"Mockups"

[Christopher Duncan]

I've been listening to some GPO music lately. In fact, I've been listening to a lot of it...

I realize that "mockup" is an industry term for simulating a live orchestra, and that it's not going to go away. Nonetheless, given what I've been hearing, I've come to object to the term.

We all know that nothing will replace real, live musicians performing as human beings. However,when we refer to a piece as a "mockup", what we're implicitly conveying is, "yeah, I know this sucks compared to the Real Thing, but it'll give you a crude idea...".

Well, if you'll forgive me for bucking industry trends and common practices, I've just got to disagree with applying this term liberally to orchestrated recordings done with sample libraries and not "real" players. To me, what really matters is what the listener hears when they press Play. Could a live orchestra make it sound better in Version B? Who cares? I'm currently listening to Version A, and I'm either enjoying it or I'm not.

I feel that what really matters is this - compared with nothing else, and judged strictly on the listening experience, is it good music? Does it entertain, inspire, provoke thought or emotionally move the listener? If it does, and does so in an effective manner, then I call it a good work of art. Not some lesser, perhaps embarrassing, "mockup".

We tend to lose sight of the fact that the average listener couldn't possible care less what the recording technologies, microphones, multitrack equipment etc. are when they turn on the radio. They simply say, "Whoa, that's James Brown!" They don't care that the recording is ancient. They're listening to the Godfather of Soul. <Insert your example here.> It's the music that moves people, not the technology. The only people who care how it was created are those of us with way too much time for self criticism on our hands. While we're analyzing and comparing, average people are just listening and enjoying.

So, although it will probably never go away, you're not going to hear me use the phrase "mockup" when referring to GPO generated or enhanced music. It sounds like good music to me, without any need for apologies. And I think most listeners will agree.

Wanna pick a catchy phrase that indicates it's not a "real orchestra'? How about the time honored "arrangement"? The arranger chooses the palette. In our case, those colors simply include GPO. And it doesn't sound nearly as demeaning to the excellent music I'm hearing as the dreaded "mockup".

Was this a rant? Oh, my, I guess it was. http://www.northernsounds.com/forum/images/smilies/wink.gif It's just my long winded way of saying that I'm hearing some really good stuff around here, and I intend to present it with the respect that it deserves. http://www.northernsounds.com/forum/images/smilies/smile.gif

[Haydn]

Was just listening to the Switched on Bach boxed set today! These would definitely be the first synthesized versions of the classics. Don't think of these as mockups but as a new interpretation of Bach's pieces.

Wendy Carlos is responsible for Switched on Bach. She was one of the first users of the Moog Synthesizers and worked closely with Bob Moog in the design of her modular Moog. She had one of the first velocity sensitive keyboards way back in the 60's.

Wendy is a good friend of Gary Garritan!

[trentpmcd]

Walter (Wendy) Carlos’ “Switched on Bach” was the first album of its type and the most successful, both in terms of sales and in terms of its art. Isao Tomita may be an exception, particularly with his “Snow Flakes are Dancing” where he interpreted Debussy on the synthesizer. Neither of these were mock ups by any stretch of the imagination. You might call them electronic interpretations of these great pieces of music.

Working with GPO may or may not be different, depending on the intent.

When I played around with Vivaldi’s “The Four Seasons” I was creating my own interpretation of the music using the tools I had. I may not have succeeded as well as a group of musicians using wooden instruments (I won’t say “real” because to me GPO is a real instrument) but that doesn’t make it any less my interpretation.

On the other hand, if I were to write something for acoustic instruments and wanted to hear how it would sound before I had a chance for anybody to play it, that would be a mock up.

I guess a better way of putting it is if it is a complete product at its end state it is an interpretation while if it is a step on the way to an end product it is a mock up. The mock up may be of much higher quality than the interpretation – that doesn’t matter in its title, it’s the intent that counts.


Just my 2 cents.

[Kevin B. Selby]

When you said:

"We tend to lose sight of the fact that the average listener couldn't possible care less what the recording technologies, microphones, multitrack equipment etc. are when they turn on the radio." YOU NAILED IT ON THE HEAD!!

