# Creating good string sound



## SamGarnerStudios (Aug 18, 2012)

I'm trying to take my violins to a new level. Mine sound a little flat. I'm really looking to add the bow sound at the beginning of each articulations. I'm using East West Symphonic Gold in Logic Pro. Any tips or suggestions?


----------



## RiffWraith (Aug 18, 2012)

SamGarnerStudios @ Sun Aug 19 said:


> I'm really looking to add the bow sound at the beginning of each articulations.



Do you mean the sound of the hairs on the bow, or a staccato note to make the beginning of each note more, well, staccato? 

As a stac note wouldn't really be considered a bow sound, I am assuming you mean the former. Tho, that wouldn't be only at the beginning. You can try some eq, bring up some freqs in the upper range a bit, narrowing your Q will help. Best thing you can do is upgrade to Plat - the close mic positions will give you that bow sound.

Cheers.


----------



## John Rodd (Sep 23, 2012)

My suggestion is to use as many different sample libraries as you can, (high end ones) to improve your virtual string sound.

8) 

John


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Sep 23, 2012)

John Rodd @ Sun Sep 23 said:


> My suggestion is to use as many different sample libraries as you can, (high end ones) to improve your virtual string sound.
> 
> 8)
> 
> John



I would not go that far, but certainly you want to use more than one IMHO i.e. a lush one with an edgier one.


----------



## John Rodd (Oct 3, 2012)

EastWest Lurker @ Sun Sep 23 said:


> John Rodd @ Sun Sep 23 said:
> 
> 
> > My suggestion is to use as many different sample libraries as you can, (high end ones) to improve your virtual string sound.
> ...



well.... I would go "that far"

It falls under the same principle that you never want to hire 2 basses for an orchestral date. Two will never blend well. Three will. You either want to hire one, or three. Never two.

:wink: 

so similarly.... when I am mixing an all virtual, or a hybrid project.... if I have 3 different string libraries at my disposal... I have more options to blend, and create a great sound.

Sure... it requires more work - - composition and 'programming' (or 'synthestration'.... if you will) but the end result can often be worth it. 

8)


----------



## bobulusbillman (Oct 3, 2012)

What a typical John Rodd reply. Useless and condescending. The guy has EWQL Orchestra. Did he ask "Hey I have unlimited money and want achieve the ultimate sampled string sound regardless of cost"? 

No. He's may well be starting out - as we all did once. He stated his tools that he has so why not chime in with some useful comments relating to those? Rather than the typical 'non answer' of 'hey just buy better stuff p.s. I have lots of outboard gear'. 

Logic's got some decent enough plugins that if used correctly could potentially help with this guy's problem, or perhaps some tips on riding expression/mod faders to bring some life into the samples. Why don't we try and help him that way rather than simply using his question as an opportunity to show off.


----------



## Daryl (Oct 3, 2012)

SamGarnerStudios @ Sat Aug 18 said:


> I'm trying to take my violins to a new level. Mine sound a little flat. I'm really looking to add the bow sound at the beginning of each articulations. I'm using East West Symphonic Gold in Logic Pro. Any tips or suggestions?


String programming is very difficult, and most people fail dismally. However, it is not always obvious to a non-string player what is actually causing the problem, so it would help if you posted a short audio example, so that we can hear what is going on with your programming.

D


----------



## paulcole (Oct 3, 2012)

John Rodd said it though. You try and create a great sound. That is worlds apart from creating a realistic string sound. You won't ever get a realistic string sound from samples. It's not really possible. But you can make a great sound.


----------



## Peter Alexander (Oct 3, 2012)

bobulusbillman @ Wed Oct 03 said:


> What a typical John Rodd reply. Useless and condescending. The guy has EWQL Orchestra. Did he ask "Hey I have unlimited money and want achieve the ultimate sampled string sound regardless of cost"?
> 
> No. He's may well be starting out - as we all did once. He stated his tools that he has so why not chime in with some useful comments relating to those? Rather than the typical 'non answer' of 'hey just buy better stuff p.s. I have lots of outboard gear'.
> 
> Logic's got some decent enough plugins that if used correctly could potentially help with this guy's problem, or perhaps some tips on riding expression/mod faders to bring some life into the samples. Why don't we try and help him that way rather than simply using his question as an opportunity to show off.



John Rodd is at the top of his game and he gave an honest professional answer. I appreciate that he's willing to come over here and give up his time to answer questions based on his experience. 

If anyone is being condescending and amateurish, I believe it's your non-professional response. 

FACT: you need two or more string libraries (e.g. 3) to do the job. That's how it works. And his answer hit the mark. 

And yes, as Daryl said it does take longer, sometimes agonizingly so.


----------



## Resoded (Oct 3, 2012)

Using more than one library, are we talking about them all playing at the same time or just using one for legato, one for shorts etc?


----------



## dog1978 (Oct 3, 2012)

When I get a new library I compare all the sounds withpl my template sounds. If they are better, I replace the old one. If they just got another sound, I add them. 
When I compose, I can double the bass stacc with pizz or double the soft VSL strings or Albion strings with the harder (my opinion, depends on Altiverb or Colour) LASS. For fast runs I love OSR2 or Cinematic Strings 2 - or both. So it's a mix of switching an layering.


----------



## Waywyn (Oct 3, 2012)

John Rodd @ Sun Sep 23 said:


> My suggestion is to use as many different sample libraries as you can, (high end ones) to improve your virtual string sound.
> 
> 8)
> 
> John



+100 on this. There is no better way to get a rich and deep sounding strings than to add several libraries. It is actually a dream to layer CS2, Adagio and Albion, all together with a tad of Symphobia! I know luxury!

The brute and simple problem is that: Strings sounds are recorded and thats it, no way to have each player react with another one. It is just one sound put on tape and no chance to alter it. If you layer libraries and take good care on dynamics you get a much more realistic sound - not just in terms of alive, but in the typical richness happening when listening to a full orchestra playing live.

Also I would suggest to NOT replace string sounds if a new library sounds better. See how the new library sounds ADDED to the old one!!

To be honest, this is NOT JUST a hobby forum. If someone asks for a pro string sound then it should be okay to give an answer like: if your string library doesn't sound alive, get another one or probably a third one!

It is simply as it is. There are a few wizards out there who could even gold out of JV2080 strings, but if you wanna make it alive and typical behaviour like as strings players do - get more libs to spice it up.

To get into that financial matter, you don't necessarily need luxury to get a good string sound. You can get Albion and/or Orchestral Essentials and/or the Spitfire Solo Strings at an affordable price. If you are a hobby guy, then it is lots of money, yes ... but if you are in the bizz you earn money, so there shouldn't be a problem to invest, right?

However, most important thing, I fould out that people would rather look for new libs than to sit down and actually lean how to use dynamics and all that. I am not saying that you don't do, but just mentioned in general. I receive many demos to review per week and 90% of them don't even touch the modwheel!


----------



## Waywyn (Oct 3, 2012)

Resoded @ Wed Oct 03 said:


> Using more than one library, are we talking about them all playing at the same time or just using one for legato, one for shorts etc?



No, for everything. Layer all articulations with another lib or e.g. Symphobia sus with Adagio/Albion/CS2 or whatever legato stuff. You might say that Symphobia sus got no legato transitions, but this is actually what makes it even better - to mix it all and create those lush transitions which are not all on time and slightly different on every note!


----------



## Resoded (Oct 3, 2012)

Waywyn @ 3rd October 2012 said:


> Resoded @ Wed Oct 03 said:
> 
> 
> > Using more than one library, are we talking about them all playing at the same time or just using one for legato, one for shorts etc?
> ...



Interesting, I actually haven't considered doubling or tripling (possibly making up words here) the strings. I'm thinking Adagio + Albion Loegria, that must be a great lush sound.


----------



## Waywyn (Oct 3, 2012)

Resoded @ Wed Oct 03 said:


> Waywyn @ 3rd October 2012 said:
> 
> 
> > Resoded @ Wed Oct 03 said:
> ...



To be honest, you can get a great sound out of every string library out there. Of course it might make more sense to layer a studio dry/anechoic lib with a room or hall recorded one. I read a lot of posts of people asking, what is the best way to layer strings. Which library fits with which library and so on. Think I will do a little tut/blah video of this matter (I already noted that down) because it is actually pretty easy. People try to actually mimic the string sound of one lib to another. All this makes total sense if you are not happy with the pizzis of one lib and trying to match the sound ... but most of the time they are asking for simple layering.

I would always end up and say, don't worry, just layer it and make sure you don't copy the parts over but play them again. However, if you copy make sure to get some changes in dynamics and humainizing.


----------



## Resoded (Oct 3, 2012)

Waywyn @ 3rd October 2012 said:


> Resoded @ Wed Oct 03 said:
> 
> 
> > Waywyn @ 3rd October 2012 said:
> ...



Looking forward to it Alex, your tutorials are always interesting and informative. I'll take my time this evening and try to do some layering, seems like a great way to deal with choppy legato transitions.


----------



## Waywyn (Oct 3, 2012)

Resoded @ Wed Oct 03 said:


> Waywyn @ 3rd October 2012 said:
> 
> 
> > Resoded @ Wed Oct 03 said:
> ...




Thank you! 
By the way, if you check out my walkthrough of Alien Abduction Dreams on my YT channel (don't wanna spam this thread with links). There is kind of a diminished phrase going on (around 3:30). Even by just layering this arco patch and the legato violin you can get pretty cool results!


----------



## Bunford (Oct 3, 2012)

Waywyn @ Wed 03 Oct said:


> I would always end up and say, don't worry, just layer it and make sure you don't copy the parts over but play them again. However, if you copy make sure to get some changes in dynamics and humainizing.



On this, is there an easy click-to-humanize option within Cubase 6.5? Or is there such a thing as a humanizer plugin that can do it easily to give a starting point for putting 2 different humanisations on the 2 (or more) layers?


----------



## Rob Elliott (Oct 3, 2012)

Buying ample string libraries to layer is/can be an expensive proposition BUT I agree - options are key. I'll have 3-4 libraries on one project - sometimes one cue to achieve the results I need. If is helps - some go to's:


Legato - CS + LASS B's (lush of CS and 'liveliness of the B desks)

-- try switching up the LASS to A's, C's and FC's with CS (or any combinations). Symphobia's spiccs are still useful. New to Loegria but it is making its' way into cues. VSL continues to 'just the right sound' at times - albeit less than before.


Shorts - LASS with just about anything (CS, Adagio, VSL, etc.). Again LASS A's + CS is particularly a 'go to' sound for me.


Having said all this - the work today may use none of the above :wink: 


(Alex - I'll have to re-explore the Symph sustains layered as suggested)


----------



## Waywyn (Oct 3, 2012)

Bunford @ Wed Oct 03 said:


> Waywyn @ Wed 03 Oct said:
> 
> 
> > I would always end up and say, don't worry, just layer it and make sure you don't copy the parts over but play them again. However, if you copy make sure to get some changes in dynamics and humainizing.
> ...



Yep, you can simply put some values in the randomize field in the midi editor in Cubase and then simply hit Q. It will then randomize your midi notes according to your value. See screenshot.


----------



## adg21 (Oct 3, 2012)

John Rodd @ Wed Oct 03 said:


> EastWest Lurker @ Sun Sep 23 said:
> 
> 
> > John Rodd @ Sun Sep 23 said:
> ...



This is very interesting indeed. I'm not sure you'd be willing to give away you're secrets John but I'd love to hear which Strings libraries you blend and how?! (I wont hold my breath though)


----------



## John Rodd (Oct 3, 2012)

bobulusbillman @ Tue Oct 02 said:


> What a typical John Rodd reply. Useless and condescending. The guy has EWQL Orchestra. Did he ask "Hey I have unlimited money and want achieve the ultimate sampled string sound regardless of cost"?
> 
> No. He's may well be starting out - as we all did once. He stated his tools that he has so why not chime in with some useful comments relating to those? Rather than the typical 'non answer' of 'hey just buy better stuff p.s. I have lots of outboard gear'.
> 
> Logic's got some decent enough plugins that if used correctly could potentially help with this guy's problem, or perhaps some tips on riding expression/mod faders to bring some life into the samples. Why don't we try and help him that way rather than simply using his question as an opportunity to show off.



Wow bobulusbillman - who peed in your cornflakes?

The original posters question was very general: "how do I improve my string sound". There was NO mention of budget. YOU are making an unfair assumption here, then judging my considered response to his general question.

I have spent my entire career striving for excellence with my work.... and I have a passion for the tools of my trade. I'm sorry this seems to upset you. 

In my opinion: one string library + Logic plugins will not achieve a substantially better string sound. Multiple libraries will.

I'm out.


----------



## mark812 (Oct 3, 2012)

+1 for layering. My favorite combination is CS 2 with Albion I longs and con sordinos.


----------



## leafInTheWind (Oct 3, 2012)

Blending libraries/layering: This means basically doubling all the string tracks yes? so if you got 5 string tracks from one library, another 5 matching tracks with slightly difference performance using another library?


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Oct 3, 2012)

leafInTheWind @ Wed Oct 03 said:


> Blending libraries/layering: This means basically doubling all the string tracks yes? so if you got 5 string tracks from one library, another 5 matching tracks with slightly difference performance using another library?



Yes.


----------



## Darthmorphling (Oct 3, 2012)

Waywyn @ Wed Oct 03 said:


> Resoded @ Wed Oct 03 said:
> 
> 
> > Waywyn @ 3rd October 2012 said:
> ...



My plan is to get a second string library in the next few months, but currently only have Albion I. Would layering the the longs and the Longs CS produce a decent result? I know I can try, and I will when I get home from work later, just curious if the layering requires different sounds or different articulations?

I'm assuming that the VSL strings that come with Kontakt should never even enter into this conversation since I have Albion, right? However, I do not want to assume.


----------



## leafInTheWind (Oct 3, 2012)

Thanks Jay!


----------



## paulcole (Oct 3, 2012)

The thing that I don't really understand with blending different libraries of strings is: does this not make things a little bit thick as in 14 plus 14 players and so on. Never tried it. Any short examples would be good.


----------



## Erik (Oct 3, 2012)

Paulcole, you might find some things of interest here on my blog.

A.o.:
http://eotte.blogspot.nl/2012/09/dimension-strings.html
http://eotte.blogspot.nl/2012/02/adagio-8dio-x6.html
http://eotte.blogspot.nl/2012/01/i-have-made-some-examples-of-fast-down_23.html (http://eotte.blogspot.nl/2012/01/i-have ... wn_23.html)

I hope that this will help you further.


----------



## paulcole (Oct 3, 2012)

Thanks and very interesting. Don't really like the sound of DS either by itself or blended to be honest but that's not to say its a bad sound. Just not to my taste. 

The business of strings sounding authentic, or like a live string section through samples is a wasted opportunity to my way of hearing. Getting a good sound that reflects a vague string section sound is probably more important. The more sample libraries try and sound like the real thing, the worse it gets.


----------



## Arbee (Oct 3, 2012)

I think we're talking about two different things here - "real strings mockup" v "a good strings sound". Layering (or least heavy layering) is good for the latter but not the former IMHO.


----------



## JohnG (Oct 3, 2012)

I am clearly an outlier; I never double strings as I find it makes a sound I don't care for most of the time. I use a lot of the libraries mentioned -- Symphobia, HS, LASS, EWQLSO strings -- but I use them one at a time on a line.


----------



## re-peat (Oct 3, 2012)

JohnG @ Wed Oct 03 said:


> (...) I never double strings. (...)


Me neither. The only exception might be when library B offers a bit of detail and definition which is lacking in library A, in which case a careful blend of A and B might be desirable. Example: adding a subtle sprinkling of Spitfire SoloStrings to a Spitfire Albion/Loegria ensemble.
And blending (or layering) is not the same as combining of course. If you find that the pizzicati from library B work better in an arrangement (or a mix) than the pizzicati from library A, even when the latter handles everything else quite well, it would be silly not to bring in library B to take care of the pizzicato duties.

But only if I wanted to demonstrate how ridiculously bad virtual strings can sound, would I ever entertain the idea of piling the sustains from one ensemble on top of the sustains from another. (Mark812's favourite combination of CS2 + Albion Longs + Albion Longs ConSordino already makes me nauseous just reading the recipe. I'm sorry, Mark.)
It's also a misconception, I believe, that you can increase the 'lushness' of strings by stacking similar articulations from different libraries. The only thing you'll increase, in my experience, are the sonic problems, the spatialization problems and the overal 'pudding'-ness of your strings.
Not to mention the fact that you’ll be simply ruining whatever unique beauty or texture a library might have: layering Loegria's exquisite sustains with CS2 merely destroys the character and qualities of both, I feel.

Assuming we're talking about attempting to create a conventional orchestral sound and not some pumped-up-hybrid-orchestral-sound-on-anabolic-steroïds (and this is a very important assumption), I find that if you're tempted (or feel the need) to layer/blend libraries, there's usually something fundamentally wrong with the arrangement (or the mix) to begin with.

None of this addresses the specific problem of the OP of course, who's hoping to get the best possible sound out of the combination EWQLSO Gold and Logic. I happen to agree with some of Bobulusbillman's post, by the way. And I also fail to understand why the opinion of someone like J. Rodd, who may perhaps be considered a respected mastering engineer in certain circles, but about whose skills as a creator/programmer of convincing-sounding virtual strings very little is known (at least, to me), should make the rest of us go down on our knees in reverential and consenting silence.
His suggestions on how to improve the sound of virtual strings (_“use as many libraries as you can”_) certainly sound highly dubious to me, for reasons explained in the previous paragraphs.

Considering the very specific nature of the OP’s question, much, much better advice, it seems to me, was given in the 2nd post of this thread: like Jeffrey said, the timbral detail that’s absent from Gold is indeed much more present in Platinum (thanks to the close mic perspective), so if there’s any possibility of an upgrade, that would definitely be the best and simplest way to go. 
Not sure about EQ’in though: trying to bring out something like 'more bow noise' in Gold by EQ’ing, will also bring out other, and far less desirable frequency ranges. And since some of those Gold strings already have a tendency of sounding just a bit nasal and harsh, I’d be very, very careful when attempting to tweak the high end of those samples. (If anything, I think I'd rather attenuate some of the high mids and leave the highs untouched, instead of boosting those highs.)

