Vienna Symphonic Library Forum
Forum Statistics

180,750 users have contributed to 42,140 threads and 254,362 posts.

In the past 24 hours, we have 3 new thread(s), 17 new post(s) and 48 new user(s).

  • An Appreciation of VSL 1.2

    last edited
    last edited

    This was a worthy thread and I think deserves a 2nd chance.

    I though it was kind of going to waste now that the original thread is closed and no follow up is possible, either related to this post or with your own experience.

    (Let's keep this one clean)

    So to answer some questions I said I would reply to:

    When composing with VI, rarely will I compose 100% of the ideas that pops into my head, because I know that's not realistic and I'll end up fighting with the samples, so I prefer to work WITH the samples, and my ideas will revolve around what is available and sound most pleasing to me in a particular library. It could happen that a single articulation I like will trigger an entire piece because I know I can develop on that articulation without having to worry about it sounding good. Perhaps this kind of thing comes easier to me, I have no idea, but I am comfortable working like this. This would be similar to Beethoven using the harmonic notes of the french horn in his symphonies, he had a very limited amount of notes to work with, however, made great use of them as we know.

    Often I'll have fun just trying things out in a library, just anything, like improvising between articulations instead of on a piano, and suddenly this sound is cool, or a combination or articulations I really dig, ok, we'll go with that, as silly as this. It's kind of working backwards maybe, but for me it works just as well, just a different order, and once you get going, the inspiration starts to pour in. As I said in another post, for me the most important aspect when writing with VSL is knowing your library, the better you know it the more enjoyable it will be for you, simply because it is like chess, there are over 9 million different possible positions after three moves each. There are over 288 billion different possible positions after four moves each. The number of distinct 40-move games is far greater than the number of electrons in the observable universe. This is also why I said, I could be using the same library and in 5 years will make better use of it simply because I experimented more with it. Another side of this is that you come up with ideas you would never have thought of from your head, and I guess that's where I can be more innovative sometimes. We aren't living in the 19th cent. anymore, so we need to adapt our inspirations with the tools available today to make the most of it. Sadly, there is a trend of this "out of the box" wish, and perhaps we are getting closer to this, especially with synchron, but I'd still work WITH the library for now or in part combination..

    So that's one side.

    I also sometimes will work with very specific ideas I have and figure out what articulations works best afterwards, like doing a mock up, which is a complete different way of working compared to the first way I described. For instant, I recently wrote a fairly long piece for which I completely did a 2 piano version first, unfortunatelly I temporarilly had to abandon it during the orchestration to work on synchron string demos, but during the orchestration I probably would of looked at what works best in the library. So it doesn't hurt to have some flexibilty and more importantly, not to get too attached to what you write.

    Works with live orchestra.

    I must confess that all of the pieces I've had played by real orchestras were done in VI first, some as VSL demos (like Mourning), some not, just for my pleasure, and always worked out very well making a score for the orchestra. It has never been a hurdle since I use the instruments in a pretty idiomatic way and if what you write is musical for each instrument and section, it will very likely be playable, of course some instruments like the harp, you can't write anything you want. But I've written some pretty wild demos over the years, and I know they would be very playable live, it's just a question of figuring out how to divide the parts to make it playable for each musician, that has never worried me, Ravel is my reference for this.

    A few years ago I was asked by a Roumanian pianist to write a sort of concert piece for piano and orchestra based on a Roumanian folk theme, Rhapsodic Variations on Lie Ciocarlie For this I went more with a traditional approach, mainly because the piece revolved around playful passages and had enough material in my head.

    I could probably go on about this for several pages, but this is just a glimps of how I like to work. Hope that it can be interesting or useful to some.


  • Thank you Guy, for restarting this topic.

    If I could ask you one more question regarding your compositional process.

    When you say you prefer to work with the samples, is the worflow something like this?

    1) First you play the keyboard with a particular patch or sample loaded, improvise for melodies or interesting harmonies....this would be akin to someone in the 19th century simply improvising on a piano, except the instrument is 'virtual' and could be any instrument in the orchestra. 

