GOS vs VSL strings.

[hangee_77]

I am doing a music project for classic pop music using VSL pro edition strings, but somehow the string sounds are not really fit into the music as I have been listening to it over & over again......then I replaced all the strings with GOS & somehow it is more fit & alive.
I just think that GOS maybe is more versatile than the VSL strings, what do you guys think?
Another thing that I like GOS over VSl strings, is that GOS has violins2.

hc.

[Jaimo]

Well, that's the thing. A sample that fits great in one song might be completely wrong for another.

No one library will fit everything, all the time.

That being said, I bought GOS about 3 and 1/2 years ago. Over that time, I've picked up Opus, VSL Chamber and Solo Strings, and EW platinum. As the new libraries were acquired, obviously I'd tend to use them first.

But in the last few months, GOS has been getting used more and more. Not on it's own, but with the others. There's definitely something endearing, and from my perspective "musical" about some of the samples.

Even though I don't think I'd use it entirely on it's own with the other libraries sitting here at my disposal, I'm really glad I own it. It definitely still gets put to use.

[composernyc]

I want to throw in my plug for Sonic Implants strings as well.. they're outta this world.

[mojamusic]

Is GOS discontinued? I only see GPO advertised. Are they the same sounds?

[peter269]

At one time, when TrueSpec was a VSL dealer, I was #2 behind Sweetwater with VSL sales. And, in virtually every situation, if a customer could afford it, I'd always recommend GOS. Without fail.

In benchmarking GOS against recorded scores, I found that GOS had a very intimate, elegant sound on its own. This came, no doubt, from its recording in Lincoln Center. When doubled (or layered if you prefer) with VSL, you get a much rounder, fuller sound.

I think the secret to GOS, which many missed, was the consistent application of the updates. With each sequential update, the library more and more hit its stride and potential.

One of the acid tests of a string library, which very few consider or try, is how well it performs with six- to eight-part vertical stacked harmony. GOS was one of the few that could execute that.

I have a major scoring project that begins in February, and all I can say is that I'm hoping that GOSII will be available.

What I wrote in my recent review of the Miroslav Philharmonik is that quality endures. GOS, to my ears, is clearly in that league.

[mixolydian]

Is GOS discontinued? I only see GPO advertised. Are they the same sounds?

Some folks are waiting for GOS2. It's announced for 2007.

[Nhick Ramiro Pacis]

There is something really really musical about GOS.

[dpc]

I would love to hear some demos with GOS strings outshining VSL (in any style or context.) I have both libraries and stopped using GOS long ago. Maybe I should go back and check them out again because I would love to be able to use them. In fact it would be great to hear any demos of the two layered.

[Ouch that hurts]

Some folks are waiting for GOS2. It's announced for 2007.

That's news to me. Last I read Gary had confirmed that it had been abandoned - some new string samples had been recorded that had made their way into GPO, and that was it, the idea of a new specialist string library was considered uneconomic.

Are you thinking maybe of GPO Advanced?

[Per Lichtman]

That's news to me. Last I read Gary had confirmed that it had been abandoned - some new string samples had been recorded that had made their way into GPO, and that was it, the idea of a new specialist string library was considered uneconomic.

Are you thinking maybe of GPO Advanced?

In response, here are a couple quotes in recent months from Garritan. This first one is from August 3rd, 2006.


I have been receiving a number of requests for a seperate string library.

Let me ask everyone...

Would you like a seperate section strings library (which would most likely be sooner) or would you rather wait for a string library to be incorporated in GPO Advanced?

Let me know you thoughts.

Gary Garritan

And on August 31st.


Thanks all for your responses.

Based on your responses we will do a GOS 2.0 :)

Perhaps we can have it out in time for Christmas.

It will have its own K2 Player (so it will work as a plug in), have extended ranges, work together with Finale, and have some nice surprises.

We'll post more details soon.

Gary Garritan

[Garritan]

In response, here are a couple quotes in recent months from Garritan.


Garritan]
Thanks all for your responses.

Based on your responses we will do a GOS 2.0 :)

Perhaps we can have it out in time for Christmas.

It will have its own K2 Player (so it will work as a plug in), have extended ranges, work together with Finale, and have some nice surprises. I meant Christmas 2008 :D

GOS2 didn't happen by this Christmas but we are hard at work on it and it is shaping up quite nicely. It will be the strings that will later be part of GPO Advanced. We added some more features that will be worth the wait. We hope to make it available 1st half of 2007.

