Has This Ever Happened To You?

[jerrygerber]

Occasionally, I get email from strangers, or responses from critics, that basically disapprove of a classically-trained composer working in the new medium of the virtual orchestra. Even when I get positive reviews of my work there are still those who simply don't accept the virtual orchestra as a legitimate artistic medium, a medium from which fine art can and will be produced. I imagine it is similar to when film and photography were new, photography was seen as a threat to painting, and film a threat to live plays.

So, here is my "form letter" to those who continue to be aggravated that technology is changing the way music is made, as of course it always has.

Jerry Gerber
www.jerrygerber.com

************************************************** ******
Hello,

I am tempted to become defensive and angry when someone who has never met me would be bold enough to call into question what I do. I could interpret the question as a threat, as a challenge to my legitimacy, or my expertise or knowledge.

But I will do nothing of the sort.

You seem to have the idea that as a composer who is dedicated to a new musical medium, I would presume to think that one musician could "sound as if" or "sound like" a full symphony orchestra. I have always believed and still believe it true that one musician cannot sound like two or more musicians, and should not attempt such an impossible feat. The psychological, social and spiritual energies that flow between musicians when playing are unique and should be appreciated as such.

Science and technology have put multi-timbral musical instruments in the hands of individual composers, and composers are responding. When creative musicians don't sense the enormous expressive and artistic potential of such instruments I can only conclude it is because of an excessive love of tradition, prejudice or even laziness. As a composer, It is my duty to make art, to make music as effectively as I can, and therefore I am learning well the value and limitations of these new instruments. I am also rejoycing in their vast artistic and sonic potential as well. If you could for a moment empathize with someone who actually gets profound pleasure working the way I do, perhaps you could understand.

We can both probably agree that the symphony orchestra has, by long tradition, been the default standard for multi-timbral musical expression. I am nevertheless quite open to discovering through experimentation if deep, expressive and imaginative musical results can be obtained with digital instruments. Ask me in 25 years what my answer is and I will be happy to tell you what I discovered.

If your motive is to fault me for trying, due to envy or some other emotional/spiritual aberration, nothing I can say will allow you to fully appreciate what I am doing.

But if you are sincere, and you are simply curious as to how and why a musician would devote their career and time to working nearly exclusively with computers in the studio, all I can say is follow your heart when it comes to the most personal and real music you want to make, as that is what I am doing for myself.

Best Wishes,

Jerry Gerber

[lulu]

thank you!!

i think i will "sample" your letter, and use it in my own "compositions";)

just kidding:D

[geronimo001]

Don't worry about them, they will eventualy join the 21th century:rolleyes: ,... i call them classicopath btw, they're a tight ~~~ bunch. And have a good lauft every time you open GigaStudio and think about them when you load VSL pro:D , lucky you!

[artsoundz]

classicopath- good one ,Geronimo.:D

[Hermitage59]

Jerry,
some years ago my orchestral mates and I recorded samples for each other, building small libraries we could use in composition. (I still use it now.)
We were branded traitors, and heathens, and a lot of other unsavoury stuff.
We lost work from it too, as the purists spread the word we were deliberately ringing the death knell for live orchestral musicians, and not to 'associate' with us.

Once the work starting coming from other sources though, as buyers realised what we were capable of, one by one the critics jumped on the bandwagon.
I like the letter. Seems a very articulate and elegant way of asking people to go forth and mulitply!

Regards,

Alex.

[jerrygerber]

ha ha! ;>)

For articulation's sake I would add the variation "classiopath", a bit easier to sing...

Jerry


Don't worry about them, they will eventualy join the 21th century:rolleyes: ,... i call them classicopath btw, they're a tight ~~~ bunch. And have a good lauft every time you open GigaStudio and think about them when you load VSL pro:D , lucky you!

[wes37]

"Get bent" works.

[peter269]

Jerry, there's only one, maybe two key issues:

1) Using samples guarantees you a performance of your works, something the local symphonies won't offer, much less, guarantee.

2) Income. Did you ever notice how many songs Ravel, Debussy, Faure, Vaughn Williams and Mahler wrote? Finally, you can create low voice/high orchestral voice arrangements that vocalists can buy from you.

3) Craft - working with samples to create a realistic sound requires study time in scores and relentless listening to know what things sound like as much as what they don't sound like.

[jc5]

2) Income. Did you ever notice how many songs Ravel, Debussy, Faure, Vaughn Williams and Mahler wrote? Finally, you can create low voice/high orchestral voice arrangements that vocalists can buy from you.


This is a rather intriguing statement - is there really a 'market' for original lied with sampled orchestral accompaniment?

[Fabio]

I've started working in the may be most sensless musical adventure, Early and baroque virtual music and sounds production.

Early music specialist are so proud of their live performance, accepting even records only as a self promotion and make-money tool, but considering only the concert a real noble event.
When I tell that I want sampling his sound and make music with it they look at me like a poor insane ignorant stupid. I need to tell that I was a musicologist and a real performer for a long time, to convince about a little of educated intelligence in my work.

I'll never produce any concert or live event with my project of course. But I'll have the chance of give back life to old nearly unknown scores, without long rare musician recruitement, exausting rehersals, lot of money to pay and boring concert organization.

I will mould the interpretation as I want, avoiding annoying discussion with soloist that impose his vision, habits, his teacher "ipse dixit" thougts, and so on.

And if technology keep his trend, I'm certain I will produce in a near future excellent records, competing in quality and historical accuracy with real players recordings, or maybe better, if real performers are playing with sterile set of few articulation, following strange '70s theory about ancient music (frozen sound, no expressions, no vibrato, no rubato ...) less expressive than a MIDI sequence!

Yes my old professors had not approved my work. It's as wrong as Jurassic Park experiments...a plastic inorganic monster, a cold frankenstein of music, an insult to people spending long time in old instrument practice and interpretation study...NO! I don't believe. I studied a lot, I spend hours in sound refinement and life inflating in digital sequences.

I think my work is as noble and educated as the work of specialist performers. Only based on different tools, the only tools I have now and I can easily master.

The future will tell us if we were wrong. I'm confident we aren't.

[LHall]

Create with passion. Work with integrity. Always strive for excellence above all.

Do this, and there will never be a need to apologize, defend yourself or explain yourself to anyone.

[FredProgGH]

Create with passion. Work with integrity. Always strive for excellence above all.

I agree, unless there's a proper amount of money involved. :D

[Houston Haynes]

This kind of thing always strikes me as funny.

I see the liner notes for GOS, SSV and JABB and read how Garritan managed to get some of the best musicians to let him sample some of the best instruments in the world. In many instances, these are the same players you'll hear on top-tier albums, soundtracks and in live performances at world-class venues. These are not marginal players or professional unknowns - these are credentialed professionals at the top of their field that have offered their expertise to the art and craft of sampling.

So - why are there world-class musicians (and even instrument manufacturers, in some cases) bringing their best efforts if it was as fruitless as their oficianados pretend? OK - that was a rhetorical question but you get my point.

Obviously, the people that communicate their ignorance of the larger picture are betraying themselves without knowing it. I'm sure these same people have some movie soundtrack CD on the shelf that's largely made up of samples, and they don't even know it - or care. In a few years time, anyone will be able to mockup a virtual performance that will rival any live performance. And when that happens, even those snobs will join in - the only difference is that you'll be *years* ahead of the game, technically and musically. Let them be ignorant - it will be their loss.

[wja]

Well, I might be one of those 'classiopaths'. I think the comparisons of photography to paintings, film to live plays, is a bit flawed. I don't believe the former intended to replace or mimic the latter at all, but were simply new means of artistic expression. After all, art and stage productions are still very much alive and doing well. If anything, I'd say film is in a bit of trouble these days.

Composers who use virtual orchestras, in an attempt to emulate and supplant a natural orchestral sound, are engaging in pure folly. Sample libraries, no matter what the quality, are a very poor substitute for the real thing. At this time, they are useful merely for doing mock-ups, and all the tweaking and manipulation to make them sound real is a waste of time that could better be spent actually composing.

Far more interesting, and yet very much unexplored, is the 'unnatural' use of orchestral samples. We no longer need to be concerned with the human physical limits of an instrument's playability. French horns can now play as fast, and without regard to 'impossible to play' intervals and leaps, as violins. We can divisi the sections as though there were hundreds of instruments, extend ranges, and create new articulations that don't exist in 'natural' sound. Impossible in the real world, but with an adequate sequencer and computer, no problem.

With samples, there is a real opprortunity to create something new with traditional orchestral sounds, not just use them as they have been used since the 19th century. I think samples can make a true and sustained contribution to the musical landscape for generations to come, not by imitation, but through innovation.

