# Deep soul searching...I'm done with orchestral samples



## José Herring (Jan 13, 2015)

So I went to a concert on Sunday afternoon. I've purposely avoided all concerts in the past 5 or 6 years as I knew that the moment I actually heard a real ensemble live again, that this exact thing would happen.

Listening to Shostakovich string quartets 9-12 on Sunday afternoon made me realize that, I'm not a sample composer. I started out life writing chamber music for real people. I kind of came kicking and screaming into the sample world as the films I was working on kind of demanded that I be able to create at least passable mockups of orchestras. But, alas, I've grown tired of doing those kinds of films and I'm not doing them any more. Which gives me even less reason to continue on this path.

So after a few days of soul searching, I've come to the conclusion, that I didn't go down this path for the right reasons. I will never be the type of person that will spend time tweaking samples to make them at least passable. I'm far more interested in mangling a sample to create something new than to even spend 2 minutes trying to make a sampled string section sound less "samply".

It's gotten so bad that on the road today I was thinking of a new piece for string quartet and I seriously had the thought of, " what samples should I use? should I finally get Sibelius to transfer the midi file?" Damn! Me thinking like that! I must being going through a midlife crisis. Me 20 years ago would have written the whole thing out on paper. Created the parts by hand and given it to musicians to play. What have I become?

Have I totally given into the idea that I need this shit? I can read and write music. No shame in that. I don't even need a computer for music. Or samples.

Granted I'm not stupid. There's a certain portion of my work that does need this stuff to show other people demos. But, that's as far as it's going. I'll be the best demo mocker upper I can but I can no longer fake it any more. I'll do a synth score before I spend the time to do one more sample score. 

So for me, it's over. The path has ended. I may emerge victorious, I may go down in defeat. But, I can't lie to myself any more. I never wanted to be a sample based composer.

Thanks to all that have helped me in the last 10 years of this pursuit. I've come a long ways, but I'd be lying to myself if I'm the one to take it all the way. I just lost interest and before I lose interest all together in music, I need to take some time and pursue the reasons why I got into music in the first place. And, it wasn't to dimly stare at computer screens all day.

My midlife rant >8o


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Jan 13, 2015)

Wow, that is a major decision. Best of luck, you deserve it.


----------



## José Herring (Jan 13, 2015)

Turning 47 and realizing that I only have 25 years or so of good life left in me, I started thinking about how it is I really want to spend my golden years. And this just isn't it.


----------



## Andy B (Jan 13, 2015)

josejherring @ Tue Jan 13 said:


> Turning 47 and realizing that I only have 25 years or so of good life left in me, I started thinking about how it is I really want to spend my golden years. And this just isn't it.



You're getting out just when it's becoming interesting.

Andy.


----------



## José Herring (Jan 13, 2015)

Andy B @ Tue Jan 13 said:


> josejherring @ Tue Jan 13 said:
> 
> 
> > Turning 47 and realizing that I only have 25 years or so of good life left in me, I started thinking about how it is I really want to spend my golden years. And this just isn't it.
> ...



Not to invalidate any of your fine work, but in what way is it getting interesting? 

I actually find that the more complex this stuff gets the more people's mockups seem to be suffering. 

I've had to actually go backwards and started using more basic patches to get the music working again with samples. No more legato patches, ect... Just basic old school sustains, shorts with rr, ect.... The more complex the scripting the less playable the patches the more time spent moving little midi dots on the screen rather than actually playing.


----------



## Walid F. (Jan 13, 2015)

Best of luck! I believe that we live dozens of lives, not just one. In one instance of your life you can be a sample composer, and in the other you're out hiking mountain trails teaching kids about wild edibles - hey, you never know. It's an immense world out there with endless possibilities, do what you feel - always!!

Wish you the best.

W.


----------



## José Herring (Jan 13, 2015)

Walid F. @ Tue Jan 13 said:


> Best of luck! I believe that we live dozens of lives, not just one. In one instance of your life you can be a sample composer, and in the other you're out hiking mountain trails teaching kids about wild edibles - hey, you never know. It's an immense world out there with endless possibilities, do what you feel - always!!
> 
> Wish you the best.
> 
> W.



I believe the exact same thing. But, how we spend the now is just as important to me.


----------



## Andy B (Jan 13, 2015)

josejherring @ Tue Jan 13 said:


> Andy B @ Tue Jan 13 said:
> 
> 
> > josejherring @ Tue Jan 13 said:
> ...



For me it's been the opposite. I'm finding I'm having to write less for the samples as things have progressed. Have a listen to any of my product demos and decide whether they would have been possible to realise with a more basic approach. I've had plenty of moments like you're having, of not being able to listen to any of my mockups without feeling queasy and I still hear plenty of holes in my recent attempts, but I'm certainly finding _today_ much more liberating musically than _yesterday_.


----------



## Dave Connor (Jan 13, 2015)

A completely understandable decision that reflects the soul of a true composer. Not that those (including myself) who still work with samples are anything less. It's just that someone who only desires to work with live ensembles reasoning should not be the least bit foreign to those practicing this ancient art that only recently offered new technologies.


----------



## givemenoughrope (Jan 13, 2015)

How about ONLY using non-orchestral samples to write? Or just any solo string samples that will fit the bill and hire players to replace them? Put some clarinet, guitar, and piano in there. I read recently about how Ligeti tried to make Atmospheres with electronics but didn't like the sound/or maybe the tech wasn't there, etc. I'm sure the tech would have been light years closer now for him. I agree, even the best orchestral samples pretty much just suck.

For the most part people can spot or feel the fake stuff. Call up a mellotron string patch and they're much less likely to question that since it is known that it's fake. A granular patch or a wavetable synth isn't trying to be something else. 

just thinking out loud...

i absolutely appreciate the sentiment.


----------



## Michael K. Bain (Jan 13, 2015)

Are you done with samples altogether, or just done focusing on having to have the most realistic-sounding samples? I can understand that. I wrote a lot more when I was content with what I had.


----------



## chimuelo (Jan 13, 2015)

Jose, you'll be fine.
The fact you went and heard a live performance shows your love of music.
I remember the Symphony since I was a child, so I never really bought into the samples as a total solution, my first Emulator II turned into a Mirage and I have chased my tail ever since.

Here's what keeps me content.

Watching the audience during a gig become enthralled with the samples as if they were real, the same emotion comes over them. It's just guys like us know the difference.

Maybe do some gigs, go see some more shows and concerts.

I constantly have to add to my sound palette to keep me happy.
Recent instruments were a Waldorf Micro Wave 1 hardware synth, Zebra and Diva.
Plus my new Physis 4 controller.

I am busy all over again programming that beast and it's running 2 x hardware synths, 3 x hardware FX, 6 VST FX, 12 x DSP Modular custom FX and MIDI Devices, 4 VST synths, and various Sampled Instruments.
I will be under pressure to have it ready by Friday night, carrying along the old gear just in case.

But the endless challenges keep me interested in composing and performing.

Your stuff sounds fantastic, don't quit or I will remember you as a Puto.


----------



## José Herring (Jan 13, 2015)

After having gone through listening to the quartet play Shotakovich, I'm done with the idea that samples could come anywhere near what I intend with my music. So if I'm done, I'm done with the idea that samples are sufficient enough of a creative medium to spend all the time I do spend trying to get some semblance of my ideas out only to be disappointed. 

I have a very successful sound designer friend that told me once if I'm not having fun then I'm doing something wrong. I'm not having fun and working on the last sample piece I did I noticed that I had a lot of fun with the sound design and even the composing, I had no fun spending 10 hours tweaking the trumpet patch because it didn't sound like a trumpet and after 10 hours of making it sound like a trumpet, it still didn't sound like a trumpet.

So, I just have to admit that the medium isn't my thing. It's with pretty heavy heart as I've spent everyday for the last 10 years trying to make it my thing. I even think that I've gotten to be one of the better ones. But, I'll never do what it takes with samples to be one of the best ones. So why continue to pursue this course? I just realized that I was only doing it for others and not because I believed in it.