What do you feel that is lacking in all the string libraries? Dream a little about things that have not been done before and let me know what you would like to have in a string library.

Happy New Year!

Gary Garritan

[FireGS]

What do you feel that is lacking in all the string libraries? Dream a little about things that have not been done before and let me know what you would like to have in a string library.


A few things:

Sonic Morphing :D
We keep haveing to add solo strings into a mix of a section to get a closeness. Having solo string layers added into the section triggarable by CC would be GREAT. Even Multiple ones! This way, you could add more or less closeness via CC, instead of working with another instrument. True, it'd add more to the load, but people will adjust.
Up/Down machinegun! People thought having up and down samples alternating would be the solution, but it's not! Is there a way, with script, to figure out what kind of up or down bow a player would use depending on the MIDI input, and play the up or down sample? and also, having multiple release trails for repetitions?


I know you'll make this great Gary, just some of my thoughts.
~Fire

[Stephanie Pray]

Hi Mr. G :)
I've put my requests in a PM. :) Here's to an exciting new year!!
Happy New Year!!
Steph :)

[sammy24]

nice try, Stephanie, but requesting your own personalized copy of GOS II two months ahead of everyone else with Gary's signature and a locket of his hair is just not going to work ;)

[Stephanie Pray]

nice try, Stephanie, but requesting your own personalized copy of GOS II two months ahead of everyone else with Gary's signature and a locket of his hair is just not going to work ;)

AH! You caught me!! ;)

[Tomke]

What do you feel that is lacking in all the string libraries? Dream a little about things that have not been done before and let me know what you would like to have in a string library.
I used GOS alot, quite content too I might add. I made the move to VSL Opus1 couple of years later; I felt Opus consituted the next notch up that would last.

My new year's wish is ease of use. I thought GOS was eating a bit creativity, but when I got Opus ... jeez :o. I want the flexibility with a lot easier usage (yep, I’m a bitch about it :D). I spent the first months with opus compiling completely new patches out of the original ones - the way I want them to be: immediatly score-notation-friendly, with all playing techniques, dynamics, variations, extras and stuff in one patch, using Key switching (change of playing techniques) and modulation controlled crossfading of velocity on all.

One thing that VSL threw into the mix was the idea of legato slide notes, where the ’next’ note contains the ”release” of the former note. You need to use VSLs specific software to make this work, but when used it makes things sound so much more musical than static notes stacked up one after another – using reverb to try to melt the notes together.
Another example of this is tremolos or trills, which I used to do by ‘painting in’ tons of midi-data. I was SO releaved when tremolo/trills samples came out, way back.

Most larger libraries are starting to sound so sonically good now, that I’d suggest developers to focus a bit more on ways and methods of tie things together into musical phrasing – without going as far as ‘loop combinatios’ or such.

Making this happen, without inhibiting the composers and still maintaining a reasonable ease of use, must be something I wouldn’t wish upon my worst enemy to solve. But I thought I would bring it up anyway, since this (next after ease of use) is what I’m lacking the most out of the very fine sound that you guys are providing us with.

Happy 2007

[nikolas]

Simple...

The amazing Stradi 2 abilities, for string sections and for all articulations (ouch!)...

One of the amazing things in GOS was the number of articulations, cause, let's face it, strings can make a huge number of different sounds (and I'm not talking about a simple stacatto, legato difference... but con legno, trem, pizz bartok and many others). Now with the ability to shape those things as you play with "some" controllers, then you have yourself an ultra realistic winning sample package.

BTW... what about div? It is one thing thagt just very recnetly is starting ot get resolved (and not with quite convincing results, if I may add)... The ability to have div. strings would be a huge plus...

Happy new year Garry and everyone!

[Jaimo]

Simple...

The amazing Stradi 2 abilities, for string sections and for all articulations (ouch!)...

One of the amazing things in GOS was the number of articulations, cause, let's face it, strings can make a huge number of different sounds (and I'm not talking about a simple stacatto, legato difference... but con legno, trem, pizz bartok and many others). Now with the ability to shape those things as you play with "some" controllers, then you have yourself an ultra realistic winning sample package.