[FredProgGH]

Bruce, that you?? :p

Look, here's an idea: why doesn't everyone take their samples and do whatever the @$@# they feel like doing with them. Try to sound like a traditional orchestra? Great! Run a viola section through a fuzzbox? Rock on!! Make a recording of hitting yourself in the head with the box it came in?? NOW you're talking! And why don't we try not giving a cr@p what the next guy is doing with his sample library?? "Get your morality out of my sampler!!" Uh, that's a paraphrase of course :D

[Houston Haynes]

I had a feeling that the painting-versus-photo or stageplay-versus-movie comparison would come up... and I'm a bit unsure if those comparisons apply across the board.

I'm also not sure that "make your own statement" applies either, if you're mocking up Beethoven's 5th Symphony with an ear toward making it as realistic as possible. Even when you're doing the next sci-fi thriller theme, you're still going to be using virtual acoustic instruments from their core reference point - lest you lose the "connection" to the real instrument that it is supposedly to evoke. I don't know of a single musical musician (snob or otherwise) that would listen to an instrument being played completely out of its tessatura and think it was an artistic statement. Hell - there are plenty of acoustic musicians that torture themselves to drive their instrument to make sounds out of the tessatura and *I* don't think it's music.

It really comes down to what kind of artistic reference you're making. If you're venturing out into your own, one would think that no one would be the wiser where your instrumental "inspiration" comes from - and the snobs would never see you "on their radar". However - I think that if you're trying to emulate an orchestra - comparisons are fair. Their reactions, on the other hand, may not be.

[wja]

In a few years time, anyone will be able to mockup a virtual performance that will rival any live performance. And when that happens, even those snobs will join in - the only difference is that you'll be *years* ahead of the game, technically and musically. Let them be ignorant - it will be their loss.
If "anyone will be able to mockup a virtual performance that will rival any live performance" then that pretty much eliminates your value as a composer, doesn't it?

I'll offer up an even more depressing thought for all you media composers. Music libraries will take over everything in a few years. They'll have a staff of low paid composers/programmers that pump out cliche action, adventure, romantic, horror, suspense cues that will be bundled in a software program that directors or music supervisors can just plug into their film/TV as needed. Actually, this is already here pretty much.

Just as health care has been corporatized in this country, so will media music. Aside from a few dozen big budget films made each year, most will simply and cost effectively just go with a library to meet their needs. After all, it's just music - not that important to a film or TV show's success.

[Houston Haynes]

If "anyone will be able to mockup a virtual performance that will rival any live performance" then that pretty much eliminates your value as a composer, doesn't it?

I'll offer up an even more depressing thought for all you media composers. Music libraries will take over everything in a few years. They'll have a staff of low paid composers/programmers that pump out cliche action, adventure, romantic, horror, suspense cues that will be bundled in a software program that directors or music supervisors can just plug into their film/TV as needed. Actually, this is already here pretty much.

Just as health care has been corporatized in this country, so will media music. Aside from a few dozen big budget films made each year, most will simply and cost effectively just go with a library to meet their needs. After all, it's just music - not that important to a film or TV show's success.


OK - you've made your point - I didn't mean "anyone" in the general public sense - but more to the tune of "anyone with the musical skills to realize a full orchestration" - which of course is a completely different animal. And while we're here - I never said anything about convincing realism being reached with samples - that just happens to be what we use in large part today.

As far as the productizing and corporate packaging of music - and ex-ing out musicians and composers in the process... that's been going on for decades, and shows no signs of abating. The only real answer is to continue to adapt and expect change to continue.

[jerrygerber]

But what you are calling innovation I call trivial. Having a sampled horn play notes faster than a real horn can do? Having a sampled basson play 1000 notes without a breath? Having a flute play down to e3? OK, all this can be done with samples, but in and of itself won't make for an interesting composition. By saying that composers are engaged in "an attempt to emulate and supplant a natural orchestral sound" reveals a lack of understanding on your part. There is nothing natural about the symphony orchestra. Trombones, bells, cellos and bassons are not found in nature. They are conceived, designed, and improved upon by trial and error. It is wrong to think that music made with bone, animal gut, wood or metal is any more "natural" than music made with electrons. In fact, your heart is beating and your brain is functioning because of electrical energy.

It sounds like you're objecting not to the use of samples, but the fact that composers use the multi-timbral orchestral model as a point of interesection from which to develop and produce their art. If you have a problem with that, just don't do it.

If composers are to create something new with samples, other than "19th century" sounds, it won't be because of the samples of orchestral instruments, it will be because of their understanding and use of harmony, texture, counterpoint, rhythm and meter. 17th, 18th, 19th and 20th century orchestral music is vastly different, partly because of instrument evolution and additions, but largely because of new approaches to harmony, form and the expansion of the major-minor system.

The virtual orchestra won't put the traditional orchestra out of business, nobody wants it to. It's another option to produce multi-timbral works with many instruments. Some composers will do it well, some not. Some will contribute innovation in form or texture, some in harmony or rhythm. It appears that you view the orchestra and orchestral music as kind of a monolith, but in fact both the institution and the music written for it has been in a state of change from the beginning.

As far as my comparison with photography, there were those who declared it "unnatural" (compared with painting). It is a meaningless argument. Just because something has somewhat of a long cultural tradition doesn't make it natural.

Jerry Gerber




Well, I might be one of those 'classiopaths'. I think the comparisons of photography to paintings, film to live plays, is a bit flawed. I don't believe the former intended to replace or mimic the latter at all, but were simply new means of artistic expression. After all, art and stage productions are still very much alive and doing well. If anything, I'd say film is in a bit of trouble these days.

Composers who use virtual orchestras, in an attempt to emulate and supplant a natural orchestral sound, are engaging in pure folly. Sample libraries, no matter what the quality, are a very poor substitute for the real thing. At this time, they are useful merely for doing mock-ups, and all the tweaking and manipulation to make them sound real is a waste of time that could better be spent actually composing.

Far more interesting, and yet very much unexplored, is the 'unnatural' use of orchestral samples. We no longer need to be concerned with the human physical limits of an instrument's playability. French horns can now play as fast, and without regard to 'impossible to play' intervals and leaps, as violins. We can divisi the sections as though there were hundreds of instruments, extend ranges, and create new articulations that don't exist in 'natural' sound. Impossible in the real world, but with an adequate sequencer and computer, no problem.

With samples, there is a real opprortunity to create something new with traditional orchestral sounds, not just use them as they have been used since the 19th century. I think samples can make a true and sustained contribution to the musical landscape for generations to come, not by imitation, but through innovation.

[jerrygerber]

Just as health care has been corporatized in this country, so will media music. Aside from a few dozen big budget films made each year, most will simply and cost effectively just go with a library to meet their needs. After all, it's just music - not that important to a film or TV show's success.


Have you ever considered that not all composers using sample libraries are doing commercial music for tv, films or computer games? You're associating new tools with the economic system under which the are produced. Not the same.

Jerry Gerber

[Houston Haynes]

As far as my comparison with photography, there were those who declared it "unnatural" (compared with painting). It is a meaningless argument. Just because something has somewhat of a long cultural tradition doesn't make it natural.

While I agree with you - and believe I understand the comparison you're drawing, I think that it has its limits for this discussion. No one today is going to take a photograph of the Mona Lisa and substitute it for the real thing and then parade people around the print saying that it's a master painting.

The comparison also fails in that human perception and memory is different with the sole input is auditory. Memory, pattern recognition, information processing - all of them are very different when we're talking about the transition of sound through time, as opposed to visual cues (as in an art exhibit) or audio-visual cues (as with a stage play). I think we have more than one instance where very, very few people would be able to discern a live performance from a mockup in a double-blind test. That trend will only continue as tools and techniques improve. Of course - live orchestral performance has it's visual elements too - which I believe that some oficianados attempt to attach musical significance to that aspect when it's more apt to categorize it as placebo effect.

As far as historical intolerance is concerned - you're right on the money. I remember reading about a live orchestral performance almost causing a riot because it involved "mundane" objects as sound producing elements...

:rolleyes:

It's all the same - only the calibration of people's tolerance for "different" changes.

Great topic and discussion, by the way.

[Nick Batzdorf]

It is wrong to think that music made with bone, animal gut, wood or metal is any more "natural" than music made with electrons. In fact, your heart is beating and your brain is functioning because of electrical energy.

That's an interesting point, actually, and I never thought of it that way. Nonetheless, I think we're all aware of the obvious difference between vibrating speakers and vibrating instruments, at least in live performance.