Some people love samples. I wish them the very best. I'm just not one of them.


----------



## José Herring (Jan 13, 2015)

chimuelo @ Tue Jan 13 said:


> Jose, you'll be fine.
> The fact you went and heard a live performance shows your love of music.
> I remember the Symphony since I was a child, so I never really bought into the samples as a total solution, my first Emulator II turned into a Mirage and I have chased my tail ever since.
> 
> ...



That's the stuff I get into. I've gotten nostalgic. Me, remembering the good ol' days. ME OF ALL PEOPLE!!!

But, the good ol' days was that we couldn't do anything with samples. I would pack my Korg 01/W, my Roland JV-8o and my clarinet, meet my friends at a studio in Manhattan, sync up my synths with a click and lay down some tracks. 

I'll never quit. It's just time to head towards what I love and not what I feel I have to do to get by. Ignorance was bliss. I never considered samples because I didn't know anything about them back then. So I thought of creative ways to do music rather than sitting hear futzing around trying to make this mess into an orchestra.


----------



## givemenoughrope (Jan 13, 2015)

josejherring @ Tue Jan 13 said:


> It's with pretty heavy heart as I've spent everyday for the last 10 years trying to make it my thing.



It's not wasted time (at all). Just switch gears and only use non-orch samples and play any real stuff that you can. Only use orch samples that will be replaced or as a granular synth source. I bought most of 8dio's CAGE with only that purpose in mind. 

re-peat may not be everyone's fav, but he posted something a while ago that spun my head around...along the lines of: when working on mockups, it is really just electronic music. So, forget trying to make tiny snapshots sound like an orchestra. There are a billion expressive sounds that real people can't make with a standard instrument. 

Remember the score from The Hurt Locker? It's my fav of MB's. 6 players on it. A true hybrid score. Film won the Oscar.


----------



## José Herring (Jan 13, 2015)

Great score for sure.

And probably re-peat has been a lot on my mind, more than he should be. But, he's got a point, unfortunately unlike him, I have no interest in sample for sample sake. We've clashed because we're opposite in that regard. I find the thing that attracts me to music is the human interaction of connecting with people, I don't think he really cares at all about people. To each his own. 

Samples are for me just a way to mockup a performance. That it has become my sole mode of expression, is the real shame. And that's on me. I let it dominate my life. I'm much more interested in sample mangling and real instruments and using samples as you say, to be later replaced by the real deal. And, if I can't replace them, just head off in another direction entirely.


----------



## AC986 (Jan 13, 2015)

Hahaha.

You want to be careful listening to Shostokovitch. He's a great composer alright.

The last time I went to a concert in the audience, it was an amateur orchestra and it had the exact opposite effect on me as opposed to you.

That said, I think people spend too much time with orchestral work and should concentrate on electronic (say synthesisers) or on solo performances.

I don't even try to emulate the great sample mock ups here. I use them more as a sound source and forget realism somewhere along the process.


----------



## AlexandreSafi (Jan 13, 2015)

Dear Jose, I deeply empathize with you, on the subject of this thread, funnily I find I agree with both you and Andy...

I think we're "very" soon inevitably going to be reaching an era where samples will be getting so close and so quickly out-of-the box to the real thing with a more universal quality to the nature of each instrument group that it will be back to performers-composers-musicians-craftsmen who have something interesting to say that will stand out in this business...

The great thing about this thread is that it implies for passionate musicians a serious discussion of where we are at with samples now... 
From one of our truly greatest contributors in this forum, Mike Verta:
http://www.mikeverta.com/Posts/The_Futu ... _Music.mp3

Let's all keep faith on Artful Technology!


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Jan 13, 2015)

Man, I wish I could be that optimistic. I am not.


----------



## gsilbers (Jan 13, 2015)

jose.. have you looked into the light?:
http://www.audioimpressions.com/


----------



## G.R. Baumann (Jan 13, 2015)

I can fully understand your decision!

At the end, it is an industry behind all that, isn't it? The dogma is to work faster and cheaper. Now, there rings a bell or two! :wink:


----------



## José Herring (Jan 13, 2015)

gsilbers @ Tue Jan 13 said:


> jose.. have you looked into the light?:
> http://www.audioimpressions.com/



Oh God don't even get me started. They use to call me at home because of things I said on this forum. Good times :lol:


----------



## wesbender (Jan 13, 2015)

I tend to agree with Andy in that things are finally starting to get interesting in the realm of orchestral samples. With each passing year and generation of releases, I find myself having to write for the samples less and less (though it's still going to be an inevitability for the foreseeable future), especially with rise of more convincing-sounding modelling approaches.

I generally just have to approach orchestral writing in two ways... either I'm writing with no intent of a live performance, in which case the goal isn't to make it sound like actual humans are performing. Rather, I'm just trying to create something expressive, dynamic and musically interesting (the orchestral samples are just there because I like the tonal and timbral palette they offer). There are a number of higher-end orchestral libs that can pull this off fairly well in the right hands. You just have to go into it accepting the limitations and knowing what you can and can't do in a relatively convincing manner.

And on the other hand, in the case of writing with a live performance in mind, I can't allow myself to give much of a crap about how convincing the mockup is as it really doesn't matter in the end. The samples are just a convenient way of giving a vaguely modest idea of how things might end up sounding.

I can certainly sympathize with your dilemma though. They frustrate me far more often than they please me, yet I keep on coming back for more...


----------



## José Herring (Jan 13, 2015)

I agree with you. I just can't spend another minute writing "for the samples" 

This is what finally got me thinking. The last four minutes of Shosh. Quartet no. 12. After fighting the whole concert wondering how I could get this sound with samples, I finally just realized that it's not going to happen and that my heart just wasn't into the whole idea.

http://youtu.be/Xs0i4e9zVNg?t=24m28s


----------



## Daryl (Jan 13, 2015)

Jose, just one small thing to bear in mind; no recording comes close to hearing the real thing played live. Not one, and not one ever has. Recordings are a poor imitation for not being present at the performance. They can be pleasurable, but as someone who spent years conducting orchestras every day of my working life, I can tell you with confidence that you should never compare sample performances with the real thing. At best it should be with a recording.

Anyway, having made this decision, good luck to you.

D


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Jan 13, 2015)

Daryl @ Tue Jan 13 said:


> Jose, just one small thing to bear in mind; no recording comes close to hearing the real thing played live. Not one, and not one ever has. Recordings are a poor imitation for not being present at the performance. They can be pleasurable, but as someone who spent years conducting orchestras every day of my working life, I can tell you with confidence that you should never compare sample performances with the real thing. At best it should be with a recording.
> 
> Anyway, having made this decision, good luck to you.
> 
> D



Yes, but there is a difference Daryl. I heard Horowitz in Symphony Hall in Boston in the late '60's and when I listen to "Horowitz At Carnegie Hall" with my eyes closed I almost feel transported back to that and my eyes well up.

That has NEVER happened to me with anyone's sample based mockup.


----------



## JonFairhurst (Jan 13, 2015)

Jose, have you picked up Noteperformer? It's Wallander's samples/emulation for Sibelius. I find it to be surprisingly effective for checking scores. (Not that I've pushed it to the limits. My scores are well within the box.)

It's not that Noteperformer sounds better than the latest samples - far from it. It's that it models human expression just well enough so that it doesn't hurt my head the way that mechanical MIDI stuff does. I actually look forward to hearing the lines played back automatically. 

It might just be the right bridge back to the written score without going all the way to the silent sheet. The best thing about it? Zero tweaking. Zilch. Nada. The only "waste of time" is setting the play head and listening to the result.

You won't be posting MP3s from Sib/NP, but you won't be listening to mechanical MIDI nor delivering pages with wrong accidentals either.