BTW... what about div? It is one thing thagt just very recnetly is starting ot get resolved (and not with quite convincing results, if I may add)... The ability to have div. strings would be a huge plus...


Quoted for emphasis. Everything nikolas has said...

And FireGS's ideas on "Sonic morphing" are quite good. I am always adding solo strings to my sections, to add "depth".

And while we're making requests... if the idea of "sonic morphing" were to actually be implemented, please allow a way of "detuning" the players, ever so slightly.

we all know what a huge difference the slightest tuning (between the players) can make. It would be so cool to have that built in as controller info. Maybe accessing various degrees of "out of tune-ness within the section... within reason, of course! :-)

Right now, after I layer a solo violin with a section, I'll go back and automate the tuning of that solo violin, ever so slightly. All of a sudden, the strings sound animated, and full of life.

Food for thought...

[musicpete]

What do you feel that is lacking in all the string libraries? Dream a little about things that have not been done before and let me know what you would like to have in a string library.

* True divisi (a2, a3) for every string section
* Harmonics (lots of them) for every string section and every solo instrument
* Fully controllable glissandi from every note to every note in various speeds. Of course for every section and every solo instrument.
* 20th century effects (Lots of them - I am also dreaming of being able to control some of them)
* A "lite/eco" patch-set for every instrument in the library for those who don't have that much CPU power/RAM (and no time/software to do it themselves)
* Bundle it with "Real spaces" at a discount price! )(~ :D

Happy new year and have a lot of success, Gary!

[mathis]

* True divisi (a2, a3) for every string section
* Harmonics (lots of them) for every string section and every solo instrument
* Fully controllable glissandi from every note to every note in various speeds. Of course for every section and every solo instrument.
* 20th century effects (Lots of them - I am also dreaming of being able to control some of them)


YES! lots of controllable fx.

[Hannes_F]

- some of this might have already been covered -

indeed

1) I have mapped my expression pedal to volume control. I find that attacks in GPO are rather hard.

Nope. Reduce the key velocity.

I have been shaping the attacks with the expression pedal - which of course also affects the volume. It would be really nice if the speed of the attacks could be controlled via the velocity!

I am not sure I fully understand what you mean by 'speed' but I use the Sus+Short AG patch of the x-folders for everything, and their attack is very sensitive to velocity.

Also make an option to use either the channel volume or an expresion pedal for volume. I have done the same with my GOS setup in GS3 and Axiom 61.

With a cc mapper I can use either my pedal, the modwheel or my tablet for volume. No problem.

2) I think this might have already been mentioned - but it would be nice if the channel aftertouch could control vibrato depth (like in Strad.) It would control the morph or mix between the vibrato samples and the non-vibrato samples. I guess that should also be selectable for an alternate controller as not everybody has aftertouch and sertainly almost no one has the key aftertouch (keyboard manufacturers have stopped making keyuboards with it!)

Yes, that would be good and I have written an article somewhere about this. Would cause heavy loads of processing though.

An alternate method would be to control vibrato by using pitch bend (remapping a ribbon controller to do the function)

Not for me please because I need adjusting the pitch often.

3) For solo instruments - it would be nice to have the option to use note overlap as a trigger for legato or portamento

Already there. Perhaps check your Kontakt player pedal settings if it is not working for you.

4) I have found that the initial loading volume of most of the GPO instruments is a bit low as well - this is a small thing but I had to manually adjust the volume on the player console for every instrument I loaded.

They are halfway OK for tutti orchestra. When using smaller ensembles I increase the volume by 6 or 12 dB.

I don't have that problem with GOS currently. It would be nice if the player could remembr last used settings.

If you make yourself a template it remembers.

5) It would be nice to have a controller to adjust the amount of hiss/bow noise. Sometimes you want to hear the horse tail and resin - and sometimes you don't. Sometimes you want just a little bit of it.

Look at cc16 (affects the bow noise at the attack) and/or use an EQ.

6) As far as samples - it would be really nice to have a couple of options for "real" or "warm" - and in the full string sections a better balance in volume between sections - the violins and violas do great - but the cellos in their lo
range and the basses tend to get washed out and don't have much presence.

Use cc24 and/or an EQ.

7) It would be nice to be able to control the stereo placement.

Already there.

8) Forget my earlier request for reverb - that just eats up CPU time if implemented in each instantiation - better to handle that in the host's mixing domain. Also - with the new convolution revebs in most apps - it seems a shame to waste your team's time creating something most won't use anyway - time better spent on the function of the library itself.

