# Mockups vs. Live



## robgb (Jun 21, 2019)

"I've heard a lot of scores that they then go and do live, but they're doing them live and they don't even need to, the synthesized score is so good. So the technology just makes it—I mean, I don't even write down a lot of music anymore... A lot of times I just write a couple of notes down to remind myself of the themes. Everything else is just played right into the computer."

"[A] lot of big movies they do the orchestra because they can. There's no real reason to. It's more like for the producers so they can feel they're making a movie."

~Composer Craig Safan (The Last Starfighter) on the SCORED TO DEATH podcast re: the changes in technology.


----------



## CT (Jun 21, 2019)

Oh. Well, guess it's time for orchestras to pack up and find new jobs. Who needs 'em, right?


----------



## NoamL (Jun 21, 2019)

I think this is brave for him to say, and also partially correct.

As far back as 2003 Don Davis (himself a trumpet player) was layering synth brass with his recordings because what he was writing just demanded too much precision. Hans Zimmer had his assistants go through the string ostinatos for Pirates or Dark Knight (I forget which movie this story is about) and move them note by note onto the click - which you could consider either "resampling" or "quantizing live musicians."

If you go back and look at the raw recordings for ET or Indiana Jones these are the top session players in the world operating at a time where composers like John Williams put far more challenges on players's musicianship and technical ability. And the recordings are wonderful and lively but they're also really messy. You can kind of tell they are sightreading and there's a big contrast to any of the polished concert-suite recordings of JW's scores.

Rather than living in a world of *"Live vs Fake"* I think it makes more sense to shift to a realistic appraisal of what live orchestra can accomplish. There are three ceilings on what you can get from Live. The budget for quality musicians and a quality hall; the collision of limited recording time with musician-challenging writing; and perhaps increasingly significantly, the fact that what composers are writing is straying from what is natural and idiomatic for the instruments. If you are someone like Mike Verta then this is a tragedy that everyone's trying to one-up each other with unplayable 10 second long fortissimo brass chords. But IMO this invites the reappraisal that music that was written for virtual instruments should stay virtual.

Right now we're in a world where you simply cannot write a score without either needing to be a very capable VI performer, or hiring a synthestrator to do a pass on all your music, or possibly both. ("Whistler" composers now need a virtual orchestrator which combines the roles of orchestrator and synthestrator). The point is that once you have that expense paid, the virtual score is kind of there for free. Why spend more money to do the whole thing again live? The better VIs get the more the mindset of *"where can live add relative value"* makes sense. For solo winds and solo brass, virtual instruments fall flat and will continue to fall flat until the VI market welcomes the existence of VIs which are several times more expensive and complicated to learn and perform. Solo strings, as much as I hate to say it as a cellist, I think we're getting close to acceptable solo VI strings. The practice of "Sweetening" (re-recording just one or two elements on a track live) is indeed not very glamorous. It's not something a producer can make a behind-the-scenes video about as Craig Safan alluded to. Often it's remote musicians who aren't even in a real recording stage. But all of these things help add value because when you don't have to pay for a stage, you don't have to deal with recording time pressure, but the one sweetened element helps the whole track feel real, you're getting a lot of value for money.

The other area where complete reperformance, not just sweetening, is IMO a necessity and will continue to be, is any kind of live breathing music with fluid tempo.


----------



## purple (Jun 21, 2019)

robgb said:


> "I've heard a lot of scores that they then go and do live, but they're doing them live and they don't even need to, the synthesized score is so good. So the technology just makes it—I mean, I don't even write down a lot of music anymore... A lot of times I just write a couple of notes down to remind myself of the themes. Everything else is just played right into the computer."
> 
> "[A] lot of big movies they do the orchestra because they can. There's no real reason to. It's more like for the producers so they can feel they're making a movie."
> 
> ~Composer Craig Safan (The Last Starfighter) on the SCORED TO DEATH podcast re: the changes in technology.


This kind of sucks to hear because I'd hate to work in an industry that no longer wants to use live players. Maybe if you're writing that (currently very popular) hybrid style of long chords and string ostinato your tracks don't sound much different live vs. fake, but we are still very very far from any sort of VI being able to capture the symphonic sound at all. As much as I love the tools we have now, I would instantly drop VIs any time I have live players to work with, because it allows you to do stuff you just can't do with samples convincingly.


----------



## robgb (Jun 21, 2019)

Everyone should listen to SIRENS, Craig Safan's new album. It's quite beautiful.

https://www.craigsafan.com/


----------



## robgb (Jun 21, 2019)

purple said:


> I would instantly drop VIs any time I have live players to work with, because it allows you to do stuff you just can't do with samples convincingly.


To certain extent, I'm not sure this is true. "Convincingly" means something different to different people. The average layman really can't tell the difference. So I guess it really depends on who you're writing for.

For example, I did a song for a play in which I used a violin solo sample and every single person involved in the project thought it was a real violin—except one: the mixing engineer.


----------



## JohnG (Jun 21, 2019)

robgb said:


> The average layman really can't tell the difference



I'm sure you'd agree Rob that the plausibility of a mockup depends significantly on the type of material and the skill of the person creating the mockup?

And I'd go further and argue that most of the time, the layman in your example isn't comparing "live" and "mockup only" side by side. Lots of people think I make good mockups but I feel that anyone, even the hypothetical layman, will prefer the version that has some / all live players to the electronic version.

Consequently, unless it's overtly electronic -- a synth piece -- I always add at least some live elements to my scores -- singing, chanting, humming, guitar, a few solo strings or winds -- something.

But even leaving aside the issue of whether some man-on-the-street hears the difference, I would say that live players extend massively the longevity of a piece. Music I wrote many years ago that is in libraries but was recorded live still licenses. Music I had to produce for TV of the same vintage sounds less "legitimate," for lack of a better expression.


----------



## purple (Jun 21, 2019)

robgb said:


> To certain extent, I'm not sure this is true. "Convincingly" means something different to different people. The average layman really can't tell the difference. So I guess it really depends on who you're writing for.
> 
> For example, I did a song for a play in which I used a violin solo sample and every single person involved in the project thought it was a real violin—except one: the mixing engineer.


I believe whether or not people can actually tell if it's a real instrument or not is not so much what matters. What convinces the viewer, especially one with an untrained ear, is the energy, nuance, and emotion live players bring to the recording. They may not be able to tell that samples aren't real, but they will definitely not feel the same impact. This can be said I think for any tools used in creating art and media.


