New solo cello library

[mikehalloran]

i have always encouraged students to attempt Suite No 1 as early as possible. It makes players much better much faster. The availability of great recordings lets them know what it can sound like.

I am certainly on the fence about VIs, cello in particular. It was one of my instruments back in the day but I have recorded very little. I have arranged and composed for the instrument and would like to hear it on other than General MIDI. I do need a great solo cello VI if for nothing else but to get my Beethoven arrangements done the way that I hear them.

Keyboard controllers really require two hands. I like the idea of learning to use a wind controller but I've not heard a really good bow emulation. I'd get a bow controller if one existed--that's the hand and arm that still work.The idea of programming in swells, legato and attacks when there was this stick that did it all... well I can't get enthused by the prospect. I wish I could.

My daughter now has my cello and one of my fine bows. I still have the other.

Back to the topic at hand. I do agree that being able to play makes using VIs better. My drum tracks sounded better because I used to play in a band. People don't ask me what I used, they ask whom (I can hear it, however). Even now, on the rare occasions that I "play" a track, I won't program anything that I can't envision my hands and feet playing in real time. Of course it takes longer and there are limits... I'm good with that.

[FMiguelez]

Same for Zoltán Kodály's works for cello, solo and with piano. Here's a sample.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4MEUIGjfHNw

Wow!
That's the magic that only happens when a master performer plays a master composer.

I would like to hear a VI rendition of the passage that happens at 5:10 in the above video
Not!

[Shooshie]

What I learned was that even more important than the sound is the idiomatic phrasing and traits. We would play instruments that were little more than an electronic buzz, in triangle, sine, square or sawtooth form, and apply the phrasing of a trumpet, violin, or flute, and people would recognize them as what we intended. Of course, if you'd compared to a real one, they'd have probably gotten angry for fooling them.

But they deserved to be fooled, because only a fool would be fooled by confusing a sine or square form with a trumpet, violin or flute, no matter how idiomatically programmed!

When I've been able to slip in something that I've created in the studio with our present-day VI's, people rarely notice. They are expecting a real recording, so they accept it as real. But tell them that one of them isn't real, and they'll be on their toes, searching for the one that sounds wrong.

I certainly hope you're talking about lay people and not professional musicians...

I agree with you that idiomatic imitation of a real instrument during the VI programming is KEY to approximating a realistic performance. But I think it's equally important to have decent patches or sounds to begin with. Otherwise, no matter how idiomatic one programs the VI, it will still sound like an idiomatically played plastic instrument (machine-gun repetition notes, no legato sounds, no portamento, fake crescendos/decrescendos, honk-like attacks, etc.).

I really think you need BOTH elements at a minimum. One without the other will simply not work, do you agree?

Of course you need both to the maximum degree possible. But I think you've missed my point. First of all, remember that I'm talking about a WX-5 wind instrument, not a keyboard. When paired with a good VI, it doesn't have its own envelope, no pre-programmed attack or release, no legato or anything else that gives away the sound in the way you just described. It requires a sound that is without programming of any kind other than the timbre itself, so that I can manipulate it like a real instrument. That's why I prefer not to use most sample libraries. Only a few allow for what I need. And when I said that I used electronic sounds that were "little more than" those wave shapes, you have to remember that actual instruments are little more than those shapes, too. It's the "little more" part that really does make all the difference, but those electronic forms of modified wave shapes have to be brought as close to the instruments' sounds as possible. And yet "fooling" people isn't the point. We only wish to get close enough that they'll accept it, then the idiomatic phrasing, attacks, releases, legatos, and so forth all are enough for them to recognize the INTENT of the sound.

They can suspend disbelief and enjoy the music without constantly having to remind themselves "this is not a real cello." I'm sure some people can't do that, because for some people it's really not about the music, but about "authenticity." I can't help them. But even 30 years ago with the lousy excuses for instruments that were possible with FM programming, wavetable programming, etc., most people got over their authenticity issues within a few bars, because what was being performed for them was as musical as "real." It came down to this: "what is real?" And the answer to that question is "real is what you're hearing at the moment." Whatever that instrument was, they were transfixed by its sound and the performance of it. I recall people's reactions to our rendition (all performed "live" on 2 WX-7s with a MIDI orchestra) of Bach's Double Concerto for Violins and orchestra. People told us all the time that our 2nd movement moved them to tears, and that they could never hear the "real" one the same again. I would point them to Henryk Szeryng's recording and tell them "yes, you will."

