Tuesday, August 26, 2014
ircam
hrmmn. might try this. by far the best demos i've heard.
actually sounds like real music, not a film score.
http://www.uvi.net/en/composer-tools/ircam-solo-instruments.html
a lot of the reviews don't seem to get it, though.
actually sounds like real music, not a film score.
http://www.uvi.net/en/composer-tools/ircam-solo-instruments.html
a lot of the reviews don't seem to get it, though.
i'm paranooooooooooiid, and curioussssssssss
posting on the forums almost every day....
so paranooooooooooid, and curiousssssssssss
never seen a coincidence i can't explain...
always paranoooooooooooooid, and curioussssssssss
gotta figure out why a thing is a thing that way.
gotta understand, understand this shit,
follow them dots, it's all connected
gotta understand, understand this shit,
follow them dots, it's all connected
YEAH
posting on the forums almost every day....
so paranooooooooooid, and curiousssssssssss
never seen a coincidence i can't explain...
always paranoooooooooooooid, and curioussssssssss
gotta figure out why a thing is a thing that way.
gotta understand, understand this shit,
follow them dots, it's all connected
gotta understand, understand this shit,
follow them dots, it's all connected
YEAH
uploading to spin inside dull aberrations to the scratchpad
i rendered this morning to check for glitches on playback, and they're thankfully not there. might as well replace the temp file...
the strings are updated and there's a little bluesy guitar solo in the build. i'm chewing on a piano part, which, if added, will probably be the last midi track.
the piano is in, and that's the end of the midi part. well, except for the end section.
a synth part, a vocal part, a few more guitars, bass, final guitar overdubs and then final mixing.....
the strings are updated and there's a little bluesy guitar solo in the build. i'm chewing on a piano part, which, if added, will probably be the last midi track.
the piano is in, and that's the end of the midi part. well, except for the end section.
a synth part, a vocal part, a few more guitars, bass, final guitar overdubs and then final mixing.....
so, i set up some thousand dollar string plugins beside some free ones...
i'll admit the thousand dollar plugins would be more applicable if i was writing film scores, but i'm not. i'm trying to construct a small chamber orchestra. given the price of these things, it's actually remarkable how inflexible they are.
the thing is that i understand i'm working against the purpose of the software. the idea is that if you buy the fancy sample set then you won't have to sit around and multitrack individual instruments anymore.
but, then how do you route each instrument through separate effects processes? generally, how do you be neurotic about over-producing everything?
i'm being a little self-deprecating, but i'm making a valid point. these are the details that composers and arrangers live their lives for. that hint of distortion on the trumpet, that reverb on the flute....oh!...
the free plugins are simply better able to give me what i want, and at a quarter of the ram usage, too.
there's probably some sample libraries for solo instruments, jazz bands, chamber music, etc. but i don't need them right now.
i stumbled upon this library of prepared instruments, though - inspired by john cage. it's not useful for anything i have lined up right now (maybe one thing) but it sounds like fun...
see, the thing is that it's a good idea...
but if they want to make this useful for musicians, they should separate the libraries into individual vst instruments, one for each real instrument. that's how people write and arrange and mix.
that way, if my mix has 2 violins, a viola and a cello (a standard chamber orchestra - and this is not my current mix, fwiw) then i can set each up to it's own channel and mix it individually with it's own character.
but, sure - give me every possible cello sound imaginable. let me fuck with the mic. let me determine how big the room is. and etc. these are good ideas.
it's the way the thing is formatted that isn't so hot.
i'll admit the thousand dollar plugins would be more applicable if i was writing film scores, but i'm not. i'm trying to construct a small chamber orchestra. given the price of these things, it's actually remarkable how inflexible they are.
the thing is that i understand i'm working against the purpose of the software. the idea is that if you buy the fancy sample set then you won't have to sit around and multitrack individual instruments anymore.
