# Hans Zimmer "Secret" Brass Library?



## jsaras (May 2, 2008)

One of my friends, whom I consider to be an expert MIDI orchestrator, informed me of the existence of this library. He uses it quite a bit in his productions but he was quite "mum" when I asked him how he got it.

Anyone?


----------



## nomogo (May 2, 2008)

Hans did a sample session with the LSO a while back that has gotten around a little bit. It's an older library that he has since replaced with some crazy 5.1 custom sample system. There was an article in Sound On Sound about it. He had his own 64-bit sample player custom programmed around the time of Da Vinci Code.


----------



## synthetic (May 2, 2008)

Yeah, the Zimmer LSO library seems to get around. He's not amused, and I think that's one of the reasons that he's writing his own sampler – to keep those things to himself. However, GigaStudio is still ALL OVER that facility and they don't show signs of switching over to a new system any time soon. I got to tour his studio last week and he had five GigaStudio computers running (under remote desktop).


----------



## midphase (May 2, 2008)

> Yeah, the Zimmer LSO library seems to get around. He's not amused, and I think that's one of the reasons that he's writing his own sampler – to keep those things to himself.



Why would he care that much...it's not like people come flocking to him because of his incredibly realistic sampled scores.

I mean...seriously, he obviously has nothing to worry from his competition...who cares if a couple of interns make away with his precious samples?


----------



## José Herring (May 2, 2008)

midphase @ Fri May 02 said:


> > Yeah, the Zimmer LSO library seems to get around. He's not amused, and I think that's one of the reasons that he's writing his own sampler – to keep those things to himself.
> 
> 
> 
> Why would he care that much...it's not like people come flocking to him because of his incredibly realistic sampled scores.



But it was these samples that separated him from the pack, back in the days when he was still somewhat in the pack. Also, they're the heart of his ability to deliver his signature scores. He's very much tied to what his samples can do. So they're pretty close to him and it's a big no, no to run off and use any of the samples in other productions. The composers at remote are very, very clear about that.

Jose


----------



## choc0thrax (May 2, 2008)

You know you rock when it's your special brass sample library that seperates you from the pack.


----------



## dannthr (May 2, 2008)

Rock and roll.


----------



## Scott Cairns (May 2, 2008)

midphase @ Sat May 03 said:


> I mean...seriously, he obviously has nothing to worry from his competition...who cares if a couple of interns make away with his precious samples?



He had an agreement with the LSO. They let him sample the orchestra, but he promised to use the samples for mockups only, he would always come back and use the LSO for scoring.

I know someone who has the lib too, its not just brass, its the entire orchestra.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (May 2, 2008)

Nothing at all against Hans Zimmer, but does it really make the slightest difference what samples he uses? The commercially available sampled orchestras we have today are way beyond good enough for anyone who knows what they're doing to sound good.

I haven't heard his library side by side with any other one, but chances are that VSL, SI, EWQLSO...that stuff is probably better than what he sampled years ago. It's certainly going to be more extensive.


----------



## José Herring (May 2, 2008)

It's not just the quality of the samples. But the expressive capabilities and the way the samples were edited with playability in mind.

VSL, SI and EW have great offerings. But there's a certain naturalness and expressiveness geared towards film scoring that sets the library apart from others. 

Also, the room sound is similar to a scoring stage. SISS comes close. Especially with the exp samples. So do VSL ww and the EW low brass.

But with the private library of Zimmer and other composers there you have libraries that are specifically setup for and designed for the media composer. Unlike the commercial libraries which try to be all things to all people.


----------



## Waywyn (May 3, 2008)

... on the other side I think ... there are so many people who think they own Zimmer's sample lib, so their music also sounds like it :D


----------



## Mark Belbin (May 3, 2008)

Waywyn @ Sat May 03 said:


> ... on the other side I think ... there are so many people who think they own Zimmer's sample lib, so their music also sounds like it :D



Of course! What a great way to sabotage all the up and comers who think the library makes the music. "Now this library is mine and only mine. I need to be the only one who uses it, because if anyone else gets it, they can be HZ too. So nobody steal it...*aside: evil laugh*."