_


----------



## Peter Alexander (Oct 3, 2012)

Not to be obtuse, but I noticed no one suggested actually learning how to write for strings to improve his sound.


----------



## Diffusor (Oct 3, 2012)

JohnG @ Wed Oct 03 said:


> I am clearly an outlier; I never double strings as I find it makes a sound I don't care for most of the time. I use a lot of the libraries mentioned -- Symphobia, HS, LASS, EWQLSO strings -- but I use them one at a time on a line.



Yeah, I think it starts sounding like mush when you have a 1,000 piece orchestra. I think getting divisi sections and solo instruments from different libraries would work but layering whole ensembles on top of each other is kind of cramming too much into the soundstage. But hey whatever works!


----------



## Rob (Oct 3, 2012)

Layering is absolutely fine for me... When we're talking samples the only thing that matters is the result, and of course the writing, as Peter says. In the brief Mozart example I posted a while ago ( http://www.vi-control.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=27721 )I layered 3 sections, thus resulting in like 130 players string orchestra, but the sound was not muddy at all, or unrealistic.


----------



## Hannes_F (Oct 4, 2012)

SamGarnerStudios @ Sat Aug 18 said:


> I'm trying to take my violins to a new level. Mine sound a little flat. I'm really looking to add the bow sound at the beginning of each articulations. I'm using East West Symphonic Gold in Logic Pro. Any tips or suggestions?



Here is a little list of things that you can do with your existing options:

- Combine EWQLSO with the SIPS legato script (yes it is tricky but it can be done if you have the Kontakt version)

- Use the Expr patches a lot

- Combine a legato/sustain patch that reacts more on the modwheel than on velocity with a stacc patch that reacts more on velocity than on the modwheel.

- Route the midi automation of CC01 to the volume slider of the patch (for example in the range of 40% to 60% for more dynamics (again, speaking for Kontakt)

- Look up the different section sizes. From the top of my head you have sizes of 18, 10, 3 + 1 players. Find out what you can do with them. Smaller sections usually have more distinct vibrato and presence.

- Use an automated EQ on each stem for further enlivement.

- As always: Ride the CCs, ride, ride.

- When done with your midi work try bouncing out each of the stems and try mix further in audio. Does that give you new ideas for mixing, balancing, blending?

(I should add these are not theoretical options, I've used them all.)

HTH Hannes


----------



## Hannes_F (Oct 4, 2012)

Regarding the layering of string libries: This is an interesting discussion going on in this thread and there may be valid arguments for both, layering or not layering.

Some aspects worth keeping in mind: 

- Of course if we have a line played by a string library and then add the same line played by a second library the result will sound fuller. However much of this comes because the result is simply louder now. So in order to really judge the before/after effect we need to reduce the combination by 3 dB or we are cheating to ourselves.

- Still even after reducing the volume we will find that a combination often has more frequencies in it and therefore sounds fuller. However strings sound is not always about sounding full, it is about versatility. Chocolate cake all the time is boring after a while. Therefore fading in and out stems of other libraries brings more life than running them constantly.

- The bigger a (combined) section, the less the individual player can be heard. Especially the vibrato evens out if you have 20 or 30 players at a time and might be way more flat and less expressive than a 10 players section that is boosted by a few dB.


----------



## Daryl (Oct 4, 2012)

Hannes_F @ Thu Oct 04 said:


> - Of course if we have a line played by a string library and then add the same line played by a second library the result will sound fuller. However much of this comes because the result is simply louder now. So in order to really judge the before/after effect we need to reduce the combination by 3 dB or we are cheating to ourselves.


This can be true, but also sometimes is not. A a lot of this depends on the recording acoustic and also number of players recorded of the various sounds that are being layered. For example, if I layer VSL Appassionata with Chamber Strings, the sound becomes less full and more defined. However, if I was to layer two big, defuse sounding libraries, there is every chance that the sound will become muddy and indistinct. So it all depends on circumstance.



Hannes_F @ Thu Oct 04 said:


> - Still even after reducing the volume we will find that a combination often has more frequencies in it and therefore sounds fuller. However strings sound is not always about sounding full, it is about versatility. Chocolate cake all the time is boring after a while. Therefore fading in and out stems of other libraries brings more life than running them constantly.


I totally agree with this. What quite a number of people call lush and full is actually rather synthetic. Nothing wrong with that, but we are now in the land of taste, rather than good or bad.



Hannes_F @ Thu Oct 04 said:


> - The bigger a (combined) section, the less the individual player can be heard. Especially the vibrato evens out if you have 20 or 30 players at a time and might be way more flat and less expressive than a 10 players section that is boosted by a few dB.


I agree with this as well. A section of 16 violinists, for example, can sometimes sound almost as if there is no vibrato. However, when you contrast it with the same section actually playing without vibrato, the difference is huge.

D


----------



## re-peat (Oct 4, 2012)

Hannes_F @ Thu Oct 04 said:


> (...) and there may be valid arguments for both, layering or not layering.(...)


Absolutely. But if the idea is to create a more or less natural stringsound – insofar such a thing is possible with sampled strings, of course –, I fail to see much appeal in layering or doubling (different libraries). You don't do HollywoodStrings any service by doubling its violins with Symphobia's, is what I'm saying. (And Symphobia itself won't come out of this marriage much happier either). Nor, other example, will the SonicImplants strings be able to impart their very characteristic qualities if they're blended with, say, the Appassionatas. And it's got nothing to do with the number of virtual players, it's about the sonic clashes which inevitably occur, the build-ups, the unattractive clusters of frequencies which get accentuated, and, in some cases, the sonic/timbral incompatibilities between certain libraries.

Sure, you can create a huge string-y sound by doubling Symphobia with CS2 and Adagio if you like, and possibly even add the new DimensionStrings on top of all that, and maybe that will result in a very useful and powerful sound for a certain type of productions – I'm certainly not denying the creative possibilities of blending and layering _as such_ – but I doubt it'll prove a wise choice in the context of a mock-up production which hopes to convey the colour, weight and character of what most people would consider a normal, natural sounding stringsection.

_


----------



## paulcole (Oct 4, 2012)

The thing that sums up sampled strings as an analogy for me is Rene Magrites' Ceci n'est pas une Pipe, or, This is not a Pipe.

If you asked a 5000 people sample to look at that painting for the first time, without the caption, and asked them what is was, they would mostly all say it's a pipe.

If you ask the same 5000 to listen to a violin/string mock-up and ask them what instruments are playing they would all say violins.

When I look at that pipe in the painting, it looks like one of the best pipes you could buy and indeed, it's very like an old mid 20th century advert for any pipe that you could actually buy. But it's not a pipe. It's a painting of a pipe and samples are not violins: they are facsimiles of violins and the best thing you can do with them is to make them sound good as opposed to constantly trying to make them sound real. Real can sound like shit sometimes, lets not forget that. Rene Magrites' pipe is a lot better than most real ones.

Lushness in reference to string sounds is generally a throwback term more used towards synthesizers. Synthesizer string sounds from way back were programmed to sound thick and lush so as to fill out the sonic landscape fairly easily.

Edit: That would be 5000 real people btw, not 5000 sampled people. :wink:


----------



## Daryl (Oct 4, 2012)

re-peat @ Thu Oct 04 said:


> Hannes_F @ Thu Oct 04 said:
> 
> 
> > (...) and there may be valid arguments for both, layering or not layering.(...)
> ...


Yes, I agree with that, which is why my example was based on two VSL libraries that do work very well together. Mixing different libraries is likely in many cases to lead to problems, as you point out.

D


----------



## re-peat (Oct 4, 2012)

paulcole @ Thu Oct 04 said:


> The thing that sums up sampled strings as an analogy for me is Rene Magrites' Ceci n'est pas une Pipe(...)


That's a coincidence, Paul. Some time ago, I did the graphic design for a compilation cd-box (_"Ceci est un 5CD box"_) of Belgian music, referring on *the cover* to that very painting (and combining it with a reference to another illustrious Belgian: Adolphe Sax).
The image on the right is also a cover design for a similar sort of compilation (the follow-up, in fact), also containing obvious references to Magritte, as well as to Hergé and a few other typical Belgian items.







Sorry for the off-topic interlude.
_


----------



## paulcole (Oct 4, 2012)

Hey that's very clever. :D You're way too talented.

I just watched The Shock of the New with the very excellent Australian art commentator Robert Hughes again, having originally watched it in the early 80s and the surrealist artists episode just came up the other evening. Magrites' Pipe featured of course and the idea of the pipe and samples seemed fitting


----------



## Waywyn (Oct 4, 2012)

re-peat @ Thu Oct 04 said:


> layering Loegria's exquisite sustains with CS2 merely destroys the character and qualities of both, I feel.



I have to disagree on this one. This would also mean that if you layer Joshuah Bell with Perlman, or even more exaggerating: Many top violin players to get a 14 piece 1st violins ensemble they would destroy their character and qualities of each other? I agree with character in terms of an individual, but it would still have general character and quality.

If you handle e.g. Loegria by paying attention to dynamics the same as you do with CS2 (assuming you already like the individual sound of each lib) you may - yes - create an unreal sound in terms of thickness ... but I find when a real string section is playing, it is not a constant single recorded sound, but a steady tuning and correcting/making mistakes of each other which exactly creates this.

I know it is my personal opinion, but to me it sounds more "alive" when causing the mistake of creating unreal sections in size, by doing the other one and just care about one library dismissing the "rub" and the "humanized sound".


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Oct 4, 2012)

re-peat @ Thu Oct 04 said:


> Hannes_F @ Thu Oct 04 said:
> 
> 
> > (...) and there may be valid arguments for both, layering or not layering.(...)
> ...



Totally disagree. Since with sampled strings you will never be able to match what a real string section brings to the table, the goal should be to create a _personal_ string sound that you like, and you can best achieve that with a blend of libraries. And it is the imperfections between them that make the sound more alive, because human performances are inconsistent.


----------



## Goran (Oct 4, 2012)

Layering is essential in my experience, but it has to be combined with proper spatial setup of individual components - if this is not done properly , the results can have a tendency towards spatial "flatness" (soundig as if the z-axis of the acoustical space has been artificially shortened/compressed).

Here you can listen to Bach, Dvorak and Barber examples for some results of this approach (all done by combination of VSL orchestra and solo strings, with different patch layerings):

http://www.digital-orchestra-production.com/en/demos/index.html


----------



## Gusfmm (Oct 4, 2012)

EastWest Lurker @ Thu Oct 04 said:


> re-peat @ Thu Oct 04 said:
> 
> 
> > Hannes_F @ Thu Oct 04 said:
> ...



The issue goes well beyond the human performance aspect. I think there are libraries that are purposely imperfect, such as CS2, that have their own charm to them for being so. So why would you need more imperfection if that was all that mattered?

I quite lean toward Piet and Daryl position. I must acknowledge first though I've never tried too seriously myself, for the reasons I'm about to mention. I've been reluctant to waste time trying, but maybe I've been missing out. 

I'm not sure how you can easily and successfully deal with the various issues that arise when you try to blend different libraries recorded under different conditions- recording space, recording gear and set-up, spacial arrangement, etc. 

So it is not only recording Bell and Perlman together. It is trying to record Perlman at the Silent Stage under VSL approach, and blend that with Bell's recorded at the Sony Scoring Stage under Cinesamples' approach. Again, in my mind at least, that's a recipe for trouble that I've never been willing to even try. I know the challenge would be beyond my abilities and desire to invest time on, time I'd rather spend composing.


----------



## Rob (Oct 4, 2012)

Hannes_F @ 4th October 2012 said:


> SamGarnerStudios @ Sat Aug 18 said:
> 
> 
> > I'm trying to take my violins to a new level. Mine sound a little flat. I'm really looking to add the bow sound at the beginning of each articulations. I'm using East West Symphonic Gold in Logic Pro. Any tips or suggestions?
> ...



great advice from Hannes, probably the most useful of all the thread... and it comes from a string player, which is a plus in my book


----------



## paulcole (Oct 4, 2012)

Based on sample library blurb and sampling technique, if you think about it, there shouldn't be any need to layer. But! If it enhances the sound then why not. At the same time forget trying to convince anyone that it's an authentic string sound. Don't really see how you can have both. But am prepared to be proved wrong.


----------



## Darthmorphling (Oct 4, 2012)

I started typing up some points I had about this topic and I remembered a topic I started this past summer. I can not offer advice on how to make strings better, but I think I can shed some insight as a musician. If you can convince me that your strings are real, then most who listen to your music will think it is real. Except for string players that is :D 

There are many talented people on this forum and I think sometimes they start overanalyzing how realistic their music needs to be. Please do not misconstrue what I am saying as if you read my entire post below you will see that I am an advocate of making your stuff sound as good as possible, but also realizing who the audience of your music truly is.

"I think perfection is an elusive goal that we should strive to obtain, but also realize that we will never get there. Just write music that sounds good. Of course these are just my opinions."



Darthmorphling @ Tue Jul 31 said:


> I had a couple of revelations today while mowing the lawn and listening to Testament's new album.
> 
> 1. I have read numerous posts on this forum about how sample libraries just do not quite convey the same nuances that the real instrument has. This is usually posted by someone who actually plays that instrument and has a deep understanding of it. Their points are completely valid. I am a guitar player who grew up on '80s thrash metal and still have a fondness for bands who can play the chunky riffs that bands like Testament wrote. _-) /\~O =o
> 
> ...



The original topic is here:

http://www.vi-control.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=27037


----------



## germancomponist (Oct 4, 2012)

paulcole @ Thu Oct 04 said:


> Based on sample library blurb and sampling technique, if you think about it, there shouldn't be any need to layer.



If sample lib producers would catch the recordings in the act (you know what I mean), then you never would need to layer... . 

Think only about the pizzicato samples in the most libraries. They sound like gunshots, far far away from real playing..... .


----------



## mchamberlin (Oct 4, 2012)

Would using two types of mic position be considered the same as layering? I.e. would you still get that "36 person section" sound by having the close and stage mics of an 18 player patch loaded?

Also, I'd be interested in that tutorial you mentioned Waywyn. I'm a string player myself, but I still seem to have problems "livening" up my strings, although this might be more as a result of technically ignorance rather than orchestration ignorance on my part


----------



## germancomponist (Oct 4, 2012)

mchamberlin @ Thu Oct 04 said:


> Would using two types of mic position be considered the same as layering? I.e. would you still get that "36 person section" sound by having the close and stage mics of an 18 player patch loaded?



No!

I invite you for an experiment: Listen to a piece where you can hear many pizzicatos. Then compare this to the sound of you libs. 

Combine 3 or 4 libs, but don`t copy+paste the midi data. 

What are you hearing now?


----------



## bobulusbillman (Oct 4, 2012)

Hannes_F @ Thu Oct 04 said:


> Here is a little list of things that you can do with your existing options:
> 
> - Combine EWQLSO with the SIPS legato script (yes it is tricky but it can be done if you have the Kontakt version)
> 
> ...



Excellent post. Thank you!


----------



## mchamberlin (Oct 4, 2012)

germancomponist @ Thu Oct 04 said:


> mchamberlin @ Thu Oct 04 said:
> 
> 
> > Would using two types of mic position be considered the same as layering? I.e. would you still get that "36 person section" sound by having the close and stage mics of an 18 player patch loaded?
> ...



Well I don't own multiple string libraries, so I can't test THAT part out, but when I'm home I'll try using my pizzicatos against real pizzicatos.

I guess I'm confused as to how layering two libraries is different from combining multiple mic positions. Do they not amount to the same thing? My understanding is that if I load the Close and Stage mics in EWQLSO, than I'm effectively loading to versions of the same patch, one recorded closer than the other. So aren't I combining essentially two separate patches, thereby doubling the apparent size of the section? If not, could someone clarify how it's different?


Also it seems like maybe layering is neither _inherently_ good or bad, but depends on the situation? 

If you're trying to accomplish a more realistic, "standard orchestra" sound, than layering might be bad because you're giving the illusion of an ENORMOUS ensemble? But for some projects that sound might be desirable, maybe an epic sounding film score or something along those lines?


----------



## Ian Dorsch (Oct 4, 2012)

Hannes_F @ Wed Oct 03 said:


> - Use an automated EQ on each stem for further enlivement.



Hannes, could you elaborate on this idea a little bit? You and Piet have both mentioned automated/dynamic EQing, and you both get lovely results with orchestral samples, so of course I am curious about your process.


----------



## Daryl (Oct 4, 2012)

mchamberlin @ Thu Oct 04 said:


> I guess I'm confused as to how layering two libraries is different from combining multiple mic positions. Do they not amount to the same thing? My understanding is that if I load the Close and Stage mics in EWQLSO, than I'm effectively loading to versions of the same patch, one recorded closer than the other. So aren't I combining essentially two separate patches, thereby doubling the apparent size of the section? If not, could someone clarify how it's different?


Using multiple mic positions is a kind of fake that happens in recording to try to make the experience nearer to what we hear in real life. The human ear is very good at separating sounds and discovering sound sources when the person is actually in the performance space, but on a stereo recording this is much more difficult. Therefore the different microphone positions are designed to enhance the various natural reflections that happen when sound is recorded. So when you hear multiple positions, you are really only hearing an enhanced version of what a human ear would hear in real life.

Of course it is much more complicated than that, but that will help you to understand some of the theory.

