http://www.soundonsound.com/people/sounding-off-1016-dave-stewart
Actually, I find it delicate and politically correct for my taste, but not far from 'on the nose'...
-
Article from Sound on Sound - recommended read for "mouse-clickers"..
-
Agreed, no sense in beating about the bush here. The article is too polite.
I agree that it's probably easier to learn a few key concepts in music theory that will overcome deficencies than to learn about the post production tools. No amount of polish can disguise sloppy work. Incidentally, if you stick at it, it will eventually lead you into the best way to manipulate VSL's myriad articulations to your advantage - because as you become more technically proficient, the quality of your music will inevitably improve and your understanding of how to achieve musicality in your mock-up becomes clear, because it is now guided by experience and study. This is not achieved by eq or shiny reverb.
Mike.
www.mikehewer.com -
"...resulting in a generation of musical ignoramuses."
Unfortunately we may already be there. For working composers who have at least a general knowledge base of theory, nevermind conservatory education, it's sad that we live in a world where we have to compete with 14 year-old hip hoper wannabes and Youtubers whose only skillset are mouse clicking and app downloading.
-
It would be more than superfluous for me to go yet again into another diatribe here regarding the art of "compostition" as it is currently practiced in commercial media. Fellow forum members are acquainted with my vehement disparagement of those ostinati-thirds, taiko-mongering, and choir-yawning; especially when it is proffered by people who cannot write a single line of symphonic music without electricity...
Mike reminds me of another point I have made on occasion, but one that should be re-emphasized as often as possible. That is, the complete and utter ignorance of Music - as a discipline - by the new generation of cultureless directors. If the clients actually knew the level of larceny involved when they pay (when they pay...) for what passes today for 'action/suspense/adventure' music (or even drama - there is only so much themeless string voice-leading in 5ths one can take), they would weep bitterly. However, the status quo is such as it is, and it is up to those of us that know better to always offer them alternatives, to always inspire them to something musical!
-
Eloquently put Errikos.
When I demo'd for work, I often presented a more esoteric approach as an alternative to the brief. This of course got me nowhere most of the time, but I have the technique to write quickly and so it was no big deal for me. It was of course an attempt to stand out, but it also gave me some creative satisfaction whilst whoring out.
The ubiquitous use of certain devices is now sadly seen as a standard by clients and is now self-sustaining. If there ever was an art to media writing it's long gone, even the artifice is now boring. Music has always used devices, from Vivaldi's cycle of 5ths, to re-spelling a dim7th chord to modulate and as a default horror score chord. But sadly, the device is too easy on a computer and that is one of the root causes of the demise.
www.mikehewer.com -
on a lighter note, here's a tale from a midi session I was involved in...
Client - I'd like to hear the tune a bit more clearly....
Me - Ok, (then turning to engineer) I'll transpose these parts up an octave..
Producer - What !! - as much as an octave?
Someone actually related this to me over a beer, as if it had happened to them, I had to put them straight on that!
www.mikehewer.com -
Thanks Anand, amusing anecdote Mike.
Yes, musical devices have always existed and they have been extensively used in programme/media music since forever. The sad case of affairs is that the film music of today is made up exclusively of them. Remember the days when movie themes were not merely hummable, but also inventive, leitmotifs were transformed according to the script, and harmonic sequences consisted of more than two and a half chords? Let alone cliché orchestration that didn't come out of a box...
Today the situation is exactly like saying "I am a professional UFC fighter because I can beat opponents on Playstation"....
And clients, I've said it before: Why do you hire professionals for every aspect and duty of filmmaking - from DOP and art director, to assistant hairdresser - except for the composer?
-
Today the situation is exactly like saying "I am a professional UFC fighter because I can beat opponents on Playstation"....
And clients, I've said it before: Why do you hire professionals for every aspect and duty of filmmaking - from DOP and art director, to assistant hairdresser - except for the composer?
What I can't figure out is why even hire the playstation warrior at all? Why would the client pay me to load up Symphobia, Megasynth, Sampletude, you name it, then use my keyboard as a pillow and record the result. The client can do that him or her self. Cut out the middle man.
