What's new

Does Hollywood Choirs Hold Up?

This is the most convoluted, egotistical and frankly childishly personal reply I've ever seen from a developer towards a review with rather tame negative feedback. This is the real world, where people don't automatically agree with or support your vision. Resorting to insulting language against a reviewer and making a big deal out of a few things I said that weren't even that harsh, is quite unprofessional and displays the kind of rash behaviour sample developers need to avoid if they intend on keeping their customers happy and their reputation intact.

Standing on a soap box and claiming how incredibly awesome your company is, while spurting offensive comments to the reviewer, is disgusting. I've already maintained that the library has plenty of flaws - no amount of passive aggression will change that - but I also had some good things to say about it, which were clearly not good enough for you considering your attitude.

On a side note, many customers of EW are fans of Nick Phoenix's work on Stormdrum, Ra and the first two Hollywood libraries. It's not a stretch to claim that since Doug's still unexplained and vicious attack on Nick way back when, the quality of EW libraries has continually degraded. That wasn't my fault - it is the fault of those who compromised the relationship and flow that EW had going with Nick and his team.

Honestly, your reply speaks for itself so I have nothing else to say about it. I go by evidence only. I don't know you so I refuse to harbour any resentment towards you and I say these words with a general sense of respect for you as a human being - toughen up and don't let negative reviews get to you. If you're still consumed by the dilemma of negative customer feedback, post all you want. I'll let you have the last say, but it certainly won't stop or resolve any negative customer feedback or unwillingness to part with their money for the product in question.

Understood your point and I finally saw your review. One thing you shouldn´t do and accuse a company of buying reviews if you don´t have any proof for that. Otherwise it is just a claim and I can understand that then someone is pissed of when this is not true (I dont know if that is the case and honestly I don´t care about that). For the rest of your review I dont have any problem, that is the only thing. Even if you feel there might be something fishy for you, that doesn´t belong in a review imo. Just my few cents.
 
News alert. You are not a reviewer. You’re a bad hair model. Products degraded? I don’t know. I don’t agree. You accused EW of buying reviews which is BS. It’s a bad accusation. Kind of as bad as it gets. For all the things I have disagreed with Doug over, I know he doesn’t buy anything. It’s kind of the opposite. And you missed the point and huge upside of Hollywood Choirs. You just wanted to make your video. On the upside, at least you still have hair.

I'm surprised this turned into an ad hominem attack, however I respect QL and see how he was antagonized.
 
One thing you shouldn´t do and accuse a company of buying reviews if you don´t have any proof for that. Otherwise it is just a claim and I can understand that then someone is pissed of when this is not tru

Yeah - the review is not the problem. Accusing someone of unethical behavior without evidence to back up your claim, is, and is pretty low.

Cory - do you have evidence? If so, please present it. Either here, or on youtube as an addendum to your review video. If not, you need to be a man and apologize to EWQL. Not for the review, but fo the accusation.
 
And yes, we have plenty of key switches, but just not complete ones because PLAY can’t handle the size of them.

Thanks for this answer Nick, first time I’ve heard that Play can’t handle the size of bigger keyswitch patches. I realize admitting to this would be hard for East West, but if they had it would have answered some questions years ago. I appreciate your honesty.

Can’t agree with you about Cory. He’s decent reviewer and a real user, and I have yet to hear a review from him on anything I own that was not spot on. Perhaps he went a bit beyond review with the accusation of EW, but sinking so low as to comment on hair (espeically since it’s a sensitive issue for you, me, and many others) is a bit... in the worse way... high school. How about keeping the comments civil and something that stays on topic. As Mike mentioned, no personal attacks.

I think most people are looking for answers here, and I appreciate all that you are giving. With cool heads we can keep the convo to facts and advice, leaving out accusations and insults.

