# Which is more important? Talent or Samples?



## Guy Bacos (Aug 12, 2009)

In the world of sampled music there is an obvious marriage between the programmers talent and the quality of the samples used. The combination varies between each individual and makes the difference in the result, but would you say they are equally important or one more than the other? 

I made this poll to see what you think.

Comment if you want as well.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Aug 12, 2009)

Where's the option for 100% samples?

These kids today who think you need to practice and study music are stupid. Just buy the samples and you'll automatically be great.


----------



## Pzy-Clone (Aug 12, 2009)

well..what is your definition of talent, in this regard?

I mean, one could be a good programmer, poor composer, a mediocre orchestrator etc etc.

Plenty of good examples of great composers with poor programming skills, or vice versa.

I dont think it is as simple as having "talent" or not...

Personally im a better programmer than composer, so i can get my libs to sound good, but the actual compositions will still not be very advanced...it depends very much on how you would define talent, and what one wishes to achieve in the end?


----------



## dannthr (Aug 12, 2009)

Don't forget MIDI Sequencing is a talent all its own, Guy, though I'm sure I don't really have to remind you--personally, I've been outsourced on several occasions by busy composers to sequence.


----------



## Guy Bacos (Aug 12, 2009)

I think the definition of talent could be defined in an entire thesis with inconclusive results. I'd have to go with the basic definition of it.


----------



## nikolas (Aug 12, 2009)

I don't believe in talent! Sorry Guy!

I believe in hard work, knowledge and experience!


----------



## Guy Bacos (Aug 12, 2009)

dannthr @ Wed Aug 12 said:


> Don't forget MIDI Sequencing is a talent all its own, Guy, though I'm sure I don't really have to remind you--personally, I've been outsourced on several occasions by busy composers to sequence.



Agree, that is also part of "talent" no doubt.


----------



## dannthr (Aug 12, 2009)

I believe in inspiration


----------



## Guy Bacos (Aug 12, 2009)

nikolas @ Wed Aug 12 said:


> I don't believe in talent! Sorry Guy!
> 
> I believe in hard work, knowledge and experience!



You saying Bach. Beethoven and Mozart is only through hard work and no talent?


----------



## Stephen Hill (Aug 12, 2009)

I think it is safe to assume Mozart and Beethoven both had some connections with Vienna. Now whether it was the city or the sample library, musicologists are still looking at the research data and trying to narrow it down.


----------



## MaraschinoMusic (Aug 12, 2009)

germancomponist @ Thu Aug 13 said:


> 99% composer, 1 % library.



That's the correct ratio - absolutely.

In the context of the poll I imagine "talent" includes your ability as a composer, as a programmer, as an editor, as a player, etc... Without these abilities the samples mean less than nothing at all! 

If all you need to do to write music these days is to string together a bunch of pre-recorded loops, then a monkey could do it. Talent, or ability (call it what you like) is paramount in sorting out the sheep from the goats, or the composers from the monkeys!

Damn those fleas...


----------



## Stevie (Aug 12, 2009)

For me, the most important thing is still the melody. Hard to find these days...


----------



## madbulk (Aug 12, 2009)

Assuming you want to sell something, a few percent of talent against high-ninety-something quality source material sounds like plenty to me.
The second best answer is probably the other way around. 
All those choices in between are indefensible.


----------



## Mr. Anxiety (Aug 12, 2009)

What's the point of this question anyway?

Too much time on our hands?

Get back to work!

Mr. A.


----------



## SergeD (Aug 12, 2009)

John Lennon was talented because there was only one John Lennon. 

SergeD


----------



## Dave Connor (Aug 12, 2009)

Nick Batzdorf @ Wed Aug 12 said:


> Finally another man (Dave) with a superior intellect posts in this thread.



Damn straight Nick! When it comes to music I say, "Bring on the crap!"


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Aug 12, 2009)

Yup. And when it comes to X-Lax too.


----------



## Guy Bacos (Aug 12, 2009)

The way I was brought up, talking about my most important piano teacher, is that it's 5% genius and 95% sweet. Although this was not my question but some people flirted with that here.


----------



## Guy Bacos (Aug 12, 2009)

SergeD @ Wed Aug 12 said:


> John Lennon was talented because there was only one John Lennon.
> 
> SergeD



Genius is something you believe in or you don't. This is a good example, I agree John Lenon had some genius in him. Was John Lenon a hard worker? I doubted, just very talented.


----------



## billval3 (Aug 12, 2009)

I voted 70/30. Maybe I should have gone for 80/20. I think it really DOES matter what tools you have, though. Oh, your compositions may be incredible. Someone from this forum might even be able to recognize that talent despite terrible samples. But no one else is going to and that music is not going to help a film if that's what it was written for.


----------



## Guy Bacos (Aug 12, 2009)

In reply to some comments on the subject, I feel that more and more, especially as libraries are getting better, people are expecting too much from the libraries, like hoping for the Messiah Library will turn them into John Williams instantly, sorry if that sounds a bit rude, just trying to make a point. 

So this is where I'm coming from asking my question. Hopes this makes it clearer.


----------



## Guy Bacos (Aug 12, 2009)

Nick Batzdorf @ Wed Aug 12 said:


> Where's the option for 100% samples?
> 
> These kids today who think you need to practice and study music are stupid. Just buy the samples and you'll automatically be great.



You are obviously joking Nick, I hope!


----------



## nikolas (Aug 12, 2009)

Guy Bacos @ Wed Aug 12 said:


> nikolas @ Wed Aug 12 said:
> 
> 
> > I don't believe in talent! Sorry Guy!
> ...


Heh!

I couldn't exepct anything less from you! 

Let's discuss this for a sec...

Leopold (daddy) died a few years before Mozart died. He was pushing Mozart over the limit forever. He has been trained as the kid wonder since the age of... 3 or something.

Beethoven also had a father pushing him extremely far and trying to make him the next Mozart.

Bach was just creating music and kids all of his life! :D And wrote more than 1000 works!

How do you define talent? Cause I think you picked the wrong word here and this is creating all sorts of problems. If you had "user vs library" I would be 99% user 1% library, but I stick very strongly to my comment that I don't believe in talent.

I do think, scientifically speaking, that there is a tendency inherited in our DNA but that's about it. I mean I'm rather tall which automatically makes me a tiny bit better in basketball, but other than that I know shite about this sport.

I've been writting music for the last 25 years, only because I run into stupid piano teachers who thought that doing 99 out of the 100 Czerny excercizes (op 799 I think), is the best way to teach and I had no other way to express mysefl. A guy with 25 years of experience in composing is better than one with 3 years of experience, I assume.

Lastly my father belongs in academia (a professor of cardiology) so he introduced me and my brother to the world of facts, hard thinking, researching, etc. 

(All the above examples)

Talent would be irrelavent of the above. Talent would prevail all circumstances and problems. 

__________________________

But what you say makes it clear. New technology, loops, new libraries make some very insteresting (but not creative) results. In the short run this is VERY interesting and impressive. In the long run, where the user cannot get away from the same results, being a product of the library rather than their own work, they run onto a wall. 

But I don't think the problem lies with libraries so much. They do need excessive knowledge to work well! Problem lies with all other electronic blibs, which work on their own, automaticall, like magic!


----------



## Guy Bacos (Aug 12, 2009)

Nikolas,

I don't think we know what genius is, and talent is terribly hard to define. Fine, if you prefer the term "user" I'm ok with that, I don't want this question to revolve around a document of interpretation of each word. 

It's basically SAMPLES vs whatever you want to call it: hard work, sweet, talent, user,
inspiration, knowledge etc..


----------



## nikolas (Aug 12, 2009)

In which case I already replied to that question in the 2nd part of my post. (I think).


----------



## Guy Bacos (Aug 12, 2009)

Right, I noticed. Thanks.


----------



## Chris Hein (Aug 12, 2009)

Guy Bacos @ Thu Aug 13 said:


> I feel that more and more, especially as libraries are getting better, people are expecting too much from the libraries, like hoping for the Messiah Library will turn them into John Williams instantly, ...


How can I make songs with EWQLSO?
http://www.soundsonline-forums.com/show ... hp?t=23079
Eh... 

Chris Hein


----------



## germancomponist (Aug 12, 2009)

nikolas @ Thu Aug 13 said:


> But what you say makes it clear. New technology, loops, new libraries make some very insteresting (but not creative) results. In the short run this is VERY interesting and impressive. In the long run, where the user cannot get away from the same results, being a product of the library rather than their own work, they run onto a wall.



A good point! 

Some companies are now talking about "modern composers", their (loop) libs are for "modern composers"! :-D


----------



## Hal (Aug 12, 2009)

dannthr @ Wed Aug 12 said:


> Guy Bacos @ Wed Aug 12 said:
> 
> 
> > Maybe if I put it this way:
> ...



i Agree


----------



## david robinson (Aug 12, 2009)

hi,
thank god, the votes are biased the right way...
another thing that is needed to truly see your potential thru, is MONEY.
not to buy the latest and greatest, but for security to actually DO the time to create your art/music.
starving doesn't equate with creating on an efficient level.
David R.


----------



## bryla (Aug 13, 2009)

Great samples just makes it easier for the talented composer.
Great samples makes it harder for the mediocre composer (lot of programming, mixing and that other stuff)
Bad samples just show how bad the mediocre composer is


----------



## TheoKrueger (Aug 13, 2009)

Well in any case, I think that no one can do anything beyond what they are themselves. So talent could also be defined as an expression of an interesting character or a creative mind...

So just be yourself, love what you do and the rest is in heaven's hands.


----------



## Ned Bouhalassa (Aug 13, 2009)

I'm not sure what you mean in the question when you say, "... more important.". Do you mean more important in terms of writing great cues? Or in terms of getting regular professional work? More important to me or to my audience and/or client?


----------



## LHall (Aug 13, 2009)

Let's see. I want to have a house built. Do I look for someone who knows how to build a house, or do I look for someone who has a brand new hammer? Hmmmm....

Seems the harder I work, the more talented I get. 




> Where's the option for 100% samples?
> 
> "These kids today who think you need to practice and study music are stupid. Just buy the samples and you'll automatically be great."



Larry likes this (where's my thumbs-up icon?)


----------



## Waywyn (Aug 13, 2009)

I recently started to work with a famous/big producer (at least europewise) and I just spent a few days in his studio with all the crew, but what I can say DEFINITELY is 50% of each. Considering talent as writing, arranging, composing and samples as sequencing, programming, sound knowledge. vsti's and plugs/gear etc.

If you are done composing/arranging a track, it really depends on how good you are at library use, sequencer handling (best is to know all, ProTools, Logic and Cubase) and layering the real recordings, having sounds at hand etc. ...

I all the time knew that it is intense, but not that it is THAT intense.

In my opinion it is simply not enough to write a good orchestra (or whatever instruments) track, but on how to really enrich it (of course only if needed) and maing use of all the samples to enbedd it with all the other stuff and how to handle all the gear.


----------



## JohnG (Aug 13, 2009)

I agree. While noble, it's naive to assume that one's talent is the whole thing. I'm not sure it's even the decisive thing.

Resources -- whether it's a great bunch of players or a fabulous sample / synth sound -- are required to bring one's work to life. To succeed, one has to conceive, orchestrate, conduct (well, not just making a beat), use the gear well; because the alternative is to create a team of people who do all that stuff at a highly artistic level and for most beginners that's too expensive. Besides, even if one has the money, those people are not so easy to unearth. 

Only a portion of these skills require what I'd label "talent." Most of it's tenacity and resourcefulness.

Another way to think about this is to survey the market of top composers. If the samples (and skills to work with them, and synth sounds -- all of it) were so unimportant, why would so many leading composers pay so much attention to them? Many have custom libraries so that their demos are as perfect as possible. They have racks and racks of computers and outboard gear. Sure, they are talented, but they still get the best stuff they can lay their hands on. What's more, they spend a fortune in money and time doing so. 

I think the gear, sadly, matters more than people would like, and I think the results of Guy's survey reflect our wishes more than reality.


----------



## germancomponist (Aug 13, 2009)

I think the talent is the most important. 

Only if you are talented, only then you get the best out of your libs. Better say a multitalent, knowing all what is needed, as Alex wrote.


----------



## LHall (Aug 13, 2009)

I'm not saying gear isn't important. I have the best gear I can afford including top-notch orch stuff and tons of other including a 7.5 ft grand piano I paid on for 5 years.

I am saying that they are *tools*. Great sounds can be a genesis for inspiration. They will never substitute talent or hard work.


----------



## Guy Bacos (Aug 13, 2009)

JohnG @ Thu Aug 13 said:


> I think the gear, sadly, matters more than people would like, and I think the results of Guy's survey reflect our wishes more than reality.



Interesting.


----------



## Waywyn (Aug 13, 2009)

EDIT: Sorry, I think I got the whole thing wrong. Thought the question was gear against composing skill ...

Well to make it short, if you have shitty samples and you may have good programming going on, but the sound is still shitty .. then you have a shitty result. 

I mean I can't make GM strings sound good or going cool portamento lines ... if one can, gratz to him ... but it would still sound shitty.


----------



## LHall (Aug 13, 2009)

Guy Bacos @ Thu Aug 13 said:


> JohnG @ Thu Aug 13 said:
> 
> 
> > I think the gear, sadly, matters more than people would like, and I think the results of Guy's survey reflect our wishes more than reality.
> ...



It is an interesting comment. And a terribly sad line of thought. 

Well, I've got to leave this thread to go make some music with my great libraries.


----------



## Guy Bacos (Aug 13, 2009)

Waywyn @ Thu Aug 13 said:


> EDIT: Sorry, I think I got the whole thing wrong. Thought the question was gear against composing skill ...
> 
> Well to make it short, if you have shitty samples and you may have good programming going on, but the sound is still shitty .. then you have a shitty result.
> 
> I mean I can't make GM strings sound good or going cool portamento lines ... if one can, gratz to him ... but it would still sound shitty.



