Ok, how many of you cheat?

[RiffWraith]

No, not on your significant others....what were you all thinking? Sheesh.....

How many of you, while using samples of real instruments in creating an orchestral MIDI score say,

"ok, well, xyz is not possible on this instrument, but seeing as though this is a MIDI-only score and a real orchestra will not be performing this, and seeing as how nobody is really going to notice....especially being that there is dialogue over this...well, let me go ahead and do it anyway...." ?????

Things that are simply impossible on a certain instruemnt, notes out of an instrument's range, raising the voulme of something (say, harp) so that it can be heard clearly when it normally wouldn't....how many of you do things like this - cheat, IOW - and how many of you are purists, and say,

"nope - that intstrument can't do that in the real world, so I am not going to do that in my MIDI score"???

Let's be honest now.....

[PaulR]

None of that is cheating Jeff. That is being creative.

[Hardy Heern]

No, not on your significant others....what were you all thinking? Sheesh.....

How many of you, while using samples of real instruments in creating an orchestral MIDI score say,

"ok, well, xyz is not possible on this instrument, but seeing as though this is a MIDI-only score and a real orchestra will not be performing this, and seeing as how nobody is really going to notice....especially being that there is dialogue over this...well, let me go ahead and do it anyway...." ?????

Things that are simply impossible on a certain instruemnt, notes out of an instrument's range, raising the voulme of something (say, harp) so that it can be heard clearly when it normally wouldn't....how many of you do things like this - cheat, IOW - and how many of you are purists, and say,

"nope - that intstrument can't do that in the real world, so I am not going to do that in my MIDI score"???

Let's be honest now.....

It's common knowledge in the trade that 63% of pop music, 45% of movie music, and 87% of Broadway show music is roughed out using Band in a Box. Is that cheating? I don't think so. Is living cheating? No one will admit to it though. Would you?

Frank

PS I just made up the figures..........before you take it too seriously......

[Theodor]

I think that real music is dying, everyone is just going by the book for a sure success. But that way music doesn't go forward and nothing changes. You hear the same over-consumed music beeing written by new artists instead of something new.

Thinking is not good when writing music. I think the best thing is to write whatever you feel, however you can get it out. We are blessed to know how to use samples and we should be using them in uncommon creative ways for new results. Who cares if you make a harmonic mistake or go over a range? Only the forum members in the 2 or 3 forums we hang out will notice it and they'll probably mention it just because they heard it, not because they really think it's wrong.

"Hey that's a parrallel fifth in your piece!!!" Well tough s*** man...cause that's how i like it.

All these "instrument ranges" and "breaths" aply when another musician is listening to our pieces and have an idea of what's going on. I think it has nothing to do with music.

[FredProgGH]

All these "instrument ranges" and "breaths" aply when another musician is listening to our pieces and have an idea of what's going on. I think it has nothing to do with music.

Well, it has a lot to do with music if someone is going to play it! :D But if we are talking about strictly MIDI-synth than sure, I agree, just do what sounds good.

I do think that if you're trying to write orchestrally for samples that 1, you will often be forced into correct ranges by the samples anyway- and if the samples transpose out of range it will usually sound pretty dumb, and 2, I think even untrained people will often get antsy during passages that run on so long a real player could never breathe.

[DPDAN]

All of us are cheating if we are using samples, but only cheating musicians out of a gig that they would normally get paid for. Sorry I had to say that for those who dispise the whole idea of sampling. Quite frankly, I know many phenominal musicians, and NONE of them are intimidated by any samples.... ever.

Most of the music that I have created with sample technology is for fun and for learning the trade. I feel like I can speak for the majority here, my use of samples is only making music that otherwise would have never been made.

It is wonderful to have the tools to finally create something of my own, even if it's not an original work. I have been undeservedly blessed beyond belief with positive comments about the music that I have created, and that has been invaluable for my self esteem.

I personally never go beyond the range of the real instrument. I always pay close attention to phrases for breathing, that in itself is a "must" thing for attempting realism with midi productions.

dpDan :)

[GunJinn]

what you actually mean by cheating (changing volume, tweaking instruments, etc). here is very "innocent" form of it.

there's another thing that bothers me more, however. example that comes to mind: you are scoring music for a movie. action takes place in, say, XIV century England. and director wants you to make very spectacular music, Hollywoodish blah blah. So, you put down your medieval manuscripts and make bombastic score, using shakuhachi flutes, duduks, taiko drums, didgeridoos and whatnot, you force orchestra to play zimmeristic passages based on military marches of the Red Army, everybody's happy, cool movie! Of course it's for entertaining not education, so... you tell me about cheating:eek:

and then people say: English music of XIV century was...

yeah:D

[Tomke]

For me this represents two rather different ways of using the computer as a sound generator.

One way is to use samples and sounds as an aid for hearing how it's going to sound when the real guys play it - which eventually they will. In those cases, of course, I do no cheating. I actually tend to write for those particular guys, keeping in mind how they, as musicians, will feel about it and how they will handle it. I generally don't write "a part for baritone saxophone", but rather a part for that particular saxophonist "Steve" or whatever. However, I rarely play the mock-up to the musicians in the beginning of the session, saying "This is what I had in mind".

The other way is to view the possibilities as just a huge palette of colors in sound, and then that's the way I use it. Do I need a really dark, wierd sounding violin? Well, let's pitch the cello up 3 octaves .. and if that provides what was needed then it's all good.

For me, I tend to think in terms of instruments whenever I do something. At least, I tend to differentiate between instruments and artificial atmospheres and stuff .. so I guess that sort of gets represented in the way my arrangements and thus also in the way I use the sounds.

