To be an orchestra

[hywyn]

I've been hanging around Northern Sounds for a few days (sounds creepy!), looking at what various eminent people have to say about buying an Orchestral sampling library. I've also talked to people I know and respect, and have basically got myself informed.
I'm wiser in that I know if a client wants a hollywood type score East West will impress them, and for realistic strings you need to layer some solo parts (perhaps from another library) etc etc,....but it's left me wondering what the hell I'm doing.
I have no background or training in orchestration or arrangement. I've achieved so far by working within certain parameters, yet those needn't be limited, - I've found ways to create music with depth and emotion but have only ever wondered at how I might get an orchestra to perform the same feat.
To learn how to do so would be massively time consuming, and then there are the midi hoops you have to jump through (like the time spent figuring why those strings don't work, only to discover velocity layer 80 didn't convert properly) and it's just one big turn off, and worse a creative cul-de-sac.

I also do wonder at the predilection of orchestral arrangement as dictated by fasion. Orchestral may be "in" so to speak, but should it mean we make bad music except for those of us who know how?

[geronimo001]

I think a client could be just as impress by Sonic Implants, maby more?, i was just listening to the demos and i was very impress myself. i think that EW beeing ''the'' hollywood sound is a myth, i don't know where that comes from, a publicity stunt maby? And kurk hunter's stuff sound very Hollywood to me too, at a fraction of the price.

As for your question, i didn't really anderstand:confused: Sorry!

[Alexcremers]

I believe the question is, do untrained composers make bad music in the ears of the trained?

[Daryl]

If your client wants a "Hollywood" (whatever that means) type score, then it doesn't matter what samples you use. Firstly it is all about the writing, secondly if you are a good programmer then you can get a big sound with any samples, and thirdly when you mention orchestra, you must decide whether or not you mean orchestra or MIDI orchestra.
The last of these is much more important that many people believe it to be. I have attended many sessions where the composer produced a reasonable sounding demo, only to find that it didn't work with an orchestra at all. If you intend to stay within the MIDI domain, then the "if it sounds good, it is good" mantra is fine. If you want to use a "real" orchestra, there is no substitution for study, either by taking lessons or by analysing scores to see how the beast really works. Once you know the "rules" you will be able to break them and know that it is going to sound good.

D

[hywyn]

As for your question, i didn't really anderstand Sorry!

I believe the question is, do untrained composers make bad music in the ears of the trained?

Yes, sorry, it wasn't clear to myself, reading back on it this morning!
Your understanding of my ramble Alex would be correct if we are talking of composers turned orchestral arrangers, not composers per se. I don't think training creates the composer either, although it will assist in most cases.

My introduction to orchestral music was through my parents James Last records (not even the cool 60's stuff), and so I''m dreading what I might do if I attempt a full orchestral score! It's not just how one might impact on my art, and others experience of it, but my guess is that I would have to be absolutely committed. It's the old analogy of why does a dog lick his/her genitals? - the option to use orchestral libraries because one can isn't a very bright (or original) idea. I just need to turn on the tv to confirm this.

It's also worth questioning how this approach works on an holistic level. Working with musicians from a simple score, perhaps just a melody and counter-melody and trying ideas out in a session is something to enjoy. I have recorded a cellist and violinist on their own or double or quadruple tracking them to create a section (they are with Birmingham symphony orchestra, so by spurning that Chamber Orchestra cd I've lost nothing) and an oboe player recently, just because it's so rewarding to get in a good space and work.
It's also beautifully simple, - hire a matched stereo pair of mics,, like DPA or Earthworks (true omni's so you needn't worry about proximity, just get them in there) and a great quality stereo pre-amp and press record!

I will no doubt buy an Orchestral CD and am very grateful to hip people who inhabit this forum for the wealth of information I've found here.
:)

[Will Roget]

I also don't quite follow what you're trying to say.... it's not easy composing for live orchestras or sampled orchestras, they each have their own sets of difficulties, some of which intersect. Are you wondering about relative difficulties between those two? Or are you a non-orchestral composer, making a more general point about why should you have to force yourself to write for orchestras in the first place?

If it's the latter, I'd say you don't need to force yourself into it so much as just gain a degree of familiarity with orchestral colors. A lot of people who found their way into orchestral music through a back door of sorts end up at the top of the field - Alan Silvestri and Danny Elfman come to mind, both started as rockers but are now credited with some of the most memorable film soundtracks out there. It can be a major advantage, in that you don't think of orchestras in the same exact way as everyone else out there; if you already have a musical voice, you can reinterpret the orchestra to serve that voice instead of trying to fulfill the same orchestral stereotypes that everyone else is using.

[hywyn]

If your client wants a "Hollywood" (whatever that means) type score, then it doesn't matter what samples you use. Firstly it is all about the writing, secondly if you are a good programmer then you can get a big sound with any samples, and thirdly when you mention orchestra, you must decide whether or not you mean orchestra or MIDI orchestra.
The last of these is much more important that many people believe it to be. I have attended many sessions where the composer produced a reasonable sounding demo, only to find that it didn't work with an orchestra at all. If you intend to stay within the MIDI domain, then the "if it sounds good, it is good" mantra is fine. If you want to use a "real" orchestra, there is no substitution for study, either by taking lessons or by analysing scores to see how the beast really works. Once you know the "rules" you will be able to break them and know that it is going to sound good.

D

But understanding the beast is one thing, getting it to speak with your voice, and make sense (or intended nonsense) is another! (BTW, I used the hollywood cliche only as an example of what clients ask for, - it's not something I'm personally after).
I also believe that it is "all in the writing". It's how we choose to gild the lilly that decides whether the end result it slush or art.
I also agree that you need to know the rules before breaking them.

[hywyn]

I'd say you don't need to force yourself into it so much as just gain a degree of familiarity with orchestral colors. A lot of people who found their way into orchestral music through a back door of sorts end up at the top of the field - Alan Silvestri and Danny Elfman come to mind, both started as rockers but are now credited with some of the most memorable film soundtracks out there. It can be a major advantage, in that you don't think of orchestras in the same exact way as everyone else out there; if you already have a musical voice, you can reinterpret the orchestra to serve that voice instead of trying to fulfill the same orchestral stereotypes that everyone else is using.

Thanks Will, that's an interesting and encouraging point I hadn't considered. I'm not shut off to the possibility of creating a meaningful score (is this beginning to sound like therapy?:eek:). Best to keep an open mind and not get too bogged down in ones own dogma.

[hywyn]

I also don't quite follow what you're trying to say.... it's not easy composing for live orchestras or sampled orchestras, they each have their own sets of difficulties, some of which intersect. Are you wondering about relative difficulties between those two? Or are you a non-orchestral composer, making a more general point about why should you have to force yourself to write for orchestras in the first place?
.

I forgot to say Will, I'm making a more general point, but that's an interesting facet I hadn't considered, and would be interested to know more about, - where the two worlds of midi and live orchestration intersect. Is there any reading material out there about this?

[Bruce A. Richardson]

It's a myth to think that a certain sample library is going to give you a certain orchestral sound. That's 2% of it, and the final 2% at that, after the other 98% comes into play.

Your orchestrating concepts and skills are going to be a far larger difference.

[jeremyroberts]

Your orchestrating concepts and skills are going to be a far larger difference.
Agree 100%. Many of us were doing traditional orchestration before Steve Jobs graduated high school. As the technology has evolved, some of us have embraced it...

There are two distinct schools of midi orchestration:

1. write it the way you would for an acoustic ensemble, and try your best to fake it with samples - this requires knowing what to write/where/when/how and why (not to mention the expertise to pull it off);

2. use your samples to write what sounds best to you;

I'm an old-school guy, I've conducted some of the world's finest orchestras, but firmly believe that a hybrid, based on option 2 makes better music.

You must know traditional orchestration, but don't NOT use a sample or articulation just because the real guys would never do that.

Are you mocking up a temp score, or are you creating?

Now, there are many exceptions to my rules...

Will my writing translate to the real guys? Usually... but not always. And that's the key. I don't force myself to NOT use voicings or articulations that are essentially unplayable, just because... if a part sounds better with a line that would never be written for the real guy, but it sounds perfect using samples, then I will go the "sounds good" way.

So, as Bruce said, the technology is only a fraction of what you need to do it -- you must hear it, and know your way around the orchestra -- only then can you use the tools (that get better every few months).

PS -- I'll take a Proteus2 and I can probably write circles around a guy with no orchestral experience w/ VSL.

[hywyn]

It's a myth to think that a certain sample library is going to give you a certain orchestral sound. That's 2% of it, and the final 2% at that, after the other 98% comes into play.

Your orchestrating concepts and skills are going to be a far larger difference.

The idea that you can get the hollywood sound (indeed, whatever that is) out of a box is absurd! It shows how warped your perspective can become if you accept what you are told at face value.

Something you wrote regarding orchestral writing struck me Bruce.Daryl touched on the same thing also. Excuse me quoting you out of context, here is the link to the thread also:
http://www.northernsounds.com/forum/showthread.php?t=40239&page=16&highlight=hybrid
And here's what you wrote:

"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."

Cheers.

[Garritan]

It's a myth to think that a certain sample library is going to give you a certain orchestral sound. That's 2% of it, and the final 2% at that, after the other 98% comes into play.

Your orchestrating concepts and skills are going to be a far larger difference.I totaly agree Bruce,

There is a "Hollywood sound" myth being promulgaged in the industry. Like the vintage gear myths of the last decades, that if you had this EQ box and that reverb you will sound just like the Beatles, Led Zeppelin, U2, etc. (as if one's songwriting didn't had anything to do with it).

Having attended movie scoring sessions and speaking to various Hollywood composers about the Hollywood sound; like anything Hollywood, the "Hollywood sound" is often larger than life and created with props, make-up, special effects and sometimes stunt doubles.

The majority of Hollywood soundtracks are done on scoring stages and not a typcial concert hall. It is extremely rare that soundtracks are recorded in a traditional concert hall. A concert hall is a pure and set sound designed for live performance and a scoring stage is designed for film and post-production.

Although an orchestral sample library may tout "the Hollywood sound" from being recorded in a large concert hall; few, if any, actual soundtracks were ever recorded in such a hall. IMHO, if any envirnoment is closer to the Hollywood paradigm it would be a libray recorded on a soundstage and not in a traditional concert hall.

For the Hollywood sound the most important thing is the writing and the arranging. The top Hollywood composers know how to write for film and that is why their skills are in demand.

The instrumentation is important too. The composers builds their orchestra with the instruments they need for a particular film (not one dictated in size and scope). There is no "natural" or one way orchestras are arranged. Different orchestras have different seating positions for the players (e.g. violins I & II opposite each other for the Seattle Sympnony, but Vlns I & II stage left for others). The great thing about orchestras is that there are flexible with so many combinations and possibilities to meet the mood of what is being conveyed on the screen. For the utmost flexibility the best thing to have for the Hollywood sound is as many sample libraries as possible. :D

The space is also important. Often a big spacious sound is needed and sometimes an open-air space is needed and other times a more intimate space is needed for a particular film. A sample library having a set or wet space can be a disadvantage. It can have a signature sound that can be identifiable in every film.

There's a great deal of post-production that goes into making the Hollywood sound. The mixing engineer's role cannot be understated. The engineer is like a secondary conductor in a Hollywood soundtrack - coordinating the balance of sound and applying effects as needed. Spot mikes are everywhere allowing the engineers precision control of almost every instrument. They will EQ, compress and add effects on the fly. During a scoring session I attended at Bastyr (where many Hollywood films were recorded), I noticed in the control room some lights flashing on a Lexicon 480L. I asked why a Lexicon was being used when the space sounded great. His reply was "because that is the Hollywood sound". Granted, that was one engineers method but an important part of the sound was the processing. Compression is also used more often scoring sessions (and increasingly so in classical recordings too).

Achieving the Hollywood sound is a very complex thing. And making it work with film is no easy task. It requires a great deal of skill and knowledge. The composition and writing is paramount to getting the sound. There are many different factors all coordinating to impart the emotional backdrop to the story being projected on the silver screen.

Gary Garritan

[Nick Batzdorf]

And agreeing with all that, they usually just run the whole thing from the scoring stage through a Lexicon 480 hall. Well, surround makes it more complicated, but that's pretty much the sound: lots of reverb.

[Nick Batzdorf]

...which I see Gary also mentioned.

But you can sum it up in two words: big reverb.

[hywyn]

Agree 100%. Many of us were doing traditional orchestration before Steve Jobs graduated high school. As the technology has evolved, some of us have embraced it...

There are two distinct schools of midi orchestration:

1. write it the way you would for an acoustic ensemble, and try your best to fake it with samples - this requires knowing what to write/where/when/how and why (not to mention the expertise to pull it off);

2. use your samples to write what sounds best to you;

I'm an old-school guy, I've conducted some of the world's finest orchestras, but firmly believe that a hybrid, based on option 2 makes better music.

You must know traditional orchestration, but don't NOT use a sample or articulation just because the real guys would never do that.

Hi Jeremy, I'm getting a picture that it's ok to adopt a stylized approach with an Orchestral sampling CD. Certainly better than the alternative.



Are you mocking up a temp score, or are you creating?

Always creating something or other (anxiety in this case)!


Now, there are many exceptions to my rules...

Will my writing translate to the real guys? Usually... but not always. And that's the key. I don't force myself to NOT use voicings or articulations that are essentially unplayable, just because... if a part sounds better with a line that would never be written for the real guy, but it sounds perfect using samples, then I will go the "sounds good" way.

So, as Bruce said, the technology is only a fraction of what you need to do it -- you must hear it, and know your way around the orchestra -- only then can you use the tools (that get better every few months).

PS -- I'll take a Proteus2 and I can probably write circles around a guy with no orchestral experience w/ VSL.

Indeed, and that's where reality bites. I'm not kidding myself that it's easy to turn from composer to orchestral arranger for anyone without adequate training, but I have enough awareness of sonics and understand what works and most importantly what doesn't within my parameters.

After years gigging and recording I branched into sound recording for tv and now have an opportunity to move back towards earning a living from music, - I have two tv commisions and I'd like to do it right, both for myself and the client. Ultimately, that means doing my own thing and hoping the client digs it!

[jeremyroberts]

Ultimately, that means doing my own thing and hoping the client digs it!
Careful out there... don't misinterperet what I'm getting at... you need to know how to do it the so-called "correct" way before you start breaking the rules... look, it's only music. Before we had samples, we had instruments made of wood and metal and we hit things and blew air into them. Who decided what sounded "good" ? But if you are trying to achieve the sound of the acoustic instrument(s) using samples, you really should have a good idea of how things are constructed...

BUT -- my main point is that you should write WITH your samples, and not fight them. I hear too many guys trying to be an orchestra, and they fall short. The goal should be music that feels great, regardless of how you got there (unless your goal is to be the orchestra and you want to geek out on every articulation, which some people are more than willing to do).

If your goal is to sound real, then you can do it, sort-of, with lots of knowledge, some hardware, some software, and some elbow grease.

The alternative is to create something that works for you (artistically) and run with it.