----------



## tokatila (Jan 13, 2015)

Daryl @ Wed Jan 14 said:


> ... Recordings are a poor imitation for not being present at the performance. They can be pleasurable, but as someone who spent years conducting orchestras every day of my working life, I can tell you with confidence that you should never compare sample performances with the real thing. At best it should be with a recording.
> 
> Anyway, having made this decision, good luck to you.
> 
> D



Agreed, a while ago I attended a perfomance of Stravinsky's Firebird sitting in front row. I think I was having some involuntary bowel moments during "Infernal dance" everytime Timpani and Gran Cassa were hitting sforzando simultaneously. Talk about bass.


----------



## AlexandreSafi (Jan 13, 2015)

EastWest Lurker @ Tue Jan 13 said:


> Man, I wish I could be that optimistic. I am not.



That's why i like to think that for now, in music, it's a "leap of rational faith". Optimism, to me in this case, makes more sense, but i can absolutely understand why the opposite scenario for now is as much, if not more rational for you and other people...

But as Mike described, *It's a cycle* (already happening in VFX arts...): 

1)[Manual] craftsmen, lots of them, Collaboration, and [trust] in the future that the coordination of skilled guys will make the result work,
2)then [Computers] appear "partly" making the process easier-immediate and cheaper,
3)then [Separation] between old-school skilled-people vs. new-school tech-people,
4)[Software] appears, emulates, tricks and gives access and motivation to "techies", lots and lots of them, to show up in a field they wouldn't dare approach before,
5)Old school craftsmen [alienated], the work goes to "all" places and "cheaper" places----bar set lower--,
6)Music adapts to the toolset---Software [limitations] and [lack of skills] with new-school people [homogenizing] the output with new trends both based on what real & fake (...especially..) can exclusively do, and do easily, & also especially what it can't do,
7)[Over-dependance] on Hardware & Software to stand out--Newer [tools] are released, being so far the only thing which allows to keep carrying out "new" trends, so now it's "Tools n' Toys Hunt" to keep it fresh, but everybody and everything still end up looking and sounding the same in the end,
8 )Suddenly, the tools reach a level of [realism] more spectacular than ever, to the point you can't really get more real than real, and where keeping on buying and improving your template and tools won't matter anymore, because practically everybody already has it at their fingertips so it's much harder to compete,
9)Then, and only then, Craftsmen [come back], they were required to wait until "quasi-perfect virtual realism" is attained with equal-access for everyone to buy on the market was occurring, because by this point it's now the only way to keep things interesting in the arts, not the computers and software back then, craftsmen coming back & competing and making untrained new-school people's life a lot harder, to then make the difference to bring back the much more "detailed-organic-fresh meat",
10)Then, then, then, then, the final [philosophical] if-it-ain't-broke,-don't-fix it-realization happens that crafting Real/Live, the feel of it, is actually always much more worth it and pleasant than "replicating" it digitally, even if its cheaper to do so and entirely possible and accessibly easy to do so...

-Last Step: Death of V.I., :D --- well not really of course, but rather the clinging and love affair with Digital...

It's a cycle between technology & humans with different skillsets
Again, this all makes great sense [to me!]


----------



## wesbender (Jan 13, 2015)

josejherring @ Tue Jan 13 said:


> This is what finally got me thinking. The last four minutes of Shosh. Quartet no. 12. After fighting the whole concert wondering how I could get this sound with samples...



Well, it probably doesn't help much that solo strings are about the most difficult type of samples to make an even remotely convincing performance with.

I hear you though. I've been a season ticket-er at my local orchestra for a number of years, and each concert leaves me motivated to write, yet completely unmotivated to dick around with samples.

But things are looking up with modern libraries, I think. (Though I'd be a fair bit happier with a strings equivalent for the expressive control (and sound) of SM brass.)


----------



## Udo (Jan 13, 2015)

Jose, I'm wondering if your issue is just "working with orchestral samples". Could it be partly because of the type of music you're working on?

To me, a lot of (Epic) film music appears to consist mainly of "constructed" productions with plenty of clichés, rather than real compositions (possibly, at least in part, because of the directors). There are quite a few notable exceptions of course.


----------



## José Herring (Jan 13, 2015)

That would be true but though Epic attempts are the only thing I post here, Epic isn't at all what I do. Even a casual listen on my SC will show you. I personally think epic is boring.


----------



## bbunker (Jan 13, 2015)

Ah, Jose; how can anyone possibly model all of the human relationships on stage? How could I possibly hold down a B on my keyboard and expect it to render the sullen, world-wearily desperate sadness of the dying notes of Tchaikovsky's Sixth, as well as it does the sense of impending tragedy in the prelude to La Traviata? And those are similar affect even! We record a group sitting in a room scratching out a few notes for themselves and the production team, and somehow expect that we can duplicate brilliance, or tragedy, or dynamism, or optimism, or pessimism, or...well, anything that humans as a group can experience.

It's frankly kind of ridiculous, that much expectation. That there exist tools which even hint at that capacity is...well, it's a credit to the dedication of the people who make samples. I'll call out Spitfire Audio on this, because of their unique philosophy: they make sample libraries, probably some of the most beloved libraries out there at the moment. And yet they always advocate real, live music. Because THAT IS WHAT MUSIC ACTUALLY IS. Sampling is a tribute to actual music, not a replacement.

Life's too short to make art that you don't love, Jose. Go make great art. And bring it back here to share; I for one could care less if your recordings don't have a single Virtual Instrument. Being part of a community shouldn't mean having to rigidly be contained within the ideas of the community, should it? I really hope this announcement isn't some way of saying goodbye to the group as well as the samples.


----------



## José Herring (Jan 13, 2015)

I'll still be around, I will just move my focus away from sample libraries. Probably won't give me much to talk about here. But, I'd like to explore electro-acoustic music more and combine that with live players, and have orchestral samples kind of take a backseat in my life. I spend way to much time obsessing about them, and it may also give me time to actually explore some sample ideas that I want to explore that I haven't been able to because I've spent too much time trying to get my commercial libraries to work. And, I think that may be also part of the problem. Library developers develop products around the way they think and I seldom find it the way I think. So I'm constantly having to impose my will on top of another persons will. If that makes sense.


----------



## Michael K. Bain (Jan 13, 2015)

adriancook @ Tue Jan 13 said:


> That said, I think people spend too much time with orchestral work and should concentrate on electronic (say synthesisers)



My preference is the exact opposite. I'd rather hear more orchestral music in the vein of Percy Faith, Billy Vaughn, etc and less electro music and synth music.

I listened to synthesizers since i was teenager back in the early to mid 80s. It wasn't unto about 4 years ago that it hit me I'd much rather hear orchestral music.

I write the style of music I like to hear. I like to hear strings, brass and woodwinds, so, lacking an orchestra at my beck-and-call, I use the next best thing, a sample library.

It bothers me not in the least that sampled violin doesn't sound 100% like a real violin. It's close enough for me.


----------



## AC986 (Jan 14, 2015)

If people start thinking about orchestral samples in a different way, then life becomes a lot easier. If I wrote an orchestral piece with samples with a view to having it played by real musicians, then I would have to have someone like Daryl completely re-orchestrate it so that it it wouldn't sound ridiculous when played by real players.

Samples are just sounds: like the sounds you get from a synthesiser.


----------



## choc0thrax (Jan 14, 2015)

I think samples will continue to make gains until it's not such a terrible fate being unable to work with the real thing.

In fact, I'm actually gonna go against the grain and give a thumbs DOWN to real orchestras considering I recently found myself quite disappointed in a performance. I recall I'd thrown down good money on front row seats to see Gladiator Live - but get this - my proximity actually proved disastrous as the stage was so high that I had violinists blocking half my view of the screen! Was Commodus not merciful? I don't know, there was a freaking harp in the way.


----------



## Vlzmusic (Jan 14, 2015)

Best luck on your path Jose, and I understand you 100%.

My love for computer assisted music is heavily rooted in my childhood, 8-bit gaming as a kid, then getting my first 386 processor PC, dreaming of midi sequencing, and drooling over GM capable soundblaster. I guess without some kind of devotion to computerized stuff, it IS difficult to sit and tweak your guts out.