D


----------



## Rob (Oct 4, 2012)

what Daryl says, plus...
layering two mic positions of the same source is poorer in a sense than layering two different libraries, since the differences in tuning, timbre, spacialization etc. complement each other and offer a wider sonic palette. Hope this makes sense


----------



## re-peat (Oct 5, 2012)

Rob @ Thu Oct 04 said:


> what Daryl says, plus...
> layering two mic positions of the same source is poorer in a sense than layering two different libraries, since the differences in tuning, timbre, spacialization etc. complement each other and offer a wider sonic palette. Hope this makes sense


Not quite with you there, Rob. _Poorer_, you say? Layering multi-mic perspectives results in a _poorer _sound than layering different libraries? Mmm. I would argue the exact opposite (and very strongly so, in fact): layering different libraries is, without exception, a much more hazardous and sonically destructive affair than layering multiple mic perspectives of the same library. 

Case in point: Spitfire. I challenge anyone here, not in the least the John _“Use As Many Libraries As You Can”_ Rodds among us, to find me a better- and more natural sounding virtual orchestral sound than the one that can be heard in Andy Blaney’s Spitfire-pieces.

Why is it that these productions sound so focused, so natural, so dynamic, so lively, so well-balanced, so free of boomy clutter and congested frequency ranges, so devoid of artificiality, so effortless, … in short: so _right_?
I’ll tell you why: apart from the (1) exceptionnal musicianship of the composer and (2) the craftsmanship and passion of all the people who collaborated on these Spitfire libraries (musicians, engineers, producers), it’s the fact that these productions don’t suffer in any way from the unpleasant effects you inevitably get when blending/stacking libraries from various sources into one and the same mix.
There’s none of that porridgy mess which simply can’t be avoided when blending, say, the Sony-soundstage with some other virtual spatialization, or when doubling LASS with Adagio, or when adding the Berlin Woodwinds (I almost wrote ‘woodwounds’, as I’m inclined to do with all three of this year’s woodwind libraries) to a Symphobia orchestra or, God forbid, when layering Kirk Hunter’s poo-buckets-thinly-disguised-as-sample-libraries on top of the Hollywood Strings.

The sonic success of these Spitfire mock-ups lies in the simplest of simple facts that every ingredient — every single part, sound, colour, reverberation and/or reflection — automatically finds its own unique place in the mix, without any hint of artificiality or trickery, without damaging any of the other ingredients in any way, and without having to be submitted to too much EQ'ing, compression and other processes that are often needed when trying to get a mock-up on its shaky feet. And that degree of _natural sonic coherence_ can only be achieved when you don’t combine/layer/blend libraries from different developers (each with their own sonic stamp and their own spatial characteristics).
(Some of the Symphobia-only demos on Project SAM’s website have a similar focus and coherence, though they lack some of the sonic splendour, richness and sophistication of the Spitfire pieces, to my ears.)

Sure, these mock-ups are ‘produced’ too, just like any other mock-up. But the production here is not so much _corrective_ production (to mask, camouflage or clean up the mess), but rather _enhancing_ production (to simply present the inherent qualities of all the ingredients as earpleasingly as possible). All these sounds originate from the same place, the same vision, the same approach. And that’s why they work so well together and hardly need any of that all-too-common, tiresome-sounding ‘mock-up doctoring’.

If Andy had added CS2, HS or the Sonivox Strings to ‘double’ what the Spitfire strings are doing in these productions, we would immediately hear sonic diminishment (clutter, frequency clashes, loss of focus, spatial problems, possible phasing, damaged or inconsistent stereo-image, diffused definition, …). If he had ‘blended’ the Spitfire brass with CineBrass, DimensionBrass or Symphobia’s brass, his brass section would instantly be weakened and loose a lot of its power and presence.
I’m not necessarily saying that all these other libraries sound intrinsically worse than the Spitfire stuff, no, I’m saying that the blending of these libraries produces, almost without exception, sonically poorer results than what any of them can sound like on their own. (*)

Again: blending libraries is, more often than not, asking for (sonic) trouble. A sample library is like a sort of (incredibly unintelligent, extremely right-wing, almost fascist) biotope that doesn’t take kindly to intruders. When such intruders are brought in, tension occurs, battles need to be fought, conflicts arise. Translated into sonics this means: when incompatible elements are forced to sit together in one and the same mix, bad sound is inevitably the result.
I’m not talking about perceived realism (although one would have to look long and hard to find anything as ‘believable’ as Andy’s work), I’m not talking about hybrid, pumped-up, virtual electro-acoustic orchestral productions (which celebrate the creativity and the artificialness of their identity, rather than aim for realism and timbral accuracy - and I’m all for it), no, I’m talking about the sonic quality of a not-too-unconventional virtual orchestra that hopes to sound as close to the real thing as it possible can.

- - - - 

(*) It was mildly amusing to read that the EW representative _totally disagrees _with the opinion that the Hollywood Strings sound at their best when left uncontaminated by other stringlibraries. Just imagine Nick Phoenix or Shawn Murphy saying: “HS sounds pretty decent as it is, sure, but to make it sound _really good and ‘more alive’_, you will definitely need another stringlibrary to blend with it.”
I’m fully aware though that the EW representative’s total disagreement is more the result of a Pavlovian reflex which makes him automatically disagree with everything I say (a bizarre and chagrin-full affliction from which he seems to suffer since a couple of months), rather than from any insight in what it takes to make the Hollywood Strings sound at their best.

_


----------



## Scrianinoff (Oct 5, 2012)

Good points Piet. Yet I have the feeling that those of us who are already convinced of the points you mention don't need any further convincing, and the others won't be convinced no matter what you're saying. Cynical? Realistic? Take your pick.

There are just a few caveats I'd add.

I completely agree when we're talking about libs of the same sonic palette, the same section size playing at roughly the same volume. For example adding Spitfire solo strings to Albion I or II doesn't lead to the detrimental effects such as those you're describing. 

Further, mixing in another lib of the same size but at a much lower volume (20 dB under the main lib for example with some ER modulation of Valhalla Room or a 2C reverb) really does have some merits in certain situations.

Another point that convinces some people that a blend sounds better, is that by blending the volume is raised. Related to the notion of negative EQing, it would be best to judge the blend by playing it softer than the non-blended version. If you still think this softer playing blend sounds better, then at least you know loudness is not fooling you.


----------



## paulcole (Oct 5, 2012)

re-peat @ Fri Oct 05 said:


> Just imagine Nick Phoenix or Shawn Murphy saying: “HS sounds pretty decent as it is, sure, but to make it sound _really good and ‘more alive’_, you will definitely need another stringlibrary to blend with it.”
> _



:lol: :lol: :lol: 

This is what I mean when I say in, granted, a slightly weaker way, string libraries shouldn't really need to be layered if they're any good in the first place. Or indeed any other set of instruments. And it's a fact that Andys' pieces and the Spitfire chaps have put together a great sounding and very useful set of libraries in what seems a short space of time. I have some of it and I wouldn't want to layer another set of strings on to any of that even though I don't do that type of string stuff on a forensic level.

Just to get one thing straight. There is layering and there is blending and I'm not entirely sure they mean the same thing although it might to some.


----------



## re-peat (Oct 5, 2012)

Scrianinoff @ Fri Oct 05 said:


> (...) I have the feeling that those of us who are already convinced of the points you mention don't need any further convincing, and the others won't be convinced no matter what you're saying. (...)


I would have thought nobody needed any convincing at all, actually. This whole thing ("blending creates sonic havoc") seems and sounds so obvious to me.



Scrianinoff @ Fri Oct 05 said:


> (...) mixing in another lib (...) really does have some merits in certain situations.


Sure it does. And I'm also aware that only very, very, very few of us can afford the puristic _"only one developer's samples"_-approach that Andy demonstrates with such superb results. 
Blending and layering, for most of us, is unavoidable. Part of our daily routine. As is the trickery it takes to minimize the damage (or, at best, to turn the weaknesses into an asset, i.o.w. what may sound artificial or bad in one type of production may very well be the perfect-sounding ingredient in another type of production.)
Like most people here, I'm obliged to blend libraries all the time. But as far as I'm concerned, that's only because there's not a single developer out there who offers a comprehensive and versatile palette of virtual orchestral sounds that (a) appeals to my specific musical preferences, and (b) ships at a price I'm prepared to pay. 

_


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Oct 5, 2012)

re-peat @ Fri Oct 05 said:


> God forbid, when layering Kirk Hunter’s poo-buckets-thinly-disguised-as-sample-libraries on top of the Hollywood Strings.
> 
> 
> (*) It was mildly amusing to read that the EW representative _totally disagrees _with the opinion that the Hollywood Strings sound at their best when left uncontaminated by other stringlibraries. Just imagine Nick Phoenix or Shawn Murphy saying: “HS sounds pretty decent as it is, sure, but to make it sound _really good and ‘more alive’_, you will definitely need another stringlibrary to blend with it.”
> ...



Indeed, Nick hates it that I like it, and Doug hates it that i like it but apparently they like the way i do my job enough to tolerate it. I am also clear, however, that if I could only use 1 string library, it would be HS. And my statement would be more along the lines of, "HS sounds amazing by itself but since I strive for a _personal_ and specific sound I like, I blend it with 2 others others sometimes. Sometimes I do not."

Piet's opinion of my views is irrelevant to me. I respect him and he is entitled to his opinions but if I like it and my clients like it, that is all that matters to me.

Here is an example of the 2 libraries blended together, HS and KH. Piet will cite you chapter and verse of what he thinks is wrong with it, but I like it. If you do also, you do, and if you do not, you do not, and that is ll also fine.

http://soundcloud.com/jay-asher/oscura- ... on-strings


----------



## John Rodd (Oct 5, 2012)

re-peat @ Wed Oct 03 said:


> *.... And I also fail to understand why the opinion of someone like J. Rodd, who may perhaps be considered a respected mastering engineer in certain circles, but about whose skills as a creator/programmer of convincing-sounding virtual strings very little is known (at least, to me), should make the rest of us go down on our knees in reverential and consenting silence.*
> 
> _





Hello all

I am not a composer or programmer. I am a music recording, music mixing, and music mastering engineer. A huge part of my work for many of my film, gaming, trailer and TV clients these days is helping them make their virtual or hybrid productions more “real” sounding. 

I certainly do not know everything, but having worked on hundreds of feature films and some of the biggest video game franchises, I have learned a lot working with Cliff Martinez, Hans Zimmer, Jesper Kyd, Dave Porter, Sam Hulick, Russell Brower, Neal Acree, Jack Wall, Chance Thomas, Gordy Haab, Penka Kouneva, and many other composers.

Here is a partial list of credits on the Internet Movie Database. http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1116807/
My website has further information, if you would like more details about my background.

I come here to share a bit of what I have learned over the years and to learn from others. I hope that is the intention of everyone on this forum. I have no problem if others do not agree with me, but I must say I'm a little disappointed with the rude comments on this thread. I'm a real person using my real name for my posts, and if anyone feels that I'm not speaking to your reality, then by all means please chime in and correct me, but please stick to the topic and make this forum a place for discussion not bravado.

Challenge the opinion, not the speaker.

John


----------



## Christian F. Perucchi (Oct 5, 2012)

I think getting back to the topic , i still use my old Kurzweil, Akai , Giga libraries for layering i even made patches myself already stacked multis for this purpose and get great results, also use synth underlayed , it´s all goes to the writing also, if is well written you have more chances, and also will add all you guys already said about dynacmics Eq etc., i´ve also sometimes add a live violinist doing many tracks with different types of violins and fingering, vibrato mic distance to build the chairs of the section, hope it makes sense


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Oct 5, 2012)

Christian F. Perucchi @ Fri Oct 05 said:


> I think getting back to the topic , i still use my old Kurzweil, Akai , Giga libraries for layering i even made patches myself already stacked multis for this purpose and get great results, also use synth underlayed , it´s all goes to the writing also, if is well written you have more chances, and also will add all you guys already said about dynacmics Eq etc., i´ve also sometimes add a live violinist doing many tracks with different types of violins and fingering, vibrato mic distance to build the chairs of the section, hope it makes sense



Exactly! You are going for _your own_ sound instead of pursuing what _others_ think comes closest to the real thing. Kudos to you.


----------



## Peter Alexander (Oct 5, 2012)

> Challenge the opinion, not the speaker.



John, I'll ask instead!

My question about layering has to do with the density of the string lines. Are your clients layering with harmony parts that are 3-6 voices allowing for 3-4 parts in the lower register and two or more parts in higher registers? How do they handle divisi writing when there are fewer libraries to layer with smaller sized sections? Or is mostly 3-part writing?


----------



## paulcole (Oct 5, 2012)

EastWest Lurker @ Fri Oct 05 said:


> Exactly! You are going for _your own_ sound instead of pursuing what _others_ think comes closest to the real thing. Kudos to you.



There is no real thing. Not even all the string sections recording at any given studio such as Todd or Abbey is the real thing because they could go in and record something one day that if recorded on another, would sound completely different.
Out of all the people that go after a really authentic real thing sound thats in their heads, I would bet that for every 100 of them, only one is probably able to call himself a musician. It's more to do with nerdism like you get in lots of other pursuits. Photography instantly springs to mind. Thousands of photographers go after the most expensive equipment and never take a photo. This is a lot like that.


----------



## re-peat (Oct 5, 2012)

John Rodd @ Fri Oct 05 said:


> (...) Challenge the opinion, not the speaker. (...)


I did, didn’t I? I called the opinion _highly dubious_ and then went on to argument my challenge at considerable length. I never said anything about the speaker, other than that he may be a respected mastering engineer in certain circles. And I also confessed that I’m not familiar with any of the speaker's virtual strings-programming. What’s wrong with that?

Actually, it’s you, not me, who talks more about the speaker (yourself) — waving your curriculum around, listing your every achievement, dropping names like crazy and referring us to IMDB and your website — instead of simply argumenting your opinion and sticking to the topic at hand.

Tell me, apart from the short graphic interlude earlier on — the offtopicness of which I instantly recognized and duly apologized for — and not counting the post which you make me write now, where did I ever stray from the subjectmatter at hand? Okay, my mild amusement at the expense of the EW representative was not entirely on topic, I’ll give you that, but not completely off-topic either.
Really, if you wanna compare who contributed more of relevance to this discussion, you or me, by all means, be my guest. 

Judging from your post and your pathetic indignation, I say you have _every_ problem when others do not agree with you. It’s obvious you expect us all to applaud your every word as if it were spoken by the Oracle Of All Things Audio and be immensely grateful for your mere presence here. Well, I’m not. I’ll listen, as one does, but if I don’t agree, as is the case here, I’ll say so. And if you wanna accuse me of rude bravado simply because I refuse to join in the mindless Roddadoration, so be it.

And with all this of my chest, I now invite you to challenge my opinion as formulated in my previous posts. You’re the respected _music recording, music mixing and music mastering engineer_ around here, aren’t you? Well then, write something that justifies that epitheton. Surely, you must have _something_ to say on the matter other than the rather vague “use as many libraries as you can”? 
I believe that my view on the subject of blending sample libraries (and the consequences for the sonic integrity of the mix) is pretty clear and rather extensively argumented by now. So, if you think I’m mistaken (which I’m fully prepared to accept may be the case), it will be in everyone’s interest to hear you explain why. A wonderful opportunity, John. Seize it.

_


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Oct 5, 2012)

Typical example of the Piet equation:
tactlessness=honesty.


----------



## germancomponist (Oct 5, 2012)

I did a little example of how I sometimes do it. 

Listen to this short violins pizzicato examples. There are 3 versions. 
https://www.box.com/s/3okckpqse0jl3lf0f1yi

The library what I have used here has only 2 round robin groups and only one sample 
per note ( no pp, mf, ff e.t.c.).

What version do you like best?

(Do not take care about the equalizing. This comes direct out of my template what is optimized for the complete orchestra sound.... .)

Edit: I did a version with muted eq`s: https://www.box.com/s/xq3d53jtezapagvvwxgk


----------



## Gusfmm (Oct 5, 2012)

@ Gunther-
#1, more natural, the other two sound a bit odd to me, and I can explain why later.


----------



## germancomponist (Oct 5, 2012)

Gusfmm @ Fri Oct 05 said:


> @ Gunther-
> #1, more natural, the other two sound a bit odd to me, and I can explain why later.



Opssss, we were writing at the same time. 

I have edited my post: "Do not take care about the equalizing. This comes direct out of my template what is optimized for the complete orchestra sound.... ."

This is very important! Should I do a new version without the inserted eq`s ? o-[][]-o


----------



## Gusfmm (Oct 5, 2012)

Go for it!


----------



## givemenoughrope (Oct 5, 2012)

Hey peat, 

I read almost every one of your posts. I greatly appreciate your almost brutal honesty and have learned quite a bit. But, I think that if you really wanted John Rodd or anyone else to defend their stance on layering libraries, well, there's a nicer way to go about that. It would actually be great to hear specifics about how someone who's head isn't stuck in composer/sample-land goes about getting VI's and real elements to jive. 

For me, it's a toss up on layering or not layering. Mostly one library has to sound great first before anything else.


----------



## germancomponist (Oct 5, 2012)

Gusfmm @ Fri Oct 05 said:


> Go for it!



O.K., here we go: https://www.box.com/s/xq3d53jtezapagvvwxgk

EQ`s are muted! o/~


----------



## Rob (Oct 5, 2012)

I fear we are hitting the usual "I like it/I don't like it" thing... there are no rules. To me combining different sounds works best, nobody could convince of the contrary...


----------



## Rob (Oct 5, 2012)

germancomponist @ 5th October 2012 said:


> Gusfmm @ Fri Oct 05 said:
> 
> 
> > Go for it!
> ...



Gunther, my favourite is 3...


----------



## germancomponist (Oct 5, 2012)

Rob @ Fri Oct 05 said:


> germancomponist @ 5th October 2012 said:
> 
> 
> > Gusfmm @ Fri Oct 05 said:
> ...



Mine too! 

Thks Rob!


----------



## germancomponist (Oct 5, 2012)

I have to mention that I have used here only the same library. 

I did some very special editing in Kontakt Sampler and built new instruments out of the originals. o/~


----------



## Gusfmm (Oct 5, 2012)

Gunther, you lost me now, as I thought the core of the discussion was about layering different libraries... 