You ask if I mean lay people or professionals. First, I was talking about two distinct periods in this kind of work. The first was 30 years ago. It didn't fool anyone, but the idiomatic phrasing, attacks, releases, legato, staccato, and so forth allowed them to suspend disbelief, just as a television allows people to suspend disbelief and buy-into there being an entire universe in that little screen.

The other period is modern-day, and yes, we commonly "fool" professionals as well as lay people with our current instruments. I have no qualms about filling in for clarinets, flutes, violins, cellos, pianos, or whatever when they have incorrectly played a note or passage, or left it out entirely. I can always get my instruments close enough that in the context of their playing you will not notice a few beats or even a few bars of my VIs standing in for them. In fact, after I have forgotten where I filled it in, I cannot tell either. I have to go back to the DP file and look for the MIDI I recorded in order to find it. But again, it's not about fooling people. It's about staying within musical expectations. Instrumentalists are always changing timbres while they play, so that different dynamic levels, phrasing or expression cause anywhere from slight to exaggerated timbral variations. I may not be able to exactly copy (though sometimes I have done so) their normal sound, but I can usually get within the range of such timbral variations such that nobody including me will notice during playback that a VI stood in for a moment. Fortunately, I don't always have to do that. But I've gotten good enough at it that I'd rather do that than leave a small error that is distracting. It's simply multi-tracking after-the-fact. Otherwise we'd have to do the session over.

The kind of music I record is of a classical nature, though usually from living composers, and I cannot possibly know when they've missed certain things until I have the score in front of me with the luxury of going through it in detail. It would take too long during a session to proof-read at this level. You hear mistakes in all recordings, including those Casals recordings of the cello suites. If the mistakes are bad enough, the engineer or the artist will say "let's do that again." The engineer may choose to redo only the part with the mistake. No need to perform the entire movement again. 50 years ago, there was a great deal of consternation about whether that was considered cheating. Whatever anyone decided didn't really matter, as there is hardly a recording artist alive who hasn't done an insert to correct a small error. That's why there are studio recordings and live recordings, and we generally judge them differently.

I don't fix all errors; that's kind of like quantization. One has to draw a line and decide what level of error is acceptable. Familiarity with the piece can have a big effect on that. For example, in the Casals recordings, I hear lots of things in the cello suites that I wish were fixed, but I accept them as they are, because as musicians we have to accept imperfection. It's part of our playing. If I'm recording those same suites and make the same errors, I might fix 4 or 5 of them and leave the other 20 or 30. (we're talking about very small things!) In reality, none of them diminish Casals or his recordings, but my familiarity with the pieces causes me to hear those things and I'd like not to hear them. Would I fix them if I were Casals' engineer? ONLY if he asked me to, and ONLY if it were obvious enough that I could see the benefit of doing so. (btw, I transcribe and play the suites, along with the solo violin partitas and sonatas, and have done so for most of my life. It's almost a spiritual ritual for me)

And so it comes down to modern technology, with which we finally have the ability to fix things that were impossible to fix even 10 years ago. Do we or don't we? I do, but only when it falls within the range of acceptability, and by that I mean that in my judgment and that of all others who are involved, the recording would benefit from my doing so. Sometimes there is simply nothing I can do. I won't go into all the reasons why that may be, but as engineers most of you can imagine such cases. Other times it may be a small error that nobody else would fix, but I do it anyway simply because it's so easy to fix. No reason not to. Each case has to be approached uniquely. There are no universal rules other than "don't compromise the artist, composer, or listener."

So, after ALL THAT(!) I can say with clear conscience that yes, I routinely make edits that are beyond the ability of professionals such as you and me to detect by ear. I don't call it "fooling" anyone, but if you wanted to play that game, that might be what you choose to call it. But don't start trying to find those spots in my recordings. You'd always choose a spot that I had nothing to do with. You'd think that the artist's timbral variations might be me. They aren't. Trust me, when I do it you will not know it. I can't even tell without the MIDI file to show me where I did it.