I have posed same questions many times though, and for the most part, my last 15 years of musical experience went in two parallels - one with the music degree studies, countless listening and sometimes participating in live musical events, hosting my wife`s singing concerts as a lecturer, going monthly to a concert or opera etc. And the other one, working with my DAW and libraries, VSTi plugs and you all perfectly know what else.

Whenever those two correlated in any way - it never brought me any good. So I keep those two worlds separated lately.


----------



## re-peat (Jan 14, 2015)

José,

Actually, this time, I’m in near-complete agreement with you (except for that paragraph that assumes insight into who I am).

I’ve been struggling with the (validity of the) concept of ‘virtual orchestras’ ever since I began making my first pseudo-orchestral recordings, many years ago, with a DX7, a JX-3P and an E-6400 (entirely laughable efforts in retrospect of course, but unforgettably exciting for me at the time nonetheless). And despite the fact that the tools to emulate orchestral timbres with, have improved enormously — to the point of now being able to deliver frightfully realistic simulations of a _certain_ orchestral idiom (when recorded) —, that struggle has lost none of its disturbing and paralyzing intensity over the years. Quite the opposite in fact, it’s gotten much worse: I often feel much more frustrated and ‘caged’ now with my Spitfire libraries, my SampleModeling instruments and my high-quality reverbs than I ever felt with a DX7, a Kurzweil K2000 and an old, clumsy ART reverb.

‘Caged’ is the important word here: the better libraries get, the more they impose their (and their developer’s) particular interpretation of reality on you and your music. And say what you want, but it always remains an interpretation of reality, and therefore only a very limited slice of _all that that reality can be_. Very noticeable in all of today’s top-end libraries, I find.
That’s the entire paradox of great samples, as far as I’m concerned: the more accurately they capture a certain manifestation of reality (of an instrument or section of instruments), the more they have to sacrifice and abandon _all the other possible manifestations of that same reality_. And if you happen to be thoroughly familiar with that reality — in all of its fabulous richness — that sacrifice is inescapably going to be experienced as all the more frustrating.

There’s no stringslibrary that allows us to explore all that violins can be. And there never will be, because the moment you capture a violin into a set of samples, you immediately forsake all that the instrument can be, and is meant to be — as a living musical presence —, by reducing it to a single frozen apparition of, inevitably, extremely limited abilities. And again, the paradox: the more convincing and well-defined this capture is, the more limited its expressive abilities.

No matter how great I think Sable is (and I do consider some of its content to be a work of sampling art), I always get terribly frustrated working with it because of that paradox: its very quality (the accuracy of its captured realism) is also what makes its musical vocabulary and grammar so limited.
Sable can only speak Sableëse. And Sableëse, like Muralese, Lassese, Hollywoodese, Appassionataëse or whatever, is but a microscopically tiny dialect of the rich language that real strings can speak. If you happen to like that dialect and if, through it, you can say all that you need saying, fine, but if not, you’re stuck.
And the same thing goes for nearly all virtual and sampled instruments: they only speak their specific and inevitably seriously limited dialect of what is, in full reality, an immeasurably richer language.

It’s like taking a photograph of a person: the sharpest pictures, paradoxically, often reveal least of who somebody really is, focusing entirely, as they do, on one specific state of a person at the precise second the picture was taken. A more blurred and seemingly inaccurate picture, on the other hand, lends the image a certain ambiguity (= a less narrowly defined interpretation) that will, as such, often give a more complete, truthful and accurate representation of the depicted person(ality).
It’s precisely for this reason that I often enjoy working with older libraries A LOT more than with recent ones. Precisely because they’re so much worse at, and far less constrained by, their particular simulation of that ‘one specific slice of reality’, and thus leave much more room for imagining what its intrinsic limitations will merely suggest.

I lost all interest and belief in virtual orchestras a long, long time ago. I only keep up with what’s happening in order to remain able to deliver what clients expect, but strictly musically and creatively speaking, I derive no satisfaction whatsoever from working with orchestral samples. The innate fakeness of the idiom, the all-pervading absurdity of its concept … it is all utterly depressing to me, and today much more so than it ever was.
For the past twenty-five years, I’ve been searching for a musical language that recognizes, accepts and exploits the TRUE nature (and its musical implications) of these strange, apparently identity-less tools and instruments that we work with. Hence my belief that it is only in the full acknowledgment and embrace of this artificiality that a new and authentic reality can arise, and why I always think ‘electronic music’ rather than ‘orchestral music’, even when working with the best samples. Whenever I think ‘orchestral music’ when working with sample libraries, my inspiration and creative drive disappears instantly. Every time.

Andy’s got a point of course: there’s things you can do with today’s tools that you wouldn’t even dream of doing only five years ago (let alone ten years). And he proves it time and time again by delivering the best-sounding and most convincing orchestral simulations that I, for one, have ever heard and probably will ever hear.
And it’s also true that for 99,99% of the jobs that require orchestral sounds (or the illusion thereof), today’s tools are infinitely more effective, powerful and believable than any of their predecessors. No argument there, I think, and the discussion might very well end here if you happen to find all that you require in what today’s libraries have to offer.

Even so, none of this means much to anyone who, for whatever reason, wants to work outside of the timbral and expressive territory that most of today’s libraries cater for, or who wants to speak timbral/expressive dialects that haven’t been captured thus far. 
And it means even less — to the point of stifling, paralyzing meaninglessness — if you happen to have a deep, first-hand familiarity with all that a real orchestra can be — i.e. the complete language — and hope to be able to speak (musically) beyond the point where samples become mute.

_


----------



## Daryl (Jan 14, 2015)

choc0thrax @ Wed Jan 14 said:


> I think samples will continue to make gains until it's not such a terrible fate being unable to work with the real thing.
> 
> In fact, I'm actually gonna go against the grain and give a thumbs DOWN to real orchestras considering I recently found myself quite disappointed in a performance. I recall I'd thrown down good money on front row seats to see Gladiator Live - but get this - my proximity actually proved disastrous as the stage was so high that I had violinists blocking half my view of the screen! Was Commodus not merciful? I don't know, there was a freaking harp in the way.


Gladiator is not orchestral music. It is a film score. There are comparatively few modern few scores which are successful when played live, simply because they weren't designed that way.

D


----------



## NYC Composer (Jan 14, 2015)

At this point in my life, it's highly doubtful I'll get many cracks at a real orchestra except for local schools perhaps, and I like writing orchestral music, so samples are fine things in my book. The improvements in them continue to impress me, when I get better ones my music often sounds better. I wish the top end wasn't quite so expensive (I'm jealous of you guys with every string and woodwind library, you must all have great day gigs or been born with the proverbial silver spoon in your maws!)

Maybe it's different stages of life. Maybe it's because I'm basically bourgeois and never set out to be an artiste, merely a multi-weaponed craftsman who plied his skills and always supported himself with music alone- but I guess I don't experience these crises. I wish you luck, Jose. The unreasonable men make the difference, you know.


----------



## Tanuj Tiku (Jan 14, 2015)

Daryl @ Wed Jan 14 said:


> choc0thrax @ Wed Jan 14 said:
> 
> 
> > I think samples will continue to make gains until it's not such a terrible fate being unable to work with the real thing.
> ...




I agree with Daryl here. Many years ago I went to a film music concert at the Royal Albert Hall. One of the pieces they performed was from Gladiator and it did not really work as well as many of the others. Certainly it was nothing like what is on the recording. I suspect it is because Hans does not write music which is strictly orchestral in nature. A fact he has talked about many times in his interviews. 

I also went to another John Williams film music night by the LSO at the Barbican in 2012. Of course, it was a very different feeling, hearing this music live but it sounded very much like the recording. I am talking about the musicality and performance, not so much the sound. 



Tanuj.


