far with it. Just pointing out the someone tried it.


----------



## Peter Alexander (Dec 23, 2010)

rgames @ Thu Dec 23 said:


> I've played the Mozart clarinet concerto probably 20 times, every time on an instrument that is far easier to play than that on which it was premiered. Am I any less a musician because I use a modern instrument that makes it easier to play?
> rgames



Richard - you've opened yourself to SO many one liners. But it's Christmas. I won't.


----------



## Peter Alexander (Dec 23, 2010)

NYC Composer @ Thu Dec 23 said:


> I know that if we're good composers, we're all supposed to be able to create genius with a Roland D-50 , but ummm...having the biggest toys is sort of a leg up, no?



Another walk down memory lane! Let's see, should we regress to the Roland JV1080 Orchestra Card and what was it, French Horn 1x? Then there's the Proteus 2 English horn. Anyone remember that?


----------



## Peter Alexander (Dec 23, 2010)

mverta @ Thu Dec 23 said:


> Fortunately, that's not the case. There is no "overseas" anymore, actually.



In one sense I agree with you very much, but still, the business investment and tax forms are filed some place that's geographic. It's not a one world government - yet.

On a side note, are you a dad yet for this Christmas?

Went to your web site. Saw the vid. How's Malcolm (tpt) doing? Haven't seen him in a long while.


----------



## midphase (Dec 23, 2010)

noiseboyuk @ Thu Dec 23 said:


> At the risk of repeating myself, I'm quite shocked that no-one has a good word to say about producers/directors. Seemingly without exception, peoples experiences here are that they couldn't care less about the music.



The directors I work for fall into two categories for the most part...either they completely leave me alone to do what I do with a minimal amount of notes, or are control freaks who won't be truly happy until I plagiarize the crap out of the temp score they chose.

Most of them are simply not particularly musical, in the sense that they are not particularly concerned with melodic/harmonic or even stylistic choices as long as it fits the "mood" of the film. 

The phrase I hate to hear without exception is that they want a score that is "out of the box" which 99.999% of the time it means "give me what the other guy who I really admire is having" 

Generally speaking, most directors nowadays don't really want the music to have a voice or a personality in the film, they're mostly needing some background filler to make sure that the audience isn't too bored with the film (which they usually are). Last night I watched the 70's film Coma (Michael Douglas stars in it, directed by Michael Crighton)....music by Jerry Goldsmith, and all along I kept on thinking how nowadays that type of score -- bold, in your face, melodic and stylized -- would never fly. It's a sad state of affair when what most directors ask for from the score are essentially chord progression....and even sadder state when composers (even the big boys) have convinced themselves that a leading tone is a chord progression constitutes a melody....sigh.


----------



## wst3 (Dec 23, 2010)

as an aside really...

in the late 1970s, when all that existed was voltage controlled monophonic, modular synthesizers, the push was to come up with enough modules to do a decent mock-up (the pure electronic musicians though that was silly, but that's a different argument).

At the time no one believed that the technology would ever put musicians out of business, not even on the todo list!

No, the goal was to be able to get an idea of what your composition might sound like when played by the local college orchestra, if you could get that far.

The technology grew just slowly enough that the effect on musicians, composers, recording engineers, et. al. was seen by only a handful, and they were considered alarmists.

The thing is, and I do sympathize, but those post guys do not see the truck that is about to run them over either. Their jobs might be secure for a short time, but just imagine when the tools for video mature to the point that everyone can make their own movie.

They said it could not, would not happen to music. So why do they say that it can not, will not happen to movies? (It's already started!!)

For the record, I think the whole thing stinks! I love technology as much as anyone involved in it, really I do. I can do things today that we never dreamed of 40 years ago, and you know what, it's fun!

But by the same token, the artistic quality of popular music, on the radio and in film/TV/games has steadily decreased till I feel like a fuddy duddy when I hear something and think it is crap. I hate that.

But the ratio of really cool new artists to wannabes (at least in my definition) is really bad, and getting worse!


----------



## David Story (Dec 23, 2010)

wst3 @ Thu Dec 23 said:


> as an aside really...
> 
> in the late 1970s, when all that existed was voltage controlled monophonic, modular synthesizers, the push was to come up with enough modules to do a decent mock-up (the pure electronic musicians though that was silly, but that's a different argument).
> 
> ...



