PDA

View Full Version : Garritan : Vienna Symphonic Library



SyQuEsT
09-20-2002, 03:08 PM
I would like to know Garritan\'s opinion about this new library ... :-)

Thank you,

Garritan
09-21-2002, 12:23 AM
Originally posted by SyQuEsT:
I would like to know Garritan\'s opinion about this new library ... :-)
Thank you,<font size=\"2\" face=\"Verdana, Arial\">Mathieu,

The Vienna library certainly is fascinating. Since the library has not been released yet, I really cannot provide an opinion. What do you and others think?

Gary Garritan

J. Whaley
09-21-2002, 12:51 AM
Well, I\'ll tell ya what I think. VSL Looks interesting, and the .45 sec demo on the site is intriguing... but a new mortgage to buy the library isn\'t appealing at all. I don\'t think there\'s too many libraries that are worth more then $1k. I think what Gary has done with GOS is great. Complete with Updates. That\'s what I call service. Sure, there\'s still a few things we can\'t do with GOS, but it\'s so much better then what we had. If Gary keeps up the hard work and continues with all the service, I don\'t see why VSL shoudl be a problem. Maybe for the person who wants to take time to dig through 1.5 million samples it\'s worth it, but I spend all the time I need digging through the 18CDs of GOS I have.... That\'s my thoughts images/icons/smile.gif

THOR
09-21-2002, 02:00 AM
I think vsl is going to be great. And I think GOS is great. And I think AO is great. Also, MV is great. I don\'t think vsl will replace other librarys. (for some users it will ). My approach is if I like one sound in something I will buy it.
It\'s the same with synths. I have all my old synth still laying around and use them sometimes for my favourite sounds. I think people are very into the ONE tools solution. Like what is better Mac or PC...Protools or Nuendo...Logic or DP or Cubase...EXS24 or Giga ...etc. Everything is good for what it is and you just have to find out what element you are going to use from it and how to smartly combine it with something else...If vsl is going to be what they promise - I want it ...! but, if I would not do music for a living I would probably not care and spend that kinda money...but this is aimed to the professionals who make double as much as what the library costs in one day so no problem. I will still love and use GOS / AO / SI / MV because I already know their strenghts and weaknesses ...then there is my old minimoog...hm....hehe
Well, that\'s just my opinion....

J. Whaley
09-21-2002, 12:03 PM
Well Thor, I agree. If I made $20k in a day, sure I would love to have the VSL if it does all they promise.... but I don\'t make $20k/day. And I don\'t make $10k/Day. Come to think of it, I don\'t make $5k/day. Actually, I don\'t even make $1k/day.... and yes I\'m a professional. I make my full time living with music and could use VSL if it\'s really all that and a bag of chips, but the price is so unrealistic for me. And I\'m probably an average user, one who makes thier living, and makes a good living, but not in full time film. Film is the only place I know that pays enough money to afford a library like this, and that\'s also the place they can afford a real orchestra. Each section broken out and sold for $1k is the most I can see VSL justifying if they want to make their money back.

Besides the fact the samples are expensive, look how many computers you have to have to run it! What\'s up with that? I\'d have to have 10x the GS power I have now just to get enough sounds up to create.... that\'s just gonna cost me a little bit.

So if you make that kind of dough great, but the rest of the world doesn\'t. Maybe you should pass some off images/icons/smile.gif I still don\'t see VSL staying in business long enough to finish the project. But I\'d like to be wrong!

timzydee
09-21-2002, 02:14 PM
How do you know what it\'s going to cost and how many machines it would take to run?

J. Whaley
09-21-2002, 02:59 PM
A few weeks ago the creators of VSL were on and they said the library would be between $10-15k. That\'s what I\'m basing it on.

As for the machines... the library is so big it ships on mutliple DVD or Hard Drive. My understanding is the first issue will be around 100 gigs.

As for the number of computers.... based on a library this size I can only imagine how many machines it will take. I can\'t run all I want from the Garritan library on 1 machine, so how could I imagine running all I want from the VSL with less then 8 -10 machines? We\'re talking Garritan strings plus solo strings, plus group brass, solo brass, w.winds, perc... you get the idea. I don\'t see it happening.

The only way I can see these wonderful developers making their money back is if they come up with a very very good library that is still a light version and would sell for $1k. I could see them doing a very good best of collection that would be 8-10 CDs for a grand that would give the most important instruments. But what do I know? I\'m just speculating...

