# How Concerned With "Realism" Are You?



## Chr!s (Nov 8, 2018)

Something I've always found myself at odds with when it comes to sample mockups, is that, even with some of the "high-end" libraries, I find myself writing something that the instrument in question would have no trouble with in the hands of decent live musician, but the samples (being just snapshots you stitch together) struggle to play convincingly. You can just never have enough samples, both of the notes themselves and the space in between, that result in a truly-convincing sequence of certain passages. This is, without a doubt, most noticeable in trying to create lively, exciting pieces of music with lots of different rhythmic denominations. 

So I find that if a passage is sounding more "synthy" these days, despite my best efforts of using different articulations and such, I just say "to hell with it" and leave it that way because the composition just sounds better that way, instead of sacrificing musical ideas because it stops sounding "real".

An example: This lil' ditty was done by Noteperformer according to the composer.



I don't think that too many who are in the know would mistake that for a live recording, but I somehow doubt most listeners really give a shit, and I suspect that if the composer were to present this demo to a client before actually recording it live, it would be enough to convince said client.

How about you? Just stick to writing a good piece, or is sacrificing ideas justified if it's better-suited to the samples?


----------



## Mackieguy (Nov 8, 2018)

In my work, it's pretty critical as I tend to get hired as the "alternative" to recording a real orchestra. (which kinda makes me want to want to laugh and cry at the same time...) So I tend to put a lot of emphasis on realism. I still end up with only okay results but so far directors are happy. The good news is that not only are libraries getting better, notation software is getting more sophisticated in their playback. This is important to my workflow as I tend to start with pen and paper rather than DAW when it comes to orchestra. So having more sophisticated playback technologies in Sibelius and Dorico (I hate Finale) lets me stay in a composing mode and get pretty realistic using traditional methods of indicating dynamics and playing techniques/articulations. Once all that is done, my composing process is usually done and I can then focus on engineering the cue inside Cubase which includes selecting different/additional libraries, fine tuning notes and MIDI CC's, applying reverbs and panning, etc.


----------



## JohnG (Nov 8, 2018)

Realism -- hmm. Almost forgot what that is....

I don't know what the assignment was for the OP's video, or how much time the composer had or his other constraints, but that recording sounds dated in every conceivable way, including the composition style that harkens to yesteryear.

Leaving aside the style, though (especially since that is very likely exactly what the client wanted), if you have time you can sequence something that sounds much more realistic than that, with fairly basic tools and samples.

When it comes to media music, the demand for hype and excitement has veiled "realism" to the point where it's like a fabled long-ago land. While there are exceptions (notable and excellent ones), the aesthetic has changed in general so that people expect an amazingly synthetic sound, full of electronic pads and pulses, super-human drum and sound design "events," and other bits and bobs that used to be the province only of trailers or maybe sci-fi.

*Is This What You're Asking?*

I love to work with a real orchestra, so I try to keep musical integrity when I use samples in the hope or expectation that some or all of the sequence will be replaced. When I say "musical integrity," I mean that I make the parts playable, compose material that can be recorded in the breakneck pace that is required, and don't ask for 1,000 string players or something.

But arriving at the point where someone opens a checkbook to pay musicians and an engineer and all that seems to require an astonishingly accurate and painstaking process of an electronic version. And _that_ only sounds good if the samples sound "right" in the musical context you have chosen.

Since, as the OP points out, samples are not always cooperative, I have amassed a huge number of choices so that I can jump from one library to another to get just the right thing at any given time. Otherwise, if you have a meagre palette, you risk being constrained to what that particular string or brass library can execute; since I don't want that constraint, I've ended up with a huge set of resources to get around it.

Not sure if I'm addressing the question so I'll stop there.


----------



## CT (Nov 8, 2018)

Do you mean realism as far as how something is composed and orchestrated? If I'm writing for anything other than synthesizers, then I absolutely care about respecting the abilities and limits of the instruments and instrumentalists that would be involved, if I had access to them outside of the virtual world.

A more general sonic realism isn't something I worry a *ton* about though. My biggest concern is that things sound right enough that most people are not distracted from the music itself. Given the tools we have these days, it's not hard to get at least that far.


----------



## Chr!s (Nov 8, 2018)

miket said:


> Do you mean realism as far as how something is composed and orchestrated?



I mean realism as in the composition and orchestration is all done well, but the instruments themselves do not sound like a live performance.


----------



## Quasar (Nov 8, 2018)

Nothing is real, and nothing to get hung about...


----------



## SimonCharlesHanna (Nov 8, 2018)

Why limit yourself to what samples can do? I've started writing in Sibelius before going to DAW, and that opened my eyes/ears to how poor samples still are compared to the real thing.

Game of Thrones has some shocking midi moments (and I wouldn't say it's because the samples aren't up to the task) - if they can, you can.


----------



## Chr!s (Nov 8, 2018)

SimonCharlesHanna said:


> I've started writing in Sibelius before going to DAW, and that opened my eyes/ears to how poor samples still are compared to the real thing.



Low-key was hoping someone else would say this . I start almost always with notation, and then when I move to the DAW to make a mockup of it, many times I'll look at the sheet music...look back at the DAW and then swear at the screen.


----------



## Paul T McGraw (Nov 8, 2018)

@Chr!s what a great question. I am a hobbyist composer, but I have experienced exactly what you are talking about. In the end, I will sacrifice the perfect sound for staying true to the composition. But the only person I have to please is myself. I have hope that someday, perhaps when I am dead, some orchestra might play some of my pieces. 