BTW You know we just love your diatribes Errik so, by all means, diatribe away😤
At least gives us a link to one of your older ones.
-
Your encouragement in noted Jasen!
Indeed I have dreaded the day when clients will realize they can be as great "composers" as those they pay $1,000s-$100,000s are, literally at the click of a button.. At the same time I have to be grateful that symphonic music for soundtracks is still de rigueur, and this is undoubtedly due to the advent of the pocket-orchestra that today's computer setups afford. I just have to put up with the 'musically challenged' motoric stutterings of joystick composers. Hopefully the trend will subside in a few years and real music will thereafter be sought (wishful thinking).
I have neglected to mention the bone I have to pick with those avaricious music software/library companies that provide the platforms enabling the ignorami to desecrate the art...
-
We are very near to replacing the expense of full orchestras with sound fonts. The next frontier is algorithmicly generated music. You might think Im nuts, but look at a standard keyboard workstation today. I have a Motif XF8 and a Kronos and the damn things practically play themselves, although, these are pre-defined algorithms.
There is software that is beginning to explore generating music from scratch (http://www.essl.at/works/Lexikon-Sonate.html, http://computoser.com/). While these are not entirely (in that, there are some interesting concepts but there remains some big hurdles and issues to overcome), very good (yet), this (in my opinion) will be the next frontier.
There is also the notion of the 'Fruity Loops' style of writing music. Does this qualify as 'writing' music? I argue no, but there are those that would tell you using a keyboard to accept midi notes to put into a DAW isnt writing either. Its all a matter of degrees. Would Bach or Mozart consider the many tools we use today as shortcuts to getting the job done, writing? Would they consider it cheating?
If you use Vienna's built in arpeggios for quick access to writing trills or other runs, are these shortcuts 'cheating'?
One might say the human element of music scoring and writing will never disappear.
The question really is, are you flexible enough, as a composer to move with the technology and use the technology as a tool to assist you with your work?
Lastly, I argue, no matter your skill level, create. Start with the simple tools that, yes, are scauffed at by 'real' composers. Learn. Then move on to more advanced tools and methods. If you need to start with garage band and Fruity Loops, do it!! Dont get stuck using them forever, but start somewhere. Stop being a 100% consumer and be creative. Always Be Learning. The current culture today seems to be Always Be Consuming.
I am trying to inspire people to contribute to the world, in my case, one note at a time. I have only a few pieces Ive written, piano only right now, mostly because as a student, time is a valuable resource I have very little of. But my hope is to one day have the time to begin writing orchestral music. In the mean time, Ill buy what I can afford of Vienna and a few other little tools so that when I do finally have enough time, I have a nice toolset and some decent soundfonts to work with.
-
to me what Errikos, who is a brilliant composer, is saying is real composition created by the mind of a composer is actual music. But software and computers are being used to fake that. Interesting how VSL does not fit in that fakery - it is 100% hardcore musical values, that you can either use or not use, based on what your mind can create. If you want something created by someone else, you'll have to go elsewhere. If you want actual music you created, this is the place.
-
I agree with William here.
VSL is a musicians' tool. What VSL (or a DAW for that matter) can't do however is teach you how to write idiomatically for an instrument, nor score effectively. There is only one way to do that and it's not a quick route - study!
If a user is smart, he/she could use the plethora of articulations as an educational tool alongside serious study. Useful excercises would be to create and test out sectional spacings of chords, multi timbre combinations and reproducing works (with their ambience) from the literature.
The possibilities are many and although VSL is not exhaustive and one has to also remember that it is only an analogue, it's power and superiority within the market in these regards is unparalleled..
www.mikehewer.com -
to me what Errikos, who is a brilliant composer, is saying is real composition created by the mind of a composer is actual music. But software and computers are being used to fake that. Interesting how VSL does not fit in that fakery - it is 100% hardcore musical values, that you can either use or not use, based on what your mind can create. If you want something created by someone else, you'll have to go elsewhere. If you want actual music you created, this is the place.
It depends on how you want to look at it. Some might argue, as was said earlier, that many would have no clue how to create music without electricity, as if to say, these people might be less of a composer.