Belbin


----------



## sevaels (May 3, 2008)

I suppose it's safe to say then that the POTC demo on display at Soundtrack.net uses these samples?


----------



## José Herring (May 3, 2008)

I'd never dream of using anybody else's privately library in my own production especially since it's expressly forbidden. Also, it's easy enough to mimic the library using your own commercially recorded samples. So this guy for using Zimmer's library is not only being criminal, he's just being plain lazy. Too lazy to edit his own samples so he steals the hard work of others.

The only problem with commercially recorded libraries is that they have to be sold as a library. But to fit that stuff to your own music requires imo almost a drastic reworking of the samples at the sample level to meet certain musical requirements. That's where Zimmer's library has the edge and that's why he was able to kill everybody else's demos for critical gigs. Namely, landing the Bruckheimer account. It's not like he was the only composer to be considered for Bruckheimer films in the beginning. I know that he wasn't. But his original demo was heard by another composer I know that was up against him for the same gig. This composer lost out, but he got a chance to listen to Zimmer's demo. He said he was floored. He said he heard a demo made with samples that could have been used in the final cut of the film. That's a lot to say especially when even today with all the mega giga libraries, I've heard very few pieces that have accomplished the same level of quality.

But I ramble. I don't even know why I even bother. ~o)


----------



## sevaels (May 3, 2008)

I'd also be curious if they were all centered around ensemble patches being that he mostly just tools around on the keyboard.


----------



## choc0thrax (May 3, 2008)

I bet he's going to buy symphobia. 8)


----------



## sevaels (May 3, 2008)

For sure. :mrgreen:


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (May 3, 2008)

Forget about the damn sample library, if you really want to be good you have to wear Hans Zimmer's panties.


----------



## janila (May 3, 2008)

Nick Batzdorf @ Sat May 03 said:


> Forget about the damn sample library, if you really want to be good you have to wear Hans Zimmer's panties.


How do I get my hands on Zimmer's panties? Could VI Magazine do a scoop?


----------



## artsoundz (May 3, 2008)

Nick Batzdorf @ Sat May 03 said:


> Forget about the damn sample library, if you really want to be good you have to wear Hans Zimmer's panties.



finally, some useful insider info I can use. : )


----------



## Stephen Baysted (May 4, 2008)

He wears panties? I thought he'd have been a boxer short man.


----------



## Ranietz (May 4, 2008)

sevaels @ Sat 03 May said:


> I suppose it's safe to say then that the POTC demo on display at Soundtrack.net uses these samples?



Where at Soundtrack.net is that demo? I can't find it... :?


----------



## Stephen W (May 4, 2008)

perhaps this should be rephrased...



janila @ Sat May 03 said:


> Nick Batzdorf @ Sat May 03 said:
> 
> 
> > Forget about the damn sample library, if you really want to be good you have to wear Hans Zimmer's panties.
> ...


----------



## Stephen Baysted (May 4, 2008)

>8o


----------



## synthetic (May 12, 2008)

I think I remember reading that his custom French Horn sample is so edgy that his orchestrator asked him to stop using it, because it's not what French Horns sound like. The orchestrator always has to double those parts with trombone or something, then he ends up using the sample instead in the mix. Allegedly.


----------



## redleicester (May 13, 2008)

Try the Gladiator Waltz on the "More Music from Gladiator" album - it's all done with his samples.... just goes to show how good they are.


----------



## Bruce Richardson (May 13, 2008)

You guys...

Listen, all this speculation is crap. I called Pete Snell and just asked.

They're using GPO. Houston Haynes showed them how. It's very Hollywood.

Myth exploded. My work here is done. ~o)


----------



## John DeBorde (May 13, 2008)

Bruce Richardson @ Tue May 13 said:


> You guys...
> 
> Listen, all this speculation is crap. I called Pete Snell and just asked.
> 
> ...