But I'd be the last person to argue that acoustic instruments are more natural.

[wja]

But what you are calling innovation I call trivial. Having a sampled horn play notes faster than a real horn can do? Having a sampled basson play 1000 notes without a breath? Having a flute play down to e3? OK, all this can be done with samples, but in and of itself won't make for an interesting composition. By saying that composers are engaged in "an attempt to emulate and supplant a natural orchestral sound" reveals a lack of understanding on your part. There is nothing natural about the symphony orchestra.
Jerry Gerber
Well, you misunderstood, or perhaps I misguided you in that 'natural' meaning the organic or indigenous use of an instrument, not that it occurs in nature.

And why would you say innovation is trivial. Mozart wrote 'impossible' parts in his day, he pushed the orchestra, and it's instruments and players, to extremes unheard of before his time. You embrace all the technology of samples/computers/electronics but use them in less fashion then he?

I don't understand using samples 'traditionally' unless you intend them to be played live eventually. They will never, ever sound as good so why try.

I've listened to your music, GPO winners, VSL, EW - it doesn't matter. They are fine compositions and sound very nice, but they are not even close to the real thing. This is probably my failing as I attend live concerts and listen to recordings of real orchestras so perhaps my ears just have not adjusted to the sampled orchestra. And I hope they never do.

[Houston Haynes]

This is probably my failing as I attend live concerts and listen to recordings of real orchestras so perhaps my ears just have not adjusted to the sampled orchestra. And I hope they never do.

OK then - have a nice day.

:|:

[jerrygerber]

[QUOTE=Houston Haynes]While I agree with you - and believe I understand the comparison you're drawing, I think that it has its limits for this discussion. No one today is going to take a photograph of the Mona Lisa and substitute it for the real thing and then parade people around the print saying that it's a master painting.


Yes, which is why we should make the distinction I suppose, between musicians who are using samples to re-create a Mozart symphony, from one who is creating original works for that medium. Your point about no one confusing the Mona Lisa with a photograph of one is right, but do paintings of individual persons preclude photographers from taking masterful and beautiful portraits of persons? We accept that although painting and photography can go very different directions, they both can capture to some degree, the essence of a person, or nature as Ansel Adams did. Yet there are those censors and artistic conservatives who are trying to tell us that it is foolish or ridiculous to take the virtual orchestra as a serious musical medium, in which fine works have been produced and are being produced. There are those who say "forget about everything you know about music, about orchestration, about harmony and try something new because you are using a new medium".

All of the CDs coming out of SEAMUS are from musicians and sound designers who have decided long ago that music concrete was the real beginnings of electronic music and that tradition continues, sometimes with good works coming on the scene. This school of thought sees that there are no divisions of the octave into 12 parts, infinite frequencies exist between a half-step. There is no use for many of the devices of music composition, I would say it is closer to sound design rather than music. But those musicians who are creating new music with electronics must be free in their imaginations, and are going to do it any way they have to, whether it be for film, television or one's innermost most sincere and maddening artistic vision.

I wonder if the critics of the new orchestra recognize how good Bach sounds when Wendy Carlos produced Switched on Bach some 30 years go. Bach's music sounds good on harpsichord, piano, organ and synthesizer because it is pure music, it transcends medium and conveys pure abstract musical thought, truly the inner workings of the musical mind. Our ideas are supposed to take precedence over our medium because all mediums on this planet are imperfect. It is the human expression, the work, put into the medium that a person either appreciates or they don't. Those who understand the least usually are trapped in the judgement-making part of their brain.

One person can say "what you do is a waste of time, I see no value in it". What does this person possibly know about such matters? Creative people provoke very contradictory reactions in us because each one of is is a duality, with cross purposes and complex lives. The fear of beauty is real, the fear of how awesome the cosmos is must be repressed in order to function sanely in the rational world, and dribbles of this fear comes through our opinions quite often. No one knows much at all about where music is going in the future, and how it will get there. Cynicism about the crass commerciality of media (or should I say fascist-directed corporate media) would be wise to appreciate there are many people out there with high ideals and new ideas who are outside that world. And there are brilliant, idealists inside that world as well. It isn't black and white and never was.

Jerry Gerber
www.jerrygerber.com

[jerrygerber]

I attend live concerts and listen to recordings of real orchestras so perhaps my ears just have not adjusted to the sampled orchestra. And I hope they never do.

Well hats off to you, you're ears are stuck in the 19th century, as you accuse virtual orchestra composers are being. The fact that you hope you never learn to appreciate something fine, something with beauty, texture, harmony and skillful effort says more about you than about the medium you reject. No matter the advances in digital technologies, in sampling (the VSL library is sinply gorgeous but you wouldn't care about that) you'll always love the orchestra, you'll cling to it tightly, you'll possess it and tranfer your whole identity to it for the imaginary power it gives you, the timeless pleasure it affords.

Pushing limits of instruments as Mozart did is great because Mozart did it with taste and genius. Mozart was one of the great geniuses of music, we can agree on that. But listening to people pluck the inside of the piano just because they can is a pretty desperate attempt to explore new timbres, taste and genius be damned. So what I was trying to explain to you was that techniques such as using timbres in new ways isn't just done on the micro level but how they are used in harmony with other timbres. There's the techniques of the piece, and then there is the spirit of the piece, that a serious composer always puts there.

I empathize with your frustration with the struggling beginnngs of electronic instruments (flute, prehistoric, FM7 3 years) I just handle the frustration very differently than you. I confront and realize possibilities, you reject and judge.

Jerry

[jerrygerber]

Create with passion. Work with integrity. Always strive for excellence above all.

Do this, and there will never be a need to apologize, defend yourself or explain yourself to anyone.

Except when you need a job ;>)

[Houston Haynes]

Your point about no one confusing the Mona Lisa with a photograph of one is right, but do paintings of individual persons preclude photographers from taking masterful and beautiful portraits of persons? We accept that although painting and photography can go very different directions, they both can capture to some degree, the essence of a person, or nature as Ansel Adams did.

Again - we agree on almost every count. And it's funny, because I was thinking of both Ansel Adams's photography and Georgia O'Keefe's paintings - both of which had a strong initial counter-reaction before they "caught on". My wife is an artist, and of course I'm the musician of the family - and we both have starkly different views of "Americana". I just wrote a quick blurb on "Orchestral Americana" for my site - and after she proof-read it, she said "I had no idea..." That's when she brought out the art and photography books that typify that period, and I brought out my Carl Sandburg music collection, along with Copland, Gershwin, Ives, Barber, and the rest. We both were using the same word - but brought to it vastly differing experiences and perspectives. I believe that those who cling to "live" performance of classical music as the *only* viable mode of expression are simply growing accustomed to today's virtual performances - and as the virtual instruments improve (and the skill of those in the medium also increases) that the objections will fall away gradually. In fact, I believe that they already have - at least in art forms where the visual cues of live performance are secondary or non-existant, such as film and video games. So, the ground that the "live" supremecists has been eroding for years, and they are simply pointing it out in the few places where the differences are obvious.

As far as SEAMUS is concerned, from my perspective - there's good art and bad art in that area of music and sound exploration - and I'm glad that it doesn't even attempt to feign a connection to previous modes of musical instrument expression. However, we shouldn't confuse it with superceding or in any way comparing to musical performance that's driven by traditional instruments in an idiomatic performance. They're dealing with levels of abstraction that don't relate to traditional music - and indeed is a place where it would parallel the comparison of art photographs to fine oil paintings. But I believe that the best electronic music is that which expresses human gesture and intent. It doesn't necessarily have to be an acoustic instrument emulation - but it does have to translate the same expressive capacity. Otherwise it's little more than a machine making a sound, like a refrigerator or a car engine. In fact, one of the things that makes "Switched on Bach" so *convincing* is the fact that it emulates an instrument (harpsichord) that is in and of itself rather *non*expressive. As soon as you get into emulation of instruments that can change dynamically in their attack, timbre, and expression throught the length of the note - things get to be very, very difficult. That's because the "points of contact" between an electronic musical instrument and the performer tend to be fewer and often under more direct control that belies the complex and intuitive modes of control that musicians develop with acoustic instruments over years of practice.

So, I think that the SEAMUS types tend to skirt the entire issue by avoiding the pratfalls and simply focus on the things they *can* do well and leave the difficult problems of interpreting human gesture and expression to someone else. They want something they can hang their hat on, and it's frustrating to deal with the types of problems that people in NS forums try to solve every day. But more immediate forms of musical gratification are on the way. To a certain degree, scripting logic can handle some of that - where the interpretation of MIDI events translates a more complex behavior for a sampled instrument (again, the Stradivari Solo Violin is a fine example). And likewise, we're seeing much better physical models of instruments (like the new trumpet and trombone in Arturia's BRASS instruments) that follow the acoustic properties of instruments very closely, and allow some level of gestural control to direct the instrument (their breath controller response needs some work, but with practice the results are very convincing - and occasionally startling).

