Game changing libraries

[Johann F.]

We're so immersed in this never ending search for the sample library to rule them all, the one that will almost write "fucking amazing orchestral material" by itself, that we fail to realize that such thing only exists in the body of cheeky spam mails.

Here's an Emmy-nominated cue done with nothing but a 9 year old EWQLSO (not counting pre-Play Symphonic Orchestra) and 16 year old Spectrasonics RMX:





Is the sample library master race clouding your creativity? I know I've been avoiding new libraries for a while now... maybe Cinematic Studio Brass, Hollywood Choirs and that's it. Not really sure if the latter counts, as I'm a CC subscriber. So what do you think?

Click to read more...

 

[muziksculp]

Thanks for sharing these videos.

Really shows that creativity, and having a concept, are primary, and very important parts of making music. He was using EWQLSO, and was able to produce a very convincing orchestration for the animation video.

But, I see nothing wrong with having more tools if needed, i.e. some of the newer libraries from Spitfire, OT, VSL, 8dio, etc. to be able to create even more realistic results, but as we saw, that is secondary, as long one has a decent library, or two, it's the ideas, creativity, orchestration, emotional impact that can be created in the music that counts the most.

 

[galactic orange]

But, I see nothing wrong with having more tools if needed, i.e. some of the newer libraries from Spitfire, OT, VSL, 8dio, etc. to be able to create even more realistic results, but as we saw, that is secondary, as long one has a decent library, or two, it's the ideas, creativity, orchestration, emotional impact that can be created in the music that counts the most.

THIS. The number of game sountracks that made me forget about the samples and "experience" the music is a testament to the power if good ideas, at least for me. I've got almost all my sample bases covered (ditto on Cinematic Studio Brass, plus maybe a new synth).

I like to pick up some new tools when I can. Spitfire LCO is one of those. The new Impact Soundworks percussion library looks fun. But if I can't make good music with what I've got then the problem is me.

 

[Johann F.]

I like to pick up some new tools when I can. Spitfire LCO is one of those. The new Impact Soundworks percussion library looks fun. But if I can't make good music with what I've got then the problem is me.

I didn't know about the Impact Soundworks percussion, thanks for the tip, love their stuff!

I agree with you both. I will always be open to new products that can really improve my sound and workflow. Words like "innovative" and "game changer" are overused to a point that they begin to lose their meaning. I'm more skeptical and cautious now. And I believe less is more when it comes to get the job done, as brilliantly demonstrated by Mac Quayle.

 

[Replicant]

In music forums I've been to in the past, and I imagine here as well, I often saw the critique of "you need better samples cuz it doesn't sound realistic".

I always thought that was stupid. "My criticism is that you need to go out and spend a shitload of money so you can have real legato transitions and more round robins and mic positions and stuff."

I'd rather listen to something made with note performer, like this:



Than stuff that has super high-end sample libraries and is basically "chords with left hand; melody with the right."

Maybe it's growing up with video game soundtracks and cheesy metal bands with keyboard string patches, or the fact that I've always considered myself a musician before a sound engineer or whatever — but when I hear music made with computers, I'm not really bothered or surprised when it sounds like it.

 

[galactic orange]

Words like "innovative" and "game changer" are overused to a point that they begin to lose their meaning.

I wholeheartedly agree here. I don't like the term "game changer" because first of all that's subjective (or up to someone else to decide). Second of all, how much a product can change something is still dependent on how someone uses it.

Furthermore, what is the game? Is the point of the game to change the rules of the game or to win it? Well, if the rules change because a VI made it easier for someone to make an idea into a finished product then I'm all for that. But that's changing the "how" and not the purpose of the game. It's just a loaded word so it irritates me. Sorry for the rant. I could go on and on about "no-brainer" too (and have!).

 

[galactic orange]

In music forums I've been to in the past, and I imagine here as well, I often saw the critique of "you need better samples cuz it doesn't sound realistic".

I always thought that was stupid. "My criticism is that you need to go out and spend a shitload of money so you can have real legato transitions and more round robins and mic positions and stuff."

I'd rather listen to something made with note performer, like this:



Than stuff that has super high-end sample libraries and is basically "chords with left hand; melody with the right."

Maybe it's growing up with video game soundtracks and cheesy metal bands with keyboard string patches, or the fact that I've always considered myself a musician before a sound engineer or whatever — but when I hear music made with computers, I'm not really bothered or surprised when it sounds like it.

Fun track! Except those staccato flutes need more round robins.