From your examples though, just for the sake of it, there is something destructive frequency-wise going on with 2 & 3 that I'm not sure I like. I can see how someone may prefer 2 (or 3) as being tighter, but I think they lack some acoustical warmth 1 has. Context? Maybe. I'm even tempted to say that 1 can be EQ'ed to get 2. I'm reluctant to say much about 3 as it changed a bit too much to be considered in the same playfield as 1, IMO. 

Again, these being same sources (samples), tweaked by you somehow, require a different conversation than if they were different libraries. Also pizz. would not be the most critical example (sample type) to try to assess any effect associated to layering......


----------



## P.T. (Oct 5, 2012)

germancomponist @ Fri Oct 05 said:


> I have to mention that I have used here only the same library.
> 
> I did some very special editing in Kontakt Sampler and built new instruments out of the originals. o/~



It sounds like the 2nd layer was modified to have it's start time delayed a bit.

The 2nd and 3rd examples sound a bit more spread out in time and sound more like a real orchestra would sound.
The 1st one is a bit too exact.


----------



## germancomponist (Oct 5, 2012)

Gusfmm @ Fri Oct 05 said:


> Gunther, you lost me now, as I thought the core of the discussion was about layering different libraries...
> 
> From your examples though, just for the sake of it, there is something destructive frequency-wise going on with 2 & 3 that I'm not sure I like. I can see how someone may prefer 2 (or 3) as being tighter, but I think they lack some acoustical warmth 1 has. Context? Maybe. I'm even tempted to say that 1 can be EQ'ed to get 2. I'm reluctant to say much about 3 as it changed a bit too much to be considered in the same playfield as 1, IMO.
> 
> Again, these being same sources (samples), tweaked by you somehow, require a different conversation than if they were different libraries. Also pizz. would not be the most critical example (sample type) to try to assess any effect associated to layering......



Pizzicatos are a very good example! 

The acoustical warmth you have to built with the complete orchestra mix! Violins are not the best instruments to tell mid and low frequencies in an orchestra. mix. We are talking about ensembles and not solo instruments.... . (Very different mixing...)

Yeah, I used the same library, but I had built new instruments out of it, with different eqing, (sound wise...). This is nearly the same as I had used other libs.... .


----------



## germancomponist (Oct 5, 2012)

P.T. @ Fri Oct 05 said:


> germancomponist @ Fri Oct 05 said:
> 
> 
> > I have to mention that I have used here only the same library.
> ...



Exactly! This is the reason why I often say that the most pizzicato samples sound like mashine guns.... . 

The 1st one ist the original lib, out of the box.


----------



## leafInTheWind (Oct 5, 2012)

There's something about the first one that sounds... darker? warmer? Rounder? Than the next two. 2nd one feels very upclose. 3rd one feels more alive for some reason.


----------



## re-peat (Oct 5, 2012)

givemenoughrope @ Fri Oct 05 said:


> Hey peat, (...) It would actually be great to hear specifics about how someone who's head isn't stuck in composer/sample-land goes about getting VI's and real elements to jive.


Hey rope,

I very much agree, you know. But can I help it that self-importance has taken over? (He asked all wide-eyed and innocently.)

No one, but Mr. Rodd himself, denied him the chance of participating in this discussion like everyone else, no? It was _his_ decision, no one else’s, to say “I’m out” one page 1 of this thread. After his little run-in with Bobulus. Couldn’t swallow that either.
And then, all of a sudden, he re-enters the thread, acting all offended and with his precious ego in tatters — _again_ —, this time accusing me of being rude and — listen to this — _not sticking to the topic_.
Mr. Rodd, who instantly bowed out after the first whiff of Bobulian dissent (and never got any further than _“use as many libraries as you can”_ prior to that), accuses me, who contributed several lengthy, and I hope not entirely useless and irrelevant posts, of not sticking to the topic.
And all that, it seems, only because I referred to his opinion as being “highly dubious” and confessed to a complete ignorance on my part regarding his capabilities. Apparently, using the words “highly dubious” to describe an opinion of his and/or being ignorant about his skills, already qualifies as totally unacceptable rudeness to him. (Good thing him and I never met on this forum some time ago, during the period when I was practicing the noble art of being rude and tactless with a lot more zeal and conviction than I do today.)

So, instead of simply joining in the talks — talks which were, unless I’m vastly mistaken, proceeding very merrily right up until his disturbed re-entrance — and instead of kindly offering whatever expertise he might be willing to share (which, I can understand, some people, like yourself for instance, may be anxious to learn about), all he can do is make some bewildering accusations and imply that I make this forum a place for bravado instead of discussion. Sorry, but considering what I already had posted in this thread (for whatever it may be worth), that is, quite possibly, the most absurd and certainly most unfair incrimination I’ve ever seen slung my way in recent times, I have to say.

So, forgive me, but if there’s anyone here entitled to contemplate the nurturing of feeling ever so slightly annoyed and possibly even a tiny bit offended, I believe it is me. Now, fortunately, I’m not all that easily offended — quickly irritated though, I must admit, in the face of swollen egos —, I’m merely saying that if I were, I believe it would be not entirely unjustified on this occasion to give in to it. Bravado my rectum, as they like to say down our way.




Gusfmm @ Fri Oct 05 said:


> Gunther, you lost me now, (...) Also pizz. would not be the most critical example (sample type) to try to assess any effect associated to layering......


Gunther,

I’m with Gusfmm, I have to say. I don’t quite understand the purpose of this pizzicato excercise either. At first I thought — honestly — that you, in your characteristic ever-friendly and good-natured way, only entered it to quickly lighten up of the mood of this thread again, seeing, as we all did, the dark clouds which were rapidly accumulating on the thread’s horizon. But you are actually submitting this as a serious example, I now take it?
Mmm. Like Gusfmm says — and I agree entirely with him, I’m afraid — pizzicati seem hardly the right material to illustrate what we’ve been talking about (on those rare moments that we managed to stay on topic, that is). Sustained sections, surely, would prove much more illuminating in this context? Like the example Jay so generously submitted, for instance. (In fact, I couldn’t have hoped for a better example than Jay’s to illustrate some of my points.)
Furthermore, your excercise is also somewhat weakened, I think, by the fact that you already start out with a rather questionnable sound, if I may say so. Not really the best-sounding pizzicati ever, are they? What I’m trying to say is this: if you begin with a sound that is already so-and-so, it becomes that more difficult to evaluate the sonic deterioration, should it occur, when adding a second, different library. It’s like if you were starting out with a track of KH strings: there simply is no way down from there, because you’re already at the bottom. Whatever you blend with KH, it’ll never sound worse, simply because there is no worse.
So, to improve the usefulness of this example, I think it would be better to start off with much better-sounding pizzicati, to begin with. The more you increase the ‘quality scale’ (by starting out as high as you can on that scale), the more noticeable the degradation will be whenever it manifests itself.

_


----------



## givemenoughrope (Oct 5, 2012)

I don't understand the "highly dubious" part. The guy has worked on some of my favorite scores which I commonly A/B against whatever I'm working on. He mixes with VIs, samples, players and any combo of each all the time. I shouldn't take his opinion seriously? He thinks layering will get you somewhere. Ok. 

Just relax, man. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl ... xdh4#t=31s


----------



## paulcole (Oct 5, 2012)

re-peat @ Fri Oct 05 said:


> (which, I can understand, some people, like yourself for instance, may be anxious to learn about),
> _



:lol: 

I've cracked.

Anyway. It's very late and I've been playing around with Albions' low legato VCCB strings and I can tell you that you can frighten yourself with that at this time of the morning.

No layering required at all.


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Oct 5, 2012)

givemenoughrope @ Fri Oct 05 said:


> I don't understand the "highly dubious" part. The guy has worked on some of my favorite scores which I commonly A/B against whatever I'm working on. He mixes with VIs, samples, players and any combo of each all the time. I shouldn't take his opinion seriously? He thinks layering will get you somewhere. Ok.
> 
> Just relax, man.
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl ... xdh4#t=31s



2 parts of Piet's last post tell you all you need to know about him:

1. "the noble art of being rude and tactless"


2. "offering whatever expertise he might be willing to share (which, I can understand, some people, like yourself for instance, may be anxious to learn about)"

They speak for themselves, don't they?


----------



## givemenoughrope (Oct 5, 2012)

Well, Jay, he can also write circles around me and is otherwise pretty thoughtful, so I pay attention. In fact, he posted something awhile back about (paraphrasing) 'always knowing that I'm actually writing electronic music when working with samples' which was something of a revelation to me. 

Peat, if you disagree with someone, engage them but don't scare them off, at least for sake of others. Thanks and goodnight...


----------



## Peter Alexander (Oct 5, 2012)

Building yourself up by tearing someone else down is never an effective relationship strategy no matter who you are nor how good you are.

Now, if we can move beyond character assassination, I'm going to respond to Mr. Garner after having been to his site and listened to his reel. 

First, you can definitely write. 

Second, there are several issues with your string sound. I think the first thing to do with your strings, since I take it Gold is your primary library, is to take a solid weekend and benchmark voicings, especially spread voicings in the lower register with Tchaikovsky 4 or 5, and compare that to a good recording.

If you have $50, subscribe to www.digitalconcerthall.com for 3 months, which is the Berlin Philharmonic, so that you can nail what type of string writing you can effectively do with Gold. Just take small sections of 4-8 bars and compare to the live recording. If you want some help, PM me and we'll set up a time. 

Your string sound is a bit thin and the way you're spacing them makes them sound synthy.

Some of the figuration you're doing in the upper register isn't quite working. You need a detache to make these figurations work effectively. 

Third, John Rodd is correct, you need more string libraries. 

Fourth, since you're still at the beginning stages of your career, and while you're in Florida, before pursuing your masters, consider getting a certificate in recording engineering. There are plenty of places in Florida to study, including Full Sail. 

A masters is good if you want to teach. But if you want to work, you HAVE to learn how to record and mix. Your career requires it. You really cannot get around it

I emphasize this because the total sound of your mix isn't quite there, yet.

This may not be the answer you wanted, but this is what I think for now.

Keep going. You're going to be a fine writer!


----------



## Daryl (Oct 6, 2012)

germancomponist @ Fri Oct 05 said:


> Gusfmm @ Fri Oct 05 said:
> 
> 
> > Go for it!
> ...


I don't think that this is a good example, because they all sound unusable to me.

D


----------



## germancomponist (Oct 6, 2012)

Daryl @ Sat Oct 06 said:


> germancomponist @ Fri Oct 05 said:
> 
> 
> > Gusfmm @ Fri Oct 05 said:
> ...



Agreed, I only would use them with the eq, as I did in the first example.


----------



## Daryl (Oct 6, 2012)

germancomponist @ Sat Oct 06 said:


> Daryl @ Sat Oct 06 said:
> 
> 
> > germancomponist @ Fri Oct 05 said:
> ...


Still sounds like polishing a turd to me. :( 

D


----------



## germancomponist (Oct 6, 2012)

re-peat @ Sat Oct 06 said:


> Gunther,
> 
> I’m with Gusfmm, I have to say. I don’t quite understand the purpose of this pizzicato excercise either. At first I thought — honestly — that you, in your characteristic ever-friendly and good-natured way, only entered it to quickly lighten up of the mood of this thread again, seeing, as we all did, the dark clouds which were rapidly accumulating on the thread’s horizon. But you are actually submitting this as a serious example, I now take it?
> Mmm. Like Gusfmm says — and I agree entirely with him, I’m afraid — pizzicati seem hardly the right material to illustrate what we’ve been talking about (on those rare moments that we managed to stay on topic, that is). Sustained sections, surely, would prove much more illuminating in this context? Like the example Jay so generously submitted, for instance. (In fact, I couldn’t have hoped for a better example than Jay’s to illustrate some of my points.)
> ...



Piet,

I used this pizzicato example to show how to eliminate that pistol shots-feeling what you can hear in many libraries. I know the other libs where this is not needed. But, in musical context, my example is useful. 

I also can get interesting sounding sustains by blending different libs. I will post a demo of this later.


----------



## germancomponist (Oct 6, 2012)

Daryl @ Sat Oct 06 said:


> Still sounds like polishing a turd to me. :(
> 
> D



Ha ha ha 

Hey, it brings me to another idea: I send you the midi and you show me your pizzi sound. o/~


----------



## re-peat (Oct 6, 2012)

Gunther, 

Sorry but, again, I really don’t understand. If you so easily and so quickly agree that your pizzicati don’t sound good to begin with, why post these examples in the first place? As far as I’m aware, 'gunshot pizzicati' aren’t anywhere near the topic of this conversation, are they? (And, as we now know: sticking to the topic is mandatory.)
Like I suggested above, the only way to make this a meaningful exercise is to start off with something that sounds good. At the very least: reasonably good. (Your EQ’ed pizzicati don’t qualify either, I’m sorry to say.) And then add another library to it and see whether the sound degrades or not.
And again: pizzicati are the wrong choice of material. You need sustained articulations as well in order to better illustrate the sonic degradation that may occur as a result of clashing libraries.

Best of all, you need a fairly full arrangement, and in a pretty advanced stage of being properly mixed as well. That’s the best way to really witness all the types of damage that layering/doubing/blending libraries may cause. Because not only does the layering/blending mess with the layered sections themselves, it affects the entire mix in various unappealing ways as well.

Ideally, you would want to start with something like this. (Pretty good stringsound, if you ask me.) And then imagine that Andy had the unholy idea of wanting to thicken, enlarge or lushen his stringsound by layering/doubling it with, say, CS2, HS or the Appassionatas. Then you’d hear precisely what I was talking about yesterday, before being so brusquely interrupted.

And if you’re interested in comparing pizzicati from various libraries, fine. Of course. Good idea. Though, as I recall, we did this already once before, didn’t we? But I admit, some of the info in that thread is a bit dated by now. So maybe it is indeed time for an update. But rather in the original thread, or maybe a new one, than in this one, no?

_


----------



## germancomponist (Oct 6, 2012)

Piet,

I hear you and you are right when it comes to such a good string library sound in combination with such compositions.

But, in these days many composers are not after an as near as a real orchestra sound, but are after big, bigger and the biggest sound. (Trailers, Movie sound tracks, Game music ...)

So, layering libraries for this goal, adding synth pads e.t.c..., I think it is ok too. All this can make a very cool sound, but, as you say, not a sound as near as a real orchestra sound.


----------



## paulcole (Oct 6, 2012)

germancomponist @ Sat Oct 06 said:


> But, in these days many composers are not after an as near as a real orchestra sound, but are after big, bigger and the biggest sound. (Trailers, Movie sound tracks, Game music ...)
> 
> So, layering libraries for this goal, adding synth pads e.t.c..., I think it is ok too. All this can make a very cool sound, but, as you say, not a sound as near as a real orchestra sound.



This is what this is all about. But the premise of this discussion wasn't about BIG sounding strings, it's about layering to get a real or more authentic sound, or at least that's the way I read it. These writers aren't in the slightest bit interested in getting a real string sound half the time; they just want it to be massive. They should watch live strings in a concert hall; they're usually not that big sounding. Orchestras are much quieter in those sections than people imagine and Daryl will back this up. Mocking up big with the strings can end in disaster if it's then taken to a live combo and the orchestration is out. I know from experience. It's just another form of electronica.

Most of the time, and you said it, they shouldn't even be bothering with sampled strings at all and just use huge synthesiser pads. I don't ever try and get a real string sound with samples myself because I cannot do it in the first place.


----------



## re-peat (Oct 6, 2012)

This whole discussion is indeed rather pointless if we venture away from the idea of attempting to create, as I described it before, a mock-up of a stringsection which hopes to convey _the colour, weight and character of what most people would consider a normal, natural sounding, real stringsection_.

Of course blending, doubling and layering and all sorts of creative processing can make complete sense and is often highly desirable too when creating strings-like sounds that simply need to be impactful, engaging and exciting without having to worry about timbral accuracy. Already said so earlier on as well.

Working on a piece right now where the basses are reinforced by Zebra, the mid-section is entirely handled by Omnisphere’s strings — tried every stringlibrary I own (with the exception of the DimensionStrings), but the synthetic sound of the Omni’s turned out to be the most fitting for this particular piece — and the topmost leadline is a blend of Symphobia’s high strings and a reverb-drenched Moog-y sinewave. And the thing works. It works quite well actually. It just isn’t anything like a real stringsection at all. And I don’t think I’ll ever be in the running for an High-Fidelity Audio Award with it either. But it works.

It’s got nothing to do with the potentially dangerous blending/doubling/layering we were talking about previously though.

_


----------



## Erik (Oct 6, 2012)

--


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Oct 6, 2012)

givemenoughrope @ Fri Oct 05 said:


> In fact, he posted something awhile back about (paraphrasing) 'always knowing that I'm actually writing electronic music when working with samples' which was something of a revelation to me.



You must be new here. I have been writing that here for years and later today I will be a guest speaker at Brian Ralston's UCLA class on electronic music creation and I will be saying precisely that to them.

And I agree with Piet's last statement. @ paulcole, the point of layering has nothing to do with making them sound more"authentic" it is to make them sound better.


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Oct 6, 2012)

askmusic @ Sat Oct 06 said:


> The op never asked about layering or no layering. He asks for tips to get a better violin sound, because he considered his sound as flat. Neither he has replied yet to any of the postings, nor he gave any details or sound examples of his issue.
> 
> In my opinion the layering question is of minor importance. I think the biggest difficulty with strings (and also with other sustaining instruments) is the phrasing and the performance (beside composition/arrangement). For example in your post Erik, the layering doesn't harm the sound, but it also doesn't improve it. The phrasing of your mockup is flat and blank and so the result sounds flat and liveless. Of course the different samples with their distinct vibrato brought some expression to it but its much too less to make it sound believable - in my opinion.
> 
> ...



I agree with all of this right up to where you get to "Maybe the performance is right but the sound doesn't appeal to you... do you need some EQ/reverb/dynamics etc. to mix and shape the sound? "

THAT is the stage of development where the layering potentially makes a bigger improvement to the sound than EQing or simply changing an already good reverb sound can make IMHO.