J-

THOR
09-21-2002, 03:20 PM
I think 10k is a price that is okay , IF it does what they say...(think about how much it costs to hire a real orchestra..) the costs on a project like that are insane...plus the losses they will encounter by people copying the entire project for their friends...I think If somebody spends 10k on a library he\'s less likely to pass it on to his buddys...I might be wrong..
..also, I didn\'t mean that professionalism is reflected by how much money someone makes...sorry if it came across like that..(very often its the opposite)..the price of the waldorf Q is $4000 and all it does ..you know what it does...how is that justified ? Look at the prices of modules and keyboards in general....a samplelibrary is kinda like buying a new module...you get a whole new set of sounds in one part area..would I personally like the vsl to be $100 ..heck yeah ! ..

J. Whaley
09-21-2002, 03:54 PM
Well thor, I think what\'s more likely with a $10K price is not that people would be less likely to copy for their buddies, but rather, 5 buddies would get together and pitch in for one copy, then they copy it for the 5 buddies.

I agree that buying a sample library is like buying a new keyboard, but there\'s also the cost of getting enough computing power and all the other things you need to accompany the library. It\'s not just sounds.

And look at Waldrof, it\'s not sitting in everyone\'s studio because it is $4k. But still, $4k is a lot less then $10k.

Now, to the cost of a live orch. I don\'t know anyone in their right mind that wouldn\'t take the chance to work with a live orch. As a composer the biggest thrill I think you can get is that moment when you\'re standing in front of a full orch hearing your work played... so that in itself is enough reason to want to use a live group.
On top of that, the time involved to sequence a fake orchestra and make it sound like a real orchestra can be rather cumbersom. Part of the advantage of a live group is the time factor. With that said, by the time you spend all the time sequencing you\'re gonna need all the extra money for being the orchestra, now you\'ve also got to pay for this new library....All in all, spending a grand for GOS isn\'t that bad, but when spend 10x that on a library, plus all the computers to run it....it\'s just getting to the point of too much trouble.

And top all that off with the fact that never has a libary done everything it really needed. They say it\'s the last library you\'ll ever have to buy but I don\'t beleive it. They\'d have to have for the strings, a solo section, a small chamber section, a mid-sized chamber group, a large group each group divisi and well as unison, ever imaginable articulation, wet and dry samples that can be mixed together (which I know they\'re not doing) every attack, every release... and not just for the strings, but for the whole orchestra.... I just don\'t see it happening. They would have to be super human to pull this off. It should involve years of research, and probably 100 great sampling minds to pull it off.

Take Gary for example, I\'m sure they thought they\'d done the best library ever when they did GOS. Not long after GOS is released, here comes the critics. Then SI releases a great library. And all the people I\'ve heard from that have all the libaries say they all have their pros and cons, and none of them are the end of sampling.... To Gary\'s credit, the support is great and they do free upgrades. That\'s good service.

All that to say I don\'t think VSL can justify $10k cause it won\'t be all they promise. Maybe it will be great, but $10k great?

Now don\'t get me wrong, I love technology and I hope it\'s all that and a bag of chips, but it\'s just got to be the ultimate of all sample libraries never to be topped to make it worth $10k..... and free updates too....
That\'s my thoughts.

KingIdiot
09-21-2002, 05:25 PM
there will be comparativvely priced optioins with VSL.

Strings possibly sold seperately
Woods/brass seperate
and Percussion seperate.

There are many options to the lib. Considering the material you\'ll be getting and the level of consistancy it will have I think all the options they are giving will probably be worht the prices they will charge.

I also would like to let everyone know that they are doing things to make the library more fexible and easy to sort through. So the amount of samples isn\'t really as big of a \"problem\" as you think. Not to mention you DONT NEED TO LOAD EVERYTHING AT ONCE!!! Why does everyone think thats the norm? and what one needs to judge the usability of a library. Its not.

The same kind of complaints started showing up when GOS was announced.

Dont knock anything until you\'ve tried it.

That said. I dont think any orchestral library will out do a real orchestra in the near future. Still the idea of libraries being cheaper than a real orchestra has some weight if you do alot of orchestral work. In many cases these libraries will be fine enough for TV or games. Even Films depending on the composer/midi mockuper.

Kobb
09-21-2002, 06:15 PM
Mockuper?

Sounds like some strange breed of fish.