It is analogous to a calculator. One might argue that a person should know the process for long division before actually using a calculator to perform long division.
I do not know where I stand in the debate. I feel like it is important for people to be creative. Consume less, create more and whatever helps do that, I say go for it. I have no issue with something like Fruity Loops, as long as it doesnt stop there. Fruity Loops should be a stepping stone into deeper, more creative writing, something to spark ideas perhaps, or to teach fundamental basics, but it should not stop there.
Vienna is very difficult to learn how to use it effectively. I would argue there are two aspects to composing. Composers are now expected to both write and know how to engineer / mix. VSL is an art form in itself. I have the ability to write music on sheet music by hand, but, getting soundfonts to have the proper articulations, the right volume and velocity changes, to be properly balanced with the other sounds, have the right amount or reverb and panning as well as other effects (low end compression is something coming to mind as Im just starting to play with this), proper frequency mix (I find VSL lacking in the low end 'punch' on occasion), the list could go on and on.
In the end, soundfonts are merely an evolution that is helping to improve the process of writing, streamline the process, and in the long run, makes music production cheaper. That last one might sound bizarre, but, if you consider that the entirety of VSL's entire product line (around $15,000 USD) could easily be spent just having a full 100 piece orchestra in studio for a 2 hour recording session. Soundfonts allow for all of the details to be perfected before the orchestra comes in, such that, costly changes while the orchestra is sitting in studio waiting for changes to be communicated can be eliminated.
I am not familar with all the sound libraries out there, I know what people consider the cream of the crop, VSL, East West, Spitfire, and Cinesamples (if there are others, let me know, always like to look into what else is out there) are pennies compared to the cost of a full orchestra and at the end of the day, are a tool to allow composers to be more creative and get the sound they are looking for out of their compositions.
-
Bill's well-meaning exaggerated praise is welcome as always - especially from someone that knows what they're doing.
I'm happily surprised that there are some "new" faces interested in this discussion, I usually think all is lost...
Anyway, from somebody that knows how to do long division (and even derivation of square root) without electricity, I do use the calculator when the digits are numerous or unfriendly. The point is that I could do it myself if I had to. Additionally, this is not the best comparison, to put it generally: Why waste time on a task when technology can do it faster and better.
I also use VSL when the situation calls for it. More importantly, I use Sibelius 'Playback' with several minor libraries when I compose. There are important differences between me and a guy that uses Instant Orkestra:
a) I use it as the calculator from the previous example, i.e. for expediency. I will not pretend that sometimes the 'Playback' of orchestral music in Sibelius won't result in me changing something in the orchestration. However most of the time my inner ear corrects the flawed, inferior playback and I pay no mind to it. The colours that you hear in your head should be more accurate than the notation program. If they are not, it's just a matter of further study and experience.
I actually use it more to check on the complex polyphonic simultaneities, confirming that what is heard in my head corresponds to the actual notation, and whether it works.
b) I don't look for (other people's) ideas in the algorithms of "inspiration" products, neither would I use their take-away orchestration/rhythms, not because they are inferior - they are actually quite professional, if uninspired. I wouldn't use them because I could not subsequently put my name on the composition (at least not without further credits. ex.: Music by Errikos [Title by Errikos - Finger pressing middle-C for those wondrous Omnisphere soundscape by Errikos - Tempo chosen by Errikos - Gluing by Errikos - Mixed and Produced in Stereo, 5.1 and 7.1 by Errikos - Melody and Harmonization by Liquid Notes - Rhythms/Ostinati by Cinesamples - Orchestration/Voicing, "Mood" patches and fillers by Symphobia, etc.]
I am happy to see that 'littlewierdo' is taking composition one step at a time, ALONG with study (you don't know how many times I have emphasized this on this forum Mike). The problem with most is that their studies consist of constantly listening to "Epic" trailers and Zimmer-drones. You can't learn anything from those! You should be listening to Stravinsky, Prokofiev, Ravel, and Lutoslawcki among many others; with SCORE at hand! Harmony/Counterpoint is too much to ask for.
Everybody likes Bacos on this forum. I'll bet you anything you want, his skills were not developed with arpeggiators... Neither did Williams', Horner's, Young's, Beltrami's, or Desplat's for that matter.