----------



## Guy Rowland (Jan 14, 2015)

NYC Composer @ Wed Jan 14 said:


> Maybe it's because I'm basically bourgeois and never set out to be an artiste, merely a multi-weaponed craftsman who plied his skills and always supported himself with music alone- but I guess I don't experience these crises



Nor I. Well, I also support myself with other audio, not just music, but otherwise that's pretty much how I feel.

I do feel sorry for the Jose's and the Piets. I totally get where they are coming from - all they say is right, essentially.

Perhaps another example may help, though I severely doubt it. If you have written something that requires exuisitie playing from one of the finest musicians in the world (note - I haven't), then I'd imagine a merely competant player would disheartening to listen to. If it was a sub-mediocre player, torture. I guess I feel the same way with samples. We as a community are all-too aware of the limitations, and most of us also experience the joy of it working (even a casual listen to pretty much anything Andy B turns out is enough to make most of us weep with a mixture of admiration and envy). As Piet says so eloquently however, just because that composition by Andy B may work brilliantly, it won't necessarily work on a very different composition, involving identical instrumentation. Samples - like the vast majority of musicians - will always have their limits.

But I know this isn't really what Piet and Jose are saying. Samples are dead, always a counjouring trick and we are called upon to be magicians - either good ones or bad ones - who bring these disembodied parts to life. Even a poor orchestra is a living, breathing thing, though full of imperfections and blemishes which, if bad enough, are a different form of torture.

Me, I'm grateful for the conjouring trick. I'm acutely aware that my audience - be they my direct clients or those who distractedly watch on the telly over their beans on toast - couldn't possibly care less how I do what I do, and that's ever-present in my mind. But I both understand and almost pity those who find that very intellectual process acutely painful.

Oh, and I also know that if I preferred to work with 20 year old samples when trying to emulate real instruments, my clients would think I'd gone insane and probably stop being my clients pretty quickly. (of course electronic quite different).


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Jan 14, 2015)

I almost entirely agree with Piet. And my situation si similar to Larry's. Since it is unlikely I will ever again be hired with a budget for a real orchestra, I must use samples.

I don't compose music for myself but for clients and I came to terms years ago with the fact that I do not have anything musical that is unique to bring to the table, just a love of composing and a skill set.

The way I can live with this, and I fear it is going to sound like I am bragging, when actually I know that compared to really great composers I am decidedly mediocre:

1. I start out never thinking" I am going to make this sound real." I just focus on making it sound good to my ears because my experience is that when it sounds good to my ears it usually pleases my clients.

2. I try to take joy in my ability to write a melody and utilize my years of training in harmony and counterpoint.

3. I try to find joy in serving the picture I am scoring to, knowing that I am helping it be more effective.

But ironically, even though I work part time for a terrific library developer and have made part of my living the last 20 years helping people with EW, Logic Pro, VE Pro, writing articles, etc. if I could wave a magic wand and make it all go away, I probably would.


----------



## AC986 (Jan 14, 2015)

choc0thrax @ Wed Jan 14 said:


> In fact, I'm actually gonna go against the grain and give a thumbs DOWN to real orchestras considering I recently found myself quite disappointed in a performance.



Yes that can definitely happen.




choc0thrax @ Wed Jan 14 said:


> Was Commodus not merciful? I don't know, there was a freaking harp in the way.



:lol: :lol: :lol: 

Edit: Did anyone from the Holst family show up asking for money?


----------



## re-peat (Jan 14, 2015)

Guy Rowland @ Wed Jan 14 said:


> (...) Samples - like the vast majority of musicians - will always have their limits.(...)


True, but there is a difference and it is precisely that difference which is fundamental to the frustation (at least, to mine).
Even a musician of limited skills is still a living and 100% authentic presence. And in this threesome of words — ‘authentic’, ‘living’ and ‘presence’ — the two most vital and relevant ones (‘authentic’ and ‘living’) simply do not apply to samples. Not only does a sample, or string of samples, not understand what music I ask it to play (and even if it did, its breadth of accurate and context-aware expression is totally absent anyway), but most important of all: it simply is not the musical being which my writing for it assumes that it is. That, to me, is the Achilles heel of all virtual instruments-based music: that intrinsic, constant denial of what its instrumentarium is and isn’t.

If I develop a cunning strategy for a solid and close-knit team of top-class soccer players, but subsequently end up pushing eleven unidexters on to the pitch who may well be enthusiastic and wear the shirts of those top-class players, but are otherwise completely lacking in all the required matching abilities, I am not going to get very far with my tactical plan, am I? The resulting spectacle may be quite remarkable and even touching in its effort and dedication — the late Peter Cook would enjoy it enormously —, but there is always going to be a fatal discrepancy between my strategy, on the one leg, and the tools I have at my disposal to execute it, on the absent other.

But again, I’m fully aware that none of these considerations matter much the moment you have to start working on a job that demands for virtual orchestral forces.
And since most sample libraries are created with people in mind who have, or desire, those type of jobs, I do readily admit that the desillusion and disaffection such as expressed by José and myself most often only occurs at the very fringe of the territory which DAW-based musicians hope, or are asked, to conquer with sample libraries.

_


----------



## José Herring (Jan 14, 2015)

re-peat @ Wed Jan 14 said:


> Guy Rowland @ Wed Jan 14 said:
> 
> 
> > (...) Samples - like the vast majority of musicians - will always have their limits.(...)
> ...



And, this is the problem I have. 

I don't even recognize myself any more. Listening to Shostakovich, (not that I compare myself to him in any way shape or form. Not even I am that arrogant), it just made me realize that I've given up just about everything I hold dear in order to "meet the demands of the market place" or, conform to present day reality.

Unlike Jay, I have a bit of a different outlook. If they can't afford a real orchestra why should I try to give them one with samples?

Granted I'm not stupid. I do library work on occasion as well where nobody even really cares about the real thing and I'm perfectly fine banging out a few sample based pieces that have emotional impact.

But, this obsession I have about trying to do the most realistic work in an environment that no longer supports the effort. I'm done with it.

Funny thing is that this morning after making this decision I woke up with a renewed sense of optimism that I haven't felt in a while. Like the future holds endless possibilities. I didn't wake up rushing to my computer to tweak that sample that had been bothering me from the night before.


----------



## KEnK (Jan 14, 2015)

re-peat @ Wed Jan 14 said:


> ...It’s like taking a photograph of a person: the sharpest pictures, paradoxically, often reveal least of who somebody really is, focusing entirely, as they do, on one specific state of a person at the precise second the picture was taken...


That's exactly what I think about all recorded music.
I've said that here from time to time 
and espoused philosophically upon the implications thereof-
and people think I'm a lunatic.
But it's the same thing as is being discussed here-
just taken to a further degree

k


----------



## AndreP (Jan 14, 2015)

josejherring @ Tue Jan 13 said:


> So I went to a concert on Sunday afternoon. I've purposely avoided all concerts in the past 5 or 6 years as I knew that the moment I actually heard a real ensemble live again, that this exact thing would happen.
> 
> Listening to Shostakovich string quartets 9-12 on Sunday afternoon made me realize that, I'm not a sample composer. I started out life writing chamber music for real people. I kind of came kicking and screaming into the sample world as the films I was working on kind of demanded that I be able to create at least passable mockups of orchestras. But, alas, I've grown tired of doing those kinds of films and I'm not doing them any more. Which gives me even less reason to continue on this path.
> 
> ...



Which means now that you're only limitations are imagination, pencil, paper and TIME. It's kind of a freeing thought to write without having to worry about mock-up. Wasn't it Mike Verta who said, "Takes 30 minutes to write a cue and 12 hours to mock it up decently." *I'm vaguely paraphrasing as I can't remember it exactly.


----------



## dcoscina (Jan 14, 2015)

Jose, I hear you. I decided a while ago that if I wanted to really concentrate on being a better composer to work in notation programs like Notion or Sibelius and not really give a fig about production. Now I still like all the toys- I recently got Cubase Pro and I think it's a pretty decent way of composing but the problem still exists that its user interface coupled with limitations of samples will straightjacket the composer (me at least) into writing a certain way. I am always startled at the difference in my music that was composed in notation compared to fucking around on a keyboard (and I have been playing piano since I was 11 so I'm not a slouch at that instrument). 