Is that a real word, or are you a word makeuper?

peter269
09-21-2002, 09:08 PM
The first VSL package for the whole orchestra and percussion will be 48GB. The price has not been announced.

THOR
09-21-2002, 10:19 PM
Why do you want to load every sound in your system at the same time....when you do a session in a studio with live muscians do you hire a brass section, a string section, 2 drummers one acoustic one on electronic pads, a guitar player, a bass player, a banjo player, a flute player, 15 percussionists etc....even though your project is solo piano ????

KingIdiot
09-22-2002, 02:55 AM
but theres a difference with that. Ther are \"that many\" players. In a sampler set up its still one player. So what we can do is render out. It doesn\'t take much. In fact we are always listening back to tracks, jsut get used to tracking it \"silent\" when you do.

THOR
09-22-2002, 03:17 PM
next time somebody asks me what I do for a living I say, I am a mockuper...THAT IS GREAT !...hehe

Roman Beilharz
09-22-2002, 04:43 PM
We can\'t roast the chicken before we cought it. Let\'s see, what they come up with and what the deal will be. Everyone then will check his individual needs, preferences and (financial) possibilities. And, hey, folks:

This is not a Formula 1 race. We don\'t need the Ferrari to win. We are still talking about MUSIC. And sometimes a cheesy guitar makes a hit, while some audiophile top-of-the-world might bore us to death...

Get drunk, celebrate your freedom to create images/icons/smile.gif and compose something you will be so proud of, that you will make your childrens children smile with adoration. Follow your heart. Follow your passion. Use the tools you have. And improve them. Thats why we share this place.

Amen

(OK next time I will be a little less pathetic, I promise; it\'s late over here in germany and our current election-craze is still going on...)

Phattlippz
09-22-2002, 09:32 PM
No need to apologize--your post makes a lot of sense. It\'s happened to me many times--I hear a piece of music that sounds flat-out amazing from a compositional standpoint, with great production values, and find out that it was constructed with a bare minimum of tools, or tools that aren\'t anywhere near \'pro\'. It\'s scary what a good set of ears and a good imagination can do with just one synth, a computer, and a few plug-ins.

DID
09-23-2002, 11:57 PM
You\'re right : You don\'t need the MUST to make a \"hit\".
But the subject is how to approach the realism of a real orchestral formation, and in this case, you need the Ferrari !

Roman Beilharz
09-24-2002, 01:47 AM
...and in this case, you need the Ferrari ! <font size=\"2\" face=\"Verdana, Arial\">Yes and No. If you want the maximum-freedom to write for samples just as you would arrange for a real orchestra, you are completely right. But even a future Ferrari will sound poor when it comes to its specific limitations.

That\'s why I recommend to follow a different approach:
You have to invent lines and phrases that present the strenghths of your samples and avoid to uncover their weaknesses. The art is, to find melodies and motifs, that exactly do that and don\'t make you feel like something was missing, sounding constructed or somehow \"limited\" in the composition. I therefore consider writing for sampled orchestra to be a completely different task from writing for a real-life orchestra. That\'s why most studied, waterproof \"classical\" composers\' sample-arrangements sound so unbelievably bad at first. They didn\'t learn how to \"collage\" and \"design\" pre-finished sound-events.

Conclusion: I have created arrangements with MV and/or AO that carry their contents in a perfectly authentic manner, although I only had the \'95 Williams and some extra slicks.

Roman

DID
09-24-2002, 03:30 AM
Hi Roman,

I\'m a an \"old papy orchestral music-sampler composer\" : I started orchestral configurations with Roland S50 and other eps Ensoniq and Emu proteus !...
At this time, I was very far from an orchestra, but yes, I enjoyed to compose some orchestral pieces.
Today, with the new machine, I find that the work is more exciting because I can approach more and more the realism of an orchestra (of course, the must would be to work with a real orchestra, but...)
P.S : thanks to excuse my poor english...

images/icons/wink.gif

Andy Brick
09-24-2002, 05:41 AM
Hi all,

I just have to jump in on this one!!

In an earlier post, J Whaley said

\"On top of that, the time involved to sequence a fake orchestra and make it sound like a real orchestra can be rather cumbersom....\"

I think he hit the nail on the proverbial head. In fact, I know he did. In an upcoming issue of Game Developer Magazine, I wrote an article that shows how, with certain orchestral scores, it requires the same man-hours to sequence as it does to record live. Two months ago, I recorded a project with the Prague Symphony. Many of the orchestrations were mighty. In fact, I estimate it would take about 35-40 hours for even the most experienced midi guy to sequence any one of a number of these cues in order to make it sound decent. That same cue took me 45 minutes to record with 50 live players and it sounds great. Do the math and you will see that, in this case, sequencing wouldnt have saved any time or money.

