What's new

How Concerned With "Realism" Are You?

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?
 
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.
 
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.

We have come to accept an inherently unrealistic sound as real, in terms of recorded music at least. I dare say "A New Hope" score sounds nothing like hearing an orchrstra in a hall in person, for the most part, especially with those close ribbon mics. Thus, it is unrealistic in a sense. That doesn't make me love it any less. Arguably, that actually enhances it.

It's great if you can make a painting that looks like a photo. Lots of respect, as that in itself is a unique talent. But painting can be so very much more interesting and expressive than that. And I think that's how I feel about samples, too. Realism is just one very specific use case of a tool for which a major selling point, in my opinion, is its ability to go far beyond the scope of "conventional reality."
I think you're blurring the lines a bit between style & tools which doesn't bode well for comparison.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
Top Bottom