I know what you're saying, it's difficult to formulate the question in an ideal way. I think some of the examples I gave are probably more of a direction to the question.
Such as: Are more and more people expecting too much from lib these days, especially as they get better all the time hoping it will make them the next John Williams? This is a concern of mince especially for the future generations?


----------



## Waywyn (Aug 13, 2009)

Guy Bacos @ Thu Aug 13 said:


> Are more and more people expecting too much from lib these days, especially as they get better all the time hoping it will make them the next John Williams? This is a concern of mince especially for the future generations?



Well, as for this I would give a BIG YES!!! 
Lots of people think they hear demos and if they buy a certain lib, they can do the same ... and what's even more sad ... lots of people even don't care about all the controllers and such ... they just load and go ... and 75% of the results, sounds just copy&paste or simply stiff and lifeless.


----------



## germancomponist (Aug 13, 2009)

Staccato and legato :-D


----------



## nikolas (Aug 13, 2009)

Alex I think that Guy (rightfully so, cause I think he's right) is asking the opposite question really: Not if one can make good music if they have talent but shity samples, but if one with shity talent can make good music using great tools alone! 

And this is the sad part: We are forced to ask that! :(


----------



## JohnG (Aug 13, 2009)

Waywyn @ 13th August 2009 said:


> Guy Bacos @ Thu Aug 13 said:
> 
> 
> > Are more and more people expecting [a library] will make them the next John Williams?
> ...



Not just that but, from the sound of it, some people don't seem to be able to hear the difference between their work and the pieces they are emulating.

Probably I am one of them but can't hear the difference either.


----------



## Ashermusic (Aug 13, 2009)

If, and I know it is a big if, we take what I consider the unimportant factor of "reality" out of the question and frame it as making good music, there is no doubt that talented guys with inferior samples will nonetheless make better music then untalented guys using superior samples. There is still stuff out there that was done with Proteus and the like that are better music than what a lot of guys are producing with today's high end libraries IMHO.

But even talent only takes you so far. As my conductor, the late Rouben Gregorian used to say," My boy, music is selfish art, requires full dedication. It is 10% inspiration, and 90% perspiration."

So, for me:
1. Hard work.
2. Talent.
3. Quality of samples.


----------



## Andrew Aversa (Aug 13, 2009)

I went 70/30 talent/samples. I know some folks who can do amazing things with nothing but general MIDI sounds or even just a single handclap (ahem, Troels!) One guy I know managed to make an FM synthesizer say "This is Sparta" with no external effects. So, these people clearly don't need samples to be amazing. However, on the flip side, I've heard some remarkably realistic and "good sounding" pieces done by 15-16 year olds with little formal training and lots of expensive sounds.


----------



## TheoKrueger (Aug 13, 2009)

I think a lucky few of you might have heard this song before.

Its the intro piece from the game Agony, which was released for the Amiga 500.

The format is MOD tracker. I think it uses 3 piano samples and another 2 string samples or so. One of which is an octave, if i remember correctly since the last time i looked at the mod, please correct me if i'm wrong in the details. Total size, much less than a megabyte.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SWpq7BBQabk

This piece has no special samples occupying a whole hard-drive, it has no scripting, no legato and no effects. Its just plain, inspired, wonderful music that works for the picture and the game. In this case, i think that samples would have taken away part of the magic this piece has, instead of adding to it.

Everyone had the same freedom to write for Amiga games, but only few reached such a wonderful quality in terms of composition.

Talent is at the source, Samples are the means of expressing it. So if talent is before samples imho it is also more important.

Its like saying, what is more important when someone speaks, the actual words or the voice.


----------



## Christian Marcussen (Aug 13, 2009)

> However, on the flip side, I've heard some remarkably realistic and "good sounding" pieces done by 15-16 year olds with little formal training and lots of expensive sounds



aka... talent


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Aug 13, 2009)

Folmann is yet another man who possesses a brilliant intellect. Jay is clearly a fool.

Of course it's all about the samples. Buy them and you don't need ears, talent, skill, study, or hard work.


----------



## Guy Bacos (Aug 13, 2009)

I'm intrigued by the 2 people who voted 10% talent and 90% samples. Could it be Dave and Nick?


----------



## mikebarry (Aug 13, 2009)

Come on we all have composed the one finger down on middle c cue a few times  
Samples rock!


----------



## Ian Dorsch (Aug 13, 2009)

I believe the children are our future.


----------



## Ed (Aug 13, 2009)

Long live the hack composer and the sample libs that feed them. 

Ed

(Proud to be a hack)


----------



## Ed (Aug 13, 2009)

Folmann @ Thu Aug 13 said:


> It is 100% about the samples and talent is just another word for lucky.



I talent is recognizing your luck and stitching it together in a coherent manor. 8)


----------



## nikolas (Aug 13, 2009)

Theo,

I've had this track in mod since the 90s and I had no idea what it was. I put it on tapes, to keep listening to it, along with Dungeon Master music, and Ishar and other games, but still I had no idea.

The track is wonderful, but I cannot, still, put it down to talent, but intelligence, and hard work!

Another track which would be instantly put down the same lane was the opening track of Bard's Tale. (info: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bard's_Tale_(1985_video_game (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bard's ... video_game)) and the actual track: http://bardstale.poverellomedia.com/the ... files.html (click on midi file numbered "2").

It's a track that's monophonic (as it was in 8 bit, for PC) and still it has normal counterpoint and gives the impression of more voices. Same happens with the other tracks of the game! The composer went on to have a normal career in computer games music, while this was done back in 85 or so!


----------



## oldbrian (Aug 13, 2009)

I doubt that you can get far by this two-way classification. "Talent" for your musical tools, for your sequencer, for music in general and even for managing your time are too diverse to be put in the same box and either can be essential for a given task and you could name a handful of other "talents". 

If we take only the musical talent versus the samples you can't still expect an answer because it depends on the purpose of the music. If it's for listening only then talent might play the biggest part, but no talent will get you to be accepted at a job where you are needed to deliver a convincing sounding orchestral song if you don't have the proper libraries. For the other way around, no library or sample set alone will make you to able to write the way the trackers of the 80s and early 90s like PM, Skaven or xerxes (etc, etc, etc) were able to. IMHO


----------



## muziksculp (Aug 13, 2009)

Talent is IMHO the most important asset. But the 'main objective of the final product' has to be taken into consideration.

For example, if you are scoring a movie where a director wants the final product done with samples, due to budget constraints, and would like the movie score to sound as realistic, and convincing as possible, to make believe that it was the LSO playing, then being a talented composer, orchestrator, programmer/sound designer/Sound Engineer ... are all important, but so is having top of the line sample libraries, and possibly adding some real instrument track performances can elevate the realism factor, so playing an acoustic instrument, which is a talent, can help a lot, i.e. adding a solo violin, flute, oboe, ..etc. to a virtual-sample based orchestral work. On the other hand using a GM module, or a so/so orchestral sample library won't cut it, regardless of how talented the composer is, the end product will NOT satisfy the director's ears. It won't sound anything close to an LSO session :mrgreen: 

If the end product is just a fast orchestral temp track, that will provide a very rough idea of what the music will sound like, then by all means, any decent sample library, or even a Roland Sound Canvas might be good enough for the task  Talent is the primary required asset IMHO, I would say that samples are secondary, depending on the final product's requirements, and who will be listening to it, in what context, ...etc.


----------



## JohnG (Aug 13, 2009)

muziksculp @ 13th August 2009 said:


> If the end product is just a fast orchestral temp track, that will provide a very rough idea of what the music will sound like, then by all means, any decent sample library, or even a Roland Sound Canvas might be good enough for the task



I wouldn't chance that approach nowadays. Whether or not it's proper or desirable or just, I believe the bar is very high now for demos, in all respects.


----------



## muziksculp (Aug 13, 2009)

I just mentioned the Roland Sound Canvas as an extreme example, but then again, a Roland Sound Canvas, in the right hands, can still sound pretty good :mrgreen:


----------



## TheoKrueger (Aug 13, 2009)

nikolas @ Thu Aug 13 said:


> Theo,
> 
> I've had this track in mod since the 90s and I had no idea what it was. I put it on tapes, to keep listening to it, along with Dungeon Master music, and Ishar and other games, but still I had no idea.
> 
> ...



Hi Nikolas,

Thanks! Just listened to the piece, i think that is a extreme example of samples vs composition, but it still sounds pretty cool. Did you know by the way that the Black metal band Dimmu Borgir had stolen the Agony piece and used it in their first album? Just a fun side fact..... well... maybe not so fun for the person who wrote it but anyway 

Cheers,
Theo


----------



## SvK (Aug 13, 2009)

Talent......

Talent to compose? Very important.
Talent to make a limited sample set sound great and deliver a professional cue? Also very important. Talent to know how to mix, produce and tickle the ears of the listener? Very important....

I could go on and on.......

Assign all of these 100%

SvK


----------



## AR (Aug 13, 2009)

Guys c'mon!


Where is 100% samples + 100% talent + 100% musician?

The better musician you are, the more you have talent (logically), the more you can get out of a fine library, the more you start realizing... "Shit, Dude. I need to go out their and record that stuff."

So, some of you think the better samples they have, the better little Bachs they are? - Hehe, nice try.

Or, you are the high talented composer. You have a good ear, how to layer the instruments. And you wonder, why no director is hiring you? - Cuz you still working with 200 bucks libraries.

My opinion...have the best libraries out there! Try 'em, use 'em or even abuse 'em! Be a great musician. Soloist and ensemble figure. Study compositions by foreign composers. If you're not a good musician, work on it. 
Having a fine ear for music...well, either you have it, earn it, or you're afraid of loosing it.


Greets
AR


----------



## lux (Aug 14, 2009)

Folmann @ Thu Aug 13 said:


> tal·ent
> ...
> 4. A variable unit of weight and money used in ancient Greece, Rome, and the Middle East.
> 
> - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - -



i need talent to get 100% samples


----------



## Hannes_F (Aug 14, 2009)

Folmann @ Fri Aug 14 said:


> So what is talent? Well… Lets take a look at the dictionary:
> 
> - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - -
> tal·ent
> ...



What we consider to be talent is strongly dependent on our world view.

From a materialistic point of view talent is a configuration of inheritance (genes) that can be triggered by social impact (education). Basically talent consists of synapses layout and other electro-chemical procedures in the brain. Examples of this world view can be found in neuroscience and parts of education science.

From a monotheistic point of view talent is given to the individual by an over-cosmic intelligence called God or Allah (e.g.). It is a gift with the mandate to make the most of it. There is an episode in the bible where this is symbolized by a certain amount of money, hence the name 'talent'. Examples of this world view can be found in Judaism, Christianity and Islam.

From a universistic point of view everybody can basically learn everything because the essence of the universe is everywhere. It is a matter of time though, so it may need several lifes to master a realm. The abilities that have already been gained in former lifes and are brought back to the current reincarnation are referred to as talent. Examples of this world view can be found in Hinduism, Buddhism and others.

Pick your choice


----------



## Waywyn (Aug 14, 2009)

Have to agree on that. Talent for me is nothin godsent or anything like it ... there are simply people out there who are onto something. You can compare it to someone who is watching a movie.

Some simply PAY ATTENTION to it and watch the movie with 100% focus, while other always talk, make fun, check their cell phones etc. ... in the end, those guys who were focussed talk about the movie and noone of them would say something like: "oh, seems I have missed that."

Of course some people pay attention and can rephrase every word or remember every item, house, cloth etc. in every scene ... while other paid the same amount of attention and hardly remember 50-80% of the scenes. Some have it easier, some not, .. but it is just a matter of sticking to it and won't let it down - no matter what it is.


----------



## Ned Bouhalassa (Aug 14, 2009)

I find it really interesting that half of us thinks that great samples are only 10% of the equation. I don't buy that at all. Also, I would still like to know if this is about what is important to us/me for personal work or for pleasing clients?


----------



## Guy Bacos (Aug 14, 2009)

Some questions about all types of qualities other than samples or talent. Of course some people create great music and don't find work and others write shitty music and get work. I would think in general good and great music USUALLY finds its way to some success eventually. * I think this survey should be left to the musical result only.*

In the case of talent, I do believe in that. Take the Beatles, to me John Lenon was more talented than Paul McCartney, however Paul was wiser and much more of an opportunist. So does that make Paul more talented? I don't think so, despite he had more success than John. Talent will be honored much more through hard work but it still takes that raw gift, whether that is innate, God given or whatever.

I like to believe that nearly everybody has some talent in him and has the ability to work at it or not. Some people might take the lazy (or smart) way and hope that the samples will do all the work for them. So is that a wise option?


----------



## Ed (Aug 14, 2009)

I'll take wantever option gets me the most girls and money.

If I cant have that, I'll take Bear Mccreary's talent.

Ed, 
(Hacking his way into the music business since 2000)


----------



## Andrew Aversa (Aug 14, 2009)

Christian Marcussen @ Thu Aug 13 said:


> > However, on the flip side, I've heard some remarkably realistic and "good sounding" pieces done by 15-16 year olds with little formal training and lots of expensive sounds
> 
> 
> 
> aka... talent



No, I don't think so. I said "good sounding" not necessarily "good." With Stylus RMX, Omnisphere, Symphobia etc. you can make stuff that certainly sounds flashy and bombastic when in actuality you're just writing a handful of notes. I don't call that talent, especially when these same people suddenly seem to have trouble when asked to write in general MIDI...