[Theodor]

Well, it has a lot to do with music if someone is going to play it! :D But if we are talking about strictly MIDI-synth than sure, I agree, just do what sounds good.

I do think that if you're trying to write orchestrally for samples that 1, you will often be forced into correct ranges by the samples anyway- and if the samples transpose out of range it will usually sound pretty dumb, and 2, I think even untrained people will often get antsy during passages that run on so long a real player could never breathe.

Good points Fred! Both on the samples and the performance :) Winds playing sustains throughout a song can be very borin and un-natural. Stretching samples is nice sometimes... when you stretch downwards mostly.

Hehe, if someone wanted to play my stuff, i'd put a couple of pauses for breaths, sure. But i'm pretty happy with samples at the moment as they feel more personal.

[Nick Batzdorf]

It's common knowledge in the trade that 63% of pop music, 45% of movie music, and 87% of Broadway show music is roughed out using Band in a Box.

92.5% of all statistics are made up on the spur of the moment.

[Inkfingers]

To add to what Lee said, keep in mind too that "instrument ranges" are often more of a suggestion than a physical limitation on an instrument. Depending on the musician, instrument ranges can be stretched in both directions. This is especially true for brass instruments, where I've heard some amazingly high notes I thought were impossible. So you could say your "cheating" is just a representation of a really amazing musician. ;)

[RiffWraith]

Hmmm....all good points here, and I can't at all disagree with Paul's comment of "None of that is cheating...it is being creative." I do agree with the fact that real musicians are being cheated, but what are most of us to do? There are alot of people who are in a position of: "either produce a quality MIDI score, or I will find someone else that can." So, this form of "cheating" should not be directed too much at the musicians - but at those not willing/able to spend the money for real musicians.

Cheers.

[PaulR]

There are a lot of people who are in a position of: "either produce a quality MIDI score, or I will find someone else that can." So, this form of "cheating" should not be directed too much at the musicians - but at those not willing/able to spend the money for real musicians.
Cheers.

Well, to me, cheating is a funny word here Jeff. :)

One of the problems that arise all the time in heated forum discussions is this constant harping on of real versus a midi performance. Some musicians (I use that term loosely btw) are obsessed with getting a midi performance to sound as real as possible -without understanding what anyone's definition of real actually is. They think that just because a sample box of DVD's has got 'orchestra' written on it, if they can't get it to sound like the LSO, they're doing something wrong.
A sample instrument to me, is an entirely electronic instrument in it's own right, whether it's Stylus RMX or VSL's whatever.
What becomes irritating and at the same time an interesting juxtaposition, is when one hears a demo that has been written by someone who can obviously write - and write well. But all of a sudden, all hell breaks loose on the ear drums, because they forgot they were using a sample library.
Then, on the other hand, one hears a piece, in this case by a guy called Marsden, again written with samples, by a guy who can also write - and it absolutely smokes. Fantastic sound. I doubt if one one nanno second that he cared two hoots about whether it sounded real or not.

If you want or can budget for real musicians, then get them in, and hope that they are really good at what they do. Get an orchestrator that's really good and can add some input. None of that is cheating unless you're an out and out purist - and they generally don't do this for money.

So, with samples - if it sounds good and is musical - then it probably is good. There's no cheating with samples, however way you want to do it. You make your own rules.

[Hermitage59]

So, with samples - if it sounds good and is musical - then it probably is good. There's no cheating with samples, however way you want to do it. You make your own rules.

Paul,
Exactly.

Cheating is copying someone else's work and claiming it as your own.

Taking someone else's idea and developing it beyond the original, is development. That's how we learn.

Regards,

Alex.

[Pi_314]

I was born to cheat. I will hack, slice, dice, cut, pitch, port, echo, verb, reverse, stretch, compress, and spit out anything that sounds ripe in a mix. To hell with towing the line. Never liked the puppet mentality of orchestral maneuvers in the dark, somebody else can hold that shtick for me.:|:

[Rosie]

Frankly, I want my music to be realistically playable, because I really want someone to actually play it. I use samples so I can listen to my music since I don't have an orchestra on hand to perform it for me. :D

[artsoundz]

Cheating, to me, is using stolen software and long loops. Particularly the loops that incorporate the entire rythm section and it's 2-4-8-- bar RECORDING/harmonic structure. I've had meetings with prospective clients trying to get work and they play me music done by local "composers" that are entirely hacked up loops of orchestrel music. It does, in fact sound great but beyond the obvious creativity involved there is no composing involved. Yet they pass themselves off as true composers. Clients have no idea.That infuriates me. These same guys use stolen software as well. But the idea of using the word "cheating" with regard to using samples and the tools of extending the range etc...well...archaic thinking.I'm surprised to even see it brought up. Seems like an old..been there, done that argument.

[Bruce A. Richardson]

I would say that none of it is cheating. In fact, if people would cheat more and "mock up" less, the music would be infinitely more interesting and authentic.

[Thisman]

Things that are simply impossible on a certain instruemnt, notes out of an instrument's range, raising the voulme of something (say, harp) so that it can be heard clearly when it normally wouldn't....how many of you do things like this - cheat...Let's be honest now.....

As I see it, when doing something like this, we (man) have simply created a new instrument or variant of an instrument. We've "created" something that sounds like a louder harp. We've created something that sounds like a duduk but plays an octave lower than a duduk can. Sounds wonderful to me. And if it pleases the ears and heart I like it.

[Edi]

Discussions comparing "real" instruments to sampled sounds remind me of the discussions a hundred years ago about painting versus photography. It turned out that there was plenty of room for both in the world.

Quality in art is not confined by medium.

Ed