Boy! Just goes to show it's the arrow, not the Indian, er...Native American. (o)


----------



## Peter Alexander (May 13, 2008)

I heard the samples while Klaus Badelt was using them. They're stunning and I never heard anything like them. At the time, keep in mind that Hans uses quality programmers and has consistently stuck with the audio sound from Giga. It was also recorded in a studio where he normally records. 

I think a lesson here is that Hans risked by investing in himself and his investment paid off.


----------



## Peter Emanuel Roos (May 13, 2008)

I find it pretty sick if his library got pirated, especially because it must have been done by an intern.
I hope he can nail the perpetrator (legally).

If this can happen, it can also happen to his new library.

If anyone on this forum finds a download link and/or torrent or whatever, please inform Remote Control to help them prevent a mass spread on the web.

If you don't agree, please see it also from the perspective of the Prague library from Simon, Maarten and others. Stuff like this is REALLY private material.

I think this is far more serious than the pirating of commercial libraries!

Peter


----------



## Fernando Warez (May 13, 2008)

Peter Roos @ Tue May 13 said:


> I find it pretty sick if his library got pirated, especially because it must have been done by an intern.
> I hope he can nail the perpetrator (legally).
> 
> If this can happen, it can also happen to his new library.
> ...



I totally agree. I hope they get the intern and that he never gets a gig again. 

But i don't agree with the comment about commercial libraries. :?


----------



## Peter Emanuel Roos (May 13, 2008)

Wrong word choice, Fernando, sorry.

It's equally illegal. I was just pissed off by this pirating of "internal" property.

Although I don't make money with music (I do a little bit with Samplicity, but my main job is IT consulting), all my libraries are purchased legally (which is quite an investment!). I want to support the developers and be able to openly and honestly discuss their products.

I hope I have not made a hint in suggesting that using pirated commercial libs is tollerable.

Best,

Peter


----------



## Fernando Warez (May 13, 2008)

Peter Roos @ Tue May 13 said:


> Wrong word choice, Fernando, sorry.
> 
> It's equally illegal. I was just pissed off by this pirating of "internal" property.
> 
> ...



No no! Actually i feel the same way. It is a bit worse because it is ''internal'' property as you say which involve a traitor, and i don't like those...


----------



## the sinner (May 13, 2008)

I wonder if a techy or repair guy took them. One time i brought my G5 in for service at a reputed apple dealer and I checked to see that they had looked and opened several applications like Iphoto, Imovie, etc. to see what I had in there. I bet this is what happened. They forgot to clear recent items.


----------



## Daryl (May 13, 2008)

What's all this talk of pirating? Who pirated what? It sounds a lot like Chicken Little on crack to me.

D


----------



## Ethos (May 14, 2008)

Articles like *this one*http://consumerist.com/consumer/gee...ustomers-computers-techies-confirm-257309.phphttp://consumerist.com/consumer/gee...ustomers-computers-techies-confirm-257309.php make you wonder...


----------



## Pzy-Clone (May 26, 2008)

Hey...i wonder if anybody would have the nuts to actualy use them samples.
I would never ever get myself to use someones private collection in my work, that would feel so weird i think.

Whats thats word im like looking for.
Hm, yeah, i know.
personal integrity.

I remember years ago, someone gave me some NIN private percussion samples, wich at the time were realy interesting, but...i could never in a million years get myself to use them, actualy i didnt even keep them

I just dont think people would end up using someones private collection, or am i just beeing naive here?

oh that thing, with tech support going thru your drives like havoc vultures?
they do, lol. 
I had some sort of...compromising stuff on my HD , wich the support guy made some badly concealed jokes about lol.
But lucky for me, i dont realy care.


----------



## midphase (May 26, 2008)

"Hey...i wonder if anybody would have the nuts to actualy use them samples."

You'd be surprised!

"I just dont think people would end up using someones private collection, or am i just beeing naive here?"

You're being naive.


----------



## dannthr (May 27, 2008)

Within the dark underbelly of freelance music production is an evil so beyond imagination so potent as to curdle even Milton's blood.