When I released "An Orchestral Christmas" (see: http://kevinselby.com/gpo/) I had fans ask me what instruments were used. I carefully described it as as "classical/orchestral arrangements of popular Christmas hymns". That satisfied most people and I certainly wasn't trying to be deceptive, it's just that even fans have some types of stereotypes when you tell them it was "generated on a computer" (which by the way, is probably even WORSE than saying "mockup"!). If they press me further, then I will say that someone sampled the sound of a REAL cellist playing various notes and I then "play" those notes with my controller keyboard and I ALWAYS tell them that the keyboardist must attempt to think like a string player (or oboe, or flute, etc.) and articulate the note or phrase the way a real player would. That satisfies every single fan I've had and it seems like a simple way to describe what we do.

On another related note, I had an extremely HUGE awakening as to what fans really want when I attempted to play live at the local fair and I took all my keyboards, drum machines, and even an Atari ST 1040 computer (with monitor, mouse, keyboard, etc.!). Needless to say, the computer fell off the piano mid-way through with a huge crash and we barely got the thing booted again. Even with all things working on stage, the sound was still difficult to mix live and was a WHOLE lot of headache for no reasonable return. I finally learned to pre-record as much of the overall "sound" that we wanted to convey and leave a few instruments open to play live and play all the "trax" via CD through a stereo track on the mixer. The moral of the story: the audience could not care LESS how much technology is up there on the stage, they care about one thing and one thing only...the overall sound quality of what is coming out the speakers. Quite the fun way to learn that little lesson. The same general lesson applies here with GPO in my opinion.

Anyway...my two cents.

[Christopher Duncan]

The moral of the story: the audience could not care LESS how much technology is up there on the stage, they care about one thing and one thing only...the overall sound quality of what is coming out the speakers. Quite the fun way to learn that little lesson. The same general lesson applies here with GPO in my opinion.Oy. I can relate. There was this incident at a gig one time involving an entire stack of amplifiers crashing down on stage due to a certain over enthusiastic musician doing the reverse moonwalk straight into them...

Yeah, I think you're on the money. Artists want to analyze, critique and interpret. Audiences want to be entertained.

[nexus]

Closer to what we do here with GPO and our other libraries, would be Wendy Carlos' "Digital Moonscapes" album from 1985.

It is a terrific album considering it used additive synthesis and NOT sampling to produce the timbres. Carlos was after producing the most realistic orchestral simulation ( I prefer to use that term, rather than 'mockup') possible at that time, which mean't something other than sampling which was in it's infancy then and not capable of much expression. Carlos painstakingly constructed 'instuments' to make up the orchestra which she dubbed "LSI Philharmonic" (LSI for Large Scale Integration ie computer chips).

Keyboard magazine did a great article on the album and process of synthesis way back then. You might find a back-issue.

I remember being so dissapointed with the EMU V-2000 because it sounded exactly like the Digital Moonscapes album. I thought we should have progressed farther than that in 15 years!

That existed until GPO. GPO is what we have been waiting for all this time...

[Kevin B. Selby]

On a slightly related note: I don't know how many of you remember "Wacky Dust" by Manhattan Transfer, BUUUT, that was one of the first few attempts at using analog synths to sound like a big band. The funny thing was, the way they "orchestrated" the tracks, even though most musicians could INSTANTLY tell that these were Moog's (or something similar), it was so outstandingly COOL how they did it that nobody cared. The track ROCKS (er...swings...) and if there ever IS a Big Band GPO, I will be first in line and one of the tunes I would LOVE to redo is none other than Wacky Dust.

I've thrown a 30-second clip I glommed from Media Player's store and it's at:

http://kevinselby.com/gpo/musicfiles/WackyDust.mp3

Listen to the "bops" from the "horns". Fake but cool! And I would swear they are trying to either emulate saxes or even clarinets in some of the counterpart stuff they do against the vocal later in the clip.

Anyway...loved that song!!

[Styxx]

Thanks Chris. This was way overdue.

