What's new

Mockups vs. Live

robgb

Genius. Idiot. You Decide.
"I've heard a lot of scores that they then go and do live, but they're doing them live and they don't even need to, the synthesized score is so good. So the technology just makes it—I mean, I don't even write down a lot of music anymore... A lot of times I just write a couple of notes down to remind myself of the themes. Everything else is just played right into the computer."

"[A] lot of big movies they do the orchestra because they can. There's no real reason to. It's more like for the producers so they can feel they're making a movie."

~Composer Craig Safan (The Last Starfighter) on the SCORED TO DEATH podcast re: the changes in technology.
 
I think this is brave for him to say, and also partially correct.

As far back as 2003 Don Davis (himself a trumpet player) was layering synth brass with his recordings because what he was writing just demanded too much precision. Hans Zimmer had his assistants go through the string ostinatos for Pirates or Dark Knight (I forget which movie this story is about) and move them note by note onto the click - which you could consider either "resampling" or "quantizing live musicians."

If you go back and look at the raw recordings for ET or Indiana Jones these are the top session players in the world operating at a time where composers like John Williams put far more challenges on players's musicianship and technical ability. And the recordings are wonderful and lively but they're also really messy. You can kind of tell they are sightreading and there's a big contrast to any of the polished concert-suite recordings of JW's scores.

Rather than living in a world of "Live vs Fake" I think it makes more sense to shift to a realistic appraisal of what live orchestra can accomplish. There are three ceilings on what you can get from Live. The budget for quality musicians and a quality hall; the collision of limited recording time with musician-challenging writing; and perhaps increasingly significantly, the fact that what composers are writing is straying from what is natural and idiomatic for the instruments. If you are someone like Mike Verta then this is a tragedy that everyone's trying to one-up each other with unplayable 10 second long fortissimo brass chords. But IMO this invites the reappraisal that music that was written for virtual instruments should stay virtual.

Right now we're in a world where you simply cannot write a score without either needing to be a very capable VI performer, or hiring a synthestrator to do a pass on all your music, or possibly both. ("Whistler" composers now need a virtual orchestrator which combines the roles of orchestrator and synthestrator). The point is that once you have that expense paid, the virtual score is kind of there for free. Why spend more money to do the whole thing again live? The better VIs get the more the mindset of "where can live add relative value" makes sense. For solo winds and solo brass, virtual instruments fall flat and will continue to fall flat until the VI market welcomes the existence of VIs which are several times more expensive and complicated to learn and perform. Solo strings, as much as I hate to say it as a cellist, I think we're getting close to acceptable solo VI strings. The practice of "Sweetening" (re-recording just one or two elements on a track live) is indeed not very glamorous. It's not something a producer can make a behind-the-scenes video about as Craig Safan alluded to. Often it's remote musicians who aren't even in a real recording stage. But all of these things help add value because when you don't have to pay for a stage, you don't have to deal with recording time pressure, but the one sweetened element helps the whole track feel real, you're getting a lot of value for money.

The other area where complete reperformance, not just sweetening, is IMO a necessity and will continue to be, is any kind of live breathing music with fluid tempo.
 
Last edited:
"I've heard a lot of scores that they then go and do live, but they're doing them live and they don't even need to, the synthesized score is so good. So the technology just makes it—I mean, I don't even write down a lot of music anymore... A lot of times I just write a couple of notes down to remind myself of the themes. Everything else is just played right into the computer."

"[A] lot of big movies they do the orchestra because they can. There's no real reason to. It's more like for the producers so they can feel they're making a movie."

~Composer Craig Safan (The Last Starfighter) on the SCORED TO DEATH podcast re: the changes in technology.
This kind of sucks to hear because I'd hate to work in an industry that no longer wants to use live players. Maybe if you're writing that (currently very popular) hybrid style of long chords and string ostinato your tracks don't sound much different live vs. fake, but we are still very very far from any sort of VI being able to capture the symphonic sound at all. As much as I love the tools we have now, I would instantly drop VIs any time I have live players to work with, because it allows you to do stuff you just can't do with samples convincingly.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Vik
I would instantly drop VIs any time I have live players to work with, because it allows you to do stuff you just can't do with samples convincingly.
To certain extent, I'm not sure this is true. "Convincingly" means something different to different people. The average layman really can't tell the difference. So I guess it really depends on who you're writing for.

For example, I did a song for a play in which I used a violin solo sample and every single person involved in the project thought it was a real violin—except one: the mixing engineer.
 
The average layman really can't tell the difference

I'm sure you'd agree Rob that the plausibility of a mockup depends significantly on the type of material and the skill of the person creating the mockup?

And I'd go further and argue that most of the time, the layman in your example isn't comparing "live" and "mockup only" side by side. Lots of people think I make good mockups but I feel that anyone, even the hypothetical layman, will prefer the version that has some / all live players to the electronic version.

Consequently, unless it's overtly electronic -- a synth piece -- I always add at least some live elements to my scores -- singing, chanting, humming, guitar, a few solo strings or winds -- something.

But even leaving aside the issue of whether some man-on-the-street hears the difference, I would say that live players extend massively the longevity of a piece. Music I wrote many years ago that is in libraries but was recorded live still licenses. Music I had to produce for TV of the same vintage sounds less "legitimate," for lack of a better expression.
 
To certain extent, I'm not sure this is true. "Convincingly" means something different to different people. The average layman really can't tell the difference. So I guess it really depends on who you're writing for.