_"O Conscience, into what abyss of fears And horrors hast thou driven me, out of which I find no way, from deep to deeper plunged." _


----------



## Pzy-Clone (May 27, 2008)

and yet somehow i am not convinced....
industrial sabotage eh? lol.

nah im not naive...but if you realy need to steal someones signature sounds, there are certaintly others that are much higher on my list in that regard.

I guess i just dont see what anyone thinks to accomplish by using someone elses private work.

yes, maybe maybe maybe your work could be mistaken for a Zimmer mockup.?
hurrah.

thats probably a very clever way to make a name for yourself...


----------



## Bruce Richardson (May 27, 2008)

Utimately, I think the entire idea that this or that sample library has some value beyond a crayon or pencil is the most interesting aspect of the conversation.

I hear so many people trying to get a "sound" which is primarily reserved for the most mainstream possible financial vehicles, in other words, the gigs that are least available to someone entering the business of artmaking.

It seems I've said this a hundred times in various discussions, but it seems fitting to this one as well. There is no value in sounding like someone else, unless you want your entire life to be consumed with people wanting you to sound like someone else.

I'll give you a concrete example. I was a Miles freak at one point in my jazz development, like any kid who plays trumpet. I learned to knock off Miles's style very effectively, down to the way he had a particular sound on particular notes (like concert A5, for instance, he almost always has a characteristic scoop on that particular note).

So, when my primary income was "gig life" on jazz casuals, I'd get on these gigs, and suddenly half of what I'm playing on every gig is Miles tunes. Not that I mind playing Miles tunes, but it was boring. And it was a direct result of my having plotted that course by putting it out there. And what I found immensely disturbing in the longer run was how long it took me to get recognized for MY SOUND, rather than having people say, "Oh, yeah, that guy can sound exactly like Miles."

There is nothing more excruciating than playing "Jean Pierre" on a gig with some soft-dick halfassed guitar player, when the whole tune is about nothing except hearing a slamming rhythm section play....

So, what does one want to do with one's career? That's really the question. I would say that if coveting Hans Zimmer's "secret brass library" is even on the radar, then there's a lot of confusion about what makes a career. Hans Zimmer didn't get a career by having a secret brass library. He made a career by first, having a particular musical thing he did, and second, having a good narrative sensibility.

Samples are shit. They're less than nothing. They're meaningless (haha, that should really increase my sales numbers).

The point being, actually, that they're just tools, and none are inherently better or worse on their own. Unless you have a sound, and have the skills to somehow take these benign tools and do something with them besides imitate yesterday's blockbuster film score, they're as worthless as a turd. Cart before horse.


----------



## midphase (May 27, 2008)

"thats why i ultimatly think...any pro guy would never use them sounds anyway."

You go right on thinking that!


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (May 27, 2008)

These are the ones Hans Zimmer wears. They will land you many gigs:


----------



## tfishbein82 (May 27, 2008)

_Samples are [email protected]#t._ - Sampledaddy

I love it!


----------



## Pzy-Clone (May 27, 2008)

Im curious to know how you got your hands on of those.
i guess those germans arent quite familiar with the term "keep your panties on" eh?

Or actualy...I wonder if a techy or repair guy took them.?


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (May 27, 2008)

I don't know, but they're circulating around town. Everyone wants them.


----------



## Alex W (May 27, 2008)

Bruce Richardson @ Wed May 28 said:


> Utimately, I think the entire idea that this or that sample library has some value beyond a crayon or pencil is the most interesting aspect of the conversation...



You make some good points Bruce, but I think they're in the extreme sense. From what I can tell, the overall point you're making is that it doesn't matter what gear you've got, a good muso will always find a way to make good music, is that right? This of course I agree with, but only to an extent!

There's times when you're producing and you really need a particular sound. If you can't get it with the samples you have, ultimately you have the choice of either re-writing your piece so that it works with your available sounds, or looking elsewhere for more sounds. Usually it's a pain in the ass either way.