----------



## Peter Alexander (Aug 14, 2009)

Hannes_F @ Fri Aug 14 said:


> From a monotheistic point of view talent is given to the individual by an over-cosmic intelligence called God or Allah (e.g.). It is a gift with the mandate to make the most of it. There is an episode in the bible where this is symbolized by a certain amount of money, hence the name 'talent'.



Common misconception based on poor preaching and lack of research on this parable from Matthew 25 in the New Testament. A talent was a piece of gold that today would be worth, depending on the worth of a troy ounce at the moment, $934,000US. 

In the story, three men were given money. One was given 5 talents ($4.5 million), another 3 talents ($2.7 million) and one talent ($934,000). The master gave the men this money with NO financial oversight. He then left. 

Two of the three doubled their money. The master said this to both: _Well done, good and faithful servant. You have been faithful over a few things, I will set you over many things. Enter into the joy of your lord._

The third individual buried the money in the ground and made no effort to increase its worth, even through bankers, for this reason: _Lord, I knew you that you are a hard man, reaping where you did not sow, and gathering where you did not scatter. I was afraid, and went away and hid your talent in the earth. Behold, you have what is yours._

Now in this story, these men were trusted servants who had performed well under the master's supervision. So now, beyond being given the money, was the test of how they'd perform with no one watching. But there's another hidden point. How did these servants know what to do once they were given that large amount of money? 

The answer is in the third man's response: they knew what to do because the master had taught them. He had mentored them. He had let them watch him make deals. They had made deals under his watchful eye. 

Now the big test. 

By not using what he had been taught, the master called the third man, "wicked and slothful." Then he calls him unprofitable, takes back the money, and throws him out.

The servants who entered his joy had these characteristics:

They were faithful, in that they went out of their way to do what must be done (which is what faithful means in Greek) for the master's trust in them. Their job was to look out for the best interests of their master. 

This level of faithfulness drove them to take the master's lessons, apply them diligently, and to double his money, from which they were rewarded. 

I didn't go into this much detail to "challenge you" Hannes, but to point out there's more going on in the story then what is normally taught. The men who doubled his money looked for opportunity to gain financially, negotiated, risked, then acted.

It wasn't just that he had a "talent", he had trust, training, and resources. And when left on his own with no one to watch over his shoulder, he didn't even try.


----------



## Gabe S. (Aug 14, 2009)

Talent (or shall we say the ability to come up with a usable musical idea on demand): 70%
Samples: 100%
Orchestration skills: 100%
Sound design skills to shape the samples: 100%
Mixing skills: 100%
Mastering Skills: 100%
Gear: 100%
Business Sense: 100%
Knowledge of Business: 100%
Luck: 20%
Connections: 100%
Hard Work: 5000%

Every one of the things listed above it's it's own discipline and therefore has to be figured out on some level and deserves it's own % category. 

My point is that talent and samples are only a small part of a much larger formula. I've heard music from guys who have great composing talent and great libraries, but couldn't mix worth a damn. Or they used the samples without any sound shaping because they were afraid to "ruin the integrity" of the samples which ends up not great. Or the mastering was flat and so the track was dull. Or they did great music but didn't know how music gets used in a particular part of the industry, so their music skill just sat there. Or they were terrible at business and kept getting screwed. Or they didn't have the right connections and couldn't get a break. Or they could make good music but not on a deadline. You understand what I'm trying to say. Sometimes good music is actually just average music that's done on time. Sometimes doing a favor for someone turns into an important gig later. Sometimes you're just in the right spot at the right time. Sometimes a post starts getting too long and you need to stop writing. 

At the end of the day, it's hard work that counts the most. Hard work is what allows you to get better in all the disciplines. I'm just glad that there's no hard work genetic plugin that everyone can go out and buy. :D

Cheers.
-gabe


----------



## muziksculp (Aug 14, 2009)

I think working with GM midi is a good way to test your 'Talent' as a composer/musician, orchestrator, programmer, mixing engineer, and midi tech :mrgreen: 

Given their limitations, it is a good way to see how much can be achieved. IMHO, Limitations are sometimes a good thing for creativity. We have so many luxurious options in today's world of sample libraries, yet, we can get a bit lazy, (less creative), since we want everything to sound right by just loading a patch, and hitting the keys.

Believe it or Not ! I have heard some great sounding orchestrations done on the older Roland, and Yamaha GM modules, Yes, under a talented composers hands they can shine ! you can always mix some real instrument recordings to a GM module production, taking it a big step up in overall sophistication, and realism.

Although, GM modules won't be convincing anyone that its LSO playing, but for a rough draft orchestral score, or various other genres, they can sound surprisingly good, provided the talent factor is present.


----------



## germancomponist (Aug 14, 2009)

So we must be 1000% super mans.

But if this is not enough, the films in the future will only have library-music (hard work genetic plugin). Yeah, and this music was done with enough time and best people... and so on. 

Cool!


----------



## Guy Bacos (Aug 14, 2009)

Can we agree we don't know what talent is other than an intellectual ability either natural or acquired?


----------



## Guy Bacos (Aug 14, 2009)

Gabe S. @ Fri Aug 14 said:


> Talent (or shall we say the ability to come up with a usable musical idea on demand): 70%
> Samples: 100%
> Orchestration skills: 100%
> Sound design skills to shape the samples: 100%
> ...



It's all true, no doubt. But couldn't we say that the wiseness of learning all these abilities is an extension of talent? The question is always in relation to someone with modest or little knowledge trying to compensate it through the best samples on the market.


----------



## Waywyn (Aug 14, 2009)

Guy Bacos @ Fri Aug 14 said:


> Gabe S. @ Fri Aug 14 said:
> 
> 
> > Talent (or shall we say the ability to come up with a usable musical idea on demand): 70%
> ...



I will stay on my opinion, that it is not about talent but focus ... if you focus on composing you can do well, you can focus on mixing, might not work out the first time, but if you stay tuned and focus you will make it sooner or later ... it is all about focus and the willingness to stay focussed!


----------



## Ashermusic (Aug 14, 2009)

Guy Bacos @ Fri Aug 14 said:


> Can we agree we don't know what talent is other than an intellectual ability either natural or acquired?



No, because it is an emotional ability as well.


----------



## Guy Bacos (Aug 14, 2009)

At the basis you need a sensitivity to be moved by sounds. This is not something that only 1 of 1000 person has, a lot of people have that sensitivity. When you talk about emotion, that is innate in all of us, some more than others, OK! But we still have nothing at this point, no music! The learning process is where you learn to channel your emotions into sounds, this is an "intellectual process" working with your emotions, the more you develop that the more you are likely to move people.


----------



## Ashermusic (Aug 14, 2009)

Guy Bacos @ Fri Aug 14 said:


> At the basis you need a sensitivity to be moved by sounds. This is not something that only 1 of 1000 person has, a lot of people have that sensitivity. When you talk about emotion, that is innate in all of us, some more than others, OK! But we still have nothing at this point, no music! The learning process is where you learn to channel your emotions into sounds, this is an "intellectual process" working with your emotions, the more you develop that the more you are likely to move people.



Guy, the ability to PROJECT the emotions everyone feels is something only a relatively small amount of people have in my opinion, and a key part of what makes talent. It is what separates mediocre talents from the great ones.


----------



## Guy Bacos (Aug 14, 2009)

I need a beer! o-[][]-o


----------



## OneThrow (Aug 15, 2009)

Okay 50% seem to think its 90% talent 10% samples.
If that were true why do so many composers strive to use the most expensive sample libraries?


----------



## Waywyn (Aug 15, 2009)

OneThrow @ Sat Aug 15 said:


> Okay 50% seem to think its 90% talent 10% samples.
> If that were true why do so many composers strive to use the most expensive sample libraries?



Hehe, good point. Probably due to the fact that LASS sounds a "bit" better than a GM set.


----------



## NYC Composer (Aug 15, 2009)

OneThrow @ Sat Aug 15 said:


> Okay 50% seem to think its 90% talent 10% samples.
> If that were true why do so many composers strive to use the most expensive sample libraries?



Because booking first call metro studio musicians generally beats booking musicians from the local high school. Unless one is striving for 'realism'.


----------



## Ashermusic (Aug 15, 2009)

NYC Composer @ Sat Aug 15 said:


> OneThrow @ Sat Aug 15 said:
> 
> 
> > Okay 50% seem to think its 90% talent 10% samples.
> ...



Exactly. Talented people like to have the best players and the best sounds they can to create with.

But as is true of many competing products in the marketplace, the most expensive libraries are not necessarily "the best." That is a subjective call.


----------



## LHall (Aug 15, 2009)

OneThrow @ Sat Aug 15 said:


> Okay 50% seem to think its 90% talent 10% samples.
> If that were true why do so many composers strive to use the most expensive sample libraries?



The same reason that Itzhak Perlman doesn't play a $200 student violin.


----------



## Guy Bacos (Aug 15, 2009)

OneThrow @ Sat Aug 15 said:


> Okay 50% seem to think its 90% talent 10% samples.
> If that were true why do so many composers strive to use the most expensive sample libraries?



I don't see the relevance of that, it's perfectly normal for composers to use the latest lib on the market, for obvious reasons


----------



## TuwaSni (Aug 15, 2009)

Hmmm... I wonder what everyone is using for a definition of talent. As far as "talent" - I guess I would agree with Nikolas about hard work and experience - but I do think that there is another applicable category that is as important - that of "gift" which is the other way around the pole - not entwined in the social pandering, technology, or other man-made-up gobbly-guck.

Tuwa Sni


----------



## OneThrow (Aug 15, 2009)

Guy Bacos @ Sat Aug 15 said:


> OneThrow @ Sat Aug 15 said:
> 
> 
> > Okay 50% seem to think its 90% talent 10% samples.
> ...



Sorry Guy, it was meant as a simple observation designed to make people think, that's why it was posed as a question.

If we have to have the best and probably most expensive samples, then maybe that is more important on our list of priorities than 90% / 10%. What we do is possibly not what we think. Maybe it is a bit of self examination that I thought applied to others.

Its not earth shattering, and its probably wrong. But I thought it might be relevant.

That's all.


----------



## SergeD (Aug 15, 2009)

So hard to define what is talent. Let's say Steve Reich, is he talented ? For some people his music may appear repetitive and boring and for some it's incredible. 

But one thing for sure this guy may have worked a lot to conceive and put alive something he has no reference to start from.

SergeD


----------



## Waywyn (Aug 16, 2009)

TuwaSni @ Sat Aug 15 said:


> that of "gift"



It's kinda funny, if it's about a creative job lots of people talk about "gift", "godsent", "blessed", and so on ... 

... it is just my personal opinion, but I am carefuly with that expression.
What about a bank guy making good honest deals, what about a lawyer who is really up for justice ... what about that hard working guy at the disposal company? Are they gifted too? No, most people just talk of diligent or hardworking ...

Buuut as soon as the great blabla sits and writes some cool melodies he just made up, he is like soooo gifted .... hmmm .... sorry.


----------



## Pzy-Clone (Aug 16, 2009)

Waywyn @ Sun Aug 16 said:


> TuwaSni @ Sat Aug 15 said:
> 
> 
> > that of "gift"
> ...



yeah , true that.
I dislike it when people say things like " OH i wish i had your talent" or anything along those lines. 
Its almost a bit offensive...it sounds like it came effortless, but most of the talented guys or girls i met, are only so becouse they are more dedicated and hardworking then the ones without the "talent".

A gift is something you get for free, i dont think our "talents" came falling from the sky, or any ability or knowledge for that matter.


----------



## Waywyn (Aug 16, 2009)

Lol, exactly 

I think something like "I wish I would have your talents" or "I would like to be able to do what you can do" ... is most of the time "Yes, I am a bit lazy and I don't like to invest so much time and effort as you do since I prefer loitering on the beach, ... but it would be cool to do all that without wasting my energy"


Oh man, ... tell me, how many people would buy a plugin "The Compositionalizer". Just type in the key, tempo, signature, style and instruments and after 3 mins of rendering time you have a finished track. :D


----------



## OneThrow (Aug 16, 2009)

Waywyn @ Sun Aug 16 said:


> Oh man, ... tell me, how many people would buy a plugin "The Compositionalizer". Just type in the key, tempo, signature, style and instruments and after 3 mins of rendering time you have a finished track. :D



Did a Google search, not a single find for _The Compositionalizer_, so you may be onto a money spinner there. Go for it! :lol:


----------



## Waywyn (Aug 16, 2009)

OneThrow @ Sun Aug 16 said:


> Waywyn @ Sun Aug 16 said:
> 
> 
> > Oh man, ... tell me, how many people would buy a plugin "The Compositionalizer". Just type in the key, tempo, signature, style and instruments and after 3 mins of rendering time you have a finished track. :D
> ...



Hehe, yeah ... but I leave that one to the money-horny-ish people ...


----------



## hbuus (Aug 16, 2009)

Well, some people are born with abilities which go in one direction, while others are born with other abilities. People who are born with a talent for music do not have to work so hard to become good as someone with a lesser talent, I think. Also, I think there is a limit as to how far you can get with hard work if you do not have sufficient talent for what you're dealing with. Another thing is that people with great talent for something will usually find it's fun and easy, thus they will naturally spend a lot of time on it, further enhancing their skills.

Hard work is part of the formula, but so are those little things called genes! 

/Henrik


----------



## Waywyn (Aug 16, 2009)

hbuus @ Sun Aug 16 said:


> Well, some people are born with abilities which go in one direction, while others are born with other abilities. People who are born with a talent for music do not have to work so hard to become good as someone with a lesser talent, I think. Also, I think there is a limit as to how far you can get with hard work if you do not have sufficient talent for what you're dealing with. Another thing is that people with great talent for something will usually find it's fun and easy, thus they will naturally spend a lot of time on it, further enhancing their skills.
> 
> Hard work is part of the formula, but so are those little things called genes!
> 
> /Henrik



Which brings me to another point:
Lots of people have undiscovered "talents". Most of the people who were considered "talented" simply found what they have most fun with, ... while others don't even look for it and just blame everything and everybody (but mostly themselves) for what they can NOT do.