“I really don’t have much to do with the workings at EW but I think there is something coming you might like”

Perhaps on things to come we should all just wait and see. Although human nature usually pushes us to want to know what’s coming, personally I might have been better off never hearing about Play Pro. But thanks for trying to relay some good news (even if it’s just a hint). Enough for now. ;)
 
News alert. You are not a reviewer. You’re a bad hair model. Products degraded? I don’t know. I don’t agree. You accused EW of buying reviews which is BS. It’s a bad accusation. Kind of as bad as it gets. For all the things I have disagreed with Doug over, I know he doesn’t buy anything. It’s kind of the opposite. And you missed the point and huge upside of Hollywood Choirs. You just wanted to make your video. On the upside, at least you still have hair.


Wow. I have been a customer since my first purchase (RA) all the way to the Hollywood series... but really? Totally dismayed by this response. Just sayin'.
 
I like that Nick chimed in and I don't have a problem at all with his post or his language.

I don't want to derail the discussion, but I honestly am surprised that you have no problem at all with Nick's languages like "a$$" "f- that guy" "bad hair" toward Cory. His posts have a lot of legit points, but personal attacks and juvenile languages were absolutely unnecessary when everybody else was mature and civil. It is not adding any value nor helping anybody - just devaluing the discussion.

I am not suggesting to censor the language - he is not attacking me anyway and a bit of language doesn't bother me that much. However, you are the admin and I just don't think that a forum for professionals should "officially" give an overly aggressive behavior a seal of approval. JMHO.
 
Last edited:
I don't want to derail the discussion, but I honestly am surprised that you have no problem at all with Nick's languages like "a$$" "f- that guy" "bad hair" toward Cory. His posts have a lot of legit points, but personal attacks and juvenile languages were absolutely unnecessary when everybody else was mature and civil. It is not adding any value nor helping anybody - just devaluing the discussion.

I am not suggesting to censor the language - he is not attacking me anyway and a bit of language doesn't bother me that much. However, you are the admin and I just don't think that a forum for professionals should "officially" give an overly aggressive behavior a seal of approval. JMHO.
I hear you, and I probably went too far when I said "I don't have a problem at all with it." I was just making a point that given that the review was apparently somewhat negative (I haven't actually seen it), then Nick should be allowed some leeway in his response. His post was an honest one with a lot of great insight, so I don't want to start slapping hands over a few questionable words.

To be clear, if Cory were actually being personally attacked, that would be a different story, but Cory's a big boy, and I can't imagine him being devastated by a generic "f that guy" remark. Surely a reviewer must already be aware that the recipient of a lukewarm review is thinking "f that guy." It's not like the person saying it out loud changes anything. As to the hair remarks, knowing Nick, I think those were jokes. ;)

FWIW, Nick and I have also had a couple public disagreements over the years, and I've been on the receiving end of a jab or two myself, and ... okay, maybe I said a few things, too. :grin: But the mods (years ago, not here) rightfully didn't edit a thing, because our discussions were good ones. I admire Nick's passion and accomplishments. I don't agree with everything he says, but I (and I think most everyone else) sure want to hear what he has to say, even if a rule or two gets bent along the way.

This is not to say that the forum is now officially declared a free-for-all for "f that guy" remarks. It definitely is not. But like with the "twat" episode, context is important. Admittedly, it's highly subjective, since it's impossible to define what exactly is okay and what isn't, because there are so many factors specific to any situation. The overall philosophy, though, is that although the preference is for civility, I don't want to discourage valuable posts by being too restrictive.
 
Yeah...? I don't know. If that was a joke, I fail to find a funny factor. To me, a joke is ultimately what a person being teased will benefit from. A pro wrestling rather than an assault. A win-win thing. The hair remark (with the context) looked like a creative insult, but who knows?

I understand and agree that you don't want to be too restrictive, though!
 