The only samples I have found that can do anything and everything I can write are VSL. But of course, a lot of folks do not like the sound of VSL, although I am getting better at using them effectively.

I like the piece you posted very much. I do not relate at all to the modern synth and drum heavy style. I would have been thrilled to have written "Eastern Skies."


----------



## Paul T McGraw (Nov 8, 2018)

Mackieguy said:


> In my work, it's pretty critical as I tend to get hired as the "alternative" to recording a real orchestra. (which kinda makes me want to want to laugh and cry at the same time...) So I tend to put a lot of emphasis on realism. I still end up with only okay results but so far directors are happy. The good news is that not only are libraries getting better, notation software is getting more sophisticated in their playback. This is important to my workflow as I tend to start with pen and paper rather than DAW when it comes to orchestra. So having more sophisticated playback technologies in Sibelius and Dorico (I hate Finale) lets me stay in a composing mode and get pretty realistic using traditional methods of indicating dynamics and playing techniques/articulations. Once all that is done, my composing process is usually done and I can then focus on engineering the cue inside Cubase which includes selecting different/additional libraries, fine tuning notes and MIDI CC's, applying reverbs and panning, etc.



I would really like to hear your work. It sounds like you must be really great at midi-performance. Why not post a link to your Soundcloud page or something?


----------



## Daniel James (Nov 8, 2018)

Realism like maybe a 3/10

I usually aim for it to sound good first and foremost. To get across what you want to say musically always trumps how realistic it is to play with real instruments.

I will lean on certain sounds like the orchestra to use their contextual built in emotional representations, so if making it more realistic makes the music sound better then I will go there but most of the time taking an instrument out of its range or holding a note longer than possible doesnt hurt the actual music so it doesnt bother me.

-DJ


----------



## Paul Grymaud (Nov 9, 2018)

*Deeply concerned...*


----------



## scottbuckley (Nov 9, 2018)

I write to the samples I have, and my ability to make them sound decent and believable, which means I tend to compromise to make that happen. I'm not always happy with that arrangement, but I rarely get involved with real orchestras; although that's starting to change with some of my recent and upcoming work... maybe this will change my perspective!


----------



## Jimmy Hellfire (Nov 9, 2018)

First and foremost, I'm trying to convey something interesting and enjoyable through musical language, imagination, emotions. It has to be an enjoyable piece of music - not necessarily something that does its best to create the impression that it was performed by orchestra XY in the Hall so-and-so. That's absolutely secondary.

I do spend a lot of time on massaging and micro-tuning performances. Samples are terrible for the most part. That's just part of the process. But the idea isn't so much to create a perfect impression of something, but to make sure that the listener never thinks about the whole thing. So it's more avoiding obvious giveaways and things that stick out like a sore thumb. I think that over 90% of all listeners only ever think about "realism" when something really sounds off and bad and makes it jarringly obvious that trickery is at work. I' m 100% with Daniel James here - _"To get across what you want to say musically always trumps how realistic it is to play with real instruments."_

I try to make it sound cohesive and sonorous - sufficiently so to let the music do the talking.

Which in practice does end up in writing to the samples a lot. It's the old Marshall McLuhan adage - the medium is the message, right? And there's things I'll just stay away from because they just can't be done in a musically pleasing way with samples.


----------



## MartinH. (Nov 9, 2018)

I'm not very "concerned", but as a noob I welcome limitations that help "guide" me through the process, so I'm trying to be "mindfull" of realism and do try to avoid writing things that couldn't be performed that way. I'm sure I fail in many places, but I hope on the bottom line it helps me write better music anyway.


----------



## chibear (Nov 9, 2018)

In coming from decades of orchestra performance to the DAW (and these forums), one of several terms that still don't compute is "realism". There seem to be 2 camps here, one supporting realism of tone colour as in "that sounds like a real violin" and the other supporting realism of performance as in "that sounds like a really fine musician playing the violin"

From my experience so far, libraries that support the "real violin" philosophy produce wonderful sounds at the expense of flexibility of phrasing etc, with the result something like a Strad being played by a gifted technician but a hack musician. The few times I have tried to point this out, it has been met with just a _wee_ but of outrage.

The "real musician" philosophy tries to provide the tools for flexibility of phrasing, with the availability of complex programming of many aspects. This is often attained at the sacrifice of some tone color. When people use this type of library, the tone colour camp will criticize the performance as sounding 'synthy', 'unreal', or 'unnatural' no matter the quality of the actual performance.

We all must play to our audiences, especially those here actually trying to make a living in the field. However your audience is not necessarily my audience.

Now to actually address the OP: I much prefer realism of performance over realism of tone. I find it incredibly frustrating to have a great sounding instrument on which I cannot turn a phrase as I hear it no matter how deeply I program. My audience are my former symphonic colleagues. I have yet to hear "that (such & such) doesn't sound real", but I have heard "can you do something with that vibrato?" or "would you really want me to phrase it like_ that_*?"*


----------



## robgb (Nov 9, 2018)

Not at all. My rule is, if it sounds good, it sounds good. Doesn't matter if it's real or memorex.