If you consider the time constraints placed on todays working composers, time is a precious commodity. Remember the Proteus Orchestral module. It was fast and simple. Plug in a midi cable, select a patch and play. We demanded better sounds and so, we were willing to invest more time and labor. At some point, we will hit a point of diminishing returns where its not worth the exrtra hours tweaking samples and massaging sequencers.

Is the 10K library worth the money if it adds another 10 man-hours to my 4 minute cue?

Its a good question to ponder.....

Andy Brick, Composer
www.andybrick.com (\"http://www.andybrick.com\")

Runyon
09-24-2002, 10:07 AM
Originally posted by Andy Brick:
Do the math and you will see that, in this case, sequencing wouldnt have saved any time or money.
Andy Brick, Composer
www.andybrick.com (\"http://www.andybrick.com\")<font size=\"2\" face=\"Verdana, Arial\">The missing part of the equation is what to do after the cue is recorded and the scene is changed yet again.

Andy Brick
09-24-2002, 06:42 PM
Hi Midphase,

Excellent question. Im glad someone finally challenged me on this point. I know it will be an issue in the future.

Let me directly answer your questions.

My training is such that on a job like the one I described I write the old fashion way. That is, orchestration was not an afterthought. I didnít write a short score, my first draft was orchestrated. I wrote directly for the instruments employed and directly into Finale. If I understand your question correctly you are trying to get at the additional man-hours necessary to orchestrate for live orchestra. If you read my post carefully, you will see that I said \"in certain orchestral scores\". The point is that in this particular job, the cues had to be orchestrated regardless if they were going to be sequenced or live. As such we must take the man-hours spent orchestrating out of the equation. Some might say that sequencing negates the necessity of formal orchestration. Having spent many years early in my career sequencing demo cues for a lot of very high profile big orchestral film soundtracks I can assure you it does not.

Im quite handy with Finale music notation software. Since I wrote an orchestral first draft directly into Finale I would say I spent an hour editing my first draft, another hour making the necessary changes. Again, these edits and changes would have been necessary even if I was going to sequence instead of live. Parts on the other hand would not have been necessary if I sequenced. If you know Finale well, Parts are quite easy and relatively error free. I would say I spent 1-2 hours for all the parts on a given cue.

As for the contractor and research functions you correctly identified as producerís responsibilities, I think thetas drifting a bit far from the idea of man-hours employed to record a score. Nevertheless, the point is well taken so let me just say that I imagine it took those guys about the same amount of time the typical midi guy with a studio capable of producing a high quality demo would have spent upgrading software, wiring, troubleshooting system incompatibilities, resolving driver conflicts, reading owners manuals, and creating and loading sound banks (aside from massaging them once they have been created.) Since I was specifying the cost of time, its fair to mention that implicit in the financial equation is the cost of operating the studio for the days it took to sequence the cue (rent, electricity, phone etc.) and, of course, the implicit cost of time itself. That is, the dollar the composer could have earned by reallocating sequencing man-hours to the orchestral musicians.

Finally, travel is a time-cost of doing business. I recently did an all midi soundtrack for a game for Interplay where I had to mix the Midi tracks in California. Since I live in NY I would say that the amount of time I spent flying on that midi job was about the same as the amount of time I spent flying to Prague for the live orchestral recording.

I can see how you were skeptical. Rest assured, that a composer with the proper music skills and a solid command of the available software tools can deliver certain orchestral scores as cost effectively with a live orchestra as with a midi orchestra.

Thanks again for your comment Midphaze. Im glad you brought it up.

KingIdiot
09-24-2002, 07:34 PM
I can see how you were skeptical. Rest assured, that a composer with the proper music skills and a solid command of the available software tools can deliver certain orchestral scores as cost effectively with a live orchestra as with a midi orchestra.
<font size=\"2\" face=\"Verdana, Arial\">That same argument can be said for people with the best skills with MIDI tools to make an orchestral score still cheaper than with a real orchestra. Multiply that by ten scores, and there is still a definite benefit (in cost) to using MIDI. images/icons/smile.gif

....that is if you\'re not playing \"keeping up with the jones\'\" with samples and buying every latest release.