Shoosh

[FMiguelez]

They can suspend disbelief and enjoy the music without constantly having to remind themselves "this is not a real cello." I'm sure some people can't do that, because for some people it's really not about the music, but about "authenticity."

Interesting point. I agree, but only to an extent.
I can enjoy a piece of music for what the music, its profundity, makes me feel, no matter what the delivery medium is. But the music better be amazing for me to do that! It must capture me and grab me by the neck.
On the other hand, when the delivery medium is an imitation of what I'm accustomed to hearing, it almost always disappoints me and leaves me with this unfulfilling sentiment. A synth, in the hands of a talented pro, can be made to sing and make all those little nuances that make music enjoyable. Take an oboe imitation, for instance. It can be beautifully rendered, but then again, I'd rather listen to a real oboe performance. I need all the natural humanity that comes with the music, the instrument and the performer.

A very clumsy example would be bacon. You can eat a good bacon imitation in a salad and enjoy it for what it is and not for what it isn't. You can enjoy its flavour and texture without necessarily missing the real thing. But the fact that it is an imitation, that it is trying to be what it is not, makes me want to have the real pork gut instead. Do you know what I mean?

If I will give up my time to listen to a performance, why should it be an imitation of an instrument instead of the real one? Thats when "authenticity" kicks in. Otherwise, why would the imitator bother to imitate something? In that case, I'd rather listen to an originally created sound/patch rather than an imitation of some other sound, because imitations will always be trying to be what they aren't.

So I can enjoy am amazing performance of an oboe sonata played with a VI and forget it is not the real thing, and simply lose myself into the music. But, since it's an imitation, I will always feel unfulfilled and wish it were a real instrument because that sound is embedded in my brain and my skin. No matter how masterful the imitation is, it will always fall short to a real oboe. In this case, I'd rather listen to that performance with a patch that the programmer created from scratch. Am I making any sense?

But even 30 years ago with the lousy excuses for instruments that were possible with FM programming, wavetable programming, etc., most people got over their authenticity issues within a few bars, because what was being performed for them was as musical as "real." It came down to this: "what is real?" And the answer to that question is "real is what you're hearing at the moment." Whatever that instrument was, they were transfixed by its sound and the performance of it.

But the performance of it will always be inferior to what it could and should be, so why bother? I mean, the music is the same anyway. Why would one bother to listen to it played by something that wasn't conceived by the composer when one could listen to it as was intended (and better sounding anyway)? Other than "innovation" or plain necessity, I don't see a good compelling reason.

It came down to this: "what is real?" And the answer to that question is "real is what you're hearing at the moment."

Yes and no. It's real in the sense that you're there and that sound is what is getting into your ears at that particular moment. But it will still be an imitation of an instrument, which makes it not sound like the mimicked instrument, thus not real in that sense. I think we're talking about "real" in different contexts and meaning.

I recall people's reactions to our rendition (all performed "live" on 2 WX-7s with a MIDI orchestra) of Bach's Double Concerto for Violins and orchestra. People told us all the time that our 2nd movement moved them to tears, and that they could never hear the "real" one the same again. I would point them to Henryk Szeryng's recording and tell them "yes, you will."

Like I mentioned before, it's almost not possible to sound bad with such music, so I'm not surprised. Besides Bach's ridiculously amazing Double Concerto, your WX-7 and MIDI orchestra must've been quite amazing. Coming from you it wouldn't surprise me in the least, my friend.

But like you said, there's always the Szeryng's performance... Or my favourite, which is with Oistrakh & Oistrakh, even if the quality of that particular recording is pretty bad.

We're talking about the same piece, correct?

[FMiguelez]

BTW, weren't we talking about the Cinesamples library?
In a typical MOTUNation fashion, I think we have gone just a little off topic... I certainly didn't help avoiding it. Sorry about that, cbergm

[Shooshie]

But the performance of it will always be inferior to what it could and should be, so why bother?

'Nando, Really? 30 years of synths and DAWs, and you've never heard a moving synth performance?