----------



## purple (Jun 21, 2019)

I also think it's dangerous to go into the complacent mindset of "well it's good enough to get me jobs, so why try to push for better resources to work with", which I don't think I sense behind your statement but I fear people may interpret from these sorts of discussions.


----------



## robgb (Jun 21, 2019)

JohnG said:


> I'm sure you'd agree Rob that the plausibility of a mockup depends significantly on the type of material and the skill of the person creating the mockup?


To a degree. I'm not sure HOW much skill is necessary, however, because I've heard what I thought were pretty bad mockups that others thought were done with real orchestras. It's amazing how little actual listening is involved for the average music listener. We've all learned to listen critically, to listen with a keen ear, but most people simply let the music wash over them and enjoy the emotional experience.

On a professional level, however, as in satisfying a director or producer, you'd better have a LOT of mockup skill.



purple said:


> What convinces the viewer, especially one with an untrained ear, is the energy, nuance, and emotion live players bring to the recording.



I'm not sure that energy, nuance and emotion are the exclusive domain of live players. I think at least some of this can be achieved with sample libraries.

I posted this elsewhere, but Joseph LoDuca says the only live instrument he used for his two "Chucky" scores was possibly some guitar. The rest was done in the box. And I think they are full of energy, nuance and emotion.


----------



## JohnG (Jun 21, 2019)

Those are all fair points.

One issue is that most of us don't pursue music solely for money. Otherwise I'd work in a more predictably lucrative profession. Maybe with a proper pension even!?

But even leaving aside the "dreamy artist" stuff, the pieces that have earned me by far the most money had large components that were recorded live. They are the pieces that generate the most enthusiastic response from directors / producers with whom I actually want to work.

Moreover, I know for sure that being able to wield an orchestra with some adeptness was indispensable to landing my current project, one that is artistically and really in all other respects very exciting. So there's that.


----------



## robgb (Jun 21, 2019)

JohnG said:


> Moreover, I know for sure that being able to wield an orchestra with some adeptness was indispensable to landing my current project, one that is artistically and really in all other respects very exciting. So there's that.


Personally, I prefer a live orchestra any day of the week, but unfortunately, most of us don't have the opportunity to work with one, so we have to learn to do our best without one.


----------



## CT (Jun 21, 2019)

Some people can work wonders with virtual instruments. I don't for a second believe that should make anyone question the value of real musicians. I can't believe this is actually something that is up for discussion in any form, unless I'm misunderstanding some of the points being made.


----------



## JohnG (Jun 21, 2019)

robgb said:


> most of us don't have the opportunity to work with one, so we have to learn to do our best without one.



Sadly true! Had plenty of projects with pretty small budgets so that much of the material is fake.

However, even on my earliest efforts (student films at the USC film school, for example) I still involved some live playing, even if just a handful of (or one!) soloist(s). I made them pay me $50 so I could get a flute or something, and record the player in my apartment.


----------



## robgb (Jun 21, 2019)

miket said:


> Some people can work wonders with virtual instruments. I don't for a second believe that should make anyone question the value of real musicians. I can't believe this is actually something that is up for discussion in any form, unless I'm misunderstanding some of the points being made.


I think the point being made by Safan was that sometimes recording with an orchestra is redundant. In the same podcast there was mention that Christopher Young complained that sometimes producers hear the mockup and decide to go with that rather than suffer the expense of an orchestra. I don't think any of these people is questioning the value of LIVE musicians. I say live, because even those who play virtual instruments are "real" musicians.


----------



## CT (Jun 21, 2019)

robgb said:


> I don't think any of these people is questioning the value of LIVE musicians. I say live, because even those who play virtual instruments are "real" musicians.



Semantics. I don't disagree, or I wouldn't be here.

Whatever the nuances of all this, I think it's disturbing. There seem to be many expenses that people are willing to "suffer" that are far less worthy than supporting the livelihoods of live players and the tradition of the orchestra.


----------



## zolhof (Jun 21, 2019)

I agree there's a shift in perception happening where the young audience simply does not know better when it comes to live x virtual performances. You feed them with enough "fake" recordings and before you know it fake becomes the new standard. It's like we're living in the Bizarro World.

"There's no real reason to"

That I do not agree. If not for the sake of the music, do it for the musicians. I appreciate Giacchino stepping up and talking about the issue here:


----------



## Desire Inspires (Jun 21, 2019)

Well, real orchestra costs more.


----------



## Vik (Jun 21, 2019)

There are a few pieces I from time to other have checked VI versions of, and I have yet to find something which I find as convincing/as good as live recordings. Besides, when I listen to music, I definitely like to know that I'm listening to musicians playing, and not to a mockup.

Grieg Holberg Suite is one of the pieces I'm thinking of. Mahler's Adagietto is another. Beethovens 7. symphony, 2. movement is a third.
And this isn't of course about focusing on sound quality – but on timing, expression, details, interpretation.... the whole thing.

Btw, even if someone would come up with a version that in a blindfold test would sound as great/close to an actual recording of real musicians playing real instruments, I'd still prefer to listen to real orchestras.


----------



## Jeremy Spencer (Jun 21, 2019)

robgb said:


> Personally, I prefer a live orchestra any day of the week, but unfortunately, most of us don't have the opportunity to work with one, so we have to learn to do our best without one.



Ditto! And will probably never will. Thank God we live in an incredible era for composers in this regard. I agree about your previous comment; the average audience does not know whether or not the soundtrack is real (if programmed convincingly), and it's the musical emotion that affects them, not whether or not the instruments were real. I have had countless people ask where I record my "orchestral" cues. They are shocked (or think I'm joking) when I explain it's all virtual. many just cannot grasp the concept that this is achievable.....even with my mediocre renderings. Personally, I cannot even tell if a score is virtual or not, if produced by a professional.


----------



## JohnG (Jun 21, 2019)

IDK guys -- some of the points people have made run perilously close to something like one of these:

"Nobody I work with can really tell, or cares about the difference."
"I make much more money using samples because I don't have to pay for players."
"The audiences don't know or care."

I don't fully accept all the above, or actually any of them. 

*"Nobody I work with can really tell, or cares about the difference."* Maybe you're working with the wrong people? The people I have worked with 100% can tell. Not all of them, but the ones I'd want to work with over and over (and in some cases have) do know the difference.