    2)When an interesting idea occurs, I can imagine there are three ways to proceed:

    A. Notate the music with pencil and paper OR

    B. Use a notation program like sibelius to enter the score OR

    C. Simply play on the keyboard and record the music track by track, and later clean up the notation if sheet music needed

    Or is it a combination of A B and C?

    Would be fascinating to know.

    Of course there is all the VSL related processing/editing work which I am not considering.

    Thoughts from others welcome too.

    Best

    Anand


  • .


  • Thanks William. Very interesting to know that you first started off with pure pencil and paper and found a new avenue with VSL.


  • The last time I wrote using pencil and paper, at the end of the line I was looking for the "save" button. No joke.


  • .


  • There is something so visceral and warm about slowly filling a page with ink. However, after the first couple of pages one has to scrap because of changes to the orchestration or the whole accompaniment, one reluctantly accepts the coldness of the pixel (and the concomitant radiation).


  • .


  • Good point Bill, part-writing was always assigned to copyists or students of composers. I don't know how Dorico fares as yet (for scores slightly more complex than Haydn), but we should charge for parts more than we charge for commissions (significantly more since we are expected these days to slave to write music for nothing...)


  • Guy, thank you for sharing your composition process. I am going to try your methods for my next piece. 

    I can't remember if I posted this earlier, but my working method (so far and open to change) is to focus on the feeling or emotion I would like to write about, then when I can hear a melody or chord progression in my head I notate that idea in Sibelius. Sometimes I will keep trying lots of permutations until I can create a melody fragment or motive that in my mind excites me. This is the hardest part of composing for me, creating the basic melody or motive that excites me. I then gradually expand or "fill out" the original idea and will generally complete the entire composition in notation before working with samples. I used to work using a keyboard, but I stopped doing that a few years ago. Sometimes I end up abandoning an idea as boring or I simply can't imagine how to expand upon that idea.

    When the entire piece is finished, I print the score, then use Cubase to create a midi-performance.  

    VSL samples are the only library I have found that is conducive to working in this fashion. I own various libraries from other developers and find them extremely hard to use to create a midi-performance. The samples are not consistent in volume between patches, or even within a patch. The articulations available in other sample libraries are also limiting.  

    I really hope that the new Synchron products (I have already purchased Strings I) will continue the VSL tradition of highest quality. To be frank, I am a little worried about the pricing being too low to support the high quality. 

    Anyway, I am going to hook up my keyboard and give Guy's method a try. 


  • Composing without thinking to the real instruments, but to the sampled instruments, is really a game-changer. It is not easy to change one's attitude, after years spent thinking to the very versatile human-driven instruments.

    Composing with what you have is really liberating. You can try the sampled instruments, explore their abilities, immediately listen to the results, feel the sound under your fingers. Having good libraries would be worthless, if you still force yourself to hear sound you don't have, and can't really listen to.

    Thank you, Guy, for making this clear.

    Paolo


  • last edited
    last edited

    @PaoloT said:

    Composing without thinking to the real instruments, but to the sampled instruments, is really a game-changer. It is not easy to change one's attitude, after years spent thinking to the very versatile human-driven instruments.

    Composing with what you have is really liberating. You can try the sampled instruments, explore their abilities, immediately listen to the results, feel the sound under your fingers. Having good libraries would be worthless, if you still force yourself to hear sound you don't have, and can't really listen to.

    This is interesting. While I also agree that it is amazing to have the ability for instant feedback with a virtual orchestra, I wonder how composers were able to make such amazing music before the computer era. In other words, my question is not so much about how would Beethoven, Strauss, Ravel, or Mahler would exploit these modern tools if they were alive today, but rather how they produced such amazing tone colors without these tools, but purely with pencil and paper and imagination. 