I'm going to risk setting myself up for a huge failure by posting a part of a demo cassette tape from 1988. This is the Bach Double Concerto, movement 2, and is one of the first things I ever played with synths. (not THE first, but among the first 3 months of work) The 2 solo instruments are WX-7's, and we played it "live," recorded with a cassette deck. That's back when my vibrato alone could cause MIDI logjam in a 1st generation sequencer like Performer.

Bach: Concerto for 2 violins, II, recorded live, 1988 (only the first two and a half minutes; it's a demo)

Before you shoot it down, consider the context. This was intended for audiences whose ears were pop/rock oriented. Not classical. It was loved everywhere we played it. I saw people cry when we played this, so I know it's not bad. It may not be the breakthrough MIDI piece you're waiting for, but you cannot say this is bad. If it were bad, it would not have worked in live performance, and this worked in a huge way. It was one of our most popular pieces.

Unfortunately, all I have of it is about the first half, as this was part of a demo tape we used to get bookings. We got a lot of bookings.

Now, please don't tell me about the "real thing." I've heard probably 10 or 15 recordings of this, and I'm a concert performer. I've performed "the real thing" in solo concerts, chamber groups, quartets, and in symphony orchestras, including Mexico City's. I got tired of playing chamber music for half-filled halls or less. (Some concert series directors used to tell me that a normal audience for their concerts was under 150 people) I wanted to reach people in new venues, who were comfortable with synths. People with "pop" ears. This medium opened up a whole new vista of musical performance for us, and for musicians in general.

In 1988, at the Southern Arts Convention in Atlanta, Georga, we performed this for a straight-laced audience consisting of the series directors of hundreds of concert series across the southern United States. We got bookings, yes, but more importantly we caused a huge debate that nearly upended the conference. About half the people there thought this was the concert of the future. The other half said "no. It's not real. It sucks because it's not real." There were actually loud arguments as people tried to tell each other how unreasonable they were being. It seemed divided about 50/50. Bear in mind, this was the Deep South, where they don't do ANYTHING that hasn't been done in Carnegie Hall a hundred times. These are people worried about being seen as classically unsophisticated. For there to be any acceptance at all was a gamble on our part, but we did it. It at least opened up the debate on what is "real." Synths are very real. As with violins and cellos, music depends on musicianship, not the instrument you're playing.

Were we attempting to take gigs from the Takács Quartet? Neville Marriner? No, of course not. We were trying to reach the ears of people who normally turn away from classical music. We were successful in that.

So... "Why bother?" Because it's extremely important. Because we were seasoned classical musicians who were known for playing classical music very well, but we wanted to do something different, in addition to what we'd been doing. It was an expensive gamble, but it worked. We also did Vivaldi double concertos, Mozart, Gershwin, and many, many more.

Why bother? Because people liked it, and it reached people who never would have heard this piece in their entire lives. Some were moved to tears. Ok, so maybe some of them were drunk.

Shooshie

[FMiguelez]

'Nando, Really? 30 years of synths and DAWs, and you've never heard a moving synth performance?

I've heard some, of course. But none of them were stylistically changed imitations of pieces by the masters.

Back in the 90's, there was this French guy who made some nice and powerful tracks, but they were original works by him... What was his name? Jarret? Jarré? Something like that (I can't remember his name at the moment). I really liked his music and it did move me deeply.

Anyway, I understand you better now, and I see where you're coming from.
I also appreciate what you're talking about and agree with you in the context of you wrote about.

However...

... Before you shoot it down, consider the context....

I thought it was fine, Shoosh, especially when, like you say, the context is considered: New and foreign audiences to Classical music.
I agree it's a great way to reach them by "speaking" their same (or similar) language.

I don't doubt some of them were moved to tears with such music. But to tell you the truth, it wouldn't have moved me. It would actually have annoyed me. Why? Because I already know the piece and I know what it's supposed to sound like. Because, like I said, I'd rather listen to original sounds/patches and original compositions in the Baroque style. Why mess with the masters' works? Why not be completely innovative and create Baroque-sounding original works with original synth patches to reach these audiences? Why imitate a violin instead of creating a fresh-sounding instrument? They don't know the repertoire anyway, so it wouldn't make any difference.

