Decent sax library?

[ELP71]

I'm looking for sections and solo saxes, hoping there is a better answer out there in the sampling world than my Yamaha S90 and Kurzweil PC2R. The Garritan Jazz set looks great but I have a big project due that requires saxes - good ones.

Any thoghts?

[Bruce A. Richardson]

There is no such thing as a decent sax library. Oxymoron.

There are several mediocre ones. Sampling a saxophone is rather like inventing a machine to have for you. You could invent the best one ever conceived, and still, what would be the point? Hire a sax player if you need something that sounds like a saxophone. I have not heard a sax library to date that sounds remotely like one, unless your part is static half notes.

[Marcussen]

What Bruce is saying is... if you want ...get a hooker

hmmm... :)

Bruce has a fair point, but that being said the medicore ones are fine for hammering out some ideas and basic melodies which the sax player can improvise to and/or get an idea of what you have in mind.

VSL has some saxes... They are basically like other samples-

Then there are Liquid Sax which I beleive are phrases which you can rearange using melodyne technology

[SHAOLIN95]

Saxlab... :D Dont kill me now

[sporter]

I'm looking for sections and solo saxes, hoping there is a better answer out there in the sampling world than my Yamaha S90 and Kurzweil PC2R. The Garritan Jazz set looks great but I have a big project due that requires saxes - good ones.

Any thoghts?

I like the John Rekevics. It's been around a while but none of the newer ones seem much of an improvement. The Rekevics has a natural sounding vibrato with enough expression to sound quite realistic.

As with any discussion about sax samples, people will point out how hard sax is to emulate. It goes without saying I suppose. But I have found that while you can't put a sax sample out front with a nice jazz solo improv and fool anyone, good sax sample (like the Rekevics) in a mix can get the point across pretty accurately.

[ELP71]

Well everyone's in a fine mood this morning! :rolleyes: ;) :D

I figured as much. I've played saxes for about twenty years and have yet to hear a convincing sample. They're usually either so synthy or ridiculously strident. Its always interesting to hear a programmer's idea of what a saxophone sounds like. Usually - way off or of the 'Yakkity Sax' variation.

I thought there may be something I was missing - evidently not. Mr. Garritan - release your library! :)

[Andrew Aversa]

I believe Yellow Tools' "Candy" and Liquid Instruments Sax are both options.

[sirbellog]

If you own GS (or Halion, or Kontakt),
I would say that the Rekevik's sax bundle is a very good deal : 4 saxes for $340.... and good ones IMO (as long as we talk about sampled sax of course). They have a very pleasing tone, and enough articulations to work with.
If you can wait, there should be other contenders soon : Fablesounds are developing a "big band" library with all saxes too, and there seems to be a guy who's in the process to make a "custom" jazz brass library, too (the demos he provided were impressive)...
As for Candy, the price is quite steep, and this virtual instrument does not even stream (7 Gb library)...
You'll have to "upgrade" with an additional $150 to the upcoming YT Independance workstation just in order to stream your samples (when it is released) .
And frankly, the demos I heard do not show anything superior to Rekevik's that justify the price difference.
Liquid saxes seem to be only loop, and it does not seem to be what you look for

[Bruce A. Richardson]

Well, I didn't mean to sound cranky about it, haha.

I'm just being very frank from my perspective. To me, it moves somewhat even beyond whether sax samples are mediocre or not.

It would be one thing to put a sax sample to work buried in a section, or contributing to a mix in a way that covers its deficiencies. In essence, to reduce its role to the point of a minor supporting player. In that case, a sample works for me. Or as a mockup...sure.

But to put a sax sample up front as the hero part? To me, this just isn't anything. Why not put a synth part up front, if it's going to be a synth doing the playing? At least it is authentically trying to be exactly what it is. It wouldn't be pretending to be something else. That's the core issue in my mind. The hero part should be actually saying something musically, something artistically meaningful. Not struggling just to sound remotely plausible. And the very best sax samples I have ever heard do not even begin to meet the basic result of plausibility, much less artistic excellence in the final musical product. They sound fake, each and every one, no matter what. So, if your hero part's best possible expression is to sound fake, where is the artistic excellence in that?

I struggle a little with it, even in supporting roles, or in samples which better convey an instrument's essence. But at least in those cases, say a piano, one can effectively enough produce a track that there is nothing so severely lacking that it calls attention to the deceit. The effectiveness of the writing is not spoiled by a sample which cannot help but draw attention to its core deficiencies.