----------



## re-peat (Aug 16, 2009)

Ignoring the 'being gifted'-element in 'talent' is just as silly as overstressing it. There's a lot more to exceptional achievements than just hard work. I mean, everybody can work hard if given the proper stimuli - nothing special about that -, but not everyone is capable of delivering something unique. That's were 'being gifted' enters into it.

_


----------



## Ashermusic (Aug 16, 2009)

re-peat @ Sun Aug 16 said:


> Ignoring the 'being gifted'-element in 'talent' is just as silly as overstressing it. There's a lot more to exceptional achievements than just hard work. I mean, everybody can work hard if given the proper stimuli - nothing special about that -, but not everyone is capable of delivering something unique. That's were 'being gifted' enters into it.
> 
> _



Exactly. I practiced piano when I was at the Conservatory a lot, but the reality is that if I had practiced 8 hours day, I could never have become a concert artist.My hands are too small, I did not have enough natural physical agility, etc. In short, I lacked the requisite physical gifts.

As a composer, I could study for a million years and not be a Boulez or Stockhausen, as I lack the requisite intellect. Even in the pop world, there are tons of hard working, dedicated songwriters who will never achieve the creative, intelligent, immediately identifiable stamp i.e that Burt Bacharach has and John Lennon had.

There IS such a thing as talent. Hard work and craft are the ways we develop that talent. Great work is the product of both, not one or the other.


----------



## germancomponist (Aug 16, 2009)

+1


----------



## Guy Bacos (Aug 16, 2009)

I still stand by my belief, that "gift" is 5% and sweat is 95%, but it that 5% isn't there no matter how hard you work you will always be missing something.


----------



## Waywyn (Aug 16, 2009)

Ashermusic @ Sun Aug 16 said:


> re-peat @ Sun Aug 16 said:
> 
> 
> > Ignoring the 'being gifted'-element in 'talent' is just as silly as overstressing it. There's a lot more to exceptional achievements than just hard work. I mean, everybody can work hard if given the proper stimuli - nothing special about that -, but not everyone is capable of delivering something unique. That's were 'being gifted' enters into it.
> ...



You probably now Frank Gambale right?

One day during a lesson we talked about this, talent and physical abilities ... he called me up and we did a direct hand size comparison, .. my hands were like shovels against his ... but nevertheless he is one of the fastest guitar players around with his very unique arpeggio sweeping technique and he plays so accurate you might even think it is samples  ... 

And I say again ... it is just a matter of staying focussed and actually WANTING something. If you not just "say" it but "live" it ... you can literally reach everything


----------



## Guy Bacos (Aug 16, 2009)

I'm curious, is there anybody here who doesn't feel they have talent or simply doesn't believe in talent and are ready to say that any success they've had through their musical compositions/orchestration/arr, and all related areas, is ONLY and ONLY the result of hard work and perseverance?


----------



## germancomponist (Aug 16, 2009)

Perhaps it depends on how you define. 

When I, for example, study a score and do it with fun and joy, it is not a hard work for me. Same with all the other important things.... .


----------



## Guy Bacos (Aug 16, 2009)

Or if you prefer you could answer this question: What do you prefer, Coke or Pepsi? :D


----------



## Waywyn (Aug 16, 2009)

Just wanted to add one thing. There is this funny phrase: Isn't holiday for people who don't like their work?

I mean this says it all. If you enjoy doing something, you don't consider it work. If I imagine working like 20 hours in a row to e.g. do my taxes, I would go crazy .. but just last week I worked on a track, prepared it for the studio and we were arranging, mixing etc. until the morning at 6 a.m. (I started working at 10 a.m. the day before) ... of course I was exhausted but I felt good when I got out of the studio and fell in my bed ... I think if you having fun in what you do it adds a lot of % to your "talent"


----------



## re-peat (Aug 16, 2009)

Alex,

You keep confusing things. The fact that you worked for hours on end on a piece of music or a mix and thoroughly enjoyed every minute of it, may be considered an indication that you probably have 'some talent' for music, yes, but it certainly doesn't mean that you're truly gifted. (Just to be sure: I don't say that you are or that you are not.) I know tons of people who enjoy labouring over stuff, but the results of all their efforts are banal and mediocre at best. Sad perhaps, but true. The world is full of such people. Every art class, every music school, every profession, every sports club, every university, every hobby club, even a forum such as this has a much higher percentage of these hard-working ordinary people than of truly talented individuals.
In fact, it is one of the most noticeable characteristics of the 'dilettante' that they profoundly like to work long and hard on what they love doing. But that doesn't make them talented artists. Far from it. Even if they feel the same passion and work with the same dedication and energy as a truly gifted artist, the simple fact is that they lack the 'spark', the vision or the courage - or, in one word: the talent - which would lift their work from the banal. And therein lies the difference: being capable of hard work is a quite unexceptionnal and uninteresting and definitely no guarantuee for exceptionnal and inspired work. True talent however is always unique, interesting and 'out of the ordinary', even at those moments when it fails.

_


----------



## Niah (Aug 16, 2009)

"All children are born artists, the problem is to remain artists as they grow up." Pablo Picasso


----------



## Guy Bacos (Aug 16, 2009)

Niah @ Sun Aug 16 said:


> "All children are born artists, the problem is to remain artists as they grow up." Pablo Picasso



How true!


----------



## david robinson (Aug 16, 2009)

Niah @ Sun Aug 16 said:


> "All children are born artists, the problem is to remain artists as they grow up." Pablo Picasso



+2.
and it's getting harder than ever too do this.
David R.


----------



## germancomponist (Aug 16, 2009)

If I would not have fun and joy at my composing, arranging and mixing, then I would not do my job. 

And success is also really fun.


----------



## artsoundz (Aug 16, 2009)

david robinson @ Sun Aug 16 said:


> Niah @ Sun Aug 16 said:
> 
> 
> > "All children are born artists, the problem is to remain artists as they grow up." Pablo Picasso
> ...



why? I have the opposite view. Given the amazing tools availble to young people today, the learning curve w/regard to the nuts ands bolts is much shorter. 

Take jazz for instance, never before have I seen jazz being so thoroughly covered in the education system and it's proving to be successfull, The sheer numbers of monster players at 16 years old tells me something is working and very healthy.

This is also true for other art forms and sciences. However, it may SEEM the opposite given the ,again, the sheer numbers of students now. There are just SO many more people on this planet than when I was young it's easy to think that things are worse. 

also, in many areas arts and science programs are being underfunded if not cut completely. BUT- the arc of success and just plain outstanding creativity is there and increasing overall. I'm encouraged


----------



## Guy Bacos (Aug 16, 2009)

I think what Pablo is saying is more a of general statement that is will always be applicable for any ages. The moment we are born we have all the potential in the world, but it's as we grow up, we become more fearful, inhibited, traumatized etc and before you know it we've become a fraction of the potential we once had.


----------



## germancomponist (Aug 16, 2009)

Guy Bacos @ Mon Aug 17 said:


> I think what Pablo is saying is more a of general statement that is will always be applicable for any ages. The moment we are born we have all the potential in the world, but it's as we grow up, we become more fearful, inhibited, traumatized etc and before you know it we've become a fraction of the potential we once had.



+1

And how do children learn best? With fun and joy!


----------



## re-peat (Aug 16, 2009)

Actually, that alledged Picasso quote is utter nonsense and Picasso himself would be the first to agree. He never said anything of the sort, and even if he did say something along those lines, he certainly didn't intend it like most people seem to want to read it. What he did say was that everyone is born with an innocent purity, an unspoiled look at the world, a free-reigning imagination (unhampered by education and self-awareness) and it is that very quality - that naive, pure, 'childlike' virginity - which he considered to be an essential part of 'being an artist' and which he sought (and found so difficult) to recapture in his later years. That's why he often said that he wanted to be able "to draw like a child again".

_


----------



## Guy Bacos (Aug 16, 2009)

Well there you have it. Now I feel stupid! :cry: 

Piet, who's playing the bass?


----------



## Damon (Aug 17, 2009)

Ignore my lame comment... :roll:


----------



## NYC Composer (Aug 17, 2009)

You are all mediocre. Mediocre, I say. And wrong. Mediocre and wrong. Did I mention mediocre?? ALL of you. AND banal. Your comments are mediocre and banal. And wrong.

Except Charles Mingus. He's not mediocre....and he's NEVER wrong. Though he _is_ dead. Which makes it confusing when he speaks in this forum. Anyway, he's an original. And talented. And hardworking. More hard working and talented and original than YOU.

The rest of you are....well....you know.


----------



## Damon (Aug 17, 2009)

:roll:


----------



## germancomponist (Aug 17, 2009)

Some years ago I visited a rock evening where some bands played. Interesting was: One guitar player had a big rack with many 19" effects and used 3 different guitars.

Onother guitarplayer played only with one old Stratocaster and only with one old Fender amp. But his playing and sound was much much better.... . :-D


----------



## Damon (Aug 17, 2009)

o/~


----------



## lux (Aug 17, 2009)

i tend to agree with re-peat here. If hard work, formal titles and dedication were roots to success every small town musical school would graduate thousands great artists every 6 months. And thats not going to happen. A gift is due in my opinion. Its hard to accept but thats it.

It doesnt mean that less gifted musicians cannot succeed or that greatly gifted girls/guys have an easy way to success. But talent smells and its pretty easy to recognize.


----------



## Hal (Aug 17, 2009)

Guy Bacos @ Sun Aug 16 said:


> I'm curious, is there anybody here who doesn't feel they have talent or simply doesn't believe in talent and are ready to say that any success they've had through their musical compositions/orchestration/arr, and all related areas, is ONLY and ONLY the result of hard work and perseverance?



Almost
Yes 
ME

there is such things as study,trials,experience,learning,reading,practicing,listening to music,loving what you are doing,i mean realy loving what ur doing,reading on VI control and "Librarys" 

so its kinda,pure Talent which is rare or all of the above.


----------



## Niah (Aug 17, 2009)

even if picasso didn't say that, there are many others who have said it, and mostly education experts

essentially to me this refers to the potential that we all have as kids, the creativity and the individually that is killed by an educational system that hasn't changed much since the industrialization 

the educational system prepares us to reproduction where any original or new idea is considered to be wrong

make no mistake you can't be original or a creative individual and be successful academically at the same time


----------



## re-peat (Aug 17, 2009)

Niah,

I'm truly sorry, but I really don't think that we all have potential as kids. Well, there is always some potential for a certain something in each of us of course, but it's certainly not distributed equally. It's in the nature of our species that some are born with a lot more potential for certain things than others, I'm affraid. I was never destined to win Wimbledon, that's for sure. And Bill Clinton isn't John Coltrane (or vice versa).

And I don't subscribe to the idea either that an educational system necessarily kills creativity and individuality. More often than not, it's not the real talents that are stopped in their tracks by 'an educational system' (true talent isn't held back that easily), it's the pseudo talents, the almost talented ... those are usually the ones that quit.

And I'm affraid I have to disagree on your third point as well: there are many original thinkers and highly creative people residing in various universities and academic circles, successfully combining a respected academic career with highly individual and often groundbreaking research or other creative activities. I really don't see why you believe that the two can't go together.

_


----------



## mikebarry (Aug 17, 2009)

I am just finishing this book "Dragons of Eden" written by one of my most favorite people Carl Sagon. It is basically a study on why humans are intelligent, the physical composition of memory within the brain, where certain tasks are processed in the brain etc.... Now given that all people are different, different sized fingers, different color hair, different sized bones wouldn't it be plausible that everyone's brain is different then also? So couldn't having a brain with extra beef in the musical processing section be quite a tool to have?


----------



## Ashermusic (Aug 17, 2009)

re-peat @ Mon Aug 17 said:


> Niah,
> 
> I'm truly sorry, but I really don't think that we all have potential as kids. Well, there is always some potential for a certain something in each of us of course, but it's certainly not distributed equally. It's in the nature of our species that some are born with a lot more potential for certain things than others, I'm affraid. I was never destined to win Wimbledon, that's for sure. And Bill Clinton isn't John Coltrane (or vice versa).
> 
> ...


Piet, you arcorrect with almost all of this IMHO.

Where I disagree with you is that at least here in the U.S. the public education system pretty much discourages individuality, which does affect creativity negatively.

Niah, the idea that one cannot be an important artist and an Academic is frankly nonsense. Perhaps the best American novelist working today is Joyce Carol Oates. Joyce teaches at Princeton and says teaching informs her writing and that her work would suffer if she did not teach.

Darius Milhaud taught at McGill., Schoenberg at USC, Piston at Boston University, and there are many not so famous but significant composers teaching at universities.


----------



## Guy Bacos (Aug 17, 2009)

I can't remember which famous person said this, maybe someone could help me out here, Piet? but he firmly believed that it was the environment ONLY that makes someone. Example, if you were to put a person in the exact same environment as Hitler from the day he was born, you would create another Hitler. Sad example, sorry!
But you get the point. This is not my belief but just thought I through this.


----------



## NYC Composer (Aug 17, 2009)

Ashermusic @ Mon Aug 17 said:


> re-peat @ Mon Aug 17 said:
> 
> 
> > Niah,
> ...



Jay, I don't think it's only the public education system that discourages creativity. An example in what used to be called the 'record business'-instead of looking for the next great thing, it was always 'can you do what___(fill in the blank with current platinum selling band) are doing?' Really, the WORLD, Chico, discourages individuality. Go along to get along.