----------



## Rob (Nov 9, 2018)

chibear said:


> In coming from decades of orchestra performance to the DAW (and these forums), one of several terms that still don't compute is "realism". There seem to be 2 camps here, one supporting realism of tone colour as in "that sounds like a real violin" and the other supporting realism of performance as in "that sounds like a really fine musician playing the violin"
> 
> From my experience so far, libraries that support the "real violin" philosophy produce wonderful sounds at the expense of flexibility of phrasing etc, with the result something like a Strad being played by a gifted technician but a hack musician. The few times I have tried to point this out, it has been met with just a _wee_ but of outrage.
> 
> ...


my experience exactly


----------



## Lionel Schmitt (Nov 9, 2018)

Most of the time if the orchestra is used it will obviously sound the best when it sounds realistic - so I'm mostly very concerned with making it _sound_ realistic. Unless it sounds the best when it doesn't - which also happens, sometimes IMO in electronic or trailer music for example.

But I'm not concerned with whether it _IS_ "realistic" or not - basically whether it can be played or not, or whether it would sound the way it does in an actual ensemble...
Pizzicato runs probably cannot be played. But if I want one I'll do it. And i'll try to make it _sound _realistic - even though it could not be played. 

And if a sample library can't pull of something I have in mind I'll think deeply and try a lot of mad things with the libraries I have... if it really won't work I'll stop working on that track (if I can) and wait till I have a library that can pull it off well enough. Even if it takes years.


----------



## Dewdman42 (Nov 9, 2018)

It just depends on what you're trying to do. I am one who still believes the "Symphony Orchestra" is an important part of western civilization and culture that needs to be preserved, so I am extremely interested in realism and in ensuring that my own writing will be true to what is possible with a real Symphony Orchestra. 

I feel that its not at all trivial to get samples to sound realistic to what is written on a score. So I feel the score should take precedent in that regard, even if the sample playback is not quite as realistic sounding as I know it will or would be when a real symphony orchestra performed it. That being said, obviously I want to try to mockup something that sounds as close to realistic as possible, both for the personal enjoyment of hearing it as well as in some way to ensure that the actual score is a realistic one and that when a real orchestra ever performs, it will in fact sound as I intended. If I ever had to create a professional mockup of a score intended for real orchestra, my expectation would be that it would NOT be quite exactly realistic, and might not even sound "good" compared to the final expected real score from a real orchestra. This could be confusing if you are trying to convey an idea to say, a film director, ahead of time before he allocates $100k to record it with a real orchestra. So being as realistic as possible for that task is important, but truthfully the amount of work required to get a realistic mockup like that is very high. Not as high as it used to be, but still quite a lot of work and time involved to closely match what a real orchestra will do with a given score.

All that being said, we live in an electronic media age. Films and such do not have any such requirement to have realistic symphony orchestra sound. That is only a tradition because 50 years ago it was the only way to get a big sound. But now there are lots of ways with samples and synths and all manner of sound creation to effectively make cool sounding music...music that enhances film and is wonderful. Or if you're not into film and just want to make recorded sound for others to hear, then same thing. In that regard, it doesn't need to be realistic at all. In fact I think when your mindset is to just make it sound big and to hell with realism, it will sound "better", use the tools for what they are and just make it sound "good", without regards to symphonic realism. HZ pretty much paved the way for that. And I think there is absolutely nothing wrong with that either, and in fact that is the direction Hollywood has gone, because its just a lot cheaper to produce that way and the viewing public has accepted that.

But back to my previous point, if you have any affection for the true Symphonic Orchestra tradition, then that is a separate and different matter.


----------



## Wally Garten (Nov 9, 2018)

Nothing I use samples for is intended for later play by live musicians and most of my work is really electronic music first and foremost -- I use samples because I often like the textures of real instrument recordings, not because I want anyone to be fooled into thinking I had an orchestra in there. So I have never really cared if I have written a piece for an eight-armed drummer or a trumpeter with infinite lungs. More the opposite -- some of the pleasure, for me, in making electronic music is precisely that I can make sounds I haven't heard anywhere else, including from live bands.

That said, I think there can be instances where the "real" instrument carries with it certain built-in cultural and emotional connotations -- a lonely sax solo, a string quartet playing Vivaldi, heavy metal guitar shredding. And of course if you're writing period music, you want to properly invoke the period (or at least what people _think_ the period sounded like). In those cases, I think you have to at least suggest the real performance, or you don't get the emotional resonance.


----------



## Ashermusic (Nov 9, 2018)

When using orchestral samples in compositions where they will not be replaced by real musicians, I don't want it to sound obviously fake in a way that displeases my clients and most listeners. But I don't give big rat's hiney whether a bunch of people on a forum say, "oh in that section beginning at 33 seconds until 40 it sounds synthy."


----------



## Saxer (Nov 9, 2018)

I may compare that with written text here in the forum. I use the standard font and I can read everything. It's interesting or not, depending on the written text. Better sound might compare to a better looking page by using a different text font.
_Butt if yoo wride under standable tagst yousing rong ritten wortz idz heart tou reed tham. Ant eavan iff id mite pee funnie idd rearly hertz. Nou meattr wuod fond yoo yose._
I feel the same when listening to bad mockups. I don't mean the trailer stuff with oversized production and hypersized orchestras. That's a style on it's own. But lyric melodies without the 'lyric' and organic phrases without organic phrasing can really shout out: WRONG! It's like jazz that doesn't swing or jokes without a punchline. It just doesn't carry the emotion.


----------



## Jeremy Spencer (Nov 9, 2018)

My goal is to convince the average crowd that I used real instruments. In the live theatre world, for example, I often have people ask things like "who did you use as a cellist for that underscore in scene 2, that was beautiful". When that happens, I'm content.


----------



## Josh Richman (Nov 9, 2018)

Yeah the piece sounds very 90s video gamey. What reverb are you using?