Andy Brick
09-24-2002, 10:04 PM
King Idiot said....That same argument can be said for people with the best skills with MIDI tools to make an orchestral score still cheaper than with a real orchestra. Multiply that by ten scores, and there is still a definite benefit (in cost) to using MIDI.

---------------------------------------

I think it depends on the score and thats why I was careful to say \"certain scores\".

For example, consider Threnody by Penderecki. This score had a huge influence in the movie The Shining and is still a staple for composers wishing to study modern film scoring techniques and I recommend it highly for your consideration. In this piece he constantly changes the composition of the orchestra. The piece opens with 24 violins in the violin section. Aprox. 200 seconds into the piece (its metered in realtime not in bars) the violins go divisi. About 2 minutes later, the violin section dramatically reduces to 4 players. 45 seconds later he goes to a violin divisi of 3 desks each consisting of 4 players playing separate parts. In addition players throughout the orchestra are asked to glissandi to quarter and three quarter tone flats and sharps while increasing the rate of their tremolos. At one point, in the course of 15 seconds, he asks the contrabasses who are now divided into 4 desks of 2 to play between the bridge and the tailpiece, the highest note of the instrument with a very rapid non rhythmic tremolo while gradually sharpening that note 3 quarter tones
and arpeggiate on 4 strings behind the bridge.

This kind of thing goes on and on and on in the piece

Do you mean to suggest that this can be done with midi faster and more economically than with a real orchestra in a way that even remotely sounds real? I own Miroslav, Kirk Hunter, AO and GOS and not a single one of these libraries contains the samples necessary to even begin work on this piece. Using pitchbend and oscillators would sound too unconvincing. And how would you propose we deal with an orchestra in which the number of players in each section is actually changing in real time?

No, Im sorry, in certain situations, there is no cost benefit at all to using midi.

Now that being said, I am a big fan of midi. More specifically I am a huge fan of GOS. My reason however,in the orchestral realm, is not because it is a cheap alternative to an orchestra, rather, it is a tool by which I can express my ideas to those who may hire me but can not understand orchestration without an actual timbral representation.

Humbly submitted
Andy Brick
www.andybrick.com (\"http://www.andybrick.com\")

Gulliver
09-24-2002, 11:05 PM
>No, Im sorry, in certain situations, there is no >cost benefit at all to using midi.

Actually, I would go even further than that and say with most mid-level budget projects going MIDI is a complete waste of time and money. I\'ve gone back and forth in tugs of war with producers about this point and the more musically experienced ones usually get it. Composers of course always love the chance to work with live players, even the ones intimitaded by the whole thing. images/icons/smile.gif

I think technology will continue to play an important part in the orchestral world. Hi-quality samples have given composers the freedom to better faithfully demo their scores to clients before an expensive recording session, to better quality music for video games, to the kid next door getting the chance to create a half descent rendition of a symphony she wrote in her spare time. And to think only seven years ago it would\'ve cost a fortune to do what most people are doing today with Gigastudio.

BTW, nice to see you on the messageboard Andy.

J. Whaley
09-24-2002, 11:58 PM
Thanks Andy for noticing my comment. That is what I keep running into. It takes me as much time to do a MIDI mockup that sounds real, as it would to hire the musician. The difference is I can record 45 players at once, where as I have to play 45 different parts seperately. I have found if it takes an hour to record a real player, it will take at least an hour to sequence it right. Well, in the end, you pay 45 orchestra guys $100/hr, or you can pay me $100/hr. I\'m happy to take the money, but does it really save anyone?? Somewhere somehow the man hours still have to go in , and someone is going to pay for that. If it\'s not the client, then it might be me cutting my rate, but still, I\'m the one paying there. I\'m paying by not making what I should.

