How Concerned With "Realism" Are You?

[Ashermusic]

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.

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

 

[Leandro Gardini]

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....

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[bill5]

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]

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?

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

The average person can’t tell the difference tbh

This!

 

[Nick Batzdorf]

This!

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

 

[Kony]

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

We're talking music, or something else?

 

[Kony]

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.