And once agin ( and I will not make this point again) it makes the sound more _personal_. There are so many pieces here where it is easy to identify right away which libraries people used to the point where it gets clone-ish. 

But there are a lot of ays to skin a cat and many here make good sounding stuff with and without layering so ultimately we all must use our ears and decide for ourselves.


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Oct 6, 2012)

askmusic @ Sat Oct 06 said:


> Then show me something to prove that Jay. Your example some pages ago didn't do it for me. In my opinion it would have been miles better if you have worked out your HS parts much more and leave those KH strings out of the arrangement. For me layering string sections only makes the sound bigger and wider by loosing definition and clarity. Layering solo or chamber strings to big strings can be good for adding detail and depth - no doubt about that. But to say "Layering is the first and best method to improve strings after the performance" is wrong imho.



If you didn't like the sound, you didn't like the sound. I do and therefore I like the methodology I used to achieve it. Most importantly, my client loved it and hired me again.

I respect your disagreement, I just disagree with it


----------



## Blakus (Oct 6, 2012)

askmusic @ Sun Oct 07 said:


> In my opinion it would have been miles better if you have worked out your HS parts much more and leave those KH strings out of the arrangement.



I tend to agree with this and pretty much everything else you said Sascha. 
I do sometimes mix string libraries but I try to stay away from layering one over the top of the other personally. Wherever possible I try to keep my strings in the same room, it just seems to work better for me. 

Biggest factor by far is the programming/'performance' if you like.


----------



## paulcole (Oct 6, 2012)

EastWest Lurker @ Sat Oct 06 said:


> And I agree with Piet's last statement. @ paulcole, the point of layering has nothing to do with making them sound more"authentic" it is to make them sound better.



'Sound better' is a subjective statement and doesn't actually mean anything. What may 'sound better' to one listener, may not to another. Explain 'sound better'.


----------



## ChrisAxia (Oct 6, 2012)

I haven't read every post, but like I think Piet said, if I'm trying to recreate the sound of a real orchestra, I don't layer. On my current project, I'm using Adagio for Violins and Albion 1 & 2 for the rest of the strings. I decided to forego HS for this very 'British' series and I'm really happy with the results. Loegria sounds great!

Now if I was doing more of an 'epic trailer' style track, where it's less about orchestral realism, and more about 'power', I might well layer. Horses for courses as we say in England!

~C


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Oct 6, 2012)

paulcole @ Sat Oct 06 said:


> EastWest Lurker @ Sat Oct 06 said:
> 
> 
> > And I agree with Piet's last statement. @ paulcole, the point of layering has nothing to do with making them sound more"authentic" it is to make them sound better.
> ...



Exactly! "Sounds better" means what sounds better to YOU, not to a bunch of guys on a forum.

it's simple. Use your ears and your intellect. if you like the end result, unless you have a client, it is the ONLY thing that matters.

Find the Paul Cole sound.


----------



## Daryl (Oct 6, 2012)

I would just like to add that supposedly sounding better and a good String sound are not necessarily the same thing. *re-peat* sort of referred to this earlier, but whilst you may prefer the sound of something that is akin to a sort of String sound, it doesn't necessarily make it more like a String sound. Some of the examples in this thread may have a pleasing sound, but they are extremely synthetic, and layering often just adds to the synthetic nature. This may suit the music that you are trying to achieve, but for my purposes, if I am attempting to create a String sound, I have no interest in the whole big synth string patch sound that certain libraries seem to be designed for.

It all depends on what you are writing.

D


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Oct 6, 2012)

Daryl @ Sat Oct 06 said:


> I would just like to add that supposedly sounding better and a good String sound are not necessarily the same thing. *re-peat* sort of referred to this earlier, but whilst you may prefer the sound of something that is akin to a sort of String sound, it doesn't necessarily make it more like a String sound. Some of the examples in this thread may have a pleasing sound, but they are extremely synthetic, and layering often just adds to the synthetic nature. This may suit the music that you are trying to achieve, but for my purposes, if I am attempting to create a String sound, I have no interest in the whole big synth string patch sound that certain libraries seem to be designed for.
> 
> It all depends on what you are writing.
> 
> D



Sorry to disagree Daryl, but as Piet and I having been saying here for years, it ALL sounds synthetic: mine, your, Pet's, etc, 

What I am looking to accomplish is to create some of the emotions (sadness, fear, joy) that a string section creates so my clients and viewers will be moved when watching the picture.

Anyway, interesting discussion but I have to run to teach a Logic Pro class, so l will check back later.


----------



## Daryl (Oct 6, 2012)

EastWest Lurker @ Sat Oct 06 said:


> Sorry to disagree Daryl, but as Piet and I having been saying here for years, it ALL sounds synthetic: mine, your, Pet's, etc,


Well, I',m afraid that we'll just have to agree to disagree. In my mind there is a difference between not sounding real, and sounding synthetic. If you compare your example earlier in this thread with my "All I Ask" arrangement, to my ears mine sounds fake, but organic and yours sounds like a synth. Nothing wrong with that, but it just doesn't suit what I'm trying to achieve.



EastWest Lurker @ Sat Oct 06 said:


> What I am looking to accomplish is to create some of the emotions (sadness, fear, joy) that a string section creates so my clients and viewers will be moved when watching the picture.


Pictures are irrelevant to what I'm talking about though. I'm more interested in music for the sake of music. If I can create a musical performance that is somewhat akin to a String sound, it will translate to working with picture. Sure, there are times when I actually want a synth sound, but for that I won't use a String sample library.

D


----------



## ChrisAxia (Oct 6, 2012)

EastWest Lurker @ Sat Oct 06 said:


> Sorry to disagree Daryl, but as Piet and I having been saying here for years, it ALL sounds synthetic: mine, your, Pet's, etc,
> 
> What I am looking to accomplish is to create some of the emotions (sadness, fear, joy) that a string section creates so my clients and viewers will be moved when watching the picture.
> 
> Anyway, interesting discussion but I have to run to teach a Logic Pro class, so l will check back later.



Well jay, there is synthetic, and there is synthetic that is so close to sounding real that 99% of people will fall for it. IMHO, nothing I have heard on this thread falls in the second category. 

~C


----------



## Rob (Oct 6, 2012)

just to illustrate my poin of view, I have recorded some chords moving around, using CS alone, then adding a couple solo strings libraries, a combination I usually like... I have also recorded the solos alone, for those who'd like to listen. I do find that solos add detail and give more options for expressivness. Here I have just assigned the 5 tracks to instruments, but if I need more control I'd play three times every section. I think I'm exposing myself to several kinds of critiques here, but... btw, I like a closer strings sound than most people here. 
I know what I like (and I like what I know) :D 

Layered:

http://www.robertosoggetti.com/StringEx/CS-ewsolos-khsolos.mp3 (www.robertosoggetti.com/StringEx/CS-ewsolos-khsolos.mp3)

CS alone:

http://www.robertosoggetti.com/StringEx/CS.mp3 (www.robertosoggetti.com/StringEx/CS.mp3)

Solos alone:

http://www.robertosoggetti.com/StringEx/Solo-Strings.mp3 (www.robertosoggetti.com/StringEx/Solo-Strings.mp3)


----------



## Daryl (Oct 6, 2012)

Rob @ Sat Oct 06 said:


> just to illustrate my poin of view, I have recorded some chords moving around, using CS alone, then adding a couple solo strings libraries, a combination I usually like... I have also recorded the solos alone, for those who'd like to listen. I do find that solos add detail and give more options for expressivness. Here I have just assigned the 5 tracks to instruments, but if I need more control I'd play three times every section. I think I'm exposing myself to several kinds of critiques here, but... btw, I like a closer strings sound than most people here.
> I know what I like (and I like what I know) :D
> 
> Layered:
> ...


Rob, I think what you're talking about is exactly what I was talking about, when it comes to layering. However, you are trying to make the sound smaller and more detailed, which IMO is a totally different thing to adding two ambient full section libraries together, and expecting anything good to come out of it.

D


----------



## lux (Oct 6, 2012)

Rob beat me to it...

The OP says he has EWQLSO Gold. An old trick we all experimented with EWQLSO (I think actual gold has same articulations as our old Platinum Kontakt version) is layering the small 3 violins sections or the single violins to the ensemble in order to get a more passionate sound and simulate a few players being a bit more prominent, out of the choir.


----------



## paulcole (Oct 6, 2012)

Daryl @ Sat Oct 06 said:


> However, you are trying to make the sound smaller and more detailed, which IMO is a totally different thing to adding two ambient full section libraries together, and expecting anything good to come out of it.
> 
> D



I had to remind myself of the original post and it was how to get rid of flat sounding strings or words to that effect. No question about what happens when you put two or more full ambient string libraries together. Mush! Everything, like any available detail for example, just disappears.


----------



## Rob (Oct 6, 2012)

Daryl @ 6th October 2012 said:


> Rob, I think what you're talking about is exactly what I was talking about, when it comes to layering. However, you are trying to make the sound smaller and more detailed, which IMO is a totally different thing to adding two ambient full section libraries together, and expecting anything good to come out of it.
> 
> D



True, but layering per se isn't bad... of course there's a million different possible combinations, from superimposing whole reverberating sections to carefully combine the string "colours" we have in our palette...


----------



## germancomponist (Oct 6, 2012)

Rob @ Sat Oct 06 said:


> True, but layering per se isn't bad... of course there's a million different possible combinations, from superimposing whole reverberating sections to carefully combine the string "colours" we have in our palette...



True!

And Rob, I like your examples!


----------



## re-peat (Oct 6, 2012)

EastWest Lurker @ Sat Oct 06 said:


> givemenoughrope @ Fri Oct 05 said:
> 
> 
> > In fact, he posted something awhile back about (paraphrasing) 'always knowing that I'm actually writing electronic music when working with samples' which was something of a revelation to me.
> ...


So, now you’re going to take credit for the things I wrote as well?? Jeezes, there’s just no stopping your madness, is there? First you pretend to ‘respect’ me (the most dishonest, insulting and disrespectful use of the word ‘respect’ I ever came across), on the next page you show what that ‘respect’ for me actually means by telling people what they need to know about me (and of course you lack the courage to leave that post in its original version, which told a whole lot more about Spiteful Bitter Jay then it ever did about me) and now you have no shame to claim ideas which I formulated as your own? How respectful. 

You really are deeply, deeply, deeply troubled when it comes to me, aren’t you? Quelle rancune. You gotta make up your mind, Jay. Either you respect me and treat me accordingly, or you don't respect me and then you can mess with me all you like. Either way is fine by me, honestly. I don't mind. I suggest you follow my lead: I have no respect for you whatsoever, and I will never pretend that I do. Trust me, there's great relief, for all involved, in being so clear and consistent.

As everybody here will readily attest, you bored us to death all these years with the _“it doesn’t have to sound real, it has to sound good”_-platitude (an Asherism which, judging by your audio example in this thread, you’re still far removed from ever realizing in music, if I may say so: neither real or good sound seems to be a reachable goal for you), whereas the thing that Rope is referring to is fundamentally different: it’s about recognizing than when you’re working with a DAW and samples (and/or modeled instruments) to set up a virtual orchestra, you’re not actually making orchestral music (a delusion many suffer from), you’re making _electronic_ music. Which is a distinction that has profound musical and technical consequences, far deeper reaching than your "not real, but good" dictum.

I do so hope one of the poor sods who is attending that UCLA-class, is reading this forum as well, to be able to expose you for the complete fraud which you are.

_


----------



## germancomponist (Oct 6, 2012)

Friends, let us drink a beer together. o-[][]-o


----------



## Rob (Oct 6, 2012)

germancomponist @ 6th October 2012 said:


> Friends, let us drink a beer together. o-[][]-o



Gunther, I can't tell you how much I appreciate your always friendly and positive attitude...


----------



## re-peat (Oct 6, 2012)

Gunther, Rob,

If one of you ever get frequently harassed by the creepiness that roams these forums under the name Jay Asher, you might talk differently. The man has become a bloody nuisance. (Neither of you read the original version of his post on the previous page of this thread, have you? Believe me: unbelievable. And that was coming from the same guy who makes a habit of accusing me of tactlessness and 'personal attacks', and who likes to lecture us about civil behaviour, honesty and respect. Really quite sick, actually.)

I don’t know what possesses him, I really don’t. 

Anyway, cheers with the beers and all that. (I don’t like alcohol all that much, so you’ll have to excuse me for not joining in.)

_


----------



## Gusfmm (Oct 6, 2012)

EastWest Lurker @ Sat Oct 06 said:


> Sorry to disagree Daryl, but as Piet and I having been saying here for years, it ALL sounds synthetic: mine, your, Pet's, etc,
> 
> ...
> 
> Anyway, interesting discussion but I have to run to teach a Logic Pro class, so l will check back later.



The above is quite a superficial, and almost disinterested comment, with a huge sense of improper generalization, I guess you were just rushing out the door. But I think it'd have been more improper for Piet not to having called you out for this. 

I'd be curious to hear somebody like Doug reacting to such comment, that HS sounds synthetic, no matter what, no matter who. Same for the VSL folks, same for the Synesthesia chaps, same maybe for a few others. 

You are using samples of quality real acoustic instruments, played by reputable quality players, and recorded in quality spaces/set-ups, with quality gear, by quality engineers. Don't know if you get what is missing in that equation, but just in case, two things: the compositional skills to create quality music with it (which is really not a must in all cases...) and the ability and skills to utilize such tools, the quality libraries, in a way that attempts to resemble a quality real instrumental interpretation, where the inavoidable reference will always be a real live players' execution. Mixing/production included. It's been said one way or another the the few previous posts, Sasha spelled it out very clearly for instance. And part of what I interpret Piet meant by his "...writing electronic music... " thoughts. Which is very different to writing "synthetic" whatever. Entirely different.

Your generalization above maybe what you think about your virtual creations, but is a flagrant misrepresentation of what some people on this forum, and some outside, have already proven can be done using VSTi's.


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Oct 6, 2012)

Guys when I said I respect Piet, I mean as a composer, I respect him. I don't like him, but I can separate that from my respect for his abilities.

And we DO have one area of agreement that I have stated since I got here years ago about sample libraries being lifeless compared to the real thing.

I stand by my belief that any sample based composition compared to a real orchestra version is the difference between going to bed with Catherine Zeta-Jones and going to bed with a lovely photo of her.

And I have heard nothing on this forum or any other forum that has changed my mind about that. Which is not say there are not some lovely things created with them. Hell, I like what I create with them.

But compared to the real thing, they ARE synthetic, which the dictionary says is "to imitate a natural product". That isn the same as "synthesizer-like" however.

I hope that clears up my position. If you don't agree, you don't agree but I just got back from Brin Ralston's class where he agreed when I said it to his class and I know from private conversations with a number of people here who wisely, unlike me, cannot be bothered to argue, that they agree.

But if you do not, you do not and that is your perfect right.


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Oct 6, 2012)

re-peat @ Sat Oct 06 said:


> Gunther, Rob,
> 
> If one of you ever get frequently harassed by the creepiness that roams these forums under the name Jay Asher, you might talk differently. The man has become a bloody nuisance. (Neither of you read the original version of his post on the previous page of this thread, have you? Believe me: unbelievable. And that was coming from the same guy who makes a habit of accusing me of tactlessness and 'personal attacks', and who likes to lecture us about civil behaviour, honesty and respect. Really quite sick, actually.)
> 
> ...



OK, I believe what I originally wrote was:


2_ parts of Piet's last post tell you all you need to know about him: 

1. "the noble art of being rude and tactless" 

He may be partly joking, but he really believes this.

2. "offering whatever expertise he might be willing to share (which, I can understand, some people, like yourself for instance, may be anxious to learn about)"

He believes he has nothing he can learn from a guy like John Rodd". 

They speak for themselves, don't they?
_

I did then edit it to make it less contentious. if that makes me creepy, then I guess I am creepy.

Once again, I respect Piet as a composer, but not as a person. And clearly he does not respect me as either. I can live with it.

I'm done.


----------



## Peter Alexander (Oct 6, 2012)

> But compared to the real thing, they ARE synthetic, which the dictionary says is "to imitate a natural product". That isn the same as "synthesizer-like" however.



Now that you've defined "synthetic" I stand in agreement. So can anyone else who will take one string library (take your pick) and do a short mockup of a 4-8 bars of a soli string section of a concert piece which you then compare to a live performance. 

Do this with each string library you have. Then you'll know what you have, and what you don't have.


----------



## José Herring (Oct 6, 2012)

leafInTheWind @ Wed Oct 03 said:


> Blending libraries/layering: This means basically doubling all the string tracks yes? so if you got 5 string tracks from one library, another 5 matching tracks with slightly difference performance using another library?



I haven't had time but to read the first page, and kind of skim through the rest. As usually, this thread has degenerated into petty name calling. Shame. This is an important topic.

Layering libraries is a tricky thing. And, unless you're going for that hybrid short of wall of string sound then I wouldn't recommend it. It all of course depends on context, but in general I've found that it just leads to a mushy phasy string sound.

But, having more than one library is important. Some libraries do certain things well and others do other things well. For example, you can't beat those cellos doing soaring melodies when using the HS. Really can't be beat. Slathering some other string library to blend it will only make things worse not better. 

CS has a nice organic strings sound. Seems to kind of fit in pretty nice. It's like my bread and butter string library, but then the lower strings sound really tubby sometimes and you have to EQ it a bit.

I use to hate VSL strings and deleted every VSL patch I had from my template. But, now, sometimes you just need that dry sound for certain things, especially when the mix gets dense and ambient libraries just turn into big mush.

Also, since LASS has divisi sections you can really layer in say LASS C desk on a track and you get that little extra something. For the record I only use LASS-LS and haven't gotten the full thing yet.

So, John Rodd is correct. But, I don't think he meant that you layer all libraries on top of each other. Imo it rarely works. If ever. I use to do that and you get the strangest of sounds. String soup. But, never say never. Sometimes it does work, but you have to balance it just so. One library has to take the lead and the other library can be layered underneath, not really heard, but adding weight and definition. 