Don\'t get me wrong, I LOVE samples and I LOVE MIDI, and maybe with a $10k library I can sound like a real orchestra....But I feel like we\'re just proving a point more then making economic progress. (granted, it\'s a nice point to prove)

And another thought... If we push super hard to make samples just like the real thing, don\'t you think it will leave young players discouraged? They\'ll feel like there\'s no place for them in this world. We all know there\'s a place, but they may not see that cause they think everything is electronic. Well that\'s no fun cause the day we don\'t have any great violin players left on the Earth, we will have created our own distruction...

midphase
09-24-2002, 11:59 PM
In fact, I estimate it would take about 35-40 hours for even the most experienced midi guy to sequence any one of a number of these cues in order to make it sound decent. That same cue took me 45 minutes to record with 50 live players and it sounds great. Do the math and you will see that, in this case, sequencing wouldnt have saved any time or money. <font size=\"2\" face=\"Verdana, Arial\">Andy, could you give us an estimate of how many man hours it took for the orchestrator to arrange the parts, the copyist to print the out and organize them, the contractor to hire the musicians, the producer to research, and book the studio, the accountant to make sure all the musicians got paid....feel free to add the time it took you guys to fly over to Prague and back!

KingIdiot
09-25-2002, 12:36 AM
Andy,

If the samples aren\'t there, then yes its IMPOSSIBLE to do it in MIDI. There\'s a difference between trying to do somethign impossible and doing something that CAN be done in MIDI. So no I dont suggest that Samples can work miracles. I do suggest that they can be an option to save money in the long run for music that CAN be emulated with samples.

I never said the samples exist to replace the idea of going with a real orchestra.

Now I ask you, if the samples did exist, and you knew exactly what you were going to orchestrate, AND knew how to get it out of MIDI, you dont think that MIDI would save you money?

All I\'m suggesting is that MIDI can save some people money with stuff it CAN do.

lex
09-25-2002, 03:48 AM
Hm....nice topic.
Personaly, I always looked at my samples as instruments on their own. So if there are no live players involved, I\'m not writing for string sections, I\'m writing for GOS, for example. And as you would do with live players, you know what you can and what you can not write.

Now, not all GOS \"players\" are the same! For example Simon\'s GOS players are much better then mine, because his players can figure out some lines in mather of minutes, where my GOS players would need couple of hours! Get it?

So what do I do, well whenever there is time I\'m \"teaching\" my GOS section, so that next time they are in a rec session they can pull off some trickier things....hehe

Or for example, I just got \"Smart Violines\", and now I have bunch of violine players who can play all sorts of runs, perfectly and instantly.

Of course they are not the smartest bunch of players around, since all they can do is play runs, but I just place them to sit next to my GOS players, and when and if I need some runs, they just kick in. images/icons/smile.gif

Who knows, in time, maybe my GOS players will start picking up playing tips from my \"Smart Violines\" and vice versa...LOL!.. images/icons/wink.gif

Alex

Roman Beilharz
09-25-2002, 04:03 AM
Hep,

as we can see, there are many different approaches leading to many different equations leading to many different conclusions...

Each system has its strenghths and weaknesses; let me just point out one aspect, which I consider most important for myself:

When I have to score a movie or a TV-project, there usually is neither much time nor money to experiment a lot. Most producers are not really willing to take great risks in the musical idea/content, although, of course, everything is supposed to become perfectly amazing.
If someone is able to hack his stuff directly into Finale the way it is wanted and has the budget to record a live orchestra (and the cues don\'t change images/icons/smile.gif ), it might the best way to go: saving nerves, saving time.

On the other hand, using MIDI, the same guy might be able to set up a convincing score with samples in about the same time, that is musically beyond the secure claims of standard expectations (and I think we don\'t necessarily need tricky tremolo-pontispilegnozzicatos to create unusual musical ideas). If the music now does not match the needs of the director/producer, you can through it away and have just rised the composers bill (if your contract is good images/icons/wink.gif ), you don\'t have to justify, that you \"de-recorded\" a few thousand bucks. And here you go again. If there is enough time and money then: record the final version live! It will of course sound best in most cases, although sometimes the MIDI definitely does the better job: What about crossing the borders of real-life scoring with MIDI?? Its a different world, as I said before. There are many interesting things you CAN\'T do with a real orchestra. It\'s not only a one-way \"mockup\". Try to \"mock up\" some very hard intervals in a fast tempo, rhythmically exact, perfectly in tune, groovy and 100% in time etc. with a real orchestra. You will have a hard time, too.

I have not heard many interesting MIDI-tunes, that don\'t just try to \"imitate\". Take the risk and create something MIDIish. With good taste and good ears, it won\'t even sound \"artificial\", at least for the ones, that will finally judge it all: the spectators.