Sample libraries, I agree, are just tools in the end, but one can never have enough tools. To say that they're worth nothing doesn't make sense. We think of samplers as musical instruments, so why wouldn't we think of each individual sample library as a musical instrument? I certainly do. Are you saying that musical instruments which have unique characteristics are worth nothing amongst the sea of other musical instruments? 

Now I know Seasick Steve uses a piece of 2 by 4 with a rusty nail at each end and a piece of wire, and plays a guitar with 3 strings, but I don't know too many people who are aiming for that sound.

I'm not saying that Hans's library is a career making or breaking instrument, but being a big fan I know pretty well how it sounds, and how useful I'd find it if I had it. There's certainly been times where I've wished for QLSO or SAM Brass for example to have more balls in the trombones, which I know his library has in spades. If nothing else, hearing his library and lusting after it (and other custom libraries) has inspired me to have a go at recording my own custom sample library at some point.


----------



## Robobino (May 27, 2008)

I agree with Bruce : if a good composer doesn't have access to the full EWQLSO package, he will still do an amazing job with a Yamaha DX7... It's all about feelings and what you want to say...


----------



## Andrew Aversa (May 28, 2008)

Gotta agree with Alex on this. I'm an avid listener of electronic dance music, and lately I've been listening to Pendulum's latest album. I noticed their drumkit in all their music is extremely "phat" and processed, with tons of punch that somehow sits in the mix also. It's a very desirable sound. I've personally spent about a dozen hours trying to imitate it. No, not because I want to be Pendulum, but because there are times when I want a drum sound like that. 

I have my own signature drum sound and have released a number of original albums of my own, but nonetheless comparing my music to theirs would reveal some lacking qualities in the quality of my drum parts.

Now, the other day I picked up a sample pack which is simply ripped from Pendulum songs. It is quite literally their samples. And you know what? It's amazing. It's inspiring, requires next to no work to sit properly in a mix while also punching through, and does not need to be layered to sound fantastic (unlike most drum samples I have.) I doubt I will really use these sounds on a commercial production because they are likely illegal, but if I were able to legally do so I would in a heartbeat. They're amazing, and the demos I made for fun using them sound better than other tracks I've done in a similar style (while also taking far less work.)

I could give countless other examples where having specific samples has made composing and producing so much easier, by requiring me to do less work to achieve the sound I want. I enjoy tweaking my material as much as the next guy, but there's something to be said for seeking a set of tools that enables me to spend as much *or as little* time I want on specific parts without compromising my vision for a piece of music.


----------



## midphase (May 28, 2008)

"I guess i just dont see what anyone thinks to accomplish by using someone elses private work. 

yes, maybe maybe maybe your work could be mistaken for a Zimmer mockup.? 
hurrah. "


I wanted to point something out. Using a custom library will not necessarily mean that the outcoming composition will be in the same style as the composer who commissioned the library.

Case in point, the new Project SAM library that's coming out in a couple of months (hopefully) is essentially nothing more than a "custom private library" type of product made available to the public at large. Most custom libraries feature detail samples that other commercial libraries don't have....such as FFF brass hits with good ambience, or crescendo string clusters, or various runs.

I honestly don't know what's contained in this brass library, but I'd bet that if I got my hands on it, I could crank something out that would sound nothing like Hans Zimmer.

I have some custom samples that I've created myself, like string clusters and staccato FFF stuff...I don't know if I'd be terribly upset if I found out that someone else is using them....I dunno...I guess I still like to think that people come to me because of my compositions and not because of the samples that I use.


----------



## Bruce Richardson (May 28, 2008)

zircon_st @ Wed May 28 said:


> Nothing wrong with holding one's self to a higher ethical standard
> 
> Not to mention it's one thing to sample old horror movie soundtracks and breaks from the 50s-70s, and another to sample a hugely popular group with a distinctive sound that's actively producing in your genre. Which do you think the original creator will care about more?



