Condemnation towards computer generated music (Sample libraries and such)

[Denny Schneidemesser]

Now this is something that happens to me quite often. Have you ever been in the situation where someone asked “What are you using to create your music?”. Probably since most people aren't familiar with the technology nowadays, at least where I live. I cannot recall how many scornful looks I've received for stating that I take my Horns and Violins from an orchestra library. Most people don't even want to take a look at it because it seems totally ridicolous to them. I don't know if it's pure ignorance or the technology that most people aren't aware of. I guess it's a mix of both since people are trying to avoid it.

I highly respect the real orchestra and I would always prefer it if I had the choice, but samples became really important because they give people with lower budgets the chance to listen to their compositions. Yeah I know, that's nothing new to everyone who reads this. However, I wish more people would acknowledge that.

So how's it where you live? Well I can imagine that sample libraries are much better known and understood in states like LA, the situation in my country (Germany by the way) is stated above.

Any similar situations so far?

[Alex Pfeffer]

Hey Ray,

no, currently I don't have time to compose for myself. At the moment I really enjoy to turn off Cubase and mute my speakers after work :)

[Ray Kemp]

Hi! Alex

I nearly forgot I had asked you that question. I understand where you're coming from. For me it's a hobby so I'm silly enough to sit here at any hour.

My Best

[Chris Alpiar]

sounds to me you are asking more what is art. And art is always in the eye of the beholder. To me art is a soothing mixture of simple motifs with astounding complexity and deep inner meaning. To me art is something that must speak truth firstly. And then it must dig into the core of the issue. It can never be superficial. It can relay any emotion or mindset. To me art is not those legos made into a square with 4 pieces. But building them into a 10,000 piece monument to some ideal or emotion. but thats just me ;-)

[Denny Schneidemesser]

Sorry that I haven't been active in this discussion, there was a little incident right after I posted this and I kinda lost focus on this. I've finally read all the replies and I'm really thankful for some of the solutions. Sometimes the question of the equipment is unavoidable, especially if you're still young and just started with composing. It's right that people have this certain thinking about computer generated work at all, the media is just supporting it with typical "This product is easy to use" advertises.

Saying that your piece is played by a real orchestra is actually a pretty good option since you aren't lying... well, neither saying the truth either. But it's right, you shouldn't give them information that could lead them to this certain kind of thinking.

[Ray Kemp]

You beat me to the punch here Chris, as I was thinking the same in that the viewer and/or listener decides the definition of art, except when! A friend of mine following a performance of one of those guitarists who uses drop tunings as drones while battering the living daylights out of the instrument said "isn't he great and he must be because Eric Clapton thinks he's great too!".
I replied "No! I've heard it all before over the years. It's just different." If my friend had but given only his own opinion I would not have argued it. Emotion in art must be a personal experience.
I've stated before, I love my virtual instrument samples but I have no illusions about their limitations in expressing emotion no matter how well one can use a breath controller or mod wheel, but of course such a level of art is not necessary when recording an under score for an advert.

[Robyn Traill]

Perhaps tell people that it is you PLAYING a keyboard. It is your COMPOSITION and score. It gives them a sense of the reality that this is a genuine piece of art/craft. Let people snark if they want about the samples. Then surprise them with the sound if you can.

[Aaron]

The issue of synth-only availability for those like me who don't have the money for live performances at times vexes me to the point of wanting to do something stupid: synthesize my operas, and release them that way. Such would have live singers, of course, but... "synthesized opera" is not to be a well-received phrase anywhere you go. When, oh when, will they come out with more realistic orchestra libraries?!

I generally find that the best antidote to these frustrations is to forget I am a composer altogether, and just leave the scores in the dark fire safes where they now rest.