*"I make much more money using samples because I don't have to pay for players."* Yes. In the short term. In the long run if you want to go places, I think it's a good idea for 99% of composers to use at least some live elements -- purely from the money point of view. As long as one is perceived as a computer-based composer, the fees for -- and often the creativity of -- the projects are, I think, likely to remain less exciting.

*"The audiences don't know or care."* Who's by far the most popular film composer in the modern era? John Williams. Why? Maybe it's not only his music (and the projects he has worked on) but also because he's also the most knowledgeable and talented _conductor_ working over the past several decades? Other composers may have more aggregate box office, but that's not the same. Most people walking around know who John Williams is -- and that's it. They can't name another film composer.


----------



## robgb (Jun 21, 2019)

Vik said:


> There are a few pieces I from time to other have checked VI versions of, and I have yet to find something which I find as convincing/as good as live recordings.


I think if you're comparing note for note mockups to the live version, the live version will always win. But with original music that has no live version, I'm not sure it matters. The music must stand on its own.


----------



## Jeremy Spencer (Jun 21, 2019)

JohnG said:


> Most people walking around know who John Williams is -- and that's it. They can't name another film composer.



My point exactly. They don't know, and don't really care (or care to know). They just know that they either like or dislike the music in the film, game, or theatrical production they're watching. I am light years from being in the same galaxy as JW (I now, bad analogy!), and that's okay. If I was hired to compose for a Hollywood blockbuster, I would or course go all out with hiring an orchestrator and the best scoring orchestra. But that's not going to happen with the feature film that ends up on the Hallmark Channel.


----------



## Vik (Jun 21, 2019)

robgb said:


> think if you're comparing note for note mockups to the live version, the live version will always win. But with original music that has no live version, I'm not sure it matters. The music must stand on its own.


Whether there's a live version available (yet) of a piece or not doesn't really matter IMO. The side effect on relying on samplers still exist, in several ways. One of them is that certain types of composition won't even be written, or they will be written but never be shown in a way that gives the piece the justice it would have been given with a good ensemble. 

And regarding not being able to afford an orchestra, that's of course a valid argument in many ways – but at the same time: Many of us have spent more money on (and time!) SSDs, libraries, fast PCs, backup solutions, extra RAM and expensive libraries than it would cost to record the amount of music we have written with the time and cash we have invested. I, for one, could have written a lot more music if I would have skipped the VI thing altogether and instead spent the same amount of time on composing on a piano.


----------



## JohnG (Jun 21, 2019)

Wolfie2112 said:


> My point exactly. They don't know, and don't really care (or care to know). They just know that they either like or dislike the music in the film, game, or theatrical production they're watching. I am light years from being in the same galaxy as JW (I now, bad analogy!), and that's okay. If I was hired to compose for a Hollywood blockbuster, I would or course go all out with hiring an orchestrator and the best scoring orchestra. But that's not going to happen with the feature film that ends up on the Hallmark Channel.



Wolfie maybe I didn't make myself clear (or you disagree), or you're going back to "they don't care." I think JW's popularity demonstrates that, in fact, they do care plenty. They just don't know it.


----------



## Jeremy Spencer (Jun 21, 2019)

JohnG said:


> Wolfie maybe I didn't make myself clear (or you disagree), or you're going back to "they don't care." I think JW's popularity demonstrates that, in fact, they do care plenty. They just don't know it.



Agreed! However, I often wonder if guys like JW, or even Beethoven, would be hopping on the VI bandwagon if they were young composers in this era.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jun 21, 2019)

Tell me whether this is a live orchestra or samples.

Tell me whether this is a live orchestra or samples.

Tell me whether this is a live orchestra or samples.

Tell me whether this is a live orchestra or samples.

This

This (especially the love theme at 12:44, but all of it)

Have I made the point?


----------



## purple (Jun 21, 2019)

Wolfie2112 said:


> Agreed! However, I often wonder if guys like JW, or even Beethoven, would be hopping on the VI bandwagon if they were young composers in this era.


I think Beethoven is too far off for us to really understand how that would translate, but I would be surprised if JW wasn't someone who hopped on if he had started his career even a little bit later. He may be most known for his more traditional symphonic scores, but many of his scores are quite unique, progressive, and contemporary sounding.


----------



## Rob (Jun 21, 2019)

Nick Batzdorf said:


> Tell me whether this is a live orchestra or samples.
> 
> Tell me whether this is a live orchestra or samples.
> 
> ...


Excellent mockups, but what's the point?


----------



## robgb (Jun 21, 2019)

Vik said:


> Many of us have spent more money on (and time!) SSDs, libraries, fast PCs, backup solutions, extra RAM and expensive libraries than it would cost to record the amount of music we have written with the time and cash we have invested. I, for one, could have written a lot more music if I would have skipped the VI thing altogether and instead spent the same amount of time on composing on a piano.


Different strokes and all that. I compose with samples, and the closer it is to sounding finished as I work, the better it is for me. Clearly we're different. I am and always will be a strong believer in the idea that it doesn't matter how you get there. All that matters are the results. Debating whether or not the results would be better by doing it a "certain way" is pointless. There's no possible way to know if that's true.


----------



## robgb (Jun 21, 2019)

Nick Batzdorf said:


> Have I made the point?


Not really.


----------



## robgb (Jun 21, 2019)

JohnG said:


> I think JW's popularity demonstrates that, in fact, they do care plenty.


Frankly, I think that Williams's popularity demonstrates that they like Williams's music and not much more. His popularity is certainly not proof that the average person knows or cares whether it's real and memorex.


----------



## robgb (Jun 21, 2019)

This is all mockup. Most people wouldn't know the difference.


----------



## JohnG (Jun 21, 2019)

robgb said:


> Frankly, I think that Williams's popularity demonstrates that they like Williams's music and not much more. His popularity is certainly not proof that the average person knows or cares whether it's real and memorex.



Well, since there's no control for the experiment, I guess it's tough to prove either way.

However, if you link his popularity to his use almost exclusively of orchestra and his (I think) unquestioned mastery of the orchestral instruments, of rubato in conducting, and of orchestration, I find myself persuaded that the Most Popular Composer's use of orchestra is not just a coincidence. I think it proves that, in the right hands, nothing surpasses it and that, at least at the margin, people really do care.

If you think of the great inventions of humanity -- communication, pain relief and medicine in general, maybe democracy (though perhaps not lately!) -- the symphony orchestra is right up there.

