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?

You need to be a member of Composers' Forum to add comments!

Join Composers' Forum

Email me when people reply –

Replies

    • Thanks for the nudge toward Miroslav solo instruments. VEry useful indeed!
  • dont forget music and art are two different things. TO me beauty in art is defined by its complexity, its ability to move me on many levels at once. Something simple can be beautiful but that isnt "art" to me, that is "nature". Music can be music and not art. Actually very little music is art. SO there you have to define the purpose of your music: to entertain, to create art, or just to fill a void where you are required to make neither music or art with the same tools, ie sound design. Some people may get into textural awareness and really love ambient music but to me you have to be into LSD or extasy pretty thoroughly to get into those kinds of music
  • Yes, experimenting with the way sound affects our ears, our emotions. Just as visual collages can be an entertaining or artful experience, so can aural collages.
  • I think the difference between art and non-art is the degree of quality. And, as we know, that involves a subjective judgment. In art, I feel that 'simplicity' has its place, like the simple motif in Beethoven's 5th. Art can be 'too simple', but can also be 'too busy, too complex'. Music without structure is often too uniform in emotion and boring, uninteresting. On the other hand, I've heard electronica that was very interesting and emotionally jolting, while being very abstract, with lots of changes that shift one's emotions. Even 'utilitarian' music for film can be raised to the level of high art. ie Bernard Herrmann.
  • I agree with Doug. Using samples can expand our hearing permiting us to transpose them, manipulate and emphasize some of its characteristics. Not to make music you´ve already heard but one that comes from the unexpected, from within sound itself. Never tried to transpose a glass being broken about four of five octaves down? It was really enlightening to me years ago. It made me more aware of the music in everyday life. Just a passing thought. Best.
  • I enjoyed the unexpected sound effects and various recordings of dialog from interviews, used on the Floyd's 'Dark Side of the Moon' album. Some beautiful aural landscapes were created.
  • Ah but to me, the motif of Beethoven's 5th is commercial drivel. The ART of that is how he contructs it into a complex weave of wonder that makes me think of that commercial drivel in a whole new way
  • What follows is mere opinion and conjecture.

    I think art has something to do with truth as Chris said earlier. Complexity, at least in terms of energy put into harmony, melody, rhythm, timbre of instruments, is somewhat irrelevant to me, useful and important, but not the criteria for discriminating between art or not. (but then my bias is obvious if you listen to my music.) A shakuhachi player can be an artist. Simple. A brush stroke can be art. A dancers gestures can be art.

    Or not. Simplicity is also more or less irrelevant as well.

    Truth, (art) is evoked when you "see" and communcate that seeing. When you have insight. When you have transcended your ego fixation enough to see the truth behind restricting concepts about the nature of reality: little mind.

    And that comes from sensitivity, openness, non-aggression, wakefulness. Then mixed with skill, technique and the ability to have arrange of energetic expressions. Here is where complexity plays a role in that you cannot express what you want without the muscles and facility

    So my LIbra mind cannot resist:
    From that point of view I've made little art. And I also project art into the works of people who may have little insight or ability to see.

    Gawd, am I about to say "eye of the beholder"? (shudder)
  • nice insight here....
  • I'm with you! LoL
    I think there is something to be said about trance/electronic music.
    In some ways, there is even less restriction in these genres than classical composition.
    Instead of being restricted to instruments that have already been made, one can make their own instrument - just to play this one piece.

    Another thing on things already said, what is the difference between composing with virtual instruments and what Haydn did in the suprise symphony? Both are/were innovations in the field of music.

    One cannot simply define music, or composer. Whether you are one, or you aren't is a question only you can answer.

    Merely sampling work does not immediately make you not a composer. It really depends on how the samples are used, whether in a totally different light, or in similar ways.

    No one called what Messiaen did "not composing", and yet he "sampled" the very notes of birdsong and nature.
    What's the difference?
This reply was deleted.