[FredProgGH]

Well, the thing is that I am in fact trying to emulate an orchestra. And from that standpoint I do hear where the attempt falls short. Carlos was trying to showcase the Moog as a legitimate instrument in its own right, not a substitute for anything, and succeeded beautifully. She (he at the time) chose Bach because it was essentially indestructable; i.e. the results would be great irrespective of the Moog's inability to do nuanced phrasing. They were very souped up organ arrangements in a sense. The Mellotron, heard today does not convince anyone that its the real sound of strings, yet its sound is distinct and pleasant. But how things have evelved since then. The tools provided by Mr. Garritan and others though come so (uncomfortably??) close to the thing they emulate that in my mind they become the equvilant of a female impersonator: The good ones can fool you in a dark room, the really good ones in a bright bar, but I'm trying to be the one that can fool you if you take me home... (OK, this reply developed an odd theme) :D

OK, so there's my term. Orchestral Impersonator.

[SteveMitchell]

My favorite is "reasonable facsimile". That was a music professor's response in describing a work that Dr. Siu and I created years ago from a score by Barber.

SteveMitchell

[DPDAN]

Interesting reading here. I agree with it all. I would like to take a few minutes and share some of my thoughts that coincide with the previous posts.
Admit it or not, many of us (not all) feel somewhat guilty that we use fake notes to make real music... :rolleyes: Who do we feel guilty towards? The solo violinist, horn player, or percussionist that should have been on this session? Probably all of the instruments that we used. Many sought after studio musicians are out of work because of the wildfire spread of available, affordable, luxurious sample libraries that are quite capable in the "right hands" (and there's a catch).

I doubt seriously that Gary Garritan and his associates created any of their products to put musicians out of work. I believe that for every musician that gives up their trade out of hate towards this type of technolgy, a new computer musician is born. For the musicians that played all these notes for these libraires,,,,, imagine how moved they were when they heard some of Gary's demos.

Gene Puerling is the best vocal arranger of all time as far as I am concerned. He arranged all if not most of the Hi-Los records, (I know that goes back some time), as well as the stream of albums recorded by a group called Singers Unlimited. PHENOMINAL STUFF. I can only imagine that it was said by many, that the overdubbing of their four voices, (one girl, three guys) was cheating and could never be performed live. I say...."SO"

I still have that Manhatten Transfer record, it has a song on it that is acappella, the name of the tune,,, A Nightingale Sang In Barkley Square. The arrangement blew me away as I laid ears on it for the first time. I said to myself, MAN whoever arranged this is awesome! I looked at the cover,,,,A Nightingale Sang In Barkley Square arrg. Gene Puerling. HA ! I say to myself, I know great arranging when I hear it, my hero Gene has come through again.

Around 1975, I went to a Mannheim Steamroller concert, OH my word what a waste and insult to my intelligence. Of course I checked out the soundboard and talked to the engineer, because that's what I do. I see two Tascam 8 track reel-to-reel machines side by side. Oh No I think to myself. They basically played the studio tracks from their albums and filled in the solos, what a joke! Of course, the on stage over-exagerated body language was meant to be a clever thing to throw in. :rolleyes: Now I know Mannheim Steamroller's music is loved by alot of people, and I like some of their stuff too, was it cheating? You bet it was, (IMO). I went there that night expecting to hear live musicians. Out of respect for them, my guess is that they don't do that anymore. Hopefully anyway. :)

The statement that Christopher made in his first post....
Is it good music? Does it entertain, inspire, provoke thought or emotionally move the listener? I believe that is what is most important. The technology that we have access to, is nothing short of amazing thanks to folks like Gary Garritan, Tom Hopkins and Jeff Hurchalla.

Danielle made a statement in one of her posts on another thread, where she spoke unfavorably of recording multiple takes, and using just the best pieces and putting them all back together, hardly any different than taking individual notes and making a nice soothing melodic sound... I think what Danielle was intending, was that sometimes the soul and heart gets left out, after the engineer puts it all back together. That is the fault of the engineer, not being a musically minded, talented engineer. Now, if the pieces are put together with a flowing, natural feeling, then the result is thrilling and fantastic, and NOBODY knows. Cheating? You bet it is. BTW Danielle's post did not offend me, but again made me realize how much we need to never let the technology take over. Don't let yourself fall into the ... "Let's do this just because we can, even though it's impossible for any musician to play." Like those pitiful TV commercials with the strobing bright video and overly compressed "balls to the wall' music, (sorry) to create an emotion of energy. Yea right, sure. It does fool millions though, but not me. They are no doubt laughing all the way to the bank, I'm sure of it.