Everything I say is dead serious......long pause with death stare and no blinking. I get into trouble when I open my mouth quite often. Can’t understand why to this day. I used to consider myself diplomatic, but then I got overconfident I guess. Life’s a weird balance of confidence and utter insecurity. I’ve always been a trouble maker though. Since I was 5. Anyway this guy (the reviewer who shall not be named) would have been awesome as part of my Northern Enclosure cartoon. Would take about 5 seconds to capture that likeness. Maybe he would be holding a skewer with sizzling shrimp on it or something equally stupid.
Everyone always tells me how I should behave as a developer, which I find odd and I ignore those comments entirely, so please ignore the following comments: As a reviewer, you have a responsibility to try and be fair and accurate. The reason is that your comments can ruin companies and lives. Not in this case, but generally that’s so. (Sh1t I forgot this guy was a hair model not a reviewer) If hair club for men actually worked for a publication and managed to get the “buying reviews” comment online, he would be fired instantly. Now I don’t want him fired, just flogged with a bag of raw shrimp and baby powder. Oh wait he has no job. Anyway, virtual instruments sometimes are tricky to operate and I guess you need a few minutes to figure out what Hollywood Choirs is all about. That’s my gripe. Dude just didn’t want to like it. He missed the point. As someone who writes a ton of choral music, I can tell you the library is top notch and actually super easy to use unless you are doing Acapella.
 
I moved a few posts to this thread in the Drama Zone. Thoughts about the review or about Choirs or other relevant topics are of course welcome, but as I mentioned earlier, please refrain from posts and opinions about the principle participants of the thread. It's not helpful, and a roll call of third parties declaring whose side they're on turns this into a drama thread, which most people don't want.
 
Last edited:
I hated Hollywood Choirs when I first started using it. But guess what? I pulled my head out of my ass and actually learned how to use it (yes, I actually read the manual ;)) and discovered it's awesomeness. Either you like it or you don't, simple. Been using EW stuff since the old Kompakt days, and Play has never given even a fraction of the grief that Kontakt has. And custom keyswitches? Don't care, never needed them....if you want that, use Cubase expression maps, problem solved. There's always going to by whiners and naysayers (guilty as charged), but that's the nature of the beast.

I think it's very cool that developers, like Nick, actually visit the forum and occasionally take the time to post. Don't like his "foul" language? Maybe go over to the Disney forum; this a forum for musicians, and it's all part of the shop talk (maybe I spent too much time on the road, I dunno). At least he took the time to post and interact.
 
Last edited:
Really? Thank you! Means a lot to me :). Keep in mind that just one sentence in WB took me a loong time.
I have to say that however much time you took to produce that was worth the effort. It is astonishingly beautiful and realistic to my ears. Bravo!
 


I am going to necro this thread in spectacular fashion. I just bought Hollywood Choirs, and Cory Pelizzari talks out of his ass in this "review". He doesn't get the library, and doesn't know how to use it. Nick Phoenix's reaction is totally warranted.

I have nothing against Cory in person, but his reviews are really frickin bad sometimes. This is one of those.
 
I absolutely love Hollywood Choirs. The improvements to the Wordbuilder over the original Symphonic Choirs make it much easier to use. You do have to learn it, but it's great. I also use the Strezov choirs quite a bit and they sound great too, as does the Eric Whitacre choir from Spitfire. They all sound a bit different, so it's not just the one. But HC is excellent and as far as I know its Wordbuilder is the most advanced available.

[note: I have received free products from East West, Spitfire, and Strezov Sampling]
 
I was also wondering about the Eric Whitacre job as I have a few choirs including EW but none are the be all and end all. I wonder if Orchestral Tools have anything.
EDIT: oh yes of course the Tallin, I love the way that sounds.
 
I am going to necro this thread in spectacular fashion. I just bought Hollywood Choirs, and Cory Pelizzari talks out of his ass in this "review". He doesn't get the library, and doesn't know how to use it. Nick Phoenix's reaction is totally warranted.

I have nothing against Cory in person, but his reviews are really frickin bad sometimes. This is one of those.
He laid out the strengths and weaknesses in a pretty straightforward manner. Can you give some detail about the weaknesses? You feel he got wrong?

also, I’m assuming you are aware that the context of this video, was based around the fact that it was priced at $600, at the time. He said that it should be priced closer to the $250 range IIRC.


if the OPUS engine and the new lower price point, had been around at the time of this review, it may have been altogether different.
 