Everybody has their own opinion. This is mine.

Will add one more thing. Convincing string programing doesn't come from trying to recreate the real thing. It comes from trying to be as musical as possible. I don't know enough about strings to know how a string section will play a given line, "realistically" but I do know enough to know when that given line isn't being played musically. I've fooled a lot of people. Nobody here of course, but many others. And it's always been because I focused on the musicality. If you do that, you can do a fairly decent job with any library including synth strings. And that's no joke.

Here's some examples. like I said, I never go for realism. Some people do and I applaud them when they achieve it . Me personally, The stuff just sounds so fake to me and can't be bothered to limit my music any more to do the few things that kind of sound "real":
http://soundcloud.com/jherringmusic/rise
http://soundcloud.com/jherringmusic/dark-waters-r3


----------



## Hannes_F (Oct 6, 2012)

What sense will it make to squeeze any more topical participation out of my tired brain into this thread if this is probably on the short list for getting locked and edited anyways ... again?


----------



## Peter Alexander (Oct 7, 2012)

It struck me that the question posed was a good one. But a starting answer should be, "Have you looked at your string writing?" Instead, the main discussion has centered around a technology fix rather than starting with craft. 

Let me give you an example from my own current experience.

About two weeks ago, or so, I went through every voicing used by Debussy in _Prelude to the Afternoon of a Faune_, wrote each down and analyzed them. I then began testing them to see which ones would work in a MIDI mockup, especially the divisi ones. 

My three steps are: 

1. craft (Debussy had _some_...)
2. the library(s)
3. editing/mixing issues needed to bring the voicings alive

As my benchmark, I've compared the voicings to _Faune's_ performance by the Berlin Philharmonic. So now my expectations can be reasonably set. 

But obviously, it raises sets of questions including layering.


----------



## Aquatone (Oct 7, 2012)

SamGarnerStudios @ Sat Aug 18 said:


> I'm trying to take my violins to a new level. Mine sound a little flat. I'm really looking to add the bow sound at the beginning of each articulations. I'm using East West Symphonic Gold in Logic Pro. Any tips or suggestions?





SamGarnerStudios @ Sat Aug 18 said:


> I'm trying to take my violins to a new level. Mine sound a little flat. I'm really looking to add the bow sound at the beginning of each articulations. I'm using East West Symphonic Gold in Logic Pro. Any tips or suggestions?



Sam,

I listened to your stuff. I'm would second Peter Alexander's suggestion about the mix. I think he was on the money. Look, perfectly satisfying things can be done with EWQLSO. There are fancier, not necessarily better, products out there. But, EWQLSO won't make you music suck if you are telling it to play something that is good.

So, what next. I use EWQLSO all the time, among other things. You say you want more "bow sound at the beginning of each articulation". From how I'm understanding your question, you could be wanting two different things. The attack might not be fast enough or you might be wanting more "rosin" in the sound. I'll try to touch on both. I use Platinum and the close mics do make a big difference. It makes it easier to enhance the "rosin" or give a more detailed sound. But, I sense that you are asking for a quicker attack. There are many articulations, as you know, that are available via keyswitch. The "Sus" are the quickest. The "Exp" and "Lyr" are slower, as you probably know. One thing I didn't realize was that articulations, with a similar prefix, will link together in a quasi legato fashion. Say you select A0 in the 18violins which is the ExpFst articulation. Before the next note, keyswitch to D#0 "Exp-Leg" and there will not be a new slow attack on the next connected series of notes. In fact, the manual says (paraphrasing) it switches to a note with an instant attack that isn't either of the "selected" keyswitch. It is good at connecting notes like a player would which is different than a "slurred""true" legato and the scripted legato you find in Kontakt instruments. In my experience, I can usually find what I need in one of the three "groups". If you want even more attack, record short notes like "C#1 Marc Long or D#1 Marc Short" and blend them with your original attack/articulation…carefully.

Next thing about EWQLSO. It works pretty well with no EQ. BUT, your orchestration needs to be balanced and good. I would start by making it absolutely awesome with orchestration, dynamics, cc and simple volume balance---in that order. Then, choices for the mix stage become simpler because the hard work has been done. It should be making music at this point. In the end thats all that matters.

Now, people will talk about other libraries, blending libraries, eq this and eq that. The simplest thing to do, if you are unsure about mixing, is to find the frequency that is the lowest possible pitch on each instrument. Set a high pass for that frequency. It doesn't seem like much but EW has all the warts that a "real" recording could have. This simple procedure will work wonders across the whole orchestra. When I listened to you stuff, it sounded, to me, like you were doing a little to much eqing to make it sound like "something". EWQLSO ain't LASS, CS2, Sonic Implants, HS. Embrace that. With exacting choices and a sober goal, it can sound great.

One last thing to consider if mixing becomes a PITA for you. Farm it out. Think of it this way, you work diligently on writing music, spend hours listening, playing your instrument, working out arrangements etc. to get where you are at. Well guess what, there is a guy who is equally passionate about the science of sound, recording, engineering and mixing who's been at it as long or longer than you. If you have a tune and performance you believe in, get it to a guy who can help attain your vision. Look at the balance of time you'd spend to not do the job as well vs the money they would charge to do it right. And, they might even like what you do and that might lead to a gig. Or better yet, you will get invaluable feedback and maybe learn a few tricks of the trade. Otherwise, you have to put in the same time and energy he did.

I hope I helped. I tried to cover any possibility in your question and my observation of the stuff on your site. For what it's worth, I think you are a talented writer. All the above is just a suggestion based on me having to get the job done.

*To John Rodd*, obviously, every mix is different. What are your criteria, generally for a good mix? Do you have any standard procedures during a mix? How do you approach blending spot mics together and with the orchestra mics? You have great gear. Any suggestion for maximizing the performance of basic reverbs that most composer/self-producers use? If a composer like the OP was to have you do a mix, would could he do to make your job easier in terms of prepping for the mix? I always like to learn from others approaches. Thanks in advance.

*To Piet*, I enjoy all the little compositions and exercises that you post. I admit to having a Piet folder on my hard drive. I appreciate your posts because, regardless of the turmoil that may ensue, I usually learn something useful. You have a keen ear and listen. You say, from what I remember, that you don't read music. I'm curious about your methodology. Whatever you are doing works. What are your steps, generally, when inspiration strikes? You often rewrite. What signals you that it is time for a rewrite? I know you seek out nuggets or "moments" (a better word eludes me) within a sample library. You seem to really find cool combinations of things. You have all the "in the box" gear. Your mixes are usually fantastic. I've heard dry mixes that are great. Say you were limited to the reverb, eq and compression in a stock DAW, what are some technical approaches or conventions you would use? I've always wanted to ask but I rarely have time to post and I type very slow. So, today is the day. Thanks, in advance.


M


----------



## rayinstirling (Oct 7, 2012)

Aquatone,
Great post, I'm glad you found some time to write it.

Kind Regards
-Ray


----------



## paulcole (Oct 7, 2012)

EastWest Lurker @ Sat Oct 06 said:


> I stand by my belief that any sample based composition compared to a real orchestra version is the difference between going to bed with Catherine Zeta-Jones and going to bed with a lovely photo of her.



You mean like smoking a real pipe, as opposed to trying to smoke Rene Magrites' pipe?


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Oct 7, 2012)

Aquatone @ Sun Oct 07 said:


> *To John Rodd*, obviously, every mix is different. What are your criteria, generally for a good mix? Do you have any standard procedures during a mix? How do you approach blending spot mics together and with the orchestra mics? You have great gear. Any suggestion for maximizing the performance of basic reverbs that most composer/self-producers use? If a composer like the OP was to have you do a mix, would could he do to make your job easier in terms of prepping for the mix? I always like to learn from others approaches. Thanks in advance.
> 
> M



John addressed some of this in my Film Music Magazine column.

http://www.filmmusicmag.com/?p=6429


----------



## re-peat (Oct 7, 2012)

Aquatone,

Thanks for your kind words. I’ll get back to you in a PM to talk about some of the points you inquire about, because it’s a rather long list of questions, probably resulting (knowing me) in a long-winded answer, and little of that will be of interest to those people who aren't interested. (That’s often true, isn’t it?) Besides, it’ll all be scandalously off-topic anyway.

To answer just one question: yes, you’re right, I confess, I can’t read or write music. With some effort and enough time, I am quite able to locate the g-spot on a stave — an effort which invariably fills me with the greatest pride and pleasure — and I also know where to put your d’s, your f’s and your b’s, and even what sharps and flats look like, but put me in front of a piece of sheet music, and I’m nowhere. Absolutely nowhere. Clueless.

So, how exactly I get myself out of this pickle, I’ll explain and describe in a forthcoming PM.

Thanks again!

_


----------



## Resoded (Oct 7, 2012)

re-peat @ 7th October 2012 said:


> Aquatone,
> 
> Thanks for your kind words. I’ll get back to you in a PM to talk about some of the points you inquire about, because it’s a rather long list of questions, probably resulting (knowing me) in a long-winded answer, and little of that will be of interest to those people who aren't interested. (That’s often true, isn’t it?) Besides, it’ll all be scandalously off-topic anyway.
> 
> ...



I'm also interested in this. Would you mind sharing your views in a separate topic?


----------



## Aquatone (Oct 7, 2012)

"*my Film Music Magazine column*"

Jay,
I read your article some time ago. Anyone who cared to, did. My questions to Mr. Rodd still stand.

John Rodd is capable of referencing the article if he feels like it covers any answer he would like to share. Furthermore, I'm sure he has grown and learned since 2010 and may have new insights.

I asked about general and technical approaches. If he has time, his answer will probably be short, useful to everyone around here and appreciated. But he is a busy dude so, his time may not allow… which is perfectly understandable. Or, he might not be interested in this thread anymore, in which case, his silence would be telling.

Either way he doesn't owe me anything. I'm just curious and could learn from his answers to my questions.

Lastly, my post to the OP took quite a while to thoughtfully and instructively find an answer for the OP. For the life of me, I don't see how regular posters get anything done. Posting on multiple forums continuing pointless arguments all take time. How can someone do quality and thoughtful work if the mental and emotional time is divided by, of all things, typing on forums.

I, for one, am not that talented. It takes enough time just reading through this stuff and trying to find a nugget here and there. Seems like the quality of one's music, the quality of info posted and ability to learn from it would suffer if the day was filled with typing. Unless, one types really fast. Don't get me wrong I learn a lot because I read every word and try to understand them. So, I appreciate those typing abilities. I'm a seek and peck guy so, you guys have one up on me.

M


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Oct 7, 2012)

Aquatone @ Sun Oct 07 said:


> "*my Film Music Magazine column*"
> 
> Jay,
> I read your article some time ago. Anyone who cared to, did. My questions to Mr. Rodd still stand.
> ...



I doubt you will see John back here. He is no doubt used to having people disagree with him on things but he works with professionals and is not used to the kind of rather nasty tone he encountered, as professionals don't take that tone when they discuss things with each other.


----------



## Aquatone (Oct 7, 2012)

re-peat @ Sun Oct 07 said:


> Aquatone,
> 
> So, how exactly I get myself out of this pickle, I’ll explain and describe in a forthcoming PM.
> 
> ...



I love pickles. I'm not sure how the PM works but I'll look for it or Google. I appreciate the time it will take to put your thoughts together. Another poster said he was interested, too. I hope I haven't derailed the thread, too much. 

Oh, before I forget, thanks Ray in Stirling. I did a gig near the Scottish border on the east side of England. I forget the name of the town but I was introduced to Scottish eggs. You know, I like those things. Too bad, they don't have them in the US.

M


----------



## Aquatone (Oct 7, 2012)

Jay,

I know how professionals act. And, we are capable of answering for ourselves when we want to answer.

M


----------



## Daryl (Oct 7, 2012)

Aquatone @ Sun Oct 07 said:


> Lastly, my post to the OP took quite a while to thoughtfully and instructively find an answer for the OP. For the life of me, I don't see how regular posters get anything done. Posting on multiple forums continuing pointless arguments all take time. How can someone do quality and thoughtful work if the mental and emotional time is divided by, of all things, typing on forums.
> 
> M


I can see your points. I can obviously only speak for myself, but to answer your questions from my point of view:

I don't waste emotional energy on forums. I don't really care whether or not anyone agrees with me. I have my skills and experiences, and smart people will want to learn those skills. If someone wants to disagree, they are entitled to, but I don't really care if they think I'm wrong, ill-informed, or just plain stupid. Why would I? I'm financially successful and I really enjoy my life, so I'm trying to put something back to the community. If people don't want to accept what I have to offer, then that's up to them. You can lead a horse to water... 

It doesn't interrupt my work, because I only check forums when I've completed something that my mind is working on. Therefore, when I'm typing, my mind is already sorting out the next problem, so that by the time I finish typing, I'm ready to write, orchestrate, program etc. the next bit of my project. In a way typing is a sort of break for me, so that I don't get tired and bogged down.

I'm very happy with lively discussions, because they can often illuminate view points that maybe I haven't been aware of. However, when arguments start, particularly when they are with people who have no experience or ability in the field that they are arguing about, I just withdraw, and leave the discussion. There is no point in trying to help someone who doesn't want to be helped. That is the point where emotional energy is wasted, so retreat is the best option for me.

I'm sure that other people have other ways of dealing with all of this, but the best advice I can give is not to take any of it personally.

D


----------



## Daryl (Oct 7, 2012)

Aquatone @ Sun Oct 07 said:


> Oh, before I forget, thanks Ray in Stirling. I did a gig near the Scottish border on the east side of England. I forget the name of the town but I was introduced to Scottish eggs. You know, I like those things. Too bad, they don't have them in the US.
> 
> M


I think you mean Scotch Eggs, and I'm not sure how Scottish they are, and whether or not they are an insult to Scotland. :wink: 

D


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Oct 7, 2012)

Daryl @ Sun Oct 07 said:


> Aquatone @ Sun Oct 07 said:
> 
> 
> > Lastly, my post to the OP took quite a while to thoughtfully and instructively find an answer for the OP. For the life of me, I don't see how regular posters get anything done. Posting on multiple forums continuing pointless arguments all take time. How can someone do quality and thoughtful work if the mental and emotional time is divided by, of all things, typing on forums.
> ...



Beautifully stated, Daryl.


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Oct 7, 2012)

Aquatone @ Sun Oct 07 said:


> Jay,
> 
> I know how professionals act. And, we are capable of answering for ourselves when we want to answer.
> 
> M



Understood, did not mean to imply otherwise, just explaining why I don't think he will be back.

Oh, and since the byline of my interview with him reads "by Jay Asher" was it really unreasonable of me to refer to it as 'My Film Music Magazine column?

I have no problems with legitimate disagreements but I think some of you look to pick a fight with me over things that are not worth fighting over.


----------



## snattack (Oct 7, 2012)

Peter Alexander @ Wed Oct 03 said:


> FACT: you need two or more string libraries (e.g. 3) to do the job. That's how it works. And his answer hit the mark.



Sorry Peter but I'd have to disagree here, for two reasons:

1. It's not compareable to "two violins in a recording session" or whatever, because the main problem here is that the instruments won't blend due to intonation issues produced by the individual musicians. 2 string libraries wouldn't produce this effect since you'd have lets say 10 musicians/library = 20 players.

2. I've had great success blending only two libraries, as I demonstrated in a recent post with only VSL SE+ and LASS Lite (said HS, meant LASS). It's a matter of how you use the libraries, in this case I set VSL strings as the "main" library to get the legato transitions and attacks, and LASS as the "bigger" sound underneath with the attack time set to a larger value. It also works well in shorter samples where VSL have a quite distrinctive attack.

Best,
A


----------



## germancomponist (Oct 7, 2012)

Daryl @ Sun Oct 07 said:


> I'm very happy with lively discussions, because they can often illuminate view points that maybe I haven't been aware of. However, when arguments start, particularly when they are with people who have no experience or ability in the field that they are arguing about, I just withdraw, and leave the discussion. There is no point in trying to help someone who doesn't want to be helped. That is the point where emotional energy is wasted, so retreat is the best option for me.
> 
> I'm sure that other people have other ways of dealing with all of this, but the best advice I can give is not to take any of it personally.
> 
> D



+1 o-[][]-o


----------



## Aquatone (Oct 7, 2012)

Daryl @ Sun Oct 07 said:


> Aquatone @ Sun Oct 07 said:
> 
> 
> > M
> ...



Ah Hell. I hope I didn't insult anybody. The sweet Scottish lady, at our lodgings, made them for an after the gig party. She also made a great breakfast the next day. So, yeah Scotch Eggs, right! Pardons. I have "bumper cars" of thought sometimes. Ray in Stirling > up in Scotland > gig > big crusty yummy egg. My ancestors are Scottish. I hope I don't have to hate myself for liking that egg.


----------



## Daryl (Oct 7, 2012)

Aquatone @ Sun Oct 07 said:


> Daryl @ Sun Oct 07 said:
> 
> 
> > Aquatone @ Sun Oct 07 said:
> ...


Funnily enough, your post reminded me that I had one in the fridge. Not any more. :lol: 

D


----------



## Tanuj Tiku (Oct 7, 2012)

My only input in this matter is that there comes a point in most mock-up based music where the music can no longer be made any better with samples and the whole exercise becomes pointless because its never going to sound like the real thing.

If you are a professional, I am sure there is a little budget to invite some string players into the music.

I find that even a small layering done by a good string player remotely will offer excellent results and will make a piece of music (if well written) sound good with far less amount of time wasted in trying to achieve something that is realistically counter-productive and regressive to the whole act of composing music.

I experienced this recently on a score I did where I got Hannes Frischat of this forum (who offers remote string recordings) to perform over my samples and I must say that even if I bought a hundred different string libraries, it would not sound the same.

I am a decent programmer but there are some really good virtuoso programmers right here, Daryl being one of them. 

With a careful mix, you can achieve far better results with just a few string over dubs.


Attacking knowledgeable and experienced composers on this forum is not a very smart thing to do.