It all started when..... for the very first time, a person here in the USA heard a symphonic orchestra on the radio from Germany (I think that's where it was) of course way back then if you heard it on the radio it WAS live. But this was in the middle of the day, he said to himself, wait a minute,..... it's 3 am over there, nobody would be having a concert at 3am. How was this possible? Later he would discover that a device called a recorder (wire recorder I think) had been used previously to record the live concert so that it could be broadcast and played back at a later date. This "thing" was presented at the 1904 Worlds Fair in St. Louis Missouri USA. "We" would later refer to this device as a tape recorder. Was that radio station intentionally cheating? Some would say yes, those same people would continue to resist the idea of positive things that would come from the technology available.

None of us here will be able to see or hear how technology will be used in a hundred years, but I think one thing is for sure, there will be fewer and fewer people using their musical talent as a way to "make" or augment their income. Their talent will be used for entertainment purposes mostly.

The (increasing) old days of hiring "professional players" to come into the studio to record sweetenig parts is fact. There are enough people and libraries, and I hate to say it, but computers to fool most of the people most of the time. This has put a huge dent in the professional players career. I do believe however, that the truly great musicians are not in the least bit insulted, or offended by these "music machine factories" but they will rise to the top and continue to be called for these sessions, because they strive to be the best at their craft. The difference is, well, you know :)

For me, GPO is the first instrument that I can play. Right or wrong, I am trying my best to make some music, and I try my best to make it sound like real "players" would..... and not just how real musicans would, as I think all of us are doing with our stuff. Did that make any sense? :)
If you ever hear of a live concert by Dan Kury, it will be because I am playing real piano with some huge Symphony somewhere Ha Ha Ha don't hold your breath anyone! Rest assured, there will not be any tape recorders or computer assited instrument playback. Let's leave that stuff for recording music.
Oh man that was fun, I'm tired and gotta go to bed!
.02 :)

DPDan

[FredProgGH]

The argument of technology putting musicians out of business dates back to the introduction of the pipe organ. It was said about radio, the phonograph, the mellotron, the Emulator... at worst these tools just shift work from one group of people (a string section, say) to another (a keyboardist and sample developers and some other string section that did the sampling sessions). But I firmly believe that very few have ever been put out of work by new technologies that weren't about to be out of work anyway. If I didn't have GPO would I be giving an orchestra a job? Of course not. I can't afford it. All these tools do is give us some means of achieving a vision. Radio didn't kill music, it saved it. All new technologies do is stir the pot.

As for Danielle's thoughts regrding editing, I firmly feel that, at least for my personal aims, the ends justify the means. I have no interest in making a name for myself as a player, only a composer. I will use any available techniques to put my vision on an album, including sequencing things I can't play and editing my performances any way I have to. Athough, I do try and get my solos in one complete take. So I guess I have a little pride!! *lol*

And I saw the Steamroller back in '84 or so and yes it was a lie from hell. Chip davis "played" recorder and drums at the same time at one point. The keyboardists (Jackson Bereky and his wife) were miming polyphonic synth parts on Minimoogs. I do think that is a misleading thing to do. They should have just made it a peice of theater ala Cirque Du Soliel and hired some jugglers if they were going to mime the whole show. Very dissapointing.

[DPDAN]

I hope my post did not come off wrong. To sound like I think that computer music verses real musicians is a joke was not intended. I feel for both sides. Fred, your statement of
I firmly believe that very few have ever been put out of work by new technologies that weren't about to be out of work anyway. is right on, and that's what I was trying to imply. You have the ability to say it in one sentance :)
Ok now I'm goin' to bed :p

[DPDAN]

How did this get off to the topic of recording techniques? :)Hi Danielle,
in my post, I was using the analogy of the different ways of recording, and whether or not the final result is "music". This, I feel directly relates to whether or not our GPO rendered music is any more or less "music"
I thought Christopher's opinion of the term mockup and the way we use it was elegant. No need for apology here Danielle, :) Your a sweety to me. :D
Dan

[nexus]

Back when I was working at a studio in Vegas, the owner of the studio quickly fell in love with the Emulator II when it first appeared. Back then, Vegas was loaded with terrific musicians of all sorts and my fellow engineer and I used to have them come in to overdub the E-II tracks. The owner eventually got a second E-II and later a Kurz 250.