[Hermitage59]

Careful out there... don't misinterperet what I'm getting at... you need to know how to do it the so-called "correct" way before you start breaking the rules... look, it's only music. Before we had samples, we had instruments made of wood and metal and we hit things and blew air into them. Who decided what sounded "good" ? But if you are trying to achieve the sound of the acoustic instrument(s) using samples, you really should have a good idea of how things are constructed...

BUT -- my main point is that you should write WITH your samples, and not fight them. I hear too many guys trying to be an orchestra, and they fall short. The goal should be music that feels great, regardless of how you got there (unless your goal is to be the orchestra and you want to geek out on every articulation, which some people are more than willing to do).

If your goal is to sound real, then you can do it, sort-of, with lots of knowledge, some hardware, some software, and some elbow grease.

The alternative is to create something that works for you (artistically) and run with it.

Hywyn, Jeremy's hit the nail on the head, and made a great point here that many overlook. I write mainly concert music, and have a foray into film, etc. when a nice job comes up. With formal training, and years of study and experience, i used to approach everything i wrote from a player/composer/conductor angle. And when samples first appeared, and the opportunity came to record samples into a usable format (soundfonts for example) I, and my orchestra mates all recorded samples for each other, so we could all write, and hear it back straight away. (The doomsayers predicted the end of orchestras at the time, and labelled us traitors, but that's another story)

And because of that training and study, it took some time to get it into my head that orchestral work written for performance with samples is a different discipline to scoring for a live orchestra. Jeremy rightly made the point that 'if it sounds ok, don't feel restricted by the mechanics of a real instrument.' There is no rule that says if you write orchestral or symphonic work, you need to stay within boundaries. You have no idea how liberating it felt to write 'outside the orchestral box!' However, if you wish to have your work played by a live orchestra, be aware of the limitations (through study, etc.) and modify your score if needs be to suit.

Writing for live musicians, and performing with samples are different disciplines.

There's a lot of discussion in many forums about this or that sounding real or not real, and i've contributed to more than one. But, if you write for a medium, be it samples for film, this is more and more accepted as a means to an end product. (I wonder what Mozart would have made of sample performance. I suspect he was too much of a good time fellow, to sit for hours and hours, painstakingly inputting line after line.)

Rules are made to be broken, but, as Jeremy says, you should know the rules, to know which ones to break. I guess, to a certain extent, i'm one of those geeks Jeremy talks of, but even then, the score i write isn't doesn't always equate to the end result, anymore than two orchestras would play the 1812 exactly the same way. I often use a bright detache instead of a staccato, to get the sound i want, for one example. (Note. Just because a sample says, violin tremolo, 5 seconds, crossfade with a banjo sustained chord(?), it doesn't mean you have to use it for that purpose. You'd be surprised what you can use to achieve an aural result.)

If you start with a small sample library, and push it beyond it's limits, the practise you get manipulating the sounds required to get the end result is a real assett. I started with a tiny set, and worked like a madman to squeeze everything i could out of them, learning a great deal in the process. Nowadays sample libraries are extensive, much better constructed, and more consistent, but there's still a lot of room for adjustment and manipulation, and that brings the reward of more knowledge, and better understanding.

There's one thing that always stays the same.

A good composer has an extensive knowledge of the tools at his behest. The more we learn about live instruments or samples or both, the better chance we have of getting the result we want. Midi, Scripts, reverb tails, sound placement, orchestration, etc, are all within our 'toolbox of knowledge', and require effort, study, and practise on our part to bring all the parts together in a package that reflects our aural vision.
Composers used to write with parchment, ink and quill, (I still do to lay out a score, and enjoy the 'old' technology, but that's me. Others write straight to DAW, etc.) and stick the charts in front of the orchestra, making corrections and determining interpretation as they went. (As a GOOD conductor can 'play a score' in more than one way).
The modern composer who wishes to write AND perform his work with samples, has quite a few more skills to master to get an end result.

Most of all, and Jeremy makes the big point here too, samples are for working with, not battling against. If you didn't have them you wouldn't hear anything, so having a sample library opens up a world of variation, and manipulation, and an almost unlimited number of directions to take, all in the comfort of your own space. And as sample developers (gotta love most of them, and barely tolerate the rest!) push the boundaries, so we get more stuff to try, learn about, and 'perform'.

Regards,

Alex.

p.s. If you've got your head in the right place, 'performing' with samples is an outstanding way to enjoy yourself, and write as you truly want to.....!
:D

[Houston Haynes]

Agreed with all of the above. I come from an "old school" conservatory background but tranferred out before my third year to pursue a degree in audio engineering. The concept of what an orchestra "sounds like" has been *stretching* for years (some would say "decades") - from close-micing and even recording soloists separately on classical recordings to today's film scores that are delivered exclusively with samples. I think that starting with an understanding of performance style and orchestrational technique is critical to delivering on the proper "points of reference" and knowing what you can get away with in the context of a film production. In many ways you can mix your way out of a jam to save yourself from having to re-write a part - but that's a double-edged sword that cuts both ways. If you're *gaming* the mix to get an approval and then go in front of a group of live players, you may be setting yourself up for some on-the-fly re-scoring or re-orchestration of the cues. For my own tastes, I try to *not* do anything to a mockup (or a synthestration - an orchestration with samples that will be heard part of the film) that I couldn't/wouldn't also do with a mix of a live recording. That way the notes and instruments I select are not so far afield that I can't get there with real players with minor adjustments. That approach dictates that you have to be solid on the fundamentals.

As a side note - I had a friend tell me about a very well-known film composer who was sued *twice* by orchestras who were "credited" as performing on his films when in fact everything in the final score delivery was produced with samples. The person who told me this also gave me a first-person account of how he watched this same composer fire an orchestra after one day's session (essentially he recorded the main theme of the film) and delivered the final version made up almost entirely of sampled arrangements. On a seperate but related note - Harry Gregson-Williams mentioned in an SCL interview (after the screening of "Chronicles of Narnia") that all of the percussion for the score was sampled. He stated quite plainly that he knew that the brass and strings could be all over the beat - but he *knew* that his sampled/quantized percussion would be right on the mark and the cue would not lose cohesion. So I think with the improvement in the quality of the libraries plus diminishing delivery schedules, you'll see a lot more of the virtual instruments taking over the roles of live players simply because they're on time, they play perfectly, and they don't demand a 10-minute break out of every hour's session...

:D

But the bottom line is that there are no short-cuts with long-term rewards. Those composers who know where "home base" is in terms of delivering an original score with a believable sound will be the ones to get the gigs. I'm still reviewing scores and reading my old orchestration books for tips on how to bring out a line or how to voice sections for a better blend - the process never ends, and is endlessly rewarding.

[Hermitage59]

Hywyn,
A couple of good books that will help if you want to understand more about writing for orchestra.

Nikolay Rimsky-Korsakov 'Principles of orchestration.' (The 'bible')
Dover Books. isbn 0-486-21266-1.

Hector Berlioz, with adittional editing by Richard Strauss.
'Treatise on instrumentation.' (Translation by Theodore Front)
Dover Books. isbn 0-486-26903-5


Alfred Blatter. 'Instrumentation and Orchestration.'
Schirmer Books.

There are examples in all three books, and rimsky-korsakov is in fact two books in one with examples from his own work. The Berlioz draws heavily from Wagner, Beethoven, etc. Blatter makes more modern distinctions.

So between the three, you cover a fair chunk of orchestral history and instrumentation technique.

Regards,

Alex.

[PaulR]

Who decided what sounded "good" ? But if you are trying to achieve the sound of the acoustic instrument(s) using samples, you really should have a good idea of how things are constructed...

BUT -- my main point is that you should write WITH your samples, and not fight them. I hear too many guys trying to be an orchestra, and they fall short. The goal should be music that feels great, regardless of how you got there (unless your goal is to be the orchestra and you want to geek out on every articulation, which some people are more than willing to do).

If your goal is to sound real, then you can do it, sort-of, with lots of knowledge, some hardware, some software, and some elbow grease.

The alternative is to create something that works for you (artistically) and run with it.

Limited to time - but all of the above is sound. It's been discussed many times over the last few years.

Writing to the samples is a good point and that's the way to go - unfortunately this can also be limiting because you can wind up ONLY writing to samples, especially orchestrally. Ironically, Miles (Snurgs) piano jazz trio thread frees you up much more, because endless articulations don't play such a time consuming part - as orchestral does.

Also, based on 'who decided what's good' you could go one step further and ask - 'who decided what's real' when using samples. Samples can be a trap to composers who are steeped in live orchestral performance.

[hywyn]

Careful out there... don't misinterperet what I'm getting at... you need to know how to do it the so-called "correct" way before you start breaking the rules... look, it's only music. Before we had samples, we had instruments made of wood and metal and we hit things and blew air into them. Who decided what sounded "good" ? But if you are trying to achieve the sound of the acoustic instrument(s) using samples, you really should have a good idea of how things are constructed...

BUT -- my main point is that you should write WITH your samples, and not fight them. I hear too many guys trying to be an orchestra, and they fall short. The goal should be music that feels great, regardless of how you got there (unless your goal is to be the orchestra and you want to geek out on every articulation, which some people are more than willing to do).

If your goal is to sound real, then you can do it, sort-of, with lots of knowledge, some hardware, some software, and some elbow grease.

The alternative is to create something that works for you (artistically) and run with it.

Hi Jeremy and thanks for the advice,
Perhaps I didn't explain myself, when I wrote "do my own thing" I mean that I will stay close to what I know with these commissions. The last line you wrote, you summed it up perfectly.

I'll get around to buying an orchestral library in the hope that given the abundance of palates and dynamic sources therein, I'll find a way to produce something worthwhile, and not a decorative but rubbish by-product to the original idea.
Not that I'm being cynical, - my goal won't be to sound like a real orchestra (it would have to be a steep learning curve if it were) but by listening and trying to understand the techniques as I find my way around these sounds, I'll begin to appropriate them into my work.

Your right, it's nothing to get hung up about and meanwhile, if I can shoe-horn that woodwind ensemble into that industrial track, I just might!

....but probably not.

:)

[hywyn]

Hywyn, Jeremy's hit the nail on the head, and made a great point here that many overlook. I write mainly concert music, and have a foray into film, etc. when a nice job comes up. With formal training, and years of study and experience, i used to approach everything i wrote from a player/composer/conductor angle. And when samples first appeared, and the opportunity came to record samples into a usable format (soundfonts for example) I, and my orchestra mates all recorded samples for each other, so we could all write, and hear it back straight away. (The doomsayers predicted the end of orchestras at the time, and labelled us traitors, but that's another story)

And because of that training and study, it took some time to get it into my head that orchestral work written for performance with samples is a different discipline to scoring for a live orchestra. Jeremy rightly made the point that 'if it sounds ok, don't feel restricted by the mechanics of a real instrument.' There is no rule that says if you write orchestral or symphonic work, you need to stay within boundaries. You have no idea how liberating it felt to write 'outside the orchestral box!'

That must be a feeling unique to those who have studied hard, and is therefore thoroughly deserved :)


However, if you wish to have your work played by a live orchestra, be aware of the limitations (through study, etc.) and modify your score if needs be to suit.

Writing for live musicians, and performing with samples are different disciplines.

There's a lot of discussion in many forums about this or that sounding real or not real, and i've contributed to more than one. But, if you write for a medium, be it samples for film, this is more and more accepted as a means to an end product.



I'm not setting my sights on scoring for an orchestra any day soon but I would like to use traditional orchestral instruments within my music, moving on at some point to using those instruments as a starting point.
I also want to develop a sense of what is and isn't good practice.



(I wonder what Mozart would have made of sample performance. I suspect he was too much of a good time fellow, to sit for hours and hours, painstakingly inputting line after line.)

That thought doesn't turn me on greatly either. I find it a chore to get going if I'm working alone, until I'm hooked, which doesn't take that long. Not that I'm claiming to be as rock 'n roll as Mozart!



Rules are made to be broken, but, as Jeremy says, you should know the rules, to know which ones to break. I guess, to a certain extent, i'm one of those geeks Jeremy talks of, but even then, the score i write isn't doesn't always equate to the end result, anymore than two orchestras would play the 1812 exactly the same way. I often use a bright detache instead of a staccato, to get the sound i want, for one example. (Note. Just because a sample says, violin tremolo, 5 seconds, crossfade with a banjo sustained chord(?), it doesn't mean you have to use it for that purpose. You'd be surprised what you can use to achieve an aural result.)

If you start with a small sample library, and push it beyond it's limits, the practise you get manipulating the sounds required to get the end result is a real assett. I started with a tiny set, and worked like a madman to squeeze everything i could out of them, learning a great deal in the process.


For a time I worked with just a Roland Chorus Echo, a Sequential Circuits Pro-1 (with a step-sequencer and CV gate) and a Tascam 4-track and the combined sound was immense. It was also hugely rewarding creatively, and I hanker for that set-up again.



Nowadays sample libraries are extensive, much better constructed, and more consistent, but there's still a lot of room for adjustment and manipulation, and that brings the reward of more knowledge, and better understanding.

There's one thing that always stays the same.

A good composer has an extensive knowledge of the tools at his behest. The more we learn about live instruments or samples or both, the better chance we have of getting the result we want. Midi, Scripts, reverb tails, sound placement, orchestration, etc, are all within our 'toolbox of knowledge', and require effort, study, and practise on our part to bring all the parts together in a package that reflects our aural vision.
Composers used to write with parchment, ink and quill, (I still do to lay out a score, and enjoy the 'old' technology, but that's me. Others write straight to DAW, etc.) and stick the charts in front of the orchestra, making corrections and determining interpretation as they went. (As a GOOD conductor can 'play a score' in more than one way).
The modern composer who wishes to write AND perform his work with samples, has quite a few more skills to master to get an end result.

Most of all, and Jeremy makes the big point here too, samples are for working with, not battling against. If you didn't have them you wouldn't hear anything, so having a sample library opens up a world of variation, and manipulation, and an almost unlimited number of directions to take, all in the comfort of your own space. And as sample developers (gotta love most of them, and barely tolerate the rest!) push the boundaries, so we get more stuff to try, learn about, and 'perform'.

Regards,

Alex.

p.s. If you've got your head in the right place, 'performing' with samples is an outstanding way to enjoy yourself, and write as you truly want to.....!



Great advice, thank you so much! In fact there's a great deal written in this thread that I need time to digest, so a big thanks to one and all!
All the best,
Hywyn

(Thanks also Alex for the reference book recommendations).

[jerrygerber]

Thinking a great orchestral library such as VSL is going to make you a good orchestrator/composer is like thinking that owning a Bosendorfer or Steinway piano will make you a great pianist, doh!

All these fantastic instruments that are readily available will do will make sure that the mediocre will have the same tools as the pros and the experts.

Jerry



I believe the question is, do untrained composers make bad music in the ears of the trained?