I can understand that you want to be innovative and share this music with unfamiliar audiences in a way you can actually reach them deeply. I hadn't thought about that and I respect it. But then I suppose it is not everyone's cup of tea, because I'd rather listen to the Bach concerto the way I know it and the way it was intended to be, with performers who spent decades trying to perfect their craft and who try to communicate through their beloved instruments and attempt to play such pieces before educated audiences who expect to be dazzled by the beauty of the music and their performance.

I can't help it... I can't compare the emotional impact I get with the London Symphony Orchestra playing a Ravel piece to the impact I'd get with a synth rendition of the same music. I could try to appreciate it for what it is, but deep inside, I would keep wishing I were in the Barbican Hall listening to the LSO. Does that make sense?

Obviously, I wouldn't dare diminishing or not appreciating the electronic musicians' efforts they put in their imitative work, but it simply is not my cup of tea and I can't help it. Those "classical" music works require the instruments they were conceived for by their composers. For me, that's the only way this music can deliver its full and awesome impact.

But I'd be ALL EARS for synth renditions of original, not-previously-heard works in any "classical" music style. It would be interesting and even enjoyable. But please don't play for me a Liszt work on an electric guitar or a fake-sounding trombone!
I suppose that's been my point all along.

As usual, I really enjoy our conversations. We've had many through the years, and something tells me this will definitely not be the last one

Salud! (raising a glass of wine)

[Shooshie]

But I'd be ALL EARS for synth renditions of original, not-previously-heard works in any "classical" music style. It would be interesting and even enjoyable. But please don't play for me a Liszt work on an electric guitar or a fake-sounding trombone!
I suppose that's been my point all along.

You won't be hearing any Liszt from me. I enjoy an occasional foray into Lisztomania, but generally I'm not a fan. Nor am I particularly a fan of the trombone, real or fake.

But Bach's music just invites all comers. He all but says so on the covers. However, in the case of the cello suites, we can't be so sure that it wasn't for viol da gamba. The original has never been found. Only copies by students. (unless it's happened fairly recently) I think the violin partitas were found in a butter shop, for use as butter wrapping. Bach is my teacher more than anyone I ever paid for lessons, and every single thing I've played by Bach has been transcribed by me or someone else, because he didn't write for the saxophone, but he'd have loved it and written for it if his employer's court had a section of them.

Prokofiev wrote a flute sonata, then he changed a few passages (very slightly, mostly making them easier to play) and released the same sonata for violin. He was an avid fan of the saxophone, and I'm sure he wouldn't mind if I stole it for soprano sax, so I did.

Authenticity is over-rated. One of the better flute teachers in New York told me that my recording of the Prokofiev was the best he'd heard. The guy was thrilled about it. He never even hinted that playing it on the soprano sax was any sort of impropriety. And it darned sure wasn't an easy way out; I had to re-invent how to play the sax in order to make it work. Very difficult. But that's what keeps all instruments improving: they play each others' stuff. Bach was an unapologetic plagiarizer and transcriber. Back then they just called it "borrowing," and everyone did it. Authenticity, then, truly is over-rated.

As usual, I really enjoy our conversations. We've had many through the years, and something tells me this will definitely not be the last one

Salud! (raising a glass of wine)

(returning the gesture with a cup of coffee) Cheers! And no, this won't be the last. I enjoy it too much!

Shoosh

[FMiguelez]

... One of the better flute teachers in New York told me that my recording of the Prokofiev was the best he'd heard. The guy was thrilled about it.

Well, of course he was thrilled about it, Shoosh, just as I am. Wow! I can't believe you still have healthy lungs after recording that!

I didn't know that Prokofiev sonata. THANK YOU so much for sharing it with me (us). I am REALLY impressed by your virtuosity and musicianship. You rendered an amazingly great and brilliant performance.
Wow.
I really loved it. I just finished listening to the whole work. And I love the way it sounds on your soprano sax. This piece would sound great on almost any soprano instrument (providing it's in good hands/embouchure, like yours).

Who is the pianist, BTW? Whoever that was, he definitely has the chops. I liked his/her performance as well.

He never even hinted that playing it on the soprano sax was any sort of impropriety.