But with any sax sample I've heard, this basic quality is not met--not so much due to the skill of the user, or even the skill of the samplist. But more to the fact that a sax is such a vocal instrument, so expressively sensitive to air and articulation input, that a line rendered with a sampler bears almost no spiritual resemblance to a line played on a saxophone.

So, I arrive back at, "what's the point?" It is almost as if it is more important for the saxophone to be played via a sample than it is to have a good sounding part. I can't understand that as an artistic priority. It has no merit. Isn't the point for the music to be the best possible? And if that is the case, I would call it a faulty decision on the producer's part to settle for a technological solution which has no chance of producing an artistically viable result.

[SteveHanlon]

If you're on a MAc you can use the ones that come with Garageband for sketching but ultimately go with this guy

Jeffrey Scott Wills. He plays all the main 4 saxes really really well. He toured with Take 6. Great guy. Price is very reasonable (contact him for that).

jscotwills@tds.net

You'll never think about a library again...rightfully so after you hear him.

[Bruce A. Richardson]

If you're on a MAc you can use the ones that come with Garageband for sketching but ultimately go with this guy

Jeffrey Scott Wills. He plays all the main 4 saxes really really well. He toured with Take 6. Great guy. Price is very reasonable (contact him for that).

jscotwills@tds.net

You'll never think about a library again...rightfully so after you hear him.

THIS is the way to go, for sure.

Hell, in my neighborhood, you can barely take out the trash without running into a good sax player.

It is really interesting (read: depressing) how long and how tenaciously this latest wave of imitative synthesis/sampling has lasted.

At every technological breakthrough in synthesis/sampling, the very first thing that happens is that companies begin to produce next-generation imitative instruments. Things, for lack of a better word, get "realer."

Then, when the fascination of the latest round of "real" wears off, electronic instruments begin to get expressive and interesting again.

But, I guess the combination of ever-faster development and the much wider access have produced a state of almost non-ending "imitative" breakthroughs.

We seem stuck on it. To the point that we actually begin to believe that a sampler which sounds like a sax represents some kind of Holy Grail.

It's nuts, really, isn't it? What is the fun in that? Do we really want to put saxophonists out of work? Do we really want to reduce every single musical skill to something that can be called up on a menu?

Will we really like that musical world, once we will it into existence?

[brilohead]

THIS is the way to go, for sure.

Hell, in my neighborhood, you can barely take out the trash without running into a good sax player.

It is really interesting (read: depressing) how long and how tenaciously this latest wave of imitative synthesis/sampling has lasted.

At every technological breakthrough in synthesis/sampling, the very first thing that happens is that companies begin to produce next-generation imitative instruments. Things, for lack of a better word, get "realer."

Then, when the fascination of the latest round of "real" wears off, electronic instruments begin to get expressive and interesting again.

But, I guess the combination of ever-faster development and the much wider access have produced a state of almost non-ending "imitative" breakthroughs.

We seem stuck on it. To the point that we actually begin to believe that a sampler which sounds like a sax represents some kind of Holy Grail.

It's nuts, really, isn't it? What is the fun in that? Do we really want to put saxophonists out of work? Do we really want to reduce every single musical skill to something that can be called up on a menu?

Will we really like that musical world, once we will it into existence?


It's interesting that you say that Bruce. A professor of mine snickered a little bit when I told him about the latest emulation break through. He wondered what would happen if all the time spent on emulating instruments was spent playing them.

Christiaan

[Andrew Aversa]

Bruce, one of the main 'features' of realistic sampling is that you don't have to spend the time and money looking for someone to play live for you. I wouldn't call that a disadvantage, or something to be avoided. I'm an 18 year old with no recording gear and little recording experience living in a small town with nothing even remotely close to a decent studio for recording. I don't know any professional musicians and I wouldn't have the money to hire any for an extended period of time - nor do I have enough experience to discern the skill of a professional sax player, or even the tools to write and print the sheet music to give to him/her. And these are just a few of the obstacles.

See how sampling is a much easier option for someone like me?

[SteveHanlon]

Bruce, one of the main 'features' of realistic sampling is that you don't have to spend the time and money looking for someone to play live for you. I wouldn't call that a disadvantage, or something to be avoided. I'm an 18 year old with no recording gear and little recording experience living in a small town with nothing even remotely close to a decent studio for recording. I don't know any professional musicians and I wouldn't have the money to hire any for an extended period of time - nor do I have enough experience to discern the skill of a professional sax player, or even the tools to write and print the sheet music to give to him/her. And these are just a few of the obstacles.

See how sampling is a much easier option for someone like me?