As to academia, Phil Roth, Irving, Updike, Cheever, taught. You'd be harder pressed to find examples of great American novelists who never worked in academia. On a side note, I'll miss Updike. Harry 'Rabbit' Angstrom is finally and definitively dead.


----------



## LHall (Aug 17, 2009)

I'm going to settle this argument once and for all. 

Good coffee is most important. 
:wink:


----------



## dcoscina (Aug 17, 2009)

I think talent will get you so far when composing. I believe in technical abilities far more than talent or sample libraries. The ability to take something that inspired you and to bend it in various ways is the sign of a true composer. David Raksin said this about Benny Herrmann. He said "almost anyone can come up with a great tune, it's what you do with it that distinguishes you as a composer and Benny had that ability". 

Raksin BTW taught film scoring at USC for many many many years.


----------



## mikebarry (Aug 17, 2009)

This reminds me of something David Raksin said when i was at USC (I think the spring before he passed away).

Someone raised their hand after watching one of his masterpieces.

Student: "How do I write music like THAT?"
David: "You don't, I do."

That guy was spicy.


----------



## Ashermusic (Aug 17, 2009)

Jay, I don't think it's only the public education system that discourages creativity. An example in what used to be called the 'record business'-instead of looking for the next great thing, it was always 'can you do what___(fill in the blank with current platinum selling band) are doing?' Really, the WORLD, Chico, discourages individuality. Go along to get along.

As to academia, Phil Roth, Irving, Updike, Cheever, taught. You'd be harder pressed to find examples of great American novelists who never worked in academia. On a side note, I'll miss Updike. Harry 'Rabbit' Angstrom is finally and definitively dead.[/quote]

Larry, you and I are kindred spirits.

An Updike release was always an event in my life.

Do you read Oates and Margaret Atwood as well?


----------



## Ashermusic (Aug 17, 2009)

mikebarry @ Mon Aug 17 said:


> This reminds me of something David Raksin said when i was at USC (I think the spring before he passed away).
> 
> Someone raised their hand after watching one of his masterpieces.
> 
> ...



He was a great teacher, composer and raconteur.


----------



## Niah (Aug 17, 2009)

re-peat @ Mon Aug 17 said:


> Niah,
> 
> I'm truly sorry, but I really don't think that we all have potential as kids. Well, there is always some potential for a certain something in each of us of course, but it's certainly not distributed equally. It's in the nature of our species that some are born with a lot more potential for certain things than others, I'm affraid. I was never destined to win Wimbledon, that's for sure. And Bill Clinton isn't John Coltrane (or vice versa).
> 
> ...



for me it's not a belief, I studied and work in education and not only that it's really my life experience that makes me think that, 

I was mainly referring when you are a kid/teen and going to a public school and when I say academic success I am talking about having success at school, ...not as a college professor where you already have the position to do what you want and you are well respected. And speaking of that that's pretty much what schools prepare you for, to become a college professor
I mean seriously want have I learned on all these years of schooling? I've learn to read and write essays and paperwork, research,,,etc etc

so want I am talking about is having success academicaly as a student, and not as a college professor or in a research field....

But lets start from the begining, I mean on most public schools there is a great emphasis on subjects which are most valued in our society and in the marketplace. things like mathematics or linguistics for example. For those who are not really inclined from the begining for these areas and are more inclined to say arts they are going to be discouraged right way and directed to these areas which are the most important to succeed in the future and the marketplace. (or so they preach)

I remember that I was not a great mathematics student, but I was really good at geometry, I don't know why but I could solve most of the problems in my head and come with alternative ways of getting to the same solution. This was never valued by my teacher or the school, there was a set of formulas and equations that I had to use it, and if I didn't I would fail academically. 

but even on those subjects which one would think were more open to discuss our ideas and a vehicle to express your own thoughts, subjects like sociology, or philosophy I found the same adversities. Even if the teacher encouraged us to speak our minds, on any exam or test no matter what the subjective was, there are a set rules, guidelines which you are evaluated. If want you write does not meet these guidelines you fail academically.

Interesting enough, what I found later in college while researching for a paperwork was that the students with the most success academically were not necessarily the brightess. essentially they knew what type of answers the teachers wanted from them, and not surprisingly most of these students had tutors. So if you know before hand what is valued in schools, or in a specific class you have more changes to succeed. More so if you know what the teacher wants.
While still in college I decided to apply this I noticed that when I quoted for example a favourite author of my professor or quoted simply excerpts from his own works my grades improved.
Not only that when it came to my master thesis I noticed that I would not succeed academically if I would to go into uncharted territory. Quite simply my professors didn't aprove my research ideas. So I ended up following one of the universties research just like anyone else. 
Throughout my colleges years my pappers, essays, and thesis was just updated versions of my fomer colleagues work, nothing new or groundbreaking.

from the day that I step foot in my first day of school up to my master's degree I succeeded academically by following the rules and specific criterias of evaluating, not by expressing my thoughts or opinions or ideas, that is never valued in your educational system. If you don't meet these guidelines you fail academically.

In fact when I am doing career counseling, it is astonishing to see how little kids/teens or even adults know about them selfs, their tastes, preferences and potential. Even on that regard schools do very little.
And what is dramatic in all of this is that a degree or a master's degree counts very little these days. It's the people with original and creative ideas for a business for instance that are making it on the marketplace. So school is not even preparing kids for the insertion on the marketplace let alone to become creaitive individuals.


I truly believe that kids are extraordinary and that we make them ordinary, ordinary people have nothing to say in art or any other field.


----------



## Niah (Aug 17, 2009)

Guy Bacos @ Mon Aug 17 said:


> I can't remember which famous person said this, maybe someone could help me out here, Piet? but he firmly believed that it was the environment ONLY that makes someone. Example, if you were to put a person in the exact same environment as Hitler from the day he was born, you would create another Hitler. Sad example, sorry!
> But you get the point. This is not my belief but just thought I through this.



Im not sure but it seems like you are talking about watson which was a behaviourist in the 50's
although his views are still supported mostly in America, outside of the US the most commom view is that bsides the environment, biology and cultural background are equally important in shaping the invidual


----------



## Ed (Aug 17, 2009)

Niah, doesnt "cultural background" come under enviroment? 

Since you can take an Indian/Chinese/Aboriginal child and bring them up in America by Americans and they will be brought up with the values and beliefs of American kids. The only difference is that they wont be treated exactly the same since they will still look like the culture they came from, which will surely make they slightly different from that perspective. 

As far as biology goes I think that has a very limited effect on how someone develops behaviour wise. You may have a certian propencity to be depressed for example, but you wont necessarily be a depressed person. Your enviroment brings that out of you. Even if you have a genetic propencity to diabetes you wont necessarily be diabetic, its your enviroment can stop you getting it by eating well.


----------



## Ashermusic (Aug 17, 2009)

Niah @ Mon Aug 17 said:


> re-peat @ Mon Aug 17 said:
> 
> 
> > Niah,
> ...



I too have worked a fair amount with kids and I am sorry but this is a romanticized view of them. There are extraordinary kids and there are kids who are very ordinary. We are not all created with the same level of gifts and we are not merely blank slates that environment and experience write upon.

Which does not mean that educators and parents should not be striving to help all children maximize their potential of course.
_________________


----------



## Guy Bacos (Aug 17, 2009)

[quote:b073dba70f="Niah @ Mon Aug ò00   ­$‰00   ­$Š00   ­$‹01   ­$Œ01   ­$01   ­$Ž01   ­$01   ­$01   ­$‘01   ­$’01   ­$“01   ­$”01   ­$•01   ­$–01   ­$—02   ­$˜02   ­$™02   ­$š02   ­$›02   ­$œ02   ­$02   ­$ž02   ­$Ÿ02   ­$ 02   ­$¡02   ­$¢02   ­$£03   ­$¤03   ­$¥03   ­$¦03   ­$§03   ­$¨03   ­$©03   ­$ª03   ­$«03   ­$¬03   ­$­03   ­$®03   ­$¯03   ­$°03   ­$±03   ­$²03   ­$³03   ­$´03   ­$µ03   ­$¶03   ­$·03   ­$¸03   ­$¹03   ­$º03   ­$»03   ­$¼03   ­$½03   ­$¾03   ­$¿03   ­$À03   ­$Á03   ­$Â03   ­$Ã03   ­$Ä03   ­$Å03   ­$Æ03   ­$Ç03   ­$È03   ­$É03   ­$Ê03   ­$Ë03   ­$Ì03   ­$Í03   ­$Î03   ­$Ï03   ­$Ð03   ­$Ñ03   ­$Ò03   ­$Ó03   ­$Ô03   ­$Õ03   ­$Ö03   ­$×03   ­$Ø03   ­$Ù03   ­$Ú03   ­$Û03   ­$Ü03   ­$Ý03   ­$Þ03   ­$ß03   ­$à03   ­$á03   ­$â03   ­$ã03   ­$ä03   ­$å03   ­$æ03   ­$ç03   ­$è03   ­$é03   ­$ê03   ­$ë03   ­$ì03   ­$í03   ­$î03   ­$ï03   ­$ð03


----------



## germancomponist (Aug 17, 2009)

Guy Bacos @ Mon Aug 17 said:


> I can't remember which famous person said this, maybe someone could help me out here, Piet? but he firmly believed that it was the environment ONLY that makes someone. Example, if you were to put a person in the exact same environment as Hitler from the day he was born, you would create another Hitler. Sad example, sorry!
> But you get the point. This is not my belief but just thought I through this.



This is 100% idiocy. Hitler's talent was to be mad.


----------



## re-peat (Aug 17, 2009)

Niah, 

Here’s what I think: a society - and that certainly includes its educational system - is such a complex and intrinsically compromising human construction that it can only function properly if it caters primarily (often exclusively) for what it feels to be ‘norm’ or, in other words, the ‘structurally consolidating average’ and NOT: the creative individuals. It can’t afford to give attention to and nurture these exceptions and extremes, otherwise it would stop being what it is and ultimately self-destruct. There’s a sad paradox in there, I know, and it often results in a very harsh and unfair treatment of anyone who doesn’t fall within the norm (on whichever side), but that’s the price we have to pay for having the social and/or educational system that we, as an organized group of diverse human beings, feel serves us best.

A society has to assume that its elite (or its other eò0?   ­(0?   ­(0?   ­(0?   ­(0?   ­([email protected]   ­([email protected]   ­([email protected]   ­([email protected]   ­([email protected]   ­([email protected]   ­([email protected]   ­(0@   ­([email protected]   ­([email protected]   ­([email protected]   ­( [email protected]   ­(![email protected]   ­("[email protected]   ­(#[email protected]   ­($[email protected]   ­(%[email protected]   ­(&[email protected]   ­('[email protected]   ­(([email protected]   ­()[email protected]   ­(*[email protected]   ­(+[email protected]   ­(,[email protected]   ­(-[email protected]   ­(.[email protected]   ­(/[email protected]   ­(0[email protected]   ­(1[email protected]   ­(2[email protected]   ­(3[email protected]   ­(4[email protected]   ­(5[email protected]   ­(6[email protected]   ­(7[email protected]   ­(8[email protected]   ­(9[email protected]   ­[email protected]   ­(;[email protected]   ­(<[email protected]   ­(=[email protected]   ­(>[email protected]   ­(?[email protected]   ­(@[email protected]   ­(A[email protected]   ­(B[email protected]   ­(C[email protected]   ­(D[email protected]   ­(E[email protected]   ­(F[email protected]   ­(G[email protected]   ­(H[email protected]   ­(I[email protected]   ­(J[email protected]   ­(K[email protected]   ­(L[email protected]   ­(M[email protected]   ­(N[email protected]   ­(O[email protected]   ­(P[email protected]   ­(Q[email protected]   ­(R[email protected]   ­(S[email protected]   ­(T[email protected]   ­(U[email protected]   ­(V[email protected]   ­(W[email protected]   ­(X[email protected]   ­(Y[email protected]   ­(Z[email protected]   ­([[email protected]   ­(\[email protected]   ­(][email protected]   ­(^[email protected]   ­(_[email protected]   ­(`[email protected]   ­(a[email protected]   ­(b[email protected]   ­(c[email protected]   ­(d[email protected]   ­(e[email protected]   ­(f[email protected]   ­(g0A   ­(h0A   ­(i0A   ­(j0A   ­(k0A   ­(l0A   ­(m0A   ­(n0A   ­(o0A   ­(p0A   ­(q0A   ­(r0A   ­(s0A   ­(t0A   ­(u0A   ­(v0A


----------



## Niah (Aug 17, 2009)

that was the whole point

society does not tolerate difference, and it constitutes a threat to it's survival and the educationò0N   ­+™0N   ­+š0N   ­+›0N   ­+œ0N   ­+0N   ­+ž0N   ­+Ÿ0N   ­+ 0N   ­+¡0N   ­+¢0N   ­+£0N   ­+¤0N   ­+¥0N   ­+¦0N   ­+§0N   ­+¨0N   ­+©0N   ­+ª0N   ­+«0N   ­+¬0N


----------



## MaraschinoMusic (Aug 17, 2009)

mikebarry @ Tue Aug 18 said:


> I am just finishing this book "Dragons of Eden" written by one of my most favorite people Carl Sagon. It is basically a study on why humans are intelligent, the physical composition of memory within the brain, where certain tasks are processed in the brain etc.... Now given that all people are different, different sized fingers, different color hair, different sized bones wouldn't it be plausible that everyone's brain is different then also? So couldn't having a brain with extra beef in the musical processing section be quite a tool to have?



Might that be Carl Sagan? 

"Mankind is poised midway between the Gods and the beasts" - so true!
Buckethead's album 'Dragons Of Eden' is a musical tribute to the man, with track names inspired by quotes from the book. 