[jerrygerber]

This thread reminds me of a student who came to me years ago. A bright fellow with a degree in engineering. He "wrote" his first symphony, meaning he improvised into a midi sequencer and printed out the notation. But he could not read it, nor did he know the difference between a root position and inverted chord, nor did he ever study counterpoint or harmony. I suggested he start composing simple, short songs but he blew me off. This was years ago. He has now progressed and has hung up his "open for business" sign and is trying to get commercial scoring gigs. But his music still lacks structure, an organic sense of economy of materials, a sense of unity and tight structure. All of the cliches are there, big orchestral gestures, lots of orchestral color, but no "long-line" (melodic cohesiveness and melodic variation/developlment) that makes a "big" piece actually work as a composition.

I suspect we'll be hearing lots of this kind of musical posturing as the number of musicians using orchestral libraries increase. Innovation, solid music craft, the ability to write a good piece, with a good melody, for solo piano, all of these count even more when working with many orchestral colors. You might wear the finest, most expensive clothing, but if you don't take a shower, you'll still stink. I think orchestration often is used to cover up a basic lack of compositional technique and style.

By the way, I bought the VSL Pro Edition and am very happy with it. It is by far and way better than anything I've worked with in the past. The tuning particularly is impressive, many orchestral libraries, particularly ensemble strings, are not tuned well, and going into the editor and wave editor to re-tune is laborious. But VSL tuning is beautiful, harmonies sound right. I am lucky to have this library.

Jerry Gerber
www.jerrygerber.com

[hywyn]

Thinking a great orchestral library such as VSL is going to make you a good orchestrator/composer is like thinking that owning a Bosendorfer or Steinway piano will make you a great pianist, doh!

All these fantastic instruments that are readily available will do will make sure that the mediocre will have the same tools as the pros and the experts.

Jerry

Really? Gosh (or perhaps thhat should be doh)!

[Steve_Karl]

The real essence of composition has little to do with education in my opinion. I've heard quite a few compositions from highly educated people that offer nothing to me, other than that they follow all of the rules.

In my opinion the essence of a good composers work is really noticable in the work because of his life experience and character. Although ones education does contribute to that character, education, in itself, is no guarantee that a creative character will ever exist.

I suspect there are just as many highly educated composers as there are primitives that are turning out lifeless sterile work.
The difference in form at that point is very inconsequential to me.

Steve Karl

[geronimo001]

Hi jerry, i sent you a private message, i hope you can answer it.:)

thanks.

[dvincent]

Oh great, Jerry. You mentioned tuning...good luck to you.:rolleyes:

[geronimo001]

You smart ~~~:rolleyes: .

[jerrygerber]

I've heard this argument many times, but I don't really think it's entirely true. A person may be born with much creative talent, a great ear, musicality, etc. But while education in and of itself is no guarantee of anything (look at George Bush) it certainly enhances what ever essential ability a person is born with. I am speaking about good education, with good teachers of course. I would say you're right about life experience and character, both extremely important, but so is education. By education I don't necessarily mean formal education at a conservatory or music college, but something comparable for sure. If one doesn't study the work of master composers, how would it be possible to set the bar really high in terms of what music can be? And how can one study the masters without knowledge of harmony, counterpoint, etc?

It is true, highly educated composers don't necessarily turn out good work, as you say. but I would say without education, a person gets excited when merely reinventing the wheel...

Jerry Gerber
www.jerrygerber.com
www.jerrygerber.com/currentmusic.htm





The real essence of composition has little to do with education in my opinion. I've heard quite a few compositions from highly educated people that offer nothing to me, other than that they follow all of the rules.

In my opinion the essence of a good composers work is really noticable in the work because of his life experience and character. Although ones education does contribute to that character, education, in itself, is no guarantee that a creative character will ever exist.

I suspect there are just as many highly educated composers as there are primitives that are turning out lifeless sterile work.
The difference in form at that point is very inconsequential to me.

Steve Karl

[Bruce A. Richardson]

It is true, highly educated composers don't necessarily turn out good work, as you say. but I would say without education, a person gets excited when merely reinventing the wheel...


BINGO.

I play in a drum circle here in Dallas, which has been in continuous existence for about fifteen years. It's a great place to just go keep the chops up and hang with a lot of good percussionists. We have had some fantastic nights. One night, the Senegal Ballet and the dancers from the touring company of Riverdance showed up the same night, and it was just surreal.

Enough background. There is a really talented drummer there who is as inventive as anyone I've ever heard--but whose main gig is being a 3-D animator (a very fine one). Last year, he was completely excited one night, having created this groove that he was certain no one had ever come up with.

Well, of course I wanted to hear it. Turns out, he'd invented 5/8.

Talent minus the perspective of history and technique is still talent. But lots of wheels get reinvented by such talents.

[geronimo001]

Well, of course I wanted to hear it. Turns out, he'd invented 5/8.

HEHEHEHE!!!...LOL.. funny stuff.

[geronimo001]

For me the greates artits have both, great thechnique ''and'' crativity, a good exemple of that is barishnikov(bad spelling , i know) amazing thechnique and still very expressive, or pavarotti in his golden years, same thing great thechnique but very musical and expressive.

I see it as a constant battle between those two and the greatest challenge, you work as hard as you can on your thecnique, but not at the expence of your creativity.

You always try to be creative and spontanius but keep working that technique otherwise you will loose that easy that you need to express yourself.


P.S. That's easyer said than done, most people fall's short on one or the
other, they either want to be good but get cut up in tetchnical side of it or
they are not serius enough to study and lake the technique to become great.

I keep forgeting that;) , lets get back to work.

GerOOOnimOOOOOOooooo.....

[wja]

BINGO.

I play in a drum circle here in Dallas, which has been in continuous existence for about fifteen years. It's a great place to just go keep the chops up and hang with a lot of good percussionists. We have had some fantastic nights. One night, the Senegal Ballet and the dancers from the touring company of Riverdance showed up the same night, and it was just surreal.

Enough background. There is a really talented drummer there who is as inventive as anyone I've ever heard--but whose main gig is being a 3-D animator (a very fine one). Last year, he was completely excited one night, having created this groove that he was certain no one had ever come up with.

Well, of course I wanted to hear it. Turns out, he'd invented 5/8.

Talent minus the perspective of history and technique is still talent. But lots of wheels get reinvented by such talents.
Oh really?? Well I'm the inventor of 17/32.

What a crock of esoteric nonsense and self-serving name dropping.

Facts are, historically the large majority of important and influential composers, in 'art' music as well as film music, are well educated in music theory, history, harmony, counterpoint, orchestration and composition.

Take from that what you will.

[geronimo001]

He! wja, i think you mist something?:confused:

[jerrygerber]

Invented the meter 5/8? You are joking, I assume. 5/8 has been around since the early years of the 20th century. Stravinsky used it extensively in his ballets. And counting and playing in five has been part of musicians's skill-set for hundreds of years, east and west.

But this argument of nature vs. nurture is irrelevant, humans are always both, we learn from personal experience and experimentation, from doing, and we learn from others, from history and tradition. How the individual musician organizes this knowledge and intuition should be unique to each musician. How this work of imagination gets produced into sound is the material side of music, sound as medium, music as idea. As much as I appreciate a very well-made wheel as much as anyone, people want different things out of music. Composers value music for different reasons, but it always comes down to one version of progress or another.

One debate about orchestration is the one about whether it is best to approach these new musical instruments as sonic ends in themselves and not take the approach of using samples of traditional instruments. Early electronic music took the position that all electronic sound is fair game, but sampling existing musical instruments hadn't happened yet. Fine samples of musical instruments that have evolved over centuries changes a great deal for the composer. I still am convinced that it is the melodic line which governs successful long-form multi-timbral works. The long-line thread, the heart of form and function.

Jerry Gerber




Quote: Well, of course I wanted to hear it. Turns out, he'd invented 5/8.

Talent minus the perspective of history and technique is still talent. But lots of wheels get reinvented by such talents.[/QUOTE]

[geronimo001]

Hi Jerry, i think Bruce was jocking about 5/8, unless i totally misanderstood, but i agrea whit you on one point, it's all about the melodie.

[jerrygerber]

Yeah, he must have been joking, he must have meant he was so impressed with the way the guy played that he played as if he invented 5/8...

By the way, I invented the dominant 7th.

Jerry



Hi Jerry, i think Bruce was jocking about 5/8, unless i totally misanderstood, but i agrea whit you on one point, it's all about the melodie.

[geronimo001]

Man i'm confuse, i had a look at your website, and i tought this guy sounds like a decent sensible man and yet, here you sound angry and a little arrogant:confused:.

Anyway, i gess my inglish is wors than i tought. Forget about it.

[jerrygerber]

I was joking...

Jerry




Man i'm confuse, i had a look at your website, and i tought this guy sounds like a decent sensible man and yet, here you sound angry and a little arrogant:confused:.

Anyway, i gess my inglish is wors than i tought. Forget about it.

[hywyn]

I've heard this argument many times, but I don't really think it's entirely true. A person may be born with much creative talent, a great ear, musicality, etc. But while education in and of itself is no guarantee of anything (look at George Bush) it certainly enhances what ever essential ability a person is born with. I am speaking about good education, with good teachers of course. I would say you're right about life experience and character, both extremely important, but so is education. By education I don't necessarily mean formal education at a conservatory or music college, but something comparable for sure. If one doesn't study the work of master composers, how would it be possible to set the bar really high in terms of what music can be? And how can one study the masters without knowledge of harmony, counterpoint, etc?

It is true, highly educated composers don't necessarily turn out good work, as you say. but I would say without education, a person gets excited when merely reinventing the wheel...

Jerry Gerber
www.jerrygerber.com
www.jerrygerber.com/currentmusic.htm

But there are some who have an innate sense of counter-point, harmony without ever needing to be told. Education can indeed be invaluable, but it's narrow minded to say everyone should have a certain musical lexicon. Ideas don't rely on such certainties. A receptive ear and soul are prerequisite.

Really you shouldn't presume so much. The person next to you on that train might fart better melodies than you can ever imagine without ever being able to take it any farther. What's of more value, your symphony or his fart?

[jerrygerber]

Firstly, education isn't really about "being told", unless you subscribe to some kind of authoritarian view of education. Education is about discovery, curiousity, appreciation and understanding that which one is studying. Ignorance in the arts is often held up as a kind of banner, as though any kind of left-brain activity in the arts is some kind of affront to one's integrity. A receptive ear and soul are ALWAYS prerequisite in music, educated or not. I did not say or imply that everyone "should have a certain musical lexicon, that isn't the purpose of education, at least not music education. But everyone should be aware...

Your crude example of a fart and a symphony is really not something I am interested in discussing.

Jerry




But there are some who have an innate sense of counter-point, harmony without ever needing to be told. Education can indeed be invaluable, but it's narrow minded to say everyone should have a certain musical lexicon. Ideas don't rely on such certainties. A receptive ear and soul are prerequisite.

Really you shouldn't presume so much. The person next to you on that train might fart better melodies than you can ever imagine without ever being able to take it any farther. What's of more value, your symphony or his fart?

[Bruce A. Richardson]

But there are some who have an innate sense of counter-point, harmony without ever needing to be told. Education can indeed be invaluable, but it's narrow minded to say everyone should have a certain musical lexicon. Ideas don't rely on such certainties. A receptive ear and soul are prerequisite.

The functional fallacy of this argument is making the comparison between educated writers with no talent, and uneducated writers WITH talent. If you instead compare uneducated writers with no talent to educated writers with no talent, you'll find that the educated writers fare better. They'll at least be listenable.

And again, if you compare TALENTED writers with education with talented writers sans education, you'll find some of the latter wasting time and talent reinventing wheels.

[hywyn]

Firstly, education isn't really about "being told", unless you subscribe to some kind of authoritarian view of education. Education is about discovery, curiousity, appreciation and understanding that which one is studying. Ignorance in the arts is often held up as a kind of banner, as though any kind of left-brain activity in the arts is some kind of affront to one's integrity. A receptive ear and soul are ALWAYS prerequisite in music, educated or not. I did not say or imply that everyone "should have a certain musical lexicon, that isn't the purpose of education, at least not music education. But everyone should be aware...

Your crude example of a fart and a symphony is really not something I am interested in discussing.

Jerry
Education should indeed be a journey of discovery and through the study of a western master one should gain insight and have a bench-mark from where one can appreciate and evaluate, - a truly enlightened approach, but you don't seem to countenance the validity of other approaches that inevitably lead to different destinations, with different discoveries en route. I know you've heard the University of Life mantra, but the fact is that you will never know, and that route doesn't at all negate left-brain activity or being receptive to influences on the way that ultimately educate. The farting, melodious man on the train is meant to be an allegory of sorts. Bob Dylan needed two chords and something to say.

Hywyn

[hywyn]

The functional fallacy of this argument is making the comparison between educated writers with no talent, and uneducated writers WITH talent. If you instead compare uneducated writers with no talent to educated writers with no talent, you'll find that the educated writers fare better. They'll at least be listenable.

And again, if you compare TALENTED writers with education with talented writers sans education, you'll find some of the latter wasting time and talent reinventing wheels.

A common problem found among talented musicians sans education is in maintaining their careers. Educated ones fair better in the longevity stakes.
I'm sure the wheel is re-invented, and often but your anecdotal example of a drummmer who didn't bother to count, (perhaps he'd had a smoke?) is hardly evidence of a wider malaise, although perhaps it is a fair point you make.

Hywyn

[geronimo001]

hywyn, i confuse:confused: , first you right this:


I'm wiser in that I know if a client wants a hollywood type score East West will impress them

...and then you right this:


The idea that you can get the hollywood sound (indeed, whatever that is) out of a box is absurd!


what is this about.

[hywyn]

hywyn, i confuse:confused: , first you right this:



...and then you right this:




what is this about.

Well,....
Regarding the two conflicting quotes:
The first is meant to illustrate that by being wiser I really mean I'm no wiser. i.e. I know all this stuff by searching the forum for information, but all I have is a box of bits that don't add up. I accept that isn't clear by what you read.

The second quote is a lightbulb going on. Someone pointed out the absurdity in achieving a particular sound of orchestra from a box, or a tin or whatever.

Sorry if this is clear as mud!

I had a conflict, - I want to buy an orchestral sample library but I have no experience of how to use it. I don't mean just how to use a sample library, but how to arrange for an orchestra. The sound advice I have received has helped me to seperate these two aspects.
It simply stems from a respect for the rules of orchestration.

Hywyn

[Bruce A. Richardson]

A common problem found among talented musicians sans education is in maintaining their careers. Educated ones fair better in the longevity stakes.
I'm sure the wheel is re-invented, and often but your anecdotal example of a drummmer who didn't bother to count, (perhaps he'd had a smoke?) is hardly evidence of a wider malaise, although perhaps it is a fair point you make.

Hywyn

That was because it was a single example, however, the phenomenon is almost universal. I'm comfortable with the observation, and the fallacy still stands. Proponents of education are always hit with the talented uneducated versus untalented educated comparison. In truth, education always improves the musician, talented or untalented.

[hywyn]

Proponents of education are always hit with the talented uneducated versus untalented educated comparison.
I don't see the point in making the comparison. I wish I had the education, but you makes your choices.....