I've been working on some large scale pieces in notation and don't feel at all compelled to share them on this forum as I don't think people could get past the sonic mediocrity of the samples (NOtion mostly- but you know what? they might not be ultra real but they have a shit load of sampled articulations that allows me to get an approximation of what things sound like). 

This all depends on the composer's background. I came up putting notes to paper so this is more natural of a means of composing to me but there are others who produce terrific orchestral music using DAWs. So it's really all up to the composer in question and what methodology resonates with.

EDIT- I'm also not a career composer so I have the luxury of using notation programs to compose with- if I was under the gun to produce loads of music, I would have to embrace the tools of the trade which are samples and DAWs. It's a necessity these days.


----------



## JonFairhurst (Jan 14, 2015)

Lately, I've been teaching myself violin while simultaneously assembling a system to play Sample Modeling instruments (horn first) live with a small community orchestra. It's given me an interesting perspective...

Samples give the performer a high floor and a low ceiling. I can play a horn melody with nice intonation without squeaks and blats right out of the box. With live playing, expression and vibrato control I can make it sing (to some degree). But it will only sound so real, will only have a given range of tones, and will never make all of the sounds that a real musician can produce.

A real violin, however, has a brutally low floor and a wonderfully high ceiling. Being a guitarist and having studied orchestration, I know the range and some aspects come easy. That said, I can play lines where 90% of the duration is terrible.

The community orchestra is a come-one-come-all affair, so its sound is closer to the floor than the ceiling. (Hey, it's about participation, experience and relationships rather than producing a sellable product.) Ironically, I'm worried that the sampled horn will sound too good(!) in that its great intonation will make the real players seem bad which could be discouraging and cause resentment. We will see. If it doesn't feel right, I might end up with the 2nd violins or pick up and learn some other real instrument. My long term goal is to compose some works for this little group to play successfully. It's a different mindset than writing for samples. I'll be writing for playability. (Ironically, I might actually avoid long, sustained notes on some instruments which might be easy for beginners to perform but difficult to make sound good, in tune, and expressive.)

Regarding samples having their own sound and limitations, isn't that true of all players and instruments? Certainly, when writing for the community orchestra, I will also have a limited palette. Then again, limitations often force creativity rather than stifle it.

Maybe the real trick is to find an inspiring goal, whether it's with samples, large scale works, a garage band, or a small amateur orchestra. If samples no longer inspire, it's definitely time to move on. Conversely, if inspiration brings one back to samples, don't hesitate to jump back in. It's an open door both ways.


----------



## marclawsonmusic (Jan 14, 2015)

josejherring @ Wed Jan 14 said:


> Funny thing is that this morning after making this decision I woke up with a renewed sense of optimism that I haven't felt in a while. Like the future holds endless possibilities. I didn't wake up rushing to my computer to tweak that sample that had been bothering me from the night before.


I think that's a good sign you're on the right path.


----------



## RiffWraith (Jan 14, 2015)

josejherring @ Wed Jan 14 said:


> Funny thing is that this morning after making this decision I woke up with a renewed sense of optimism that I haven't felt in a while. Like the future holds endless possibilities. I didn't wake up rushing to my computer to tweak that sample that had been bothering me from the night before.



Glad we could be of assistance


----------



## bbunker (Jan 14, 2015)

Here's an analogy that I hatched up while making the kids their amazing Hot Pockets dinner for the evening:

Sample Libraries are to actual Orchestras what Flight Simulators are to actual Planes. Sample Libraries simulate the experience of what the actual instruments do like a Flight Sim simulates the experience a pilot has. You can train on a flight sim to do the real thing - gestures translate from sim to real life, and the experience is very similar in many regards, except for some crucial ones.

I think making recordings using Sample Libraries is like making a video of your flight on a flight sim - recordings clearly aren't the same as a performance, since they're like viewing the performance through the small frame of the audio recording, in the same way that recording a flight on a flight sim or in real life, you see the flight through the frame of the video recording, and in either case something is missing, but we'd accept the experience as what it is.

So here's the juicy bit that I can't get over: I imagine someone who self-identifies as a pilot, who has never actually flown a real airplane. (S)he has a huge list of experiences of 'flight,' lots of videos of 'flight' experiences, and lots of skill at manipulating the flight sim that is the window to their world of flight. But it feels tragic to me somehow - a Pilot who has never flown somewhere? I get a huge pile of metaphysical angst about that idea. And composers who only ever live in a world of samples gives me the same angst, and I can't get over it.

None of which says that there isn't value in samples or flight sims - they're both fun. You can use either one for a lot of uses. Pilots don't always have access to a 747, or might want to try out scenarios like landing in a crosswind. Or they might want to practice their routes before doing it for real. They're fun, but they aren't really airplanes. And sample libraries aren't really instruments (wait for stunned cry of "HERETIC"). They're simulations of instruments. And mentally over-compensating for their limitations feels icky. Like looking at a robotic sexual partner and saying "well, this one's just as good, because real humans have their unique limitations, and so does Robolover 2000." Which isn't to say that you can't have a real experience of sorts with Robolover. And a heck of a lot of fun, I'd imagine. And I digress before this gets REALLY weird.

I'm totally not trying to convert anybody away from samples. I love the darn things for what they are. But I never pretend that they're instruments instead of simulations of instruments. And I don't try to convince myself that it's a better experience because I've taken out all the flaws of the real, human experience. There're just too many metaphysical sharks swimming in those waters.


----------



## NYC Composer (Jan 14, 2015)

bbunker @ Wed Jan 14 said:


> I'm totally not trying to convert anybody away from samples. I love the darn things for what they are. But I never pretend that they're instruments instead of simulations of instruments. And I don't try to convince myself that it's a better experience because I've taken out all the flaws of the real, human experience. There're just too many metaphysical sharks swimming in those waters.



Conversely, I do "pretend they're instruments", although I wouldn't put it that way. Instead, I play them in as idiomatic a manner as possible, based on my listening when playing in orchestras and having written for various live ensembles over years. My willful suspension of disbelief (hopefully) helps me to imbue the static nature of samples with a little more musicality and humanity.

This is a very individual thing and an interesting, productive discussion in my view, bringing up a variety of issues. Something Jay said about melody resonated with me- over the years, melody has become unfashionable, but for me one of the beauties of aging is that I know longer care about fashionable or unfashionable, instead just what I like or don't. I am powerfully drawn to melody and melodic writing. Last week I set myself the task to write a moody mysterioso orchestral piece with less melody, but when I was done I could follow the melody all the way through  

Point being- the right way is the way that works for you, and (here Jay and I diverge) 
what's "good" is what you think is good, and to hell with everything and everybody else.


----------



## José Herring (Jan 14, 2015)

It's that duplicity--it sounds like the real thing, but it's not the real thing. That's making me feel more like a fraud lately. Working hard to make it sound like it's the real thing and not getting there.

And, like I said, I don't think I'm that bad at it. But, I don't love it. It doesn't make me get up in the morning thinking of music. So with that I started thinking, I'm on the wrong path and need to minimize the time spent on this path.

I think that time away will make me realize what I've been doing wrong. And, what I can clearly see that I've been doing wrong, even though I suspected this all along, is thinking that, samples are really anything like the instruments they are trying to replicate. 

I did a piece where I completely synthesized a horn and even that had more expression than a sampled horn. That got me thinking.

I'm not one of those composers that grew up with samples. I tried to make myself into one of those composers, but truth be told I'd be utterly embarrassed to stand in front of a group and tell them to play more like the mockup which surprisingly so many composers are willing to do. And, much less willing to write for the mockup and then handing that in as music when in fact I know that players are capable of a whole lot more.

So I realized that I'm not going to be one that writes for the samples, and any attempt to making them sound more than samples makes it sound more fake.


