blue wrote: You don't have to achieve "realism," but you do have to create something that hopefully isn't dull, lifeless and artificial.
I'm really glad you said this, blue. It's a concept that has yet to be defined clearly, especially for those who create such tracks. Distinguishing between 'virtual realism' and just plain 'realism' are two entirely different things under the surface for all they may have in common. All too often, thoughts and theories on how to go about creating a sonic illusion get lost in the mire of the illusion itself in the minds of many users.
A track needs to get the point across to make a musical sale. There will forever be a tug of war where mixing virtual orchestras or real orchestras are concerned.
But the exact point you made above is the very issue that so many people refuse to discuss in full, preferring instead to argue the end game instead of the process of getting there. Ironically, until the process is more clearly and more universally understood, end game discussions will most likely prove relatively fruitless.
blue wrote:
Knowing how to write music helps, but doesn't necessarily translate. Virtual orchestras are a different challenge altogether.
Indeed, indeed.
There are three issues at play here: If you eliminate virtual instruments and just deal with recordings of real orchestras, you'll find:
1. Great orchestras playing bad music
2. Bad orchestras playing great music
3. Good and bad mixes of good and bad orchestras playing good and bad music.
Factor in the vast array of virtual instruments and again you run the gamut from cheesy to acceptable in all areas-- emphasis on cheesy where $200 places an entire orchestra in the hands of many who know nothing about how instruments are played-- how strings are bowed, how winds and brass players breathe, the importance and definition of the word
bisbigliando, what instrumentalist relies upon such terms-- and how all of that sound ought to be mixed and placed either in a virtual concert hall or a virtual soundstage.
Everyone has their own ideas about how the end result should sound, so all too easily one person's approach becomes another person's PITA.
Some aspects of this strike me as futile, yet there is a glimmer of hope in here somewhere: few of us have the resources to have a real symphony orchestra at our beckon call 24/7, and the more that gifted electronic musicians are willing to delve into the world of virtual orchestration with the better libraries out there, the more frequently we'll encounter encounter acceptable tracks.
Nicky wrote:I only heard it on the Mac speaker, but was struck by how close the brass was placed to the listener.
It makes for great impact and "bite", but I've a feeling the traditional placement of the brass section to the rear would have been in part at least to tame this "harshness" or overpowering nature of the section somewhat.
What is 'traditional', really? There are so many traditions, and there are clear differences in the way music for film is mixed and the way music for the sake of pure listening is mixed.
Composers for film often do not have the luxury of having two mix versions where their tracks (such as this particular one) will often compete with explosions, gun shots, tired skids, and screaming dialog voice overs in a film. Suddenly, that "closeness" in the brass loses its impact unless it is mixed "hot" or "in-your-face" the way it is.
Yeah, bud. I'd religiously avoid listening to tracks on a computer's built-in speakers unless I'm reading or doing monthly bookkeeping.
But I shouldn't wonder about some of this, though. It seems so easy to get into the shortcomings of virtual music-- where internet download quality plays a part-- and yet reconcile the need to have something similar on our own systems-- shortcomings and all.
While listening to the virtual tracks of others, one question I'm asking myself with increasing frequency is "can I do as good or better"?
Here is a tally of my personal take so far with the answers to this question:
60%: yes
30%: probably
10%: I don't t'ink so.
There are a handful of folks out there who are really kicking butt with this stuff. As usual, brilliance breaks off from the pack to forge its own trail.
Curiously and ironically, the downside to trail blazing is that there's no guarantee anyone will follow-- either because they are too busy finding their own ways or because a particular trailblazer has set the bar so high that its standard is not generally attainable.
Further to the process, the necessity to freeze/bounce has proven essential for technical functionality, but it has also made programmers succumb more to technical limitations during the process. For as essential as this method is, I find it to be a nagging musical distraction and am endeavoring to fashion a system that works a bit more according to my needs instead of it demanding *so much* that I always compromise key musical qualities for the sake of its limitations.
As long as virtual instruments remain a 'reality', I'm keeping a humble attitude and an open mind about what others are doing as I try to temper self-criticism.
Keep in mind that I'm among those who were stuck in the world of either GM or the shinola of abysmal synth patches for ages. It's from that low point that I continue to measure success rather than from the day that, say, MSI or EWQLSO or VSL first appeared on the market. All of this still has me silently rejoicing about the direction of the development and a promise, once unrequited, now appearing to be on the eve of fulfillment.
This continues to be a deeply fascinating subject as certain trailblazers continue to prove that increasingly better results than we often do not expect are indeed possible.