There is no doubt whatsoever that 'talent' for a particular task is present in some people and not in others, and this will ultimately affect the propensity for learning. I personally do not believe that someone can be taught to compose music. Sure, you can learn music theory, harmony, counterpoint etc., until the cows come home, but if that unquantifiable magic ingredient is not there to begin with you will never be a great composer.

I think that perhaps 'talent' was perhaps not the correct word to use in the context of this poll - 'ability' may have been a better choice. I still stand firm with my stance on this - without the ability to work with the samples, the samples themselves mean less than nothing at all. There is no way that a blockhead armed with omnisphere is going to create an award winning score for a movie. The director is going to say "Man, that sounds exactly like every other submission this week..." Add a little ability (or a lot) into the equation and the reaction will certainly be more favourable. 

Ultimately it is a combination of talent, ability and good tools which will produce the best results - I don't think the ratio is particularly relevant, just as long as all three are present.


----------



## SergeD (Aug 17, 2009)

Today was a very very hot day here in Montreal so I tried to compose something creative. Finally the 1% inspiration and 99% perspiration rule has not worked for me.

Ned or Guy or Choco have you felt some difference ?

SergeD


----------



## Ned Bouhalassa (Aug 17, 2009)

Serge,

I was cool most of the day, and therefore got some writing done. Two letters that work in French and English: A.C. 8)


----------



## dcoscina (Aug 17, 2009)

choc0thrax @ Mon Aug 17 said:


> dcoscina @ Mon Aug 17 said:
> 
> 
> > almost anyone can come up with a great tune
> ...



Well context is everything choco. Raksin said this off his contemporaries when he was scoring films- at that time, anyone in the film music business had to have their shit together. Unlike today where any twit with Garageband and some nice samples can write something appealing to the tone deaf masses.


----------



## spectrum (Aug 17, 2009)

Chris Hein @ Wed Aug 12 said:


> And then, listen to the new Mercedes Benz audio logo.
> What kind of talent is needed to choose a single sample from the EW choir library
> and sell it to your customer as your composition?


Hi Chris, I agree with your general point about the importance of creativity, but I'd like to clarify some misconceptions and misinformation about this particular case that you cited....

That particular Mercedes Benz audio logo sample comes from the Spectrasonics Symphony of Voices library, not EW Choirs.

Most importantly, Mercedes licensed it directly with us at Spectrasonics as an audio logo, so in this case:

• The composer of the melodic phrase was myself. I wrote and recorded it for use as a sample in SOV.

• Mercedes paid me directly for the additional corporate audio logo licensing of that particular sound recording.

So the idea that a composer pulled this up in his library and sold it as an original work to Mercedes is incorrect. This is a very popular rumor making its way around the Internet and I want to make sure it gets dispelled here.

Mercedes themselves checked out our SOV library and we (the originators of the sample) negotiated with them and were paid a fair and appropriate license for this type of use. 

So it was all handled very legitimately and Mercedes was very well aware of how popular that sample is and how much it had already been used.....but they still wanted it as their corporate logo. Apparently, some of the executives really loved it exactly the way it was or something like that and so they didn't want to create a new one from scratch.

Hope that's clearer. 

Cheers!

spectrum


----------



## Ashermusic (Aug 17, 2009)

spectrum @ Mon Aug 17 said:


> Chris Hein @ Wed Aug 12 said:
> 
> 
> > And then, listen to the new Mercedes Benz audio logo.
> ...



This speaks well for you Eric, not so well for Mercedes Benz.


----------



## germancomponist (Aug 17, 2009)

spectrum @ Tue Aug 18 said:


> Chris Hein @ Wed Aug 12 said:
> 
> 
> > And then, listen to the new Mercedes Benz audio logo.
> ...



Hi Eric,

this story had me always confused. :-D

Some years ago I did an audio-logo for Lufthansa-City-Center and there I had used only 2 notes from one library, and I have sold it in good conscience. So now when I hear Mercedes came first to Spectrasonics, all is clear now. 

Thanks for the clarification. o/~ 

Gunther


----------



## Guy Bacos (Aug 17, 2009)

SergeD @ Mon Aug 17 said:


> Today was a very very hot day here in Montreal so I tried to compose something creative. Finally the 1% inspiration and 99% perspiration rule has not worked for me.
> 
> Ned or Guy or Choco have you felt some difference ?
> 
> SergeD



Ned Flanders is in Montreal? Okely Dokely!


----------



## spectrum (Aug 17, 2009)

Pzy-Clone @ Sun Aug 16 said:


> Waywyn @ Sun Aug 16 said:
> 
> 
> > TuwaSni @ Sat Aug 15 said:
> ...


I'm kind of surprised by these responses actually. 

Over the years I have met many, many musicians and composers/songwriters that do not "work hard" or put tons of sweat and years of effort into their music - yet they can innately produce incredibly moving and remarkable music. Some of them never even practice or have any formal academic training, etc.

These people I would call "gifted", "talented" , etc.

I have also seen countless examples of people that have put in decades of hard work and loads of effort that end up not producing anything memorable at all....just copycats, typical sounding stuff, etc.

So there's no way that it's just all about how much "work" you put into it. 

The most common situation in my experience is that most of the really successful musical people I've worked with have a true gift/talent/special aptitude for what they do - AND they also work very hard at what they do to grow and develop their talents into something extraordinary and a lifelong career.

But at the end of the day, it's not really the "work" that makes them special....it's the gifting itself.


----------



## spectrum (Aug 17, 2009)

lux @ Mon Aug 17 said:


> i tend to agree with re-peat here. If hard work, formal titles and dedication were roots to success every small town musical school would graduate thousands great artists every 6 months. And thats not going to happen. A gift is due in my opinion. Its hard to accept but thats it.
> 
> It doesnt mean that less gifted musicians cannot succeed or that greatly gifted girls/guys have an easy way to success. But talent smells and its pretty easy to recognize.


Well said!


----------



## Fernando Warez (Aug 18, 2009)

Talent! 

That's why i bought so much samples! :mrgreen:


----------



## Niah (Aug 18, 2009)

Ed @ Mon Aug 17 said:


> Niah, doesnt "cultural background" come under enviroment?
> 
> .



not in the behaviouristt theory, the experiments that were made never took into consideration the cultural background of the individual

the cultural background was a variable that was introduced later and so important in an increasing multi cultural world


----------



## SergeD (Aug 18, 2009)

Ned Bouhalassa @ Mon Aug 17 said:


> Serge,
> 
> I was cool most of the day, and therefore got some writing done. Two letters that work in French and English: A.C. 8)



Good, I will try this, after all we are in the 21e century, no need to sweat anymore :mrgreen: 

Ned Flanders


----------



## Ashermusic (Aug 18, 2009)

spectrum @ Mon Aug 17 said:


> Pzy-Clone @ Sun Aug 16 said:
> 
> 
> > Waywyn @ Sun Aug 16 said:
> ...



+1.


----------



## watikutju (Aug 18, 2009)

Let's put it this way:
Some mates decide on going out for a chinese dinner. One guy takes a sip of his wine, another a scull of his beer, one dips into the spring rolls, and another bloke pours himself a water. The remaining guy starts moving everything on the table a little closer to him, including the other guys' glasses and plates, grabs his chopsticks and starts crankin out a masterpiece....


The talented and creative mind is never hindered by resources....

how many of us would just drink the beer??!!!


----------



## Ashermusic (Aug 18, 2009)

watikutju @ Tue Aug 18 said:


> Let's put it this way:
> Some mates decide on going out for a chinese dinner. One guy takes a sip of his wine, another a scull of his beer, one dips into the spring rolls, and another bloke pours himself a water. The remaining guy starts moving everything on the table a little closer to him, including the other guys' glasses and plates, grabs his chopsticks and starts crankin out a masterpiece....
> 
> 
> ...



Not me, I hate beer.


----------



## Guy Bacos (Aug 18, 2009)

I like the increase of 70% talent and 30% samples, now 20 %, I find 90% talent is a bit too overrating the talent in a discipline where quality of samples are very important.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Aug 18, 2009)

I'm surprised this thread is still going on, and frankly haven't taken it seriously.

But what Eric says is true of course: it all starts with a gift; some people simply have something interesting to say, and they're able to say it in the language of music. That's obviously what makes the world go round - we all have different gifts.

Having said that, with the exception of some great pop songs, I can't think of any really lasting, seat belt, desert island music that wasn't written by someone who had incredible skills *and* innate talent. I mean Bach, Stravinsky, Beethoven, Mozart, Bartok....even in pop music, someone like Joni Mitchell who never studied formally clearly worked really hard to develop her natural talent. Same with the Beatles, plus they worked with people (George Martin, Phil Specter) who had some serious chops. And you can't get anywhere in jazz without being a really good player, and that doesn't happen on its own.

Still, if you turn on KEARTH 101 in Los Angeles you'll hear lots of really good songs by people who just said what they had to say, and they all stand up after 30 or 40 years.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Aug 18, 2009)

The subtext is that we shouldn't let lack a perceived lack of skills stand in the way of writing good music!

(But with all due respect to Guy, the original question - samples - has nothing to do with it. Good musicians were using samples really well 25 years ago; they just weren't creating realistic orchestral mock-ups.)


----------



## Guy Bacos (Aug 18, 2009)

But once again and I'd like to emphasize something, the question is not just about comparing talent with samples and their separate validity, it also has to do where it's heading which may tend to change the mentality of the user, you don't need to learn how to make spaghetti sauce, we will sell it all ready for you. When new users see how realistic playing 3 notes sound with some of the latest lib and in the next few years, will they think they have the same chances as anybody else with much more training? Can this be a Zimmer trend? As far as I know Zimmer scores nearly everything using a single note, "D" I believe. John Williams held the torch with great pride for many years, I hope it wasn't passed on to Zimmer? And then we have all his followers! I like what he does, but way, way, overrated. Anyway, it's just an example. I'm sure some people could find more appropriate examples. So back the point, if one starts believing that samples is 90%, with this mentality where are we heading?


----------



## germancomponist (Aug 18, 2009)

Guy Bacos @ Tue Aug 18 said:


> But once again and I'd like to emphasize something, the question is not just about comparing talent with samples and their separate validity, it also has to do where it's heading which may tend to change the mentality of the user, you don't need to learn how to make spaghetti sauce, we will sell it all ready for you. When new users see how realistic playing 3 notes sound with some of the latest lib and in the next few years, will they think they have the same chances as anybody else with much more training? Can this be a Zimmer trend? As far as I know Zimmer scores nearly everything using a single note, "D" I believe. John Williams held the torch with great pride for many years, I hope it wasn't passed on to Zimmer? And then we have all his followers! I like what he does, but way, way, overrated. Anyway, it's just an example. I'm sure some people could find more appropriate examples. So back the point, if one starts believing that samples is 90%, with this mentality where are we heading?



Guy,

last year on a workshop I had to learn something: Many GarageBand users.... and DJ`s are feeling/thinking they are composers. They believe that they are on the same level as that right Composer. So, where are we heading? o/~


----------



## clarkcontrol (Aug 18, 2009)

If you have:

Photoshop and a digital camera: You're a professional photographer.

an internet connection: You're a web designer

A car: An Indy race car driver (or a pizza delivery guy)

Samples: You're Hanz Zimmer


It is sad that many people feel obliged to consider themselves qualified to promote themselves as composers when the best way to describe them would be "commercial artist." Just cause my daddy bought me a guitar doesn't make me band leader.

But I've seen this a lot with singers, so this is nothing new.

There should be a %98 talent option, that's my opinion.

Clark


----------



## Niah (Aug 18, 2009)

oh no, now you guys are starting to sound like grandpa moby

seriously was this discussion about this all along? what a let down ... :cry: 

what are you afraid is going to happen? this?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zui4s0aLpr4


----------



## Guy Bacos (Aug 18, 2009)

Niah @ Tue Aug 18 said:


> oh no, now you guys are starting to sound like grandpa moby
> 
> seriously was this discussion about this all along? what a let down ... :cry:



Wrong, just part of the overall picture and reality.

Granpa Moby sounds like a wise man.


----------



## Niah (Aug 18, 2009)

Guy Bacos @ Tue Aug 18 said:


> Niah @ Tue Aug 18 said:
> 
> 
> > oh no, now you guys are starting to sound like grandpa moby
> ...



I have a hard time believing that Guy.

Even before this thread you have expressed concerned that there might be some people out there who think that if they buy sample lib A or Z they can compensate for their lack of talent.

So I really feel that that was your motivation 1 for starting this poll in the first place. If you disagree I'll have to take your word for it. 

As someone very wisely said on this thread, this poll reflects nothing more but our desires and not the reality of things. Certainly we like to think that talent is the driving force of music and not the samples or the use of technology and especially when it comes to our own work, No one will admit this, not to themselfs and certainly not to others.

I really feel that this thread is about the fact that technology and tools are more accessible than ever before. And why is that a bad thing? Is democratization of art a bad thing?


----------



## Guy Bacos (Aug 18, 2009)

Huh? I'm not sure what I'd be arguing about. 

I'm just saying what I believe is the reality. I don't care if Joe, Frank and Jack thinks otherwise, just my view.


----------



## dcoscina (Aug 18, 2009)

Democratization of music is not a bad thing IF these libraries get people interested in learning more about the nuts and bolts of music. But the problem is that they provide instant gratification. I have read many many many interviews with Jerry Goldsmith, John Adams, even Joel McNeely and ALL of them are quick to say that while sample libraries have their place, they do not take the place of formal knowledge of this art form. And I say this in the context of those who think they can compete with the John Williams' of the world. Even if they can in the fucked up world of film scoring, in terms of actual music quality, they fall way way short. And the way the system works today, you can have some retard like Santaolalla with two Oscars while Thomas Newman whose work has been outstanding for many years, has got nothing. 10 years from now, it will be Newman's music that will be studied and perpetuated. 