If you're into sequencing then you're there. YOu've arrived. You must have some ability to discern when you're music sounds like you want it or you would never change a note.

You simply export an MP3 demo,
send it to the player.
He/She plays over the demo.
He/She sends you the files.
You import them and you got real playing.


You know, I met a first rate violinist in Ireland (via the internet) who recorded a part for me for free! He said 'We composers have to support one another." I offered him my classical and jazz guitar playing and my wife's classical flute playing.

It's really not difficult.

You know I just finished writing music for a TV show which had NO budget for live players. I really wanted some live players. I found a guy who is a NAshville studio drummer. He was so flexible. He basically asked me what my budget was, how many tunes I'd be asking him to play on and this absolutely porfessional player gave me a first rate deal. The quality of my tunes skyrocketed!!

It just depends on how much you want it to happen.

If you do a search on this forum you'll find a Musician's Directory that I compiled. All real players offering their services via on line.

Sorry to take away from the original poster's intent.

But fact is we're a cloistered bunch of nerds who are so wrapped up in sampling that we forget how great it is to play, how great it is to play with others, how great it is to help other players out.

And ironically we're ALL musician's on this forum...that's the funniest part!

[Gary M. Thomas]

You know... the Vienna Symphonic Library "Horizon Series" Saxophones is a pretty good sample library (especially when you use the "Performance Tools".)


http://www.vsl.co.at/shop/images/product_saxophones_new.jpg


I think that library sounds terrific. http://www.northernsounds.com/forum/images/smilies/wink.gif

However, I totally agree with what everyone is saying... the sax is an instrument that is best recorded with a real, live player.

[ELP71]

Guys, guys, guys. No one is here debating the fact that live is better. Someone said - 'sax is an instrument best recorded live" - well, duh! :D The same could be said for strings, winds, percussion, analog synths, Hammond organs, etc etc etc. The point is that I have a project coming up that has a budget for one dude - me - and demands a bunch of sax stuff, so I asked a question to see if there was a library I missed. I would (and could) play the sax stuff myself, but don't have the time (nor does the client want to pay for) to make the requisite blends with the rest of the 'pretend' orchestra.

So, okay, I get it, the saxophone is the one instrument that should never be sampled, CAN never be sampled, and the next time I'm looking for a better string sound I'll go out here on the street in Prestonsburg, KY and grab the 18 violin players I was needing. :rolleyes: :D

Seriuosly, I appreciate the input, Its confirming what I already knew, which is: put a lot of reverb on the saxes you have LOL

[Alan Russell]

Well everyone's in a fine mood this morning! :rolleyes: ;) :D

I figured as much. I've played saxes for about twenty years and have yet to hear a convincing sample. They're usually either so synthy or ridiculously strident. Its always interesting to hear a programmer's idea of what a saxophone sounds like. Usually - way off or of the 'Yakkity Sax' variation.

I thought there may be something I was missing - evidently not. Mr. Garritan - release your library! :)


Elp,

the VSL, Candy and Bigga Giggas sax libraries are not at all synthy IMHO. Each of them has a unique sound and places nicley in a few of my arrangements. If we look back, we can see how far the reeds have come along. Hopefully, we will continue to move forward but it's a long journey.

Alan Russell

[Nayi]

Well of course nothing beats a live player. But not everyone has a good set of recording equipment. So hiring one might not do you any good.

If you need a quick sax line I recommend Lquid Sax.

[robin123]

Bruce, one of the main 'features' of realistic sampling is that you don't have to spend the time and money looking for someone to play live for you. I wouldn't call that a disadvantage, or something to be avoided. I'm an 18 year old with no recording gear and little recording experience living in a small town with nothing even remotely close to a decent studio for recording. I don't know any professional musicians and I wouldn't have the money to hire any for an extended period of time - nor do I have enough experience to discern the skill of a professional sax player, or even the tools to write and print the sheet music to give to him/her. And these are just a few of the obstacles.

See how sampling is a much easier option for someone like me?

See, you dont look at the bigger picture - it's a hero part for anyone to recommend a live player when someone asks a recommendation for some library http://www.northernsounds.com/forum/images/smilies/character66.gif[Bruce http://www.northernsounds.com/forum/images/smilies/wink.gif].

Actually I never understand why some people would recommend a live player when someone asks about some library. Do these people think that the person asking for library is dumb not to know that live player is better!!!

Dont take it personally[those who recommend a live player, because the question is about samples - dumbest person knows that using live player is better, but he's just LOOKING for a LIBRARY]. Komeon, friends, give him the best suggestions for a libraryn available.

[ELP71]

See, you dont look at the bigger picture - it's a hero part for anyone to recommend a live player when someone asks a recommendation for some library http://www.northernsounds.com/forum/images/smilies/character66.gif[Bruce http://www.northernsounds.com/forum/images/smilies/wink.gif].

Actually I never understand why some people would recommend a live player when someone asks about some library. Do these people think that the person asking for library is dumb not to know that live player is better!!!

Dont take it personally[those who recommend a live player, because the question is about samples - dumbest person knows that using live player is better, but he's just LOOKING for a LIBRARY]. Komeon, friends, give him the best suggestions for a libraryn available.
Thanks, robin:D

[Kermit Jagger]

You could also think about a used VL-70m. Some sax patches really make this module sing.

Check out the patchman website.

[Bruce A. Richardson]

Actually I never understand why some people would recommend a live player when someone asks about some library. Do these people think that the person asking for library is dumb not to know that live player is better!!!

Dont take it personally[those who recommend a live player, because the question is about samples - dumbest person knows that using live player is better, but he's just LOOKING for a LIBRARY]. Komeon, friends, give him the best suggestions for a libraryn available.

He asked if there was a decent sax library available. There's not. So, the only way to get a decent part is to get a player in this case. If he were asking about pianos or even string sections, there are libraries which are decent at covering those instruments. But not sax. The best available are still abominable.

[Bruce A. Richardson]

Bruce, one of the main 'features' of realistic sampling is that you don't have to spend the time and money looking for someone to play live for you. I wouldn't call that a disadvantage, or something to be avoided. I'm an 18 year old with no recording gear and little recording experience living in a small town with nothing even remotely close to a decent studio for recording. I don't know any professional musicians and I wouldn't have the money to hire any for an extended period of time - nor do I have enough experience to discern the skill of a professional sax player, or even the tools to write and print the sheet music to give to him/her. And these are just a few of the obstacles.

See how sampling is a much easier option for someone like me?

No, I don't.

You are way too young to be hanging out around here talking about something as dorky as samples. You should be practicing your axe eight hours a day, staying away from anything which even resembles a computer, learning how to properly lick girls in the midsection, and to take bong hits without coughing.

When you are thirty, have done some touring and playing, know how to make someone laugh or cry just because of something you played, are expert at the aforementioned licking and bong skills...that should be the time when you start worrying about sitting down and buying samples.

And for christ's sake, pack your bags and move out of that town. How the hell are you going to learn how to play if you don't have anyone to play with, and you're not even sure if you'd recognize them if you did?

Do I always have to answer all these obvious questions?

[Bruce A. Richardson]

[QUOTE=Nayi]Well of course nothing beats a live player. But not everyone has a good set of recording equipment. So hiring one might not do you any good.
[QUOTE]

This is why God invented recording studios.

[Kermit Jagger]

> When you are thirty, have done some touring and playing...

:D

[Andrew Aversa]

No, I don't.

You are way too young to be hanging out around here talking about something as dorky as samples. You should be practicing your axe eight hours a day, staying away from anything which even resembles a computer, learning how to properly lick girls in the midsection, and to take bong hits without coughing.

When you are thirty, have done some touring and playing, know how to make someone laugh or cry just because of something you played, are expert at the aforementioned licking and bong skills...that should be the time when you start worrying about sitting down and buying samples.

Aw, c'mon. I realize most people my age would rather be playing a guitar than learning how to physically model one in Reaktor, but hey, I'm weird. What can I say? ;)


And for christ's sake, pack your bags and move out of that town. How the hell are you going to learn how to play if you don't have anyone to play with, and you're not even sure if you'd recognize them if you did?

Do I always have to answer all these obvious questions?

I'll be out of here soon enough - I only just got my driver's license yesterday! College is the next step for me (Drexel U) and I have every intention of making a lot of contacts there. Plus, I'm delving into the wonderful world of recording as part of my education, so I'll be all the more prepared to work with live musicians when the time comes.

But until then, on my projects right now, loading up samples and riffs is pretty much my only option.

Steve H - thanks for the advice. I'll check out that directory you were referring to.

[Markleford]

[...] nor do I have enough experience to discern the skill of a professional sax player, or even the tools to write and print the sheet music to give to him/her. And these are just a few of the obstacles.Unfortunately, you haven't considered the biggest obstacle:

Given your admitted lack of sax acumen, even if you *did* have a perfect emulative sample set, do you actually believe that you'll *ever* be able to write a sax part that approaches the expressiveness and ease of a real player? Let alone write a line that will "fool most of the people most of the time"?