----------



## Chr!s (Nov 9, 2018)

Josh Richman said:


> Yeah the piece sounds very 90s video gamey. What reverb are you using?



This isn't my tune, I used it as an example, so you'll have to look into Noteperformer.

and yeah it's sounds video-gamey but my stance on it is: So?

and I'm seeing what other people's opinions are on that


----------



## givemenoughrope (Nov 9, 2018)

I'm more concerned with samples jumping out and yelling, "We are samples!" No one really questions if a mellotron is "fake" since it just is what it is: a recording of a flute or whatever. So, why not run samples through a granular or spectral editor? I'm hearing some stretched samples in Dunkirk and Dark Knight. It sounds cool.

With the normal use of orchestral samples it is either a mockup/placeholder for the real thing or just behind other instruments, either way just make it as xpressive as possible. Unless it's certain network library tv stuff I've done where the "fakestra" is the accepted sound.

Short answer: not at all anymore.


----------



## Quasar (Nov 9, 2018)

JohnG said:


> When it comes to media music, the demand for hype and excitement has veiled "realism" to the point where it's like a fabled long-ago land. While there are exceptions (notable and excellent ones), the aesthetic has changed in general so that people expect an amazingly synthetic sound, full of electronic pads and pulses, super-human drum and sound design "events," and other bits and bobs that used to be the province only of trailers or maybe sci-fi.



This is a really important point, and another variation of the broader truth that the medium is always the message. As times change, tools, technology & styles of expression change, which in turn participate in the ever-changing cultural landscapes in which music is embedded and the sensibilities through which we interpret what we hear.

IMHO, no medium of expression is ever more real than any other. A Stradivarius is a real violin. Embertone's Josh Bell is a real violin sample library. The one is not the same as the other, but they are both equally "really" what they are.


----------



## SimonCharlesHanna (Nov 9, 2018)

Read something that articulated what I was thinking whilst reading this post.

If you're in hybrid world, with overhyped samples and effects realism is a non issue

If you're track is predominantly acoustic, mimicking a real orchestra (or other acoustic instruments) and you pull out a ridiculously long solo flute line with no breaths, it's going to sound amateur (and most likely bad).

the limitations of the orchestra is partly where the beauty lies. Nature is far more inspired than some 20 year old with a DAW and it is a bit self absorbed to think you have better answers than what has already been provided.


----------



## Living Fossil (Nov 9, 2018)

As i've already mentioned in some other threads, one aspect that strongly influences our perception of orchestral music is the fact that in real orchestras lots of inacuracy is going on, specially in the area of intonation and rhythm. (Allthough it is to mention that both aspects improved miles over the last decades). 
And one crucial aspect occurs when it comes to the intonation of octaves.
Why?
If a perfect octave is played - perfectly synced with the same vibrato (or without any vibrato) - the brain tries to identify the octave as a single sound (where the higher octave is partial 2).
That's the way additive synthesis works or its predecessor: the organ.

Sometimes this constellation is no problem, because this effect is desired.
But sometimes, when samples are perfectly tuned, constellations may occur where suddenly some kind of weird organ sound emerges out of the orchestra.
Fast string runs or brass textures in octaves are usual culprits.
And indeed, my ear really dislikes that specific sound.
I've analysed the intonation in lots of (great) real life performances and came to the conclusion that in some textures quite brutal inaccuracies in the area of intonation are well perceived by the ear (unfortunately it's quite difficult to make generalised suggestions; but there are e.g. fast runs in octaves where a difference of about 30 [!] cents between some notes still seems acceptable to the ear).

So, one very rational argument why mockups sometimes sound "terrible" is the fact that some of these exact octaves create the impression of Meta-organs that pop up and vanish. 
And that's simple not sexy to the ears.

BTW in the same regard it seems to be no coincidence that Strawinsky insisted on "non divisi" in the strings in the famous chord in the Sacre (_"Les augures printaniers: danses des adolescentes" _*[13])*, since played as double stops, there is much more roughness in the overall intonation.
Sometimes small amounts of dirt are eligible.


----------



## Billy Palmer (Nov 9, 2018)

Was thinking about this today actually:
Happened to be listening to the Hollow Knight Soundtrack _(Buy it, buy it, buy it !  )_ and noticed how the VIs often aren't super convincing, yet this contributes to the game's aesthetic. Hollow Knight is a heavily stylised miniature world - all the bugs play fantastical roles. The virtual instruments sum this idea up: the composition is sincere and never holds back, musically expressive performances are realised from the instruments. 

Realism I'd say is a 'parameter' for media composers to consider.


----------



## Thomas Kallweit (Nov 9, 2018)

Realism? 
I think in terms of composition, putting pieces together to hopefully something original is the way to go (for me). 

As already mentioned by some fellows here -> there are no rules except probably the one that lets (sucessfully) the listener follow what he is listening to (without irritations). Manipulation in a positive way can work out. 
Of course -> when it has to be a piece of music, which has to be in some sort of "genre style" -> realism can be very important, so some fine work is needed (being intimate with the sample library ).

I guess my reply is not fitting very well to the original question - but I answered it as a composer, who thinks "realism" is soso..


----------



## germancomponist (Nov 9, 2018)

I think, anything that sounds good is allowed as long as the emotions that I intend to transmit are transmitted.


----------



## bill5 (Nov 9, 2018)

Interesting stuff, good question. I'm all over the map on this; it depends what I'm doing. Mostly I would say yes, I want the sampled instruments to sound as real as possible (the sample itself first...then the performance, that's up to me). But if I start going in a more "electronic direction" (which is the exception), obviously this starts mattering a lot less, since it is by definition less "real" anyway.


