sample relying

[Taurus]

First off, Im so sick of musicians that compose their music and are just too much relying on their samples. Im talking about decent compositions that sound awsome, have broad spectrum and are mixed extremely well (most likely automatically by the program/samples itself), but if you would replace the samples with something less you'd have nothing left other than an expressionless midi file.

Imagine this scenario. 2 scomposers apply for a job, one of them is a real "player", been pianist all his life and loves to play. He composes with hardware instruments and records everything live. His music is complex with a lot of expression (because he plays it, live, then record). But he tries to emulate natural sounds with what he has on his synthesizers. It sounds unique from all the other midi-composers, but ofcourse nowhere near a real orchestra.
The second composer never really specialized himself into an instrument. He played some piano, some flute, some bassguitar, some trombone, but he never really got good at anything so he dived into computer-composing. He got the most expensive samplelibraries ever and can make his computer sound like a real orchestra. He makes his music on the computer, everything sequenced.

The boss listens to both of the demo's of these 2 jobapplicants. The first one is from the first composer, a complex orchestral track showing off a lot of strong harmonies, contrasts, a lot of good instrumentation (despite the use of synthesizers) and melodies.
The second one is from the second composer, showing off a bit of a legato track (4 chords progression) but the most amazing timpanies and the most amazing bagpipe ever. Some emotional minor scales in there. The main key stays the same, after a few versus the strings and timpany fill in with a blast. The program used to make the bagpipe sound so human does the entire realism-thing automatically (maybe the composer doesn't even realise that, but what the hell, the boss thinks it sounds awsome, and it does the trick).

Eventually the boss is in doubt to hire either the first composer or the second one.

Why would you hire whom? What is your thought about each of these typical examples of different composers?

[Piranha]

Well if I were a boss, I wouldn't care about how they wrote it, I'd have people choosing the one who created the best song while my feet are rubbed.

I know it doesn't sound fair, 'cause normally, or morally (if that's a word) I'd choose the first guy, but you know.. bosses.

[Luca_Capozzi]

Finally a very good question. I will answer you try looking by the "boss" side that, unfortunately, is the opposed of my own opinion. I would hire the one who make the best work faster and economically cheap. I know what product I need so I will look for who give me that at best conditions. I don't need to know how is made but when and how much will costs to me.

Cheers,
Luca

[Taurus]

- Let me add to that you basically have 2 optional people to hire:

- 1. composer with good structural compositions, expression and great musicality but he uses synthesizers that emulate orchestra's worse than for example VST's. His music doesn't sound like he hired an orchestra, but he hits the right spots with complexity and expression. However, you can't fool yourself when you listened to it it sounds like a synthesizer trying to be an orchestra.

- 2. composer with rather simplistic lineair compositions, but with amazing realistic sounding instrumentsounds. Violins that change per note, vibrato that makes you shiver.. Percussion effects that make you feel inside a concerthall. You'd believe he hired a real orchestra to make it. The overall sound is believable but sounds very familiar. Many other appliants you had in the past used the same setup. His compositions are rather straightforward and always go back to the same root-chord.

Both ask the same price and get the job done as fast.
Let me know what you think.

[Luca_Capozzi]

mmm well, the choice now is obvious. I would talk to the first one asking him if he could do the work even using sample libraries and even do some midi editing on his job. I prefer to do some investments on a person who knows how to make music in every aspect. Learning how to use vsts is merely simple if compared to learn music... and creativity isn't a purchasable good :)

I will choose the first one.

Luca

[Staccato]

I agree with Luca! If I´m going to be the boss, I would prefer the best music.. the sounds can always be edited, espcially if he got some money and help to find natural sounds! Even if I had to keep the "bad" sounds, I think I would.. I prefer the feeling of the thoughts in the music more then the perfection of sounds!

[godsmcktma2]

I just want to submit my general opinon relating to your backpoint, if I may.

I do strongly agree that any dimwit musician can create beautiful music using awsome libraries. I do also strongly agree that awsome composers who aren't as exposed to libraries to get the backhand of the deal.

But I must say that you shouldn't generalize all library users as demi-musicians/composers. A great composer can really put his soul into a composition and have it put as real life as possible using libraries. If he can, why not? Even more, he can play each part seperatly using a midi controller (or even a breath controller with that) so that dynamics are really put in the mix. Just because he can make his music sound great with sample libraries does not mean that he didn't put his heart and soul into the music and that the music isn't the emotional forte of his mind. Basically my point is that not all great VST composers have empty meaningless music, but still there is quite a few. I think this rant was basically due to the fact that I am probably of the catergory: Library composer with meaningful music and real played dynamics.

As far as the question: If I was the boss, and I could tell that composer 1 really was more emotional and more musical and in general a better musician than 2, but 2's sounded better, I would show #1 #2's music and ask him if he can make his music sound like this. I would probably help him out by purchasing the software through my company too, if he needed it.

[ktriton]

Most people would choose #2. If I were a film auteur who knew nothing little about music, I'd pick #2 also. It sucks, but musicians need to learn that compositions aren't enough anymore. You need to be able to have a professional sound ready for demonstration from the get-go--with or without samples. I don't really think it's cruel, either. More like common sense.

#2 will get picked nine times out of ten so the lesson here is that if you hate samples, make the effort to get a few pieces recorded live by a professional ensemble and add THOSE to your resume.