So I don't think it's about choosing sides (though people often do) but more of waiting for technology to catch up to our needs and continuing to work on music in the mean time. I've heard lots of "modern" music played by acoustic instruments that would be much better off coming out of a well-programmed synthesizer...

:D

[Theodor]

A photograph of Mona Lisa is not the right comparison to a mock-up of a classical piece. The right comparison would be the recording of a classical piece, since both the recording and photo attempt to truthfuly capture reality at the moment.

[jerrygerber]

A photograph of Mona Lisa is not the right comparison to a mock-up of a classical piece. The right comparison would be the recording of a classical piece, since both the recording and photo attempt to truthfuly capture reality at the moment.


True, but what about an expertly sequenced, mixed, recorded and mastered version of a Brandenburg Concerto? Is this a closer attempt to truthfully capture reality? Maybe not the reality of the performance, but certainly the reality of the realization of the composition. It is a different kind of performance, a non real-time performance if you will. But intent and gesture--expression and contrast, these are the values that must come through by whatever medium the musician choose to work in.

Jerry Gerber

[jerrygerber]

A photograph of Mona Lisa is not the right comparison to a mock-up of a classical piece. The right comparison would be the recording of a classical piece, since both the recording and photo attempt to truthfuly capture reality at the moment.


True, but what about an expertly sequenced, mixed, recorded and mastered version of a Brandenburg Concerto? Is this a closer attempt to truthfully capture reality? Maybe not the reality of the performance, but certainly the reality of the realization of the composition. It is a different kind of performance, a non real-time performance if you will. But intent and gesture--expression and contrast, these are the values that must come through by whatever medium the musician choose to work in.

Jerry Gerber

[SeanHannifin]

You know... I've actually never met anyone that disapproved of the virtual orchestra... most people I meet are astounded to learn it even exists at the quality it does. :D

But if I ever do meet the opposing side, I'll be ready :samurai: :D

[Hermitage59]

So what makes a good sample performance?

The question itself is irrelevant. It's us who make the distinction because we know. And how do we know one performance from another, sample versus live?
Because we rely on musicality and predefined parameters learnt and heard over a period of time, be it from childhood when parents are playing their favourite records over and over, or as we grow and develop our own tastes, the music we connect to, and like. And as teenagers, we listened to stuff our peers liked because it was important at the time for most to belong to something, like a group, or gang, or some other reflection of tribe, eager to prove we were worthy, and individuals, making our own choices (often the same as our peers for acceptance sake, or to catch the eye of someone we admired!;)

We can hear when someone doesn't do it well.

A badly performed sample work is just that. But who can define a good performance when compared to a live equivalent. Is the comparison fair? Should our version of Bach be any less credible than one performed by live musicians on a stage, if we've performed it to a high standard?
No.
But it's heard and perceived that way because, as Houston said, the aural/visual experience is an entity of itself, and it's as much dressing up, and going somewhere to SEE an experience, as it is to hear the music.
As a former orchestral player, I was always amused at the prancing and jockeying for superiority that went on before a concert started as the punters looked around surreptitiously at each other, comparing clothes, manner of stance, etc.
And i suspect many turned up for this reason, and not always to listen to the music. It was as important to them to be seen, as it was to appreciate the skills of the musicians.
Intermission was especially amusing, as many would attempt to pontificate intelligently about the musicians' skills and interpretation in the first half, and if one wandered from one group to another, one could hear the same things being said that seemed remarkedly similar to the latest critic's comments. Lines rehearsed to impress.

The advantage that orchestral music in particular has when performed live is history, and VISUALl expectation. But apart from this, there is no reason a sampled performance can't sound great in it's own right, and have it's own credibility, PROVIDED the composer/performer has the requisite skills.
And the preconceived idea of live, coupled with the comparatively recent availability of sample libraries are the real reasons sample performance is in its infancy, and has yet to gain the credibility that live performance enjoys.
Sample performing is no different to live in mechanical construct, any more than Jimi Hendrix playing a guitar is different to Brian May's playing ability and interpretation. The difference lays in the actual performance, and as we work hard to improve our abilities, practising the use and craft of sample playing, so our work will improve. Let's not forget, a violin player who's reached an extremely high standard has been working for years to gain that excellence. That's just one instrument. We're expecting to achieve an equivalent standard of excellence playing 20 or 30.
Bu just what are we trying to achieve? The emulation of 'live'?
Should that be the goal? Are we by our sense of familiarity and goal perception actually limiting opportunity? Why do we talk of samples not sounding as good as live? Shouldn't we reconsider that oft posed question, and ponder if, 'that performance sounded different'?

And it's my opinion, as i mentioned earlier, that live performance with all the dressings, has the edge, ONLY because we as performers are still learning how to manage sample instruments to a consistently high standard, and the history of repetition.
I guess we're asking ourselves to become 'super composers', with an intimate knowledge of all our instruments, and the method of performance.
Mozart, Beethoven, Tchaikovsky, etc, certainly knew the instruments of their orchestra well. But they didn't perform with everyone of them, as we expect ourselves to do. I've spent 30 plus years studying and learning, trying to understand in depth, the vagaries and techniques of orchestral instruments. I can safely say, although i have a fairly large pool of knowledge, I have only scratched the surface of the combined database, contained in the heads of an entire orchestra. And yet, we make comparisons based on this presumption. Those sampled strings are fake. That flute doesn't sound right.
What's right?

The analogy was made between a painting and a photograph. Why does a painting generally have more street cred than a photo? Because the majority of people who view paintings have seen, or can see, the process by which that work came about. They can go to their local shop and buy paints and brushes. So they can also appreciate, even if they don,t have the same skills, the determination and creativity that goes into 'bringing to life a work of art.
Put the paint on the brush, apply to the canvas, voila.
A photo comes to life when the average person pushes the button.
They know they have to change the film, or batteries, but in the actual process of converting that captured image, most people are ignorant of darkrooms, chemicals, film speed, light management, etc.
They don't make the same connection.
It's still the case that paintings, with all the work and effort that goes into creating an image, something the average person has an understanding of, has an edge over taking a photo, most often perceived as 'the capture of a memory'. And the fact that they can take a pretty good photo gives photos less cred too. It's a lot harder to paint a masterpiece than click a button. (Aside from the subjective view of whether a piece is a masterpiece or not)

Hearing live music, be it attending a performance or listening to a CD is an experience to be remembered and 'memorised', with the perception of an orchestra or band full of players actually expending effort and applying knowledge to produce the sound.
The sample performance, because of it's relative infancy, doesn't register, and as yet, can't compete with that perception, because the listener doesn't connect to it. There's no familiarity in it to apply as an aural benchmark, or foundation. It's ridiculous, yes, as WE know musicians have recorded those snippets of sound. But the average punter doesn't know, and although they have a computer at home, and can read email, they don't acquaint music production with using the same tools.

They'll hear the sound if you played it to them, and remark how 'live' it sounds, but it still won't sink into their consciousness to any depth, as the image in their head while you play, is a performer sitting on a stage others, all in physical motion.

It's that perception that feeds so many remarks,(from us musicians in particular) commenting on the 'sound live' versus 'sound sampled' discussion, when in reality, we would be fairer and more objective to comment about the level of skill from a performer, be it sampled or otherwise.
I once made a comment in critique about the work of a fellow musician and someone I have great deal of respect and admiration for, Jay Bacal, in which I clarified a sample versus live performance. I got jumped on vigorously from others, who assumed I was being disparaging in some way, with all the assumptions of the points above.
I meant it then, and still do now, as a compliment from a peer, recognising that with HIS instrument, a sampled library, Jay had, in my view, performed to an excellence i both admired and enjoyed.

We're actually trying to compare a live orchestra or ensemble, used in some form or other for 400+ years, with a NEW instrument (the sample library) barely 20 or 25 years old in it's current form.
And that doesn't really make sense to me.

Regards,

Alex.

[Houston Haynes]

It's that perception that feeds so many remarks,(from us musicians in particular) commenting on the 'sound live' versus 'sound sampled' discussion, when in reality, we would be fairer and more objective to comment about the level of skill from a performer, be it sampled or otherwise.
I once made a comment in critique about the work of a fellow musician and someone I have great deal of respect and admiration for, Jay Bacal, in which I clarified a sample versus live performance. I got jumped on vigorously from others, who assumed I was being disparaging in some way, with all the assumptions of the points above.
I meant it then, and still do now, as a compliment from a peer, recognising that with HIS instrument, a sampled library, Jay had, in my view, performed to an excellence i both admired and enjoyed.