And this leads me to my final point- if an aside. Do you insecure guys who quickly jump to the "you're elitist" position whenever I or anyone else chimes in about academia or higher learning of music think for a minute that we would STILL be listening to Mozart if left to the devices of the general populace? Mahler's music would have gone completely unnoticed were it not for a select few in the annals of academia who re-discovered it in the '60s...or Charles Ives....

Music historians are the ones who perpetuate great art, not the masses where everything is transient and a fad. 

This is a little OT but in the larger framework of what we're discussing, it is relevant. Big time.

Have a swell day.


----------



## Niah (Aug 18, 2009)

ok so if bringing zimmer once again into the table and blaming him for all the bad things on earth wasn't enough,.,

now santaolalla is a retard... great

I am not going to argue of the validity of gustavo wining the two oscars but I really can't understand the rage about the recognition of an artist's work that is truly unique and moving beyond words

I also can't help to notice that if zimmer or gustavo were not so well known maybe this discussion would never take place

why does this bother so many?


----------



## Guy Bacos (Aug 18, 2009)

dcoscina @ Tue Aug 18 said:


> Democratization of music is not a bad thing IF these libraries get people interested in learning more about the nuts and bolts of music. But the problem is that they provide instant gratification. I have read many many many interviews with Jerry Goldsmith, John Adams, even Joel McNeely and ALL of them are quick to say that while sample libraries have their place, they do not take the place of formal knowledge of this art form. And I say this in the context of those who think they can compete with the John Williams' of the world. Even if they can in the fucked up world of film scoring, in terms of actual music quality, they fall way way short. And the way the system works today, you can have some retard like Santaolalla with two Oscars while Thomas Newman whose work has been outstanding for many years, has got nothing. 10 years from now, it will be Newman's music that will be studied and perpetuated.
> 
> And this leads me to my final point- if an aside. Do you insecure guys who quickly jump to the "you're elitist" position whenever I or anyone else chimes in about academia or higher learning of music think for a minute that we would STILL be listening to Mozart if left to the devices of the general populace? Mahler's music would have gone completely unnoticed were it not for a select few in the annals of academia who re-discovered it in the '60s...or Charles Ives....
> 
> ...



Nice. 

Instant gratification. Love it!


----------



## dcoscina (Aug 18, 2009)

Niah @ Tue Aug 18 said:


> ok so if bringing zimmer once again into the table and blaming him for all the bad things on earth wasn't enough,.,
> 
> now santaolalla is a retard... great
> 
> ...



"Unique"? Because the guy can pluck a single note on a guitar people think he's brilliant? From everything I have heard, he does this because this is all his limited palette of abilities allow him to do. If he could write a 12 tone big band chart like David Shire or whip up a symphonic piece like Williams AND he could apply this simply guitar lick because it fit the film, then YEAH I would say he's creative. But to call him "unique" is to laud Chancy the Gardener for being a political genius (from Being There).


----------



## Niah (Aug 18, 2009)

dcoscina @ Tue Aug 18 said:


> Niah @ Tue Aug 18 said:
> 
> 
> > ok so if bringing zimmer once again into the table and blaming him for all the bad things on earth wasn't enough,.,
> ...



if it's not unique why is his work completely different from the norm? and certainly from the majority of film music

at least that's my definition of unique

music doesn't need to use an orchestra or to be a symphony, it can be just a guitar

why would gustavo do symphonic work like williams or a big band tune like David shire? he is neither of these cats, he is gustavo

you are giving me the impression that to you music is all about structure, and chord progressions and whatnot

have you really tried to listen to gustavo's music? because it seems like when you are listening to it you are counting how many notes he is using
if it doesn't move you it doesn't move you end of story

the sad part to me is you thinking that the academy would also share this radical analytical and intelectual connection with music and would dismiss his work

so it doesn't surprise me that you don't get it


----------



## Theseus (Aug 18, 2009)

dcoscina @ Tue Aug 18 said:


> Niah @ Tue Aug 18 said:
> 
> 
> > ok so if bringing zimmer once again into the table and blaming him for all the bad things on earth wasn't enough,.,
> ...



It's not how many notes you play that matters, it's which ones.
I've been following this thread for quite a while, and I mostly felt resentment in lots of comments, rather than views expressed about the poll started by Guy Bacos.

And in the end, it turns out that some are actually afraid, not that newbies would outcome them in terms of composition or orchestration skills, but that they would get the jobs they can't seem to have, thanks to superior sonic samples. Ie, I play 3 chords with Symphobia, and because the sound is good, and despite the music isn't, they might geat ahead and become the composers we love to hate because they made their way into the big business though we feel we're much more talented than they are. Not sure what to think about that.


----------



## synthetic (Aug 18, 2009)

Some of this thread underlines the reason I avoid plug-ins like Stylus and Evolve. It's too easy to hold down one note and sound like everyone else. Of course someday if I get some TV series where I need to crank out 10 minutes of music a day I'll change my tune, no pun intended. 

I think a great talent and hard work will outshine their tools. Listen back to the stuff Christophe Beck did on Buffy or TJ did with VSL First Edition, it still sounds great to me. Much of the talent is listening to the mix and adjusting your writing or mix. I remember Chris Beck saying he thought his sampled trumpets sounded awful, which is why you don't hear much of them in Buffy. 

But of course I'm going to get the best samples I can afford because I want my music to sound its best. I'm certainly not going to let the lack of any gear stop me from making music.


----------



## synthetic (Aug 18, 2009)

germancomponist @ Tue Aug 18 said:


> last year on a workshop I had to learn something: Many GarageBand users.... and DJ`s are feeling/thinking they are composers. They believe that they are on the same level as that right Composer. So, where are we heading? o/~



I remember when "Ice Ice Baby" came out. Vanilla Ice was making a point that it was an original composition and he shouldn't have to pay for the Queen sample. His case went something like this:

"See, the Queen sample goes:
da-da-da-dadada-da da-da-da-dadada-da

"My version goes:
da-da-da-dadada-da DAH da-da-da-dadada-da

I took it and made something new." 

Yeah the guys stringing together beatz in Fruityloops crack me up. Even worse is when you listen to top 40 radio and hear serious errors in the playing or chord changes. Has anyone else noticed the break in "Are we human or are we dancing" or something where they screw up the changes? How does no one catch that!?


----------



## Niah (Aug 18, 2009)

Theseus @ Tue Aug 18 said:


> dcoscina @ Tue Aug 18 said:
> 
> 
> > Niah @ Tue Aug 18 said:
> ...



Finally someone said it, :D I didn't wanted to hurt the more bitter and grumpier folks though

nothing new is being said here, it was the same when the first drum machines were popular in the 80's or when samplemodeling came out, or symphobia or more recentely...LASS

oh my lord now everybody is going to think they can do music

man even moby is a grumpy bitter man now, which is pretty ironic considering that a few years ago he was making millions in the top40 by sampling other artists and use extensive technology

nothing against that of course mind you but now he turns the other way, 

it must hurt not to sell as much as before :roll: 


anyway welcome to VI 8)


----------



## synthetic (Aug 18, 2009)

OK, I have one more point to make on the samples versus talent debate. I've worked for a lot of manufacturers, and now I'm the marketing manager at a decent size manufacturer. People often send me music they've made using our products, with the hopes of getting free gear or just because they're proud of it. I usually click on the music link out of curiosity. (Don't email me MP3s before asking first!) So I feel like I'm in a position to answer this age old question: 

IT"S THE TALENT!!!

Money can buy samples. Only hours and months and years of work can buy you talent.


----------



## Theseus (Aug 18, 2009)

Thnaks for the welcome Niah.
Well, yeah, I took the shot, because I'm a crazy newcomer. No, seriously, it was annoying to read this whole elliptic circumference writing when it appeared quite clearly what they were aiming at : "kids, don't buy good samples, let us shine". Sorry, I don't mean any disrespect, but come on! Most of those are really talented and I trully admire their skills and enjoy their music.


----------



## Guy Bacos (Aug 18, 2009)

I think some folks arò1(   ­U&1(   ­U'1(   ­U(1(   ­U)1(   ­U*1(   ­U+1(   ­U,1(   ­U-1(   ­U.1(


----------



## Niah (Aug 18, 2009)

why always this generational clash between williams vs zimmer? aren't any other cats out there making music,? it is like it's this two religions and we are just sheep that have to follow one of them

why is williams a good role model? and why is zimmer a bad one? and why a role model in the first place? maybe role models are a thing of the past

I think it's up to the new generation to do the music that they feel is revelant to them and the job at hand

if the scene calls for a pad so be it, why not? not every movie needs a 100 piece orchestra
and so what if anyone feels like geniouses, ego never hurts your music

besides it's not really williams or zimmer you should be concerned about, it's the new directors that are coming out :wink: 

williams represents the past, zimmer the present, who knows what the future holds

movies have changed, audiences have changed,

I am as nostalgic as david coscina but cmon these are exciting times anything can happen now


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Aug 18, 2009)

"It's too easy to hold down one note and sound like everyone else."

That's the (yuk yuk) key: it may be getting easier to sound like everyone else, but it's never getting easier to have something to say. And most of us aren't going to get gigs sounding like everyone else anyway - they already have people who can do that.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Aug 18, 2009)

By the way, talented musicians use RMX or Evolve and *don't* sound like everyone else.

Listen to Ned B's stuff, for example.


----------



## germancomponist (Aug 18, 2009)

Niah @ Wed Aug 19 said:


> why always this generational clash between williams vs zimmer? aren't any other cats out there making music,? it is like it's this two religions and we are just sheep that have to follow one of them
> 
> why is williams a good role model? and why is zimmer a bad one? and why a role model in the first place? maybe role models are a thing of the past
> 
> ...



+1


----------



## Guy Bacos (Aug 18, 2009)

Of course anybody is free to write whatever he wants whether it's with a 100 piece orchestra or a Zimmer 1 note X 1000. And one could be as good as the other. But if someone wants to base all his scores on pads and heavy drums for example it should be because that is precisely what he wants not because that's all he can do. And once again, I fear I keep repeating myself, when young musicians sees what an Oscar winning composer like Zimmer and what's involved in his music, he may just think that all he needs is some good samples to be a film composer and the hell learning music the "old fashion way". It has been like that through the ages, Debussy, Ravel, Stravinsky etc went through the "grandpa Moby Old Fashion School" before experimenting with all kinds of chords and dissonances. I think this old fashion school is nothing to be mocked at, sorry Niah. Good film scoring is not just based on success and money but on quality, and that is what will live on through the ages.


----------



## germancomponist (Aug 18, 2009)

Guy Bacos @ Wed Aug 19 said:


> Of course anybody is free to write whatever he wants whether it's with a 100 piece orchestra or a Zimmer 1 note X 1000. .



Oops, can you explain the *Zimmer 1 note X 1000*?

I would like to know this. o/~


----------



## tmhuud (Aug 18, 2009)

one note played by 1000 players. slight exaggeration.

One note by 40 cellists is more to the truth.


----------



## Damon (Aug 18, 2009)

By far I'd have to say talent and good compositions always come first, but then again there are people who have great technical ability that know how to tweak a sample library and are blessed with good ears.

Alot of composers play by ear (like myself...lol) and get inspired from other big soundtrack composers who have that 'big Hollywood sound' and create their own sound amongst all of the composers they listen to.

I can't read music which is a big disapointment, but have been blessed with a decent ear, but I would have to say great composition, technical ability, and a good ear all come into play when it all comes into fruition.

I guess IMO talent and knowing how to work sample libraries well both matter.

-D


----------



## germancomponist (Aug 19, 2009)

tmhuud @ Wed Aug 19 said:


> one note played by 1000 players. slight exaggeration.
> 
> One note by 40 cellists is more to the truth.



And one note by 40 cellists can sound much bigger than 4 or 10. And if Hans want this big sound I think nothing is wrong here. 

http://www.magicboxmusic.com/virtualresume/details.php?id=P3&popup=y

o-[][]-o


----------



## Hannes_F (Aug 19, 2009)

germancomponist @ Wed Aug 19 said:


> And one note by 40 cellists can sound much bigger than 4 or 10.



Actually that depends on the mixing. In the age of the microphone 1 cellist can sound even bigger than 40 and 40 cellists can sound very small if you attenuate them. 8)


----------



## Hal (Aug 19, 2009)

Hannes_F @ Wed Aug 19 said:


> germancomponist @ Wed Aug 19 said:
> 
> 
> > And one note by 40 cellists can sound much bigger than 4 or 10.
> ...



Mmm.. :roll: 

No i dont get it


----------



## Theseus (Aug 19, 2009)

Do people who enjoy Zimmer's music necesseraly compose bad music?
Does the apparition of Twitter means that we're going to save more trees because people will write books with a maximum of 130 caracters?

Seriously, what's the harm if some listen to Zimmer and want to produce the same music than he does. And what's the harm if manufacturers give those persons the tools so they can mock up Zimmer easily?

The music schools and conservatoires are fuller than ever. There's still (and will always be) people interested in learning the hard way. 

So far, I didn't hear any talentless newbie coming up with a great demo using Symphobia. Not even one.

As a conclusion, I didn't mean to show any disrespect here, specially towards you Guy (I trully admire your work) and if I did, I present my sincere apologies.


----------



## johncarter (Aug 19, 2009)

I dont get the problem with Zimmer too.

This guy has a really amazing talent in telling a story through the music. He has a good taste . He touches people with his music, even if it's "simple" . The amazing thing about him is he always find simple musical ideas.
Like for instance the 2 notes staccato rhythm used in Batman Begins. This is so easy , yet so effective . And EVERYBODY copied this since. Now many people says "oh Zimmer music is so simple even my students could do that" Yeah may be, but finding this idea is not that easy !!