BTW there is a wet folder in the older version of GPO. But I also find myself turning off all reverb for more complex arrangements and add it later because of CPU drain.

My impression of this discussion in general (not meant personal to your post, Stephen but in general) is that many of the wishlist features of the awaited GPOA are already there in the 10/2004 update of GPO. But I wonder how many people really look and dig into that. How many of us have ever produced a bassoon line by really using all the controllers that are available? The possibilities for winds are wonderful already but I rarely hear that in the listening room. Strings are more difficult to get right but here also much more is possible than what is used most the times.

Sometimes I think Tom Hopkins must become really mad at us because he all wrote this down already but most people don't seem to care. If we keep on demanding things that are already done how can the developers take us really serious?


Hannes

[musicpete]

* True divisi (a2, a3) for every string section
* Harmonics (lots of them) for every string section and every solo instrument
* Fully controllable glissandi from every note to every note in various speeds. Of course for every section and every solo instrument.
* 20th century effects (Lots of them - I am also dreaming of being able to control some of them)
* A "lite/eco" patch-set for every instrument in the library for those who don't have that much CPU power/RAM (and no time/software to do it themselves)
* Bundle it with "Real spaces" at a discount price! )(~ :D

Happy new year and have a lot of success, Gary!

p.s.: Oh, i came up with one other thing I'd love to have:

* Really, really, really hard and biting, cutting staccati notes. Maybe an extra patch with (maybe unrealistic) gritty and theatralic staccati would be possible.

[david robinson]

hello, here are a few of my humble suggestions for improved strg lib performance.

1) each chair in each section recorded individually and in position.
2) little or no room sound.
3) re-recording of the same players on different dates to gain increased performance subtily.
4) different mood types on different recording dates. ie: Baroque style, Classical, Romantic, Modern, Film. and composer spectific types as in: Mozart, Stravinsky, Bartok, Mahler, etc.

my ears love the complexity of texture that any pro orchestra should deliver.
without this, i stop being involved with the music very quickly and it is rejected.

these "variation" sample banks could be marketed as options for the main product.

thank you for reading.

[JohnCarter]

I meant Christmas 2008 :D


What do you feel that is lacking in all the string libraries? Dream a little about things that have not been done before and let me know what you would like to have in a string library.

Gary Garritan

Expressive strings , strings that sound alive and full, simply ;)

But more seriously , i noticed something with many strings libraries, ok we have the release samples, which greatly improves the realism when a note stops. But sometimes i'd like the end of a note to stop more "slowly", because actually with many libraries when we stop playing a note it sounds very abrupt to my ears . i know we can do that by simply adjusting the release time , but it sounds synthy .

[JohnCarter]

hello, here are a few of my humble suggestions for improved strg lib performance.

1) each chair in each section recorded individually and in position.

thank you for reading.


You mean for instance recording the 23 players individually of a violins section then build you own section by adding the number of players you want ?

Good idea but i'm afraid it won't sound good !

Record 11 players one after the other , then record the 11 players at the same time. Then compare, the 11 players recorded in the "individual way" won't sound as full as the 11 players recorded together. I think.

[Justus]

But sometimes i'd like the end of a note to stop more "slowly", because actually with many libraries when we stop playing a note it sounds very abrupt to my ears . i know we can do that by simply adjusting the release time , but it sounds synthy .

Right! That's it what annoys me with all the available libraries. There should be a diminuendo release trail which is crossfaded to when you release the key.

[noldar12]

You mean for instance recording the 23 players individually of a violins section then build you own section by adding the number of players you want ?

Good idea but i'm afraid it won't sound good !

Record 11 players one after the other , then record the 11 players at the same time. Then compare, the 11 players recorded in the "individual way" won't sound as full as the 11 players recorded together. I think.

There is a tutorial on Gary's website that discusses how to build ensembles instrument by instrument within GPO. While taking that approach for a full string orchestra (say +/- 60 players) may require far more time than most would wish to spend, it would have the potential of yielding the most realistic results by being able to control performance aspects for each player. The number of samples required for such an approach may also be prohibitive. One possible compromise would be to record each section, and then provide a reduced number of individual instruments to layer with the sections. If the first violin section consisted of eighteen players, perhaps provide six soloists for overlaying.