For example, I did a song for a play in which I used a violin solo sample and every single person involved in the project thought it was a real violin—except one: the mixing engineer.
I believe whether or not people can actually tell if it's a real instrument or not is not so much what matters. What convinces the viewer, especially one with an untrained ear, is the energy, nuance, and emotion live players bring to the recording. They may not be able to tell that samples aren't real, but they will definitely not feel the same impact. This can be said I think for any tools used in creating art and media.
 
I also think it's dangerous to go into the complacent mindset of "well it's good enough to get me jobs, so why try to push for better resources to work with", which I don't think I sense behind your statement but I fear people may interpret from these sorts of discussions.
 
I'm sure you'd agree Rob that the plausibility of a mockup depends significantly on the type of material and the skill of the person creating the mockup?
To a degree. I'm not sure HOW much skill is necessary, however, because I've heard what I thought were pretty bad mockups that others thought were done with real orchestras. It's amazing how little actual listening is involved for the average music listener. We've all learned to listen critically, to listen with a keen ear, but most people simply let the music wash over them and enjoy the emotional experience.

On a professional level, however, as in satisfying a director or producer, you'd better have a LOT of mockup skill.

What convinces the viewer, especially one with an untrained ear, is the energy, nuance, and emotion live players bring to the recording.

I'm not sure that energy, nuance and emotion are the exclusive domain of live players. I think at least some of this can be achieved with sample libraries.

I posted this elsewhere, but Joseph LoDuca says the only live instrument he used for his two "Chucky" scores was possibly some guitar. The rest was done in the box. And I think they are full of energy, nuance and emotion.
 
Last edited:
Those are all fair points.

One issue is that most of us don't pursue music solely for money. Otherwise I'd work in a more predictably lucrative profession. Maybe with a proper pension even!?

But even leaving aside the "dreamy artist" stuff, the pieces that have earned me by far the most money had large components that were recorded live. They are the pieces that generate the most enthusiastic response from directors / producers with whom I actually want to work.

Moreover, I know for sure that being able to wield an orchestra with some adeptness was indispensable to landing my current project, one that is artistically and really in all other respects very exciting. So there's that.
 
Moreover, I know for sure that being able to wield an orchestra with some adeptness was indispensable to landing my current project, one that is artistically and really in all other respects very exciting. So there's that.
Personally, I prefer a live orchestra any day of the week, but unfortunately, most of us don't have the opportunity to work with one, so we have to learn to do our best without one.
 
Some people can work wonders with virtual instruments. I don't for a second believe that should make anyone question the value of real musicians. I can't believe this is actually something that is up for discussion in any form, unless I'm misunderstanding some of the points being made.
 
most of us don't have the opportunity to work with one, so we have to learn to do our best without one.

Sadly true! Had plenty of projects with pretty small budgets so that much of the material is fake.

However, even on my earliest efforts (student films at the USC film school, for example) I still involved some live playing, even if just a handful of (or one!) soloist(s). I made them pay me $50 so I could get a flute or something, and record the player in my apartment.
 
Some people can work wonders with virtual instruments. I don't for a second believe that should make anyone question the value of real musicians. I can't believe this is actually something that is up for discussion in any form, unless I'm misunderstanding some of the points being made.
I think the point being made by Safan was that sometimes recording with an orchestra is redundant. In the same podcast there was mention that Christopher Young complained that sometimes producers hear the mockup and decide to go with that rather than suffer the expense of an orchestra. I don't think any of these people is questioning the value of LIVE musicians. I say live, because even those who play virtual instruments are "real" musicians.
 
I don't think any of these people is questioning the value of LIVE musicians. I say live, because even those who play virtual instruments are "real" musicians.

Semantics. I don't disagree, or I wouldn't be here.

Whatever the nuances of all this, I think it's disturbing. There seem to be many expenses that people are willing to "suffer" that are far less worthy than supporting the livelihoods of live players and the tradition of the orchestra.
 
I agree there's a shift in perception happening where the young audience simply does not know better when it comes to live x virtual performances. You feed them with enough "fake" recordings and before you know it fake becomes the new standard. It's like we're living in the Bizarro World.

"There's no real reason to"

That I do not agree. If not for the sake of the music, do it for the musicians. I appreciate Giacchino stepping up and talking about the issue here:

 
There are a few pieces I from time to other have checked VI versions of, and I have yet to find something which I find as convincing/as good as live recordings. Besides, when I listen to music, I definitely like to know that I'm listening to musicians playing, and not to a mockup.

Grieg Holberg Suite is one of the pieces I'm thinking of. Mahler's Adagietto is another. Beethovens 7. symphony, 2. movement is a third.
And this isn't of course about focusing on sound quality – but on timing, expression, details, interpretation.... the whole thing.

Btw, even if someone would come up with a version that in a blindfold test would sound as great/close to an actual recording of real musicians playing real instruments, I'd still prefer to listen to real orchestras.
 
Last edited:
Personally, I prefer a live orchestra any day of the week, but unfortunately, most of us don't have the opportunity to work with one, so we have to learn to do our best without one.

Ditto! And will probably never will. Thank God we live in an incredible era for composers in this regard. I agree about your previous comment; the average audience does not know whether or not the soundtrack is real (if programmed convincingly), and it's the musical emotion that affects them, not whether or not the instruments were real. I have had countless people ask where I record my "orchestral" cues. They are shocked (or think I'm joking) when I explain it's all virtual. many just cannot grasp the concept that this is achievable.....even with my mediocre renderings. Personally, I cannot even tell if a score is virtual or not, if produced by a professional.
 
Top Bottom