He laid out the strengths and weaknesses in a pretty straightforward manner. Can you give some detail about the weaknesses? You feel he got wrong?

also, I’m assuming you are aware that the context of this video, was based around the fact that it was priced at $600, at the time. He said that it should be priced closer to the $250 range IIRC.


if the OPUS engine and the new lower price point, had been around at the time of this review, it may have been altogether different.
The issue is that his basic approach was no one actually wants a wordbuilder so I won't cover the wordbuilder, and that's all the library has going for it, so it isn't worth the price which is I guess helpful if you don't in fact want a wordbuilder, but it's completely useless to people who do want a wordbuilder. And people who want a wordbuilder are kind of the entire target demographic for the library.
 
The issue is that his basic approach was no one actually wants a wordbuilder so I won't cover the wordbuilder, and that's all the library has going for it, so it isn't worth the price which is I guess helpful if you don't in fact want a wordbuilder, but it's completely useless to people who do want a wordbuilder. And people who want a wordbuilder are kind of the entire target demographic for the library.
This pretty much. The Wordbuilder is most of what it has going for it. Which wouldn't be much IF said wordbuilder wouldn't be completely unique and one-of-a-kind. It was and is revolutionary. And it is something no-one has actually done any better. With the Wordbuilder, Hollywood Choirs can do things absolutely no other library can do. Heck, even the Symphonic Choirs is absolutely still strong with it.

I still use the Symphonic Choirs one as well, because even that one can do things no other choir yet can. None. After all this time.

Might I remind you that without it, you leave out 60 to 70% of choir music history? It's like leaving out strings legato with repetitive round robins, because well that is just too difficult and costly so let's just ignore repeating motions!

That's like, doing strings, but leaving out the one thing the strings are most known for...

And no, Hollywood Choirs isn't easy to use. But I didn't get into this business for easy solutions. I got into it to create wonderful music, difficulty be damned. The fact that we can do such things is astounding and could be recognized more.

I find this trend towards simplicity not worrisome, I mean, to each their own, but I am starting to hear the laziness in people's compositions. Everyone makes ''cinematic music'' or whatever turd of a term is these days, and you can hear it. Lazy, uninspired, samey drivel. I don't need to listen to it, fortunately, but everyone calling with a sample library calling themselves composers these days is irritating. I know, that one's on me. I should just ignore it.

Yes, other choirs do legato better and staccatos. But none do what the Wordbuilder does.

Besides, Nick Phoenix is right when it comes to dynamics and recording quality. For example, another choir I still love and use most often besides Hollywood Choirs and Symphonic Choirs (for said legato and staccato sounds), is Soundiron's Olympus. Which is fantastic, but no, the recording quality is sometimes quite messy, and there's noise in the recordings. And the dynamic range is far from HC's.

In a full arrangement, that isn't a problem. When exposed though, once you hear it, you will keep hearing it.

I think EastWest, Doug, Nick and Thomas don't get enough recognition for their raw sampling process, which is leagues better than any other. They manage to sample in a way that is precise, reliable (looking at you, Spitfire), yet still oozing personality and warmth and emotion. The precision takes nothing away from the emotional quality. Most of the times it's either/or, in the sampling business.

And yes, it is definitely not weird for such a library to cost $600 when it comes out. Heck, that's cheap compared to what it used to cost. Recording such a library takes vast amounts of money, people! Especially the way EW record's them! That's another trend I hate; people expecting premium quality for throwaway prices... people really are entitled sometimes. You should feel lucky some of this stuff is that cheap.

You don't get those no noise floor dynamics for cheap.

So yes, Cory just casually brushing aside the Wordbuilder as a gimmick and then harping on about staccato and legato completely dismisses what this library is actually for. That's telling me you are not actually interested in the library, you are too lazy to do your research, and you just want a quick, controversial ''review'' for some clicks. It is disrespectful to the people who developed it, and it is ignorant.

So I don't consider that a review, I consider that an idiotic rant.

Cory has done some good videos. But every now and then, when he doesn't like a company for whatever personal reason, he can't keep that out of his reviews and he finds strawmen arguments that lead to unfair bias against a product. Which is just as unfair to customers as are the ''mindlessly glowing reviews''.
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom