Library dissapointment. Need some advice.

[kramusica]

Hi everybody,

There's nothing to do about it. I really don't like GOS. It's been a disappointment from the moment I loaded the first instrument. What a shame. I'd been reading raving reviews everywhere about this library and decided that this would become my main library. We all know it's a an expensive library and I'm in no position to keep on spending that kind of money.

What are my options here? What would you do? Did anybody else have a similar experience with an expensive library?

Mark

[Ouch that hurts]

FWIW, I bought my copy of GOS second hand, quite recently (I differ from you and think it's a great library, even now with everything else on the market).

While sample libraries generally have licences that say they can't be legally resold, the guy who sold me mine contacted Gary and got permission, and transferred the registration over to my name. Gary was fine about it and took care of all the necessary administration.

So my point is, maybe you could get back some of the money you spent this way. Probably not a great proportion of it, but something.

More advanced things have been done since this library was released, and you may find that VSL strings or something satisfies you more. Or you may just not be happy with sampled strings at all. The main thing is not to just go on reviews - you must listen to demos of anything you plan to buy, and read around users' comments in places like this. String sound quality is very subjective and some people love what over people hate (eg, our reactions to GOS). It's not just a question of finding something "good", it's finding something right for you.

Good luck.

[Nick Batzdorf]

Sharmy, from your comparison to EWQLSO Silver, it sounds like you might be talking about GPO rather than GOS.

kramusica, what problems do you have with it? GOS was one of the first modern sample libraries. In other words, it went past the "fast strings/slow strings and that's it" limitation and included ten billion articulations.

What I wonder is whether you're expecting just to be able to play all those articulations. Even with keyswitching, lots of MIDI controllers, and so on, you have to do some "programming" to get the most out of it.

[ohernie]

have you listened to the demos?

for the amount of money this library charges you will be hard pressed to get much better quality or support. QLSO silver is another good option as is Apple loops Orchestral, but don't sell this library short unless you hate the sound of the demos.

Thanks for the laugh! This is like someone saying they don't like the way a worker does his job and getting the reply - "have you looked at his/her resume'?". The implication is that the image of reality - the demo - should be trusted more than the reality - actually owning and using the library.

One thing I've learned, and I'm sure the developers are in the same bag, is that there are different strokes for different folks. One guy's incredible grand is another guy's upright. As long as everybody doesn't agree on how bad your product is :p you're doing ok.

Seems to me that one of the advantages of the Kontakt licensing system is the ability to de-register the product. Since there is a way to disable the long term use of the product, worst case until an unscrupulous original owner makes an upgrade, which in this business is generally not very long, one should be able to resell the product.

Ernie

[Alexcremers]

I you had bought this you wouldn't have posted this thread.

http://www.sonicimplants.com/ProductDetail.asp?Item=CDStringCollection

[kramusica]

Thanks everybody for posting. Obviously we all have different tastes. Yes, I listened to all the demos before purchasing. You now how it goes, the library arrives, you load a sound in the sampler, you press a note... and either you "feel" the instrument or you don't.

Nick, I play with two fingers on my keyboard. I'm not a pianist. Everything has to be edited. This song is completely programmed. The strings here gave me a very good feeling yet they were demo sounds from VSL included in the Gigastudio3 package.
http://www.garageband.com/mp3player?|pe1|S8LTM0LdsaSkaFOza2s

To GOS or not to GOS, that's my dilemma.

Mark

[Haydn]

kramusica,

GOS is getting to be old as sample libraries go. It was the first large library with about every articulation you could think of.

You don't really say what you don't like about the library. Is it the sound? I usually EQ around 2.8-3.0 KHz to tone down some of the brightness of the sound. You should do some searching on this forum regarding the library. There is quite a bit of useful info on EQ and use of the library.

Do you have all the updates loaded? Not sure when you actually purchased the library.

Jim

[dpasdernick]

Try Kirk Hunter's Virtuoso strings for only $49.00 I, personally, love the sound and for $49 if you don't like 'em you got 3 real attractive coasters ;)

I bought 'em and use them all the time. They are not as "current" as some of the newer libs but good sound never becomes obsolete.

Darren

PS For around $250 you can get KH Emerald (or is it Sapphire?) Whole orchestra, solo strings etc. Can't even get a decent meal for $250 any more. Chicks will dig ya... trust me :D

[kramusica]

Hi Jim,

It is partially the sound that has caused my dissapointment. I've purchased the library a few months ago and have not updated nor have I searched for additional information in this forum. Thanks for the EQ tip, I'll give it a try.

Mark

[YBaCuO]

Did/do you like the sound in the GOS demos?

Sorry if this is too basic, but GOS was recorded with somewhat closer mics, so good reverb has to be added and also some EQ (approx. roll off high frequencies) to give the effect of high frequencies being attentuated in air as one gets farther away from the source (strings). The -6db cut at 3Khz will not really help the sound but will help GOS strings to blend better with other instruments.

YBaCuO

[midphase]

I think GOS is a great sounding library, the pizzicatos and tremolos are IMHO still unbeaten. The cellos and basses marcatos are very good as well. The violins can use a bit of EQ to tone down the brightness as has been mentioned. The sheer variety of articulations is almost unequalled in the sample world. Gary is a great developer, very easy to get a hold of and very interested in making sure everyone is happy. If you're really not happy with the library I think you should contact him and discuss options with him (which in my opinion is a better course of action than ranting about a product on this forum). Before you do that however I would seriously consider spending more time with the library and see if you can find how to best mold it to your needs. Also, I think the demos do the library justice and there are plenty of them online. I find it hard to believe that with all of the demos available, you would have not been able to determine if this library was for you or not. I also find some fault at equating a demo to a resume. A demo is equivalent to observing the worker in action performing a certain task. The literature and specs of the library are probably more similar to the resume analogy.

At the original price point of $1000, GOS was an incredible bang for the buck, at the new price point of $600 it's even more so.

One last point...do you read any posts around here? People are continuously discussing what libraries to get and what new products are available. If you didn't find the demos satisfactory, a simple search around here would have yielded tons of information on how to make a smart and informed decision.

[FredProgGH]

Well, as sadi before it is a mater of subjective taste. Maybe you bought a Strat and you really wanted a Les Paul. It doesn't mean the Strat is bad.

I don't want to preach, I just want to add my voice to the chorus of support for GOS. It was the most advanced string library I could afford when I bought it about a year ago and the most useful software purchase I've ever made along with Drumkit From Hell Superior and Arturia's Minimoog V.
However it did take a little time to learn how to get the best results. Sometimes I layer it with the VSL samples that came with GS3. Sometimes I player it with GPO or even real string players. Sometimes I leave it alone.

Work with it a bit before you give up. I may be that you'll never find it's what you were looking for but the sound that made all those demos is in there. It's for real. Give it a little time and maybe you'll feel better about owning GOS.

Oh, one more thing; learn Maestro Tools. That's where the real power of GOS lies.

[janila]

Thanks for the laugh! This is like someone saying they don't like the way a worker does his job and getting the reply - "have you looked at his/her resume'?". The implication is that the image of reality - the demo - should be trusted more than the reality - actually owning and using the library.People doing demos are usually seasoned professionals. That way you can trust that the library can't deliver more than can be heard from the demos. Most people buying the libraries aren't as good as the people who do the demos. That way the regular users can think that the library sucks even if they themselves don't have the skills to use them.

[TheOne{]

Thanks for the laugh! This is like someone saying they don't like the way a worker does his job and getting the reply - "have you looked at his/her resume'?". The implication is that the image of reality - the demo - should be trusted more than the reality - actually owning and using the library.

That's not the implication at all.....what's implied is that by listening to the demos you can get a feel of what the product could sound like with the proper work....

[thesoundsmith]

I have many thousands of dollars invested in libraries I will probably never use. Listened to the demos, liked what I heard, bought the discs and cannot get that sound for the life of me! OK, partially it's the way I work; I do not use the lilbs the way they were intended. I don't work from the space of slicing up a melodic line to bounce between the various articulations, it's my opinion I should have played it right in the first place...

y point is, you cannot get a lib out of the box and expect it to sound like the demos. YOu have to treat each new lib as a new instrument, and learn to play it.

Every time I've not liked the sound I got, it was me. Every time...

Find your way to Carnegie Hall.

[Alexcremers]

Well, as sadi before it is a mater of subjective taste. Maybe you bought a Strat and you really wanted a Les Paul. It doesn't mean the Strat is bad.

I don't think that's the issue here. I like both guitars, but strings should sound like strings.

[FredProgGH]

I don't think that's the issue here. I like both guitars, but strings should sound like strings.

Well if that's the case why would there be a need for more than one string library?? They should all sound exactly the same.

[Alexcremers]

Well if that's the case why would there be a need for more than one string library?? They should all sound exactly the same.


Countless people declared that GOS needs some work (a good reverb, EQ here, EQ there). My impression is that they sound sterile with no room or emotion. But I'm sure that if you "learn" how to "mould" them they sound a lot better.


Alex

[FredProgGH]

Countless people declared that GOS needs some work (a good reverb, EQ here, EQ there). My impression is that they sound sterile with no room or emotion. But I'm sure that if you "learn" how to "mould" them they sound a lot better.


Alex
So you don't necesarily like the sound of GOS. I do, and I've done great work with it. That's the point of my analogy exactly. Anyway, any instrument is sterile until it's put in to the hands of a player that identifies with it. Sure, I'd like to have more colors on the palette to work with as well- I'd love to be able to go out and just buy the entire new VSL package- but GOS as a quality lib for the money, period, whether it's for everyone or not.

[Ivan P]

Can't even get a decent meal for $250 any more. Chicks will dig ya... trust me :D

Oh, I can! My mother cooks really nice! And it's free :D

[kramusica]

Thanks everybody for writing.

The GOS demo (I'm listening to it right now on the Best Service site). It is very limited in terms of musicality. It consists of very short fragments of each instrument and they steered away from using their weak spot (violins) too much.

One of the things I learned here is that everybody EQ's GOS. I had already started layering GOS with the VSL sounds that came with GS3 because GOS didn't feel right. I will give it more time as Fred and Kays suggested, there's obviously much to be learned in terms of EQ and layering to achieve the feel I'm looking for.

In terms of articulations I agree that GOS is an excellent investment.

Mark

[Houston Haynes]

OK - as a long-time GOS user, I've got to say a few things in a very plain way that *might* come off as condescending. Apologies in advance.

#1 - If you can't create a good string sound with GOS, you're lazy.

#2 - If you expect a string sound to be perfect "right out of the box", you're a fool.

#3 - If you purchased GOS before taking the opportunity to check out GOS2 when GPO Advanced hits the streets, you're an idiot.

I don't mean to make this comment in order to kill off all of Garritan's GOS sales before GPOA comes out, but SHEESH! How about sending an email or two to the developer before making a purchase that's going to be a significant portion of your budget? How about checking out the main discussion area and use the search feature to find that GOS2 has been integrated into GPO Advanced?

I'm sorry - I just don't buy into your complaints, especially since it looks like you didn't really do your own due diligence on this. Professional tools require a professional's mindset. These are not Tonka toys or video games we're talking about here. Read the manual and the online documentation (http://www.garritan.com/GOS-support.html), invest the time like everyone else or take your toys elsewhere.

[Alexcremers]

So, all those that don't like how GOS is recorded is not a professional. Sounds like crazy talk to me.

[HenrikBJ]

#1 - If you can't create a good string sound with GOS, you're lazy.

#2 - If you expect a string sound to be perfect "right out of the box", you're a fool.

#3 - If you purchased GOS before taking the opportunity to check out GOS2 when GPO Advanced hits the streets, you're an idiot.

#4 - If you post replies like this, you're arrogant ;)

[Houston Haynes]

So, all those that don't like how GOS is recorded is not a professional. Sounds like crazy talk to me.

First of all - you don't really know how GOS was recorded. You don't. You are *assuming* you have some understanding of how it was recorded based on how GOS sounds - but you don't.

In fact, Gary himself explained to me (as I contacted him years ago as a potential customer before I became an actual customer) that the choices made for GOS were made intentionally and specifically with GigaStudio and the future in mind. The brightness of the strings were there for several reasons, all of which are correct in principle and application. First of all - strings are actually that bright when you're in a close-micing situation using transparent mics. Factors that affect the tone color include mic choice, mixing choices, and room reverb. The choice was made to rely on GigaStudios EQ and reverb, both of which were pretty good back in their day. When used appropriately, the end result is very, very effective. This has been proven time and again with the award-winning projects that continue to use GOS. These days, I almost never user GOS without running it through a ribbon or condensor mic modeler and a convolution reverb. The advantage is that I get to choose how to shape the sound of the strings - soemthing that can't be done with pre-canned string sounds. You can't affect harmonics that aren't there to begin with. You can't take away reverb that's imprinted in the sample. Recently I even had to roll off the bottom of the strings with a high-pass filter to get a really airy sound - you can't do that with some string sounds unless you drag in a harmonic exciter of some sort, and then you start skirting away from an authentic string sound.

I realize that you are trying to turn this into a thread that's about making an fundamental indictment of GOS - but it's really not about that. It's about a guy who wasn't willing to use the product as it was designed in order to get professional results. The body of professional work that has leveraged GOS effectively doesn't need defending against this type of complaint - but when I see someone taking this "opening" as an opportunity to proffer their summary judgement, I take exception.

Garritan made the right decisions, especially given the time period and availability of technology at the time. The decisions were made correctly both on musical and technical grounds - and those decisions still hold up today.

I'm really dumbfounded that people here have the audacity to post that something is "wrong" when they have to use EQ to make something work for them. I'd love to hear a piece of music they've written, recorded, and mixed without using EQ, compression, or made any mic choices that affect the tone of the sound recorded. Give me something you've done with instruments being mixed straight to hard drive without processing, and make it sound perfect, and I'll recant everything I've said. Pffft. Get real, people.

[Houston Haynes]

#4 - If you post replies like this, you're arrogant ;)

I *am* arrogant. Being right, knowing it, and being willing to express myself in unvarnished terms has that effect.

I found the summary judgements lodged in this thread to be equally arrogant, so I felt no need to moderate my response.

[Ashermusic]

While Houston's mode of expression is missing a few things, like tact, humility, and just plain basic people skills, I do agree with his overall points.

There is a learning curve to learning to use a library and the better you understand how real strings work the better results you will have. Generally demos are done by people who have already mastered these skills.

GOS is a fine library.

[Houston Haynes]

Hi Jim,

It is partially the sound that has caused my dissapointment. I've purchased the library a few months ago and have not updated nor have I searched for additional information in this forum. Thanks for the EQ tip, I'll give it a try.

Mark

That "EQ tip" is on page 1-12 of the GOS manual - you *do* have the manual, don't you?

:mad:

PUH-LEASE don't tell me that you "downloaded" GOS and then had the nuts to post this ~~~~e in the same site where Garritan has an official support forum...

[noenoeil]

Hi Houston. May I hear some of your non-lazy programmed GOS strings?
Never liked the sound of that lib - any demo or soundtrack that includes it (I did not buy it of course). Maybe your work with it could help me to revise my opinion?

Christian

[Houston Haynes]

There's a demo page on my web site - if there are strings on it, it's either GOS or GPO - you decide.

You could also check out Jeff Beal's work. He's scoring the most popular show on US television, and is credited as helping out with GOS. (page 4-28 of the GOS manual)

[Nick Batzdorf]

"I don't work from the space of slicing up a melodic line to bounce between the various articulations, it's my opinion I should have played it right in the first place..."

I don't follow. The general idea is that you're given short, long, very short, medium, hard, soft, upbow, downbow, pizz, vibrato, non-vib, sul ponticello, sul tasto, tremolo, sul ponticello tremolo, harmonics, half-step trills, whole-step trills, col legno, Bartok pizz... How are you going to make use of all that and play it in the first place without bouncing the line between various articulations?

[Houston Haynes]

I don't follow. The general idea is that you're given short, long, very short, medium, hard, soft, upbow, downbow, pizz, vibrato, non-vib, sul ponticello, sul tasto, tremolo, sul ponticello tremolo, harmonics, half-step trills, whole-step trills, col legno, Bartok pizz... How are you going to make use of all that and play it in the first place without bouncing the line between various articulations?

Lots of different ways to slice it - key triggers, Maestro Tools, Megatrig in HALion - MIDI input transformer in Cubase or Nuendo.

It all starts with reading the manual and learning some basic setup functions in your sampler or sequencer.

[FredProgGH]

Hi Houston. May I hear some of your non-lazy programmed GOS strings?
Never liked the sound of that lib - any demo or soundtrack that includes it (I did not buy it of course). Maybe your work with it could help me to revise my opinion?

Christian

Well, can't speak for Houston but as a GOS supporter I'll post one of mine...

http://www.mydocsonline.com/pub/fredproggh/09%20The%20Lady%20Waits.mp3

Though I don't expect many opinions to change.

[dpasdernick]

Mark,

I feel your pain here. I too have bought libraries in the past and been dissapointed, even when the demos sounded good. People, like Houston, will argue that you need to invest a bunch of time and really finesse these libraries. Why? Why can't these things sound good "out of the box"? A lot of other libraries do. People talk about EQ'ing the samples to get a smoother sound. If this is the tactic most people use to get a better sound with GOS then why wasn't it addressed in the initial recordings? Yes, "sound" is a matter of taste but if the majority of people need to tweak this then perhaps it was not produced for the majority of composers.

I am not ripping GOS here by the way. I don't own it. Perhaps it is the sound I've been looking for. I just have issues with the way some people respond to this "You're just lazy if you can't get a good sound out of this library"

a) maybe you'd like to spend your time composing instead of tweaking a library that doesn't inspire you.

b) maybe the "sound" YOU LOVE isn't in these samples and no matter how hard you work at it they will never be the "sound that is in your head"

That's the probelm with these libraries. You don't really get to "try before you buy" How many of us would ask for a refund on software synths we bought, or even just sell them on Ebay, if we could. Developers spend a bunch of time creating demos that show off their libraries strengths, but never their weaknesses.

I purchased quite a few turkeys over the years, IMO, and believe me, they don't sound like cr@p because I'm lazy.

Hope you find your "sound" Mark.

All the very best,

Darren

[Nick Batzdorf]

Houston, I was talking to another post, and RTFM has absolutely nothing to do with my point. I actually mentioned all the MIDI controllers in my first post, so you're not enlightening me. :)

The quoting function in this new software has disappeared along with the avatars. (Not the Quote button, it appears, the Quote On - paste what you want in between - Quote Off codes that appear when you click on the icon above the text area.

[Quot.] bla bla blalab [/Quot.] in other words - that doesn't work.

[ArsNova]

Well, can't speak for Houston but as a GOS supporter I'll post one of mine...

http://www.mydocsonline.com/pub/fredproggh/09%20The%20Lady%20Waits.mp3

Though I don't expect many opinions to change.

The strings hold up pretty well. Good piece.

Anybody who thinks that they're going to get a great string sound straight out of the box is in for a dissapointment. Strings are so flexible and the attacks so varied that you'll need to do a bit of programming to get them to sound half way close. Sad truth.

Ars

[Houston Haynes]

Why? Why can't these things sound good "out of the box"?

Because - "sounds good out of the box" often means "limited to a few usable contexts".

Back when GOS changed the way we think of sampling and musicality of technology, it took a great deal of technical programming and engineering work to get a satisfactory sound. Today or course, things have advanced - but we shouldn't lose sight that there's a reason VSL charges $11,000US for their proprietary technology. To install GOS and expect it to work as intuitively as GPO is a fool's errand. Gary Garritan and crew have been working on GPO Advanced as "an answer" to your question, but it's not so easy to implement - while preserving the number of technical and creative options that the original GOS product had offered. Anyone who had produced professional products with the "state of the art" as it was five years ago would realize that...

A great number of people are coming to the field of sampling without the experience of what it was like to try to produce a convincing demo with the E-mu samplers or Kurzweil sample-playback boxes of yesteryear. You really had to *know* and care about technical considerations. You really had to *know* your mixing and audio engineering skills. And you *REALLY* had to know your art. Today - not so much... for better and for worse.

Then there are those demos that sound like they've not progressed since the eighties - sounding like they're depending on advances of technology to compensate for their personal inability to hear or deliver a track with the right kind of finesse. That's just there are so many demos out there that use very convincing samples yet still sound "synthy" - they don't have the musical background or skill to create the added level of realism that today's technology can provide (and I include GOS in that category) and so are fit to blame the technology for their own shortcomings - or are satisfied with delivering within the newest toy's "wheelhouse".

[kramusica]

Interesting points of view.

Have a listen to this one, straight out of the box:
http://www.garageband.com/mp3player?|pe1|S8LTM0LdsaSkaFOza2s

This song was made with Ethnic World 2 and the VSL samples delivered with GS3 (I have not edited the strings to obtain smooth legato lines as I wanted GOS to replace the VSL samples). I work in rewire mode on a laptop and a US-122 sound card.

I don't agree that you "have to" tweak a sound library. Either the instruments sparkle your imagination or they don't. What I lack in GOS is that I don't "feel" the instruments and unfortunately it will demand technical efforts to obtain what I want to "feel". Maybe at the end of the day I'll become a GOS aficionado.

Thanks for sharing your views,

Mark

[navidson]

Incidently, anyone unconvinced with GOS's sound should check out Jeremy Soule's soundtrack to Morrowind and anything else by him around that period - I'm not sure if he still uses GOS exclusivly but I'm certain that back in 2002/2003 he was - and those strings sound quite beautiful.


People talk about EQ'ing the samples to get a smoother sound. If this is the tactic most people use to get a better sound with GOS then why wasn't it addressed in the initial recordings?

To answer your question with a rhetorical question: why do people bother EQing at all? I know that I'd prefer to have untreated sounds right 'out of the box' so I can tweak to taste based on personal preference...

Edit: there's supposed to be a quote there, hehe. I guess the forum upgrades are still going on.

[Houston Haynes]

I don't agree that you "have to" tweak a sound library. Either the instruments sparkle your imagination or they don't. What I lack in GOS is that I don't "feel" the instruments and unfortunately it will demand technical efforts to obtain what I want to "feel".

I don't get it - what's to "feel" in $10,000,00 worth of strings recorded in Lincoln Center?

Even when recordings are made in that space, special attention is paid to mic choice, EQ, compression, and room ambiance. GOS was designed to maintain those choices for the composer. On a composer's and audio engineer's level, I just can't comprehend an indictment of a product based on it's intentional design philosophy.

On the level of a guy that understands how the marketplace works - I *can* understand how this mythology has gotten so out of hand. I wouldn't go so far as to say there's a conspiracy to disparage a commercial product, as much as we're getting a constant parroting of manufactured marketing line by other products that influence users that don't know any better - most folks that continue the diatribe are all too content to blame the product for their own inability to perceive and tranmit subtelty in an orchestral arrangement.

[Alexcremers]

Anybody who thinks that they're going to get a great string sound straight out of the box is in for a dissapointment.

That depends out of what box they are coming.

[Houston Haynes]

That depends out of what box they are coming.

Yeah Alex, I'm sure you know exactly in who's box you're coming...

[jc5]

Well, can't speak for Houston but as a GOS supporter I'll post one of mine...

http://www.mydocsonline.com/pub/fredproggh/09%20The%20Lady%20Waits.mp3

Though I don't expect many opinions to change.

Well done.
Frankly I feel GOS is one of only a couple of string sets that can handle the sort of exposed lines that abound in this piece.

Despite being a very happy VSL user (who's strings I feel are tops), I am still looking at adding GOS to my sound set (at some point..). Its general tone and the selection of articulations make it quite appealing, even at this 'late' stage in the game.

One thing is certian though - to get the most out of a collection like this it helps to know something about composing for strings, as the different articulations can be combined and interspersed in ways tha tare not necessarily obvious to achieve more varied and realistic results.

[dpasdernick]

Because - "sounds good out of the box" often means "limited to a few usable contexts".


Houston,

I was referring to the "actual sound" of the samples, not the different articulations. Some one mentioned at NS that they heard a nice string quartet mockup that used 66 MIDI tracks. 66 tracks for 4 instruments. This is because the sample libraries have a long way to go with "real time" performance controls. I can respect that it takes time to finesse most sample libraries in that manner. However, If the raw sound, "out of the box", is not good (in the composers opinion) then no amount of MIDI tracks will get him or her there.

Again, if the majority of the people need to tweek EQ, etc on a specific library, then shouldn't that have been the way it was programmed from the start? That's why I prefer EWQL stuff. It may not be perfect, but it sounds pretty darn good and I spend more time writing than I do EQ'ing etc.

All the very best,

Darren

[dpasdernick]

Yeah Alex, I'm sure you know exactly in who's box you're coming...

Houston,

Such poor taste...

Darren

[Alexcremers]

Don't worry, I know who's dog he is.

[Houston Haynes]

I summarize with this: I can do things with GOS and my skill that you can *never* pull off with EastWest. Legato, release triggering, it all falls down when there's too much of the room imprinted in the sample. Facts are facts. The short-term gratification that some folks get from their latest Media Ventures rip-ff theme is nice and all - but there are too many other things that composer and their virtual orchestras need to do - things that go unspoken by the director that asks for a cue - but emerge nonetheless from a qualified composer. In the end you can say and do whatever you want - but the music speaks for itself.

The 66-track thing is a "straw man" example. I don't use more than ten tracks for all of my general string arranging - which includes room for divisi parts. You *do* know what a divisi part is, don't you? Can you do that with an EastWest library? You don't even have a real 2nd violin section...

... 'nuff said. I'm out, kiddies.

[dpasdernick]

You *do* know what a divisi part is, don't you?

... 'nuff said. I'm out, kiddies.

Isn't Divisi Italian for hot air? blowhard? Never was too good at all that orchestral lingo...

Darren

[noenoeil]

Houston, Safari and IE on Mac shows a flash player on your demo page, I can see only a "linking park" mp3 indexed #12 - which will not play.

> You could also check out Jeff Beal's work. He's scoring the most popular show on US television, and is credited as helping out with GOS. (page 4-28 of the GOS manual)

Don't have interest in US TV shows since "The Time Tunnel" ;) - I was ~6 (nice early J. Williams work), and since that, I generally don't give a stratospheric flying #<*%§ about *insert well known composer's name* 's choices of libraries. My ears are the only device that opens my wallet. I am also pretty sure, without knowing him personally, that Mr. Beal never said "love those strings or be an amateur - RTFM or be a thief" in public or even privately to anyone.

-Fred, I really liked "the lady waits", thank you for the link! However you are right about opinions. :o

-Darren, many thanks for the Divisi liberating laugh.

-Kramusica, Bruges is an unbelievably beautiful city. I'll have a (-nother) strong Duvel to this thread - which I hope I just killed, cheers!

Christian (edited)

[ArsNova]

Interesting points of view.

Have a listen to this one, straight out of the box:
http://www.garageband.com/mp3player?|pe1|S8LTM0LdsaSkaFOza2s

This song was made with Ethnic World 2 and the VSL samples delivered with GS3 (I have not edited the strings to obtain smooth legato lines as I wanted GOS to replace the VSL samples). I work in rewire mode on a laptop and a US-122 sound card.

I don't agree that you "have to" tweak a sound library. Either the instruments sparkle your imagination or they don't. What I lack in GOS is that I don't "feel" the instruments and unfortunately it will demand technical efforts to obtain what I want to "feel". Maybe at the end of the day I'll become a GOS aficionado.

Thanks for sharing your views,

Mark

It's a good piece but it does want for at least some expression or volume swells to make it sound more natural. Listen to a real orchestra live and you'll hear how dynamic the strings are. You have some swells but overall the strings sound pretty static.

Ars

[MDesigner]

You *do* know what a divisi part is, don't you? Can you do that with an EastWest library? You don't even have a real 2nd violin section...

... 'nuff said. I'm out, kiddies. No library can do divisi, period, unless you build your own sections using solo instruments. Think about it.. yes, you have 1st & 2nd violins with GOS, but if a composer wanted to, he/she could have just 1st violins play divisi.. half of the section playing something differently. Or, if you have a section of six French horns, you could have them play divisi.. 3 playing one melody, 3 playing another. This is impossible with today's libs. If I take SAM Horns (4-horn section) and hold two notes, I suddenly have an 8-horn section playing. If I hold a 4-note chord, then I've got 16 horns playing! This is why people taking mockups to a live orchestra have to remain aware of this fact, and realize that when they have two or three melody lines with SAM Horns, it will sound weaker in the live version because the horn section must play divisi.

[CallMeZoot]

This song was made with Ethnic World 2

Mark,

What is Ethnic World 2? Who makes it?

I've never heard it, but I've been looking for a good, inexpensive library of "Ethnic" instruments (particularly Asian, Eastern European, and African).

chris.

[noenoeil]

If I hold a 4-note chord, then I've got 16 horns playing! .

Add 12 flutes, 9 bones, 8 celli, 8 basses, 2 timpanies sets and you are ready to play the original "Torn Curtain" rejected score from BH!

C.

[Nick Batzdorf]

After all the snarling, I still would like to know what karmusica's original complaint about GOS is.

[rob morsberger]

er... they didn't give him a "very good feeling."

[PaulR]

> You could also check out Jeff Beal's work. He's scoring the most popular show on US television, and is credited as helping out with GOS. (page 4-28 of the GOS manual)

Don't have interest in US TV shows since "The Time Tunnel" ;) - I was ~6 (nice early J. Williams work), and since that, I generally don't give a stratospheric flying #<*%§ about *insert well known composer's name* 's choices of libraries. Christian

Yes - I think I can more or less go along with that.

Incidentally, that's a big worry Houston if it's true btw. Is Rome really that popular on US TV? I can't really believe that. If that's true - that's desperate. We just had the first 5 or so episodes of the serial here and basically... ZZZZzzzzzzzz.......ZZZzzzzzzzz..

Doesn't even come close to I Claudius. And worse and unforgivable - it's not even historically close to being correct. Hahahaha!

I liked the Time Tunnel too. At least you were expected to suspend belief from the start.

Anyway - what libraries?

[kramusica]

After all the snarling, I still would like to know what karmusica's original complaint about GOS is.

Good question Nick! eeeh, what was it again...


er... they didn't give him a "very good feeling."

:rolleyes: thanks Rob


What I don't like in GOS: The Violins
The violins don't convince me. They sound "over processed". This thread has given me some insight on how "composers" use GOS. Everybody EQ's the violins, some layer them with other samples. It is something that I will try.

What triggered my thread was that I'd loaded a cello instrument and it sounded terrible, the knot in the stomach comes up, you know the feeling. As I've learned here, I will have to EQ (again).

I can't hear the bow on the instrument and therefore I can't "feel" the instrument (the basses and cellos do have the bow in the lower region were they sound awesome).

Some people have urged me not to give up yet on the library as it takes some time to get the best out of it and I will follow their advice.

Thanks for sharing your views,

Mark

[rob morsberger]

Hey Mark, I appreciate your civility in the midst of so much boorish behaviour.
To get the feeling of the bow happening, a lot of us layer sustain instruments with solo strings and create crossfades. That will help with both the violins and cellos you mention. This can be really beautiful. Try it out!

[MDesigner]

My personal opinion of GOS, and I think I've stated this before: the violins and violas are great. The Grand Sustains are just killer, really. And they have that perfect warm tone for classical pieces. I avoid using the legato patches, because to me, it just doesn't sound right. But for evocative, slow passages, GOS sounds quite good.

Example: http://www.samhulick.com/misc/Awakening.mp3 (still rough draft)

Cellos and basses are Opus 1. But the rest is GOS. I tried using Opus (VSL) violins and violas, and it just sounded too "crisp". A friend of mine who regularly works with live orchestras said Opus was too crisp, it lacked that certain "wash" over the strings. I plugged in GOS instead, and he said it sounded more like a classical recording. Granted, samples will probably never come close to a live performance. But as far as samples go, GOS has its positive points. The GOS staccato strings lack bite, however, and I use Opus strings for that, 100% of the time.

EDIT: Is it just me, or is the forum totally messed in Firefox/Mozilla. Line breaks are ignored and quotes don't show up right.

[noenoeil]

Hey Mark, I appreciate your civility in the midst of so much boorish behaviour.

I'm sorry I was way out of line, I'll remove the personal attack. Long gig just ended, should never post in that case. Sorry all...

C.

[rob morsberger]

Not you. You were funny.

[noenoeil]

The sig. stays, don't worry.

Christian

[Tomke]

When Garritan released GOS it made quite a bit bigger impact on the computerized musical world than today's gigants like EWQL and VSL - representative people here must excuse.

I got GOS for myself back then, but it was an investment. Listening to the demos had me seriously interested but I wasn't going to put out the largest amount of money I ever had done on software to that date before listening in to it seriously. A demo studio in the country's busyest music store gave me a few hour alone and only after that did I decide to get it. I'm not sure if your dissapointment is in any relation to the price or not, but be careful with what you choose out there. Our own music is sensitive business :)

GOS has started to get old by hightech time scale, but I would trade GOS over almost every "affordable" sample Lib today. Still, GOS is GOS .. and not any pandoras box - nothing is. The bottom mid, violas and cellos, tends to have an overly dark kind of 'hard' sound. It is also a little heavy and muddy in the very bottom areas .. but hey, listen to VSL violins in their highest register .. they sound almost steril .. as clean and razor sharp as a high-tech pad sound out of the old JX10. A violin section doesn't sound quite like that in real life. But remember: these are SAMPLES .. not the real thing.

I got myself VSL because IMO it was the closest to the real thing available today on the consumer's market and frankly I'm not 100% happy with it, in terms of absolute realism and how it sounds, but hey .. when are we ever 100% content? It's just a matter of doing the best with what is available. Just you wait until you get a real orchestra to play your work .. the first few times you're gonna feel like "Oh, my god, Noooo??" - I promise ;)

[FredProgGH]

I wouldn't go so far as to say there's a conspiracy to disparage a commercial product, as much as we're getting a constant parroting of manufactured marketing line by other products that influence users that don't know any better -

You're insane!! DTS is clearly better than Dolby!! Just look at the bitrate!!! :mad:






Oh wait, wrong forum :D :D

[kitekrazy]

y point is, you cannot get a lib out of the box and expect it to sound like the demos. YOu have to treat each new lib as a new instrument, and learn to play it.

Every time I've not liked the sound I got, it was me. Every time...



That's grreat insight.

[FredProgGH]

Again, if the majority of the people need to tweek EQ, etc on a specific library, then shouldn't that have been the way it was programmed from the start?


The point is you CAN tweak the sound. It's like DFHS- recorded flat, do what you like to it. It's better to have a pure recorded sound to start, even if it's percieved as "bright" and warm up with EQ and processing than try and put in what wasn't recorded to begin with. At least that's the way I see it...

BTW, even though I'm trying to make that argument the sound of a lib is a big factor and it's silly to think everyone is going to agree on this. We might as well start arguing about who recorded the best version of Beethoven's Fifth.

[peter269]

Hi everybody,

There's nothing to do about it. I really don't like GOS. It's been a dissapointment from the moment I loaded the first instrument. What a shame. I'd been reading raving reviews everywhere about this library and decided that this would become my main library. We all know it's a an expensive library and I'm in no position to keep on spending that kind of money.

What are my options here? What would you do? Did anybody else have a similar experience with an expensive library?

Mark

I have this library, and when I was a dealer for VSL, I ALWAYS recommended GOS to supplement the VSL strings. The key to GOS is MAKING CERTAIN that you've installed all the updates and .art files for GigaStudio. There were many updates and each update added a new gem to the library. Also MAKE CERTAIN you've installed Maestro Tools because you'll LOSE a lot of POWER if you don't.

[sinkd]

No library can do divisi, period, unless you build your own sections using solo instruments.

I do it with VSL Chamber Strings and now with the smaller sections in XP Pro.

Works great!

[imagine a winking smiley in this space--can't get it to work]

DS

[MDesigner]

I have this library, and when I was a dealer for VSL, I ALWAYS recommended GOS to supplement the VSL strings. The key to GOS is MAKING CERTAIN that you've installed all the updates and .art files for GigaStudio. There were many updates and each update added a new gem to the library. Also MAKE CERTAIN you've installed Maestro Tools because you'll LOSE a lot of POWER if you don't.

If GOS is all you've got for strings, sure, install Maestro Tools. If you're using GOS to supplement something like VSL/Opus 1, I'd skip Maestro. I've had no use for it since I got Opus 1, as the Opus legato strings are far better than GOS's. And as far as alternation mode, same thing. Opus 1 string staccatos are much better than the GOS ones, which lack bite.

Just my two cents of course.

[HenrikBJ]

If anyone is interested in a comparison between strings in different libraries, check out these threads:

***

Link 1: 09-05-2005: "Opus vs. GOS - slow, expressive performance"

http://www.northernsounds.com/forum/showthread.php?t=37893&highlight=opus

***

Link 2: 09-04-2005: "Opus 1 vs. Other Libraries, sit back and listen..."

http://www.northernsounds.com/forum/showthread.php?t=37864&highlight=opus

***

Hope it helps - it's interesting to read at least (good work MD!)

/Henrik

[Scott Cairns]

Houston, your behaviour is deplorable.

Sam - great cue.

kramusica - GOS is still a very good library, even when you weigh it against todays offerings. I agree with others though, its probably more effective as a layering lib now. Each lib has certain areas where it shines.

Listen to lots of demo's and buy one based on YOUR tastes.

[dpc]

Just wanted to say I thought Fred's demo was a dandy piece of music - very nice.

I have GOS and sort of agree with what everyone has said about it. It is troublesome out of the box in it's basic sound, particularly the Vlns and Violas.
The lower strings are more readily useful. The tremelos are outstanding as well as some of the detache' or shorter samples. The Pizz are also quite good.

I think Scott hit the nail on the head in that it is now a layering library (at least that's how I'm currently using violins (with VSL perfleg for added body and bite: tough to make that work though.)

[JonP]

Can you do that with an EastWest library? You don't even have a real 2nd violin section...


11v section, bit of solo violin layered in, panned if you like.....it really doesn't take too much imagination.

I've heard GOS used in some imagnative ways although I never cared much for the library naked so to speak. But with good playing and programming it seems up to the task. Probably spending a good amount of time with it will yield decent results.

[Ashermusic]

My personal opinion of GOS, and I think I've stated this before: the violins and violas are great. The Grand Sustains are just killer, really. And they have that perfect warm tone for classical pieces. I avoid using the legato patches, because to me, it just doesn't sound right. But for evocative, slow passages, GOS sounds quite good.

Example: http://www.samhulick.com/misc/Awakening.mp3 (still rough draft)

Cellos and basses are Opus 1. But the rest is GOS. I tried using Opus (VSL) violins and violas, and it just sounded too "crisp". A friend of mine who regularly works with live orchestras said Opus was too crisp, it lacked that certain "wash" over the strings. I plugged in GOS instead, and he said it sounded more like a classical recording. Granted, samples will probably never come close to a live performance. But as far as samples go, GOS has its positive points. The GOS staccato strings lack bite, however, and I use Opus strings for that, 100% of the time.

EDIT: Is it just me, or is the forum totally messed in Firefox/Mozilla. Line breaks are ignored and quotes don't show up right.

Pretty nice, Sam. What is missing for me in this however and most user's demos is the following:

When I conduct real string players, even terrific ones, they don't enter precisely at the same time and do not ramp up cresc. etc. at exactly the same time. So to make it more realistic no matter what sample libary you are using you need to play the part a second time, or even a third, using a patch with different samples with a different attack/delay. This is time consuming obviously but when you mix them together it will be more realistic.

[MDesigner]

Just a few quick comments. Sorry guys, about the other thread (the one Henrik referenced), the links are broken.. I guess I take down the clips too quickly. But the thread about Opus vs. other libraries still works fine. I'll leave those clips up, as I think they're pretty useful. And yes, Asher, you're 100% correct. If I wanted this to sound more realistic, I'd do as you suggested.. it's not easy though! :) It was hard enough getting the dynamics as they are now, and even as they stand now, they're not that great. The tough part about string writing for me (in MIDI, that is) is, when you start with your very first string line (violins, cellos, whichever), you have no point of reference. You have nothing else playing, so you just have to use the metronome and do your best. Once you have one or two tracks laid down, you have enough of a point of reference to easily record the other string lines. But I've already talked that point to death in other threads, so no need for me to get into it again. :)

[Ouch that hurts]

Pretty nice, Sam. What is missing for me in this however and most user's demos is the following:

When I conduct real string players, even terrific ones, they don't enter precisely at the same time and do not ramp up cresc. etc. at exactly the same time. So to make it more realistic no matter what sample libary you are using you need to play the part a second time, or even a third, using a patch with different samples with a different attack/delay. This is time consuming obviously but when you mix them together it will be more realistic.

But remember that a sample of a string section is exactly that: it's a recording of all 10 or 16 or whatever players, playing that note together. So just as they won't enter at exactly the same time when they play a note in a piece of music, similarly they won't all play at exactly the same time when playing the note for the sample recording session. The same principle will apply, and the recording of the sample will have that inexactness imprinted on it.

[Ashermusic]

But remember that a sample of a string section is exactly that: it's a recording of all 10 or 16 or whatever players, playing that note together. So just as they won't enter at exactly the same time when they play a note in a piece of music, similarly they won't all play at exactly the same time when playing the note for the sample recording session. The same principle will apply, and the recording of the sample will have that inexactness imprinted on it.

But not to a great enough degree IMHO. Try my method and tell me if you don't find the result more satisfying.

[PaulR]

The same principle will apply, and the recording of the sample will have that inexactness imprinted on it.

That's a good point you make Ouch - but one of the problems could be that when they get the samples ready as it were, for sale, they could be forgiven for editing them too perfect.

[Ouch that hurts]

That's a good point you make Ouch - but one of the problems could be that when they get the samples ready as it were, for sale, they could be forgiven for editing them too perfect.

Possibly so. But the inexactness of PERFORMANCE - the fact that each violinist starts the note at a slightly different time, with a slightly different degree of bow-weight or whatever - is not something that can be edited. Because the whole section are recorded on a single pair of mics (I think?)

The only way this aspect could be made more "perfect" in the editing process would be if each individual violinist were multitracked, then they were all mixed together to create the section. But AFAIK no string libraries are made that way, because a huge part of the whole point is the sonic interaction between all the instruments in the space.

So you have a single stereo file with an attack made up of the separate attacks of 16 players all at NEARLY the same time. There's no way you can fundamentally change that with editing, and certainly if you tried to you would lose all sense of realism, which is after all what they're all striving for anyway.

[StrangeCat]

what Houston is saying is right on. You know with GPO you can create any kind of String Ensemble you want by mixing solo , players, an say sus strings, move the notes a little ahead of each other and behind for the sections, use the mod wheel and you can get amazing results all this from some Lib that cost less then 300 dollars. You can do many more interesting things with GPO too for a string ensemble, since you have so much control over individual parts(you will be able to control the layers better of the strings). Bassically if someone is looking for say a Chamber or more Classical sounding strings just use GPO. EWQLGold Pro will give you the big Orchestra sound but there still things in GPO that you can't do with Gold Pro for strings. Never used GOS I do know that GPOA will have some of that in there though? Do own Gold Pro.

[Ian Dorsch]

When I conduct real string players, even terrific ones, they don't enter precisely at the same time and do not ramp up cresc. etc. at exactly the same time.

Maybe you need to brush up on your conducting.

I keed, I keed! :D

[FredProgGH]

Well, if you relay on the samples having imprecise attacks they will be imprecise in precisely the same way for every note (unless you have several takes to round-robin) and that's no good. So I think it's better to have the samples be fairly tight and use the techniques mentioned before.

In retrospect what someone like Garritan SHOUD have done when making GOS was sample a section of 12 players two at a time and provide 6 seperate groups of dual players. That could be made to sound amazing if you felt like working at it and IMHO would sound better than the GPO solo player approach.

[Beckers]

Well, if you relay on the samples having imprecise attacks they will be imprecise in precisely the same way for every note (unless you have several takes to round-robin) and that's no good. So I think it's better to have the samples be fairly tight and use the techniques mentioned before.
Furthermore, if you ride midicontrollers to get the swells and fades you want, you get none of the imprecisions recorded in the samples. You need at least a couple of solo violins, with EQ and reverb to match the sections, to add the imprecisions. It makes a huge difference to how GOS sounds.

[nomuse]

I feel that is the essential point. Every note is an individual slice of time, informed by what came before, what comes after, and the interpretation of the individual player. When you play samples, that time and space are that of the sampling session; the tiny swells and the slight fumbling into pitch unfold into the timing of that session, which might also be the tempo of a long melodic line -- and completely wrong for a quick, darting line.

Each player in a section is playing a tiny melodic fragment, and each nuances it a little differently. If you stand close and listen closer, you can pick out one individual player, then another. The concert-master strives to have her section speak as one voice, but it is that massing of individual voices that makes for the strength and granduer of the symphony orchestra.

Sure (as regards another thread), there may be missed notes. The entire section might go off and play from the wrong bar (or somehow get the "ooms" and the "pahs" confused on a waltz. I've been there!) However, they don't blow that note every bar. They blow it because it fell in the middle of a technically difficult line....or maybe there was a page turn, or the oboeist knocked over his water bottle.


It sounds reasonable to me that one answer is to layer, and to nuance each layer a little with some human touches and bits of noise and other randomness. I look forward to trying that myself (after a few more upgrades...sigh)

[Ouch that hurts]

Each player in a section is playing a tiny melodic fragment, and each nuances it a little differently. If you stand close and listen closer, you can pick out one individual player, then another. The concert-master strives to have her section speak as one voice, but it is that massing of individual voices that makes for the strength and granduer of the symphony orchestra.

Sure (as regards another thread), there may be missed notes. The entire section might go off and play from the wrong bar (or somehow get the "ooms" and the "pahs" confused on a waltz. I've been there!) However, they don't blow that note every bar. They blow it because it fell in the middle of a technically difficult line....or maybe there was a page turn, or the oboeist knocked over his water bottle.


It sounds reasonable to me that one answer is to layer, and to nuance each layer a little with some human touches and bits of noise and other randomness. I look forward to trying that myself (after a few more upgrades...sigh)

A while ago there was a demo of a Debussy piece posted here - I think it was either JEUX or Jeux de vagues from LA MER. It was done completely in samples by a guy who's name escapes me - I think it was Andy something and he was British, that's all i can remember. (And yes, in case anyone's wondering, I HAVE smoked too much ganga in my time). It caused a veritable avalanche of jaws dropping (including mine) as people marvelled at how absolutely incredible it was. Really beautifully musical as well as uncannily realistic.

Anyway, I remember one of the things that he said in relation to it was that he deliberately mixed in some less-than-top-notch samples to "rough things up" a bit, because he found that just using his first call libraries - VSL etc. I think it was - made things too pure and perfect, and that hindered the realism.

So yes, this technique of mixing in extra string parts to get that controlled randomness can have great value. On the other hand, it IS artificial in that the libraries you use will each have been recorded in a different space, using different mics etc. Whereas using only GOS (or SI, or whatever) will give a more "true" rendition of a note played by 16 musicians at once, mixed in a "real" way in the air of the hall, before being recorded. So there's a trade-off either way, and two contrary problems to be solved.

As always, the final arbiter must always be the ear. And at the end of the day, what about sampling ISN'T artificial? All art is artifice, blah blah...

[Bruce A. Richardson]

I think this is all nuts. Instead of trying to make things sound real, why not try to make them sound COOL??? So much effort gets wasted using samplers as what they're not. Why not use them for what they ARE...ELECTRONIC INSTRUMENTS!!!!!!

[PaulR]

I think this is all nuts. Instead of trying to make things sound real, why not try to make them sound COOL??? So much effort gets wasted using samplers as what they're not. Why not use them for what they ARE...ELECTRONIC INSTRUMENTS!!!!!!

Wow Bruce - seriously tabbo man! You can't tell them that!!! Have you run mad!!??

:D

[noenoeil]

I think this is all nuts. Instead of trying to make things sound real, why not try to make them sound COOL??? So much effort gets wasted using samplers as what they're not. Why not use them for what they ARE...ELECTRONIC INSTRUMENTS!!!!!!

The more I hang around here, the more I can't believe how much truth-expanders all-knowing joy-killers begins to post this kind of things just when everyone else is having fun. You just called everyone in this interesting -while apparently cursed- thread a geek and you declared that the guys are wasting their efforts layering enchiladas of strings libraries to achieve the best possible imitation, because they haven't got a clue about what samplers are made for. I like that very much, please go on.

I'll certainly buy SC vi to write electro-hardcore and report directly to your administration hoping I will get my cool-factor certificate.

Christian

[StrangeCat]

Gold Pro XP is Cool:D

[Bruce A. Richardson]

Yes, you guys are right. Please go on dancing about architecture. Never mind me.

[dpasdernick]

I think this is all nuts. Instead of trying to make things sound real, why not try to make them sound COOL??? So much effort gets wasted using samplers as what they're not. Why not use them for what they ARE...ELECTRONIC INSTRUMENTS!!!!!!

A lot of people on this forum, including me, are able to realize music with these virtual instrumnets that they could never achieve with out them. While I agree that real players with real instrumnets are the way to go most of us here don't have the pocketbook or connections to have an 80 piece orchestra at our beck and call. So we use samples to get us as close as we can. And alot of these guys here are producing amazing music.

In a sense, we are pioneers of a musical evolution. We're like those guys back in the old labs wiring stuff together while people look through the window and go "They must be off their rockers" Perhaps 10 years from now we will all be playing some sort of wierd controller that makes a sax sound like a Casio. We'll look back on these days thinking "500 gigs for VSO" how did we do it with only that amount of samples? Or probably, "with the new versa 9000 physical modeller we only need 512k for all of our instruments."

I've read alot of your comments recently and you seem to be at some sort of crossroads with these tools. Some days you embrace it, others (like today) you seem to think it's bringing the music world down.

I mean all of this with respect Bruce. If I can learn something here that will make my music better, or more importantly, make me have "more fun" with my music, I'm a happy camper. As far as taking a GOS string sound and marrying it with an Elephant in heat, and playing some wild ~~~~~ Zen drum groove over top it all... Dude, go for it!!


All the very best,

Darren :)

[robgb]

I think this is all nuts. Instead of trying to make things sound real, why not try to make them sound COOL??? So much effort gets wasted using samplers as what they're not. Why not use them for what they ARE...ELECTRONIC INSTRUMENTS!!!!!!I completely agree with this. I remember once posting a piece that everyone seemed to like, but someone said, you know, a cello can't DO that.

And my response was, yes, I know a cello can't do that. I just like the sound.

Why be restricted by what real instruments can do? Why not use these samples in any way that you feel inspired to use them?

[noenoeil]

Why be restricted by what real instruments can do? Why not use these samples in any way that you feel inspired to use them?

Rob, I think no one said "only imitations with samplers" before Bruce (Note : I think BAR is one of the most interesting contributors here, unlike me, but no one can be that good all the time) kicked in and doubled with the Costello thing. The guy who criticized your "wrong" cello was as irrelevant as the post I'm kind of angry about now.

I generally use samplers with reality distortion in mind (I'm in experimental ballet these days), but when it comes to imitate a real string section I become geeky as a trekkie who replicates the captain's suit. I want to go as far as possible in both cases. Spandex needs a lot of attention or you look stupid.

Christian

[Steelhed]

Man I hate to say this.. Because Garritan has brought us soooo much.. But, The Vienna Symphonic Library mixed with Kontakt2, CANNOT BE BEAT.... Kontakt2 alone offers editing that no other sampler is capable of.. With the surround and convolutions etc with K2, You can do anything...

[dpasdernick]

Spandex needs a lot of attention or you look stupid.

Christian

Christian,

Brilliant!

:D

[MDesigner]

I think this is all nuts. Instead of trying to make things sound real, why not try to make them sound COOL??? So much effort gets wasted using samplers as what they're not. Why not use them for what they ARE...ELECTRONIC INSTRUMENTS!!!!!!

Approximating realism has its level of importance. Many clients sometimes want a realistic sound..maybe they really wanted to have a live orchestra for a particular project, but don't have the budget for it. Some people, given the talent and proper samples, can get pretty close to the real thing.

[Will Roget]

Approximating realism has its level of importance. Many clients sometimes want a realistic sound..maybe they really wanted to have a live orchestra for a particular project, but don't have the budget for it. Some people, given the talent and proper samples, can get pretty close to the real thing.

I don't really wanna opine too much on this since I'm not quite a full professional yet, but I do kinda wonder to what extent civilians can really tell the difference, and to what extent they actually care. I'm one of those people who puts in a lot of time making it realistic, recording every part through a MIDI keyboard and so on. But for game composers at least, someone might listen to our tune, then pop in something from a Japanese game made in the 90s and not really mind theirs at all ;). I even got criticized a few times for caring too much about making stuff realistic, and somehow in the process "forgetting what makes music actually enjoyable to listen to" (these are also the same people who like my much-older music better, back before I even really knew how to orchestrate).

So yeah I have to say it's kind of weird (from my limited experience) that your developers care so much specifically about realism in your case Sam, but it's kind of a blessing I'd think. We're obviously on NS because we love the technical end of things, so in a way it's pretty cool to know that the people we work for really appreciate that extra effort. Plus it just makes it more likely that in the future you can push for a real live orchestra.... :D

[nomuse]

I go for mock realism for two reasons (neither of them very good).

For one, I love the sound of real instruments but generally can't afford them -- heck, I can't even play a keyboard that well. Is an ersatz erhu really a satisfying alternative, though? Honestly, I'm better taking a night out and watching someone else play.

The other reason is I'm dumb. I can't look at the patch lists on a box (or, worse yet, forty gigs of Reason refills), and have any hope of remembering what patch sounds like what, and which comes closest to the sound I've got in my head. I can remember the difference between a violin and a 'cello, though -- and I can hear in my head the difference of sound when the violin plays legato or detaché or martele or even col legno. So if the sounds in my head can be reached by a symphony orchestra, the only remaining memory problem is which patch library contains the articulations I want, and which sounds right for that mix.

[Bruce A. Richardson]

Approximating realism has its level of importance. Many clients sometimes want a realistic sound..maybe they really wanted to have a live orchestra for a particular project, but don't have the budget for it. Some people, given the talent and proper samples, can get pretty close to the real thing.

But what does that say for us as artists? When do you stand up for artmaking, and make an attempt to raise the level of artistic standards within musical commerce?

This is one of the big problems I have with many people in the business right now. There are people who will essentially do anything a client wants, whether it's artistically meaningful or not. That degrades us all, makes us the equivalent of human jukeboxes.

As musicians and artists, we have a certain responsibility to those who paved the way for us, as well as those who will come after us, to guard the traditions with which we have been entrusted. I hear horrendous music all the time now, because people with absolutely no artistic taste can get tools to serve people with no artistic taste. That has become maddeningly pervasive as samples/software have brought the ability to produce music to people who otherwise would actually have needed to achieve some level of expertise. Now any freaking idiot with a few thousand dollars in his pocket can produce orchestral music. And it sounds like it.

At least before the advent of such "democracy" we had a natural filtering mechanism that prevented hacks from getting access to orchestras. Now, we're exposed to musical atrocities daily, that have been "enabled" by this so-called democracy.

[Bruce A. Richardson]

, but I do kinda wonder to what extent civilians can really tell the difference, and to what extent they actually care.

And if that's the point, we're ALL lost. It's not up to the general public to defend the integrity of art. It is up to each artist, every day of our lives, to advance the quality and meaningful contribution of art to society. When all the value we can place is, "Well, it will fool most people," then we have truly lost sight of art's meaning.

[dpasdernick]

But what does that say for us as artists? When do you stand up for artmaking, and make an attempt to raise the level of artistic standards within musical commerce?

This is one of the big problems I have with many people in the business right now. There are people who will essentially do anything a client wants, whether it's artistically meaningful or not. That degrades us all, makes us the equivalent of human jukeboxes.

As musicians and artists, we have a certain responsibility to those who paved the way for us, as well as those who will come after us, to guard the traditions with which we have been entrusted. I hear horrendous music all the time now, because people with absolutely no artistic taste can get tools to serve people with no artistic taste. That has become maddeningly pervasive as samples/software have brought the ability to produce music to people who otherwise would actually have needed to achieve some level of expertise. Now any freaking idiot with a few thousand dollars in his pocket can produce orchestral music. And it sounds like it.

At least before the advent of such "democracy" we had a natural filtering mechanism that prevented hacks from getting access to orchestras. Now, we're exposed to musical atrocities daily, that have been "enabled" by this so-called democracy.

Bruce,

My day job is a designer. I work with 11 other 3D designers and 8 graphic designers and we design a ton of cool stuff during our initial brainstorming sessions. Always pushing the envelope as much as we can. BUT... the stuff that finally gets produced is another thing entirely. Clients that have no sense of design beating the living hell out of our concepts. Ultimately we give in 'cause we want to get paid.

I have a saying that goes like this:

"Once you start getting paid for your art you are someone's whore"

There are a few exceptions, the pioneers, the outsiders, that ocassionally pop up out of that crowd and go on to successful careers. This is the exception not the rule. I know you're pushing agaisnt the norm so we don't have to suffer through another "reality show" or "pre-fab boy band".

A lot of people I have worked with over the years started out with their degree in fine art hoping to paint like Picasso. Most of them are sticking corporate logos on a poster now because it pays the bills. The rest of them are dirt poor.

Plenty of people on this forum use these tools to make brilliant music. Some are learning. And some don't have the talent but just don't know it, or refuse to believe it (I think I'm one of these guys!)

The cream, as they say, will hopefully rise to the top. But there's alot of people out there that settle for mediocrity and alot of them pay the bills.

Finally, art is subjective. What you may think is trash is the next blockbuster movie score. And what you love may never catch on...

(but you already know all this stuff)

Darren

[jsp2]

Being in the Design/3D field myself I would agree in part with Darren .. Perhaps not go so far as to consider myself a Whore…

When It comes to freelancing, or paid for hire, I've learned through many…many years, its important to give the client what they want regardless of weather or not it will work. It's my job as the artist to hopefully steer towards a better direction, but if they're set on their position, then I'd have to do my best to pull it off.

I've abandoned the "take the high road" approach to my work long ago, as it became too difficult to pay the bills when refusing work that I felt was substandard.

Today I'm perfectly content on being average...I've learned to separate work for pay and work for passion, and most important, not take things so seriously.


So long as you enjoy your work ( form time to time) … then you're alright!

[JonP]

So long as you enjoy your work ( form time to time) … then you're alright!


I understand what you're saying but I don't think that's the sentence of an artist. I think you have to push yourself ever harder to achieve the things you're capable of. Simply rolling over, churning out hack for fast money and doing things simply for enjoyment is what has made so much of current civilisation so culturally barren. Artists should struggle and push themselves mentally or else their art becomes lazy - and struggling isn't always very enjoyable. But it is passionate. I'm not sure I've heard much great music from commercial avenues in the past few years. The best stuff has been a long way from the dull glitz of films and the soulless world of computer games. And most of its been live.

[Hardy Heern]

But what does that say for us as artists? When do you stand up for artmaking, and make an attempt to raise the level of artistic standards within musical commerce?

This is one of the big problems I have with many people in the business right now. There are people who will essentially do anything a client wants, whether it's artistically meaningful or not. That degrades us all, makes us the equivalent of human jukeboxes.

As musicians and artists, we have a certain responsibility to those who paved the way for us, as well as those who will come after us, to guard the traditions with which we have been entrusted. I hear horrendous music all the time now, because people with absolutely no artistic taste can get tools to serve people with no artistic taste. That has become maddeningly pervasive as samples/software have brought the ability to produce music to people who otherwise would actually have needed to achieve some level of expertise. Now any freaking idiot with a few thousand dollars in his pocket can produce orchestral music. And it sounds like it.

At least before the advent of such "democracy" we had a natural filtering mechanism that prevented hacks from getting access to orchestras. Now, we're exposed to musical atrocities daily, that have been "enabled" by this so-called democracy.

My God Bruce, you sound sooooo bitter. Isn't it a shame that us talentless hacks can produce stuff in our bedrooms that sounds as good as yours....maybe better!! It is worth remembering that some 'musicians' are 'merely' great players and technicians but have no creative ideas at all. Some of us are opposite!

Anyway, there is no point going on and on about it as this is the way the world is at the moment; you're not going to change it.....make the most of it.

As an analogy, I have the ability to design an engineering solution in my head and draw my mental picture out on paper in any perspective....that was a valuable skill at one time (it still is to me). Computer Aided Design has totally diminished the value of this particular skill.:) However after a deep sigh I just embraced and enjoyed the new technology, why should you be any different? What's all the pretentious nonsense about?

Just be grateful that you're a good trumpet player and enjoy it.

Life's unfair.....deal with it!

Frank

BTW I'm sure you must have noticed that 'horrendous' music isn't the preserve of non-musicians.

[dpasdernick]

Being in the Design/3D field myself I would agree in part with Darren .. Perhaps not go so far as to consider myself a Whore…

My apologies for being so crass ;) (I'm a potty mouth)




When It comes to freelancing, or paid for hire, I've learned through many…many years, its important to give the client what they want regardless of weather or not it will work. It's my job as the artist to hopefully steer towards a better direction, but if they're set on their position, then I'd have to do my best to pull it off.

I've abandoned the "take the high road" approach to my work long ago, as it became too difficult to pay the bills when refusing work that I felt was substandard.

Today I'm perfectly content on being average...I've learned to separate work for pay and work for passion, and most important, not take things so seriously.


So long as you enjoy your work ( form time to time) … then you're alright!


The above is very well spoken! Although I bet you're not average, perhaps the work just makes you feel that way ;)

A friend of mine at work was showing me this incredible video by a group of his friends. Wild cutting edge stuff. They were all starving artists though. My friend said "You can either be cool and starve or do mainstream stuff and eat" Of course, as artists, we always try to push it a bit but when it comes to the almighty buck if the clent wants polyester and I can go home on time, polyester it shall be.

All the very best,

Darren

[MDesigner]

But what does that say for us as artists? When do you stand up for artmaking, and make an attempt to raise the level of artistic standards within musical commerce?

Writing music for video games is first and foremost business, then art. Even writing for TV and commercials can be the same, though I'm just assuming since I don't know that industry. After all, professional composers are concerned with earning a living at writing music, right? And if the people with the money are saying "imitate the style of Danny Elfman," then guess what I'm going to do? And it might pain me to do so, but it's paying work. I will do my best to be as "artful" as possible about it, and compose some great stuff, make strong themes & variations, etc. But as I said, first and foremost, it's business. It's about what the client wants, not preserving artistic integrity.


This is one of the big problems I have with many people in the business right now. There are people who will essentially do anything a client wants, whether it's artistically meaningful or not. That degrades us all, makes us the equivalent of human jukeboxes.
Of course we have to do what the client wants! In what kind of business do we ignore our clients' needs? Bruce, if a client calls you & asks you to write something that, to you, is not artistically meaningful, but they are going to pay you $80,000 for only 5-6 months of work, are you going to turn it down? Maybe, if $80k is pocket change to you. But I don't know a single colleague of mine who would turn that down unless they were too busy to take it or the deadline was way too tight. And don't underestimate clients, some of them DO have a good sense of aesthetics and art, and want something that is truly a great composition. Others just want you to crank out mindless tunes. Sure, some of these projects can be degrading, but others are not, and I don't think it makes us "human jukeboxes." My last audition was for a major project calling for 50-75 mins of orchestral score. The client knew what they wanted, and they required strong melodies, themes & variations, the whole package. It would've been totally artful for sure (I didn't get the gig, but I was a finalist). So you can't generalize cynically about the industry and how there's no art in what professional composers do, because every situation is different. I think in many cases, developers/producers are looking for music that fits the mood of the movie/game/etc., whether it's artful or not.



As musicians and artists, we have a certain responsibility to those who paved the way for us, as well as those who will come after us, to guard the traditions with which we have been entrusted. I hear horrendous music all the time now, because people with absolutely no artistic taste can get tools to serve people with no artistic taste. That has become maddeningly pervasive as samples/software have brought the ability to produce music to people who otherwise would actually have needed to achieve some level of expertise. Now any freaking idiot with a few thousand dollars in his pocket can produce orchestral music. And it sounds like it.
But it takes a true craftsman to produce GOOD stuff. I've heard tons of demos, and I've heard good and bad productions. I've heard people with the BEST libraries produce complete crap, because they have no skills with MIDI and how to tweak their compositions on a low level to get the ultimate realism. They don't bother spending time with the reverb, EQ, and mixing, to get a good stage ambience. And I've also heard tracks with great production quality, but they were poor compositionally. The most common fault is the lack of a memorable theme/melody.

Yes, there's bad music. There's bad art of every kind, and modern technology is making it easier for the artistically-challenged to produce whatever they want. Music, digital paintings, 3D art, the list goes on. But does it compare to the work of those who are truly talented? Nope. And that's the bottom line. It's just business, and it's not always fair, and it's not always decent. There are some people landing work whose music SUCKS. I mean downright SUCKS. How are they getting work? Networking, politics, marketing themselves, etc. It's all business. Fortune favors the business-savvy, not the talented. I think the world has always worked this way, and it's unfortunate, but it's how things are. I'm not saying the truly talented don't get their big breaks, but those who are more business savvy will have the upper hand.

Don't worry, Bruce. There are still those of us who do our best to make every production top-quality and artistically valuable. Not all of us are jukeboxes.

[Scott Cairns]

Any of us that are scoring to a game/film/ad/play whatever, are collaborating with a bunch of people on the project.

My stance is to stand up for what I believe best musically suits the project. In doing this, I get to push the boundaries of my creativity.

I dont know, I actually find some parameters or "guidelines" or whatever, inspires my creativity. Some of the best art through the ages has come about through frustration and opression.

Suck it up! :) (this is not directed at Sam cause he posted last, just in general.)

[MDesigner]

Same to you, Scott! :) (just kidding)

As far as standing up for what you believe would work best musically.. I like Hans Zimmer's approach, the "bullet" method. I think someone on this forum might've mentioned it not too long ago. I wish I could find an exact explanation from Hans himself, but basically you go into a project with a certain number of bullets, and you use these bullets whenever you disagree with the client on something relating to the soundtrack. You make an argument as to why your idea is better suited to the project. This costs you a bullet. When you run out of bullets, you're done arguing with the client, because further debates could jeopardize your job. No one wants to hire a composer who is always putting in his two cents, unless you are very well established or it's a client who you've worked with in the past and they FULLY trust your judgment. I think it's rare that a client says "Here's the keys to the car, do whatever you feel is best."

[Scott Cairns]

I was actually thinking of Hans' "silver bullet example" when I typed my post. :)

The explanation is on the Gladiator dvd. Btw, speaking of Gladiator, I actually spoke to Lisa Gerrard yesterday.. (honestly!)

[kramusica]

This thread is awesome. Obviously you people have been using samples for many years and I'm curious... do you feel that you've become better composers? Do you feel that the sample evolution has reached its peak?

Thanks for sharing,

Mark

[Scott Cairns]

This thread is awesome. Obviously you people have been using samples for many years and I'm curious... do you feel that you've become better composers? Do you feel that the sample evolution has reached its peak?

Thanks for sharing,

Mark

Hi Mark, if anything, Im learning that the power and expression of a real (good) musician, cant be touched by samples. As much as possible these days, I try to incorporate at least a little live playing. It just lifts the whole cue IMO.

As far as sample technology, I think we're entering an exciting phase, the new VIs from VSL show great promise. I think the control of samples is going to improve immeasurably over the next 5 years. Right now, 80% of my time is spent tweaking and fine tuning to make samples sound releastic.

I long for the day when I can have more control of the samples as a true instrument. One track for each, instead of multiple tracks for each articulation will be nice too. :)

[kramusica]

80% of my time is spent tweaking and fine tuning to make samples sound releastic.

Amazing, there's a lot of room for improvement there. So tweaking is more a rule than an exception. Do you feel that having samples has influenced your way of scoring?

Mark

[Scott Cairns]

Definetely. You have to try and compose around the limitations of the library.

[Bruce A. Richardson]

I don't agree that the "client" is always right. Screw the client. I work for me.

Yes, Sam, the $80,000 question...sure. If someone wants to pay me $80,000 to arrange Come To Jesus in whole notes, then I'm in.

Listen, I've been getting paid for making art--and making a damn good living at it--for over twenty years. I didn't get there by just doing what the client wanted, whether that client was a director, production designer, producer, or corporate bigwig.

People say two things about me...that I'm challenging to work with, and the end result is more than worth it.

You get one shot at building a reputation. You can either get a reputation for being someone who will deliver whatever the client wants, or you can get a reputation for delivering a sound that is always recognizably you. I prefer the latter.

The best thing I ever learned in this business was the power of saying no. You would be amazed at the power of saying, "You know, I'm really not interested in doing that. That's just not me. You can get someone else, if that's what you want. Why don't we try something...let me do my thing, and we'll see how it goes. If you don't like it, I walk out with my music, you find someone else, and nobody loses a thing."

Some people will say no thanks. That's cool. You walk out that door with your balls still attached--and where one door closes, ten others open. But most people will take you up on it.

You can make a living on either path. The more pleasant one is the one that is defined by your own terms...where you're brought aboard and asked what you want to do instead of being told what to do. This is not to say I don't believe in collaboration. I do, very much. But a true collaboration is not about subverting your own artistic will. It is about working diligently to find a way where everyone walks away from the table feeling as if they're doing their most honest and high quality work, while delivering a cohesive whole.

Frank: Me, bitter? I'm not a bit bitter. I just don't like crappy art. There was a time when crappy musicians (thankfully) couldn't get a dog to play with them if they tied a steak around their necks. Now, if they've got three hundred bucks, they can inflict it upon all of us. God, they post it on the freaking internet where perfectly innocent people can come across it and profane the sweet air of their previously undisturbed homes!!!

[joaz]

I arrived at a similar path to Bruce, but I must frankly state, that I didnt arrive at this point by moral scruple.
The fact of the matter is I tried to sell out. God knows I tried. I wore out the streets of London in the 80's, hawking my wares, with an agreeable expression on my face. I made a sort of living. It was crumbs from the table, but a pretty fancy table. The fact of the matter is I was cr*p at selling out. If I could have done it any better, I surely would have.
After a while I just decided, that if I cant make it playing that game, then I will just play my own. This has coincided with the most succesful period of my life, artistically and comercially.
The 3 biggest factors:
Luck
My great god given genius (Yeah...right, Joaz:D )

and most importantly, Temperament.

Some people thrive on writing music with both hands tied behind their backs, ie Ignorant clients, inapropriate budgets, impossible deadlines, writing to sound like someone else, etc,etc,
Some people give of their best, with a bit more room for personal expression,and an atmosphere of common respect.
The funny thing is I always suspected this was the case, perhaps I just lacked confidence to strike out of my own, perhaps I was caught up in the Thatcher/Reagan nose-in-the-trough atmosphere of the times.
Now dont be too hard on me, I could have piled in, on top of Bruce's majestic staement of Artistic Integrity, and made my self look all Noble and Virtuous.
But the truth is more interesting, and it illustrates how you can end up in a similar postion,and arrive there by a different path.;)
regards

[Andrew Aversa]

Bruce, that's really amazing that you were able to build a career by being truly different. But frankly, I think it is significantly harder to do that than you make it out to be. If you're trying to get that FIRST real job that pays a reasonable amount of money, do you really recommend acting like you say you act? For example, you said this;

"...where one door closes, ten others open"

I don't think this could be any farther than the truth. Once again, for people still trying to get into this business, it's unbelievably difficult to find people willing to pay ANY amount of money for music. Passing up on one such opportunity certainly won't create any more in such a ridiculously competitive market. Perhaps things are different once you're at the level that you specifically are at, but are most of the people you're talking to really there yet?

[MDesigner]

Bruce: It's great that you have the option of saying no.. many of us starting out don't. And many of us starting out aren't in the position to debate/argue with the client. I think it takes time of building a reputation before people can start doing that without messing things up for themselves. I hope to some day be in that kind of position where I can tell the client "I don't agree with the musical direction.. let's try what I've got in mind" and they'll actually say OK.

[Bruce A. Richardson]

I didn't make a career out of being different. I made a career out of learning to be an artist, creating a style of my own, and insisting upon artistic control of anything with my name on it. That's the way all artists make it.

You don't make your mark by being a "professional," ESPECIALLY when you are young. You make it by being impossible to ignore.

I'd leave professionalism to middle aged men. At your age, you should not be worrying about getting gigs at all. You should be worrying about living the experiences that will feed your artistic fires, and learning how to perform music at a world class level, in a way that touches people's hearts. Become such a performer that people won't allow you NOT to perform. That's how you make it.

I see way too many young people here getting WAY ahead of themselves, trying to think about careers. I think the sad truth is most of them will be in day jobs within ten years, because they've not taken the step of learning to stand in front of an audience and win that audience's hearts using nothing but their voice or instrument.

[Bruce A. Richardson]

Bruce: It's great that you have the option of saying no.. many of us starting out don't. And many of us starting out aren't in the position to debate/argue with the client. I think it takes time of building a reputation before people can start doing that without messing things up for themselves. I hope to some day be in that kind of position where I can tell the client "I don't agree with the musical direction.. let's try what I've got in mind" and they'll actually say OK.

Then you're doomed. What are you starting out? Why are you starting out? If you don't have your own artistic viewpoint and statement that you are so compelled to make that you'll stop at nothing to put it across, then what are you doing making art anyway?

You guys will eventually realize I'm telling you the truth. I hope it won't be too late for you.

[MDesigner]

Bruce, that's really amazing that you were able to build a career by being truly different. But frankly, I think it is significantly harder to do that than you make it out to be. If you're trying to get that FIRST real job that pays a reasonable amount of money, do you really recommend acting like you say you act? For example, you said this;

"...where one door closes, ten others open"

I don't think this could be any farther than the truth. Once again, for people still trying to get into this business, it's unbelievably difficult to find people willing to pay ANY amount of money for music. Passing up on one such opportunity certainly won't create any more in such a ridiculously competitive market. Perhaps things are different once you're at the level that you specifically are at, but are most of the people you're talking to really there yet?

Agreed 100%. Bruce, it sounds like you're describing dreamland a bit. Again, I speak of the game industry, so keep that in mind. When one door closes, pretty much it's "good luck pal" and then maybe you'll land another gig in a few months. Maybe later. Maybe sooner, if you're a hot commodity. And I've never heard of jobs where they hire a composer and ask "what do you want to do?" I WISH. Developers I've worked with already have a vision of what they want. They'll say things like, "We're looking for a military sound, very similar to Bill Brown's work in Command & Conquer." Or "we want a sweeping orchestral score, but mixed in with Asian instruments.. similar to Memoirs of a Geisha, but heavier on the classical orchestra side." This is VERY common. Game composers would do well to learn how to take direction like this and go with it, because I hear this stuff from developers all the time.

[MDesigner]

Then you're doomed. What are you starting out? Why are you starting out? If you don't have your own artistic viewpoint and statement that you are so compelled to make that you'll stop at nothing to put it across, then what are you doing making art anyway?
I enjoy writing music.. a lot. I'd like to make it into a career. Simple as that. I'm starting out because people can't just magically start at the top of the chain. You don't become an Inon Zur/Jack Wall/Jeremy Soule in a matter of weeks. A reputation must be built. Lots of projects must be successfully completed.

There are two sides to my music work: my business side, and my "hobby" side. The business side is fun, it's hard work, it pays well, and I get to be creative..but within the boundaries of what the client wants. The hobby side of my music is what *I* want to do. I do it in my free time.. it's true, pure art: no business involved, no money, nothing superficial or earthly. That's the way it works for me. I imagine a lot of other professional composers work in similar ways.

[FredProgGH]

There's art and there's eat. I'd rather be a big ol' happy hooker in the industry I love than working at a damn computer company or something. And I'm happy to turn out schlock for a chain of malls because then I can actually spend three months being the pure idealistic artist that Bruce likes to blather about (and I'm not doing that in a vacuum, people around the world enjoy it, thank you very much.) The two aren't really exclusive of each other. Even whores have people they do for the pleasure of it.

[Bruce A. Richardson]

It's not dreamland.

How do you think Lou Reed made it? Or John Williams? Or Eminem?

People make it by establishing a sound and a persona, and not letting ANYTHING get in the way of expressing that. You take the work that keeps you on plan, and you reject the work that seeks to take you off your chosen path.

I know you don't believe me. Eventually, you will find that I am right about this.

[Bruce A. Richardson]

Fred, it ain't idealism. It's branding. It's the way you get your work known. If your work is all over the place, and doesn't have an identifiable sound that people know is you from a mile away, then how does anyone have an opportunity to actually seek you out? What is there to seek?

I think I'm being misunderstood here. I don't think this is idealistic in the least. I think it's Career Building 101. You have to have an identifiable hook, and an undiluted "brand," or people don't have any opportunity to get on board with you and try helping you advance your cause. It's no different than building a following with a band. There has to be something there for people to identify as "you."

[Bruce A. Richardson]

And to be fair, I do think it is a matter of age and experience. But still, the most successful people in music have a very common trait--early on, they synthesize all the components that will make up "their" sound, and they very quickly narrow down their focus. Think of Dave Matthews or even Miles Davis. Miles may have really evolved over the years, but if you listen to his earliest work, everything was basically there that would sustain him throughout an entire career. James Taylor...there's another guy with a sound you're going to recognize in three notes.

And moving into the scoring field, everybody's favorite...John Williams. He's not sounding like anyone but John Williams.

People who are successful have their own sound, a distillation of their combined influences and musical goals.

[Bruce A. Richardson]

Man, has this thread ever wandered. Not that I would have anything to do with that....

What are we supposed to be doing?? Oh yeah, I think we're bashing on GOS. Well, that's the problem. I like GOS, so I don't have a whole lot to add except distraction. Plus I'm kind of wired and can't sleep.

[FredProgGH]

Actually... when you analyze it I agree with you.
It's just that I think you can maintain a "protected" artistic career alongside an "unprotected" artistic career, where your day job is still music but you don't keep to the same rigid set of ideals. I know Ayn Rand would hurl at the thought, but I just realized it's because the corporate stuff is annonymous. No one is associating that crap with me except the people that want more crap. I try to give them the best I can and when it turns to crap (on their insistance) I just ask for the check. But the band stuff and things with my name on it I do have to hold to a standard because it is part of my identity. So that's an aspect of the argument to take into account.
IF I were to get a film scoring gig of some kind I would walk away if they forced me to a point I was embarassed by what they were having me do. You really won't land any worthwhile gigs that way.
I actually did have a period about 8 years ago where me and the guy I work with were offered a publishing deal at a major Nashville Xtian company. (It's four letters and starts with "W"). Provided we could (direct quote) "dumb things down a bit". We actually tried dumbing our writing down a notch but apparently it wasn't dumb enough. They gave us a few cds to illustrate what they wanted. Those cds got broken in a hundred peices and flung out on I-24. I hope some bird made a good nest with them.

So yeah- I say sell out all you want and eat BUT never at the expense of your reputation and true artistic calling. So Bruce is right on that. I do think you can do both (if you have to, and a lot of us do).

One last rumination- everyone has a price. I will sell out, wholly and completely, for a sum. But it's a very large sum and I never expect to get it... :D

[Will Roget]

Fred, it ain't idealism. It's branding. It's the way you get your work known. If your work is all over the place, and doesn't have an identifiable sound that people know is you from a mile away, then how does anyone have an opportunity to actually seek you out? What is there to seek?
I actually agree with this pretty strongly, despite being one of the youngest/least professionally experienced members here. I was sort of misled by another aspiring game composer (not on these forums) into thinking that the only way to get any job at all was to be able to write in any style/genre, regardless of how generic that makes you sound. I'd even heard that you have to incorporate every possible genre into your demos, at least trying to "fake it" for styles you're not naturally inclined to use just so that you can get the most possible gigs. But then I started reading up on film music industry (as well as the MODERN games industry), and realized that directors strongly prefer to see proficiency, eloquence, consistency, and uniqueness in a composer. They want their product to be special, so they should want the music to be identifiable in some way too.

I think there's some misunderstanding in what this "uniqueness" means, though. The way I see it, if you only write atonal music for bandoneon ensembles and are trying to break into the film industry then, well, you're "unique" but you probably won't get far. I think that we should instead be unique on a more profound level, having a fundamental aesthetic or overarching idea to everything we write. Maybe other people can hear it and maybe they can't, but it goes a lot deeper than just the musical characteristics.



And moving into the scoring field, everybody's favorite...John Williams. He's not sounding like anyone but John Williams.
A fun game that my professor for "The Aesthetics of Film Music" played with us was to show us a few John Williams cues.... then play for us the original classical pieces (by Tchaikovsky, Stravinsky, etc.) that he quite clearly drew extensive influence from. More recently he's taken a few tips from the Crouching Tiger soundtrack as well as others. He's not always giving you that big brassy thematic orchestral score that people always brand him with; look at the jazz from "Catch Me If You Can" for instance. I think John Williams is getting better and better at composition as the years go on, by constantly expanding his musical horizons eloquently. He's kinda like one of those supervillains who gets power by absorbing the bodies/brains/powers/whatever of everyone else. :D

Where am I going with this? Well, if you look at just surface qualities (like instrumentation/mood/genre), then of course we're gonna be asked to do some pretty weird things that we might not agree with at first. But I actually think that's a blessing in a way - it forces us to develop a powerful and versatile aesthetic to our music, which might not be "heard" easily but certainly can be "felt". It's not what we do but how we got there that determines this; it's what seperates someone with a powerful vision from someone who's just following the latest trend, even if both songs sound similar. This is what distinguishes true compositional chameleons like John Williams and Yoko Kanno from people who just know how to fake it.

I'll just give one example. I try to be open minded, but I really can't stand country music for too long (and I'm sure at least one or two fellow forumers might agree with me). If someone came up to one of us and said, "hey I want a country music soundtrack for this comic cartoon I'm doing that takes place in Texas", then it could really go three ways. One, we could reject the project and claim that it's not on my wavelength. Two, we could take the gig, listen to a few CDs, and try to fake it as closely as possible. Or three, we could try to do a hybrid of acoustic guitar and coloristic chamber ensemble, writing music that not only sets the tone and the mood for the scenes but also comments on the lifestyles and personalities of the characters. This is what the composers for TV's "King of the Hill" do, making it one of my favorite TV scores these days.

So yeah, in short I think that our job as composers doesn't have to be to write generic client-pleasing tracks in order to pay the bills. I think it's possible to fulfill a client's requests while preserving (if not furthering) your own aesthetic. It's those little unheard tricks and quirks we put into our music that make us composers, and I'd think that clients are more likely to hire/rehire you if you not only satisfy but also impress and surprise them with your ideas. Clients generally aren't composers (otherwise they'd probably write the music themselves!) so they might not have the most eloquent opinions from a purely musical standpoint, but chances are they're looking at the big picture more than we are. In the end, our job is to put that composerly finesse into a project, and that's I think what Bruce is referring to by the concept of a "brand".

[dvincent]

Or John Williams?

Is that John Williams the classical guitarist? Because composing film music is by definition an artistic compromise. It's someone elses vision and you are bound by the constraints of the form presented to you. You may want to write something different (longer, louder, more progressive), but the film and the director/producer dictate what you need to do.

[Bruce A. Richardson]

Is that John Williams the classical guitarist? Because composing film music is by definition an artistic compromise. It's someone elses vision and you are bound by the constraints of the form presented to you. You may want to write something different (longer, louder, more progressive), but the film and the director/producer dictate what you need to do.

Writing for film does not have to be a compromise, though, if you are working with people who are interested in what you bring to the table. That is the power of collaborative art. If you collaborate, instead of just compromise, you get a lot more out of it.

[Ted Vanya]

Bruce:

I learn from you, and most of the time I also agree with your teachings. You touched a sensitive spot when you complained of the thousands of no-talentos who have the 300 dollars and now contaminating the clean artistic air with their "compositions".
I beg you to think this over. I am one of "those", my love of music did not get proper formal education; life, wars and necessities to stay alive and provide for my family made it so. However, love never dies, and finally ( the "finally" has a special meaning; I am 78) I have an orchestra and I can make music. It costed more than 300 bucks, but it gives me immense pleasure. Some of my friends whom I trust to let them hear my pieces sometimes, think that I have wasted my life being a chemical engineer, I should have made music all the time.
Where is the harm? Why do I pollute your air? And, if by some freak chance someone would use or promote my music, what would be the danger on Mount Olimpus where you guys reside?
Reading all your comments and advise I can not believe you mean it as it sounded to me. Again, thanks for your comments

Ted

[Bruce A. Richardson]

No Ted, I don't mean for it to sound "mean" at all. I'm pretty saracastic, and don't spend a lot of time pasting smilies in my posts.

But certainly I think it has relevance. In commercial music, I am constantly hearing stuff that is hideous, because someone who has no idea how to write for orchestra has suddenly decided he's going to "branch out," and starts using orchestral libraries in horrendous ways. Listen to half the TV scores out there...people with gigs whose writing was probably fine for more pop oriented scores, but whose orchestral writing is just plain awful.

The whole thing has just opened up such a can of worms. Certainly good has come from the proliferation of tools. But every coin has a flipside.

[Brian2112]

...I'm pretty saracastic...
Oh get out!:D

...2112:)

Note: I take the time to post smileys.:p ;) :D

[Hermitage59]

No Ted, I don't mean for it to sound "mean" at all. I'm pretty saracastic, and don't spend a lot of time pasting smilies in my posts.

But certainly I think it has relevance. In commercial music, I am constantly hearing stuff that is hideous, because someone who has no idea how to write for orchestra has suddenly decided he's going to "branch out," and starts using orchestral libraries in horrendous ways. Listen to half the TV scores out there...people with gigs whose writing was probably fine for more pop oriented scores, but whose orchestral writing is just plain awful.

The whole thing has just opened up such a can of worms. Certainly good has come from the proliferation of tools. But every coin has a flipside.

I don't mean to sound mean either. And there is two sides to this. Bruce has made a good point about the quality of work presented from 'home' composers who see the fame of orchestral writing too powerful to resist, and their lack of experience in an orchestral form becomes apparent to others before he or she hears the reality for themselves.

I've also heard some good ideas tarnished with a lack of skill. Let's not forget, Composition and Orchestration are, to a certain extent. seperate bedfellows, and both skills are important. It's one thing to be a great composer, and quite another to orchestrate well, and more often than not, it's the lack of orchestrative skill that creates the impression of the 'rising sea of mediocrity.'
We know many great composers from history past. What we don't hear about is the number of failures. In Mozart's time for example, how many composers were rejected for poor quality work? Maybe hundreds?
We are unique in a sense to have available the means to produce all types for ourselves at home or in the studio without the need to find an orchestra or two. This doesn't mean success, it just means there's more doing it. When the mediocrity is filtered out, i suspect the percentage of successful composers to unsuccessful composers will be about the same.


But Ted also made a great point, and maybe we should separate the commercial business in the dizzy heights from writing for enjoyment. I admit to doing both. There is an almost objective, hard process to writing commercially, driven by deadlines, job after job, etc. (Again, Bruce hits the nail on the head with collaboration. Great business practise that reduces stress). At the same time, i have my own projects, based on music i want to write for my own listening enjoyment and creative challenge. (Which means i work bloody hard at it, because i figure if i don't enjoy it, others probably won't either, and i'm far more critical of my own work than anyone else could ever be, business or personal.)


If a man sits at home, and enjoys himself writing, his friends enjoy it, and he makes a bob or two, then good luck to him. I think there's a big difference between describing the horror of hearing stuff in a commercial sense that is inadequate (and i understand this completely), and the enjoyment a man gets from creating something without desiring a place in 'mount olympus.' And each has relevance to those who aspire.

Regards to you all,

Alex.

[noenoeil]

Bruce:

I learn from you, and most of the time I also agree with your teachings. You touched a sensitive spot when you complained of the thousands of no-talentos who have the 300 dollars and now contaminating the clean artistic air with their "compositions".
I beg you to think this over. I am one of "those", my love of music did not get proper formal education; life, wars and necessities to stay alive and provide for my family made it so. However, love never dies, and finally ( the "finally" has a special meaning; I am 78) I have an orchestra and I can make music. It costed more than 300 bucks, but it gives me immense pleasure. Some of my friends whom I trust to let them hear my pieces sometimes, think that I have wasted my life being a chemical engineer, I should have made music all the time.
Where is the harm? Why do I pollute your air? And, if by some freak chance someone would use or promote my music, what would be the danger on Mount Olimpus where you guys reside?
Reading all your comments and advise I can not believe you mean it as it sounded to me. Again, thanks for your comments

Ted


My kind of dude.

Thanks,

Christian

[dpasdernick]

No Ted, I don't mean for it to sound "mean" at all. I'm pretty saracastic, and don't spend a lot of time pasting smilies in my posts.

But certainly I think it has relevance. In commercial music, I am constantly hearing stuff that is hideous, because someone who has no idea how to write for orchestra has suddenly decided he's going to "branch out," and starts using orchestral libraries in horrendous ways. Listen to half the TV scores out there...people with gigs whose writing was probably fine for more pop oriented scores, but whose orchestral writing is just plain awful.

The whole thing has just opened up such a can of worms. Certainly good has come from the proliferation of tools. But every coin has a flipside.


Bruce,

You're starting to come across as intolerant. Millions of people watch TV every night and dig the music they hear. It's obvious these composers are doing something right. You seem to be so threatened that someone is writing, in your opinion, bad music. Or that someone is using a sample instead of a real player.