    Obviously the older generations had to undergo rigorous training to hear sounds in their inner ear(precisely because they did not have these tools), otherwise they could not have written with such finesse. But does having the ability to instantly get feedback from sampled orchestra do away for the need for inner hearing? Does the presence or abscence of inner hearing ability have any influence on the quality of the artisic output? On the other hand, if having an orchestra at our fingertips is really a game-changer and gives us so much power, why arent today's composers exceeding, or even matching the compositional prowess of someone like Prokofiev or Stravinsky? Just wondering.

    Anand 


  • last edited
    last edited

    @agitato said:

    I wonder how composers were able to make such amazing music before the computer era. In other words, my question is not so much about how would Beethoven, Strauss, Ravel, or Mahler would exploit these modern tools if they were alive today, but rather how they produced such amazing tone colors without these tools, but purely with pencil and paper and imagination. 

    My 2 cents on this:

    I think it has to do with the time and enviroment you live in. Surely the young talented musicians of those times must of developed extraordinary abilities that would be impossible to duplicate living in today's world. Once your mind gears into a certain way of learning, it starts to become lazy in other areas, and how far this can, well seems there's almost no limit. Just an example, imagine not having the invention of the phonograph or radio, you would develp a much better ear, you would take the habit of memorizing much of what you hear, orchestra colors as well. This is impossible for us to conceive, different times. 


  • last edited
    last edited

    @agitato said:

    Does the presence or abscence of inner hearing ability have any influence on the quality of the artisic output? On the other hand, if having an orchestra at our fingertips is really a game-changer and gives us so much power, why arent today's composers exceeding, or even matching the compositional prowess of someone like Prokofiev or Stravinsky? Just wondering.

    Anand 

    [/quote]

    I agree wholeheartedly with Guy's assessment, but would like to add some further thoughts for consideration.

    First, as someone that composes concert works strictly using notation and media music strictly using a daw, I can vouch for both the different creative processes involved, as well as the stylistic output of the music that results from each method.  When I compose using notation software, I hear the sounds internally, imagining the blend of timbres from the various instruments, the extended techniques and articulations each instrument will use, etc. etc.  Without the benefit of VSL playback, it forces me to think idiomatically for the instruments; it forces me to do a lot more in my head, and to perhaps write with greater complexity, because I can see my notes in the score and understand the resulting harmony and counterpoint visually on "paper".  In daw composition, I become more influenced/inspired by the actual sounds of the samples as I play my keyboard.  In turn, I sometimes can get more creative in terms of the variety of articulations, the timbral pallette, and a myriad of other things that might simply not come to mind when writing with notation.  That said, I rarely can achieve as complex a piece of music in terms of harmony, counterpoint, metre, etc. when composing in a daw.

    Now as to your assertion that today's composers aren't exceeding or even matching the abilities of earlier giants, well, there's much to consider, some of which Guy mentioned.  First, how many composers today are blessed with the ability to focus exclusively on creating music without worrying about a myriad of other things that distract them from music-making.  Sure, distractions existed in Mozart's day too, but composers were able to earn a living through their art, whereas today, those that earn that living are rarely doing so with serious orchestral music.  In other words, if the demand for such complex, developed works doesn't exist, and if the opportunities for modern composers to work with orchestras is so limited, what incentive exists for them to continually create such works and improve their craft?  Further, even if they desire to improve their understanding of what works/doesn't work with a real live orchestra, they don't have the opportunity for the learning process of "demonstrate...try...feedback...revise" that composers in previous eras had.  Simply put, I can't create a symphony on paper today, do an orchestral read-through tomorrow, get feedback, go home and revise the score, and repeat the process.  Being "immersed" in the active learning and creative process is something modern composers can't benefit from (except with the wonders of our sample libraries).

    Second, while there is in no way a diminishment of the greatness of the giants of the past, their recognition wasn't always immediate.  It can take hundreds of years for their impact to be realized and written about.  Furthermore, as societal values reflect the world in which we live, it's clear that modern composers today won't receive such recognition in their lifetime, save for a few individuals who can "break through the clutter" (and rarely ever do those that break through qualify as the best/most deserving individuals...see Hans Zimmer).  