[Doug Lauber]

Why not work within your means? In other words, I remember writing music with my parents' old crappy piano. I had it tuned and wrote music with it. I think it's fun and adventurous to use whatever is available, whether it's just a guitar or piano, synth, bass, etc. If you want to compete with those who present choral and/or orchestral arrangements, you have to spend the money for the best orchestral libraries. Great composers can write great music on just a piano or organ. The bottom line is- if it sounds good, it is good. If it doesn't, something has to be corrected, with different arrangements or different recording techniques or different instrumentation or with better samples. If someone loves composing, it should be enjoyable to start with just a few instruments. If choral work is the focus, I'd work it out and do the notation and find a choral group to perform it. You can use junky samples as a stepping stone to writing a sound arrangement.

[Robyn Traill]

Doug, I think what you say is important. There have been memorable times when I didn't have the "size" of ensemble I wanted, virtual or not, and returned to the depth of performance and subtlety of writing to convey the emotion I needed. A few times the sparse-ness was shocking, but with courage I let it hold the space and it came across as innovative and unique and genuine.

Chris Alpiar (April 13) was very evocative for me when he waxed poetic about art. Truth. Film makers will often feel the truth of how a piece of music allows a doorway into someones life, mind, heart. Opens one to a bigger space.

Having said that, it is not always an option if your livelihood depends upon the solidified need for a "big orchestral sound, and finish the whole film in a week for ten thousand thank you very much." One has little choice but be able to cover as much sonic territory as possible.

[Doug Lauber]

Today, this topic brings to mind Kid Rock's appropriation of Warren Zevon's 'Werewolves of London' and also Skynrd's 'Sweet Home Alabama'. What I hate about that appropriation technique is that it is lazy musicianship. What makes many of these new songs good, are the pre-recorded parts, not the new parts. Kid Rock is riding the backs of those who composed, arranged, recorded, and engineered the originals. It's like taking a huge beautiful building and then pasting your flag on top of it, and then posing as an architect. It's too easy- and it lacks a degree of emotional vulnerability inherent in true 'composing'. Hey, when Rauschenberg appropriated the Mona Lisa, the end result was predominantly Rauschenberg. He wasn't relying on the Mona Lisa to lift his art up. I am OK with the idea of appropriation in art. It can be amazing stuff when done correctly, but a lot of the time we see or hear lazy crap that owes most of the art's power to the appropriated sections and not the new juxtapositions, or the new additional elements. A cut and paste collage technique can yield great art. Just about any technical strategy can work, but for it to be good, the musician must be a good composer. He or she must have 'good taste' and that is difficult to define. It's like porn- You know it when you see it. :)

Now...back to the topic of using samples, ie orchestral samples. I think most would agree that you should use the best orchestral and choral samples that you can afford. ...Just as a side note: The soundtrack for Kubrick's 'Eyes Wide Shut' uses only one instrument- a piano.

[Robyn Traill]

I was just discussing the piano cue early in the film where Kidman is sitting on the bathroom floor with a long monologue and simple piano as underscore. I don't even know what the music is. But one note at a time was shifting the energy so beautifully.

[Garett Buell]

(sorry i have not posted in a while, been working hard and funny, been doing a lit of photographing, seems to be a budding second career!)

Doug,

thats well put! I have been mulling that one over for years now as I have been working hard to build and spend loads of money on gear in order to have an ideal and competitive workspace...but it never ends...always something else you need!

I had to just stop and realize that it is all more or less, detrimental to my creative ability. The key for me is to create, period. I stopped and realized that I have tools and I can create just fine and to satisfaction with them. Friends and peers might have more expensive gear and better recording capabilities but I have what I have.

Actually, it has been much more rewarding to focus on creations utilizing your limitations. To me, it focuses my energy and helps me to learn better how to use the tools I have to make the most of my compositions. So, I am better at composing and better at using the tools. I am also retaining a sense of honesty, the sounds and the final outcome is categorized by the period I am in creatively as well as financial!

I agree, a good artist will be able to create a composition with a (pardon the exaggeration) coke can. Its all in where your voice leads you and knowing how to
use the tools available to speak your voice. Its all in perspective.

I usually always tell people where the sounds come from if I can, even if I use samples in studio or live...Im a percussionist so Im used to that, but I dont tend to get the same negative generalizations as some of the others have mentioned...guess I am just in a good open minded community here in Nashville.