We're actually trying to compare a live orchestra or ensemble, used in some form or other for 400+ years, with a NEW instrument (the sample library) barely 20 or 25 years old in it's current form.
And that doesn't really make sense to me.

Again - I feel that if the object of the virtual instrument performance is to emulate a sound that's been around for 400 years - with an aim to compare favorably - then I think that pointing out the shortcomings is fair. But if we really want to be fair, we could point out that there are *FAR* more crappy live performances perpetrated on an unsuspecting public than anything done in the virtual world.

:samurai:

What is *not* fair is the summary judgement that even to *attempt* such a feat is tantamount to blasphemy. Virtual instrument performances will continue to become better at an ever-increasing rate - bad live players might never improve.

:n:

I was just re-reading my notes on "Orchestral Americana" and realized something that has been bandied about many times at NS forums before... so many of the musical giants of the early and mid 20th century were transfixed by discovering new sounds and new approaches to composition... and to whit - Joseph Schillinger, composition instructor to Glenn Miller, Benny Goodman, George Gershwin and even film legend Carmine Coppola - wrote a treatise "Electricity: The Liberator of Music" back in 1931. I wonder how many vaunted 20th century composers (like Stravinsky, Bartok, Hindamith, Milaud - that so many oficianados keep cloistered in some ivory tower) would be doing what we're doing today if they were alive and presented with he same opportunities? What about Beethoven, Mozart? I believe that we here know the composer's mind better than any classical music audiophile... and are sure in our heart of hearts what the answer would be... that's why I don't put much stock in the opinions from parts unknown that are more interested in forcing their view of what "should be" on the rest of the world - they're just another form of Fascist.

[Hermitage59]

Again - I feel that if the object of the virtual instrument performance is to emulate a sound that's been around for 400 years - with an aim to compare favorably - then I think that pointing out the shortcomings is fair.

I can't argue with this, Houston. But i will ask if the comparison was the intention of the performer, or the assumption on the part of the listener.
If the performer has intended to perform an older work as a entity in it's own right with his choice of instrument (e.g. a sample library), then should we consider that when offering comments?


But if we really want to be fair, we could point out that there are *FAR* more crappy live performances perpetrated on an unsuspecting public than anything done in the virtual world.

Totally agree with this one!


What is *not* fair is the summary judgement that even to *attempt* such a feat is tantamount to blasphemy. Virtual instrument performances will continue to become better at an ever-increasing rate - bad live players might never improve.

And I agree with this one. I think we're getting closer to a point where gifted and talented sample performers will have such a grasp of their 'instrument' as to perform with as much class as an orchestra of excellence,



I was just re-reading my notes on "Orchestral Americana" and realized something that has been bandied about many times at NS forums before... so many of the musical giants of the early and mid 20th century were transfixed by discovering new sounds and new approaches to composition... and to whit - Joseph Schillinger, composition instructor to Glenn Miller, Benny Goodman, George Gershwin and even film legend Carmine Coppola - wrote a treatise "Electricity: The Liberator of Music" back in 1931. I wonder how many vaunted composers (that so many oficianados keep cloistered in some ivory tower) would be doing what we're doing today if they were alive and presented with he same opportunities?

I think great composers of any era would jump at the chance to expand even further the opportunities of creating new sounds and combinations.
I can realistically imagine Beethoven, taken out of the environment he lived in and put in the 20th century, would find it liberating. Let's not forget many of the greats of the past were often restrained in their output as a result of the acceptability and neccessary patronage of the day. The tale of the 'unprepared dominant 7th' springs to mind! The view of 'sustained purity' belligerently defended by the 'elitists' is a product of their own desire to cling together as a 'club', to the exclusion of others.

regards,

Alex.

[Houston Haynes]

The tale of the 'unprepared dominant 7th' springs to mind! The view of 'sustained purity' belligerently defended by the 'elitists' is a product of their own desire to cling together as a 'club', to the exclusion of others.

Nicolas Slonimsky's "The Lexicon of Musical Invective" would put a lot of musical minds at ease. It's a compilation of all of the scathing reviews that innovative musical works (now considered "classic" and part of the standard repetoire) have received throughout history. It's truly an enlightening read.

[Daryl]

Again - I feel that if the object of the virtual instrument performance is to emulate a sound that's been around for 400 years - with an aim to compare favorably - then I think that pointing out the shortcomings is fair. But if we really want to be fair, we could point out that there are *FAR* more crappy live performances perpetrated on an unsuspecting public than anything done in the virtual world.
A lot of truth in that, however the standard of composition one hears with sample based composition is on average nothing like that of the "masters" that most of the live performances are attempting.

I think great composers of any era would jump at the chance to expand even further the opportunities of creating new sounds and combinations.
I can realistically imagine Beethoven, taken out of the environment he lived in and put in the 20th century, would find it liberating. Let's not forget many of the greats of the past were often restrained in their output as a result of the acceptability and neccessary patronage of the day. The tale of the 'unprepared dominant 7th' springs to mind! The view of 'sustained purity' belligerently defended by the 'elitists' is a product of their own desire to cling together as a 'club', to the exclusion of others.

regards,

Alex.
Yes and no. Don't forget that for the majority of Western Musical history (and most other musical history) composers were first and foremost performers, and that is the bit that I miss by using samples.

D

[Houston Haynes]

A lot of truth in that, however the standard of composition one hears with sample based composition is on average nothing like that of the "masters" that most of the live performances are attempting.

Agreed - but I think we're talking about mockups of works that are in the standard repetoire - not comparing new compositions to old. Surely, again - even with that yardstick - the unfairness shines through, as we do not get to hear the myriad compositions that were written during Beethoven's time that never made it this far into history... if you know what I mean. Hindsight bias makes this part of the discussion almost pointless.


Yes and no. Don't forget that for the majority of Western Musical history (and most other musical history) composers were first and foremost performers, and that is the bit that I miss by using samples.

D

Hmmm... not sure that I totally agree here. I was an orchestral trombonist and played euphonium in bands for years - also played keyboards since I was eight and performed for audiences of nearly every size (no stadiums). I find that the ability of today's instruments can capture nearly as much gesture as I could instill (or inflict, if you're sitting in front of me) in my trombone performances.

However - on the broader point you are correct - there are lots of folks that are just putting the veneer of performance control into their mockups, and the lack of dimension shows through. But then again - that's part and parcel to the new way of learning and understanding how to close the gap - it's certainly not a reason to abandon the process altogether.

Not all acoustic performances are equal - not all virtual performances are equal.

[Daryl]

Hmmm... not sure that I totally agree here. I was an orchestral trombonist and played euphonium in bands for years - also played keyboards since I was eight and performed for audiences of nearly every size (no stadiums). I find that the ability of today's instruments can capture nearly as much gesture as I could instill (or inflict, if you're sitting in front of me) in my trombone performances.
But that's just you. I have never yet heard a sample performance by anyone that comes close to what I can do live on an instrument. I'm not trying to diss sample performances by any means, it's just because I have a wealth of performing experience, I always feel that there is something missing when dealing with samples.

D

[jerrygerber]

[QUOTE=wja]
I've listened to your music, GPO winners, VSL, EW - it doesn't matter. QUOTE]


And therein you reveal your ignorance and insensitivity to sound. Firstly, I've never released a piece using VSL as I just got the library a few weeks ago. Finally, The fact that you cannot or will not discriminate between these libraries shows a lack of sophistication on your part. If you're not interested in this medium, why hang around here and attack people who are? What do you expect to gain?

Jerry Gerber
www.jerrygerber.com

[Houston Haynes]

But that's just you. I have never yet heard a sample performance by anyone that comes close to what I can do live on an instrument. I'm not trying to diss sample performances by any means, it's just because I have a wealth of performing experience, I always feel that there is something missing when dealing with samples.

D

I'd be willing bet a months' salary that there have been virtual performances that have flown past your ears without you thinking for a second that they're not real... it's just that when you hear a sample mock-up that falls short - you go *AHA* and presume that every time you hear a sampled render that it will stick out the same way.

Again, I contend that there's little difference between embracing great performances and shunning mediocre or sub-par live play - except with top-tier virtual performances we simply "accept" them and let them slide on by without a second notice, and krinkle our noses at mock-up artists that are still "getting their legs" using libraries that don't pass muster. So in the end the comparison will always be unfair simply because we pick and choose what we remember.