Always accepting that Bill Murray's lounge piano with, "Star Wars! Those lazy, crazy Star Wars..." stands alone in a different way.


----------



## jbuhler (Jun 21, 2019)

JohnG said:


> Well, since there's no control for the experiment, I guess it's tough to prove either way.
> 
> However, if you link his popularity to his use almost exclusively of orchestra and his (I think) unquestioned mastery of the orchestral instruments, of rubato in conducting, and of orchestration, I find myself persuaded that the Most Popular Composer's use of orchestra is not just a coincidence. I think it proves that, in the right hands, nothing surpasses it and that, at least at the margin, people really do care.


My students are much more interested in Zimmer, to be honest.


----------



## NoamL (Jun 21, 2019)

JohnG said:


> "Nobody I work with can really tell, or cares about the difference."
> "I make much more money using samples because I don't have to pay for players."
> "The audiences don't know or care."



Want to underline that I didn't make any of these 3 points in my post. I see the other posts about this and disagree with the trend of the conversation. It's not about whether people can tell the difference or whether orchestras are too expensive. It's about whether it achieves the musical aim.


----------



## ProfoundSilence (Jun 21, 2019)

plenty of VI music sounds excellent but wouldn't work with a real orchestra. Plenty of real orchestral music sounds great but wouldn't work with VI. 

Often times both supplement each other in high budget productions anyways - so who cares?

why would a company want to spend money on an orchestra for a 20% better product than what the composers mockup sounds like? 

don't forget, then you need to rent space, recording engineers, mixing engineers, mastering engineers - to work with 987213987 microphones too, in order to approximate effects we can product by simply turning the volume slider up on an instrument.


----------



## Vik (Jun 22, 2019)

ProfoundSilence said:


> why would a company want to spend money on an orchestra for a 20% better product than what the composers mockup sounds like?


Record labels do that all the time. Why do you think companies like Deutsche Grammofon spend money on the world's best orchestras, conductors and recording facilities when/if they could have had something sounding 80% as good - or even just as good, in some cases, by using mockups? Would anyone here feel that it would be OK if all orchestral music in the future was made with Kontakt libraries - and why/why not? It's not about money, convenience or sound quality. What images do we get in our heads when we listen to an orchestral piece made by samplers? I strongly prefer the image of a lot of musicians getting together, after years of having worked on their skills and understand of music over the image of a computer wizard being really good at copying the real thing. 

Also, I don't want too contribute to the ugly trend we've seen for some years now - where more and more professions are being taken over by machines/computers (along with a small amount of people doing the necessary programming). Besides, if the difference is "20%", those 20% may be the most important area in music making, the one that has with human touch, interpretations, nuances, actual "feeling" and all that.

Would anyone here enjoy a concert with orchestral music if all one would see on that concert is what we see in EDM concerts today - a couple of guys with a lot of gear on stage, playing back most of the music from a computer while tweaking (or at least pretending to be tweaking) some parameters in real time? Or rather; what would you prefer to listen to?

IMO this planet is, on several levels, on the wrong track. In lots of important areas are rapidly replaced by virtual version of the real thing, and I don't want to contribute to that. If someone, in a hundred years, will look back and ask 'when was it, exactly, that humans were replaced by machines in all these areas', the answer would be the period we live in right now. 

Personally, I'd rather listen to real musicians over VIs even if the mock-ups sounded better. And in many ways, this discussion reminds me of the enthusiasm for quantised drums we saw in the 80s. "Why use a real drummer when the samplers have perfect timing?" was discussed back then, and the answer then and now is that it isn't about 'perfect' - combined with the fact that mockups often sound less perfect than the real thing anyway.


----------



## GtrString (Jun 22, 2019)

ProfoundSilence said:


> why would a company want to spend money on an orchestra for a 20% better product than what the composers mockup sounds like?
> 
> .



Because it is the last 20% that makes the music excellent, and excellence is number 1 consideration for any brand. Be excellent or die.

It is exactly the same reason people buy outboard preamps, compressors and stuff. To reach into the last 20% of excellence.

So I think it’s really the other way around - the last 20% is the hardest to achieve, but nobody can really afford not going for excellence..


----------



## mikeh-375 (Jun 22, 2019)

In the thick of media, just getting the job done by whatever means was all that mattered to my producer(s). In the end I had the same mentality especially when the job equivalent of battle creep took things sideways and up folks arses. I'd slap anything from anywhere on to a track if I had to. Media work is a breeding ground for cynicism and if your not careful, you can lose sight of what music can do and how it should sound if one is constantly and only using orchestral samples.

Nothing comes close to the real thing and nothing is more rewarding or liberating than writing with a degree of confidence _for_ the real thing. @JohnG is right imv about mastery of the art, achieve that and you achieve mastery of your expressive self too. It comes at a price though, a price that many aren't prepared to pay these days....it is their loss imo.


----------



## Daryl (Jun 22, 2019)

My view is:

1. For purely acoustic instrumental music, put samples up against live (as long as the performance/recording is mediocre, or better,) and live wins every time.
2. A good mock-up will work well, but have a short shelf life
3. A well recorded piece will have a long shelf life
4. I can do thing with live that sound pretty bad with samples (and some vice versa)


----------



## ProfoundSilence (Jun 22, 2019)

who the hell do you guys work for/expect others to work for? Sure the biggest dogs can pay the biggest bills - but the saturation in entertainment is at an all time high, people are generally paying the least for most of it - thus many of these gigs are comparatively low budget to begin with.

and stop being so damn hyperbolic, nobody is suggesting that we don't want a real orchestra, nor does anyone here think it's useless. Some of us are just much more realistic with the market. Most content is small teams putting out web content, using stuff from AJ/Pond5/Premium Beat and living off of ad revenue, jeez - give it a rest. They aren't going to have budget for that - and it's absolutely ridiculous to think they should spring for it. Do you think some 19 year old kids with a camera and a youtube channel are "striving for excellence" and are going to dump money on a session with LCO for their video that's probably going to get demonetized anyways?


----------



## Daryl (Jun 22, 2019)

ProfoundSilence said:


> who the hell do you guys work for/expect others to work for?



Hang on a minute. Wasn't the question whether or not it was necessary, or even better to use live? Nobody is denying the commercial realities of the situation for most composers.