----------



## Leandro Gardini (Nov 9, 2018)

If a good real orchestra sounds good I would have to be concerned about realism. But let's never forget that a good orchestration or arrangement will always sound good with the most horrible virtual instruments.


----------



## mikeh-375 (Nov 9, 2018)

leogardini said:


> If a good real orchestra sounds good I would have to be concerned about realism. But let's never forget that a good orchestration or arrangement will always sound good with the most horrible virtual instruments.



Sorry leo, I disagree with that. For me there is no correlation between (say) General Midi and realism whatsoever and in actual fact, I believe GM actually does harm to an unsuspecting composer.


----------



## Chr!s (Nov 9, 2018)

mikeh-375 said:


> Sorry leo, I disagree with that. For me there is no correlation between (say) General Midi and realism whatsoever and in actual fact, I believe GM actually does harm to an unsuspecting composer.



What correlation did he suggest? He's saying that a good composition that is well orchestrated and arranged is still good — even played with general midi.


----------



## Leandro Gardini (Nov 9, 2018)

mikeh-375 said:


> Sorry leo, I disagree with that. For me there is no correlation between (say) General Midi and realism whatsoever and in actual fact, I believe GM actually does harm to an unsuspecting composer.


Hey Mike, I am not sure in which sense you mean there is no correlation between GM and realism.
If we are talking about realism in music we are meaning something artificial imitating the real thing. How do you see that they can't be related to each other?


----------



## mikeh-375 (Nov 9, 2018)

Actually Chris, Leo said music will always _sound_ good. Sorry, I should have made it clear I was talking about the sound only. I used GM as an example (hence the word 'say' in brackets). Of course the quality of the music stays the same, but play me Daphnis and Chloe with GM and..well you get the picture.
Hi Leo,
What I meant relates to sound and capability. There is absolutely no correlation between GM and the real thing when it comes to theses two properties. GM among many other faults, is incapable of any emotive nuance, is misleading in terms of balance and is not capable of executing some idiomatic techniques. It's this last limitation that bothers me the most because it might discourage novice composers from learning and utilising these essential compositional and orchestral techniques because they sound terrible. GM can also have an adverse affect by extinguishing any potential musicality in a piece from being appreciated by a learning (in-experienced) composer who has chosen a didactic notation software approach to learning their craft.
I'm not saying GM is totally useless btw, just that folk should be aware of the creative limitations and avoid settling for something that fits the medium in terms of sound acceptability. Realism as Chris intimated, should be on the page first and foremost.
sorry to the OP as I have wandered into a GM tangent.
Amen....


----------



## Chr!s (Nov 9, 2018)

Fair enough, man.


----------



## Ashermusic (Nov 10, 2018)

Living Fossil said:


> As i've already mentioned in some other threads, one aspect that strongly influences our perception of orchestral music is the fact that in real orchestras lots of inacuracy is going on, specially in the area of intonation and rhythm. (Allthough it is to mention that both aspects improved miles over the last decades).
> And one crucial aspect occurs when it comes to the intonation of octaves.
> Why?
> If a perfect octave is played - perfectly synced with the same vibrato (or without any vibrato) - the brain tries to identify the octave as a single sound (where the higher octave is partial 2).
> ...




Well stated and I think it can be distilled to a simple equation. Good but imperfect=human. Perfect=machine.


----------



## Leandro Gardini (Nov 10, 2018)

mikeh-375 said:


> Actually Chris, Leo said music will always _sound_ good. Sorry, I should have made it clear I was talking about the sound only. I used GM as an example (hence the word 'say' in brackets). Of course the quality of the music stays the same, but play me Daphnis and Chloe with GM and..well you get the picture.
> Hi Leo,
> What I meant relates to sound and capability. There is absolutely no correlation between GM and the real thing when it comes to theses two properties. GM among many other faults, is incapable of any emotive nuance, is misleading in terms of balance and is not capable of executing some idiomatic techniques. It's this last limitation that bothers me the most because it might discourage novice composers from learning and utilising these essential compositional and orchestral techniques because they sound terrible. GM can also have an adverse affect by extinguishing any potential musicality in a piece from being appreciated by a learning (in-experienced) composer who has chosen a didactic notation software approach to learning their craft.
> I'm not saying GM is totally useless btw, just that folk should be aware of the creative limitations and avoid settling for something that fits the medium in terms of sound acceptability. Realism as Chris intimated, should be on the page first and foremost.
> ...


I get what you mean and I agree up to a certain point.
First let's see if we are not having different connotations for GM. What I understand about GM is midi programming as a whole and not the old general midi sound from the 80s.
Having said that I guess you are being a little skeptical about virtual instruments. Even though technology will never sound better than a real good musician we can achieve great expression and realism with it today.
I would prefer to rely on a good midi programming skill to interpret my music than an amateur youth orchestra.
As you said and I totally agree, midi can be misleading and has led an avalanche of composers to compose according to what sounds good on their samples which in most cases is not congruent with idiomatic articulations of the real world. But this is a matter of choice of the user and not a limitation of technology.
I am a composer that write the score first and then go to programming. While i am writing the score i never think if it will be easy, hard or impossible to be played by my VSTs. I just write what I think will serves me well for the moment and then i go to the DAW. Even though sometimes it takes a while until I find a solution for an articulation of texture I wrote i hardly ever change my composition because the limitation of samples.
The boundaries of technology are much bigger if you subordinate it to your imagination.