Everyone has their own personal slide rule by which to judge the world - I won't begrudge anyone their right to cling to their cherished opinions as long as they accept that there will be those like me who will challenge their beliefs and assumptions at nearly every turn.

:)

[Daryl]

I'd be willing bet a months' salary that there have been virtual performances that have flown past your ears without you thinking for a second that they're not real... it's just that when you hear a sample mock-up that falls short - you go *AHA* and presume that every time you hear a sampled render that it will stick out the same way.

You'd lose. Remember we're talking about my playing and that I'm a violinist :>)

D

[Houston Haynes]

You'd lose. Remember we're talking about my playing and that I'm a violinist :>)

D

OK - when your presumptions are put to a double-blind test and found wanting, we'll both remember this moment.

;)

[peter269]

This is a rather intriguing statement - is there really a 'market' for original lied with sampled orchestral accompaniment?

Why not! Look at all the recorded Christian music sold called tracks. It's about quality writing and sound. If you can do that with your sample libraries, GO FOR IT! There IS a music life outside of film cues.

[Houston Haynes]

Why not! Look at all the recorded Christian music sold called tracks. It's about quality writing and sound. If you can do that with your sample libraries, GO FOR IT! There IS a music life outside of film cues.

Funny! My first paying virtual orchestra gig out of college was doing arrangements on an album project for a christian chorus at a local church. Of course, that was with Roland and Kurzweil samplers with a Yamaha SY99 providing piano and a few other instruments - not anything I'd introduce into a mockup now, but they loved it. It was 1991 or 92 - they didn't know any better - and neither did I.

;)

[peter269]

I think my work is as noble and educated as the work of specialist performers. Only based on different tools, the only tools I have now and I can easily master.

Let's get this to the bottom line: it's about getting your work performed. 95% or better of all US composition majors NEVER hear their final project performed, and for that privilege, they pay their schools upwards to $25000US PER SEMESTER!

Second, music is entrepreneurial, therefore a business. Your job is to get your music out there. And if that sounds too much like business over art, keep in mind that if you don't do it, probably no one else will either.

Remember, it's YOUR career. And no one else besides you is responsible for making it happen.

[Houston Haynes]

Let's get this to the bottom line: it's about getting your work performed. 95% or better of all US composition majors NEVER hear their final project performed, and for that privilege, they pay their schools upwards to $25000US PER SEMESTER!

Uh - errr - you might want to check your math - or enlighten us as to where that number came from...

[thesoundsmith]

Very good exposition, Jerry, My only caveat is that these people are wordsmiths, not musicians, and as such will be looking for any way to negate or derogate your letter, thus I would recommend:

[QUOTE=jerrygerberI am also rejoycing in their vast artistic and sonic potential as well. [/QUOTE]
It's 'rejoice', not 'rejoyce'. irrelevant to meaning, but all important when it comes to gaining/losing respect in their eyes (if you care at all...)

Meaning is irrelevant in critical journalsim, slef-aggrandizement is what counts to critics. If they could actually play, they wouldn't be making their living by derogating others...

[peter269]

Uh - errr - you might want to check your math - or enlighten us as to where that number came from...

My math is sound. So are the stats. Up to $25K: Source: Sunday NY Times.

[Fabio]

True, but what about an expertly sequenced, mixed, recorded and mastered version of a Brandenburg Concerto? Is this a closer attempt to truthfully capture reality? Maybe not the reality of the performance, but certainly the reality of the realization of the composition. It is a different kind of performance, a non real-time performance if you will. But intent and gesture--expression and contrast, these are the values that must come through by whatever medium the musician choose to work in.

Jerry Gerber

Jerry, I can't say it better. It's my challenge.

[wind]

Let's keep it simple folks, don't get me wrong, I love kidding around with my samples but...... real playing on REAL INSTRUMENTS is just A QUANTUM LEAP ahead regarding possibilities of true expression.
Samples are just like a tin can of tuna fish , in there is no sign of ocean life whatsover.

Don't be deceived , we live in such a messed up world , economics seem to be the decisive factor , but iI think we all know in our hearts the truth is different .

[Hermitage59]

1. Let's get this to the bottom line: it's about getting your work performed. 2. Second, music is entrepreneurial, therefore a business. Your job is to get your music out there.
3. Remember, it's YOUR career. And no one else besides you is responsible for making it happen.

1. Or performing your work and getting it out there, Peter. Things have changed in the possibilities of performance. I remember getting the short end of a beaurocratic no from more than one orchestral administrator, who couldn't even read a score. Stock reply was 'the audience like the classics.' or some derivative of that. Now, we get the opportunity, if we're good enough, to turn it around, and have them apply to play our stuff. I like the irony of that.

2. Definitely, and related to the first point. And this isn't new. Going out to get new band gigs was a regular and important part of building a business.

3. Totally. and in an era when the paying public and media operators have so much more choice in formats very much quicker than ever, composers and musicians have to develop new ways to get noticed, and grasp the opportunity when it comes. Even to learning skills outside of music. Marketing, networking, etc.

I'm with Fabio on this one too. I have the same intent to present material that i once heard someone describe as 'dead people's music', in reference to classical music from early 20th century and before.
Without sounding harsh, for me it's already happening, and whatever the eventual outcome, the journey is already worth it, with more to come.
I wish Fabio every success, as i understand the determination and thick skin required to pursue new possibilities in what seems to many a 'finished' era.

Regards,

Alex.

[Daryl]

OK - when your presumptions are put to a double-blind test and found wanting, we'll both remember this moment.

;)
Why does everything have to be turned into a pissing contest? I'm far too old and tired to be bothered with all that nonsense. I gave you my professional opinion; you didn't agree, so that's up to you. I'll save my wisdom for those who want to hear it :>)

D

[peter269]

3. Totally. and in an era when the paying public and media operators have so much more choice in formats very much quicker than ever, composers and musicians have to develop new ways to get noticed, and grasp the opportunity when it comes. Even to learning skills outside of music. Marketing, networking, etc.

For an historical look at this point (usually omitted in music history classes) see <i>Quarter Notes and Bank Notes</i> written by a British economist. It's all about how composers earned money viewed over several centuries.

I agree with you and Fabio. Musically, you have to go where your heart is. The samples are just a performance medium whose purpose is to help you realize your performance vision.

It's sad, Alex. The symphony orchestra thing in the US is just like in Russia. If you want attention, you can't go in as Peter Alexander. You have to be Pieter D'Alessandro. Or something silly like that!

[Joanne Babunovic]

Funny story. I went to Carmen a few months ago and naturally the production had a live orchestra. Throughout the performance, I kept reaching for fake knobs on the seatback in front of me to add some reverb, boost the volume/velocity settings, more eq here and there. The lack of general "umph" of that live orchestra's performance drove me insane. Some of that was due to an opera performance, where music is suppose to be secondary to the vocals, but I think lots also had to do with my exposure to the Sample libs and some of the un-natural things we can do with them that is even better than live to unclassically trained ears.

jo

[Hermitage59]

For an historical look at this point (usually omitted in music history classes) see <i>Quarter Notes and Bank Notes</i> written by a British economist. It's all about how composers earned money viewed over several centuries.

I agree with you and Fabio. Musically, you have to go where your heart is. The samples are just a performance medium whose purpose is to help you realize your performance vision.

It's sad, Alex. The symphony orchestra thing in the US is just like in Russia. If you want attention, you can't go in as Peter Alexander. You have to be Pieter D'Alessandro. Or something silly like that!

Yes it's sad, but to be honest Peter, I lost any feeling of 'loyalty' toward the orchestral scene some years ago.
I wouldn't like to see the demise of the orchestral structure, but maybe it's time they had a close look at themselves and put something towards the future by supporting programmes for new and up and coming composers, and not relying so much on the accountants or administrators to make musical decisions.(You would guess by now that i don't like people who pretend to be 'connected' with orchestras as a means of elevating their own sense of importance)

Now I can hear a crowd saying it's a business, and bums in seats is the most important thing.
Maybe so, but as so many orchestras are supported these days through subscription, and government grants, an investment in new material in any business (call it R and D if you like), is a step in the right direction for survival. And survival is the order of the day.

He he, Peiter D'Allesandro! ;) I'll remember that, erm, Peiter.

Yes, it's true, Fabio and I, and maybe others, could be considered as Cultural Artifacts. I'm not worried, and i doubt Fabio is either. I'm looking forward to hearing his work, and he can listen to mine from the persective of two fellows who like 'old fart' music. We've got the 18th and 19th Centuries covered between us. Who's going to do the 17th?