The trouble with emulative sample libraries is that people have this pipe-dream that it will allow them to come up with realistic parts if they have realistic samples. This is NOT an automatic benefit that you get out of the box! You have to listen to real players and work at thinking like a real player and then figure out how to translate that into a MIDI sequence.

The trouble is, the more skilled you get at this cognitive process, the more aware you become that this previously "realistic" library really isn't fitting the bill. Your senses become refined to where you hear flaws that were invisible to you previously.

Learning to play a sampled sax is like learning to play any instrument: if you don't put the time in on it, it will fall flat. That's half the reason why so many sax library demos get slammed for sounding "like a MIDI keyboard": it's because the performer thinks like a keyboardist!

You need to spend time to get intimate with its strengths and weaknesses. You need to put in hours and hours of effort to develop that intimacy.


See how sampling is a much easier option for someone like me?So, having bought this expensive sax library and put the time in to get somewhat tolerable results that still fall short of the real thing, do you see how hiring a player can actually save you time and money?

Mind, if you *do* put in the time, existing libraries are perfectly fine for creating mock-ups, and you can sometimes get away with parts that fool many people because you'll know what your library can and cannot do well.

Final hint for saving money on sax parts: buy albums of sax players. Listen, listen, listen.

- m

[ELP71]

Sheesh. All I wanted to know was whether or not there was a decent sax library out there - not to incite a seires of unnecessary lectures. The last two threads I have started here have had similar results, so evidently this is not the place to ask questions and expect a civil respone. Goodbye.

[Andrew Aversa]

I can see where you're coming from, but I don't think it quite applies to the situation. Maybe I should have made it more clear, but I do not advocate using a sampled saxophone for the lead in a song. I agree that it would be too time consuming to learn the intricacies of sequencing such a part, even with the best of libraries. However, for backing tracks and "ambient" sax parts in a song, I don't think it is as insurmountable a task. As a parallel, I have very little knowledge and firsthand experience with the guitar and many orchestral instruments, but I am able to create passable emulations of them without drawing much criticism of obvious sampling flaws or artifacts.

The same goes for many other composers I know who are far superior to me at the art of MIDI orchestration and instrumentation. I've seen people with similar age and experience to myself take free soundfonts of only a few megabytes and make them sound beautifully convincing. I can only imagine where they'll be in a few years, once they have all the proper tools for the job!

To make my point a bit more concise, I don't think one needs to be a master of an instrument in order to sequence it properly for backing use in a song.

[joaz]

.
learning how to properly lick girls in the midsection, and to take bong hits without coughing.


The university of life.
:D :D
ps love the delicacy of "midsection" ;)

[Markleford]

To make my point a bit more concise, I don't think one needs to be a master of an instrument in order to sequence it properly for backing use in a song.Well, there is certainly an "economy of application" to be found in any sample set, and it sounds like you have that knack: it's just as I was saying, playing to a sound's strength and avoiding its weakness is half the battle.

And I have heard such masterpieces of free Soundfonts and have been similarly awed! But again, that just supports the notion that knowlege and practice and familiarity with the tools at hand makes a convincing performance, not out-of-the-box "realism" of samples by themselves.

So yeah, looks like we're on the same side of the fence after all...

- m

[Bruce A. Richardson]

So, having bought this expensive sax library and put the time in to get somewhat tolerable results that still fall short of the real thing, do you see how hiring a player can actually save you time and money?

This is exactly my point, but better articulated.

Example:

Denny's Flashforward (http://www.brucerichardsonmusic.com/tunes/1936_intro.mp3)

Saxophone is by far the most transparent of all woodwind instruments in terms of its response to the human airstream. In fact, it's extremely hard to record, because the dynamic range goes very literally from that of an intimate whisper to earsplitting volume--sometimes within the same note.

And all with extreme rapidity, because there is almost no resistance. It's the polar opposite of, say, an oboe or a trumpet where this kind of dynamic range happens only with extraordinary players--and much less extreme. You can get away with sampling those instruments a bit more, because their range tends to be more condensed, a bit more consistent, if you will, across the tessitura and dynamic envelope.

I point to the above example, because it is very short and illustrative of the futility of sampled saxophone. There is really no such thing as a "separate note" in pop and jazz sax. As you can hear, each of the two phrases in the example consist of a single airstream, very skillfully manipulated (Chris McGuire, who is one of the best sax players ever produced by Leon Breeden's NTSU program). Each phrase is a singular expression of air and notes, with no separation or separateness. It is a single, gutteral cry.

So, then you turn to the dilema of trying to somehow imitate this in samples.