    Third, as has been discussed ad nauseum in the "tonal vs. atonal" debate (which I don't want to revive), it is simply impossible for a composer today to write music without either being compared to those that wrote similarly in the past, or being criticized for writing music that's too "out there".  Let's face it...there are twelve tones, and millions of works have been written already that exploit every possible combination of harmonic progressions, melodic lines, and rhythmic patterns.  Obviously there are many more pieces to be written, but you can't reinvent the wheel when a million wheels are already out there.  So, composers today face the burden of being aware of everything that came before them, and having to constantly find a way to express their voice in an authentic way, completely aware of the fact that others will judge them against that which already exists.  A lot of pressure, to be sure!

    Finally, think of the sheer number of distractions in our lives today, entertainment and otherwise that pull our focus from a constant pursuit of musical excellence.  From television and video games, to books, social media, and outdoor activities, there is more to do today than ever before.  And in my estimation, the greats that we recognize today, probably didn't have the most balanced of lives.  They lived for their art and had many more opportunities to immerse themselves in it for many hours a day than composers today do (again, save for those with academic appointments, film composers, etc.)  

    Sorry for rambling, but I felt the need to at least play devil's advocate.  The funny thing is, generally speaking, I agree that very few living composers today are achieving at the same level as those composers of previous centuries...but I don't believe it's for lack of ability, as much as for lack of opportunity to develop those skills to a higher degree than they currently do.

    Dave


  • "Sorry for rambling, but I felt the need to at least play devil's advocate.  The funny thing is, generally speaking, I agree that very few living composers today are achieving at the same level as those composers of previous centuries...but I don't believe it's for lack of ability, as much as for lack of opportunity to develop those skills to a higher degree than they currently do.

    Dave"

    True that todays technological advances come with the downside of other distractions that perhaps prevent people from achieving a higher level of compositional artistry compared to 100 or more years ago. (although some people even today reach that level but face other limitations you mention) 

    Anyways, composing tools like VSL give people like me...non-music professionals....an opportunity to directly interact with this amazing thing called orchestra, even if the intention is not to make a living out of it.

    Cheers

    Anand 


  • .


  • last edited
    last edited

    @William said:

    I think it is the basic fact that creativity always finds a way.

    This is so true. And should be a guiding motto for all of us who want to compose. Even one hundred years ago, composers were complaining that all of the best ideas had been used and there was nothing of value remaining to be written. How wrong was that?

    Paul


  • Many interesting points made in this thread. The reason I can compose in notation using Sibelius is the NotePerformer soundset, which makes it possible to get a very good idea of how things will sound just using standard notation. Without Sibelius and NotePerformer I would be forced to go back to composing at a keyboard. Of course, NotePerformer is far short of the quality of VSL and other top-tier sample libraries, so I also do a VSL midi-performance.

    Almost all of the great composers composed at the keyboard. The only two I can immediately think of who could compose entirely "in the head" are Mozart and Handel. Even Bach composed at the keyboard. This is not to say that great composers did not do some things "in the mind's ear." Beethoven would take long walks while singing his ideas. Dvorak also was a walking aficionado walking every morning to the local train station and thinking about his composing for the day.

    Before recorded music every family created their own music. Every middle-class family owned a piano and most families had several musicians. As a result, composers could easily bring together a string quartet or various wind and brass instruments to try out ideas before making a final commitment to publication. Beethoven in his many notebooks often made notations regarding various "readings" with musicians that he held in his apartment. Bruckner was notorious for making changes to his orchestrations after hearing the initial performance. When I began composing in the 1970's I had numerous musician friends who were willing to try out new music for me. Today there seems to be fewer gifted family and amateur musicians, so getting a reading is probably impossible unless one is connected to a music school. To compensate we have software. 

    I do believe that with experience and training, one begins to have a firm conception of what various instrument combinations, harmonic progressions, and articulations will work in performance. So the more feedback we receive (as someone previously mentioned) the better we become at composing in the mind's ear.


  • .


  • .