Here in Russia, there are a lot of 'second string' orchestras. And by that i don't imply they're any lesser as players, but there are only so many spots to fill in the 3 big ones here in Moscow, and there are MANY talented musicians.
The 2nd stringers probably do more work than the national orchs, giving lunchtime concerts, matinees, nights in nice halls, (lots of them in Moscow), etc. And audiences turn up in numbers. There still a sense here of the importance of cultural heritage, and people seem to understand the wisdom of listening to new stuff, and sorting out what they like and they don't. Russian people, at least in my experience, love live music, and get out whenever they can to listen to this or that. So orchestral ensembles of any variety get plenty of exposure, and the cash to survive.
Something to admire in a nation of people determined to hold and cherish their culture, not let it get diluted by something else.
You can go and listen to a live concert in the Tchaikovsky Hall, or the Conservatory, or Dom Musika, or other venues just about any day and night of the week.
It's fabulous.

Yes, I know a little of the current state in the US, as a friend of mine contacted his local orchestra with a view to introducing his work, only to be told fairly abruptly they only do the 'classics'.
Shame really, you'd think ANY country would be eager to find out of they have a musically gifted citizen, particularly as music plays such a huge role in cultural heritage.

regards,

Alex.

[jerrygerber]

Why does everything have to be turned into a pissing contest? I'm far too old and tired to be bothered with all that nonsense. I gave you my professional opinion; you didn't agree, so that's up to you. I'll save my wisdom for those who want to hear it :>)

D

Wisdom? Maybe you are wise in some areas, but I don't see the wisdom in your opinion. Technology and art have intersected since the first caveman picked up a stick and began refining the first drum, or the first flute. Your violin is the product of hundreds, if not thousands of years of evolution of music instrument technology. How can you fault composers for being turned on to this new, young medium? Are you comparing a great composition (i.e. a Mahler symphony) and a great orchestra playing live in a great hall to an inexperienced composer using mediocre equipment? Or are you comparing a state-of-the-art digital music studio, a masterful composer with a high school orchestra in a gym playing a mediocre composition? Or are you comparing a *recording* of a symphonic piece to a recording of a sampled orchestra? Which is it? I don't sense any nuance or subtlety in the criticisms of the virtual orchestra, simply that "it isn't as good" as a "real" orchestra.

I watch composers, talented composers try and get their works performed. It is very difficult. We are the only professionals who have to compete with 400 years of dead people. For the most part, the symphony is a museum, the vast majority of works are very old. There is nothing inherently wrong with this, but it does present a dilemma to contemporary creative musicians. Ive's work sat in a drawer for some 30 years. Most composers would rather hear a first-rate digital version of a piece than a 2nd or 3rd rate "live", underehearsed performance with, at best, a lousy recording to go with it. At least that is the choice I made, because, besides my interest in the new medium, it is a practical choice. As Haydn once remarked he would have never grown as a composer had he not had daily access to his court orchestra, it is not very practical to write for orchestra and never hear your work. There a *numerous* reasons why composers work in the electronic world; artistic, practical, temporal and sometimes economic.

Hey, if I don't like the sound of the violin I am not going to post on a newsgroup or forum of violinists and tell them I don't like what they do, and tell them they shouldn't be doing it. If the critics don't like the virtual orchestra, my advice is just don't be involved with it, either as a creative person or as a listener.

[jerrygerber]

Let's keep it simple folks, don't get me wrong, I love kidding around with my samples but...... real playing on REAL INSTRUMENTS is just A QUANTUM LEAP ahead regarding possibilities of true expression.
Samples are just like a tin can of tuna fish , in there is no sign of ocean life whatsover.

Don't be deceived , we live in such a messed up world , economics seem to be the decisive factor , but iI think we all know in our hearts the truth is different .


Those who "kid around" and make midi "mock-ups" are always going to get far worse results than those who take the time and develop the techniques that this medium requires. Don't kid yourself, the virtual orchestra is a powerful expressive medium in its own right. Those who insist on comparing to a real orchestra are unable to appreciate its virtues and potential and should stay away from it. By your definition, a musical instrument is "real" when the method of tone production involves animal gut, bone, metal or wood. Right? That's it! There's the limit or your reality. You said it, not me. There are those musicians who are simply unable to separate the art of music creation from live performance. It's fine, it's in their blood I suppose. But there are others who view musical expression more broadly. An old conductor once commented that a recording of a symphony was like trying to kiss over the phone. I guess he never heard any great recordings of symphonies. A set of headphones and a Mahler CD is about the best possible way I've discovered to listening to music, far more enjoyable for me than sitting in a hall. Maybe that is part of the reason why I came to the virtual orchestra with such little baggage....

Jerry Gerber
www.jerrrygerber.com

[Hermitage59]

Funny story. I went to Carmen a few months ago and naturally the production had a live orchestra. Throughout the performance, I kept reaching for fake knobs on the seatback in front of me to add some reverb, boost the volume/velocity settings, more eq here and there. The lack of general "umph" of that live orchestra's performance drove me insane. Some of that was due to an opera performance, where music is suppose to be secondary to the vocals, but I think lots also had to do with my exposure to the Sample libs and some of the un-natural things we can do with them that is even better than live to unclassically trained ears.

jo
And more than once Joanne, I've sat in a pit with muscles tense, praying the soprano was going to hit that top note THIS time!;)
I agree about the samples. We have a lot at our fingertips to play with and explore musically beyond 'normal'.

Regards,

Alex.

[Hermitage59]

Those who "kid around" and make midi "mock-ups" are always going to get far worse results than those who take the time and develop the techniques that this medium requires.

Exactly. Like learning a new instrument, and building new techniques to play that instrument well. Just one facet of the modern composer's required skills. I wonder how many of us practise daily, with the same disciplined approach as if we were learning to play a piano?


Alex.

[Joanne Babunovic]

And more than once Joanne, I've sat in a pit with muscles tense, praying the soprano was going to hit that top note THIS time!;)
I agree about the samples. We have a lot at our fingertips to play with and explore musically beyond 'normal'.

Regards,

Alex.

Yes, I have to admit, I was turning those same fake knobs on the singers as well. Maybe the acoustics where bad in that venue? I just don't know. I remember so enjoying live performances at one time. You could literally feel the wind created from the instruments that flowed out onto the audience. The floor would vibrate - it was so cool. But now, its just this little "pfffft" and it's over. Of course there are some other things in my life that are like this too, so maybe it's just old age. Moooha ha ha ha :) :) :)

[Daryl]

Wisdom? Maybe you are wise in some areas, but I don't see the wisdom in your opinion. Technology and art have intersected since the first caveman picked up a stick and began refining the first drum, or the first flute. Your violin is the product of hundreds, if not thousands of years of evolution of music instrument technology. How can you fault composers for being turned on to this new, young medium? Are you comparing a great composition (i.e. a Mahler symphony) and a great orchestra playing live in a great hall to an inexperienced composer using mediocre equipment? Or are you comparing a state-of-the-art digital music studio, a masterful composer with a high school orchestra in a gym playing a mediocre composition? Or are you comparing a *recording* of a symphonic piece to a recording of a sampled orchestra? Which is it? I don't sense any nuance or subtlety in the criticisms of the virtual orchestra, simply that "it isn't as good" as a "real" orchestra.

I watch composers, talented composers try and get their works performed. It is very difficult. We are the only professionals who have to compete with 400 years of dead people. For the most part, the symphony is a museum, the vast majority of works are very old. There is nothing inherently wrong with this, but it does present a dilemma to contemporary creative musicians. Ive's work sat in a drawer for some 30 years. Most composers would rather hear a first-rate digital version of a piece than a 2nd or 3rd rate "live", underehearsed performance with, at best, a lousy recording to go with it. At least that is the choice I made, because, besides my interest in the new medium, it is a practical choice. As Haydn once remarked he would have never grown as a composer had he not had daily access to his court orchestra, it is not very practical to write for orchestra and never hear your work. There a *numerous* reasons why composers work in the electronic world; artistic, practical, temporal and sometimes economic.

Hey, if I don't like the sound of the violin I am not going to post on a newsgroup or forum of violinists and tell them I don't like what they do, and tell them they shouldn't be doing it. If the critics don't like the virtual orchestra, my advice is just don't be involved with it, either as a creative person or as a listener.
Read my original post; I'm talking about me...

D

[wind]

Those who "kid around" and make midi "mock-ups" are always going to get far worse results than those who take the time and develop the techniques that this medium requires. Don't kid yourself, the virtual orchestra is a powerful expressive medium in its own right. Those who insist on comparing to a real orchestra are unable to appreciate its virtues and potential and should stay away from it. By your definition, a musical instrument is "real" when the method of tone production involves animal gut, bone, metal or wood. Right? That's it! There's the limit or your reality. You said it, not me. There are those musicians who are simply unable to separate the art of music creation from live performance. It's fine, it's in their blood I suppose. But there are others who view musical expression more broadly.