----------



## Michael K. Bain (Jan 14, 2015)

bbunker @ Wed Jan 14 said:


> So here's the juicy bit that I can't get over: I imagine someone who self-identifies as a pilot, who has never actually flown a real airplane. - a Pilot who has never flown somewhere? I get a huge pile of metaphysical angst about that idea. And composers who only ever live in a world of samples gives me the same angst, and I can't get over it.


It might help you overcome your angst to think of a composer as commonly defined: simply someone who writes his own original music, either by notating it on paper or recording it or through oral tradition.

I could understand your angst if you had said your angst was over orchestrators who only use samples.


----------



## iaink (Jan 15, 2015)

Michael K. Bain @ Thu Jan 15 said:


> bbunker @ Wed Jan 14 said:
> 
> 
> > So here's the juicy bit that I can't get over: I imagine someone who self-identifies as a pilot, who has never actually flown a real airplane. - a Pilot who has never flown somewhere? I get a huge pile of metaphysical angst about that idea. And composers who only ever live in a world of samples gives me the same angst, and I can't get over it.
> ...



Plus, no one would ever pay a flight-simmer to fly them across the country.


----------



## JonFairhurst (Jan 15, 2015)

iaink @ Thu Jan 15 said:


> Plus, no one would ever pay a flight-simmer to fly them across the country.



True. We pay computers to fly us across the country - with biological backup and assist, of course...


----------



## NYC Composer (Jan 15, 2015)

JonFairhurst @ Fri Jan 16 said:


> iaink @ Thu Jan 15 said:
> 
> 
> > Plus, no one would ever pay a flight-simmer to fly them across the country.
> ...



In Malaysia, I hear they kick it old school- two turntables and a microphone.


----------



## marclawsonmusic (Jan 16, 2015)

NYC Composer @ Fri Jan 16 said:


> In Malaysia, I hear they kick it old school- two turntables and a microphone.


Hah!


----------



## creativeforge (Jan 21, 2015)

josejherring @ Tue Jan 13 said:


> After having gone through listening to the quartet play Shotakovich, I'm done with the idea that samples could come anywhere near what I intend with my music. So if I'm done, I'm done with the idea that samples are sufficient enough of a creative medium to spend all the time I do spend trying to get some semblance of my ideas out only to be disappointed.
> 
> I have a very successful sound designer friend that told me once if I'm not having fun then I'm doing something wrong. I'm not having fun and working on the last sample piece I did I noticed that I had a lot of fun with the sound design and even the composing, I had no fun spending 10 hours tweaking the trumpet patch because it didn't sound like a trumpet and after 10 hours of making it sound like a trumpet, it still didn't sound like a trumpet.
> 
> ...



Bless you Jose, it sounds like you are heeding a call, and I can only imagine how liberating and intoxicating it will be, not only for you, but for the musicians who will work with you to bring your music to life, like it's been done for hundreds of years. 

I'm coming back to music after 10 years of relative silence, a newcomer to samples. I used to violate the rules of instrumentation when playing an synthesized instrument's sound on the keyboard, now at least I'll stay within the natural parameters of the original instrument. I can't even read or write music. 

I've spent thousands of dollars preparing my "return to music" by purchasing all kinds of libraries I resonated with. But lately I've come to realize that there is one thing that is calling me back - an acoustic piano. That's where my history with music started 46 years ago, and that's where I need to return. No matter how amazingly beautiful some of the samples are nowadays, nothing can replace that physical interaction with the instrument, the way it sounds, the mechanics and the 3D sound. 

That's as far as I can identify with your decision, but I can extrapolate! And wish you all the best! Don't be a stranger and when you have something you can share with us to hear, I know many here will want to hear the fruit of your work...

(Cypher: You know, I know this steak doesn't exist. I know that when I put it in my mouth, the Matrix is telling my brain that it is juicy and delicious. After nine years, you know what I realize?
[Takes a bite of steak]
Cypher: Ignorance is bliss). 

Ignorance isn't bliss... but I'll stop here... 

Regards,

Andre


----------



## José Herring (Jan 26, 2015)

Thanks Andre. Just getting to this sorry for the delay.


----------



## SergeD (Jan 27, 2015)

re-peat @ Wed Jan 14 said:


> Sable can only speak Sableëse. And Sableëse, like Muralese, Lassese, Hollywoodese, Appassionataëse or whatever, is but a microscopically tiny dialect of the rich language that real strings can speak. If you happen to like that dialect and if, through it, you can say all that you need saying, fine, but if not, you’re stuck.
> 
> _



Right on the spot. And the constraint is even bigger without the heavy use of #CC11 variations into samples.


----------



## clarkus (Feb 21, 2015)

Not just to Jose, but to all my friends here - SO interesting that I haven't been on this Forum in months & I just happened to click on this when I came back. People have made so many good points already - I'll see what I can add that's NOT been said.

A very quick sketch of why have tacked away from sample-based music-making:

I got some great encouragement from a music house in NYC (some may remember a triumphant day when I thanked everyone here for their help back in November or thereabouts). I'd been feeding 4 Elements my attempts over a 10 - 12 month period of taking my "real world" music experience & learning MIDI / sample-based composing. I deliberately stayed away from orchestral mock-ups, though I was starting to drop in VSL stuff. 

Long story short, I could not quite satisfy the people over at 4Elements Music. And I respect what their stable of composers do there! So this is partly an admission of failure. I understand what a good V.O. cue is (that's what they largely need). But I'd been working for years on developing a personality as a composer, and, really, to some extent to be successful @ commercial music is to eradicate that. Or that was what I began to see and to feel was true for me.

OF COURSE there are great film-composers whose musical personality is all over what they write. I admire some of them very much. They're where they should be.

But I came to wonder if in trying to hard to please these guys @ this music-house & fit within their matrix, I was doing us all a disservice. In a sense you could say I discovered "Im not that guy." They were realizing it and so was I.

At the same time (yes, there's a happy ending, or one that's in-progress, anyway), I have a project that's come together that suits me very well on the production side, and that's the International Art and Technology Festival here in the SF Bay Area, which will premiere next year. 

http://www.iatfest.com//url]
An ...w. So it's interesting how it's worked out.


----------



## skyy38 (Jan 30, 2016)

josejherring said:


> Not to invalidate any of your fine work, but in what way is it getting interesting?
> 
> I actually find that the more complex this stuff gets the more people's mockups seem to be suffering.
> 
> I've had to actually go backwards and started using more basic patches to get the music working again with samples. No more legato patches, ect... Just basic old school sustains, shorts with rr, ect.... The more complex the scripting the less playable the patches the more time spent moving little midi dots on the screen rather than actually playing.



In the now, TODAY, stuff is getting more interesting and actually easier than ever before to execute.
Manufacturers of music gear realized that ,hey, we are musicians FIRST and technicians SECOND!
WE want to spend MORE time getting the music done, instead of having to go back and mess with MIDI dots and stamping in articulations.
Composing and committing the music is a big job in and of itself and anything that makes that easier is being implemented more and more.
There is nothing wrong with "legato patches" because they save you the time of having to code in "legato" AFTER the fact! That's why there are so many variations of the same thing, at least in hardware, so you can get straight to what you want, rather than having to "assign" it later.

I'm almost like you-I had to learn this stuff kicking and screaming, just to get it WRONG most of the time, in the beginning. But I also realized that more education was the price of being part of the "Home Studio Revolution" AND liberation from the local studios who would charge you $$$ per hour and all the while ALSO trying to tell you how your recording should sound!

For myself, as far as the orchestral stuff was concerned, I just laid it all out the best that I could and I wouldn't worry about what I didn't have-I was just thankful for what I HAD, to make music with.
If some of my patches sucked-I wouldn't use them. If I couldn't do a certain articulation with what I had, I'd drop it and move on.

If you feel like you've "had enough" then, more power to you because it's your life.

I thought I had enough, at one point and I packed all my studio gear away for 5 years.
Then something propelled me to jump back into the pool, and I've been at it ever since.
Oh yeah, there are points where I don't touch my rig for weeks and then, something pops into my head and I'm back in the saddle.
That's just the way life goes, I reckon.