In truth, education always improves the musician, talented or untalented.
Yup, I'll buy that.

[Hermitage59]

Firstly, education isn't really about "being told", unless you subscribe to some kind of authoritarian view of education. Education is about discovery, curiousity, appreciation and understanding that which one is studying. Ignorance in the arts is often held up as a kind of banner, as though any kind of left-brain activity in the arts is some kind of affront to one's integrity. A receptive ear and soul are ALWAYS prerequisite in music, educated or not. I did not say or imply that everyone "should have a certain musical lexicon, that isn't the purpose of education, at least not music education. But everyone should be aware...

Your crude example of a fart and a symphony is really not something I am interested in discussing.

Jerry

I read of a kindred spirit. Education is what the student makes of it. Regardless of the manner of delivery, there are musically educated people with information in their heads, and i want it. That information has the potential to further develop my skills.
It's the procrastinators and those for whom prolonged and in depth study is a chore that find it hard to realise the golden chalice that can be enjoyed through further knowledge.
Hywyn wrote of lacking in orchestrative skills. I mean no disrespect when i say this, but the short answer to the confidence of instinctive knowledge is learn.
Knowledge has two stages. The conscious stage in which we absorb as well as we can the information we are given or seek. some can absorb this information easily and quickly, and others must persist through repetiion.
A successful first stage is a platform to the second, that of instinct.
Using skills without thinking, sure in the application of those skills. And playing experience is as much part of the educative project as learning in a formal or informal setting.
For all the emotive assumptions about this or that method of learning, the fact is the knowledge is there to be absorbed. If you get the mesaage in a more easily understood way from professor Bloggs, the local compositional genius, go for it. If you get the info in an easier way from Reginald Stardust, the local transvestite Elvis impersonator, then that's ok too. It's the knowledge that we seek, and the potential that goes with it.
Jerry makes a big point here. A receptive ear and soul are integral to the musical educative and performance process. The formal structure that i got as a music student was just one part of my absolute determination to build the instinctive library in the head, and i'm still at it. The learning never stops, and the more i learn, the more i realise just how little i know.

And Bruce hit the nail on the head too. Talented musicians with education have a stronger instinctive library than those without that database in their heads.

Hywyn, you wrote of wanting to own a sample library but have no idea how to use it. And you recognise the advantage of learning to orchestrate. So, why don't you buy a modest library that won't break the bank, and purchase some books that will get you on the way. Lessons are invaluable, particularly with a one on one mentor. I respectfully urge you to get on with it, and approach the years of study ahead not from a disconcerted assumption of stuffy, boring absorbtion of knowledge, but an exciting and enthusiastic chance to enhance your own creative potential. The more you absorb, the clearer an faster it will come to you when you want to achieve a sound or combination of sounds of your own.

Finally,
when i did my study at a conservatory for my degree, my composition professor turned out to be a complete bastard. A cold, ruthless, unfeeling, cruel son of a bitch, who thought nothing of throwing a complete week's worth of hard graft in the bin, contemptuously sneering in mock delight as the student was reduced to despair. He did it to me only once, and i challenged him in the same cold, cruel way. He picked it up, looked at the first 5 pages of the score again, and threw it back in the bin, asking me if i wasn't better off being a lowly tradesman, like a plumber. I was incandescent with rage, but i kept it to myself, and the next week produced a piece of work that was well beyond what i thought i was capable of. The melody sang in simple elegance, and the counter, and rhythm were sublime. It was one of my finest works until then.
He sneered openly as he perused it (in front of the other students. humiliation was a viable teaching technique to him.), and casually threw it on his desk, asking me if i'd hit my head because a dim glow seemed to finally come on in my inadequate skull.
This went on for three years, and i was determined to reach beyond his own abilities, and produce work that surprised even him. It was a mighty battle of wills, between two stubborn, bloody minded, determined adversaries, and more than once i went without sleep, food, and other life essentials (!) to spend the time honing and refining every note or phrase until it sang with a melody of its own, and every note had a reason for being on the score. Not for me the acres and acres of sustained and hopelessy doubled whole notes or copious scalic fly~~~~ that stained lesser mortals parchment. That just gave my erstwhile professor an excuse to indulge in the ritual student humiliation he seemed so fond of.

I graduated with honours, and he was the first to shake my hand, and smile warmly as he declared me moderately ready for the musical world i'd chosen. In truth, we had both enjoyed the 'war', and i would never have achieved the same intense 'musical awareness' without him pushing me to the edge and beyond. I never met a better man manager to this day, as every student who remained in his class passed their exams with flying colours. (We started with 23, and ended with 6, as the weak of mind and spirit left)

This was my experience, and for me, because everyone's different, it was the right method of education, and creative development. I've never been lazy about music, but the self discipline i gained was invaluable, not only in music but other spheres of life too.
A 'formal' education teaches people how to learn, resource information, understand that info, and assimilate it in a productive way, if the teacher is good, and the student is willing. (and in my case, very thick skinned).

I write this not to show off, or dramatise anything, but to make a point i feel is important to you. Being 'nice' and carefully polite to people is ok for some, but it doesn't challenge. I've seen many instances in forums and websites where someone will post a demo, and get nice warm feelgood comments, with little or no challenge, as if each is behaving with a certain unwritten code of conduct, you be nice to me and i'll be nice to you.
With no challenge, many assume they're doing well, until of course the reality hits them between the eyes, and they find the delusion of that politically correct code of conduct has in fact betrayed them and left them worse off than before.
I've also seen people who give honest forthright comments vilified for that honesty, and classed as 'troublemakers', or unfeeling discompassionate monsters.
The carefully trodden path of bland mutual massage will do nothing for your skills. (IMO) Being challenged will. If you're willing to accept this, and use it as a tool to drive you forward, then i will look forward to listening to your first symphony!

Regards,

Alex.

[Hermitage59]

Education should indeed be a journey of discovery and through the study of a western master one should gain insight and have a bench-mark from where one can appreciate and evaluate, - a truly enlightened approach, but you don't seem to countenance the validity of other approaches that inevitably lead to different destinations, with different discoveries en route. I know you've heard the University of Life mantra, but the fact is that you will never know, and that route doesn't at all negate left-brain activity or being receptive to influences on the way that ultimately educate. The farting, melodious man on the train is meant to be an allegory of sorts. Bob Dylan needed two chords and something to say.

Hywyn


The Bob Dylan example is irrelavent to your original point.
You wanted to know about orchestra writing, and sample libraries.
Bob Dylan's music is a lifetime away from the construct of orchestral work in every way except one.

Melody is king.

All other constructs are secondary. The absence of a defineable melody or theme in a lot of today's film music is the reason for the boredom and sense of drudgery it inflicts on the listener, musically educated or not.
And it's time we banned taiko drums, at least for ten years or so. These bombastic, testosterone satisfiers are a poor cover for simplistic and poor writing. Harmony doesn't work? Add taiko bloody drums. Endlessly crooning choirs getting on your nerves? Add even more TDs.
Pathetic.
And lazy.

Now i've got that off my chest............;)

Alex.

[hywyn]

I read of a kindred spirit. Education is what the student makes of it. Regardless of the manner of delivery, there are musically educated people with information in their heads, and i want it. That information has the potential to further develop my skills.
It's the procrastinators and those for whom prolonged and in depth study is a chore that find it hard to realise the golden chalice that can be enjoyed through further knowledge.
Hywyn wrote of lacking in orchestrative skills. I mean no disrespect when i say this, but the short answer to the confidence of instinctive knowledge is learn.
Knowledge has two stages. The conscious stage in which we absorb as well as we can the information we are given or seek. some can absorb this information easily and quickly, and others must persist through repetiion.
A successful first stage is a platform to the second, that of instinct.
Using skills without thinking, sure in the application of those skills. And playing experience is as much part of the educative project as learning in a formal or informal setting.
For all the emotive assumptions about this or that method of learning, the fact is the knowledge is there to be absorbed. If you get the mesaage in a more easily understood way from professor Bloggs, the local compositional genius, go for it. If you get the info in an easier way from Reginald Stardust, the local transvestite Elvis impersonator, then that's ok too. It's the knowledge that we seek, and the potential that goes with it.
Jerry makes a big point here. A receptive ear and soul are integral to the musical educative and performance process. The formal structure that i got as a music student was just one part of my absolute determination to build the instinctive library in the head, and i'm still at it. The learning never stops, and the more i learn, the more i realise just how little i know.

And Bruce hit the nail on the head too. Talented musicians with education have a stronger instinctive library than those without that database in their heads.

Hywyn, you wrote of wanting to own a sample library but have no idea how to use it. And you recognise the advantage of learning to orchestrate. So, why don't you buy a modest library that won't break the bank, and purchase some books that will get you on the way. Lessons are invaluable, particularly with a one on one mentor. I respectfully urge you to get on with it, and approach the years of study ahead not from a disconcerted assumption of stuffy, boring absorbtion of knowledge, but an exciting and enthusiastic chance to enhance your own creative potential. The more you absorb, the clearer an faster it will come to you when you want to achieve a sound or combination of sounds of your own.

Finally,
when i did my study at a conservatory for my degree, my composition professor turned out to be a complete bastard. A cold, ruthless, unfeeling, cruel son of a bitch, who thought nothing of throwing a complete week's worth of hard graft in the bin, contemptuously sneering in mock delight as the student was reduced to despair. He did it to me only once, and i challenged him in the same cold, cruel way. He picked it up, looked at the first 5 pages of the score again, and threw it back in the bin, asking me if i wasn't better off being a lowly tradesman, like a plumber. I was incandescent with rage, but i kept it to myself, and the next week produced a piece of work that was well beyond what i thought i was capable of. The melody sang in simple elegance, and the counter, and rhythm were sublime. It was one of my finest works until then.
He sneered openly as he perused it (in front of the other students. humiliation was a viable teaching technique to him.), and casually threw it on his desk, asking me if i'd hit my head because a dim glow seemed to finally come on in my inadequate skull.
This went on for three years, and i was determined to reach beyond his own abilities, and produce work that surprised even him. It was a mighty battle of wills, between two stubborn, bloody minded, determined adversaries, and more than once i went without sleep, food, and other life essentials (!) to spend the time honing and refining every note or phrase until it sang with a melody of its own, and every note had a reason for being on the score. Not for me the acres and acres of sustained and hopelessy doubled whole notes or copious scalic fly~~~~ that stained lesser mortals parchment. That just gave my erstwhile professor an excuse to indulge in the ritual student humiliation he seemed so fond of.

I graduated with honours, and he was the first to shake my hand, and smile warmly as he declared me moderately ready for the musical world i'd chosen. In truth, we had both enjoyed the 'war', and i would never have achieved the same intense 'musical awareness' without him pushing me to the edge and beyond. I never met a better man manager to this day, as every student who remained in his class passed their exams with flying colours. (We started with 23, and ended with 6, as the weak of mind and spirit left)

This was my experience, and for me, because everyone's different, it was the right method of education, and creative development. I've never been lazy about music, but the self discipline i gained was invaluable, not only in music but other spheres of life too.
A 'formal' education teaches people how to learn, resource information, understand that info, and assimilate it in a productive way, if the teacher is good, and the student is willing. (and in my case, very thick skinned).

I write this not to show off, or dramatise anything, but to make a point i feel is important to you. Being 'nice' and carefully polite to people is ok for some, but it doesn't challenge. I've seen many instances in forums and websites where someone will post a demo, and get nice warm feelgood comments, with little or no challenge, as if each is behaving with a certain unwritten code of conduct, you be nice to me and i'll be nice to you.
With no challenge, many assume they're doing well, until of course the reality hits them between the eyes, and they find the delusion of that politically correct code of conduct has in fact betrayed them and left them worse off than before.
I've also seen people who give honest forthright comments vilified for that honesty, and classed as 'troublemakers', or unfeeling discompassionate monsters.
The carefully trodden path of bland mutual massage will do nothing for your skills. (IMO) Being challenged will. If you're willing to accept this, and use it as a tool to drive you forward, then i will look forward to listening to your first symphony!

Regards,

Alex.

Well Alex, you do write with passion!!! I'd be interested to hear how that same passion transfers to your music :) Thanks again for the consideration.
I have been looking at distance learning courses here in the UK. Apparantly the Open University does a very good one. It is perhaps not the same as mixing it with a bunch of musicians at an attended course, but it's the only means I have at my disposal while I hold down a job and have a family to feed, although there are periods of the year where I would need to attend. Indeed, rather than mulling over inadequacies which is how this thread began, better to get equipped with knowledge. It wasn't exactly a distress flair I was sending (at least I thought it wasn't), but I respect your sense of urgency.

Blandishments and polite flattery aren't really useful to anyone, and when your writing is untarnished by cynicism (as yours plainly is), it'd be a shame to hold back.
Now, I will read your post again.
Kind regards,
Hywyn

[hywyn]

This comment is not new and typical of someone who doesn't have a formal musical education relevant to orchestral construction, getting defensive with those who do. And a red herring in relation to orchestral scoring.

Oh, what part of my comment is typical? If the thread has stayed purely about orchestral construction I'd have kept my councel, of course.

The Bob Dylan example is irrelavent to your original point.
You wanted to know about orchestra writing, and sample libraries.
Bob Dylan's music is a lifetime away from the construct of orchestral work in every way except one.

Melody is king.

Irrelevant to orchestral scoring indeed, but connected to my quaint (and not crude at all) allegory of a man on a train. I've veered right off the path by now in case you hadn't noticed.


All other constructs are secondary. The absence of a defineable melody or theme in a lot of today's film music is the reason for the boredom and sense of drudgery it inflicts on the listener, musically educated or not.
And it's time we banned taiko drums, at least for ten years or so. These bombastic, testosterone satisfiers are a poor cover for simplistic and poor writing. Harmony doesn't work? Add taiko bloody drums. Endlessly crooning choirs getting on your nerves? Add even more TDs.
Pathetic.
And lazy.

Now i've got that off my chest............;)

Alex.
Better out than in!

Hywyn

[commalot]

This thread reminds me of a Mozart quote I saw on this forum. It was something to the affect that his inspirations came from many sources but when he got down to composing it was entirely intellectual. I am new to this area also, having just purchased Kirk Hunters Emerald. I may have many song ideas but bringing them to life is entirely an intellectual process. There is much to learn.

[wja]

This thread reminds me of a Mozart quote I saw on this forum. It was something to the affect that his inspirations came from many sources but when he got down to composing it was entirely intellectual. I am new to this area also, having just purchased Kirk Hunters Emerald. I may have many song ideas but bringing them to life is entirely an intellectual process. There is much to learn.
Actually, we know little about Mozart, except through his music. Much that has been written about him is pure fiction and his life has been overly glamorized by movies such as Amadeus.

I seriously doubt his composing style was "entirely intellectual". What he had, as most great composers have, is the talent and creativity to come up with rich thematic ideas and develop them into wondrous and majestic masterpieces. Part intellect, mostly musical genius.

If you are relying solely on intellect to bring your music to life, I think you might be dissapointed in the results.

[Bruce A. Richardson]

Oh really?? Well I'm the inventor of 17/32.