Well, it was not me who started this thread or comparing this and that,
I think this world is big enough for all kinds of instruments, computers etc etc
and indeed samples are a medium with it's own rights, great !

But don't exaggerate, soon people are going to tell that samples are even better then real - or old fashioned or whatever you want to call it - instruments.

I am a piano player, and when I play on a real piano I know I can make more impact on listeners then when I would sit there with my computer....

Why?
One aspect is : because anybody can push a few buttons on his pc .
But many people are also perfectly entertained by that ( look at the DJ industry ) so everybody can be happy !
What a wonderful world we are living in .....

One more thing : music is not the same as noise....I am sorry to say it but most of todays "music" is just noise ... we all can play our little mozart game now, I like those democratics, but being a mozart is another thing if u know what i mean .

[jerrygerber]

I am a piano player, and when I play on a real piano I know I can make more impact on listeners then when I would sit there with my computer....

Then I would strongly suggest stick to piano.

Jg

[wind]

Then I would strongly suggest stick to piano.

Jg


thanks for the tip !
I can also give you a few lessons i:D


edit : aah jerry it is you who started this tread, i did not realize you only want to hear what you already think in the first place already, sorry to disturb you then byebye

[FredProgGH]

How expressive is a pipe organ? It has no real dynamics, beyond adding and removing stops. (Yeah, I know about shutter boxes- be serious.) Note on, note off; that's about it. and yet it has a harmonic complexity that has kept it a viable instrument for hundreds of years and a HUGE repertoire exists for it. Can't even the simplest sample lib patch generally muster more musical control than the mighty pipe organ? Doesn't the average orchestral lib have more colors of sound than the pipe organ? Isn't it really simply about writing music that works within the capabilities and limitations of your medium? Organ music sounds good on an organ. Sampled orchestral music can sound really good with samples. You have to write to the sound.

[Houston Haynes]

My math is sound. So are the stats. Up to $25K: Source: Sunday NY Times.

That's great - NYT has *never* published anything poorly researched or outright false...

:rolleyes:

Any chance you can provide a reference to an article with the date?

[jerrygerber]

thanks for the tip !
I can also give you a few lessons i:D


edit : aah jerry it is you who started this tread, i did not realize you only want to hear what you already think in the first place already, sorry to disturb you then byebye


If I am going to learn from criticism, it has to be insightful, intelligent and useful.

I want to hear from those in the trenches working with these tools on a daily basis. Those who stand on the sidelines and condemn the virtual orchestra are boring to me.

JG

[Houston Haynes]

If I am going to learn from criticism, it has to be insightful, intelligent and useful.

I want to hear from those in the trenches working with these tools on a daily basis. Those who stand on the sidelines and condemn the virtual orchestra are boring to me.

JG

Jerry - just went back to read your form letter tha started this thread - I've got to say, your response is about as spot-on as it can be without being directly confrontational. Rock on, dude.

[wind]

I want to hear from those in the trenches working with these tools on a daily basis. Those who stand on the sidelines and condemn the virtual orchestra are boring to me.

JG

no they don't bore you , you write them letters, post a thread about it here and respond in a quite peculiar way .
I quess you must be very insecure and full of doubts about your virtual orchestra . I hope that won't stop you from exploring and having fun but find out yourself and dont listen to what other people think about it . Some will like it, some will not. That's how it always will be. If nobody likes what you do you might be a real genius, if everybody likes it you will probably be very average.

[Joanne Babunovic]

"God, there have been some amazing things written before any electronics or sound processing existed! But I want to be a product of my own time…Sometimes I think film music is an opportunity for people to justify their own conservative natures."

Thomas Newman

[Nick Batzdorf]

Houston, I read that article too (we take the NY Times; the LA Times has taken a serious turn for the worse recently). Their research could be wrong, but I see no reason to believe that.

[jerrygerber]

Hey,

Don't feel discouraged! Just imagine trying to have a serious and open discussion about the piano, how it's played, what styles and genres have/are being spawned from the piano (Chopin would have loved it!) and so forth. And they someone comes into the discussion who basically says that the piano should only be used for intermezzos, or only fugues, and nothing else, or that the piano is competing with the harpsichord and is therefore invalid and uncertifiable, etc. Would you continue to enjoy the discussion? Why not? Because the attitude of the person with that point of view has already rejected and decided.

Jerry



no they don't bore you , you write them letters, post a thread about it here and respond in a quite peculiar way .
I quess you must be very insecure and full of doubts about your virtual orchestra . I hope that won't stop you from exploring and having fun but find out yourself and dont listen to what other people think about it . Some will like it, some will not. That's how it always will be. If nobody likes what you do you might be a real genius, if everybody likes it you will probably be very average.

[jerrygerber]

That's an interesting point, actually, and I never thought of it that way. Nonetheless, I think we're all aware of the obvious difference between vibrating speakers and vibrating instruments, at least in live performance.

But I'd be the last person to argue that acoustic instruments are more natural.


I think you pinpointed a perceptual issue with people, how they hear vibrating air coming from a speaker, compared to vibrating instruments. That may be playing an important role in the discussion. Sound first as vibration, then represented as electrical impulses, binary digits, then electrical impulses through the air or not, and then to the ear and the brain. Maybe learning to hear music in the vibrations we have in reality is the key to developing musical depth and imagination.

JG

[jerrygerber]

And if I were a violinist I'd NEVER stop feeling that way!! You are absolutely justified in that confidence, completely necessary for developing skills and expression in what you do the best.

So why not understand composers who work with new instruments also have that same sense of "I can do it best" attitude, we all MUST have that to survive and evolve. But when you're doing something that has, uh, not much tradition behind it, that's a bit different....

Jerry Gerber





But that's just you. I have never yet heard a sample performance by anyone that comes close to what I can do live on an instrument. I'm not trying to diss sample performances by any means, it's just because I have a wealth of performing experience, I always feel that there is something missing when dealing with samples.

D

[Daryl]

And if I were a violinist I'd NEVER stop feeling that way!! You are absolutely justified in that confidence, completely necessary for developing skills and expression in what you do the best.

So why not understand composers who work with new instruments also have that same sense of "I can do it best" attitude, we all MUST have that to survive and evolve. But when you're doing something that has, uh, not much tradition behind it, that's a bit different....

Jerry Gerber
Of course, and I never said that there was anything wrong with using samples, in fact much music of the "hybrid" category could not be performed live (whether the orchestral instruments are samples or not).

All I've said that is that I've learned over the years that for my music, the live performance is part of what I enjoy, but that is definitely linked to my background as a performer. On the occasions that I've written music for other groups I somehow feel left out when they perform it without me.
However, that is my take on how I like to work, and it doesn't affect my views on other people's working patterns.

D

[jerrygerber]

All I've said that is that I've learned over the years that for my music, the live performance is part of what I enjoy, but that is definitely linked to my background as a performer. On the occasions that I've written music for other groups I somehow feel left out when they perform it without me.
However, that is my take on how I like to work, and it doesn't affect my views on other people's working patterns.

I can understand that, I had the performing bug since I was a kid, I was always giving magic shows, or astronomy lectures, or playing in my rock band and loving the real-time communication with an audience. But as I got older I changed. In my and 30s I was going to a lot of concerts; new music, chamber music, experimental, symphonic, very regularly. But I noticed that at most events I preferred to close my eyes and just listen, the visual cues and stimulation wasn't nearly as interesting to me as the sonic sensations. As I said in an earlier post, my most satisfying way of listening to music is with headphones and a score. There are no audience distractions, no visual impressions that require attention (except the score!). This is probably a temperament thing, so the fact that I get more pleasure out of working with samples and in the studio isn't surprising. I think it is important to have a healthy respect and appreciation for the myriad of ways humans make music, which of course doesn't mean you have to like or appreciate the music itself, but just the fact that we keep inventing new methods of music-making. This is a good thing.

I couldn't be happier that I was born into a time where computers, sequencers and sample players like Gigastudio exist. I would suggest if people have this passion that is what they should try to do. But if they don't have passion for making music with technology, they would do best not to do it, even if they think they "should" because it is hip or cool. Without that unconflicted passion, nothing great will happen...

Jerry Gerber
3rd movement, violin concerto with Karen Bentley, violin using early 1990s technology : http://www.jerrygerber.com/mp3/Farewell%20to%20Vilnius.mp3