Many of them do actually take their valuable time to impart some great knowledge. 

It is up to us to really make good use of this and hopefully learn something of importance over time.

A young aspiring composer (such as myself) will be thankful and smart enough to grasp on what is being talked about here on the forum.

Hans has also been very kind recently and has been sharing a lot with us.

I think, this forum must be protected from unnecessary bashing up of people who truly wish to give back and help others.


When a topic goes into this zone, it is most unfortunate. Why this happens, I cannot conclude.


Best,

Tanuj.


----------



## Erik (Oct 7, 2012)

vibrato @ Sun 07 Oct said:


> Attacking knowledgeable and experienced composers on this forum is not a very smart thing to do.
> Many of them do actually take their valuable time to impart some great knowledge.
> It is up to us to really make good use of this and hopefully learn something of importance over time.
> ......
> I think, this forum must be protected from unnecessary bashing up of people who truly wish to give back and help others. When a topic goes into this zone, it is most unfortunate.



I fully agree on this matter. "Musicians helping musicians" wasn't it? And it doesn't concern only _composers_ unfortunately btw (e.g. producers like John Ross). If this _acid_ drops in (even when written in brilliant or sophisticated english) the issue has gone for me.


----------



## rayinstirling (Oct 7, 2012)

Aquatone @ Sun Oct 07 said:


> Oh, before I forget, thanks Ray in Stirling. I did a gig near the Scottish border on the east side of England. I forget the name of the town but I was introduced to Scottish eggs. You know, I like those things. Too bad, they don't have them in the US.
> 
> M


M,
Perhaps your gig was in Newcastle, "Geordie Land" even,
they've got thick skins the same as us Scots. Personally I like my eggs any which way 
I'm no longer a pro musician but I am in sales and I know full well people sell to people and from time to time professional relationships involve some lip biting however, on this or any forum I'm less concerned about attitudes more concerned about learning. Without getting too personal here (a lie), Piet and a few others usually have something interesting to say and certain other parties less so. The Lurker? not one single little titbit.
-Ray
I'm bad, I know but there it is, end of!


----------



## re-peat (Oct 7, 2012)

EastWest Lurker @ Sun Oct 07 said:


> (...) just explaining why I don't think he will be back.


Good riddance then, I say. If he can’t take it that someone challenges His Opinions — and the original challenging occured in a cautious, non-aggressive and thoroughly argumented manner —, he should never have entered a forum in the first place. Dear me. It’s got nothing to do with professionalism or tact or anything. It’s ego, pure and simple. The man craves applause and unanimous consent. _Roddzilla, the size of my ego matters._ That’s what this is.



Aquatone @ Sun Oct 07 said:


> I'm not sure how the PM works


Aquatone,

You just wait for them, and they appear. Amazing little creatures, PM’s. You'll see.

_


----------



## jamwerks (Oct 7, 2012)

I really like the example by Rob a couple of pages back with real solo strings layered with CS.

It's senseless imo to be so "black or white", layer or don't layer. It really depends on the piece, the library, the reverb, etc. Some libraries mix well together, some not. Generally stuff that comes from similar rooms might work well, and generally mixing a big section library with solo or chamber sizes.

I'll also say that I agree that the examples of the Spitfire mock--ups are among the best I've heard here.

And for John Rodd, it's valuable to have his input, but he should know what forums are like. Lots of people become assholes when behind a computer. Forums are not for the faint-at-heart. You don't have to be a mud-slinger yourself, but don't come in expecting to keep your fancy white shirt clean. :mrgreen:


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Oct 7, 2012)

jamwerks @ Sun Oct 07 said:


> And for John Rodd, it's valuable to have his input, but he should know what forums are like. Lots of people become assholes when behind a computer. Forums are not for the faint-at-heart. You don't have to be a mud-slinger yourself, but don't come in expecting to keep your fancy white shirt clean. :mrgreen:



Totally correct and really a sad statement. The internet has brought much that is good but frequently forums are a proctologist's view of discussion.


----------



## Aquatone (Oct 7, 2012)

M[/quote]
M,
Perhaps your gig was in Newcastle, "Geordie Land" even,
they've got thick skins the same as us Scots. Personally I like my eggs any which way 
[/quote]

Ray,
Twas Newcastle. For some reason I kept on thinking of Guisborough but it didn't seem right. There were a lot of shows in a short amount of time. I was performing in Reading about an hour, or so, after we landed at Heathrow. I want to go back and check out Scotland. I really liked the northern areas and Wales and had a blast in York.

Now, the eggs and geography are all sorted out.
Sorry, everyone, final off topic.


----------



## Resoded (Oct 7, 2012)

Aquatone @ 7th October 2012 said:


> M
> M,
> Perhaps your gig was in Newcastle, "Geordie Land" even,
> they've got thick skins the same as us Scots. Personally I like my eggs any which way
> ...



I kind if enjoyed this egg-talk more than another post to fuel the flame. If everyone could have one of these legendary Scottish eggs maybe we could be one big happy family.

Either that or a battle to the death in the arena. Though somehow I suspect it would end up in one huge argument about weather having two swords is better than having one.


----------



## Peter Alexander (Oct 7, 2012)

snattack @ Sun Oct 07 said:


> Peter Alexander @ Wed Oct 03 said:
> 
> 
> > FACT: you need two or more string libraries (e.g. 3) to do the job. That's how it works. And his answer hit the mark.
> ...



You misinterpreted me. I said you needed 2-3 string libraries to do the job. Layering
was not in that sentence.

Second, separately, I did check with an experienced engineer who reviewed with me why carefully layering 2-3 was good from a recording perspective.

Third, I then came back and posed a question which went unanswered regarding the type ofvstring scoring his clients were doing and how that might apply to divisi because of small number of string libraries with smaller matching sections.


----------



## paulcole (Oct 7, 2012)

Peter Alexander @ Sun Oct 07 said:


> You misinterpreted me. I said you needed 2-3 string libraries to do the job. Layering
> was not in that sentence.
> 
> Second, separately, I did check with an experienced engineer who reviewed with me why carefully layering 2-3 was good from a recording perspective.
> ...



And Four, Scotch Eggs are very fattening.

@ Aquatone. You played a gig in Newcastle? And lived?


----------



## gamalataki (Oct 7, 2012)

EastWest Lurker @ Sun Oct 07 said:


> professionals don't take that tone when they discuss things with each other.


Professionals, like music and people, it takes all kinds.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t8-uoTD4fMQ


----------



## germancomponist (Oct 7, 2012)

I hope I will find the time tomorrow to finish a very cool sound example...... .


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Oct 7, 2012)

gamalataki @ Sun Oct 07 said:


> EastWest Lurker @ Sun Oct 07 said:
> 
> 
> > professionals don't take that tone when they discuss things with each other.
> ...



I have some Buddy Rich stories.

Buddy made fun of Ringo back in the 60's saying, "he doesn't even know how to hold his drum sticks."

A couple of years later I went to see him in Boston at Lenny's On The Turnpike. He had an album out called "Keep The Customer Satisfied" that had some more contemporary songs, like the title song by Paul Simon. Halfway through the performance of the song he switched to matched grip, like Ringo.

Being app. 20 years old and rather brash back in those days, at the end of it, I called out, "Matched grip, eh, Buddy" His response was the predictable, 'f%^k you, man".

Also, a lady called out a request and he responded, "We don't take any f$%#&*g requests". 

She replied, "Max Roach did when he was hear last week". 

Buddy then replied, "Yeah, Max Roach is about your speed, Lady".

Buddy was one of the greatest drummers of all time, but he was pure and simple a horse's derriere and NOT professional in his behavior.


----------



## Aquatone (Oct 7, 2012)

paulcole @ Sun Oct 07 said:


> And Four, Scotch Eggs are very fattening.
> 
> @ Aquatone. You played a gig in Newcastle? And lived?



From what I remember, yes. Although the whole trip was great, my two favorite gigs were the second night at the "world famous" 100 Club (in London for those who don't know) and a venue located, in the back hall room of a pub, right outside the wall that goes around York. I really enjoyed my time (about 30 gigs in 35 days) in England. Wonderful people. The tour manager, a local, took backroads to every gig. They worked in enough time for us to stop if we saw something neat, on the way, like Stonehenge or Corfe Castle near Poole (which I thought was stunning) or any little place we fancied to explore. On my days off I stayed in a village called Holt in Dorset. It was great to spend time with everyone in a natural setting as opposed to hotel after hotel, road after road. I must confess to getting addicted to the show "EastEnders". The countryside was beautiful. Rare treat and one I will treasure always.

Oh, and as far as survival, one gig was in a Rugby Club in Derby. HAHAHA Gotta be tough to survive in there. The venue was a bit of a surprise to us but a lot of fun, regardless.

I'd really like to get back over there after I get a few more projects off my plate.


----------



## paulcole (Oct 7, 2012)

Yeah, I was down at Corfe Castle the other day. Parliamentarians blew the shit out of it and its been like that ever since. Lot of history. My great great great grandfather was the bosun of HMS Bounty and a lot of us still come from the same area in London.


----------



## re-peat (Oct 7, 2012)

EastWest Lurker @ Sun Oct 07 said:


> (...) Buddy was one of the greatest drummers of all time, but he was pure and simple a horse's derriere and NOT professional in his behavior.


Shows just how little idea you have about what professionalism really means, Jay. Being professional is not: being courteous, forthcoming, civil, polite and whatnot. Being professional means: doing the job you set out to do, as best as you can. Realize yourself to the best of your abilities. That’s professionalism. If Buddy Rich gave a great concert that evening, you should count yourself lucky and honoured at being able to witness the ultimate professional. If he had listened to that lady, or made small-talk with you, he would have been a mere entertainer. But he was determined to be Buddy Rich. And he _gave_ you Buddy Rich. It doesn’t get more professional (and more generous!) than that.

People are flawed packages. Me, you, everyone everywhere. But those of us that fly high (and by doing so, enhance others’ lives with great art, great wisdom, great kindness, great literature, great music, great whatever) should also be allowed to fall deep. If you enjoy, take in, or feed on the good of a person, you should also allow room for the bad. The Buddy Rich who is a genius drummer, is also the Buddy Rich who isn’t the nicest man to be around. But without the asshole, we would also never have had the genius. 

Or take Mozart. Perfect example. Possibly the man who flew higher than anyone before him or since, but also the man who wrote some of the most embarrassing, childish filth ever to come out of a human brain. But it’s precisely that combination of extremes which defines the complete genius Mozart: he could never have flown that high, if he didn’t allow himself to sink quite deep as well on occasion. If he had shut out the darkness, he would have also shut out the light. And he knew that. A professional knows that. Instinctively. It's not even a choice they make, it's something they _must_ do.

I’m sure Buddy Rich didn’t have any problem with being rude and unkind to people. Because he could never be the complete Buddy Rich without it. Any true professional values his/her job, his/her art, his/her craft, his/her identity ... far higher than whatever impression he (or she) might make on people. If you ignore who you are (both the good and the bad), for the sake of being ‘liked’ by other people (most of whom are anonymous mediocrities anyway), you can never achieve greatness. Nor will you ever be a true professional.

_


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Oct 7, 2012)

There are lots of great geniuses who treat others courteously and respectfully. The two are not mutually exclusive.


----------



## re-peat (Oct 7, 2012)

EastWest Lurker @ Sun Oct 07 said:


> The two are not mutually exclusive.


I never said they were. I’m saying that being civil, respectful and polite is not a prerequisite for being professional. As any true professional will tell you.
Sure, there are kind, gentle, friendly geniuses and professionals, but should you run into a rude, unkind and disrespectful person, don't automatically label him/her unprofessional. He or she might have more important things on their mind than being kind, civil and forthcoming.

_


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Oct 7, 2012)

re-peat @ Sun Oct 07 said:


> EastWest Lurker @ Sun Oct 07 said:
> 
> 
> > The two are not mutually exclusive.
> ...



Actually, in the case of Buddy Rich you did. "But without the asshole, we would also never have had the genius. "

Which is a crock!. Buddy could have treated people well AND been just as great a player, as Max Roach who was arguably every bit as good if not as famous, did without being an asshole. There is no greater composer in L.A. nor greater gentlemen than John Williams. There is no greater pianist in L.A. nor greater gentlemen than Mike Lang. here is no greater developer in L.A. nor greater gentlemen than Eric Persing. Pierre Boulez is one of the great geniuses of the last 50 years and he is a gentlemen. The romanticized idea that to be a genius one must also be temperamental and self-indulgent is simply a myth that allows them get a pass on their bad behavior.

At a certain point if someone is a shit, I no longer care how great they are at what they do, they are still a shit and I want as little to do with them s possible. Further, I reserve the right to equate courteousness and respect for others as part of being a professional in the best sense of the word.

Anyway, to the rest of you, know that this is the last Piet post I will be responding to. He enjoys this kind of exchange. I do not. I can do it, but why would I choose to? 

After all, I have disagreed in this tread and others at times (and also agreed) with people like Daryl, who is every bit as talented as Piet or more so, and every bit as smart or smarter, more professional credits, etc. without a single harsh word between us.

And that is true of my interaction with _most_ others here, many of whom are arguably just as smart and talented as Piet is. 

Most of us treat each other mutually courteously but a handful do not. It is part of my job to reply to a certain amount of this on behalf of EW and I will continue to do so. But on topics that do not directly relate to EW and its products, I am simply not going to take the bait any longer.

If people want to throw vitriolic and insulting comments at each other, they can do so, since the moderators here usually allow it. But count me out.


----------



## gamalataki (Oct 7, 2012)

EastWest Lurker @ Sun Oct 07 said:


> I have some Buddy Rich stories.



Me Too. I've had my conversations with Buddy, both before and after Lenny's burned down. I once said something so stupid to him, that he could've jumped down my throat, but he paused, looked me in the eye, and let it go. We were at his table between sets and I wasn't calling out to him, so maybe I was being a bit more professional and less brash - who knows. Personally, if you respectfully come to my table between sets, I'm going to treat you much more respectfully than if you call out something intentionally provoking, while at my venue.

Also, who knows how long he had that malignant brain tumor and if that affected him in any way.

Guilty that I've caused this thread to venture even further off topic than it already has, here's Buddy interacting with a string section.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8NsMLXUrp3E


----------



## re-peat (Oct 7, 2012)

EastWest Lurker @ Sun Oct 07 said:


> Buddy could have treated people well AND been just as great a player(...)


No, he couldn’t. _He could not_. That’s precisely my point. It’s not that he chose not to, it’s that he could not. If he would have, he would also have sacrificed the very thing which made him such a unique musician.
Maybe Max Roach could (I wouldn’t wanna end up on the wrong side of someone like Roach though), and maybe John Williams can too (not entirely sure here either, I must say), as perhaps can all the others which you mention (with the certain exception of Boulez: you seem to be poorly informed on the man) — good for them, and good for the circles they frequent — but … Buddy Rich apparently couldn’t. Nor could Charles Mingus. Nor could Alfred Newman. Nor could Lennon. Or McCartney. Nor could Stravinsky, Beethoven, Zappa, Wagner, Toscanini, Horowitz, G.F. Händel … the list of selfish, difficult, often completely unenjoyable, impossible-to-live-with egomaniacs among great musicians (and great artists in general) is far, far longer than the list of gentle, benevolent ones.
And let's certainly not overlook the most notorious example of this fascinating, alienating duality: Bernard Hermann. Unpleasantness personified. But what a miracle of a musician.

All these people lived (or live) for their art. Not by choice, but by force. And there’s nothing romantic about that at all. Nor is art to these people ever an excuse for unacceptable behaviour. (Remarks such as these show again that you haven’t got the faintest idea about any of this.) It’s often more a curse than a blessing to be constantly pulled away from the people and the love around you, into the complete loneliness of creativity. Being constantly aware that everything in life which provides pleasure and relief has to take second place, only because that endless struggle inside your brain has condemned you to lifelong imprisonement. Not a nice predicament. Not a nice predicament at all. But a necessary one for some. Their gift is also their punishment.

Yes, there are those who cope remarkably well with all this, and are indeed able to produce exceptionnal stuff while at the same time also able to treat the people around them with kindness and respect. Others however (need to) become completely absorbed in their art, develop all sorts of social handicaps and end up being looked upon as difficult, impossible and disagreeable weirdos. 

And then years later, the music of these unpleasant, bad-behaving weirdos brings joy, comfort and happiness to people all over the word, decade after decade after decade, or is put into space pods to represent the very best that humankind is capable of. 

The very best that humankind is capable of, comes at a price. And that is my entire point.

_


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Oct 7, 2012)

gamalataki @ Sun Oct 07 said:


> EastWest Lurker @ Sun Oct 07 said:
> 
> 
> > I have some Buddy Rich stories.
> ...



Well, whatever Buddy was and was not, and I m sure he was a complex man, for me, there really is no justifying the behavior that you see in that famous clip and I would still categorize it as unprofessional, and my guess is that if you asked most of the guys in that band, they would have as well.

Anyway, while there are lots of talented guys here, can we perhaps all agree that there are probably no authentic "geniuses" here writing works that will rank with the great masters in every genre and maybe be just a little more gentle, a little more courteous, a little more considerate with each other?

Yeah, I know, it is a forum


----------



## re-peat (Oct 7, 2012)

EastWest Lurker @ Mon Oct 08 said:


> (...) can we perhaps all agree that there are probably no authentic "geniuses" here (...) and maybe be just a little more gentle, a little more courteous, a little more considerate with each other?


No, we can't, I'm afraid. Because then we would all admit to you being somehow qualified to determine, for the rest of us, what constitutes greatness or genius in music, which, knowing you, is of course a totally preposterous idea, and furthermore, we would also leave it up to you to decide whether the V.I. members have or haven’t got the talent for it, which would be nothing short of gravely insulting to everyone here.

Decency, kindness and respect happen whenever intelligence prevails, Jay. No sooner. And certainly not as long as you keep inserting those childish "who's-smarter-than-who"-provocations in your posts, like you did earlier on. To write something like that and then, two posts later, dare ask for more consideration and courteousness? That’s asking for something you clearly don’t deserve yet and are obviously incapable of extending yourself.