First, every sample is an airstream in and of itself, so you do not have the ability to create a continuum of expression across notes--even with a wind controller, and even with elaborate tricks like VSL's legato function (although they have come the closest to cracking the nut).

Second, some notes in the example (the repeated middle C's towards the end) are not even separate articulations, they are rhythmically placed note repeats achieved through what is technically an extreme tremolo. But here, you have the player using the threshold of the horn's ability to "speak" creatively--the air of the non-vibrating reed is in and of itself being utilized as an expressive tool. Note also how he is using the degree of air-to-tone balance throughout the two phrases as another avenue of expression. He is rhythmic in the amount of air he mixes with the pure tone, in order to add another layer.

Even though Chris is an exceptional saxophone player, this is by no means anything but a very standard and typical part. Pretty much any journeyman saxophone player sounds like this, more or less.

And people who know what a saxophone sounds like would immediately know if you tried to use a sample to represent a saxophone.

I agree that this is all a matter of degree, and all sampled tasks share this basic dilema. However, they do not share it nearly to the same degree. And as I first mentioned, it is one thing to make a claim that somehow saxophone samples are tolerable for being hidden away in sections where there is some level of cover. But if one is choosing to put a saxophone sample up front as the lead instrument, this is a really BAD production decision. You'd spend hours trying to achieve what a decent sax player could do in 30 seconds for a few bucks. And in the final analysis, it would sound totally fake and musically vapid. So what is the point of it?

I understand the point of someone saying "Hey, the guy was just looking for a suggestion."

But I just don't view things that way, and I think we don't just discuss samples here--we try (hopefully) to share knowledge and experience as producers. And unless a client has bricks for ears, a sampled sax is not going to pass muster. And even if he does, do you really want your name on something like that?

(from one who has released plenty of cheesy stuff and lived to regret it):o

[Bruce A. Richardson]

Sheesh. All I wanted to know was whether or not there was a decent sax library out there - not to incite a seires of unnecessary lectures. The last two threads I have started here have had similar results, so evidently this is not the place to ask questions and expect a civil respone. Goodbye.

Who the hell is not being civil? I think people are being excessively gracious, spending time to really discuss something. This is a discussion group, not a free advice center. What's the fun in just talking about the damned samples? You have plenty of developers in here, shooting fish in this virtual barrel all day long. I would think that disinterested producers having a discussion would be fun to read.

Besides, I answered your damned question. Decent sax library? Aint one.

[Markleford]

Sheesh. All I wanted to know was whether or not there was a decent sax library out there - not to incite a seires of unnecessary lectures. The last two threads I have started here have had similar results, so evidently this is not the place to ask questions and expect a civil respone. Goodbye.If you want a list of products on the market, buy a print magazine like Keyboard or CM or whatnot.

But if you ask what's "decent", be aware that this is a subjective quality and opinions vary widely. Nobody knows what your definition of "decent" is without further elaboration: what is your benchmark of acceptability? In an open forum, people will duly give *their* opinions, and they might veer into theory of practical application.

However, nobody can definitively say "this is what you need". ("With a side of reverb!" ;))

This is how humans communicate in such a medium. You're welcome to participate or not, and discover the most reliable and easily-digested information source that suits your needs. Use your best judgment to filter out what you need and ignore the rest as noise. But while spirited discussion can be a bit "rough and tumble" in these parts, I don't think that this thread has gotten past the "civil response" stage, especially in comparison to what's happened in the past.

But then again people have differing opinions on what "civil" means... :D

I wish you luck in finding what you're after. Goodbye!

- m

[Bruce A. Richardson]

To make my point a bit more concise, I don't think one needs to be a master of an instrument in order to sequence it properly for backing use in a song.

Well, not if your standards are low enough ;)

I would say you'd need to understand the essence of the expression, though. This is exactly why you have "applied studies" as a music major, where you take lessons on every mainstream instrument. The point is not to achieve virtuosity on each. The point is to have "walked the walk" on every instrument, to understand firsthand how it physically, mentally, and emotionally feels to hold it and play it to some degree of capability.

If you want to be a producer, this is what makes you a master producer. You come to realize that no detail is small enough to consider merely "functional," when your goal is to break through barriers.

And the second part to that is that you realize that no matter how much mastery you gain, you always know about 1/1000th of what you need to know at any given time, and that you just wing it the best you can for the rest.

[Andrew Aversa]

Well, not if your standards are low enough ;)

I would say you'd need to understand the essence of the expression, though. This is exactly why you have "applied studies" as a music major, where you take lessons on every mainstream instrument. The point is not to achieve virtuosity on each. The point is to have "walked the walk" on every instrument, to understand firsthand how it physically, mentally, and emotionally feels to hold it and play it to some degree of capability.