Finally, VSL's "inspiration" MIDI patches are so ... let's just say that they instead work as deterrents to using automated music-crutches I am happy to say.
Second finally, algorithmic composition is a different cup of beverage, all my comments apply to the composition of symphonic music.
-
'Harmony/Counterpoint is too much to ask for..'
Harmony and counterpoint is as we know, the only way to improve composition skill. Unfortunately it's also as hard if not harder than orchestration. It saddens me that a lot of the quick fix/ want it now/nobody ever fails generation will probably never have the inclination to want to commit to several years of study and will never experience the creative emancipation a music education gives you. By this I mean the freedom and confidence to imagine your music and not have to put your hands down in the middle of a keyboard groping around, trying to find a few chords. Or worse still, letting presets do it, as Errikos suggests.
This is not meant to be a pejorative of anybody who can't read, but on a forum devoted to orchestral samples, the fact is that to write competently for an orchestra, real or not, you need to know what you are doing. Only through knowledge and learning will you be able to actually dictate to yourself what you write and not rely on serendipity (too much!) . I don't want to put off any newbies here with this post - as we know, a lot of successful film scorers can't read and so there is no need to despair. To be fair and balanced, a little knowledge might stifle the great music being produced by some composers - good technique is not a guarantee of great music. But if a fledgling composer travels the quick and easy route, they have to ask themselves, "what do I have that will make me stand out from the crowd"? A solid technique will give you the tools to explore your aesthetics, bring them to the fore and raise your work above a mimesis of the generic.
www.mikehewer.com -
I agree that many a successful film scorer today couldn't write their own name on the staff, however they are only successful financially (and maybe that's enough for a lot of people). Their music is, and will always be execrable.
I am also not averring that solely music readers can be composers. I believe Vangelis for example to be brilliant and charismatic. To be an 'orchestral composer' on the other hand is a very different matter. I can grudgingly accept the piano-roll and expression maps as a different form of notation by which to tabulate original orchestral thought, but presets?!
Mike, you hit on a point that had never occurred to me before in relation to all this. These preset-junkies will NEVER experience the ecstasy of real composition, i.e. the genesis of a work inside one's own head. For me that is probably the most enjoyable part of the whole process; the epiphany and the rush are incomparable, aren't they? Putting everything down on paper is manual labour to me. Sure I'll considerably tinker with the material at that stage as well, but I wish there was technology available to just "bluetooth" music off my head and into Sibelius.
Plus, I don't believe that suddenly we are surrounded by countless musical gods who need not study what the masters before them have achieved and are magically able to churn out great music. Thousands of them. Do you know why they'll spend $15,000 on VSL and another $15,000 on hardware and more software, but not another $2-3,000 on proper music instruction? Of course you do, you said it yourself: Harmony and counterpoint are hard. Pressing middle-C to pirate other people's musical thoughts and then glueing them together in a DAW, well...
-
I agree that many a successful film scorer today couldn't write their own name on the staff, however they are only successful financially (and maybe that's enough for a lot of people). Their music is, and will always be execrable.
I am also not averring that solely music readers can be composers. I believe Vangelis for example to be brilliant and charismatic. To be an 'orchestral composer' on the other hand is a very different matter. I can grudgingly accept the piano-roll and expression maps as a different form of notation by which to tabulate original orchestral thought, but presets?!
Mike, you hit on a point that had never occurred to me before in relation to all this. These preset-junkies will NEVER experience the ecstasy of real composition, i.e. the genesis of a work inside one's own head. For me that is probably the most enjoyable part of the whole process; the epiphany and the rush are incomparable, aren't they? Putting everything down on paper is manual labour to me. Sure I'll considerably tinker with the material at that stage as well, but I wish there was technology available to just "bluetooth" music off my head and into Sibelius.
Plus, I don't believe that suddenly we are surrounded by countless musical gods who need not study what the masters before them have achieved and are magically able to churn out great music. Thousands of them. Do you know why they'll spend $15,000 on VSL and another $15,000 on hardware and more software, but not another $2-3,000 on proper music instruction? Of course you do, you said it yourself: Harmony and counterpoint are hard. Pressing middle-C to pirate other people's musical thoughts and then glueing them together in a DAW, well...