The idea others have suggested of providing multiple divisi for each section would be most welcome. Often it seems some libraries provide divisi for only some of the sections.

Although included in previous threads on the topic, and probably already included as noted earlier in this thread, I would wish to again discuss the full ranges for each section and for any included solo instruments. It would be helpful if the minimum range included up to the two octave harmonic on the highest string for each section. Certainly, at least for the first violins, one could build a case for going even higher, though arguably not all bowing techniques would need to be included in the extreme high register.

Also second (or third or 1975084984th :D ) the idea for lots of harmonics - at the very least natural harmonics, possibly up to the fourth octave harmonic (minimum third octave).

Jim

[musicpete]

Oh, and one more thing:

* Realistic instrument ranges!

Please, for the love of god and for pities sake, buy a book from Samuel Adler or any other good orchestration textbook. Take it to the recording sessions! Tell the players to play notes until the lower and upper end of the supplied ranges. And then tell them to play beyond that where possible (modern music needs those extreme ranges). THIS is what I really miss in most libraries.

[Hannes_F]

Hannes - not to pick the nit (but I guess I am going to anyway by responding) - but the thread is about GOS2 - not GPO or GPOA. Yes, many of the things mentioned are in GPO, JABB, and Strad and the planned GPOA and Gofriller - but they are new to GOS.:|:


Stephen,

touché :D )(~

Hannes

[Von Richter]

Oh, and one more thing:

* Realistic instrument ranges!

Please, for the love of god and for pities sake, buy a book from Samuel Adler or any other good orchestration textbook. Take it to the recording sessions! Tell the players to play notes until the lower and upper end of the supplied ranges. And then tell them to play beyond that where possible (modern music needs those extreme ranges). THIS is what I really miss in most libraries.

Rant mode /on

I say screw the orchestration text... have the players get every extreme note they can, including pedal tones. Put them in a separate patch if need be. Orchestration books often lie and say these things are not practical, yet I've never met a good player who can't get some interesting extreme range effects from their instrument. The main thing is, don't do takes until they are perfect, because in real life, we only write these kind of effects with the full knowledge that they will be raw and probably of loose intonation. Clarinets, for random example, can go way up there into a nice thin whistling howl. No, you won't be playing some smooth perfect chorale that way (not that it CAN'T be done), but if you know your instruments, it's not a problem to exploit these extreme range sounds.

I also have to roll my eyes when orchestration books claim some rarely used extreme range is "uncommonly taxing for the player" or whatever... that's only true if you're trying to make it sound like the normal range, or doing something absurd like trying to play a florid melody, or making them play up there continuosly for extended periods or time, or whatever. In reality, you are going to write a crazy noise burst or soft held cluster up there, with the full knowledge that the intonation will be loose in performance.

Sometimes, after pieces with intentional "raw" effects have been in the repretoire for awhile, some overly virtuosic orchestra with a wussy conductor will make it sound "nice", which always irritates me.

Take for example, the the glut of neutered gutless recorded performances of the Rite of Spring where the close harmonies all sound wonderfully smooth... gimme a break...

Anyway, contemporary instruments and players are better than ever before. Many are also versed in jazz style, where extreme ranges are sometimes gleefully exploited. Don't be a chicken... write that trumpet part that is higher than the orchestration books claim is even physically possible. Just understand what you are writing and the conditions under which such things are practical, and what possible devices may be used to facilitate these techniques.

The best thing is to make friends with players and see what they can do.

Personally, I've found players to be enthusiastic when they get to do something out of the ordinary, as long as it's written as "players music". This might be a harder sell for the woefully conservative orchestral world, but don't be afraid of chamber groupings, get together with the players and see what they can really pull off, you are sure to be suprised.

Rant mode /off

[Lunatique]

Rant mode /on

I say screw the orchestration text... have the players get every extreme note they can, including pedal tones. Put them in a separate patch if need be. Orchestration books often lie and say these things are not practical, yet I've never met a good player who can't get some interesting extreme range effects from their instrument. The main thing is, don't do takes until they are perfect, because in real life, we only write these kind of effects with the full knowledge that they will be raw and probably of loose intonation. Clarinets, for random example, can go way up there into a nice thin whistling howl. No, you won't be playing some smooth perfect chorale that way (not that it CAN'T be done), but if you know your instruments, it's not a problem to exploit these extreme range sounds.