Roman Beilharz

Andy Brick
09-25-2002, 07:05 AM
Gulliver said...I think technology will continue to play an important part in the orchestral world. Hi-quality samples have given composers the freedom to better faithfully demo their scores to clients before an expensive recording session, to better quality music for video games, to the kid next door getting the chance to create a half descent rendition of a symphony she wrote in her spare time. And to think only seven years ago it would\'ve cost a fortune to do what most people are doing today with Gigastudio.
BTW, nice to see you on the messageboard Andy.

----------------------------

Agreed. Very good points. I would even add that it is a great way to learn certain orchestral textures and colors

-Nice to hear from you ;-)

-andy

Andy Brick
09-25-2002, 07:12 AM
King said.... I do suggest that they can be an option to save money in the long run for music that CAN be emulated with samples.
I never said the samples exist to replace the idea of going with a real orchestra.
Now I ask you, if the samples did exist, and you knew exactly what you were going to orchestrate, AND knew how to get it out of MIDI, you dont think that MIDI would save you money?

---------------
Yes indeed, I do think that for certain music that can be emulated with samples it can provide a low cost solution. In fact, I have gone that route myself on a number of occassions. The question becomes, at what point is the orchestration such that it no longer pays? Any ideas anyone?

PS King, I re-read my previous reply to you and I think perhaps it was a bit strong. I have read many of your posts here and have nothing but great admiration for your ideas.

-andy

KingIdiot
09-25-2002, 01:24 PM
No worries Andy,

All is good images/icons/smile.gif I tend to accidently get into debate mode with threads. Sorry about that.

midphase
09-25-2002, 01:36 PM
Do you mean to suggest that this can be done with midi faster and more economically than with a real orchestra in a way that even remotely sounds real? I own Miroslav, Kirk Hunter, AO and GOS and not a single one of these libraries contains the samples necessary to even begin work on this piece. Using pitchbend and oscillators would sound too unconvincing. And how would you propose we deal with an orchestra in which the number of players in each section is actually changing in real time?
No, Im sorry, in certain situations, there is no cost benefit at all to using midi.<font size=\"2\" face=\"Verdana, Arial\">Andy,

This is indeed a nice discussion and I hope Gary is not upset by this topic since it is steering away from GOS unto a separate branch.

I have to once again respectfully disagree with your points. You are making an assumption that most composers work the way you do but I have to say that it is not the case. While I do try to steer clients towards spending the extra money for the \"real deal\" there is not comparison when it comes to time and money budgeting for a live orchestra vs. MIDI and I have to say that MIDI is winning! Right now I am scoring a kids television pilot in a very orchestral style. With the deadline that I have, if I had to worry about dealing with the real orchestra I would be pulling the hair out of my head.

I think the quality of the MIDI tracks will be acceptable to the client and the audience will be for the most part oblivious to the fact that the orchestra is a simulated one.

To add another variable, the video is not locked and might undergo changes until the last minute which means I need the flexibility to change the score and not be locked to what was recorded.

As much as I respect a real orchestra, I have to say that for most of us the additional time that we would have to spend on it would so greatly surpass the time that we can do it with MIDI and still keep the sound reasonably close that a lot of us would be out of jobs.

This would be completely different if I had been working on projects involving real orchestras for the past few years and I had an established infrastructure and MO to do it like you apparently do.

What I am trying to say is that for John Williams, scoring a movie with MIDI and samples would take an eternity and using a real orchestra would be a lot quicker. For me it\'s just the opposite and, with all due respect to you and Mr. Williams....I think there are many more guys in the market working the way I do.

I am glad that you have the ability to use live orchestras, I won\'t hide a bit of jealousy towards your position, but please don\'t underestimate the abilities of the rest of us to create a convincing rendition of an orchestral work with samples.

One last point concerning Threnody....although trying to score the piece with the current crop of samples might prove quite challenging, it is quite possible to convey a similiar sound with current samples and clever programming.

THOR
09-25-2002, 02:28 PM
It also depends if what medium you work for...I do a lot of commercials where the picture changes constantly until the final mix....Most of the time it would be impossible to do anything with a real orchestra (even though I integrate OD\'s with live players...) because the changes are insane...I would have to rerecord every cue 20 times...with midi its easy to change. Also, we are talking about a commercial where nobody at home sits and critizises the music from a \"I wonder if that\'s a real orchestra\" standpoint. More like \"ok, switch channel\".The times I have used a real string ensemble the client couldn\'t tell the difference between the mockup and the real thing. Sometimes they prefer the mockup ...LOL !
So I think the discussion is very complex...for me personally it would definitely be worth having another great orch library under my belt...