----------



## Josh Richman (Nov 10, 2018)

I asked about the reverb, though it wasn’t addressed, so I’ll explain a bit further.

I think the space created by great reverb is the essential ingredient in creating plausibility, “realism”. The environment and placement / mix can sell any musical concept, independent of the composition being good or bad. Consider, on this very forum, there is worldized synth samples for sale and numerous great example of synths mixed with orchestra done right. Then there’s the fact of just getting better samples or slather sections in reverb to mask their weaknesses.

_Reverb can place your sounds in a believable environment and help you safely cross the uncanny valley._


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Nov 10, 2018)

I don't care about something actually being playable by real musicians unless it's actually going to be (rare these days), but - if that's what it's purporting to be - I want it to sound like a real musician played it.

10-finger close-voiced (obviously) string chords probably aren't going to sound good.


----------



## bill5 (Nov 10, 2018)

leogardini said:


> If a good real orchestra sounds good I would have to be concerned about realism. But let's never forget that a good orchestration or arrangement will always sound good with the most horrible virtual instruments.


I couldn't disagree more. If the instruments sound like sh#t, it won't matter much how well they are played, because the sound itself is still sh#t. Both things matter.


----------



## bill5 (Nov 10, 2018)

mikeh-375 said:


> GM among many other faults, is incapable of any emotive nuance, is misleading in terms of balance and is not capable of executing some idiomatic techniques. It's this last limitation that bothers me the most because it might discourage novice composers from learning and utilising these essential compositional and orchestral techniques because they sound terrible.


Are you talking about compositions in general or only "orchestral" ones?


----------



## Chr!s (Nov 10, 2018)

bill5 said:


> I couldn't disagree more. If the instruments sound like sh#t, it won't matter much how well they are played, because the sound itself is still sh#t. Both things matter.



I disagree. 

What would you say is your favorite piece of music? At least, right now?


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Nov 10, 2018)

Chr!s said:


> I disagree.



I do too. You'd rather start with good sounds, but it's the performance that sells it.

This is an ancient recording of the late Sal Galina playing the Yamaha TX-81Z with a WX7 wind controller. Download the .RAR files https://yamahamusicians.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=11098 (here). (The TX-81Z was a 4-operator FM synth from the '80s.)

That will either make my point or bill5's.


----------



## tmhuud (Nov 10, 2018)

Long live the 81Z. I think I had up to 4 of those little guys at one time.


----------



## bill5 (Nov 10, 2018)

Nick Batzdorf said:


> You'd rather start with good sounds, but it's the performance that sells it.


Agreed, but both things matter is my general point. You can have a great performance, but if the instrumentation is bad, it can detract - from a little to a lot - from the overall sound.


----------



## scoringdreams (Nov 10, 2018)

Chr!s said:


> Something I've always found myself at odds with when it comes to sample mockups, is that, even with some of the "high-end" libraries, I find myself writing something that the instrument in question would have no trouble with in the hands of decent live musician, but the samples (being just snapshots you stitch together) struggle to play convincingly. You can just never have enough samples, both of the notes themselves and the space in between, that result in a truly-convincing sequence of certain passages. This is, without a doubt, most noticeable in trying to create lively, exciting pieces of music with lots of different rhythmic denominations.
> 
> So I find that if a passage is sounding more "synthy" these days, despite my best efforts of using different articulations and such, I just say "to hell with it" and leave it that way because the composition just sounds better that way, instead of sacrificing musical ideas because it stops sounding "real".
> 
> ...





Personally, I think realism is related to perception; where what we (frequently & habitually) listen to forms the basis of comparison for a piece of music on whether it's 'real' enough.

It's all in context to which platform you compose for and whether-or-not the audience of that platform are convinced in your creative efforts to portray realism; based on their expectations.


----------



## mikeh-375 (Nov 11, 2018)

leogardini said:


> I get what you mean and I agree up to a certain point.
> First let's see if we are not having different connotations for GM. What I understand about GM is midi programming as a whole and not the old general midi sound from the 80s.
> Having said that I guess you are being a little skeptical about virtual instruments. Even though technology will never sound better than a real good musician we can achieve great expression and realism with it today.
> I would prefer to rely on a good midi programming skill to interpret my music than an amateur youth orchestra.
> ...



Actually Leo, I'm not skeptical about VI's, it's just I worry that some folk will be missing out on learning because of the limited techniques - like you say, writing for the samples alone. As you eloquently put it, the articulations and techniques are not complete and therefore as a resource, sample music is limited creatively imv. In some cases, and this is my point really, I _don't_ think it is a matter of choice for a composer as to whether or not they use idiomatic technique, because folks who write from instinct may not be aware of the finer details of good scoring due to limited articulations, what sounds good with available means and getting the job done. I absolutely agree that expression can be achieved with the best VI's and do my best to replicate realism every day with them.
I should add that I am not really talking about working in media here, I did that and broke every rule you can imagine on a regular basis to get the job done, I just believe there is no harm in knowing how to do it properly - it only takes a little bit of sustained effort and you can always stop when you feel you have enough to improve and not hinder natural ability.
Your last paragraph reminds me of myself and in this day and age where a real performance is a dream for most, it pays to master VI's but it pays more so to master the craft.


----------



## mikeh-375 (Nov 11, 2018)

bill5 said:


> Are you talking about compositions in general or only "orchestral" ones?