If you want to be a producer, this is what makes you a master producer. You come to realize that no detail is too small to consider "functional," when your goal is to break through barriers.

And the second part to that is that you realize that no matter how much mastery you gain, you always know about 1/1000th of what you need to know at any given time, and that you just wing it the best you can for the rest.

I agree with you on every point here. Besides piano lessons, I have had no formal musical education. At college, I'll be taking a wide range of courses ranging from theory, to ear training, to orchestration, to production/recording and beyond, because I know that there is a whole lot of stuff I need to learn and get comfortable with. I can only hope that I'll be exposed to as much as possible by the end of the four years.

[Bruce A. Richardson]

Use your best judgment to filter out what you need and ignore the rest as noise.

I live to be ignored. It gives me more opportunities to say, "I told you so."

hahahaha....

[Bruce A. Richardson]

At college, I'll be taking a wide range of courses ranging from theory, to ear training, to orchestration, to production/recording and beyond, because I know that there is a whole lot of stuff I need to learn and get comfortable with. I can only hope that I'll be exposed to as much as possible by the end of the four years.

You bet!!!!!

Ironically, my applied saxophone teacher was a HOT redhead graduate student, and I'll just say that I was exposed to as much stuff as possible.

[ELP71]

Who the hell is not being civil? I think people are being excessively gracious, spending time to really discuss something. This is a discussion group, not a free advice center. What's the fun in just talking about the damned samples? You have plenty of developers in here, shooting fish in this virtual barrel all day long. I would think that disinterested producers having a discussion would be fun to read.

Besides, I answered your damned question. Decent sax library? Aint one.

Point taken, and I do appreciate the time everyone's giving. I just don't understand why "hire a real player" was smugly presented - as if I don't know that.

This is, after all, a sample discussion forum, thats why I posed the question here. If I had wanted a list of players, I would have made the same calls I make when I book a big band or theatre gig. If I had wanted recording techniques on a sax section, EQ, mic placement or tracking advice I would have looked elsewhere.

Thanks again.

[Jeff4h]

I use a wx11 with a vl70m with the patchmen chip, go to patchmens web site and listen to the demos they sound real to me, they arent samples it is modeling but great qualtiy Jeff4h

[ed hamilton]

Since the question was about Sax Libs .........

I still use the old roland library.
Those sax samples really hold up when voiced into sections. No weird late vibrato etc.
Just really usable patches.
And you can find the Roland Orchestral Lib cheap these days.

As to the idea of using real players - I get to sit in an orchestra 8 shows a week with 4 of NYC's best sax players (flute,oboe,bass clar too).
And playing killer Don Sebesky charts to boot.
(ok ... I seldom play all 8 shows ... that's what subs are for!)

Makes it real hard to come home and work with libraries at all.

and PLEASE DON'T write for your sax samples thinking you will have real players play the parts later.
You can't help but alter your lines to fit (read-work around) the samples.
Freekin whistle your parts into your daw instead of mocking up sax parts.

Just write, hum, whistle, moan, ideas. They will be far better than the parts you will write for your samples. Especially if they are swingin parts.

[Bruce A. Richardson]

I have never once had even acceptable in the library, much less decent. There are too many rules, and the books smell funny and turn me off.

[mirage]

........"Sheesh. All I wanted to know was whether or not there was a decent sax library out there..."

-------------------------------------------------
I think Candy sounds pretty good and I just might buy it.

I started needing sax parts around 1986. All I had were the crummy samples available then, so I'd use them to get my recordings done. When I could find a player who could come in, I'd play the reference tracks and then record the good, "real" player. Ok, that was a cool way to operate, sounded the best, and I still do it that way.

But also..in 1986..I decided to take sax lessons, figuring I just MIGHT get good enough to at least lay down tracks that sounded better than my samples. I couldn't always find a real player when the inspiration hit to add sax. Considering the extensive training I already had with other instruments, I figured I could get the gist of playing it. Which I did. I only took a couple months of lessons and then spent a year or so recording my own parts when needed...obviously with lots of overdubbing and track comping.

What I found out over time was ...I wasn't very good. Plus...I didn't really like playing sax. So I wasn't gonna get any better. But I did get a dose of the mentality of playing by going through the experience. Which helped. Even in listening to libraries.

Playing gigs, practicing, (and licking girls) all have their important place, but those sax lessons and "trying" to play it myself has been a good experience.