Even then we would almost always have a violinist or cellist or a horn player come in and play over the synth 'orchestra'.

This was not new. I recall as far back as 1971, being in a studio where the ARP 2600 was being used in a 'reverse mode' of overdubbing the many live instrumentalists (the strings and brass).

The point is, that the issue we are dicussing here was decided decades ago when the first synthesisers were built.

Since ALL synth music is by it's very nature a "mockup" of something, even a music which could never exist in reality, then there seems to be no longer an 'onus' to constructing or assembling orchestral or any other kind of music.

As to LIVE classical music recordings being 'assembled' I too take exception to this as it's messing with the composer's intentions. Live orchestras were ALWAYS counted upon to play an entire work through on a recording session.

Nowadays, they play fifty takes of each session and stitch them together.

As to augmenting the orchestra recording a famous work with overdubs, this is sometimes a no-no, sometimes not. The PLANETS is a perfect example of this. I have a recording where the orchestra was really juiced up with horn and brass overdubs and the strings were recorded with much compression to goose the attacks, etc. I also have another recording where Holst's score and intention were sharply adhered to.

Which one is more exciting? I have to admit I prefer the modern recording with all it's juiced and goosed orchestrations. The nature of the work demanded it imho.

The techniques it employs did not exist for Holst way back then. I believe many composers in that era especially would have approved.

Most film score cues are pieced together from short recorded sections loaded into ACID or elsewhere.

This is how I work with GPO or QLSO Silver or any of the other libraries I use.

I compose in short segments and then mix these down right there and move on. SONAR and other such sequencers encourage this practice and it works beautifully. Sometimes I re-arrange sections in their order to make the music flow better.

This is the nature of working with music in the 21st century and I won't be a 'Luddite' when it comes to this.

The world is changing as we speak. Music can only follow suit.

(sorry for the long-winded post. that will be my rant for this month!) :D

[squoze]

I have a hard time describing to my family and friends what is is I actually do when I "Mock-up" a piece.
I play it for them. They say its beautiful.
Then they ask "Did you play that?"
"No."
"Did you write that?"
"No."
"Did you arragne that?"
"Well, not really"
"Did you have to key all those notes in?"
"Well, some of them."
"I find these midi files on the internet from classical scores and put them to music. I decide the tempo, the volume changes, which instruments to use, when to tell the horns to blow soft or hard, that kind of stuff."
"Oh, so its like a video game then."

I don't know what to call it, either or how to describe it to someone that doesn't understand.
I could say I "conducted" it, but its more than that, at the same time, its not really conducting.
I think I like "simulated", but that's feeling too guilty.
Its not really arranging, but kind of is.
I wish we could come up with a term that describes everthing that is involved in the process.

[FredProgGH]

As to LIVE classical music recordings being 'assembled' I too take exception to this as it's messing with the composer's intentions. Live orchestras were ALWAYS counted upon to play an entire work through on a recording session.


Boy, I don't know about that. Composers prior to recording composed for live performance because- what the heck else was there?? I think Beethoven, given the choice between a recording done in one take and a recording of a performance that was correct (or at least, to his liking) would choose the latter every time even if it were cobbled together a note at a time.

In rock and roll the music is generally realized in a studio. That means a live performance is generally regarded as a special alternative to that realization and certain customs come into effect; namely the notion that the live recording represents a player's actual abilities at that exact moment in time. This is done because knowing the things that can be done in a studio people get a certain pleasure from seeing that stripped away.

Classical music is different. The notion of the studio as a tool for realizing music is just now catching on. Prior to this the live performance was simply the only way to attempt to document the composition, and it was not about the "liveness" of the performance per se. That was just a byproduct. By its nature the recording does both, but presenting the composition is the key. If you really mean that a composer's intentions should be honored I think you should use any technique to do that, including multiple takes and all the rest, unless you think the composer's intent is coughing, wrong notes and bad intonation, etc.

Now if the only goal of an orchestra is to document their skill as performers, then I agree with what you say.