What a crock of esoteric nonsense and self-serving name dropping.

Facts are, historically the large majority of important and influential composers, in 'art' music as well as film music, are well educated in music theory, history, harmony, counterpoint, orchestration and composition.

Take from that what you will.


Invented the meter 5/8? You are joking, I assume. 5/8 has been around since the early years of the 20th century. Stravinsky used it extensively in his ballets. And counting and playing in five has been part of musicians's skill-set for hundreds of years, east and west.

Guys, are you on crack? Dang, nobody ever invites me. Next time you guys take a crack break, I demand to be invited.

If you'll re-read my post, what I was saying (via hyperbole) was that this drummer, while talented, lacked the background (as in, he's not schooled in music) to realize that his shocking new groove was just a very typical 5/8 feel. He had reinvented the wheel, not realizing the utter banality of his new discovery.

And WJA, if I really wanted to name drop, I could make your head spin (at least a little). I've been around. ;)

[PaulR]

And WJA, if I really wanted to name drop, I could make your head spin. I've been around. ;)

Exactly. I tell everyone I know Bruce - that always hits the mark. Think on that WJA!

:D

[Bruce A. Richardson]

Hahahaha....

[danpowers]

I don't know Bruce, but I know Jimmy Finnie, who's a friend of Bruce.

[dvincent]

If you'll re-read my post, what I was saying (via hyperbole)...

Bruce, I understood you perfectly through your verbose...even though I'm schooled in music...:eek:

[artsoundz]

regarding Bruces' name dropping. I'm envious! Those River dance Babes...
But you want name dropping? I'll give you name dropping. I once saw Keith Jarret on the street and said hello. He gave me a look that shortened my fingers at least an inch......

[Garritan]

This was my experience, and for me, because everyone's different, it was the right method of education, and creative development. I've never been lazy about music, but the self discipline i gained was invaluable, not only in music but other spheres of life too.
A 'formal' education teaches people how to learn, resource information, understand that info, and assimilate it in a productive way, if the teacher is good, and the student is willing. (and in my case, very thick skinned).

I write this not to show off, or dramatise anything, but to make a point i feel is important to you. Being 'nice' and carefully polite to people is ok for some, but it doesn't challenge. I've seen many instances in forums and websites where someone will post a demo, and get nice warm feelgood comments, with little or no challenge, as if each is behaving with a certain unwritten code of conduct, you be nice to me and i'll be nice to you.
With no challenge, many assume they're doing well, until of course the reality hits them between the eyes, and they find the delusion of that politically correct code of conduct has in fact betrayed them and left them worse off than before.
I've also seen people who give honest forthright comments vilified for that honesty, and classed as 'troublemakers', or unfeeling discompassionate monsters.
The carefully trodden path of bland mutual massage will do nothing for your skills. (IMO) Being challenged will. If you're willing to accept this, and use it as a tool to drive you forward, then i will look forward to listening to your first symphony!Thanks for sharing your experience. There is no denying that 'tough love' can eventually push a person to excel. This is an approach law schools take. Try to break them during the first year and if you have the tenacity to endure you'll make it into the club (the old "Paper Chase adage of molding a mind of mush into lawyers). I had such professors in law school that pushed me to the limits and that spurred me to law review and academic honors.

But I chose law school and you chose conservatory, both very specific institutions designed to produce top notch people in their respective fields. It was very competitive to get in those institutions with qualifying exams, interviews, and other gauntlets and hoops to jump through.

Just because I was beat down in a civil procedures class in law school, doesn't mean that the same challenging tactics should be used in a 5th grade social studies class, nor a night school class on civics, nor in any other setting. Just because you and I may have gone through boot camp, doesn't mean boot-camp tactics should be imposed on civilians.

You were in a conservatory which first qualifies students and then trains them to be professional musicians. You were already qualified and committed to a life of music. You were ready for the challenge.

But these harsh approaches, while may be appropriate for specific institutions of directed training, my have adverse effects in other situations. For those not so committed or qualified, harsh and crass criticism may snuff out the spirit. Often courtesy and encouragement may provide the confidence a person needs to learn more. Once they are confident they have the traction to learn and eventually commit to music.
And once committed then maybe they will qualify for conservatory and are then prepared to go to the school of hard knocks.

And you must consider the source of the criticism. It seems you had the advantage of a composition professor you knew had a great deal of knowledge to impart. You at least had the benefit of knowing your mentor and of establishing an ongoing relationship. There was a system of peer review in place and a relationship that could check your progress. Your instructor chose to commit to your progress over the long haul. If he bashed and left you cringing in the corner things may have been different.

With forums you don't know who is on the other side of the critique and there is no ongoing relationship. I know of cases where know-it-all teenagers, with no musical training whatsoever, bash someone's work on the forum. Although "honest forthright comments", they had no value and were counter-productive. Of course the recipient receiving the harsh criticisms had no way of knowing the source and some were discouraged. The effect may serve only to snuff out the spirit before someone sprouts their wings.

I know of some members who are now pursuing conservatory or music studies in colleges in part because of the encouragement they received on the forums. William West, Richard Birdsall, and Thomas Penders immediately come to mind.

Challenge is good, but a person must be ready for challenge as you were in conservatory.

On the Garritan forum we have many people from all ages and walks of life as well as professionals. The professionals and educators there are encouraging and helping. They know that once the spark of music is ignited, the fire will be unstoppable. And once the person in encouraged and then commits to music, nothing will quench the fire. It is then, and only then, that a challenging but committed instructor will be needed to tame those flames.

Gary Garritan

[Daryl]

Gary and Alex, I share much of your sentiments, and so eloquently phrased 'n'all :>))

As someone who teaches a couple of days a week, all I can add is that in my experience good teaching is not just about knocking 'em down. Anyone can do that, it's the skill with which you pick 'em up afterwards that counts.

D

[Hermitage59]

Thanks for sharing your experience. There is no denying that 'tough love' can eventually push a person to excel. This is an approach law schools take. Try to break them during the first year and if you have the tenacity to endure you'll make it into the club (the old "Paper Chase adage off molding a mind of mush into lawyers). I had such professors in law school that pushed me to the limits and that spurred me to law review and academic honors.

But I chose law school and you chose conservatory, both very specific institutions designed to produce top notch people in their respective fields. It was very competitive to get in those institutions with qualifying exams, interviews, and other gauntlets and hoops to jump through.

Just because I was beat down in a civil procedures class in law school, doesn't mean that the same challenging tactics should be used in a 5th grade social studies class, nor a night school class on civics, nor in any other setting. Just because you and I may have gone through boot camp, doesn't mean boot-camp tactics should be imposed on civilians.

You were in a conservatory which first qualifies students and then trains them to be professional musicians. You were already qualified and committed to a life of music. You were ready for the challenge.

But these harsh approaches, while may be appropriate for specific institutions of directed training, my have adverse effects in other situations. For those not so committed or qualified, harsh and crass criticism may snuff out the spirit. Often courtesy and encouragement may provide the confidence a person needs to learn more. Once they are confident they have the traction to learn and eventually commit to music.
And once committed then maybe they will qualify for conservatory and are then prepared to go to the school of hard knocks.

And you must consider the source of the criticism. It seems you had the advantage of a composition professor you knew had a great deal of knowledge to impart. You at least had the benefit of knowing your mentor and of establishing an ongoing relationship. There was a system of peer review in place and a relationship that could check your progress. Your instructor chose to commit to your progress over the long haul. If he bashed and left you cringing in the corner things may have been different.

With forums you don't know who is on the other side of the critique and there is no ongoing relationship. I know of cases where know-it-all teenagers, with no musical training whatsoever, bash someone's work on the forum. Although "honest forthright comments", they had no value and were counter-productive. Of course the recipient receiving the harsh criticisms had no way of knowing the source and some were discouraged. The effect may serve only to snuff out the spirit before someone sprouts their wings.

I know of some members who are now pursuing conservatory or music studies in colleges in part because of the encouragement they received on the forums. William West, Richard Birdsall, and Thomas Penders immediately come to mind.

Challenge is good, but a person must be ready for challenge as you were in conservatory.

On the Garritan forum we have many people from all ages and walks of life as well as professionals. The professionals and educators there are encouraging and helping. They know that once the spark of music is ignited, the fire will be unstoppable. And once the person in encouraged and then commits to music, nothing will quench the fire. It is then, and only then, that a challenging but committed instructor will be needed to tame those flames.

Gary Garritan

Gary, I agree with you in the main, and certainly wouldn't treat others in the same way as my old professor. That way worked with me, and didn't work for others. It wasn't perfect.
My reference to challenge wasn't one of judgemental belligerence, but honest comments that will provoke thought. And i believe that any comment should be qualified with an alternative offered by the person. There are those who thrive on encouragement and positive feedback who can accept an alternate point of view, and i'd be among the first to offer tips and tricks that may help them advance their knowledge. I have no vested interest in seeing them fail or give up thoroughly discouraged, quite the opposite, i'd like to see many more writers nurture and develop their skills.
But just telling someone their demo is really nice isn't enough is it?
Why is it nice?
Where does it work the best?
Where does it falter?
Why?
What alternatives can the commentator suggest that may or may not help the writer develop the piece further?
It's then the choice of the writer if they accept those suggestions or not.

I try to understand the level of musical maturity from the content posted, and comments by the writer. If the writer is at the start of their musical journey, then encouragement is necessary and essential, as well as suggested alternatives. I have no time for commentators who simply imply work is crap and worthless without giving detailed reasons why. That's not critique, just abuse.
It's always been my principle to share knowledge, and one i've followed my entire life. I'm pleased to hear your forum encourages those who wish to take a musical path. I would hope the offerings are honest, positive,
detailed. and challenging enough to encourage a desire to improve.
And my best wishes for those who are taking their musical passion further.

One thing is for sure. The stricter regimes of formal institutions certainly focus the mind, and help one discover just how passionate and determined we are about our chosen field.

Regards,

Alex.

p.s. Out of interest i looked at a map trying to find out where Orcas Island was. I did assume you were on the East Coast, but of course i discovered you're near Seattle, and almost Canadian!

[joaz]

With forums you don't know who is on the other side of the critique and there is no ongoing relationship.
Aye, there's the rub.

Like Alex I went through the conservatory training, and now have a skin of finest Rhino hide.:) However,it is hard to know how some unseen, unknown person thousands of miles away, will react to the icy blasts of severe criticism. Insightful criticsm, can have inestimable value, but it has to come at the right stage of a persons development.

My favourite teacher at Conservatoire was a French solfege teacher called Michel Brandt( A dead ringer for his contemporary Michel le-Grande ). His classes were legendary for people leaving in tears.His most withering insult was..."What are you........a singer......?"

I did not escape his barbed tongue, and was called every kind of imbecile going. This made me laugh and try harder, it made many others quit the class once they had attained the minimum grade.

I prefer to be cautious in my Internet criticism of other peoples work. One on one, you would be picking up a million cues, body language, eye contact, etc etc, that could tell you how far you can go when criticising an individual. None of this is available online. Sharpening your wits, on another persons outporing, could be the last straw in some situations.

I have seen some negative remarks about the tone of the Garritan forum, in certain quarters. Some call it a "Love-in", a "Fan Club", etc etc, but I see it as a positive place of encouragement. When people develop, they may take their music into the big bad world, where a kind listen is not always garaunteed. But that is better than being crushed at step 2.

There is no one perfect solution to suit all the diverse temperaments of human nature. But when teaching (or jamming with others) I always try to remember the medical maxim......

" First, don't harm."

regards Joe

[Bruce A. Richardson]

regarding Bruces' name dropping. I'm envious! Those River dance Babes...

It was actually quite the grand experience. The River Dance babes WERE babes, and had legs that were almost frighteningly yummy. It was such a trip to see the juxtaposition of all those graceful bird and crane like moves from the Senegal Ballet dancers, and the opposite, aggressive physicality of the RiverDance folks. And of course, everyone was quite four sheets to the wind, which made it even better. The RiverDance folks showed up every week the whole time they were in town, unfortunately the Senegal troupe was a one-nighter.

[Bruce A. Richardson]

I don't know Bruce, but I know Jimmy Finnie, who's a friend of Bruce.

There you go!! Hahaha. So the esteemed Dr. Finnie will actually fess up to an association with me? My stock's going up already.

[artsoundz]

quote from Bruce "unfortunately the Senegal troupe was a one-nighter."

I can't get ARRESTED and this guy has a one nighter w/an ENTIRE dance troupe. You, sir, are a GOD.

[wja]

Guys, are you on crack? Dang, nobody ever invites me. Next time you guys take a crack break, I demand to be invited.

If you'll re-read my post, what I was saying (via hyperbole) was that this drummer, while talented, lacked the background (as in, he's not schooled in music) to realize that his shocking new groove was just a very typical 5/8 feel. He had reinvented the wheel, not realizing the utter banality of his new discovery.

And WJA, if I really wanted to name drop, I could make your head spin (at least a little). I've been around. ;)
Well, geez, 'hyperbole' just doesn't come across in a forum post unless you stick a smiley face or something in there to let us know!

Yeh, well I've been around too, so what? Though I must admit I wouldn't mind checking out those gams on the Riverdance girls.

[black death]

You guys should be ashamed of yourselves. Every time some one mentions East West orchestra, the same few guys do every thing they can to steer people away from it. So you have to wonder, do these guys own the library? I would guess, no. Except of course for "Mr. I fell off my horse and everything is suddenly out of tune" who has Silver I believe. In the case of this topic, the question would be "Do these guys know anything about the Hollywood sound". Clearly not, because not one of them mentioned the most crucial part of the Hollywood sound, which is the soundstage. You need a good stage sound before you can add the 5 second 480 verb. EWQLSO has this nailed better than any other library. They also have big sections which is important and they used an experienced film orchestra (Seattle Symphony). They also have recorded alot of Hollywood articulations, especially in the new XP which all of you seem to conveniently forget exists. I was at formerly Media Ventures recently. Guess which commercial library is pretty much the only one they use along with their London samples?? So my question really is what is going on here? I don't know but it's just wrong. Obviously orchestration and writing is more important than anything, but for a Hollywood sound there is one library which does it best. I've heard very few good film music demos from VSL. I've heard some nice smaller film cues from Sonic Implants. I've heard zero good film cues from GPO. This should tell you something.

[artsoundz]

they are all pretty damn good and in the hands of talent work so obviously well alone or mixed that it is hardly worth mentioning. Speaking of mixed..
I have 6 libraries-gpo,synful.ewqlso,miroslav,and Stradivarius. I've taken all the solo strings(gpo has 3) and made a 7 instrument section. It's fun and as I posted in another subject-the future is bright.I can see eventually creating sections out of solo instruments from differant libraries.My 10 minute excersize sounded pretty good and these were mismached in terms of ambience and ADSR. But it struck me as something especially viable in the future. fun stuff.

[artsoundz]

and why does death always have to be black? Maybe light blue with a lovely avocado green border......

[Houston Haynes]

I've heard zero good film cues from GPO. This should tell you something.