Hi Bill,
Just pure orchestral, absolute music. I'm sure you know, there are many right ways to score and many, many more wrong ways. For media work, anything goes, and quite right too. The psychological/emotional impact of a seemingly skewed mix can be tremendous on the audience as can a hands down string chord in the right place - so the concept of realism is often irrelevant. My background was mainly in live work and in that environment you need honed and practical wits.


----------



## GtrString (Nov 11, 2018)

Concerned? Well if working to a brief, then that dictates what I should be concerned about, but in general it is not my impression that realism is in high demand these days.


----------



## KEM (Nov 11, 2018)

I certainly want to get things as close as possible to being “real”, but in the end it doesn’t really matter. The average person can’t tell the difference tbh


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Nov 11, 2018)

bill5 said:


> You can have a great performance, but if the instrumentation is bad, it can detract - from a little to a lot - from the overall sound.



Did you listen to Sal Galina?

Those sounds are nowhere near as realistic as any of the sample libraries on the market today, yet he makes them sound great.


----------



## Kony (Nov 11, 2018)

KEM said:


> The average person can’t tell the difference tbh


This!


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Nov 11, 2018)

Kony said:


> This!



Well, you probably want to satisfy yourself too, no?


----------



## Kony (Nov 11, 2018)

Nick Batzdorf said:


> Well, you probably want to satisfy yourself too, no?


We're talking music, or something else?


----------



## Kony (Nov 11, 2018)

Nick Batzdorf said:


> Well, you probably want to satisfy yourself too, no?


Seriously though, I was surprised by a recent comment on another thread (or was it in this thread) about the use of obvious libraries on Game Of Thrones as I've never noticed that - might have something to do with my tinnitus though.


----------



## KEM (Nov 11, 2018)

Kony said:


> Seriously though, I was surprised by a recent comment on another thread (or was it in this thread) about the use of obvious libraries on Game Of Thrones as I've never noticed that - might have something to do with my tinnitus though.



Link to that?


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Nov 11, 2018)

Kony said:


> We're talking music, or something else?



Both, at the same time.


----------



## Kony (Nov 11, 2018)

KEM said:


> Link to that?


Found it - it's in this thread, page one


----------



## Kony (Nov 11, 2018)

SimonCharlesHanna said:


> Game of Thrones has some shocking midi moments


I've never noticed any, although there are probably many. Any obvious examples? Just curious to have a listen


----------



## KEM (Nov 12, 2018)

Kony said:


> I've never noticed any, although there are probably many. Any obvious examples? Just curious to have a listen



Me too


----------



## Chr!s (Nov 12, 2018)

still_lives said:


> Think of a rock band, with mics an inch or two away from the speaker cones of a 4x12, a mic inside the kick drum, etc. Nobody is putting their ears there to listen while the band plays, with their face pressed to a cranked amp, or up against the bottom of a snare drum. Yet, it's what we hear when we spin the records, and what's coming through the PA when we go to the shows.



This actually annoys the hell out of me.


----------



## SimonCharlesHanna (Nov 12, 2018)

still_lives said:


> I think of artists who do painstakingly photorealistic paintings or drawings. Yeah, it's super impressive, but is barely representative of the range of expression capable on that particular medium.
> 
> Recorded music is generally very unnatural. Think of a rock band, with mics an inch or two away from the speaker cones of a 4x12, a mic inside the kick drum, etc. Nobody is putting their ears there to listen while the band plays, with their face pressed to a cranked amp, or up against the bottom of a snare drum. Yet, it's what we hear when we spin the records, and what's coming through the PA when we go to the shows. Nobody can hear the orchestra from atop the decca tree and at several distinct spots throughout the hall all at the same time. Yet, that's what we hear when we spin the records.
> 
> ...


I think you're blurring the lines a bit between style & tools which doesn't bode well for comparison.


----------



## SimonCharlesHanna (Nov 12, 2018)

Kony said:


> I've never noticed any, although there are probably many. Any obvious examples? Just curious to have a listen





KEM said:


> Me too


Sorry boys, don't have time to rewatch all 7 season at the moment. And I certainly wouldn't just for the sound track.


----------



## Kony (Nov 12, 2018)

SimonCharlesHanna said:


> Sorry boys, don't have time to rewatch all 7 season at the moment. And I certainly wouldn't just for the sound track.


No worries - all good


----------



## SimonCharlesHanna (Nov 12, 2018)

Kony said:


> No worries - all good


I'm coming across as a bit of a dick head aren't I


----------



## Kony (Nov 12, 2018)

SimonCharlesHanna said:


> I'm coming across as a bit of a dick head aren't I


Not at all - I'm thinking of potential obvious midi bits from the series but they're more sound-design so don't apply to the topic of realism anyway. Possibly the taiko stuff etc?


----------



## mikeh-375 (Nov 12, 2018)

Don't forget another aspect of realism - the expressive playing of a line. Jay Asher's equation at the top of page 3 says it all really. An understanding of rubato and the latent expressive potential in the notes will go a long way in creating a convincing musicality. It not just about production.


----------



## Ashermusic (Nov 12, 2018)

mikeh-375 said:


> Don't forget another aspect of realism - the expressive playing of a line. Jay Asher's equation at the top of page 3 says it all really. An understanding of rubato and the latent expressive potential in the notes will go a long way in creating a convincing musicality. It not just about production.