How could he? It sounds freaking good! There's nothing improper about this.
He might not have been so thrilled if you would've shown him a Wallander rendition instead of the real thing, though

And it darned sure wasn't an easy way out; I had to re-invent how to play the sax in order to make it work. Very difficult. But that's what keeps all instruments improving: they play each others' stuff. Bach was an unapologetic plagiarizer and transcriber. Back then they just called it "borrowing," and everyone did it. Authenticity, then, truly is over-rated.

But this wouldn't be a lack of authenticity! You're playing a real (acoustic) instrument idiomatically and expertly. There's nothing unauthentic about that! Besides, Prokofiev was a very modern composer. His music lends so well for such departures. And I'm sure he would've been thrilled if he listened to his sonata on a soprano sax (and I bet not so much if he heard it on a VI).

I also bet YOU wouldn't be satisfied if you heard it done with some VI or synth. Not after learning it and practicing it for who knows how many months and knowing every nuance about it

I can't even imagine this piece with a flute now!

[FMiguelez]

Shoosh, do you mind if I download your performance for my private collection?

I kind of already did
Is that Ok?

[Shooshie]

Who is the pianist, BTW? Whoever that was, he definitely has the chops. I liked his/her performance very much as well.

That was Tara Emerson. She is the sister of a friend of mine who knew what I was facing with the Prokofiev and some of the other things I was playing at the time. She told me about Tara, and soon we met and she played this stuff like she was born for it. In actuality, she's a staff accompanist and opera coach at Southern Methodist University, and has accompanied many of the stars of the Met. She summers at La Scala. Amazing pianist; she wanted to get away from opera for a while and into chamber music, so we played together for about a year. I completely agree with you about her. It would have been a whole different performance without her. On top of that, she was playing the transcribed part. I took it down a step so that I could read the flute part as written.

And no, it wouldn't have been the same on a VI. But that doesn't mean it wouldn't have been good. Again, it's important that we TRY to make music on these things, because I predict that in a generation or two very few people will play actual instruments. But if they are challenged to play virtual instruments as well as they can be played, and if they take on the difficult repertoire of the concert virtuoso, they will make demands on the developers, and some day we'll have virtual instruments that aren't virtual anymore. They'll be the real deal. Who knows? Maybe concerts will be held online. But we have to think in terms of performing with what we've got, and we have those instruments.

Most of the people getting credit for these mockups of orchestral works are not performers; they're programmers. MIDI programmers. A fine set of samples like this new solo cello library from Cinesamples should be played by a performer. People should be finding ways to get the absolute most out of those things. And when they reach limits, they need to tell the developers: abolish these limits.

Maybe for a generation we'll have virtual cellos, violins, and flutes. But after that we'll have genuine virtuosi of MIDI instruments that don't resemble "real" instruments, and they'll be capable of performances we can't even imagine. People will not call them virtual, or if they do, they won't mean "these aren't real." It'll just be descriptive. These instruments are capable of so much. You can play them so musically. They do not have the limits of wooden and brass instruments. They are better. It's just going to take some time to figure out which ones work best and how to play them.

[see, we're on topic. It just had to take a detour to make this point.]

Shooshie

[Shooshie]

Shoosh, do you mind if I download your performance for my private collection?

I kind of already did
Is that Ok?

You bet.

Shoosh

[williemyers]

Back in the 90's, there was this French guy who made some nice and powerful tracks, but they were original works by him... What was his name? Jarret? Jarré? Something like that (I can't remember his name at the moment). I really liked his music and it did move me deeply.

could it be? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Michel_Jarre

[FMiguelez]

Back in the 90's, there was this French guy who made some nice and powerful tracks, but they were original works by him... What was his name? Jarret? Jarré? Something like that (I can't remember his name at the moment). I really liked his music and it did move me deeply.

could it be? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Michel_Jarre

Yes! That's him. Thank you for refreshing my memory

By following links from your link, I even recognized the cover of my favourite cassette by him. It was called Rendez-Vous.
I found a YouTube upload, but unfortunately the quality is terrible:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=copYgxHv5NE

It instantly brought back so many great memories. I also remembered my first doobie was smoked listening to that cassette with my German former girlfriend, actually

[FMiguelez]

Shoosh, do you mind if I download your performance for my private collection?

I kind of already did
Is that Ok?

You bet.

Gracias!

I liked it that much. Now it lives in my daily playing lists