The chord progression used in Thin Red Line to represent the "war". Everybody used that after in every war movies. That was so simple when you think about it , but so original !

The idea of using these strings staccato rhythm , rock-like, for action movies. That was a great idea that was copied thousand times after. 

Zimmer may not be a great "counterpoint-ist" or orchestrator , but he has lot of ideas. Ideas that some self-taught AND musically trained composers lack. 

I see no problems in the young generation of film composer being influenced by Zimmer. The only thing is many composers just try to copy Zimmer because its easy to do with samples. With the samples libraries we have , we can make batman begins easily, same thing for pirates of the caribbean. Thats why I think most "computer" composers write in the zimmer style. Cause it sounds good with samples. And yeah thats the problem, composers should be inspired by Zimmer but not simply copying him.


----------



## germancomponist (Aug 19, 2009)

++1

Yes, for me, Hans has a great talent!


----------



## Hal (Aug 19, 2009)

i agree 
finding te idea is very difficult
the easy part is copying it
i agree also that computer composer copy Hans because they can do that with the samples we have.
you can make pirates sounds great with samples but you cant make harry potter sound as good,or you cant make it at all.


----------



## germancomponist (Aug 19, 2009)

Hannes_F @ Wed Aug 19 said:


> germancomponist @ Wed Aug 19 said:
> 
> 
> > And one note by 40 cellists can sound much bigger than 4 or 10.
> ...



For sure, but I think these people exactly know what they have to do to make that big sound with 40 cellists.


----------



## Niah (Aug 19, 2009)

Guy Bacos @ Wed Aug 19 said:


> Of course anybody is free to write whatever he wants whether it's with a 100 piece orchestra or a Zimmer 1 note X 1000. And one could be as good as the other. But if someone wants to base all his scores on pads and heavy drums for example it should be because that is precisely what he wants not because that's all he can do. And once again, I fear I keep repeating myself, when young musicians sees what an Oscar winning composer like Zimmer and what's involved in his music, he may just think that all he needs is some good samples to be a film composer and the hell learning music the "old fashion way". It has been like that through the ages, Debussy, Ravel, Stravinsky etc went through the "grandpa Moby Old Fashion School" before experimenting with all kinds of chords and dissonances. I think this old fashion school is nothing to be mocked at, sorry Niah. Good film scoring is not just based on success and money but on quality, and that is what will live on through the ages.



I feel that I am being misunderstood here.

I am not really sure if I get what you mean with the term "old fashion way" but I don't understand how I could have mocked up such composers like Debussy or tradition in my comments.

If there's anyone that I have mocked up was Moby, is he old school? He came as a punk rocker and went on to do music with samples. He has done music for films or at least provided some for it and mostly done with samples and pads, his music has replaced the work of some film composers; example elliot goldenthal's score of HEAT, the last scene of the movie (if david coscina knows about this is going to go ballistic on this one :lol: ) Not only that he is a grammy winner and a celebrity. Isn't he a much bigger influence than zimmer? He is certainly alot more well known. And recently he has put out a "service" where directors can simply download and use of this "pad music" for free.

I have nothing against this and even think it's positive but taking into account his career I fell that he was being a hipocrate with that he said.

What I don't understand is that, you are coming from the point of view of defending tradition, which is great it sure must be perserved, and then defending moby at the same time and calling him wise? This is what I don't get. Taking into account all of this about Moby where does he fit in the this picture of tradition or such composers like Ravel?

As far as I am concerned Zimmer only won one oscar for the Lion King score: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nhMUvhIAPtY

Who listens to this and said on yea if I buy samples I can win an oscar too?

Now I am not a big Zimmer connaiseur, but I can't remember of a score done only pads or this 1 X 1000...??.. give an example of that so I understand what you are referring to
but even if there is such a score I feel that most people just simply failed to look at the overall career of zimmer and find out that the man has done some interesting work, why can't that be an influence to the kids?

What hurts to me though are these wrong assumptions about my generation that arise from time to time in discussions boards, that we are a bunch of zimmer followers or zimmer clones. That all we do is music with pads and loops. I really don't know where people get these ideas but it's certainly a reality that I really can't relate to. Zimmer and Williams represent in a nutshell the popcorn movie music, it's just a fraction of that's out there and can influence future generations of artists. 
And then this prejudice against tools like evolve or omnisphere or people who use garageband. Not very respectful to the developers of these tools and we know better that there's some incredible things being done with such tools. But we give the impression to other field musicans/artists and audiences that it's as easy as brushing your teeth. This is pretty much want Mr Moby said in other words and it's a shot in the foot if you ask me. He failed to transmit the most important aspect for me which is, yes anyone can use these tools as anyone can play the guitar, but only a handful of people can turn into something revelant and extraordinary that will capture people's attention and imagination.
In the past Moby had to put up with such people saying that music with pads and samples where not music and IMO he did a very good job at proving otherwise and bringing a new light to artists and audiences about the use of technology. What happened to moby is the question that has been puzzleing me

But anyway if indeed there are some people out there who look at zimmer and think, hmm all I have to do is buy some samples and I can make music like him. They won't go far.
If on the other hand there's also some people out there who think that all they have to do is study study study and they become like Williams, they won't go far either.
There is only one Zimmer and Williams.

There is no right or wrong path. Music is a process of discovery. you first need to know yourself in order to be yourself.

let them be themselfs and most of all have faith in them


----------



## Guy Bacos (Aug 19, 2009)

Niah, I'm sure our views are not as opposite as it seems. I like Zimmer's music, he's not my fav but I dig his stuff, I don't know why people are getting paranoid about this. That wasn't the issue, but I prefer to not pursue this conversation, I guess due to my incapacity to express myself in the way I would of liked to.


----------



## Niah (Aug 19, 2009)

Guy Bacos @ Wed Aug 19 said:


> Niah, I'm sure our views are not as opposite as it seems. I like Zimmer's music, he's not my fav but I dig his stuff, I don't know why people are getting paranoid about this. That wasn't the issue, but I prefer to not pursue this conversation, I guess due to my incapacity to express myself in the way I would of liked to.



respectfully. o-[][]-o


----------



## Guy Bacos (Aug 19, 2009)

o-[][]-o


----------



## noiseboyuk (Aug 19, 2009)

As a newbie to this particular thread, I found it a fascinating insight into the human condition. Much of it was quite sad and poignant actually. Effecitvely, much of this discussion has been the story told in the movie Amadeus of the jealously of Salieri for the naturarally talented Mozart himself. It's extraodinary to think people really believe there is "no such thing as talent". Eric Persing put it very well at the bottom of page 5.

I think really there are three elements to artistic endeavours - talent, graft and tools. Ideally we'd all have liberal does of all three, but I guess good music is possible with only 2 or even 1 - a very talented person could probably make something incredible out of a rubber band.

In our sphere, there is nothing wrong with attributing success - partially - to good samples. The LSO wouldn't sound much cop playing on kids toys instead of fabulous instruments, and that's a valid analogy here. Or to look at it another way - is the "theme tune" to Lost bad just cos its F# of Armenian Sun from Atmosphere? No, it works in context brlliantly. JJ Abrams may not be a musical genius for composing it, but knowing what works - however simple - is a great natural talent in itself. The idea of a conventional theme for that show now seems totally wrong however good it may be.

With all due respect to Guy, I don't think I can answer the question. All elements are important in different amounts for different purposes.


----------



## germancomponist (Aug 19, 2009)

Guy Bacos @ Wed Aug 19 said:


> o-[][]-o



So, *Zimmer 1 note X 1000* is not the right way to describe him, yes, no? o=<


----------



## Guy Bacos (Aug 19, 2009)

Let's just say he may be the most economical composer in the history of music.


----------



## germancomponist (Aug 19, 2009)

Guy Bacos @ Wed Aug 19 said:


> Let's just say he may be the most economical composer in the history of music.



Yeah,

and our system asks for this. You know, for sure. 

When you look at his history, from child in Germany to a best known composer in the USA, it is very interesting and fascinating! o-[][]-o

Hans rocks!


----------



## DKeenum (Aug 19, 2009)

noiseboyuk @ Wed Aug 19 said:


> I think really there are three elements to artistic endeavours - talent, graft and tools.


I don't have much in the way of talent and tools, but I have graft!!!!!!


:wink: I kid.


----------



## clarkcontrol (Aug 19, 2009)

I can't listen to Zimmer any more. Not that I don't like him. But my tendancy to paint in only the three Zimmer colors is too great a temptation after watching Pirates OTC.

Its too easy to do computer music and have it sound just like this. Unfortunately, it is so limited.

Williams is just so much more colorful and effective because of his brilliant orchestrations. You could never say that about Zimmer.

CLark


----------



## synthetic (Aug 19, 2009)

What I've been trying to do, instead of emulating Williams, Herrmann, Zimmer, etc., is to figure out who THEY are emulating. Go back to the source -- the scores are easier to get and you're more likely to find your own spin on it.


----------



## Ed (Aug 19, 2009)

noiseboyuk @ Wed Aug 19 said:


> Or to look at it another way - is the "theme tune" to Lost bad just cos its F# of Armenian Sun from Atmosphere? No, it works in context brlliantly. JJ Abrams may not be a musical genius for composing it, but knowing what works - however simple - is a great natural talent in itself.



Its not just Armenian Sun there is other sound design in there as well. Obviously not saying its a great composition becauise it isnt meant to be music.

I also get tired of people calling it the Lost "Theme", it isnt. Its an iconic sound effect. Lost has lots of themes but it doesnt have a main title theme.


----------



## noiseboyuk (Aug 20, 2009)

Ed @ Thu Aug 20 said:


> noiseboyuk @ Wed Aug 19 said:
> 
> 
> > Or to look at it another way - is the "theme tune" to Lost bad just cos its F# of Armenian Sun from Atmosphere? No, it works in context brlliantly. JJ Abrams may not be a musical genius for composing it, but knowing what works - however simple - is a great natural talent in itself.
> ...



Indeed, hence the quote marks round "theme tune".

You are also right there are a couple of other subtle elements in there right at the end as it tails off.

It all raises the question of when music becomes sound design which is, by definition, non musical. John Williams composed some atonal scores using real instruments... is it still music? Is it still music when it is samples or other VIs? Probably one for its own thread...


----------



## johncarter (Aug 20, 2009)

clarkcontrol @ Wed Aug 19 said:


> I can't listen to Zimmer any more. Not that I don't like him. But my tendancy to paint in only the three Zimmer colors is too great a temptation after watching Pirates OTC.
> 
> Its too easy to do computer music and have it sound just like this. Unfortunately, it is so limited.
> 
> ...



Then you didnt listen to House of the spirits / Black Rain / The Holiday / Black Hawk down / Da Vinci Code or Beyond Rangoon ? ( I forgot a lot )
Zimmer isnt only Pirates Of The Caribbean


----------



## Stevie (Aug 23, 2009)

I really like the Da Vinci Code/Angels and Demons score. Fit's the movie perfectly and creates a very good atmosphere. This is what music is all about, to create an atmosphere, to trigger feelings within the listener/viewer. May this goal be reached by a bunch of notes or a ton of notes does not matter. It's the overall feeling that does matter.


----------



## germancomponist (Aug 23, 2009)

Stevie @ Sun Aug 23 said:


> I really like the Da Vinci Code/Angels and Demons score. Fit's the movie perfectly and creates a very good atmosphere. This is what music is all about, to create an atmosphere, to trigger feelings within the listener/viewer. May this goal be reached by a bunch of notes or a ton of notes does not matter. It's the overall feeling that does matter.



+1


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Aug 23, 2009)

Did anyone happen to see Fareed Zacharia today? He replayed an interview with a writer named Malcolm Gladwell who wrote a book all about his subject (no not another conversation about whether Hans Zimmer is good or bad but talent and success).

Gladwell says that the definition of talent is hard work. He p to oints the Beatles; everyone thinks they just burst on the scene out of nowhere, but actually they worked 8-hour sets seven days a week for two years in Hamburg. That was how they learned their skills. He even says that maybe the talent was seeing this as an opportunity rather than a ridiculous gig.

Now, I don't agree with Gladwell. A band of average people would have worked the same gig and become an average band with a lot of experience.

But there is some truth in what he's saying. Talent isn't rare, it's talent plus enthusiasm and drive that's rare.


----------



## MaraschinoMusic (Aug 23, 2009)

I can't believe that people keep adding to this post.

Oops...


----------



## Stevie (Aug 24, 2009)

Every once in a while we have a mega-topic on VI that reaches easily 6 or more pages. It's Murphy's..., pardon, VI's Law.


----------



## mf (Aug 24, 2009)

More important to whom? To the client, of course, and they only hear the production quality.

10/90


----------



## Leandro Gardini (Aug 24, 2009)

I´m glad that talent still on the top...that means we are not getting to the end of the world!!!


----------



## germancomponist (Aug 24, 2009)

Smile, some people in a disco like to listen to a good recorded bass drum hours and hours. Bum bum bum..... = 0,1/99,9 :-D


----------



## MaraschinoMusic (Aug 24, 2009)

Mods, please kill this insane thread...! >8o 

PS - Who would win in a fight - Zimmer or Williams? 

PPS - First on page 8, Yah!


----------



## Dave Connor (Aug 24, 2009)

Nick Batzdorf @ Sun Aug 23 said:


> But there is some truth in what he's saying. Talent isn't rare, it's talent plus enthusiasm and drive that's rare.



Just listen to Nick everyone.

Comparing Zimmer (as talented and successful as he may be) is just plain silly. Williams is one heck of a composer with utter command of his art and craft. He's one of the best composers in film history. You can't compare Zimmer to the giants of the last century but Williams is already in that pantheon.


----------