----------



## ProfoundSilence (Jun 22, 2019)

Daryl said:


> Hang on a minute. Wasn't the question whether or not it was necessary, or even better to use live? Nobody is denying the commercial realities of the situation for most composers.


with the original post wasn't a question, merely a statement by a composer that live groups aren't needed. I'm more or less stating the obvious - that something work only in one domain, both are still going to please most of the people most of the time(so long as the music works)


----------



## ProfoundSilence (Jun 22, 2019)

to be fair, even powells mockup was pretty good(even though it sounds like he's using lower RRs and weird single mic choices with his libraries)


----------



## robgb (Jun 22, 2019)

Daryl said:


> Hang on a minute. Wasn't the question whether or not it was necessary, or even better to use live? Nobody is denying the commercial realities of the situation for most composers.


There wasn't a question in the OP. Only a statement by Craig Safan.


----------



## JohnG (Jun 22, 2019)

jbuhler said:


> My students are much more interested in Zimmer, to be honest.



*HZ the Legend*

No wonder, really. He is audacious, he breaks rules, he is the "anti-stuffy" composer. And he's sort of a rocker, even in his orchestral scores.

I like rockers; I'm orchestrating a main title right now that's basically primitive rock for orchestra -- just no guitars or any of that. More on the "Death March" spectrum.

He's also incredibly generous with advice and time for new/young composers. I don't know him but some time back, in response to a post on v.i., he sent me some great information about E. European ethnic music, with video -- the works. John Powell said years ago in an interview he never would have gotten a "real" movie without HZ, and look how talented JP is!

(As a small point, HZ also uses a real orchestra, in addition to everything else.)

BUT...

*Reality?
*
...I think part of his allure to young musicians is the mythology about HZ being a self-taught genius, with the (illogical) corollary many inaccurately leap to that his success means they don't have to imbibe any of that tedious "knowledge" stuff.

Some clearly feel that his example means they can just ignore what's been achieved in the past and wing it.

Except that's a false image. First off, he started going to the opera when he was practically a toddler. Second, he works with orchestrators who most definitely use and know all that "old academic stuff." Third, he may be "self-taught" but, if so, he's taught himself a hell of a lot -- about music, instruments, ethic instruments and styles of playing, individual players' skills and techniques; and of course computers and sampling and recording and mixing.

Finally, the guy notoriously works all the time. So, at least in his case, "self-taught" does not mean "ignorant" -- quite the opposite.

So, if HZ, with all his knowledge and equipment and computer skills, still uses an orchestra, that seems pertinent to this discussion.


----------



## JohnG (Jun 22, 2019)

ProfoundSilence said:


> who the hell do you guys work for/expect others to work for? Sure the biggest dogs can pay the biggest bills



Well, a solo cello doesn't cost too much to record. It's better than nothing live at all. And I think working live elements into one's music elevates it immeasurably.


----------



## mverta (Jun 22, 2019)

I would personally like to recommend that you, my competition, not use live players and groups. Virtual is easier, nobody can tell the difference, the market doesn't require it, and there's no money for it. Thank you.


----------



## GtrString (Jun 22, 2019)

ProfoundSilence said:


> Most content is small teams putting out web content, using stuff from AJ/Pond5/Premium Beat and living off of ad revenue,



Most content.. I dont think so. Can you back that up with numbers, or is this the truth of some small state in the US only?


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jun 22, 2019)

robgb said:


> Not really.



Really?


----------



## I like music (Jun 22, 2019)

Would it be fair to say that the layman couldn't tell the difference, but that they'd _feel_ the difference somewhere in there for _most_ mockups? Not challenging, just genuinely intrigued by the concept that the average joe _can't_ feel the difference. I don't mean they'd be able to express it, just that the energy you may have been able to impart with a live orchestra, would make them enjoy that piece just that little more, even if they couldn't quite articulate it.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jun 22, 2019)

I like music said:


> Would it be fair to say that the layman couldn't tell the difference, but that they'd _feel_ the difference somewhere in there for _most_ mockups? Not challenging, just genuinely intrigued by the concept that the average joe _can't_ feel the difference. I don't mean they'd be able to express it, just that the energy you may have been able to impart with a live orchestra, would make them enjoy that piece just that little more, even if they couldn't quite articulate it.



No doubt.

But it's not about the average layman as far as I'm concerned. The average layman couldn't tell the difference between a Picasso and a dirt clod.

We'll all be dead and gone a few decades, so while we're here we may as well satisfy ourselves!

Samples are great, but in no way are they a replacement for 80 musicians playing together in a room.


----------



## purple (Jun 22, 2019)

The average layman probably couldn't tell you the difference between various instruments either, so why have auxiliaries at all? Why have violas when violins and cellos cover their range? I don't think anyone would notice... /s


----------



## I like music (Jun 22, 2019)

Nick Batzdorf said:


> No doubt.
> 
> But it's not about the average layman as far as I'm concerned. The average layman couldn't tell the difference between a Picasso and a dirt clod.
> 
> ...



True. Although I'm not sure why I'm even fussed about the debate, because I doubt I'll ever get the chance to have an actual orchestra play my music. Oh well, one can hope!


----------



## I like music (Jun 22, 2019)

purple said:


> The average layman probably couldn't tell you the difference between various instruments either, so why have auxiliaries at all? Why have violas when violins and cellos cover their range? I don't think anyone would notice... /s



What's a viola?


----------



## JohnG (Jun 22, 2019)

I like music said:


> What's a viola?



An instrument that cannot be tuned.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jun 22, 2019)

I like music said:


> True. Although I'm not sure why I'm even fussed about the debate, because I doubt I'll ever get the chance to have an actual orchestra play my music. Oh well, one can hope!



The same applies to smaller ensembles too, in fact just adding a single live instrument to a piece with samples makes a difference.


----------



## Vik (Jun 22, 2019)

JohnG said:


> An instrument that cannot be tuned.


Time to post the annual link to viola jokes again, I guess.


----------



## JohnG (Jun 22, 2019)

Q: "what's the difference between a violin and a viola?"
A: "a viola burns longer"


----------



## I like music (Jun 22, 2019)

Nick Batzdorf said:


> The same applies to smaller ensembles too, in fact just adding a single live instrument to a piece with samples makes a difference.



Do you mean in terms of layering? e.g. take my sampled violins, and layer a solo one on top (if I can find a real violinist, which I probably can)

Hadn't thought of it this way at all before. I was thinking in purely binary terms e.g. either I get the full damn orchestra or I get nothing, but as I am a rank amateur I hadn't thought that a lot of mixing and matching must go on in the real world. Interesting.