 

[galactic orange]

Here's an Emmy-nominated cue done with nothing but a 9 year old EWQLSO (not counting pre-Play Symphonic Orchestra) and 16 year old Spectrasonics RMX:

Thanks for sharing these. Very cool to go through the process of making that track. That's a nice setup of control surfaces and iPad that Mac Quayle has got there. I'm of the mindset that having a comfortable workflow and knowing your setup will contribute more to high quality music than the latest and greatest sample libraries. The sample libraries I buy from now on have to give me some kind of improvement in workflow. But I think that's the trend in the industry now. In the meantime, better to improve skills in other areas.

 

[JohnG]

I disagree with those who say samples, or even sounds, don't matter. They do. Why else would the biggest box office composers invest in so many, with HZ investing goodness knows how much in sampling his own set?

That doesn't mean you ignore conceptualizing and composing -- duh. Look at what Mac Quayle does, and you can see that it doesn't take giant sample libraries or 1,000 synths; however, they have to sound really good too, or the piece is lifeless.

I have a nice piano at home and when I play an upright or something with poor action and a thuddy sound, it is frustrating and sounds kind of awful. I have a nice guitar amplifier, a good cello and other high quality instruments.

I've played crumby instruments and they just don't sound as good. If I have the resources I'm going to hire great singers, buy great instruments, and use great electronic sounds, whether that's Diva or a sound library.

As far as the "good enough" point about older libraries, I think it's only half right. Like many here, I wrote a lot of reasonable-sounding music with EWQLSO and, although I still use some sounds from that library, I wouldn't go back to it. The newer libraries supersede the old ones because they can produce more of the range of sounds the real instruments do -- I think I have probably 10 or 20 short string patches loaded all the time, for example, and though that's not even close to what a string section can come up with, it's better than just a couple.

Naturally, if one writes bad music, it is unfortunate, but even bad music, or unoriginal music, can sound very good if it's produced well. Just turn on the radio or TV...

 

[ctsai89]

I disagree with those who say samples, or even sounds, don't matter. They do. Why else would the biggest box office composers invest in so many, with HZ investing goodness knows how much in sampling his own set?

That doesn't mean you ignore conceptualizing and composing -- duh. Look at what Mac Quayle does, and you can see that it doesn't take giant sample libraries or 1,000 synths; however, they have to sound really good too, or the piece is lifeless.

I have a nice piano at home and when I play an upright or something with poor action and a thuddy sound, it is frustrating and sounds kind of awful. I have a nice guitar amplifier, a good cello and other high quality instruments.

I've played crumby instruments and they just don't sound as good. If I have the resources I'm going to hire great singers, buy great instruments, and use great electronic sounds, whether that's Diva or a sound library.

As far as the "good enough" point about older libraries, I think it's only half right. Like many here, I wrote a lot of reasonable-sounding music with EWQLSO and, although I still use some sounds from that library, I wouldn't go back to it. The newer libraries supersede the old ones because they can produce more of the range of sounds the real instruments do -- I think I have probably 10 or 20 short string patches loaded all the time, for example, and though that's not even close to what a string section can come up with, it's better than just a couple.

Naturally, if one writes bad music, it is unfortunate, but even bad music, or unoriginal music, can sound very good if it's produced well. Just turn on the radio or TV...

Word!! Man

 

[gsilbers]

it might also be a matter of preference. some will want more and feel inspire by new tools while others stay with what they know and can work fast.
spitfire has been pushing the boundaries with the EVo and other string libraraies while heaviocity stretch it to the sound design side.

i do sometimes feel like im not writing good music because i dont have the sounds, so i got the best i could get that i see others compose with and after a few times.. realize its me
sometimes im inspiired and go at it with anything and others times get frustrated. but its been a while doing this so im used to it. but thats my experience. other might just grab whats the best at the moment and go for that for the longest time.

right now if i had to buy libraries again, id go spitfire. but i have hollywood diaman i got for very cheap and it sounds amazing. of course the PLAY engine is just a drag but it works. it would be cool if it had the ostinato type stuff that spitfure has and other bells and whistles but there is also the daw tools.

 

[Replicant]

I disagree with those who say samples, or even sounds, don't matter. They do. Why else would the biggest box office composers invest in so many, with HZ investing goodness knows how much in sampling his own set?

Because they get paid millions (or any other large number) of dollars per film?

Samples matter when you want to make money and must substitute a real ensemble or convince suits that this score is worth spending the money on to record.

To make a great composition? Definitely not.

Edit: Well, I would add an exception to that last line. You need samples that are at least capable of playing what you want them to. But I don't think that's the same as "realism"

 

[ctsai89]

Because they get paid millions (or any other large number) of dollars per film?

Samples matter when you want to make money and must substitute a real ensemble or convince suits that this score is worth spending the money on to record.

To make a great composition? Definitely not.