More and more people are becoming artists because these tools are now available to them. Many of us amateurs, as you seem to think of us, may one day be the next John Williams, or Iggy Pop, etc beacuse we spent the $300. These tools are allowing us to express our music in ways we couldn't before, learn about the orchestra, and have some fun in the mean time.

Get off your high horse man. Go kick some of those losers off their TV show scoring gigs and show us all how it should be done according to you. And why is it that you feel you have the right to condem composers just because they "ain't up to your standards?" Setting a "standard" for art is just plain dumb. It really is. Everybody deserves the right to express themselves artistically. Good or bad. If you don't like it, change the channel.

Remember Bruce, everyone of us, inculding you, started off as an amateur...

Sincerely,

Darren

PS Ted Vanya, Keep writing my friend, keep writing :)

PSS I've said it before and i'll say it again, If a composer can single handedly bring down the art world by playiing an Am chord with a bad sax sample we've got bigger things to worry about :)

[kramusica]

I have been touched by the beautiful post made by Ted. Thank you for bringing into words what I can not.

Mark

[Hermitage59]

Darren,
Maybe i didn't hear the same thing in Bruce's words that you did, but i sense frustration more than intolerance.
There have been many times i've cringed at a piece that is part of a popular show that millions watch. It doesn't mean i think the composer's a complete loser, or musically bereft of talent, but his skills could do with improving. And let's not forget, it's often who you know that gets the gig, not always by sheer talent alone. And here in Moscow, i'm fortunate enough to have met the right people, and get work i know how to write (Orchestral). There are plenty of muso's here who are crap at orchestral stuff, and it's because of contacts and family connections they get work, often, and usually, out of their depth. Same in australia and south africa when i spent time in those places too.

So while i respect your point of view, i have to at least partially agree with Bruce on this one. Writing for a job can expose you to all sorts, and varying quality of, music. Much of it is crap, that's a fact, but a lot of it is down to the writer being out of his or her depth, and with some hard study, and determined listening, it raises the chance of their output being at least a little easier to listen to.
Because although technology's come a long way, it doesn't make us write any better.It just gives some writers a chance to hear what they're doing, if they can't hear the orchestra playing in their head in the first place.

Regards,

Alex.

[Hermitage59]

A message for Ted.

Ted,
Older chemical engineers come and go, and retire, to sit on the porch.
But muso's never retire, they just get smart enough to stop listening to country music!

Live long and enjoy, writing whatever you want to.

regards,

Alex.

[noenoeil]

Alex.

There are tons of frustrated musicians, and the idea that they may be considered as references by beginners is just unbearable to me.

Christian

[Hermitage59]

Christian,
No disrespected intended, but i'm not sure what context you're using in regard to:

references by beginners.

Alex.

[noenoeil]

Alex, no disrespect taken!

Just read the whole thread again...

Christian

[FredProgGH]

Hmmmm...

I don't think Bruce meant to point the finger at anyone here.

And I don't think Bruce meant that hobbiests should not enjoy their hobby.

That's all seperate from the problem that there is a rising acceptance of mediocrity in the professional music world. And that is a result of relaxed standards of listeners and consumers. It's no sin for people to want to make music even if they arent really all that talented but we should know better than to elevate it to the level of those with a real gift. And yet, Ashlee Simpson can almost literally take a dump on every person that has ever actually worked at having a music career and also any of you that practice music even as amatuers because of a burning passion to make art. And there is a lot of inept, objectively inept music being put out in the world of TV, films and games. It is a problem.

(BTW I hope no one confuses "amatuer" with "untalented". Some of the greatest musicians around are amatuers... and almost all the scientists and engineer types I've had the pleasure to know have been very good musicians and writers that could have been pros...)

[Bruce A. Richardson]

The ladies protest too much, methinks.

[noenoeil]

The ladies protest too much, methinks.

Hehehe :D

C.

[dpasdernick]

Darren,
Maybe i didn't hear the same thing in Bruce's words that you did, but i sense frustration more than intolerance.
There have been many times i've cringed at a piece that is part of a popular show that millions watch. It doesn't mean i think the composer's a complete loser, or musically bereft of talent, but his skills could do with improving. And let's not forget, it's often who you know that gets the gig, not always by sheer talent alone. And here in Moscow, i'm fortunate enough to have met the right people, and get work i know how to write (Orchestral). There are plenty of muso's here who are crap at orchestral stuff, and it's because of contacts and family connections they get work, often, and usually, out of their depth. Same in australia and south africa when i spent time in those places too.

So while i respect your point of view, i have to at least partially agree with Bruce on this one. Writing for a job can expose you to all sorts, and varying quality of, music. Much of it is crap, that's a fact, but a lot of it is down to the writer being out of his or her depth, and with some hard study, and determined listening, it raises the chance of their output being at least a little easier to listen to.
Because although technology's come a long way, it doesn't make us write any better.It just gives some writers a chance to hear what they're doing, if they can't hear the orchestra playing in their head in the first place.

Regards,

Alex.

Alex,

1st offyou are a Gentleman, thank you for that. Perhaps I misunderstood Bruce and perhaps I am finding my self in the midst of being a little hypocritcal here after thinking this through. I am frustrated as well by a lot of music these days but it isn't from the people who play "bad" orchestral music on their $300 software. FredProGH (can I call you Fred ;)? made a comment about the Ashlee Simpson's of the world. Yup, that can't be good for music. I wish we could replace Rap with Classical music. I wish we could replace Britanny with cool jazz (as long as they all looked like Brittany ;) ) So when I read Bruce's comments on the "bad" TV music my 1st thought was "I'd take this any day over some of the mainstream pop out there today"

So why has all this "bad" music permeated into our lives? Why don't we here great classical music instead of bad pop? Why does Hollywood produce the frickin' Dukes of Hazard?

Bruce, I didn't mean to attack you and if it came across that way I am sorry. I just needed to put what you said in to my own perspective to understand where you were coming from. But the reality is that "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" What you may think sucks musically may be another man's greatest hits.

I personally think Tom Waits is one of the most talented people to come out of this country and yet Madonna owns a bigger home. Oh whoa is me...

All the very best,

Darren

PS My apologies for some how wandering way off the topic of this thread. Go GOS... No wait GOS bad... ...errr GOS good layered with rice pudding.. frickin' 'ell

[Hermitage59]

Hmmmm...

I don't think Bruce meant to point the finger at anyone here.

And I don't think Bruce meant that hobbiests should not enjoy their hobby.

That's all seperate from the problem that there is a rising acceptance of mediocrity in the professional music world. And that is a result of relaxed standards of listeners and consumers.

The mediocrity has less to do with musicians, and more to do with requirements by bankers and accountants to maintain profit levels.
And while writers and composers continue to say yes to everything, instead of, as Bruce wrote, developing their own style, the rot will continue. Already major film markets around the world are running short of ideas and remaking god knows how many tales from the past. It's about maintaining profit. The industries will need new ideas soon, and if you've built a reputation for good work with a good style, and for being particular and taking the right jobs, you'll get more say in the process. It's a fact.

Bruce also remarked about marketing.
Spot on.
Build a style, and then the right people will know who to call. Worked for me quite a few years ago, and i did go hungry once or twice at the start, but word got around, and the people who wanted my work knocked on the door. Made for a steady flow of work that I enjoyed writing. I still do it these days, and it works. Just takes time, self belief, a bloody minded determined pursuit of excellence, and patience.


Alex.

[jc5]

Millions of people watch TV every night and dig the music they hear. It's obvious these composers are doing something right. You seem to be so threatened that someone is writing, in your opinion, bad music. Or that someone is using a sample instead of a real player.


Hmmm.... these the days the fact that millions watch/listen to something really means nothing (if it every did mean anything!).
Its a captive audience, imprisoned by their own inability to just turn it off and entertain themselves...



Setting a "standard" for art is just plain dumb. It really is. Everybody deserves the right to express themselves artistically. Good or bad. If you don't like it, change the channel.


There are standards for everything in life. Standards and the quest for ever higher ones is what drives it all... when that isn't the driving force, there is trouble..
This denies no one their right to express themselves, but nor should one expect automatic respect/kudos just for showing up! ;)


On a different note, I happen to think think that its great that people are able to experiment and enjoy themselves composing orchestral music for their own satisfaction. And through learning, work and talent - there need not be any limits.
Now without those three things... well, we're back to having trouble! ;)

[kramusica]

My apologies for some how wandering way off the topic of this thread. Go GOS... No wait GOS bad... ...errr GOS good layered with rice pudding.. frickin' 'ell

Darren, I like this much better. There's an excellent dialogue going on although there is no right or wrong. I never underestimate the intelligence of people who enjoy whatever kind of music. If everybody would like the music I like this would become a very boring world. This is after all the entertainement business, supply and demand ( and don't forget that Bruce is selling his soul for 80.000 bucks, so what's the problem here, everybody has his price).

At least you guys can now go on for ages chatting about frustration and wrap it up with a beer afterwards.

Mark

PS: eer... The Temptation of 80.000 Bucks... hmmm... tempting

[FredProgGH]

$80,000!!! :eek:

Bruce is selling out for eighty grand? After all that talk- that's orders of magnitude less than my sell out number. :D :D

[Bruce A. Richardson]

Got my eyes on a piece of real estate...so my sellout price is temporarily cheaper. That was for one rendition of Come to Jesus in whole notes, though. Prices may vary.

[tomhartman]

I personally think there is a lot of snobbism....elitism...going on in this kind of thinking, albeit unintentionally.

The idea that someone "doesn't know how to write for orchestra" can be really revealing of one's expectations. Outside of assigning a flute to play the bass line (hey...wait....)....there are no rules. There are only rules if you want to sound like everyone else. So I wouldn't assume that everyone who orchestrates differently, or comes up with an out of the norm result doesn't know what they are doing....they may just LIKE it like that.

And while the overall idea of relentlessly knocking pop stars for being more famous or successful than more "serious" (whatever that is) little worker bees always makes one, however young, sound old. Bah humbug indeed.

Most of these "overnight" pop stars have dreamed of realizing their goals since they were as young as the "serious" composer types....you can watch their home movies, holding brooms for guitars, appearing in every little school event possible as a outlet for performing, etc. Their public recogition may have happened overnight, not their desires, which are not inferior to anyones just because we might not share their tastes in music.

Personally I consider myself very fortunate to be able to not just appreciate, but to absolutely LOVE pop music, AND the more "serious" orchestral works, from Penderecki to Hindemith to Beethoven. If it hadn't been for The Beatles I would not even being making a living writing scores and producing music.

There is a lot of music on TV that I'm not crazy about. But then there always has been. I watched "INVASION" the other night and the score was very impressive. I watched something else a few nights later, and it sounded very ...well average, to me. Same as it ever was.

Just my 2c, of course...

TH


Hmmmm...

I don't think Bruce meant to point the finger at anyone here.

And I don't think Bruce meant that hobbiests should not enjoy their hobby.

That's all seperate from the problem that there is a rising acceptance of mediocrity in the professional music world. And that is a result of relaxed standards of listeners and consumers. It's no sin for people to want to make music even if they arent really all that talented but we should know better than to elevate it to the level of those with a real gift. And yet, Ashlee Simpson can almost literally take a dump on every person that has ever actually worked at having a music career and also any of you that practice music even as amatuers because of a burning passion to make art. And there is a lot of inept, objectively inept music being put out in the world of TV, films and games. It is a problem.

(BTW I hope no one confuses "amatuer" with "untalented". Some of the greatest musicians around are amatuers... and almost all the scientists and engineer types I've had the pleasure to know have been very good musicians and writers that could have been pros...)

[Will Roget]

Hey Tom,

I think that the whole "doesn't know how to write for orchestra" thing isn't so much brought on by what someone does wrong as it is by what someone doesn't do. A talented composer coming to orchestral music from another style would probably come up with something different and interesting that maybe we wouldn't've thought of (as we saw countless times with jazz orchestrators, 3rd stream music, etc). The composers that Bruce et al seem to be talking about on this thread though are the ones who come up with unevocative or undercomposed orchestrations, sounding too standard/obvious/simplistic.

I don't think we'd criticize someone for sounding too weird since if they sounded just plain "wrong" in an offensive and meaningless way, they probably wouldn't have a job. ;)

[Bruce A. Richardson]

I personally think there is a lot of snobbism....elitism...going on in this kind of thinking, albeit unintentionally.

The idea that someone "doesn't know how to write for orchestra" can be really revealing of one's expectations.

Hey Tom, I agree with you about the pop bashing. Find me someone who can outsing Christina Aguilera right now. She is fanstastic. Britney Spears puts on a fierce dance/music/light/video show. 50 Cent was on David Letterman last night, and sounded great.

Pop music is as much an art as any other. It's an art of extreme economy--how do you create a compelling four-minute chunk of music that will stick in the human brain and elicit a specific emotion?

It's like the art of creating a billboard. How do you get a message across in the one second interval of the media's exposure? You have to make very hard and sophisticated decisions to make it happen.

However, I really think that you can make a judgement that says "someone doesn't know how to write for orchestra." Yes, there is always the case where someone might be going for a specific effect. But going for it, and effectively communicating it are two very different things. If it doesn't work, it doesn't matter what was intended. It just doesn't work.

A lot of the "rules" of orchestral writing are certainly meant to be broken, but again, if you're breaking a rule that's based upon best practices that really work, and your "big idea" is something that just falls flat and sounds like bad writing, well, it's just bad writing. People are always trying to reinvent the wheel, but unless you invent something that works better, you've just created a crummy wheel.

I think if you really whittle away the generalizations, the reason most "bad" orchestral music doesn't work is that the writer has no sense of melody. You can "hide" a mediocre sense of melody in some genres better than others. But orchestral writing is so dependent upon it that it becomes very difficult to overcome a certain naive sound. Good melody works on so many levels, and is complex!! The other thing that makes "bad" orchestral music sound bad is simply a lack of orchestration skill.

So, I'd say that we have two arguments here. One is definitely "genre bashing" and somewhat elitist, but I'm not sure the other is.

[tomhartman]

To make it short and sweet...Bruce...thanks for all that, I couldn't agree more.

I do think there is a tendency nowadays...in everything from morals to music...to resist the establishment of any standards upon anything, and that may be well have fueled much mediocrity to its current wildfire levels.

Worse, I also believe there are people...with the power to hire/fire..."OK/nix" all manner of production elements who just have no idea what they are doing. I know, because I deal with a few of them...as I bet you do. Most of my jobs start out with a client playing me something asking how "close we can get without getting sued." This can't be healthy for hearing creative work in media, and it goes on all the time.

I had one Florida Lottery TV commercial where they were editing and I asked "When will I see the rough cut?" Their answer:

"We are done with the cut, but we are going to the mall to find some CDs to put up against it so you'll have an idea what the music should be."


Tom

[JonFairhurst]

However, I really think that you can make a judgement that says "someone doesn't know how to write for orchestra." Yes, there is always the case where someone might be going for a specific effect. But going for it, and effectively communicating it are two very different things. If it doesn't work, it doesn't matter what was intended. It just doesn't work.
I agree. I remember hearing an orchestral piece that was done just like a pop piece, and it didn't work at all. It was a three chord, 4/4 job with a simple bass line, a five note melody and block chords. It had the classic pop verse, chorus, bridge form. Given a great singer, catchy lyrics and killer production, it might go platinum. Done flatly with orchestral samples, it was a couple of steps below Muzak. It just didn't work.