----------



## JohnG (Jun 22, 2019)

I like music said:


> I hadn't thought that a lot of mixing and matching must go on in the real world.



Yes indeed. It's absolutely stunning what a difference four, or even one player can make even when the texture is supposed to be full orchestra. It's called "sweetening."


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jun 22, 2019)

For my first demo tape after college - before there were samples - I used 3 vlns, 1 vla, and 1 cello. They overdubbed three times, and the sound is huge.

(The extra violin makes a big difference, by the way.)


----------



## CT (Jun 22, 2019)

Me, usually preferring violas to violins, checking back into this thread:


----------



## Vik (Jun 22, 2019)

I also prefer violas (and cellos) over violins. These are the two most interesting instruments in an orchestra for me.


----------



## NoamL (Jun 22, 2019)

Vik said:


> Would anyone here feel that it would be OK if all orchestral music in the future was made with Kontakt libraries



There are advantages to this, that people are just not mentioning in this thread, apart from *price* which is actually a non-factor.

(Price is actually way more of a factor in LIVE recording because there's such a close tie to quality. If you really want to do an orchestral score justice you need the top musicians in LA or London and one of the top halls in the world. And ideally record with everyone in a room, not striping, and then that necessarily means more tries to get the perfect take, so more recording time which is another expense... if you cut corners on live orchestra it really shows. Whereas if you "cut corners" on sampling by buying CS2 instead of Berlin Strings, you still have a perfectly usable and musical sample library - used by multiple A list and B list Hollywood composers.)

Price is never going to be the reason that samples "out compete" musicians. Samples are already almost criminally cheap, the fact remains if you're going to do an all-out traditional orchestral score, live recording is hopefully going to be part of the pitch. 

So what are the advantages of working with samples?

*1. Control of the performance.* It's so weird when everyone here says "I'd rather work with musicians." Synthestrators are musicians! The difference is we can fidget a performance in its tiniest details. Subtly change a dynamic, make a note a fraction of a second shorter or longer. Do whatever it takes to make it feel musical and real. To revise a live musician performance you need a second take. That means the composer must either supervise the recording session so he can order takes until he gets what he wants, or (more likely on tight TV schedules) a merry go round of ordering takes from remote musicians. Whereas with synthestration it's easy to fix a flaw in a performance and turn in a v2 in less than half an hour.

*2. Reuse & adaptation.* If you're on a TV show, videogame or any other project that needs to reuse or adapt music from previous sessions, it is ALWAYS easier to do this with MIDI than with live recordings. Pitch shift, tempo change, and other operations are infinitely easier. The fact that the individual instruments are effectively "striped" in your session makes all kinds of edits possible that would be effectively impossible in audio. You can also combine bits and pieces of different cues (something I did habitually on the last-but-one TV show I worked on). All of this ends up being easier with MIDI than stems.

*3. Conform*. If the picture changes, it's easier to conform MIDI than to conform audio or worse re-record at considerable expense.


----------



## mikeh-375 (Jun 23, 2019)

It's fair to say a real orchestra is a luxury and may even be a thing of the past in the future (eh!)
in media world. @NoamL has given all the reasons as to why this is likely to happen (_is _happening) and it is hard to see an exit off this road, especially as I and lots here will have experienced similar.

What upsets me is that _some_ media composers who just use samples (or worse, never learn their trade enough to feel confident with players or be able to write a part), may never realise how potent, how expressive their music can be in the hands of even just one player, who, by partaking in the re-enactment of their written notes, can impart something ineffable to the music and consequently, to the composers confidence and soul. Even the best of us can be taken aback (in a good way) at times with something unsuspected or at best, only half glimpsed at when real players take on our work.

I do harp on a lot about issues like this and apologise to you all, but I know what learning can do for one's being and music, that is, to be able to express themselves without any real technical limits (I'm not implying I'm any good btw, just that I can write shit with complete, confident, knowledgable abandon - _my_ shit). If I can create a pause for thought in a few kids, sitting in their bedrooms with their first DAW and sample set, and make them consider re-evaluateing how they progress and learn as an artist, then I'll keep on harping on. Besides, don't take my word for it, just look at the true greats and innovators of orchestral writing...no youtube tutorials went into their education.
Just because you may never hear an orchestra play your music is no justification for not learning how to do it properly imv. even within media and midi.


----------



## lux (Jun 23, 2019)

It totally depends on the writing style and the inner nature of written material. 

Going live means expecting the (potentially beautiful) unexpected. Sometimes is harder to blend with synths and stuff though. Harder to get well in-sync with other sequences. And expecially harder to set up execution (copies, orchestrator, conductor, booking agency) even when they offer everything as a package.

I've always been a fan for Craig Safan, can't imagine the lovely Remo Williams passionate theme without live players though.

One thing which may change the game is tomorrow's orchestras where players are more connected with the entire world of midi mockups. Meaning communicating with midi files, easier sheet creation, playing on sequences and so on. That would keep all the advantages of a live execution without some difficulties actually involved.


----------



## GtrString (Jun 23, 2019)

Its a bit funny when musicians assume that other people have no money, just because they are struggling themselves, and then use that to justify the death of excellence and quality production. Meanwhile, their clients are laughing all the way to the bank.

Its is no coincidence we live in a world where the rich gets richer and the poor gets poorer. Struggling people think struggling thoughts, and thereby sustain more struggle.


----------



## ProfoundSilence (Jun 23, 2019)

GtrString said:


> Its a bit funny when musicians assume that other people have no money, just because they are struggling themselves, and then use that to justify the death of excellence and quality production. Meanwhile, their clients are laughing all the way to the bank.
> 
> Its is no coincidence we live in a world where the rich gets richer and the poor gets poorer. Struggling people think struggling thoughts, and thereby sustain more struggle.


How much money have you spent on watching film/tv/videos in the past year?
from a cable connection, or through the internet?


----------



## GtrString (Jun 23, 2019)

ProfoundSilence said:


> How much money have you spent on watching film/tv/videos in the past year?
> from a cable connection, or through the internet?



Actually, due to increased availability (apps, integrated apps in tv, ect.) here in Europe, more than ever before.


----------



## ProfoundSilence (Jun 23, 2019)

GtrString said:


> Actually, due to increased availability (apps, integrated apps in tv, ect.) here in Europe, more than ever before.