Anyhoo, as composer and performer of my own music I win this argument with myself every songle time. :D

[SteveMitchell]

Hi Squoze - I really don't know how to ask this, so I'll just be direct. With all due respect, are you in the habit of crediting the original creator of the MIDI file when you post your MP3s made from the files that you find?

My original MIDI site, The Classical MIDI Resource, features over 200 high-quality MIDI multi-port sequences. There's no doubt in my mind that the original authors of these MIDI files would be severely bummed if their work was leveraged by another artist and if that artist didn't give proper credit where credit was due.

SteveMitchell

[Skysaw]

I use the word mockup to describe the intention of the recording. If it will eventually be replaced with a live recording, it is a mockup. Otherwise, I just call it a piece of music. :)

[squoze]

Sorry for this off topic post, but I'll reply to Steve here.

Hi Squoze - I really don't know how to ask this, so I'll just be direct. With all due respect, are you in the habit of crediting the original creator of the MIDI file when you post your MP3s made from the files that you find?
SteveMitchell
Thanks, Steve for your valid concern. I thinl it is a subject that should be addressed.
To answer your question, No, I don't have that habit. I've only posted 3 mp3s that I did from midi files, and 2 of those midis came from Gary (without credit to the original author).
I do think it is a good idea to credit the original author. Maybe Gary should create a sticky on the Demo Forum requesting that submitters do that.
Maybe I've missed an official position on this, I would welcome a discussion of statement from the moderators (because I can't remember anyone else crediting the original midi creator in their mock-ups, either).

I have visited your site, it is very nice. I'm not sure if I've downloaded any midi files from there or not. I am a paying member at www.classicalarchives.com and have downloaded several midi files that I have begun (but not finished :mad: ) mocking up.
These are just my favorite pieces that I do for my and my friends and family's enjoyment.

I'm not in a habit of posting mock-ups from midi files.
The mp3s I have posted are:
1. Gary posted an "Claire de Lune" mp3 from someone and offered the midi file for anyone else to mockup. I used this file in my mock-up. Gary didn't mention the author of the midi when he posted it--you might want to ask him who it was and why he didn't credit the original creator.
2. There was a worst demo contest. I submitted a cover of Gil Thythall's Folsom Prison Blues. I created this myself from scratch, but failed to mention that. I didn't credit the original writer on the song, I guess it was Johnny Cash.
3. I also did a mock up of John Cage's "4-33" for this contest. There was no midi file used for that.
4. There was a "Pachelbel's Canon" contest. Gary posted a midi file to help us get started with, but didn't credit the author. I don't know which midi file I used, but I didn't credit the original author. I actually rearragned the whole thing in a Mariachi Band style, most of if was changed to 3/4, so there wasn't much of the original midi left when I got through.
5. I posted my first original song "Cane Creek".
6. Gary had a "Spookiest Song" contest. I wrote a short original thing for this.
7. I posted my arrangement of "Cavatina" last week. I did not credit the original creator of the midi, even though I basically redid the whole thing. I will go back and edit my post and give credit to Bob Pomicter, who sequenced this in 1992.

Thanks,

Tom

[Christopher Duncan]

I do think it is a good idea to credit the original author.
...
I posted my arrangement of "Cavatina" last week. I did not credit the original creator of the midi, even though I basically redid the whole thing. I will go back and edit my post and give credit to Bob Pomicter, who sequenced this in 1992.
Tom, Steve -

Man, this is one of the things I really love about this place. Steve raises a reasonable and legit question about crediting MIDI authors. Tom replies back, agrees with the sentiment, clarifies some of his work, and also offers to correct a previous post. And everybody does so in a benevolent and mutually respectful spirit.

Man, do you guys know how many other places on the net would decend into petty flame wars from things like this?

There's a lot of reasons why I decided to get active and promote the GPO community. The good vibes you guys maintain around here is probably reason number one. I wish the rest of the world treated each other like this. :)

[Styxx]

Amen. I love all of these guys!

[nexus]

"..Now if the only goal of an orchestra is to document their skill as performers, then I agree with what you say.."

That is much of what I was referring to.

Isn't that what orchestras are always touting? Their skill as performers?

Haven't composers of the past always expressed praise at an orchestra's skill?

Just a thought... :)