Edit: Well, I would add an exception to that last line. You need samples that are at least capable of playing what you want them to. But I don't think that's the same as "realism"

I'm on with the same opinion as John

You know there are plenty of people out there who haven't had any experience on production or the engineering aspects of music but they're supposedly great composers when it comes to writjng notes harmonies melodies and dynamics.

But since the birth of sample libraries, things have changed a bit.

Pretty much audio engineering is an art that takes a gigantic role in a piece work

In our time especially, you can see that there are plenty of stuff out in the film industry that have really boring harmonies and melodies. Sometimes with really bad sounding voicings that resolve to the wrong place but... a great recording or the beauty of a very realistic sounding sample library pretty much makes up for it

Sad truth is people rather listen to well produced bad composition (semantics would argue that composition and production is one entity) rather than poorly recorded great pieces (unless you're Tchaikovsky or Beethoven)

 

[JohnG]

Sad truth is people rather listen to well produced bad composition

The evidence of the truth of this statement is everywhere.

 

[Iskra]

Samples matter, but they doesn't matter as much as to justify the amazing amount of attention we put into every new library. What I mean by this is that we all want the best sounding samples possible so we can write the best quality or most realistic music, but a few years ago I think we already reached the point where most of the libraries sound really good, so the extra benefit of the 'game changing' libraries is marginal in terms of sound. That's probably why many developers are focusing on the ease of use, or playability (which have been terribly overlooked for so long), etc.

These days I think the differences in quality comes from the quality of the music composition itself and our ability to program/ mix it, the former being the most important. With almost everyone having good hammers and saws, the skill of the carpenter comes front. I listen to a lot of classical symphonic and chamber music in the last 25 years, and attended many many live concerts, but the mockups are already on a level where noticing that they are 'fake' doesn't take out the enjoyment of listening to them. The details that scream 'mockup!' are really that small.

I listen to a lot of great pieces by forum members here (and I mean there's really a lot of them), but I rarely ask the libraries used, unless there is something that really stands out, because I think that probably those amazing strings or brass could have been done equally good by another skilled forum member with a different library.

 

[Iskra]

Sad truth is people rather listen to well produced bad composition (semantics would argue that composition and production is one entity) rather than poorly recorded great pieces (unless you're Tchaikovsky or Beethoven)

This is probably true, but have been true for around 40 years, if not forever Fortunately I don't have to care about that, same I haven't cared for the last 40 years. In general, people listen to shitty music, but I don't, so I learned to not care.

 

[ctsai89]

This is probably true, but have been true for around 40 years, if not forever Fortunately I don't have to care about that, same I haven't cared for the last 40 years. In general, people listen to shitty music, but I don't, so I learned to not care.

It's been that way for more than 40 years I would say. Ever since modernism or atonality was invented: the whole criteria for composing a highly academic work had been to just orchestrate well (and who cares about the actual melodies and themes of your composing), hire great players, write crazy stuff that no one understands (even if it sucks) and you're good to go. You can go to juilliard and study with samuel Adler writing basically random notes everywhere, as long as your stuff looks cool on paper and have great players to play it and great engineers to mix the recordings.

Really miss the old days of Wagner, Liszt, Rach, and Scriabin where they understood that music was a high work of art and needs to exalt. Where as music with random notes don't, same with most minimalist works.

But over time I've learned to appreciate the art of production, thus is why I like some of the epic music and even trailers that most classically trained musicians would deem as "bad composition".

 

[Vik]

I wish I had done even more research than I had before I started buying libraries again. I have 2-3 libraries I almost never use, including two of the most expensive ones, and I couple I use all the time - plus some others. So yes - the decision about which libraries we invest in can be game changing.

 

[Saxer]

I like the Feud theme but I don't like the sound of it. Especially the dynamic really shouts MIDI to me. Sounds keyboard played. Could sound much better with better controllable instruments. Let alone a real orchestra.

I definitely had some moments of game changing libraries. There were moments from which on I knew: yes, now I can do pop section brass. Or: now I can do string melodies without embarrassing results. Horn legatos. Or half way convincing drum grooves. Jazz bass. Brush sweep snares. Whatever.

Still things that doesn't work. Simple two note ostinato legatos on strings. Flexible trumpet falls. Airy close miked jazz flugelhorn. Woodwind octave unisons without organ effect. Good clarinet vibrato. Any kind of non percussive tutti. High brass notes that sound exhausting.

So the search goes on. The improvement steps get smaller but are still there if you know what you are looking for.

 

[Vik]

Maybe we should have a separate thread where we list (some of) the libraries we have which we have had game changing moments with. Or use this one? The two I have which I use most of the time are Berlin Strings and CSS.