By the way, I tried the same approach over the years with trumpet and violin with varying degrees of success. There's actually a lot of realism that can be achieved if you're a crummy violin player (me) and you overdub your crummy parts against sampled library tracks. Sometimes, it's actually a pretty good result.

So...that being said...I like the demos for Candy. It can do stuff I couldn't do myself on a real instrument. It has some air, noises, attitude (whatever) that I can't do with my existing samples.

Candy sounds better than most of the other things I've listened to this year. And I think it'll help me with my ideas..and sometimes final tracks...because I THINK, for some types of parts, I'll be able to get it to do what I need when I'm triggering it from the keyboard...with the mindset of what I was trying to do with a real sax in my hands...and without getting irritated at the result.

As I mentioned, I still find and use real players too. I've found some really good "real" players who've done some great things for me via Internet...guys I found right here (although Bruce never offers...hmpfff).

But anyway, keeping all the useage in perspective.. yeah, I think I'll buy Candy in the next few weeks and I think it'll work fine.

There...there's a recommendation.

[Houston Haynes]

Keep an eye out for Arturia's BRASS (http://www.arturia.com/en/brass/brass.php) virtual instrument. It is based on physically modeled trumpet, trombone, and saxophone. OK - it's not a sample set or a real player, but it shows both pattern-based and real-time play capabilities. If you're interested in getting closer than samples, the demo might be worth checking out when comes out.

For parts played/recorded live, I work with a guy named Felix Ramos, who not only covers nearly the entire sax family, but is one of the nicest guys on planet Earth. PM me if you're looking for a great player in the L.A. area.

:|:

[sporter]

Just listened to Kick A s s Brass. Not bad, not bad at all!

[Alan Russell]

........"Sheesh. All I wanted to know was whether or not there was a decent sax library out there..."

-------------------------------------------------
I think Candy sounds pretty good and I just might buy it.

I started needing sax parts around 1986. All I had were the crummy samples available then, so I'd use them to get my recordings done. When I could find a player who could come in, I'd play the reference tracks and then record the good, "real" player. Ok, that was a cool way to operate, sounded the best, and I still do it that way.

But also..in 1986..I decided to take sax lessons, figuring I just MIGHT get good enough to at least lay down tracks that sounded better than my samples. I couldn't always find a real player when the inspiration hit to add sax. Considering the extensive training I already had with other instruments, I figured I could get the gist of playing it. Which I did. I only took a couple months of lessons and then spent a year or so recording my own parts when needed...obviously with lots of overdubbing and track comping.

What I found out over time was ...I wasn't very good. Plus...I didn't really like playing sax. So I wasn't gonna get any better. But I did get a dose of the mentality of playing by going through the experience. Which helped. Even in listening to libraries.

Playing gigs, practicing, (and licking girls) all have their important place, but those sax lessons and "trying" to play it myself has been a good experience.

By the way, I tried the same approach over the years with trumpet and violin with varying degrees of success. There's actually a lot of realism that can be achieved if you're a crummy violin player (me) and you overdub your crummy parts against sampled library tracks. Sometimes, it's actually a pretty good result.

So...that being said...I like the demos for Candy. It can do stuff I couldn't do myself on a real instrument. It has some air, noises, attitude (whatever) that I can't do with my existing samples.

Candy sounds better than most of the other things I've listened to this year. And I think it'll help me with my ideas..and sometimes final tracks...because I THINK, for some types of parts, I'll be able to get it to do what I need when I'm triggering it from the keyboard...with the mindset of what I was trying to do with a real sax in my hands...and without getting irritated at the result.

As I mentioned, I still find and use real players too. I've found some really good "real" players who've done some great things for me via Internet...guys I found right here (although Bruce never offers...hmpfff).

But anyway, keeping all the useage in perspective.. yeah, I think I'll buy Candy in the next few weeks and I think it'll work fine.

There...there's a recommendation.


Hi,

Candy has very nice keying facilities. I used on 4 keying facilities in my Soprano Sax demo for them.

http://alanrussell-music.com/Candy%20Demo-A.MP3

Alan Russell

[Hardy Heern]

Get hold of one of the decent libraries but be prepared to spend a lot of time programming the MIDI. Then you can achieve a result which will make real players go green at the gills. (Are you OK with that Bruce?http://www.northernsounds.com/forum/images/smilies/character66.gif )

It's all in the programming....nothing will sound any good if it's played out of the box on a keyboard.

If you want quick then, definitely, get a real saxaphone player!http://www.northernsounds.com/forum/images/smilies/smile.gif

Frank