----------



## skyy38 (Jan 30, 2016)

AlexandreSafi said:


> Dear Jose, I deeply empathize with you, on the subject of this thread, funnily I find I agree with both you and Andy...
> 
> I think we're "very" soon inevitably going to be reaching an era where samples will be getting so close and so quickly out-of-the box to the real thing with a more universal quality to the nature of each instrument group that it will be back to performers-composers-musicians-craftsmen who have something interesting to say that will stand out in this business...
> 
> ...



For those of you who have heard this before, please excuse me:


----------



## skyy38 (Jan 30, 2016)

AC986 said:


> Hahaha.
> 
> You want to be careful listening to Shostokovitch. He's a great composer alright.
> 
> ...



What kind of sample package do you currently use AC?


----------



## skyy38 (Jan 30, 2016)

wesbender said:


> I tend to agree with Andy in that things are finally starting to get interesting in the realm of orchestral samples. With each passing year and generation of releases, I find myself having to write for the samples less and less (though it's still going to be an inevitability for the foreseeable future), especially with rise of more convincing-sounding modelling approaches.
> 
> I generally just have to approach orchestral writing in two ways... either I'm writing with no intent of a live performance, in which case the goal isn't to make it sound like actual humans are performing. Rather, I'm just trying to create something expressive, dynamic and musically interesting (the orchestral samples are just there because I like the tonal and timbral palette they offer). There are a number of higher-end orchestral libs that can pull this off fairly well in the right hands. You just have to go into it accepting the limitations and knowing what you can and can't do in a relatively convincing manner.
> 
> ...



I abhor the phrase "writing for samples".
I write music.
I use the samples to flesh out my music.
I don't use my music to flesh out the samples.


----------



## skyy38 (Jan 30, 2016)

AC986 said:


> If people start thinking about orchestral samples in a different way, then life becomes a lot easier. If I wrote an orchestral piece with samples with a view to having it played by real musicians, then I would have to have someone like Daryl completely re-orchestrate it so that it it wouldn't sound ridiculous when played by real players.
> 
> Samples are just sounds: like the sounds you get from a synthesiser.



When you're writing the music, you're writing the music.
It doesn't matter whether you're using a piano or a workstation.
When you're done with your ten-stave ( or however many staves ) outline
you hand it to your orchestrator who then bangs out separate charts for each player in the orchestra.
And if you don't like writing music on paper, you could hand your orchestrator a recording of your piece and he could probably take it from there, just as easily!


----------



## skyy38 (Jan 30, 2016)

NYC Composer said:


> At this point in my life, it's highly doubtful I'll get many cracks at a real orchestra except for local schools perhaps, and I like writing orchestral music, so samples are fine things in my book. The improvements in them continue to impress me, when I get better ones my music often sounds better. I wish the top end wasn't quite so expensive (I'm jealous of you guys with every string and woodwind library, you must all have great day gigs or been born with the proverbial silver spoon in your maws!)
> 
> Maybe it's different stages of life. Maybe it's because I'm basically bourgeois and never set out to be an artiste, merely a multi-weaponed craftsman who plied his skills and always supported himself with music alone- but I guess I don't experience these crises. I wish you luck, Jose. The unreasonable men make the difference, you know.



Why does quality ALWAYS have to be equated with having $$$?
Yes I know, "You get what you pay for" but it doesn't mean you have to wear a barrel after having bought it!


----------



## skyy38 (Jan 30, 2016)

Guy Rowland said:


> Even a poor orchestra is a living, breathing thing, though full of imperfections and blemishes which, if bad enough, are a different form of torture.



Yeah, you got THAT right!


----------



## NYC Composer (Jan 30, 2016)

Insomnia? Caffeine overdose? You do realize this thread is a year old, right?


----------



## skyy38 (Jan 31, 2016)

NYC Composer said:


> Insomnia? Caffeine overdose? You do realize this thread is a year old, right?



Beats starting a new thread that would just take up more "real estate."


----------



## José Herring (Feb 7, 2016)

Hadn't realized that this thread got revived from the dead.

I've learned a lot in the intervening year. Focused back on live music for real musicians. Found the true nature of harmony. Am making way better music. Discovered that I now have the ability to write music away from the keyboard. And, as a side benefit, my mockups have gotten better.

Also, there's a good chance that I'll get to record one of my choir pieces with 40 singers, and I'm starting to make some real inroads into trailers. Fingers crossed on that one though. 

I don't miss samples for a second. They've become a tool again rather than my main mode of expression. I haven't bought 1 sample library and for the first time in years I can hear music and not think, "how can I mock that up?". 

Trying to decide now whether I should start a string quartet or a jazz song. Ah heck, I'll just do both. I've got time since I don't have to mock them up.


----------



## chimuelo (Feb 7, 2016)

Aint that the truth.
Every gig I do where Strings are required I have to use 3 x Strings to get close to the right sound.
Hollywood Strings, LASS and Solaris with 4 String Oscillators.
Needs an FC7 the joystick and ribbon controller to pull it off.
But then when I have to add other instruments I lose half of the sound.
Old Grand Funk Railroad song Im Your Captain,..

Launch the Surf/waves then add Seagulls, then a sustained high D 1St Violins, then add Flute melodies, then Strings counter melody......
But the other musicians listening while they blend makes my mocking worthwhile.
Having real and fake going is much more rewarding than mock up only.

All this for a bunch of drunks.

Actually had a guy and his wife send me a Jager for the Orange Tree Passion Flute solos on Cross Eyed Mary and Locascrotum Breath.
Guess it works better in the context of live backing instruments.


----------



## chimuelo (Feb 7, 2016)

Almost forgot.
Pianoteq Pro, Orange Tree Banshee Guitar and the ancient Emulator V Turbo 64mb Melotron sample round off the parts left hand comps play.
Really enjoying adding PLAY HS Strings and Brass to my live rig.
Works great loads fast using NVMe.
Before management owned the 2 x X79/X99 DAWs and iLoks.
This is the new ASRock mATX Z170 @ 4.6ghz / 64gbs DDR4 2666.

DAWg'll Hunt....


----------



## NYC Composer (Feb 7, 2016)

Yeah, but did you drink the Jäger? That stuff tastes like chocolate waste.


----------



## chimuelo (Feb 7, 2016)

As a tiny Chimuelo I faked sick to get Vicks 44 Formula and St. Joseph's Orange Aspirin.
Jager tastes like just like it and for the sake of tradition I put a dime of Cocaine in it since the Liberals in Germany changed the recipe through over regulation.
And yes it tastes great.
My nose fell off my face back in the late 80s in Vegas.
Since then I've been so straight I have to lay down just to take a shit.....


----------



## NYC Composer (Feb 7, 2016)

The idea of you on nose candy is deeply alarming. As another musician who did live gigs in the 80s, I would never have done such a thing myself. No, really. Unh uh.


----------



## chimuelo (Feb 7, 2016)

No way is there a place for that while gigging.
But for helping score whales for the hookers and Casino hosts I would have them buy plug ins and developers loved my project windows.
Each plug in revealed the true identity of Candy Delight or Rosy Smackers, etc.
So seeing females names all over my project window was cool.
Eventually no more plug ins to buy so having my face packed after work was OK.
But started doing towers at 0200 and had to pass.
Concrete pours are no fun with a runny nose.
You wipe it then the chemicals infect your nose and you really look like you should've been in Spinal Tap.


----------



## kitekrazy (Feb 20, 2016)

josejherring said:


> Me 20 years ago would have written the whole thing out on paper. Created the parts by hand and given it to musicians to play.



Some time ago I had a thread about how people start out their compositions and there were some on this site that still work with paper. If you think about it this becomes less distracting. I don't create stuff that needs notation anymore and I haven't upgraded Finale in years and hardly cracked open notion. At the same time I've bought more digital sheet music to mess around with.


----------