Yeah - that your NICKname should be "Blank Deaf"

:n:

[artsoundz]

Mr.Death, Do you mean the quality of GPO isn't competitive for major film scores? VSL not being on your list seems odd to me.I think a great many film scorers use VSL.
While I have GPO and EWQLSO they seem damn good. I admit GPO isn't always my favorite but I do wish I had VSL and SS. What do you do for a living? I'm genuinely curious. and BTW I didnt mean to be rude w/ that previous post. Just havin' fun. You are certainly en'tight'led to that opinion but I wouldn't get into the child care business with that name if I were you.:o
But Houston...uh...how OLD are you?

[black death]

Yeah - that your NICKname should be "Blank Deaf"

:n:

Houston, I didn't think it was possible to write music that bad. Honestly, it's just embarassing. :eek: I feel better now. I thought this was a composer website.

[artsoundz]

oh dear.......There's the school bell. I guess recess is over.
You realize Mr.Death that you are going to have to play something you've done. Despite Houston's social skills he at least has some pro cred.

wait til I leave guys.......... Ok.. have at it.......

[Daryl]

The Hollywood sound................, some people never learn. Oh sorry, New Member, isn't up to speed yet.

D

[Hermitage59]

The Hollywood sound................, some people never learn. Oh sorry, New Member, isn't up to speed yet.

D

Lol...Exactly.

:cool:

[PaulR]

I was at formerly Media Ventures recently.

Is it not called Media Ventures anymore? :confused:

[vegas]

yeah its called "Remote Control Productions" now..

what a dumb name:p

[dvincent]

EWQLSO has this nailed better than any other library.

Not to my ears. In all examples I've heard it sounds overly reverberant, even for Hollywood. Did they compensate for the fact that when flute 1 was recorded they were missing 80 bodies of sound absorbtion? Maybe they did, but this sounds like a missing part of the equation in my ears. I've heard good music from this library, but nothing any better than the others of it's scope and caliber. If you like the sound use it and get over the fact that others don't.


Guess which commercial library is pretty much the only one they use...??

Maybe that is why my ears like neither. For every Hollywood score that sounds similar to EWQLSO I can give 10 that don't sound like it. A different soundstage or engineer can make the ensemble unrecognizably different sounding. There is no de facto Hollywood sound anymore than there is a de facto Hollywood lighting result. Different situations require different techniques and tools. Anyways, the tools shouldn't make the art - the artist should.

Use whatever tools you wish and be happy with them. Each one is useful in the right hands. I've heard tracks come from GPO that make me want to cry over the money I "wasted" on more expensive libraries.

And thanks for adding your criticisms under a shroud of secrecy. Helps add validity to your point of view. :rolleyes:

[Bruce A. Richardson]

I don't like any of the "points of view" that are based in ad hominem. I am so f-ing sick of this kind of debate. It is intellectually empty, and does not advance one ounce of truth.

To add to Hollywood Sound we now have Hollywood Articulations?

Holy cow. There is nothing in music which is remotely related to these concepts. Neither exists.

One "hollywood" artist's work can be radically different than the next in tone and timbre--and even in mix qualities. If there is any shred of something which can even be MIS-labeled a Hollywood Sound, it is simply the sound of music being reverbed and pushed backwards in the final mixing stages, in order to make room at the front of the soundstage for the dialog and other sound design components. It is simply a means of "hollowing out" a slot so that everything fits and you don't get mush as a final result. You can't fill a signal more than 100% full. You have to slot a mix somehow. Frequency, volume, and position are your choices. The wide, hollowed, reverbed sound that is frequently used in film mixes is simply the most pleasing way to make everything fit. It works...in some specific cases where that's what is needed. Just as often, in films which are just as emotionally pleasing, music is presented starkly. It all depends upon the setting.

But musically, all of this is nothing. It's mixing technique. It has nothing to do with expressing musical qualities, or with any generality that can be summed up as "Hollywood." It is plain and simple bunk.

Maturity, both personal and artistic, would be a welcome change from the "You're an idiot/Oh, yeah? Your music sucks," brand of tribal-sycophant-pseudo-debate that merely clouds truthfulness instead of revealing it.

Ad hominem, Ad Verecundiam (this particular argument--ultimately false/celebrity authority substituted for fact, and dependent upon the timidity of the audience in challenging it), ad populum (everybody I know blah blah blah), and other logial fallacies have no place in civilized discussion.

For instance, people use ad hominem against me all the time, a very specific brand of it--circumstantial. That's basically the idea that Bruce knows people at Tascam, therefore Bruce's arguments are tainted. Ad hominem attempts to shoot the messenger to damn the argument--which is total fallacy. Your mother wears army boots. So what? Your music stinks. So what? If you have a point, you still have a point.

If arguments or observations are sound, then these observations will stand the heat of debate. Learning to detect when the soundness of argument is being protected by a logical flaw is how judges and juries sort out the facts in court cases.

[Ashermusic]

Bruce, what you are preaching here is intellectual discipline, which is probably the way you were raised and educated, as was I. I was taught that an opinion that could not be supported by knowledge or facts was not to be assigned much value. However, we now live in a culture where "If I like it, then I like it" has been replaced by "if I like it, it is good" and vice versa. And all opinions are to be given equal weight, whether informed or not and to disagree with that makes one a snob.

Years ago when I was writing songs with the late Paul Jabara he suggested that we should write a song entitled "Everybody Is An Authority On Everything."

I am afraid this ship has sailed. I am glad that I am old enough that I will not be around to see how far it eventually devolves to.

[black death]

I don't like any of the "points of view" that are based in ad hominem. I am so f-ing sick of this kind of debate. It is intellectually empty, and does not advance one ounce of truth.

To add to Hollywood Sound we now have Hollywood Articulations?

Holy cow. There is nothing in music which is remotely related to these concepts. Neither exists.

One "hollywood" artist's work can be radically different than the next in tone and timbre--and even in mix qualities. If there is any shred of something which can even be MIS-labeled a Hollywood Sound, it is simply the sound of music being reverbed and pushed backwards in the final mixing stages, in order to make room at the front of the soundstage for the dialog and other sound design components. It is simply a means of "hollowing out" a slot so that everything fits and you don't get mush as a final result. You can't fill a signal more than 100% full. You have to slot a mix somehow. Frequency, volume, and position are your choices. The wide, hollowed, reverbed sound that is frequently used in film mixes is simply the most pleasing way to make everything fit. It works...in some specific cases where that's what is needed. Just as often, in films which are just as emotionally pleasing, music is presented starkly. It all depends upon the setting.

But musically, all of this is nothing. It's mixing technique. It has nothing to do with expressing musical qualities, or with any generality that can be summed up as "Hollywood." It is plain and simple bunk.

Maturity, both personal and artistic, would be a welcome change from the "You're an idiot/Oh, yeah? Your music sucks," brand of tribal-sycophant-pseudo-debate that merely clouds truthfulness instead of revealing it.

Ad hominem, Ad Verecundiam (this particular argument--ultimately false/celebrity authority substituted as face, and dependent upon the timidity of the audience in challenging it), ad populum (everybody I know blah blah blah), and other logial fallacies have no place in civilized discussion.

For instance, people use ad hominem against me all the time, a very specific brand of it--circumstantial. That's basically the idea that Bruce knows people at Tascam, therefore Bruce's arguments are tainted. Ad hominem attempts to shoot the messenger to damn the argument--which is total fallacy. Your mother wears army boots. So what? Your music stinks. So what? If you have a point, you still have a point.

If arguments or observations are sound, then these observations will stand the heat of debate. Learning to detect when the soundness of argument is being protected by a logical flaw is how judges and juries sort out the facts in court cases.

I think if you don't like these kind of debates, maybe you should refrain from joining them. Especially if you don't know what you are talking about. Interesting how no one addressed my points. As far as every Hollywood score sounding different from eachother goes, it is quite the opposite. It is pretty shocking how similar scores sound. They use the same scoring stages, the same players, the same reverb, the same size sections over and over and over. Why? Because it works. And you are totally wrong about the sound simply being pushed back etc.. The sound is captures with close and stage micing which is absolutely crucial to the end result. What differs in each score is the writing and to a very small degree the orchestration and the addition of a few non-orchestral instruments or electronica. Even John Williams uses the same hall, players, etc.. over and over. As far as mixing technique goes, you obviously have no experience with EWQLSO, which doesn't require a "technique." It just works if you orchestrate and balance well. I don't know anything about you and Tascam, but it is clear that you have some kind of agenda. Don't bother denying it. I just looked at some of your past posts. I encourage others to do so also. It's like a virtual instrument vendetta.

[Garritan]

To add to Hollywood Sound we now have Hollywood Articulations?

Holy cow. There is nothing in music which is remotely related to these concepts. Neither exists. I totally agree with you on this one Bruce. First "Hollywood sound", then "Hollywood articulations", what's next? These concepts exist only in certain sample library circles.
.....
DITTO of my earlier post...

"There is a "Hollywood sound" myth being promulgaged in the industry. Like the vintage gear myths of the last decades, that if you had this EQ box and that reverb you will sound just like the Beatles, Led Zeppelin, U2, etc. (as if one's songwriting didn't had anything to do with it).

Having attended movie scoring sessions and speaking to various Hollywood composers about the Hollywood sound; like anything Hollywood, the "Hollywood sound" is often larger than life and created with props, make-up, special effects and sometimes stunt doubles.

The majority of Hollywood soundtracks are done on scoring stages and not a typcial concert hall. It is extremely rare that soundtracks are recorded in a traditional concert hall. A concert hall is a pure and set sound designed for live performance and a scoring stage is designed for film and post-production.

Although an orchestral sample library may tout "the Hollywood sound" from being recorded in a large concert hall; few, if any, actual soundtracks were ever recorded in such a hall. IMHO, if any envirnoment is closer to the Hollywood paradigm it would be a libray recorded on a soundstage and not in a traditional concert hall.

For the Hollywood sound the most important thing is the writing and the arranging. The top Hollywood composers know how to write for film and that is why their skills are in demand.

The instrumentation is important too. The composers builds their orchestra with the instruments they need for a particular film (not one dictated in size and scope). There is no "natural" or one way orchestras are arranged. Different orchestras have different seating positions for the players (e.g. violins I & II opposite each other for the Seattle Sympnony, but Vlns I & II stage left for others). The great thing about orchestras is that there are flexible with so many combinations and possibilities to meet the mood of what is being conveyed on the screen. For the utmost flexibility the best thing to have for the Hollywood sound is as many sample libraries as possible. :D

The space is also important. Often a big spacious sound is needed and sometimes an open-air space is needed and other times a more intimate space is needed for a particular film. A sample library having a set or wet space can be a disadvantage. It can have a signature sound that can be identifiable in every film.

There's a great deal of post-production that goes into making the Hollywood sound. The mixing engineer's role cannot be understated. The engineer is like a secondary conductor in a Hollywood soundtrack - coordinating the balance of sound and applying effects as needed. Spot mikes are everywhere allowing the engineers precision control of almost every instrument. They will EQ, compress and add effects on the fly. During a scoring session I attended at Bastyr (where many Hollywood films were recorded), I noticed in the control room some lights flashing on a Lexicon 480L. I asked why a Lexicon was being used when the space sounded great. His reply was "because that is the Hollywood sound". Granted, that was one engineers method but an important part of the sound was the processing. Compression is also used more often scoring sessions (and increasingly so in classical recordings too).

Achieving the Hollywood sound is a very complex thing. And making it work with film is no easy task. It requires a great deal of skill and knowledge. The composition and writing is paramount to getting the sound. There are many different factors all coordinating to impart the emotional backdrop to the story being projected on the silver screen.

Gary Garritan"

[Bruce A. Richardson]

I think if you don't like these kind of debates, maybe you should refrain from joining them. Especially if you don't know what you are talking about. Interesting how no one addressed my points. As far as every Hollywood score sounding different from eachother goes, it is quite the opposite. It is pretty shocking how similar scores sound. They use the same scoring stages, the same players, the same reverb, the same size sections over and over and over. Why? Because it works. And you are totally wrong about the sound simply being pushed back etc.. The sound is captures with close and stage micing which is absolutely crucial to the end result. What differs in each score is the writing and to a very small degree the orchestration and the addition of a few non-orchestral instruments or electronica. Even John Williams uses the same hall, players, etc.. over and over. As far as mixing technique goes, you obviously have no experience with EWQLSO, which doesn't require a "technique." It just works if you orchestrate and balance well. I don't know anything about you and Tascam, but it is clear that you have some kind of agenda. Don't bother denying it. I just looked at some of your past posts. I encourage others to do so also. It's like a virtual instrument vendetta.

Dude, I'm not going to argue with you. You're picking your facts narrowly (another logical ploy substituted as argument). I didn't say that the final mix had anything to do with excluding music mixed with different microphone perspectives.

I think Nick would differ with you on the idea that mixing with his product requires no technique. Every aspect of music production requires technique, in order to be good.

And as far as any of my previous posts go, you can read them all day long. I encourage it. Perhaps I should point you towards the ones where I'm challenging people who claim intonation problems in EastWest's libraries to either put up specific examples or shut up.

You are, in this post, doing one thing. You are making an attempt to negate what I am saying by attacking my credibility rather than proving your point.

American Beauty. Crash. Two example of Hollywood scores that have nothing to do with the kind of sound you describe. It would be possible go go on all day. Brokeback Mountain. Should we keep on?

What is a Hollywood Articulation? Could you please supply the Hollywood Articulation list, so we can see which ones of these are actually exclusive to Hollywood as opposed to music in general?

[PaulR]

As far as mixing technique goes, you obviously have no experience with EWQLSO, which doesn't require a "technique." It just works if you orchestrate and balance well. I don't know anything about you and Tascam, but it is clear that you have some kind of agenda. Don't bother denying it. I just looked at some of your past posts. I encourage others to do so also. It's like a virtual instrument vendetta.

I'm trying grab hold of your overall point or agenda on this one. I can't quite see it at this point.
Sure, EWQL sounds very good as do all the other libraries out there in the right circumstances.

With regard to Bruce's points - well obviously no one agrees with other's points all the time - so what? In defence of Bruce - I've had some fun with Bruce in the past, sure - but I certainly wouldn't want to be without him. I would calm down on this one.

[Daryl]

It is pretty shocking how similar scores sound. They use the same scoring stages, the same players, the same reverb, the same size sections over and over and over.

You see, even this isn't true. How can they use the same scoring stages and same players when some film scores are recorded on different continents from each other? Just here in London I could name 3 studios with a totally different acoustic which have all been used to record scores within the Studio system. Granted there are similar mixing techniques for some films, but certainly not all. This is why there is value in all sample libraries, as long as they are of good quality.

D

[Ashermusic]

As far as every Hollywood score sounding different from eachother goes, it is quite the opposite. It is pretty shocking how similar scores sound. They use the same scoring stages, the same players, the same reverb, the same size sections over and over and over. Why? Because it works. And you are totally wrong about the sound simply being pushed back etc.. The sound is captures with close and stage micing which is absolutely crucial to the end result. What differs in each score is the writing and to a very small degree the orchestration and the addition of a few non-orchestral instruments or electronica. Even John Williams uses the same hall, players, etc.. over and over. .