How much money have you spent?

here in the states I simply don't pay for television, only see a movie or two a year in theaters - and outside of a prime and hbo subscription, I pay nothing to watch videos.


----------



## Vik (Jun 23, 2019)

NoamL said:


> If you really want to do an orchestral score justice you need the top musicians in LA or London and one of the top halls in the world


Thanks for you reply, Noam. I disagree in the above statement - I've heard remarkably good players in many parts of the world, and there are many ways to get good recordings outside the top halls.
But of course, MIDI certainly has it's benefits, not denying that. Nevertheless - regarding my question ("Would anyone here feel that it would be OK if all orchestral music in the future was made with Kontakt libraries?"), I wasn't only thinking of music to TV or picture, but all orchestral music. Would you be happy with going to a concert with orchestral music and find that all the musicians on stage were performing with sampled instruments? What if all future recordings of Mahler, Shostakovich and and Pärt were made with samples?


----------



## mikeh-375 (Jun 23, 2019)

Vik said:


> Or if all future recordings of Mahler, Shostakovich and and Pärt were made with samples?



Vik, Imagine how much of the music would be lost from those great masterpieces if that happened.
Why would players perform on samples ...mere pale reflections of the real thing? Samples would have to progress a long, long way to overcome technical aspects in scoring and idiomatic issues before tackling serious art music and even then, why when the real thing exists?..makes no sense at all.


----------



## Vik (Jun 23, 2019)

Totally agree, Mikeh - just asked the question rethorically, for those who may think that samples can do a just as brilliant job as musicians playing traditional instruments.


----------



## mikeh-375 (Jun 23, 2019)

Vik said:


> Totally agree, Mikeh - just asked the question rethorically, for those who may think that samples can do a just as brilliant job as musicians playing traditional instruments.



sneaky....


----------



## mikeh-375 (Jun 23, 2019)

Vik said:


> Time to post the annual link to viola jokes again, I guess.



Well thanks for that @Vik, I was supposed to do some writing and all I'm doing is p****** myself with laughter.....god this bloody internet.


----------



## Synetos (Jun 23, 2019)

I wonder how long before we dont even compose anything, and just computers doing it all with AI?

Personally, I love the feeling in the room of a live orchestra. The energy is mystical. Recordings of live music, or samples, never really quite capture that experience. I suspect it will be lost to time at some point. It makes me think how awesome it must have been to hear live orchestra before anything was ever recorded. We have all kinds of tech now, but those beautiful instruments, and the people who play them well, are something special. "The times they are a changin'"

In a film, or a recording, who cares if it is "real" or virtual? I am watching the movie and the music speaks to me as part of the experience. I am not critically listening to the soundtrack. It is just..."there", but it is a very important aspect of the experience. 

If the music on a recorded song is done well, the listening experience transcends the source of the instrument. I don't care if it is real or virtual. I am interested in the art. Matters not how it was created or whether the brush was made of camel hair or nylon.


----------



## GtrString (Jun 23, 2019)

ProfoundSilence said:


> How much money have you spent?
> 
> here in the states I simply don't pay for television, only see a movie or two a year in theaters - and outside of a prime and hbo subscription, I pay nothing to watch videos.



I dont have exact numbers, but a conservative estimate is about 1500$..


----------



## purple (Jun 23, 2019)

NoamL said:


> There are advantages to this, that people are just not mentioning in this thread, apart from *price* which is actually a non-factor.
> 
> (Price is actually way more of a factor in LIVE recording because there's such a close tie to quality. If you really want to do an orchestral score justice you need the top musicians in LA or London and one of the top halls in the world. And ideally record with everyone in a room, not striping, and then that necessarily means more tries to get the perfect take, so more recording time which is another expense... if you cut corners on live orchestra it really shows. Whereas if you "cut corners" on sampling by buying CS2 instead of Berlin Strings, you still have a perfectly usable and musical sample library - used by multiple A list and B list Hollywood composers.)
> 
> ...



I agree with most of this, except that I find it is easier to control the performance when players are involved in probably a 50/50 case. Telling clarinetist to smooth out a connection between two notes takes a hell of a lot less time than fidgeting with sample volumes in kontakt until it's _almost_ smooth enough. Hell, I love the control I have with MIDI especially in projects where there's a lot of music and not a lot of money.


----------



## purple (Jun 23, 2019)

Synetos said:


> I wonder how long before we dont even compose anything, and just computers doing it all with AI?
> 
> Personally, I love the feeling in the room of a live orchestra. The energy is mystical. Recordings of live music, or samples, never really quite capture that experience. I suspect it will be lost to time at some point. It makes me think how awesome it must have been to hear live orchestra before anything was ever recorded. We have all kinds of tech now, but those beautiful instruments, and the people who play them well, are something special. "The times they are a changin'"
> 
> ...


Right, but sometimes VIs can't actually execute on that "art". Yo don't have to critically listen between an orchestral mockup or a live recording to tell the big difference in energy there.


----------



## I like music (Jun 23, 2019)

To those who have had stuff previously-mocked-up material played by a live orchestra, how did it feel when you heard it played by the real thing? I can only imagine you collapsed in a combination of delirium and joy.


----------



## ryans (Jun 23, 2019)

I like music said:


> To those who have had stuff previously-mocked-up material played by a live orchestra, how did it feel when you heard it played by the real thing? I can only imagine you collapsed in a combination of delirium and joy.



For me, (the few times I've been lucky enough for it to happen) my main reaction has been wow.. this is unexpectedly and pleasantly different to what I imagined...

When you do a mockup, it's just you.. no outside influences. Hearing 50 musicians interpreting and performing your work is adding layers and layers of musical influence and experience that (I..) can't possibly do alone..

Ryan


----------



## NoamL (Jun 23, 2019)

I like music said:


> To those who have had stuff previously-mocked-up material played by a live orchestra, how did it feel when you heard it played by the real thing? I can only imagine you collapsed in a combination of delirium and joy.




This but unironically. I love recording with live musicians! I hope nothing I said gave a different impression.


----------



## NoamL (Jun 23, 2019)

Vik said:


> Would you be happy with going to a concert with orchestral music and find that all the musicians on stage were performing with sampled instruments? What if all future recordings of Mahler, Shostakovich and and Pärt were made with samples?



I want to turn that question around Vik!