It's the equivalent of playing bagpipe music on a nylon string guitar and calling it Flamenco. One has to write/arrange for the intended medium.

Then again, one can successfully arrange pop tunes for orchestra. But to do it well, one must bounce the melody around to various players/sections, find interesting ways to orchestrate the pad, and add an emotional thread that modulates the orchestra that probably didn't exist in the pop chord chart. In that case it isn't a step or two below Muzak. It IS Muzak!

-JF

[FredProgGH]

Got my eyes on a piece of real estate...so my sellout price is temporarily cheaper. That was for one rendition of Come to Jesus in whole notes, though. Prices may vary.

Ah, that's right.

As to "pop bashing" I picked on Ashlee for good reason. She only wanted to sing and have a show becuase her sister was doing it. There was an episode of her show where she was introduced to her band the day before a concert.
"Here's your band, Honey!!"
"Yay daddy, I love you!!" Blecchh.
She has no inherent talent I can see, absolutely no desire to work to be a singer. It's all been handed to her by daddy. Even her sister and people like Brittany have some legitimacy, like 'em or not, as has been pointed out. But Ashlee is a poster child for maufactured career.

[Steve_Karl]

Well, can't speak for Houston but as a GOS supporter I'll post one of mine...

http://www.mydocsonline.com/pub/fredproggh/09%20The%20Lady%20Waits.mp3

Though I don't expect many opinions to change.

Very nice! Thank you.

Steve

[Alexcremers]

Find me someone who can outsing Christina Aguilera right now. She is fanstastic.

That's the problem with Christina. Her singing is so over the top that she's dangerously close to being a circus freak.

[MDesigner]

This is partially in support of GOS but also another example of contrasting GOS with another string library to hear the differences.

http://www.samhulick.com/music/Worlds_Apart.mp3

The string section hairpins at the beginning are Opus 1. The sweeping violins at the climax are GOS. I just had to call them "sweeping." ;) I did not use the Opus violins on purpose, due to an inconsistency in the sample recording.. here's why (listen for yourself). This is the Opus 1 violin section, holding that same note GOS is:

http://www.samhulick.com/misc/uneven_vi.mp3

So that's why I used GOS instead of Opus in the climax. And as expected, the Opus strings sound crisper, whereas GOS sounds warmer. It's all about personal preference.

[Bruce A. Richardson]

That's the problem with Christina. Her singing is so over the top that she's dangerously close to being a circus freak.

Yes, but she's also really young. Have you heard her on Herbie's record? She sings the living ~~~~ out of that tune. When she's on, and she's in the song, there's not anybody better right now. I'll give her a little excess...it's from the heart, and it will mellow beautifully with time if she stays in the game.

[TheLastCrusader]

Christina is the Mariah Carey of her generation.

You may not like her singing style, but her talent is pretty much undeniable. That collabo that she did with Herbie is a perfect example of what she's capable of.

I'm proud to say I own all of her albums :)

[MDesigner]

Yes, but she's also really young. Have you heard her on Herbie's record? She sings the living ~~~~ out of that tune. When she's on, and she's in the song, there's not anybody better right now. I'll give her a little excess...it's from the heart, and it will mellow beautifully with time if she stays in the game.

Agreed 100%! That girl can really sing. Compare her to other "pop" singers like Ashlee Simpson.. whose talent pales in comparison. There IS no comparison, simple as that.

Other female vocalists I like: Anna Nalick, Rachael Yamagata, Sarah McLachlan (phenomenal), Tori Amos. Granted they don't have the "punch" Aguilera does, but they still have great voices and are quite talented.

[Hermitage59]

And other great female singers include:

Maria Callas, Cecilia Bartolli, Rosamund Illing, and Angela Ghorghio.

And lets not forget that great Moldavian Messy Soprano:

Titiana Chunkythighya.

Regards,

Alex.

[Bruce A. Richardson]

The thing that I always ask people when they bag on a singer is this: If she showed up at your rehearsal, and sang for you, and wanted to be in your band, would you think the same thing?

[Bruce A. Richardson]

Titiana Chunkythighya.


I think I know her...haha.

[Alexcremers]

Christina is the Mariah Carey of her generation.

Exactly! And before Mariah Carey it was Whitney Houston. They are the bodybuilders of the singing voice. Technically, they all are blessed with a great voice but alas ... no subtleties, no finesse, no soul, no musicality. But they're loud and obtrusive and that's what counts these "Idol" days. It has to be shoved in the throat or people don't consider it singing anymore. Personally, I believe their music is made for funfairs and the wrong kind of bars. :p

[TheLastCrusader]

Exactly! And before Mariah Carey it was Whitney Houston. They are the bodybuilders of the singing voice. Technically, they all are blessed with a great voice but alas ... no subtleties, no finesse, no soul, no musicality. But they're loud and obtrusive and that's what counts these "Idol" days. It has to be shoved in the throat or people don't consider it singing anymore. Personally, I believe their music is made for funfairs and the wrong kind of bars. :p

Erm. Whitney and Mariah don't sing with soul? Yeah, that Aretha lady doesn't know her way around a gospel tune either ;) :eek:

Well, I respect your opinion, but its the opposite for me. Mariahs first two albums in particular are pretty amazing (to my ears anyway) in terms of finesse and soul. When Whitney sang gospel she could bring down the house too.

Speaking of "Idol", I think a new version of American Idol will be coming out soon. I think its hilarious how many of the singers on those shows choose Aretha, Whitney, Stevie or Donny Hathaway tunes to sing!

Tommy Flanagan's solo on Giant Steps should have been advice to us all... there are some acts you just can't follow :D

[tomhartman]

Agreed 100%! That girl can really sing. Compare her to other "pop" singers like Ashlee Simpson.. whose talent pales in comparison. There IS no comparison, simple as that.




No comparision indeed...just as there is no comparison between a Fender Precision and an oboe. Two different animals. Each would sound silly on the other's material.

There is a big difference in pop and R&B vocalists in general, always has been. Pop music has always been more about the record itself and the underlying song, where R&B has always been more about the performance of the song. Neither is right or wrong.

JMHO
TH

[FredProgGH]

Very nice! Thank you.

Steve


Thank *you*! I'm just one of those rock guys with a computer trying to help contribute to that whole "decline and fall of Music As We Know It" thing :D :D

I realize that this piece is fairly pedestrian and non-groundbreaking (and rambling) but it's part of my learning curve. That's the first fully orchestrated thing I ever tried to do.

[joaz]

Tommy Flanagan's solo on Giant Steps should have been advice to us all... there are some acts you just can't follow :D
If ever I have played badly at a gig, I like to play that solo to cheer me up.At least I am in good company.:D
regards

[Bruce A. Richardson]

Exactly! And before Mariah Carey it was Whitney Houston. They are the bodybuilders of the singing voice. Technically, they all are blessed with a great voice but alas ... no subtleties, no finesse, no soul, no musicality. But they're loud and obtrusive and that's what counts these "Idol" days. It has to be shoved in the throat or people don't consider it singing anymore. Personally, I believe their music is made for funfairs and the wrong kind of bars. :p

Really? In the big scheme of things, I would take Christina before Mariah or Whitney, but I have heard all of these singers perform live, and I am a little taken aback that you'd say that about any of them.

Have you heard them perform live?

I'd have to go to my standard question: You're telling me that if any of these three singers showed up at your band rehearsal and auditioned for you, you wouldn't be tripping over yourself to get them signed on? I can't believe you wouldn't want to work with them.

I remember back in 1986 or so, Whitney was on David Letterman singing "The Greatest Love" with Paul and the band. There was something in the air that night, because the band was just ridiculously on...more than usual. Whitney started up the tune right in the pocket, but the band just kept pouring it on--one of those performances where the tune was being played almost to the point of flying to pieces, it was so on the edge.

And Whitney totally hung with it, and sang a performance that sailed over the top of everything Paul and the band could do. I will never forget it, because you could tell--the band, Whitney, everyone was surprised by where the performance had gone.

So, I don't know. I think taste is taste, and we all have different preferences. But I don't think you can accuse Whitney of not having what it takes. She may be past her moment now, but there was a time where she was doing some amazing work. Granted, she can come off like a glorified church singer sometimes, and I think that might be what you're responding to. But I know what I saw in that Letterman performance--that was a one of a kind musical event, of which you don't see that many. You don't see that band get rocked by too many performers, and it happened, and it was a sight. And I saw some really good moments in her live show that were definitely world class performances.

I'd be interested to know what pop/r & b singers you think are really good.

[TheLastCrusader]

If ever I have played badly at a gig, I like to play that solo to cheer me up.At least I am in good company.:D
regards

:D :D :D

Poor Tommy took that to the grave with him. Every time I saw him live, he'd always tell the Giant Steps story to the crowd. Its unfortunate he felt the need to explain it, his mastery of ballads was up there with the best who ever played. His version of "Peace" by Horace Silver is up there with Bill Evans's outro to "Blue In Green" in terms of the most jaw droppingly beautiful piano music I've ever heard.

[Alexcremers]

I'd be interested to know what pop/r & b singers you think are really good.


When it comes to R&B, Aretha Franklin is a prime example of a lady who understands soul. I don't hear her singing in the ramdom and aimless fashion that I accuse the divas of. And seeing Erykah Badu singing 'Tyrone' exposes the "fake soul"* of Whitney, Mariah and Cristina in ways I simply can't describe. If you don't hear the difference then count yourself lucky.

*the fantasy notes between the main vocal lines.



Alex

[Ashermusic]

Really? In the big scheme of things, I would take Christina before Mariah or Whitney, but I have heard all of these singers perform live, and I am a little taken aback that you'd say that about any of them.

Have you heard them perform live?

I'd have to go to my standard question: You're telling me that if any of these three singers showed up at your band rehearsal and auditioned for you, you wouldn't be tripping over yourself to get them signed on? I can't believe you wouldn't want to work with them.

I remember back in 1986 or so, Whitney was on David Letterman singing "The Greatest Love" with Paul and the band. There was something in the air that night, because the band was just ridiculously on...more than usual. Whitney started up the tune right in the pocket, but the band just kept pouring it on--one of those performances where the tune was being played almost to the point of flying to pieces, it was so on the edge.

And Whitney totally hung with it, and sang a performance that sailed over the top of everything Paul and the band could do. I will never forget it, because you could tell--the band, Whitney, everyone was surprised by where the performance had gone.

So, I don't know. I think taste is taste, and we all have different preferences. But I don't think you can accuse Whitney of not having what it takes. She may be past her moment now, but there was a time where she was doing some amazing work. Granted, she can come off like a glorified church singer sometimes, and I think that might be what you're responding to. But I know what I saw in that Letterman performance--that was a one of a kind musical event, of which you don't see that many. You don't see that band get rocked by too many performers, and it happened, and it was a sight. And I saw some really good moments in her live show that were definitely world class performances.

I'd be interested to know what pop/r & b singers you think are really good.

Whitney Houston recorded a song I wrote with Paul Jabara when she was 19 ("Eternal Love" which you can hear on my website, www.jayasher.com.) She sang much better then than she did later and does now because she was not trying to hit a home run on every note nor was she trying to see how many melismatic runs she could fit into a single phrase. Most of today's quality r & b singers have bought into this approach also, IMHO to the detriment of the music.

Aretha, Gladys, Martha Reeves, Chaka Khan, and the other classic soul singers did not do this, even though they were well capable of it.

But maybe it is generational.

Personally, I would rather listen to Norah Jones.

[TheLastCrusader]

When it comes to R&B, Aretha Franklin is a prime of a lady who understands soul. I don't hear her singing in the ramdom and aimless fashion that I accuse the divas of. And seeing Erykah Badu singing 'Tyrone' exposes the "fake soul"* of Whitney, Mariah and Cristina in ways I simply can't describe. If you don't hear the difference than count yourself lucky.

*the fantasy notes between the main vocal lines.



Alex

I would contend that if Aretha was in her prime today, she'd be doing melismatic styled vox as well. I think its more of a stylistic thing in order to be 'pop' friendly. Whitney, Mariah and Christina are all capable of NOT doing that, but I'd assume they have pressure to do it because many of their 'hits' employ this technique. Like Mariah always using her freaking whistle register to lace her songs with those airy embellishments, when she has such a great sultry low to mid range that she doesn't really need that kinda stuff to sell a tune.

Erykah does do some melismatic stuff live (like 'Stay' from her Live album) but I think stylistically free wheeling melismatic vox isn't really in her 'neo-soul' genre, or wouldn't cater to her audience.

I admit tho, melismatic style vocals are definitely an acquired taste. I grew up primarily listening to soul/r&b/gospel vox as a kid, so it's all I've known. :)

Oh, hey Bruce, you might know this. In that Herbie / Xtina song, is someone playing a Korg Wavedrum?!??! I've never seen one, but I have samples from one in my Liquid Grooves Xpander pack and some of those percussion sounds remind me of those samples.

[TheLastCrusader]

Whitney Houston recorded a song I wrote with Paul Jabara when she was 19 ("Eternal Love" which you can hear on my website, www.jayasher.com.) She sang much better then than she did later and does now because she was not trying to hit a home run on every note nor was she trying to see how many melismatic runs she could fit into a single phrase. Most of today's quality r & b singers have bought into this approach also, IMHO to the detriment of the music.

Aretha, Gladys, Martha Reeves, Chaka Khan, and the other classic soul singers did not do this, even though they were well capable of it.

But maybe it is generational.

Personally, I would rather listen to Norah Jones.

Holy smokes, I'm jealous of you!

I think its hard to compare Norah Jones to any of the pop/r&b singers previously mentioned, Norah is pretty much a country/folk singer who got signed to Blue Note, they're just wildly different styles meant for wildly different markets. I love Norah too, but if I'm in a Whitney Houston mode, I couldn't substitute Norah for her, or vice versa.

I think more then generational, its driven by demand, sales and marketing, for example this Herbie/Christina song has Christina sounding pretty mature compared to what she'll probably be releasing on her next 'pop' album. Personally I *LOVE* Anita Baker, and most people my age (27) either don't know her, or find her quiet-storm vocals BOOOORRRRINNNNGGGG. :)

[Alexcremers]

Personally, I would rather listen to Norah Jones.

Me too. It's a relief to hear someone so free from all the showcasing.

[Ashermusic]

Holy smokes, I'm jealous of you!

I love Norah too, but if I'm in a Whitney Houston mode, I couldn't substitute Norah for her, or vice versa.



Fair enough. Then when I am in a Whitney Houston mode I would still rather listen to Gladys Knight :)

[TheLastCrusader]

Fair enough. Then when I am in a Whitney Houston mode I would still rather listen to Gladys Knight :)

Touche :D

[joaz]

:D :D :D
Poor Tommy took that to the grave with him.
Tommy Flanagan was a great pianist. No question. That is why his rabbit in the headlights solo, cheers me up so much.If it can happen to him.....
Hard to imagine who could have gone in, and nailed it while sight reading.;)
regards