Ah someone who gets it. It's about _musicality_. Frequently I heard more musicality with pieces done with a Proteus 1 Plus Orchestral tone module than a lot of today's hyper-realistic mockups. That's because guys like us knew that it was _never_ going to sound just like the real thing so we were focused on just making it sound good to our ears. Now, because the samples can get closer, people have become obsessed with getting it as close as possible and musicality is sometimes the victim. 

That said, I do hear some folks create unfailingly marvelously musical work with samples, like our own Roberto.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Nov 12, 2018)

Chr!s said:


> This actually annoys the hell out of me.



It's just the entire art of production. Suspension of disbelief is a feature, not a bug at all.

I love it to pieces!


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Nov 12, 2018)

To put a finer point on that, my suggestion is to start by listening to, say, Sargent Pepper.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Nov 12, 2018)

still_lives said:


> Musicality is totally subjective, though. And I find it an odd notion that musicality and authenticity are somehow mutually exclusive.



The cure for this is to fire up a Camberwell Carrot and listen to some music.


----------



## SimonCharlesHanna (Nov 12, 2018)

still_lives said:


> Musicality is totally subjective, though. And I find it an odd notion that musicality and authenticity are somehow mutually exclusive




of course it is - but when an artist attempts a realistic painting, is he saying "I made an artistic choice" or "God I wish I had a camera"

Just to be clear, I agree with you about stylistic choice.


----------



## Ashermusic (Nov 12, 2018)

Nick Batzdorf said:


> To put a finer point on that, my suggestion is to start by listening to, say, Sargent Pepper.



First, learn to spell Sergeant


----------



## Ashermusic (Nov 12, 2018)

SimonCharlesHanna said:


> of course it is - but when an artist attempts a realistic painting, is he saying "I made an artistic choice" or "God I wish I had a camera"
> 
> Just to be clear, I of course agree with you about stylistic choice.



And authentic and realistic are not synonyms.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Nov 12, 2018)

You're right, Jay, and I know. I actually saw it misspelled when checking whether it was the song or the album.


----------



## SimonCharlesHanna (Nov 12, 2018)

still_lives said:


> I think of artists who do painstakingly photorealistic paintings or drawings. Yeah, it's super impressive, but is barely representative of the range of expression capable on that particular medium.
> 
> Recorded music is generally very unnatural. Think of a rock band, with mics an inch or two away from the speaker cones of a 4x12, a mic inside the kick drum, etc. Nobody is putting their ears there to listen while the band plays, with their face pressed to a cranked amp, or up against the bottom of a snare drum. Yet, it's what we hear when we spin the records, and what's coming through the PA when we go to the shows. Nobody can hear the orchestra from atop the decca tree and at several distinct spots throughout the hall all at the same time. Yet, that's what we hear when we spin the records.
> 
> ...


May I illustrate another point:
Lets take the movie Avengers 3. It has an insane amount expressive freedom but at it's core, the heart it's a story about a man/creature who wants commit an act of atrocity to save every living being, to save nature because the resources to sustain life are finite. I mean, you can't get more grounded in reality than that. It has a set of laws in itself, a certain 'realism'.

This is not the same as John 'composer' loading up a horns a12 sustain patch playing a 10 note chord and saying "bro im an artist I can do what I want it's creative expression"

But...I think OP was talking about the quality of sample playback? We may be well off topic here.


----------



## GtrString (Nov 12, 2018)

Realism in conjunction with use of samples would be about if it makes a difference to you if the sound is sample based (no matter if it sounds good or not). If it makes a difference to you, you are concerned about realism, if it doesnt, you are not.

In the library mrkt, I see more requests for hybrid music.

Personally, I am concerned about realism, but it wont stop me from using samples when I have to. I just happen to like the more unpredictable way audio signals behave in the analog domain, because I find that more... realistic.

But you can utilize both mindsets at the same time, imo. They even go well together.


----------



## mikeh-375 (Nov 13, 2018)

Do you all think there is a correlation between a desire for realism on the composer's part and the level of training or real world experience he or she has? Is it actually harder to slam a fist down on Simon's a12 horn patch if your ears have gone through a refining process? - i.e. a formal/informal training. It is certainly harder to create realistic mock-ups without know how. I'm sure lots here understand that in sample laden media work, it's best to not worry too much about such matters because you need to pay bills and get the job done, often within a few hours, so this might all be moot, but still.
I contend that if you can score well, you don't need to slap your hands down to get the intended effect and if you can score well, a sort of convincing realism is possible with the best samples (and good production skills). Whatever their faults, samples can sound convincing when used properly imv, but I realise that some consider them as a means to an end (me) whilst others see them as a creative tool in their own right, with no boundaries or rules. I suppose there is no right and wrong until we include realism as a paradigm.


----------



## Chr!s (Nov 21, 2018)

SimonCharlesHanna said:


> But...I think OP was talking about the quality of sample playback? We may be well off topic here.



I forgot about this thread.

Anyway, yeah this is what I was getting at. Not so much realistic orchestration, and stuff. 

My wording was shit, but the discussion here is interesting and relevant all the same.

Simply put: An old, 90s, Roland Sound Canvas' sounds are not going to fool anyone into thinking it's a live orchestra no matter how realistically you write for it, but you can still write good orchestral music for it.

Sample libraries sound great and realistic...provided that you compose for what you _actually have samples of. _An example is let's say that you don't have marcato samples. You have two options, you can either forgo it and just play sustains and staccatos, or you can layer/adjust attack times/whatever else to imitate it. This will likely break the illusion and reveal that you're using samples, but the trade-off is that you get the musical result you want — a result that would be easy to do with live players.


----------