Great post, gives us some perspective on where we're going.
A couple decades of sampling live instruments: is it all good?

I love the technology, but not the loss of jobs, pay, respect, craft, friendship. Using sample orchestras can devalue music. It's short term gain, long term loss. We've all done it. Do we have to continue down that path? Turn!

I grew up loving Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, Tchaikovsky, Ravel, Stravinsky, Williams. They composed for musicians, using the latest technology. They respected those who went before them. They might have rivalries, but they helped their colleagues. I believe in continuing that tradition.

You can Skype a session with live players, anywhere. Let's make it even easier to use live, in parallel with better samples.

I'd like to see the composer's union standing up for the value of music, protecting our right to a decent wage and working conditions. It'd be great if composers and players could also work together, to build trust, respect and value for our profession.

We're making progress in forming a union here. Major people are for it. It's our chance to move up instead of down.

We stand on the shoulders of giants. The one button cue is built on centuries of great work. We owe it to our profession, and ourselves, to keep music live and human. We're more than button pushers. I suggest we start using PR to sell people on how amazing music is, the magic of composing. More PR on how wonderful live music is. 

Or we can start from scratch, repeating the long painful evolution from underpaid servant to prosperous artist. 

Once more, with feeling.


----------



## mverta (Dec 23, 2010)

Peter Alexander @ Thu Dec 23 said:


> On a side note, are you a dad yet for this Christmas?
> 
> Went to your web site. Saw the vid. How's Malcolm (tpt) doing? Haven't seen him in a long while.



I *am* a Dad this Christmas! The little guy's 3 1/2 months...

As for Malcolm (and this is almost on-topic) I heard recently he blew up in a session because of the freakin' Amateur Hour of the whole thing. Here's what happened:

A well-known television composer does his live sessions... by. striping. each. section. individually. Got it? The whole orchestra, sitting there - and these are all A-Call dudes, right? - and first it's strings, then woods, then brass. Nobody playing together. And why? Who the fuck really knows; composer can't handle it. But during the session it's apparently for things like being able to make sure there are no sounds of, say, breathing or keys clicking on the instruments, or people moving, or anything human, really. Kinda like samples. So of course the orchestra isn't playing together, and the composer can't figure out why they're not playing together. So he has them doing it over and over and over and over again, while everyone in the room is saying to themselves, "Why don't we just play the goddamn thing?" But nobody's going to say that. Anyway, there's this cue, where the composer's got Malcolm playing a high 'C' staccatissimo 16ths for a few bars, ff. Really blasting it. And the composer wants to hear it again, and again, and again, for who knows why. Well, eventually, Malcolm - with his lips totally blown by this point and putting voice to the entire orchestra's frustration with the whole thing - just refuses to do it. He'd had enough. Later, after getting chewed out for that by the contractor, he apologized. (Which makes me sick, but whatever...)

I hear these stories all the time. Just constantly. I'd say 90% of the "top" composers working today are considered total douchebags by the players who know the difference. Actually, it may be higher than that. Other than a couple of guys like Williams, who they salivate over working for like it's an oasis in the desert, every player -to a one- toes the line, talks the gracious talk, and then out of earshot and in protected company, rails about the glory days when people knew what the hell they were doing and the music was worth a shit. I mean, that's what I hear, anyway.


_Mike


----------



## noiseboyuk (Dec 24, 2010)

Well, the thread gives us a lot more to chew on now...

And an idea. A unionization, led by those at the top. However, if Mike is right, it doesn't sound like there's anyone left at the top who knows what they're doing except John Williams and if we're lucky a couple more, so it might be a thin charge...

It was an extraordinary story, Mike.... I do hope the exception rather than the rule. It reminded me of a sound colleague who managed to wreck the TV music shows he was on because he became obsessed with "spill", the sound of the monitors and PA. He made everyone work at levels so quiet all the atmosphere vanished and the artists hated it. He wanted everything to sound like he CD... and imho totally missed the point. Fortunately in that line of work he was (and still is) the exception, hopefully this composer is too. Sounds neurotic to me.