I did not mean to say that people who use or take easier routes are any less of a composer, I meant to say, start somewhere but dont stop. If you know nothing of music, start with more accessible tools. Arguably, VSL and some sort of DAW / notation software may not be the best starting point..
To expound on study, expand your horizons. There is a reason we still use much of what the Greeks developed with regards to philosophy and science, in fact, we use the methodology they developed still to this day as the fundamentals in structuring an argument (which, if you think it through, applies to the scientific method). Math is probably an even better example, what we use today came from many different cultures, the concept of the number 0 is widely considered to have come from the Mayans, many concepts used in Algebra from the middle east but may have started as early as the Egyptians in biblical times when the pyramids were being built.
The same is applicable to music. I listen to and study ALL sorts of music genres, with exception to a few that I just cant stand: Polka / Mexican music that sounds similar to polka, most rap, super heavy metal where the lead singer is more yelling with a raspy and unintelligible voice, 'progressive' jazz (the crap that doesnt sound like music, it just sounds like people playing whatever the hell they want with no sort of rhythm or tonal structure - akin to 'artists' who throw random paint on a canvas and call it 'art'). Thats a few genres, might be a few Im forgetting, but you get the idea.
The absolute two best technical singers today? David Phelps and Celine Dione. Regardless of whether you like their music, there is alot to be gained by watching these two sing.
If you want to know who does it best, bringing different cultures of music together to create emotion and inspiration to me, its Yanni. While Im not a big fan of his objectification of women during his early work, the music itself is inspiring, moving, emotion, and impactful.
I am absolutely terrible with composition. Just freaking awful. Ideas come slow and it takes even longer to get my idea in some semblance of tones that give a small glimpse of the tones I am hearing in my head. They are by no means complex. However, one of the most beautiful pieces of music, Cannon in D demonstrates that complexity is not required.
Vienna was kind enough to give me a demo of their Special Edition library. Ive opened it once in the two weeks Ive had it because I found 10 minutes last week sometime to fiddle with it for a bit. Maybe the lack of time in my schedule has something to do with ideas coming slow.
The complexity of this stuff is beyond me sometimes and I consider myself computer saavy. In fact, Ill throw this out there, Im considering buying Instruments Pro, not because of any of the features it has but simply because it has a piano roll sheet built into it; where everything is integrated and would make getting my ideas 'on paper' that much easier.
I say all of this to go back to my original point, these are all tools. If you have no experience with sheet music, orchestral instruments, or fundamental music theory, VSL is not the best place to start. Fruity Loops or some tool that will teach the fundamental basics of how music works, what a measure is, what a phrase is, how to structure a melody to chords, etc. might be a good place to start.
All I am saying is, dont stop there. This isnt to say that these tools are necessarily bad, its to say, these should be stepping stones. I would argue that Vienna is near top of the line but with that comes more work.
If however you have some basic understanding of music theory and the different instruments in an orchestra, their range, and an understanding of how they can be played (ie. articulations), VSL is a good place to start.
However, one might argue that VSL is overly complex for just getting an idea on paper.
For me personally, I write on a Motif XF and a Kronos. Not because the sounds are particularly good in the boards by todays standards, but because they are easy to quickly get an idea from my head into an audible form. Sometimes, the technology needs to get out of the way and I feel like for me, soundfonts are just a bit too complex to get everything working how it should. If only I could write a composition as quickly as the cinesample guy does it, hell, I cant even figure out how to get my DAW to record a midi channel with a soundfont while playing back a different soundfont I previously recorded. Mostly, I have too much Calculus and Physics to work on to have the time fiddling with computer stuff to get it working.
So, in the meantime, Im just buying the Special Edition collection (I have Core 1,2 and 4 and will buy 3 next week and complete the plus collections by early next year) and maybe a MirX pack with Instruments Pro so that when I do have the time, Ill have something to work with. Thinking about buying Cubase (currently using Reaper) as well.
Bottom line is this, create more, consume less.
-
P Paul moved this topic from Orchestration & Composition on