Couldn't agree more. I appreciate that you said this, because it reveals some basic truths about artistry and motives. It's one thing to know and recognize the artistic merit of collage, of musique concrete, of anachronism and juxtaposition. It's another thing entirely to be so artistically craven that one elevates a particular functional sound to the level of necessity, to imagine that artistic quality or success would hinge on it.


----------



## Pzy-Clone (May 28, 2008)

I dunno...no offence, but that kinda talk sounds a little bit like coming from a grainy time machine aligned to tiny snitches of the past as well...

C`mon it is what it is. Music.
the notion that a room full of people playing their instrument is somehow comparable to sounds in a computer is stale to begin with, but that doesn make the music you write any less valid or of value.

But its like building a ship in a bottle, it looks very much like the real thing, but its still not a real ship.

but ultimatly tho..we are not trying to Impersonate reality...we are trying to copy something that is already a reproduction...that being a recording of an orchestra.

But samples have no value? Well, looking at the pricing on certain libs, it seems there are alot of people that think otherwise.

I have some very nice sounding, nice looking guitars here.
But if i dont play them, they also realy have no value.
What is the difference?
to me , none.


----------



## Alex W (May 28, 2008)

Bruce Richardson @ Wed May 28 said:


> In terms of being an artist? Absolutely. They are worth nothing. They are worth less than nothing, actually, in some cases. They cross the line into being evil thought-sucking agents of inertia.



Well all artists are different, it's a bit of a generalisation to say "as an artist," don't you think?



> Samplers aren't musical instruments. They're grainy time machines aligned to tiny snitches of the past, to a time and place where musical instruments were being more or less played.



I don't know how you can think that they aren't musical instruments - it seems especially ironic to be saying that on a forum where the majority of the members specialise in creating music with samplers.


----------



## Ashermusic (May 28, 2008)

Alex W @ Wed May 28 said:


> Bruce Richardson @ Wed May 28 said:
> 
> 
> > In terms of being an artist? Absolutely. They are worth nothing. They are worth less than nothing, actually, in some cases. They cross the line into being evil thought-sucking agents of inertia.
> ...



While I think Bruce is being a tad hyperbolic here, they are not musical instruments, but musical devices.

My composition teacher once said, "Ornette Coleman is so creative that I would pay to hear him break bottles on trash cans, because I know it would result in great music."

I feel the same way about samplers and softsynths. In the hands of creative people they can be made to produce good music and in the hands of mediocre-bad ones that will also be the resultant music.

And no offense intended, please, to anyone here, but IMHO those whose primary focus seems to be on making them sound as close to "real" as possible in general produce worse music than those who try to make them sound as good as possible.


----------



## Bruce Richardson (May 28, 2008)

Ashermusic @ Wed May 28 said:


> While I think Bruce is being a tad hyperbolic here, they are not musical instruments, but musical devices.



Thank you. I've begun to think that critical discourse is dead.

Here's the deal. If you're a person of any experience, you see these absolutely stupid conversations, and you remember having read them a hundred times before.

This conversation, for instance, happened almost verbatim all over the newsgroups, usergroups, etc., back when Miroslav's library was this almost-secret thing...it was his personal library, and he only released it commercially after it became clear that people had ascribed it almost mythical value.

There is always this mythology that imagines that one day, one day, just over the horizon, there will be some technological innovation that will suddenly change it all. But it doesn't. Nothing ever changes.

Samplers are good tools in the hands of someone who understands them. They're synthesizers, nothing more.



Psy-Clone said:


> dunno...no offence, but that kinda talk sounds a little bit like coming from a grainy time machine aligned to tiny snitches of the past as well...



I will forgive you the illusions of your relative youth. You will soon watch history repeat itself a few times and become amused (if you're young at heart, bitter if not). o-[][]-o


----------



## Bruce Richardson (May 28, 2008)

So, say we want to talk about realism in orchestral sampled productions...

The problem is almost never the sample libraries. There are fantastic sample libraries that are literally not even discussed, perfectly capable ones...not discussed, merely because they don't happen to be the flavor of the month.