This is simply factually inaccurate. "Hollywood" composers record in studios all over the world. And many "Hollywood" scores are recorded in Europe nowadays, many with European composers and engineers. And I can tell you from my own personal experience that the way engineers mic players not only varies greatly from studio to studio and composer to composer but score to score. If you visit my website and you listen to cues i.e. from two of my orchestral projects, "Zorro" which was recorded at Chick Corea's Mad Hatter or "Fugitive Nights" which was recorded at Capitol with different engineers, tell me if they are sonically almost alike.

If they all sound alike to you either you are listening to a narrow range of scores or you are not capable of discerning differences.

[Bruce A. Richardson]

Still waiting for that Hollywood Articulation list...

[Hermitage59]

I think if you don't like these kind of debates, maybe you should refrain from joining them. Especially if you don't know what you are talking about. Interesting how no one addressed my points. As far as every Hollywood score sounding different from eachother goes, it is quite the opposite. It is pretty shocking how similar scores sound. They use the same scoring stages, the same players, the same reverb, the same size sections over and over and over. Why? Because it works. And you are totally wrong about the sound simply being pushed back etc.. The sound is captures with close and stage micing which is absolutely crucial to the end result. What differs in each score is the writing and to a very small degree the orchestration and the addition of a few non-orchestral instruments or electronica. Even John Williams uses the same hall, players, etc.. over and over. As far as mixing technique goes, you obviously have no experience with EWQLSO, which doesn't require a "technique." It just works if you orchestrate and balance well. I don't know anything about you and Tascam, but it is clear that you have some kind of agenda. Don't bother denying it. I just looked at some of your past posts. I encourage others to do so also. It's like a virtual instrument vendetta.

Complete nonsense, and the idea that someone else is on a vendetta is reflected in the tripe you're attempting to sell to us. And that's what it sounds like.
A sales job. A petulant attempt to get a name in a forum and bang a tired old drum, and bellittle competitors with inaccurate information. Would i buy a car from you? Not in a million years.

To my more sensible colleagues here in the forum, can i respectfully suggest we get back to the topic and enjoy what was, until this poor salesman turned up, a decent and intelligent discussion?

Regards,

Alex.

[wja]

Ad hominem, Ad Verecundiam (this particular argument--ultimately false/celebrity authority substituted for fact, and dependent upon the timidity of the audience in challenging it), ad populum (everybody I know blah blah blah), and other logial fallacies have no place in civilized discussion.



I'd throw in Ignoratio Elenchi and possibly Ad Baculum.

[dvincent]

How can they use the same scoring stages and same players when some film scores are recorded on different continents from each other?

Yes! And sometimes in different LA sound stages on the same day at the same time.

[black death]

Still waiting for that Hollywood Articulation list...

You guys blow my mind. How can you post so emphatically about things you don't really know anything about? Most big scores are done at a few studios in LA, Air Lyndhurst in London and to a lesser degree, in Seattle. And scores done elsewhere are simply striving for the sound of the established rooms most of the time. Seating charts tend to be very similar. The Hollywood articulation list?? Hmmmnn... let's see. I think a good place to start would be maybe..... staccato. LOL!!! Staccato you say??? That's ridiculous every library has staccato!!!!!! Or does it?? cough cough Gary. You can't write much modern or film music without it you see. So no staccato, no Holly wood! Comprende?? The orchestra was pretty developed before Hollywood came around, so OBVIOUSLY there are'nt really Hollywood articulations. BUT, there are articulations and playing styles crucial to the sound. here is a short list:

staccato!!!!!!
romantic heavyish vibrato (not present in most libraries)
portato and marcato brass (important in all music but prevelant in film)
horn rips
string effects like harmonics, sul ponticelli, col legno, clusters and dissonant scary stuff in general
muted brass with attitude like in War of the Worlds or old Hollywood tracks
muted strings
piercing piccolo flute and fx

Hollywood's requirements for softer music is not much different from classical.

[artsoundz]

(Guys! There is a missed oppurtunity here! It's BLACK DEATH we are talking to here. For GOD'S SAKES! Let's keep him preoccupied!)
So MR Death, While it's rather inevitable we will all be meeting you someday,how 'bout for now you introduce yourself and let us know what you've been up to(uh..not your day job..seen enough of that recently) What scores have you done at home or otherwise? This isn't meant as a challenge so much as genuinely wondering where your passion comes from.
And again, it all seems so unimportant when I read the following in the news today which, I would think, all musicians would find MOST important.
"A 100-pound woman ate 26 grilled cheese sandwiches in 10 minutes Wednesday at a New York restaurant, winning the World Grilled Cheese Eating Championship." BTW she is known as "BLACK WIDOW". You know her?

[Daryl]

You guys blow my mind. How can you post so emphatically about things you don't really know anything about? Most big scores are done at a few studios in LA, Air Lyndhurst in London and to a lesser degree, in Seattle.

And the rest; Never heard of Abbey Road either I suppose :>(

D

[Houston Haynes]

And the rest; Never heard of Abbey Road either I suppose :>(

D

Let's see - King Kong and Goblet of Fire were recorded there - that's small-time indie - not "Hollywood" at all...

:rolleyes:

If I had a NICKel for every time someone made a sweepingly stupid statement about "the Hollywood Sound", I could make Bill Gates my valet...

[Garritan]

Hmmmnn... let's see. I think a good place to start would be maybe..... staccato. LOL!!! Staccato you say??? That's ridiculous every library has staccato!!!!!! Or does it?? cough cough Gary. stac·ca·to
Pronunciation: sta-'kät-toe [Dan Quayle pronunciation: stac-kato]
(It.: 'detached').
An instruction to direct the player to play notes in a detached and distinctly separated manner, as opposed to legato (which is smoothly connected).

There are many different types of staccato and many ways to play a staccato note. Staccatos can have different attacks, durations and releases according to markings and player interpretation. String playing in particular is rich in staccato distinctions. For example there are differences between a staccato in which the bow remains on the string (e.g. marcato, sfz, martele) and the staccato in which the bow leaves the string between each pair of notes (sautillé, saltando, spiccato, staccato volante). There is staccatisimo, slurred staccato notes and a variety of other forms. Staccato is best performed in real-time because there are so many different types of staccato and can vary from note to note.

There is no need to sample and playback every staccato articulation man has devised and then piece them together like a jigsaw puzzle after the fact. It is better to just play it - like a real player does. While recording GOS, when I asked the section to play staccato they all looked puzzled like I was from another planet. 'What do you mean' they wondered - what type of attack, on or off the bow, hammered, etc. The concept of a discrete staccato sample was somewhat foreign.

Playable Staccatos:

GOS followed the traditional sample-everything approach, but we discovered a better way. With GPO, JABB and the Stradivari violin we allow the user to play their own staccato in real-time. You can control the length of the note, the attack and the release. All simultaneously and in real-time. That simple. With the use of controllers, you sculpt your staccatos and other articulations in real-time while you play. This is similar to what a real player does.

This offers an unlimited variety of ever-changing staccato choices in real-time. Why limit choices with a limited "freeze-dried" sample articulation approach?

I invite you to listen to the over 1,000 user demos on the Garritan site and the forums. You will notice a rich and vast variety of staccatos.

Gary Garritan

[Ashermusic]

You guys blow my mind. How can you post so emphatically about things you don't really know anything about?


I see. So then all my credits for scores I have either composed myself, played keyboard on, printed scores for, orchestrated, or otherwise assisted other composers on since I took up residence in L. A. in 1972 clearly must pale besides your voluminous credits. Would you please enlighten me as to who you are and what you have done since your screen name does not betray the fact that you must be a household name.

[sbkp]

Acrimony and vitriol aside, EWQLSO was recorded with a particular sound in mind (the hall, the engineering, the articulation list, etc). Some people call that "The Hollywood Sound," and others don't. Of course, it's flexible, too, particularly with the Pro expansions (witness the string quartet demos, for example).

And whether or not that's the sound any individual is after, there it is. Isn't one of the points of having competition in the marketplace is so customers can have a *choice*?

We now return you to the Character Assassination Channel.

- Stefan

[Bruce A. Richardson]

Stefan, you're preaching to the choir. Black Death is the one getting his panties all in a wad. He wants to propagate some kind of bogus market-speak nomenclature, then start lashing out at people's experience and credibility when called on it.

This is the problem with starting a big dick contest. You'd better have a mighty big dick, or it won't go your way.

[sbkp]

LOL. Okay, let me try a different approach....

Would everyone just please knock it off!?!? (Except you, Bruce.)

How's that? :)

- Stefan

[sbkp]

stac·ca·to
Pronunciation: sta-'kät-toe [Dan Quayle pronunciation: stac-kato]

Excellent! I missed this detail the first time.... :D

- Stefan

[geronimo001]

That reminds me of the good cop/bad cop routine,...stefan being the good cop.

:|:

[Houston Haynes]

I think someone should do a JABB render of the Hawaii 5-0 theme - 'cuff 'em, Gary...

:|:

Of course, I'm sure there would be a cacophany of complaints that it doesn't have "that Hawaii-wood sound"...

:rolleyes:

[artsoundz]

"We now return you to the Character Assassination Channel." Do you know what that means? To me Black Death was most guilty of that.

If that comment is including me for playing w/ Blackdeath's name then I apologize if it was taken that way. But w/his style and attitiude I just couldn't resist. I was just trying to keep things lite. But I'm sure he's a decent chap. And maybe his name is a form of protest but he sort of opened the door a bit with his responses. So, Mr Death- consider that you had a few major players responding to you fairly and you questioned their abilities. You might be missing an opportunity here yourself. Listen to the latest GPO video( on another recent thread)

[sbkp]

Nah, it was just a general comment about the vibe of the thread (although I do have a few specific thoughts, that's not really the point). I thought your post was pretty funny, actually.

Best,
Stefan

[artsoundz]

Kewl. Thanks.
The LAST thing I need is to piss off Death.

[sbkp]

Yeah, that's never a good idea. ;)

- Stefan

[Houston Haynes]

"...but, I didn't *have* the salmon mousse..."

"Shhh"

:n:

[sbkp]

"...shall we take the cars?"

[Daryl]

Acrimony and vitriol aside, EWQLSO was recorded with a particular sound in mind (the hall, the engineering, the articulation list, etc). Some people call that "The Hollywood Sound," and others don't. Of course, it's flexible, too, particularly with the Pro expansions (witness the string quartet demos, for example).
- Stefan

I don't think that there is any doubt that there is a sound that many scores use. However, it has far more to do with engineering than anything else.
The idea that films have influenced orchestral playing techniques is absolutely ludicrous, as every articulation and effect that is routinely use in a score will have been around for many years.
There is certainly a difference in the way orchestras play, not only in sound but also in technique, but it is a myth to think that this has anything to do with the film industry. After all, if this was the case, the LSO would have to retrain themselves every time they recorded a score :>)
Therefore it is also a myth to think that one library can provide a sound more suitable to Hollywood than any other; if it makes a good orchestral sound, then it_is_Hollywood, with the appropriate engineering.
As to whether any of the libraries are any good and provide suitable articulations ton make a good orchestral sound; well that's another question.

D

[sbkp]

Agreed.


The idea that films have influenced orchestral playing techniques is absolutely ludicrous, as every articulation and effect that is routinely use in a score will have been around for many years.

I don't think that's what BD was saying. While what you say is (of course!) 100% correct, I think it's also true that a particular snapshot of or approach to film and trailer music influenced how EW/QL approached their sampling efforts.

That isn't "the" Hollywood sound, but it's a particular creative approach to sound with an ear towards a particular goal. And they succeeded, I'd say. Nick sure gets bunches of trailers done with EWQLSO. It works for many other composers (David Newman has a new endorsement on the EW site, for example), too.

Okay, sorry I slipped into marketing there. My first paragraph is the interesting one.

- Stefan

[wlbwlb]

Everybody seems to have beaten this topic to death already, but I agree with those who have pointed out that just about all the great composers were trained in the rudiments of composition either in school or by teachers. Composition is not something you just "pick up," even if you have enormous musical talent.

My favorite example, and the one I always use to make this point to non-musicians, is the 18th variation of Rachmaninoff's Rhapsody on a Theme of Paganini. Whether you like Rachmaninoff or not, this is a gorgeous melody and has become a familiar pop song, heard over Muzak systems everywhere and recognized throughout the world. The melody, of course, is simply an inversion of the Paganini theme that the whole work is based on. Very mathematical and contrived in one sense, but it's hard to argue with success. it just goes to show what can be done by a composer who understands compositional tehchniques and knows how to use them to create terrific music. I don't think any number of sample libraries or convolution reverbs or whatever can replace that kind of skill.

Oh, and by the way, I forgot to mention that I invented the Neapolitan 6th.

Bill

[Daryl]

Agreed.



I don't think that's what BD was saying. While what you say is (of course!) 100% correct, I think it's also true that a particular snapshot of or approach to film and trailer music influenced how EW/QL approached their sampling efforts.

That isn't "the" Hollywood sound, but it's a particular creative approach to sound with an ear towards a particular goal. And they succeeded, I'd say. Nick sure gets bunches of trailers done with EWQLSO. It works for many other composers (David Newman has a new endorsement on the EW site, for example), too.

Okay, sorry I slipped into marketing there. My first paragraph is the interesting one.

- Stefan

I'm sorry Stefan, obviously you want to back up BD as he is so in favour of your product, but it's exactly what he was saying. He even called them "Hollywood articulations".
I'm not trying to say that EW has bad products, in my experience it doesn't and yes, I do have some, but the idea that film music can dictate what articulations are produced is not sensible. I want as many articulations as possible, not just those used for Nick's view of trailer music.
Obviously any orchestra sample library is tailored to an extent by the likes and dislikes of the producer of that library, so naturally the sound that EW has is geared towards the sound that Nick obviously likes.

D

[Houston Haynes]

Nick sure gets bunches of trailers done with EWQLSO. It works for many other composers (David Newman has a new endorsement on the EW site, for example), too.

So you're saying that EWQLSO has "the Hollywood Trailer" sound? I'd say that was a fair assessment.

;)

Actually, that jab has a bit more punch to it that folks here would think. I have been negotiating a representation deal with a composer's agent here in town, and he listened to my demo - and liked it - a lot - but then suggested that I put more "punch" in my demo reel to impress potential clients. By example, he ponied up one of his other clients' demos, and I immediately picked up that it was done with EW - which he conceded was correct. I told him that the music might be good to impress, but that it would have to be readjusted to work in a mix on a real film - which he also agreed. I also demonstrated to him that it's entirely possible to mix something that way without using that library - and after I delivered the cue to him he said "you need to do *that* to all of your demos - but when you deliver your stems and mixes, do it like your original mix." So, I don't think that it would be unfair to say that EastWest has the "Hollywood demo" or "Hollywood trailer" sound right out of the box - but to say that it's the only library that can "go there" is not correct. (For the record - I *don't* think Stefan asserted the latter)

On the other side - I can understand why some (if not most) composers desire to have a sound library that sounds a certain way right out of the box. I had a long discussion with a friend (and fellow film composer) when we were driving down the the NAMM show - and he said that he "liked" to not have to worry about reverb and mixing decisions when he uses an EW library - but he also admitted that he used Garritan, Kirk Hunter and Sonic Implants for cues that are in alternate arrangements - which is quite often by his admission. So - we both see the glass as half full - he thinks he's off the hook for making mix decisions in certain situations - and I'm thanking my lucky stars that I know enough about how a real orchestra sounds and how to get the "Hollywood trailer" sound as well as any other viable arrangement - without breaking the bank. To each his own...