I also have to roll my eyes when orchestration books claim some rarely used extreme range is "uncommonly taxing for the player" or whatever... that's only true if you're trying to make it sound like the normal range, or doing something absurd like trying to play a florid melody, or making them play up there continuosly for extended periods or time, or whatever. In reality, you are going to write a crazy noise burst or soft held cluster up there, with the full knowledge that the intonation will be loose in performance.

Sometimes, after pieces with intentional "raw" effects have been in the repretoire for awhile, some overly virtuosic orchestra with a wussy conductor will make it sound "nice", which always irritates me.

Take for example, the the glut of neutered gutless recorded performances of the Rite of Spring where the close harmonies all sound wonderfully smooth... gimme a break...

Anyway, contemporary instruments and players are better than ever before. Many are also versed in jazz style, where extreme ranges are sometimes gleefully exploited. Don't be a chicken... write that trumpet part that is higher than the orchestration books claim is even physically possible. Just understand what you are writing and the conditions under which such things are practical, and what possible devices may be used to facilitate these techniques.

The best thing is to make friends with players and see what they can do.

Personally, I've found players to be enthusiastic when they get to do something out of the ordinary, as long as it's written as "players music". This might be a harder sell for the woefully conservative orchestral world, but don't be afraid of chamber groupings, get together with the players and see what they can really pull off, you are sure to be suprised.

Rant mode /off

Spot on! I absolutely agree. I think for today's music-making climate, developers (and composers) need to be a lot more imaginative, because current technology allows such variety of different approaches to sound. Why must we compose/arrange with the limit of having it "sound like something real players can play"? If some of us create our music 100% virtually and don't use live recording sessions, then the sky's the limit. If it sounds good, then it sounds good. One of my personal projects right now is to do a piece that has all the orchestral instruments processed very creatively--delay, distortion, flanger, limiter, compression, filters, synthesis, glitch, stutter, bitcrushing--you name it. The goal is to see just how f-ing cool a virtual orchestra can sound when one's not concerned about traditional conventions.

[Ashermusic]

Spot on! I absolutely agree. I think for today's music-making climate, developers (and composers) need to be a lot more imaginative, because current technology allows such variety of different approaches to sound. Why must we compose/arrange with the limit of having it "sound like something real players can play"? If some of us create our music 100% virtually and don't use live recording sessions, then the sky's the limit. If it sounds good, then it sounds good. One of my personal projects right now is to do a piece that has all the orchestral instruments processed very creatively--delay, distortion, flanger, limiter, compression, filters, synthesis, glitch, stutter, bitcrushing--you name it. The goal is to see just how f-ing cool a virtual orchestra can sound when one's not concerned about traditional conventions.

Not a bad point. I am sure that if the technology was around then that the great composers would have used it to stretch the boundaries and expeand their pallettes.

That said, when you ARE trying to make it sound as real as possible the more you know about what and how the real guys do the better it will sound.

So advice to the newbies out there, don't use this as a cop out not to study traditional orchestration. The best rule breakers are generally those who know the rules best.

[geronimo001]

Not a bad point. I am sure that if the technology was around then that the great composers would have used it to stretch the boundaries and expeand their pallettes.

That said, when you ARE trying to make it sound as real as possible the more you know about what and how the real guys do the better it will sound.

So advice to the newbies out there, don't use this as a cop out not to study traditional orchestration. The best rule breakers are generally those who know the rules best.

Good advice... and I'm a newb?? LOL

[Ashermusic]

Good advice... and I'm a newb?? LOL

I didn't say you were a newbie I just tagged the advice on to the response.

Actually I have no idea of who you are at all:)

[tomhartman]

Right! That's it what annoys me with all the available libraries. There should be a diminuendo release trail which is crossfaded to when you release the key.


Boy is that ever the truth. A total pain in the rear and instant giveaway that you are using samples.


TH

[jc5]

Even post-VSL and others, GOS patches are still a regular part of my templates.

As to wishes for a GOS2? One thing that I have always wished for was simply to have all the various articulations for the violins available across the board for the other sections. Basses in particular are lacking in options... but violas and cellos would certainly be strengthened by having things like the sautilles etc. that - quite frankly - are some of the best things in the original GOS, and amongst the things that I still use most frequently.