To make orchestral-sounding music on samplers, a person must have some degree of knowledge of what an orchestra actually is. How it moves, how it operates, what it feels like to sit in a chair and respond to a conductor, how long it takes the kinetic energy to shift from the conductor's gesture to a played note, what it feels like to bow a bass, or hit a drum, and the calculus that is occurring in those few dozen people's heads when they're executing their ensemble musicianship.

One needs to know that there's actually an entire art and practice of ensemble musicianship, that tuning is relative dependent on the functionality of a part even in the most diatonic music. One needs to have some clue about the physics of sound propagation into air and space, the true effects of reflection and occlusion on active sound waves.

If trying to construct the living picture of a seated ensemble with a bunch of synthesizers using waveforms for oscillators, then one should ideally have some clue about sound design, as in, what sound design measures do I as a producing musician need to take, in order to create the illusion of a seated ensemble on a soundstage.

Going back to what Jay just said, these are thought processes and knowledge bases that are vital to the simple act of just making a plausible large ensemble sound GOOD, not even taking it to that extra plateau of trying to actually fool a listener into imagining that it is somehow "real," which involves additional steps. In that case, one would literally need to engage in creating an artificial event, the actual physical reality of what happens in a room full of musicians, down to the sounds of breathing, feet, air handlers, motion, serendipity...all those things that engineers have tried for years to engineer OUT of recordings that suddenly become the bridging materials that elevate synthesis to plausibility.

All of these are real and necessary factors, most of which are taken for granted in the case of experienced artists. None of them can be "built into" samples, at least not in a way that people lacking the intellectual toolset can just plug and play.

I think this was probably the source behind Nick Phoenix's rightful amazement that people wouldn't "get" what he was doing. It's perfectly plausible to Nick, because Nick understands how an orchestra works, and he produced a library that he and people who understand the process can use. Ditto VSL. People who understand the way Herb views orchestral recording and construction, and can navigate the processes that he likes to navigate, can use his library perfectly. People who don't have the skillset to create a plausible image from relatively like-recorded sections are going to have trouble, and in our world of the internets, that generally means they'll show up on some user group and bitch.


----------



## Bruce Richardson (May 28, 2008)

Alex W @ Wed May 28 said:


> Well all artists are different, it's a bit of a generalisation to say "as an artist," don't you think?



There has to be some truthful generalization relating to artists, since the word artist exists and is identifiable. Otherwise, the word artist could mean doorstop. Or craftsman.

But it doesn't, so there's a definition there. We draw a distinction between a craftsman and an artist pretty easily.

An artist cannot blame the medium. This is, I would argue, where the wheat is separated from the chaff, the man from boy, whatever analogy floats your boat.

It would be ridiculous if you went to a gallery, and the artist gave a talk about his work and complained that the paint just wasn't good enough to reveal his true intent.

Yet you hear people who claim to be musicians whining incessantly about samplers, and synths, and their DAW software...

These are all miracle tools. But likewise, they're all "dumber than a bucket of hair," as we'd say down here in Texas. It's the witch, not the wand. Hell, I need more coffee if I'm going to have to explain every other fucking word I type.


----------



## choc0thrax (May 28, 2008)

So did anyone find out where to get this brass library?? 8) Don't feel like reading the whole thread, too many overlong posts.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (May 28, 2008)

I don't know why this is so hard for you to understand, Bruce: it's the panties, not the samples. Gotta have them if you want to write like Hans.


----------



## Mark Belbin (May 28, 2008)

Bruce,

Could you please clarify the meaning of the "@" and "#" as used in the third-last word of you most recent post? Also, I could use definitions of "witch", and "wand".

The quicker the better - I'm already having trouble understanding other people's posts in this confusing context.

Thanks in advance,

Belbin


----------



## Bruce Richardson (May 28, 2008)

A duck walks into a pharmacy...


----------



## synthetic (May 28, 2008)

Photo of the secret library master discs:


----------



## Mark Belbin (May 28, 2008)

Bruce Richardson @ Wed May 28 said:


> A duck walks into a pharmacy...



New thread in Universe repair for that one....

Belbin


----------