_


----------



## Arbee (Oct 7, 2012)

We (musical folk) are not alone - inflated egos and narcissism are everywhere, in sport, in science and in business. Without it, many would not have the confidence or single mindedness to achieve at the level they do, or the determination not to waver from their vision while "under fire" from those who disapprove. Karma frequently costs them dearly however in other areas of their lives. In the end, they pay a high price for their achievements and their bad behaviour, but we are better off for it.


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Oct 7, 2012)

Arbee @ Sun Oct 07 said:


> We (musical folk) are not alone - inflated egos and narcissism are everywhere, in sport, in science and in business. Without it, many would not have the confidence or single mindedness to achieve at the level they do, or the determination not to waver from their vision while "under fire" from those who disapprove. Karma frequently costs them dearly however in other areas of their lives. In the end, they pay a high price for their achievements and their bad behaviour, but we are better off for it.



Agreed. And yet, as I say, some truly great artists, athletes, even politicians, etc. manage somehow to be able to keep a strong enough sense of themselves apart from their egos and ambitions that allows them to accomplish their goals and still remain basically good human beings. Are those not the ones we should most admire and encourage people to emulate?

Anyway, I do think that there were some fine points made made in this thread for people to consider on all sides of the discussion and in the end, no doubt everyone will continue to try to find their own way with using samples that they find most satisfying.

But man, nothing beats conducting a room full of fine musicians playing music you have written and listening to them impart a soul and spirit into it that you only dreamed about. I probably will only rarely, if ever, have that again, and I really do feel sorry for young composers who may never have that experience. It is truly something special and I will treasure my memories of it always.


----------



## lee (Oct 7, 2012)

Jay: You took the bait again! and again.. and again.. :wink: This is no disrespect to you, but sometimes you just have to ignore posts that you dont like. And I say this, although I agree with some things you write and also think Piet has got a point hidden in his aggressively written responses, because often there´s no point in starting a war of arguments. Especially if it tends to get personal. Dont fuel the fire! 

I think this (sometimes derailed!) discussion brings some interresting questions:

Do you judge the music of a composer differently if you know/think he´s evil, rude, etc..?

Wagner comes to mind.

Is context/personality important, or do we ignore it? perhaps it affects us subconsciously.


----------



## re-peat (Oct 8, 2012)

EastWest Lurker @ Mon Oct 08 said:


> (...) basically good human beings. Are those not the ones we should most admire and encourage people to emulate?(...)


Again: highly presumptuous, and this time also dangerously 1984-like (in the Orwellian sense). “Encouraging people to emulate good human beings” is, for example, what the Nazis thought they were doing, be it that their idea of encouragement was a little extreme. As was their definition of ‘good human beings’.
Cause herein lies the whole problem of your, no doubt well-intended, suggestion. Who’s going to define what a good human being is? Should people be enouraged to emulate you, or should they be encouraged to emulate me? Or someone else entirely? And who’s gonna decide that? See? Very dangerous idea, what you’re proposing.

“Encouraging people to emulate good human beings” is what lies at the heart of all the religious madness, massacres and genocide that the world has seen throughout its history, and is still seeing on a daily basis in our ‘civilized’ time.
And in a milder, less lethal but equally humiliating manifestation, “encouraging people to emulate good human beings” is simply a different way of saying/hoping/asking that we all conform to some arbitrary standard of moral acceptability, i.o.w. that we all accept and resign to be self-annihilating, gray (or the colour that Billy Connolly prefers to use to describe this social reactionary blandness: _beige_), near-invisible numbers, rather than self-confident individuals, proud of our individuality.

It is asking for a safe, risk-free society which rewards uniformity and isolates/condemns individual creativity. And as such, it is one of the more humanly disrespectful and unkind things to ask of (or enforce on) a community. Yes, it is a bit of a fascist request, I fear.

_


----------



## gamalataki (Oct 8, 2012)

EastWest Lurker @ Sun Oct 07 said:


> Yeah, I know, it is a forum



Yeah, it's a forum. The place where, if you type something, someone responds, then you feel you have to respond, rinse and repeat - then your life's over.

I have no interest in this subject and can't remember why I got involved, but I can say, that in my mind, I can easily separate being professional and having etiquette or tact issues.

To say the ultimate professional, Buddy Rich, isn't, misses my definition of professional by such a wide margin that I'll accept your disagreement and leave you alone.

If I hire you as my piano player, pay for rehearsals, hotel rooms and travel, then you miss entrances, botch chord changes, play without dynamics or time on my gig and I ream you a new one on the band bus, you're going to deem _me_ unprofessional? Me?

As a perfectionist band leader, if I'm expected to suffer fools gladly and hold the hands of my employee's when they can't cut the mustard, then we live in two distinctively different worlds.

Get off my bus! :mrgreen:

Now, if Mr. Rich was hired to be the bands nanny, then yes, he was unprofessional.


----------



## Hannes_F (Oct 8, 2012)

re-peat @ Sun Oct 07 said:


> But it’s precisely that combination of extremes which defines the complete genius Mozart: he could never have flown that high, if he didn’t allow himself to sink quite deep as well on occasion. If he had shut out the darkness, he would have also shut out the light.



No.

As much as I valuate your ideas in general, this is an unfortunate misconception. We do *not *need to flirt with the inner dark in order to get to the inner light.

This is simply not true, and a gross misunderstanding of the internal composition of human being that can direct a path of life as disastrously as an artistic becoming.

All the best, Hannes


----------



## re-peat (Oct 8, 2012)

Hannes,

'Coquet' you say? I'm not talking about coquet. I'm talking about something different altogether. Coquet is pose. It's insincere. And it's invariably the mediocre and/or inferior artists who coquet: with emotional turbulence, theatrical pseudo-passions and Byronesque despair. A true artist doesn't coquet. Never. He (or she) simply is what he (or she) needs to be. Mozart didn't coquet when he wrote those salacious and obscene letters, that was (an essential part of) who he was. The alienating (and isolating) duality in him, which I spoke of earlier. If you think Bacon, Caravaggio or Hermann, to give some other examples, did coquet, I fear you sell those men, and in return yourself, sadly short. A by rather a long distance too.

EDIT: I see you meanwhile changed the word 'coquet' for the word 'flirt'. Ah, well. Much the same thing.

_


----------



## Hannes_F (Oct 8, 2012)

Piet,

in regards to the Mozart letters: Deep souls have a way to hide behind the superficial in order to get along with their surrounding.

In the above I changed the word 'coquet' for 'flirt' since I was not sure it was the right vocabulary. Either way I am trying to bring over an idea, regardless the words: 

Our darker side exists, that is a fact, and there are different ways to handle it. The naive way would be to completely pretend it not to be there. The ascetic way would be to cut it off. The feverish way (again I am not sure about vocabulary) would be to awaken it and then fight it down, awaken again, fight again, with questionable result.

The wise way (so I think) is to lighten our dark side up, a bit every day. In other words - educate it in order to make it a better tool or carriage for the inner light. This is very different from cutting it off or following it.

In order to lighten up our constitution from within we need to make ourselves more transparent and less egotic. A strong ego combined with ambition can at times _look as if_ somebody is advanced in his spiritual and/or artistic path ... but unfortunately it is not sustainably so.

EDIT: A small but very necessary addition: These proceedings of the inner becoming with all their ways and detours have been intensely studied by the greatest minds of history and therefore we can get much help. The Bhagavad-Gita, the writings of Nagarjuna and Tsong-Kha-Pa, the (really ancient Raja- & Jnana-) Yoga schools, Vedas, Puranas up to Goethe's 'Faust' and many more of the classics can be of great help for profoundly understanding ourselves.


----------



## Daryl (Oct 8, 2012)

Guys, I think this should be discussed in a new thread, because it is so OT that it is of no help to anyone trying to improve the sound of their string samples. :wink: 

D


----------



## re-peat (Oct 8, 2012)

Daryl @ Mon Oct 08 said:


> (...) is of no help to anyone trying to improve the sound of their string samples.(...)


You never know, Daryl, you never know. It just might. Scottish eggs, Magritte, Newcastle, a bit of philosophy, Buddy Rich,... string samples really need all the help they can get.
But yeah, you're right, we've drifted too far off-shore.

So Hannes, if you're interested, let's maybe move somewhere else with this.

_


----------



## Rctec (Oct 8, 2012)

I think this is the best discussion on how to improve your sampled string sounds. You start with casting the players that create the samples and how strong and commited a leader you are to them. I don't want Gandi in my cello section, I want Francis Bacon or Robert Crumb or Jackson Pollock - I want players that are willing to go from dark, tortured souls to embrassing absurdity and passionate eroticism, from true pain to giddy joy - and have the courage to expose all those other messy emotions we can't possibly express in words and not get arrested for, in the commitment to their playing. I want Monty Python to play Bruckner. But whatever you do, don't play "nice". Just be a great musician. ...And if you're not - I'll still like you for your art, I don't have to marry you...
...I think Piet and I have a lot more in common then he thinks. I don't think he likes my music much, and that's just fine with me - I like the guys who can't shut up and have to question everything.
H


----------



## Tanuj Tiku (Oct 8, 2012)

I want Monty Python to play Bruckner too!


----------



## Andreas Moisa (Oct 8, 2012)

I guess Hans' string samples sound best at 5 a.m. ...


----------



## Daryl (Oct 8, 2012)

Rctec @ Mon Oct 08 said:


> I think this is the best discussion on how to improve your sampled string sounds. You start with casting the players that create the samples and how strong and commited a leader you are to them. I don't want Gandi in my cello section, I want Francis Bacon or Robert Crumb or Jackson Pollock - I want players that are willing to go from dark, tortured souls to embrassing absurdity and passionate eroticism, from true pain to giddy joy - and have the courage to expose all those other messy emotions we can't possibly express in words and not get arrested for, in the commitment to their playing. I want Monty Python to play Bruckner. But whatever you do, don't play "nice". Just be a great musician. ...And if you're not - I'll still like you for your art, I don't have to marry you...
> H


Hmm. I'm not so sure. There is a world of difference between someone who is excellent at their job, and someone who thinks that they are always right and everyone else is an idiot. I wonder how many times you'd sit through "What is this shit? Do you even know how to compose?" outbursts from a player, before you decided that maybe you hadn't booked the right player for the job. :lol: 

In fact, the one thing that stands out with session players is their ability to keep their collective mouths shut when on a session, and it is all to do with the amount of money that they are being paid. During my days in the distant past as an orchestral player I can clearly remember that players who were known for screaming at conductors went suspiciously quiet when session fees were at stake. :wink: 

D


----------



## jamwerks (Oct 8, 2012)

Best OT thread ever! There are some pretty thoughtful people around here.....


----------



## Vlzmusic (Oct 8, 2012)

As OT as this thread became to be - one should not dismiss Roberto`s great example - it was really inspirational, and the file was tagged as being EWQLSO solos and KH solos - not live recorded as somebody mentioned they were.

As usual Roberto is miles ahead


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Oct 8, 2012)

lee @ Sun Oct 07 said:


> Jay: You took the bait again! and again.. and again.. :wink: This is no disrespect to you, but sometimes you just have to ignore posts that you dont like. And I say this, although I agree with some things you write and also think Piet has got a point hidden in his aggressively written responses, because often there´s no point in starting a war of arguments. Especially if it tends to get personal. Dont fuel the fire!
> 
> I think this (sometimes derailed!) discussion brings some interresting questions:
> 
> ...



I have stopped doing so. The last 3 posts I answered were by people who made their points politely and I made mine politely.

No, I do not judge the music differently, but if he is living I will avoid putting money in his pocket. But now we are way off topic.


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Oct 8, 2012)

gamalataki @ Sun Oct 07 said:


> EastWest Lurker @ Sun Oct 07 said:
> 
> 
> > Yeah, I know, it is a forum
> ...



IF they did indeed do that, then sure, but you are accepting that is the case. The nights I heard the band, and there were several, it wasn't, and he himself came out of solos on the wrong beat and then yelled at the bass player as if it was his fault.

But if you have greater experience with him and my perception is inaccurate, then sorry.


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Oct 8, 2012)

Vlzmusic @ Mon Oct 08 said:


> As OT as this thread became to be - one should not dismiss Roberto`s great example - it was really inspirational, and the file was tagged as being EWQLSO solos and KH solos - not live recorded as somebody mentioned they were.
> 
> As usual Roberto is miles ahead



Roberto seems to have the ability, as Colin O'Malley has, to make every library he uses shine.


----------



## Inductance (Oct 8, 2012)

Rctec @ Mon Oct 08 said:


> But whatever you do, don't play "nice". Just be a great musician. ...And if you're not - I'll still like you for your art, I don't have to marry you...



But at the end of the day, given the choice, most people would prefer to work with someone they enjoy working with. I don't think composers would put up too much with a cellist or violist that keeps spewing "honesty" about the music he is being asked to play. And I don't think a director would put up with a composer that "honestly" tells the director he's wrong, or that his ideas are crap, over and over. (Of course, my film composing experience is limited, so I could be wrong!)

IMO, the "eccentric genius" thing is old and overdone, and I think that's what everyone here is talking about.


----------



## JohnG (Oct 8, 2012)

Inductance @ 8th October 2012 said:


> IMO, the "eccentric genius" thing is old and overdone, and I think that's what everyone here is talking about.



It's not the eccentricity of the genius, it's his or her lucidity and vividness that matter. It can be an incredible fight to punch through the smothering wrappings of politeness and politics to actually communicate about art and music, and it's that fight that I think is on the table here, not affectation or eccentricity.

Where I grew up, people will go miles to avoid any confrontation, however trivial. The result is pleasant, but also generates conversational mush. The chance to hear detail of what someone really believes often is lost out of fear that some offense might be taken or given, so that as soon as anything powerful is at stake, people pull back into platitudes.

Art is about taste and decisions that actually matter -- "I like that -- I don't like that." It cannot be about flabby consensus.


----------



## paulcole (Oct 8, 2012)

re-peat @ Mon Oct 08 said:


> But yeah, you're right, we've drifted too far off-shore.
> _



Not as far off shore as great great great grandfather did. :lol:

I agree with Piet. This is what good string sounds need!

You chaps need to relax about what you perceive as having your feelings hurt. You should see what happens at literary rejections.com. 

Where I grew up they loved confrontation. In fact they would kick your head in. They wouldn't try and avoid it. Whatever works best for you. :D


----------



## givemenoughrope (Oct 8, 2012)

A lot of BS in this thread. 
Huge difference between someone dropping niceties to get down to business or following the muse with brutal honesty/no filter and someone hiding behind art to be an a-hole (not to be confused with those who've invented a persona as a necessary defense ala miles/mingus). i have to no time for the latter. period. The greatest art in the world can't hold a candle to people being decent to each other...which is an art in and of itself.


----------



## gamalataki (Oct 8, 2012)

> yelled at the bass player


Just an aside, since you bring up the bass player. If your experience was circa Boston 1975ish, that was my friend, who I played with in junior college, Ben Brown. Ben told me that Buddy pulled him aside before a set and told him, "don't let me rush". Ben, who is the sweetest human on earth, felt a huge burden suddenly on his shoulders. No, Buddy wasn't the perfect anything, but try to ignore him.

Speaking of '75 Boston, seeing Mingus at the Jazz Workshop, some jagaloon screams out that George Adams is the next John Coltrane. Mingus tells the jagaloon that Coltrane was dead and he should leave now and go next door to Paul's Mall, if he wants to see JC. Sonny Rollins was playing there.
This band: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&v=TEExMGYHUsg&NR=1 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=en ... YHUsg&amp;NR=1)
One of the nicest charts Mingus ever wrote, imo.



> It's not the eccentricity of the genius, it's his or her lucidity and vividness that matter. It can be an incredible fight to punch through the smothering wrappings of politeness and politics to actually communicate about art and music, and it's that fight that I think is on the table here, not affectation or eccentricity.
> 
> Where I grew up, people will go miles to avoid any confrontation, however trivial. The result is pleasant, but also generates conversational mush. The chance to hear detail of what someone really believes often is lost out of fear that some offense might be taken or given, so that as soon as anything powerful is at stake, people pull back into platitudes.
> 
> Art is about taste and decisions that actually matter -- "I like that -- I don't like that." It cannot be about flabby consensus.



Well said.


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Oct 8, 2012)

gamalataki @ Mon Oct 08 said:


> > yelled at the bass player


Just an aside, since you bring up the bass player. If your experience was circa Boston 1975ish, that was my friend, who I played with in junior college, Ben Brown. Ben told me that Buddy pulled him aside before a set and told him, "don't let me rush". Ben, who is the sweetest human on earth, felt a huge burden suddenly on his shoulders. No, Buddy wasn't the perfect anything, but try to ignore him.

/quote]

No, it would have been '69-70.


----------



## Peter Emanuel Roos (Oct 10, 2012)

Guys,

Please get back to the original topic and stop with the irrelevant personal stuff. Otherwise this topic will be closed.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Oct 10, 2012)

Speaking of Buddy Rich, I see that SamGarnerStudios (who started this thread) is looking for more resin.

My first answer would be technical: increase the predelay! (Not to minimize the importance of hiring Monty Python to layer different string libraries and then learning how to write for strings.)

:twisted: 

You can't increase the predelay with EWQLSO Gold, since you have one mic position with the hall married to the samples, but there are probably ways of simulating that. I think Gunther's suggestion of mixing in short-attack (and decay) strings might be one answer, if necessary using an exciter to bring out the resin in the sound.


----------



## gamalataki (Oct 10, 2012)

> Speaking of Buddy Rich, I see that SamGarnerStudios (who started this thread) is looking for more resin.


Sublime segue!



> Please get back to the original topic and stop with the irrelevant personal stuff. Otherwise this topic will be closed.


Thanks Peter, sorry for my part in derailing the thread. I pm'd Jay to continue, ah, whatever it was we were doing.


----------