I know what you mean re producers / directors, but an alarm bell is ringing ("sample it!") Any producer / director worth their salt is a storyteller. IMHO, thats what they're looking for from a composer, someone who can help them tell their story. So on the one hand, I wouldn't expect them to be interested in the theory behind it, but on the other I'd hope their aspirations extend beyond a noise that stops the film being boring. A good film / TV composer is a good storyteller, period. I wish this was discussed more at VI Control, actually. Take the agreed modern master, JW. What a master storyteller he is. Although we can all appreciate how elevated his technique is, some of his most powerful devices are so simple it's almost comic, especially his use of themes... there are sections of Star Wars where the themes almost literally follow the cuts between "Good Guy" / "Bad Guy". That's basic storytelling, but he does it so well it works. Needless to say he employs far more sophisticated technique as well. Anyway, the point is... if a producer / director can't tell the difference between someone who helps tell their story well and someone who doesn't, then there's little chance they are good at their job.

FWIW, I think this has been a pretty good year for film music. Dragon is a masterpiece, reflecting traditional scoring. The Social Network is its polar opposite musically, but is also a great storytelling score. Inception is the middle ground. Zimmer is perfectly capable of writing great themes, but he himself says that he hasn't found a way to make themes work for this kind of modern adult-oriented blockbuster and I think he has a point - blame the movie rather than the score if you don't like it. Yet, storytelling-wise, again the score works well (and is very technical in places too... the polyrhythmic brass in Dream Is Collapsing is pretty tricksy stuff). The point is - all three of those scores serve story brilliantly in their different ways. I sometimes think that just as the hacks that ARE out there want to impose the same bland thing on everything, there are composers who are more interested in the technique than the story. FWIW, Zimmer's versatility is one of his great strengths - Thelma & Louise, Inception and Gladiator are all very different from each other.

Anyway, back to the union. Maybe it's the UK perspective, but if feels like the union movement is severely wounded. It would need a huge show of strength to work... is this realistic? What specifically would the aim be? I remember the UK's Musician's Union's Keep Music Live campaign 20 years ago. I might be wrong, but I don't think it was very effective. It just comes across as King Kanute-like. In general, I think it's better to do something more positive.

For example, while undoubtedly musicians have been hit hard by technology, there is increasing interest in live work. As composers, the budgets and schedules may have dwindled, but there's a helluva lot more work out there overall (who'd have thought, 20 years ago, that there would be an industry in video game scoring that was even bigger than film or TV?) Kids TV never could afford an orchestra - it was one man and his DX7 20 years ago, all that's really changed is that the tools have got better.

I think composers do have weapons at their disposal (all mho of course, I guess many more senior than I will disagree). First, be as good at their craft as they can be, artistically and technically. Second, it's always about STORY - let the story lead, not ideology. Third, develop and nurture industry relationships, this is where the work comes from.


----------



## handz (Dec 24, 2010)

"I think CineOrch is a brilliant concept. It will add a level of reality to mock-ups that can not be realized by using individual patches from even the best libraries. An orchestra playing a C Major chord sounds different than a dozen instrument patches playing the exact same chord. The players balance themselves in ways we can't yet mimic. "

This is very good point, at some point 
You are very right that 10 patches of instruments will never sound as a recorded ensemble of 70 players. Same with Strings - two 8 str patches combined usually not sounds like 16 players playing. So I sort of smile when someone telling how you cant use normal string libraries for divisi cause it will sound unrealisticaly big. It will not.

But problem is that you are limited to use exactly same orchestration all the time. Which could be bit boring and limiting.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Dec 24, 2010)

mverta wrote:



> and then out of earshot and in protected company, rails about the glory days when people knew what the hell they were doing and the music was worth a shit.



I think a lot of that may be absence making the heart grow fonder. Yeah people like JAC Redford wrote killer music for TV ("St. Elsewhere") - and of course before that the Earl Hagens of this world certainly did - but by the '80s most TV music was just cranked out in not enough time. The producers knew that too.

(Okay, I picked two of the absolute best composers to make the point, but hopefully I still made it.)


----------



## wst3 (Dec 24, 2010)

handz @ Fri Dec 24 said:


> But problem is that you are limited to use exactly same orchestration all the time. Which could be bit boring and limiting.



Exactly my point... but can you imagine the size of a library that encompassed every possible voicing of every possible chord? Not to mention the time to record them all?

Hey, there is progress being made, and at any given time it is the craftsperson using the right tool for the right job. As technology advances some of the hurdles actually grow larger!

Whew!


----------