Right now concert halls are barely being kept afloat with the strategy of packing the programs full of beloved "classical canon" pieces by Beethoven, Brahms, Schubert, Tchaikovsky, Debussy and the other composers in the top-20 most performed list. Usually with a contemporary piece or two early in the program (they make audiences sit through Mr. Living Composer before they get to the well known classical canon piece that actually sold the tickets.)

I increasingly wonder whether this is a sustainable strategy for art music. Take Beethoven's 5th which is constantly performed by community orchestras, mid-tier city orchestras and of course the several worldclass orchestras in the USA as well. Why bother going to one of these concerts?

You can certainly buy (or almost certainly listen to for free on YouTube), AT ANY TIME, a performance of any classical canon piece, by a worldclass orchestra and a worldclass conductor, that has been lightly music edited to be a combination of the best takes & has been mixed by the best engineers in the world.

In other words, for any given classical piece, there probably already exists a recording that is several times better than what the average person is likely to hear going to concert night and sitting in cheap seats to hear a mid-tier or community orchestra perform Beethoven.

Now I know people will reflexively protest that listening to classical music on headphones is not the same as attending a concert, but anyone who takes that stand needs to clarify for me _what aspect of the musical intent of Beethoven_ is not captured by recording his music? Does anyone here want to take the posiiton that _seeing the musicians_ is an indispensable part of the experience? I'll point out that would be an odd position for anyone to take in a community of film composers...

Yes there is some fun "night out" glamor about going to a concert but that is not a musical aspect.

And yes of course recording technique cannot _perfectly_ capture the fidelity of live musical sound. But is the 99 1/2th percentile of audio fidelity crucial to experiencing and understanding what Beethoven wanted to communicate in his music?

The truth is that the greatest recording of any given top-of-the-classical-pops piece possibly already exists, and to the extent it doesn't, there's still almost certainly a recording available better than what you can expect to hear in the average concert.

I think the concert hall has been enormously unresponsive and passive to what is now a 60 year old reality, that you can get high quality stereo recordings of classical music really cheaply, which means that the "best possible recording" vastly outcompetes the average concert.

This is not to diss on concerts. The point I am working towards is that living composers need to think of a way to make music for the concert hall such that the experience of a concert cannot be replicated by the experience of a recording. I have been working on a classical music piece in my spare time that does this. Don't wanna give anything away because it's a very stealable idea, but I'll say that at least TWO living composers have been experimenting with similar ideas...


----------



## Synetos (Jun 23, 2019)

purple said:


> Right, but sometimes VIs can't actually execute on that "art". Yo don't have to critically listen between an orchestral mockup or a live recording to tell the big difference in energy there.



Right. I agree. 

However, I am thinking if one is writing with VSTs, and know the limitations of the library instrument, they would compose what would translate well. If it requires live performance to capture the right vibe, then it sort of mandates one would need to record it with live instruments.

How much of it not sounding right has to do with the composer not understanding the instrument, or how it is played? Do they rely on the human player to "interpret" what would make sense and sound good?

I only played cello for a short time in college, many years ago. I am not skilled enough at the instrument to properly write for it with a VST. So, my parts will not be anything amazing.


----------



## mikeh-375 (Jun 23, 2019)

@NoamL, I already thought about a concerto for naked lady and tuba, stop stealing my ideas.(apologies to female and other types of gender composers, please substitute an appropriate term of your choosing for lady ….


----------



## JohnG (Jun 23, 2019)

Well, orchestras may be dying but maybe there's some hope?

At least HZ and Ramin Djawadi are on tour now and then. And Bear did at least one as well.

Long overdue! Music people are clamouring to hear live, presented with the fun of a rock / pop concert, imagery, and live orchestra. (Ok, there are pre-records too, but it's still a concert people are keen to hear who would not know a John Adams piece if they heard one).

For such a long time this was cost-prohibitive because of new-use / re-use costs for the union orchestrators and copyists who worked on movies. Maybe with the union continuing to shoot itself in the foot (and everywhere else) the rise of non-union orchestration will permit more video game / movie / tv concerts?

A lot of people sneer at media music, and -- fair enough if you don't like it. But, on the positive side, it attracts a young crowd who are not going for "a dose of culture" but for fun. That's not a bad motive.

[note: I really like John Adams and have some of his scores -- not bagging him! Just that I don't think I could drag the young folk to a symphony concert with grappling hooks]


----------



## Vik (Jun 23, 2019)

NoamL said:


> Why bother going to one of these concerts?


Personally, I'm never listening to live versions of Beethoven 5. My question was just a way to illustrate that I believe most people would like to hear a good live recording over a good mockup – maybe except in these cases where orchestras are instructed to imitate the spiccatos and block chords in an action movie cue.



> You can certainly buy (or almost certainly listen to for free on YouTube), AT ANY TIME, a performance of any classical canon piece, by a worldclass orchestra and a worldclass conductor, that has been lightly music edited to be a combination of the best takes & has been mixed by the best engineers in the world.


That depends on where you live, I guess...In northern (and eastern) Europe, there are many concerts with other stuff than the 20 most well known pieces. But again - the reason I brought this up was only to figure out if music lovers are as OK with listening to sampled orchestral instruments as they with listening too good musicians who play these instruments.



> In other words, for any given classical piece, there probably already exists a recording that is several times better than what the average person is likely to hear going to concert night and sitting in cheap seats to hear a mid-tier or community orchestra perform Beethoven.


It it seems to me that the most interesting live concerts exist somewhere between the big name concerts and local amateur concerts. But ignoring concerts, I still prefer to listen to a good recording of good orchestral musicians over a good mockup, even when it has been by a great mockup artist like yourself. Nothing peronal, of course! 

I mainly listen to music on headphones myself, and like many others, I keep being amazed by the difference between mockups and good recordings, but for me, the goal has never been to replace live musicians - on the contrary, I'm all for saving endangered species. 

Edit: off topic, I know, but since you mentioned needing the top musicians in LA/ London and one of the top halls in the world: I just came across this (the repertoire of a concert hall in little Reykjavik in Iceland - a city with 120 000 citizens): https://en.harpa.is/events/event/reykjavik-classics-3/
Lots of activities there not only related to the big hits in the classical repertoire or big names.

And check out this little orchestra, probably with names most of us never have heard of before:


They seem to enjoy playing a lot more than I enjoy tweaking CCs. And who knows, maybe that feeling somehow is transmitted over to the audience?


----------



## STec (Jun 23, 2019)

Just try to do string quartet with vi’s and you’ll realize you need real players!


----------