[Hermitage59]

Oh, and by the way, I forgot to mention that I invented the Neapolitan 6th.

Bill

Bill,
I'm waiting impatiently for the update.

Neapolitan 6.1.1



Alex.

:cool:

[sbkp]

I'm sorry Stefan, obviously you want to back up BD as he is so in favour of your product, but it's exactly what he was saying. He even called them "Hollywood articulations".

With which I didn't agree.


Obviously any orchestra sample library is tailored to an extent by the likes and dislikes of the producer of that library, so naturally the sound that EW has is geared towards the sound that Nick obviously likes.

D

Exactly! :|:

- Stefan

[Hermitage59]

So you're saying that EWQLSO has "the Hollywood Trailer" sound? I'd say that was a fair assessment.

;)

Actually, that jab has a bit more punch to it that folks here would think. I have been negotiating a representation deal with a composer's agent here in town, and he listened to my demo - and liked it - a lot - but then suggested that I put more "punch" in my demo reel to impress potential clients. By example, he ponied up one of his other clients' demos, and I immediately picked up that it was done with EW - which he conceded was correct. I told him that the music might be good to impress, but that it would have to be readjusted to work in a mix on a real film - which he also agreed. I also demonstrated to him that it's entirely possible to mix something that way without using that library - and after I delivered the cue to him he said "you need to do *that* to all of your demos - but when you deliver your stems and mixes, do it like your original mix." So, I don't think that it would be unfair to say that EastWest has the "Hollywood demo" or "Hollywood trailer" sound right out of the box - but to say that it's the only library that can "go there" is not correct. (For the record - I *don't* think Stefan asserted the latter)

On the other side - I can understand why some (if not most) composers desire to have a sound library that sounds a certain way right out of the box. I had a long discussion with a friend (and fellow film composer) when we were driving down the the NAMM show - and he said that he "liked" to not have to worry about reverb and mixing decisions when he uses an EW library - but he also admitted that he used Garritan, Kirk Hunter and Sonic Implants for cues that are in alternate arrangements - which is quite often by his admission. So - we both see the glass as half full - he thinks he's off the hook for making mix decisions in certain situations - and I'm thanking my lucky stars that I know enough about how a real orchestra sounds and how to get the "Hollywood trailer" sound as well as any other viable arrangement - without breaking the bank. To each his own...

I understand the predilection for something that works out of the box. Let's face it, If we could buy a washing machine that washed, dried and ironed the clothes in one go with no effort on our part, we'd be using it. (or showing the blonde groupie how to use it...)
But this raises a question. The library in question could well be set up for the CURRENT trend in american film music, but does it fare well in more individual work, and if you were to score a piece that required a different approach, would it cut the mustard? Now, most would, I guess, own more than one library, and so the 'sonic pallette' is varied. It makes sense, as a variety of work, and tools to exploit that variety is as much about keeping the interest level up, (if you are one inclined to losing interest in the mechanics of creating a score) and simply being able to say yes to more work.
I make the point about the current trend, because I've read, and heard from colleagues, that the current film music trends are getting, well, boring, in their similarity. And i think we are closer to the point where change is due. This shouldn't, to be fair, be viewed on its own, and the discussion about the validity and interest of similar themes and remakes in film itself is another discussion entirely.

And i'll also make the point that the bulk of my writing is concert stuff, so my aural requirements are specific, without film sound being the first priority. In that scenario, the library in question, based on the sound, is not in the same league as VSL, SISS, KH, or Garritan. The pianos of Worra present a viable concert opportunity too.
(Or the wonderful realism of Giovani. If there is a library that appeals directly to me as a writer of concert music with choir, children or otherwise, this one is a 'living' example. What a wonderful sound!
And i would like to mention, again to be fair, that i've had little to do with Spectrasonics, and heard good reports from some about those products too.)

Once again i make the point of 'play out of the box' as a good scenario for many, and good luck to you if that fits your requirements.
But which box? Only one? Maybe two?
Beyond the CURRENT trend in mainstream film, the aural landscape is different, and requires different tools.

Hywyn started this thread with questions about sample libraries and orchestration. I guess we should have asked what his intended uses are, as to give a more specific set of responses. But for a general library that would reasonably cover a bit of film, and still be usable in a concert or smaller ensemble setting, i believe others would be more practical, make more economic sense, and provide a better basic soundscape from which to expand. It's easier to add stuff than attempt to remove it, and in the educative process, Hywyn would, IMO, learn more from layering from the bottom up to the point he hears as 'right', than battle, trying to strip something down.
I don't wish to start a War of the Sample Libraries scenario, so i'll ignore any responses that go down this worn road.

A fellow muso has asked for opinions about a product type, and the method of use. It's only fair to give him as detailed a picture as possible.

Regards,

Alex.

[hywyn]

I introduced the notion of the Hollywood sound to illustrate the kind of hocum you get when trawling for answers on a forum. I don't mind that it's become a burning issue, but regard this as a disclaimer!

Hywyn

[hywyn]

Hywyn started this thread with questions about sample libraries and orchestration. I guess we should have asked what his intended uses are, as to give a more specific set of responses. But for a general library that would reasonably cover a bit of film, and still be usable in a concert or smaller ensemble setting, i believe others would be more practical, make more economic sense, and provide a better basic soundscape from which to expand. It's easier to add stuff than attempt to remove it, and in the educative process, Hywyn would, IMO, learn more from layering from the bottom up to the point he hears as 'right', than battle, trying to strip something down.
I don't wish to start a War of the Sample Libraries scenario, so i'll ignore any responses that go down this worn road.

A fellow muso has asked for opinions about a product type, and the method of use. It's only fair to give him as detailed a picture as possible.

Regards,

Alex.

Hi Alex, perhaps I could've expressed myself clearer at the outset. I'll be using the sample library in a modest way to begin with, very much as a textural backdrop for underscore and beds for a TV programme about Welsh Houses. Maybe I'll use the odd instrument for solo lines, - my background is a mixture of folk and electronica, so I'll play to my strengths, no doubt utilising the former for this particular job.
Best regards,
Hywyn

[Bruce A. Richardson]

The "war of the sample libraries" gets SO old, as does the tireless promotion.

I think if we'd all keep musical context foremost, the discussions could be better.

Of course, I can only speak for myself, but I get most interested when the conversation is grounded in music and musicianship, whether it's from an aesthetic or technical nature. That stimulates me. When it goes to Brand vs. Brand, and the marketspeak starts, it is no more interesting to me than a steaming coil of poo...and I find it distasteful in either the positive or negative expression. Just two different colors of crap that have little to do with the practical use of these tools.

[Mike Greene]

Whether it's SO old or not, I'm enjoying the discussion. This is a Sample Libraries Discussion forum, after all. :)

- Mike Greene

[Will Roget]

Hi Alex, perhaps I could've expressed myself clearer at the outset. I'll be using the sample library in a modest way to begin with, very much as a textural backdrop for underscore and beds for a TV programme about Welsh Houses. Maybe I'll use the odd instrument for solo lines, - my background is a mixture of folk and electronica, so I'll play to my strengths, no doubt utilising the former for this particular job.
Best regards,
Hywyn
I think that's the best way to look at things, in terms of specifics on what you'll be doing with a library... rather than questionably-meaningful generalizations about the "hollywood" vs. the "classical" sound. So like everyone says, let your ears be your guide - my recommendation is that you'll get good underscore beds from libs with a mellow tone (SI and even some GOS), you'll get nice solos from a lib with a lot of detail (VSL), and you'll get good full orchestra stuff (if you want it) from a lib that has people recorded in position (EWQL).

All in all, you'll eventually want a combination of libraries if you want full versatility, but you obviously know what specifically you want... so there isn't much point wasting time and money with stuff that doesn't suit your needs/aesthetic.

I think people get so wrapped up in battling over libraries and the personalities behind them that they just lose sight of the fact that this is all a communal project to increase the potential of electronic orchestral forces - if one developer comes up with something new and interesting, it helps everyone, it opens minds to the possibilities of MIDI realization and just adds more colors to the creative pallette. To argue politically about them is like saying "my blue dye #6 is better than your purple dye #3!" (or perhaps, "my kung fu is better than your kung fu" :n:) - sometimes you want aquamarine, sometimes you want Wing Chun.

After all, we call them synthesizers for a reason. :)

[wja]

The "war of the sample libraries" gets SO old, as does the tireless promotion.

I think if we'd all keep musical context foremost, the discussions could be better.

Of course, I can only speak for myself, but I get most interested when the conversation is grounded in music and musicianship, whether it's from an aesthetic or technical nature. That stimulates me. When it goes to Brand vs. Brand, and the marketspeak starts, it is no more interesting to me than a steaming coil of poo...and I find it distasteful in either the positive or negative expression. Just two different colors of crap that have little to do with the practical use of these tools.
Really? Isn't this forum named 'Sample Library Discussion'. Isn't this thread about sample libraries?? Is not the 'hollywood' vs 'non-hollywood' sound a valid debate concerning "musical context"? Perhaps not to you, but I don't see forum owner or moderator next to your name.

A lot of your posts lately seem to center not only on criticizing the topic itself, but the manner in which contributors express their thoughts and feelings. You reek of intellectual snobbery with your ramblings about philosophical explanations of argument, logic and reason. "Ad hominem", "Ad Verecundium", "Ad Populum"... Ad Nauseum!

It's easy. If you don't like the thread or don't have anything meaningful to add to it, then just stay out. Stop trying to control what people say and how they want to say it. Right or wrong, smart or stupid, we have the right to participate in these forums without being scolded by Bruce Almighty.

I'm don't care what "stimulates" you. How narcissistic, like we are all going to only post topics and discuss issues that get you off.

Not everyone has been on this forum for seven freaking years. Perhaps it's time for you to fade away.

[Bruce A. Richardson]

I introduced the notion of the Hollywood sound to illustrate the kind of hocum you get when trawling for answers on a forum. I don't mind that it's become a burning issue, but regard this as a disclaimer!

Hywyn

More accurately, a burning non-issue, haha...

[geronimo001]

He! Bruce, If they want you gone, that means you should stay.:D

[hywyn]

Of course, I can only speak for myself,.......

That kind of errr,....speaks for itself, doesn't it?

[Markleford]

I don't think that there is any doubt that there is a sound that many scores use.
Yeah, and it's called, "Hans Zimmer's private sample library". ;)

- m

[hywyn]

If you want to buck the unwritten convention and vent a bit as Bruce has, you are at liberty to do so. If you want to keep on about whatever your keeping on about, that's cool too. The consensus will decide.

No one should take freedom of thought, speech or the written word for granted under any circumstances, especially today, and if you don't like that kind of dogma, that's fine.

[hywyn]

my recommendation is that you'll get good underscore beds from libs with a mellow tone (SI and even some GOS), you'll get nice solos from a lib with a lot of detail (VSL), and you'll get good full orchestra stuff (if you want it) from a lib that has people recorded in position (EWQL).

All in all, you'll eventually want a combination of libraries if you want full versatility, but you obviously know what specifically you want... so there isn't much point wasting time and money with stuff that doesn't suit your needs/aesthetic.


Thanks Will! I'll check em out.
Best,
Hywyn

[jerrygerber]

I agree with Bruce. Every time I spend some time online conversing about music, the same thing happens: arrogance, bellicosity, immaturity, off-topic responses, name-calling, etc. begin to appear. Whether it be newsgroups, forums, it doesn't matter. I've watched this thread deteriorate as "black death" antagonized many people, not with any display of knowledge, imagination or craft, but simply with assertion and attack. I've seen it many times, which is why I stay away from forums and newsgroups in general. Usually when I do start a thread it's because a technical glitch has come up that I need help resolving.

I wish it wern't this way. I wish people were mature enough not to hide behind the anonymity of the web and stop assuming everyone out there is stupid or untalented. But it won't happen, given how our species is.

Sometimes my posts are a bit forceful, I certainly don't mean to discourage beginners or somewhat-beginners from developing their ideas and technique further. There are three things that in general cause me to stay away from what should be a rewarding interaction with people who are involved in music composition and production:

1. Experts who think they know everything just because they are expert at a few things in life. Bellicosity, lack of humility.

2. People who are not even close to being expert who posture as though they are. The net can tempt and encourage such bull~~~~ because there is no eye-contact or body language, therefore the subtle communication cues are lost. It is so much easier to pretend one is great at what one does then it is to actually put in the years of training and practice, courage and integrity required to master something as difficult as music composition and production.

3. People who equate fame and material success with greatness or even competency in the arts. Name-dropping for the sake of name-dropping (Ok, lets drop some names, ready? Jesus, Bach, Mozart, Einstein, Beethoven, Mahler... There, now can we all stop comparing ourselves to those "above" and "beneath" us and get on with learning?

Black Death is just another poor, insecure human being who has to face death and suffer like the rest of us. Only at this point in his life he chooses to denigrate others so he can feel like his knowledge is superior. Black Deaths are a dime a dozen, there is always someone who simply cannot deal with their insecurities and doubts in an enlightened, respectful and effective way.

There you go. My 2 cents.

Jerry Gerber
www.jerrygerber.com



The "war of the sample libraries" gets SO old, as does the tireless promotion.

I think if we'd all keep musical context foremost, the discussions could be better.

Of course, I can only speak for myself, but I get most interested when the conversation is grounded in music and musicianship, whether it's from an aesthetic or technical nature. That stimulates me. When it goes to Brand vs. Brand, and the marketspeak starts, it is no more interesting to me than a steaming coil of poo...and I find it distasteful in either the positive or negative expression. Just two different colors of crap that have little to do with the practical use of these tools.

[Markleford]

As corollary:

2b. People that don't have musical examples readily available online to back claims of expertise, or at least a shortlist CV/resume. Though I can understand that not everyone has mp3 hosting capability, this can separate talkers from doers, and it's the talkers who should be able to put up or shut up.

- m

[Hermitage59]

Hmmm. In my attempt to answer Hywyn's questions, and give him some idea of alternatives that he could consider, I seem to have been quickly relegated to a promoter of yet another sample library debate.
Apologies to those who may have been offended or irritated by my response.


Alex.

[hywyn]

Hmmm. In my attempt to answer Hywyn's questions, and give him some idea of alternatives that he could consider, I seem to have been quickly relegated to a promoter of yet another sample library debate.
Apologies to those who may have been offended or irritated by my response.


Alex.

Hey Alex, I appreciated it, sincerely! Constructive debate lives along side noisy confusion. Your clarity can not be faulted.
Hywyn