but, then how do you route each instrument through separate effects processes? generally, how do you be neurotic about over-producing everything?
i'm being a little self-deprecating, but i'm making a valid point. these are the details that composers and arrangers live their lives for. that hint of distortion on the trumpet, that reverb on the flute....oh!...
the free plugins are simply better able to give me what i want, and at a quarter of the ram usage, too.
there's probably some sample libraries for solo instruments, jazz bands, chamber music, etc. but i don't need them right now.
i stumbled upon this library of prepared instruments, though - inspired by john cage. it's not useful for anything i have lined up right now (maybe one thing) but it sounds like fun...
see, the thing is that it's a good idea...
but if they want to make this useful for musicians, they should separate the libraries into individual vst instruments, one for each real instrument. that's how people write and arrange and mix.
that way, if my mix has 2 violins, a viola and a cello (a standard chamber orchestra - and this is not my current mix, fwiw) then i can set each up to it's own channel and mix it individually with it's own character.
but, sure - give me every possible cello sound imaginable. let me fuck with the mic. let me determine how big the room is. and etc. these are good ideas.
it's the way the thing is formatted that isn't so hot.
deathtokoalas
i really wish plugin developers would focus more on modularity. this goes for soft synths, samplers, effects and everything else. i know, use something like reaktor, right? but, when every developer decides they're going to make the "ultimate synth" or "ultimate sampler", what you actually end up with is a huge array of synths and samplers that can do one or two things really well and are lacklustre at everything else. if there was an easily accessible interface within cubase where i could string filters and generators and specific libraries from different manufacturers together, i could take what i like out of synth x and connect it to what i like out of synth y - allowing me to create my own ultimate synth. and, ultimately that's what all us composers actually want, even if some of us don't have the clarity of thought to realize it. it makes it more like building your own modular system, or even like stringing guitar effects together.
it works with samplers, too. there's been this tendency recently to create these 50 gb libraries full of these ready-made samples. but, composers and arrangers and mixers and producers just don't think like that. the way we think is in terms of separating each track as much as possible. i've been sequencing some string sections recently and realizing that the best samplers are in kontakt, but you can't really separate them well without using 50 gb of ram. see, the flaw is that it's not designed to separate them, you're supposed to pick the ensemble you want out of the box. no real composer is going to want that, as it makes it impossible to isolate the tracks. i could, for example, want some bassy fuzz on the cello, a heavier distortion on the viola and a harmonic exciter on the violin. to do that in the kontakt sample libraries, you need to load the instance as many times as you have instruments - and it defeats the aim of the software. i'd rather see the sample libraries split into instruments. sell me 5 gb of cellos, 5 gb of violins, etc and let me load them as separate instruments with smaller footprints and mix it myself.
i know this is going to require a rethink and a new interface, but i think the developers have to come to the realization that they're using the wrong approach and go back to thinking in terms of modularity. ultimately, they're programmers - they get modularity, they're just ignoring it. perceived market demand for total solutions, or something. it's not actually what we want. what we want is control. these sample libraries - whether they're strings, horns or whatever else - are really largely useless to actually compose with.
OK
I wish everything worked more like Nexus tbh, yes it's simple and yes it's basic but damn that's how they should all work with added features instead of a new UI for everything and also having to have 49234932 different instances taking up 10x more ram that exists in your pc
deathtokoalas
the benefit of modularity is that it allows user control over the level of complexity. the way i would use a modular sampling system would be quite elaborate.
it's not like options don't exist, but they tend to be outdated and not really designed for modern daws - or they require a level of programming to build. when it comes to synthesis, that pre-requisite for programming is necessary. but, if i'm orchestrating something, i want to just do it, not write a program to do it. what they're selling is really the samples.
again, i think it's just a disconnect between what a composer is going to want and what the designers think they want. and i think it's sort of obvious that this standard approach is backwards for almost everybody, upon a moment's reflection. it's useful if you want to write film scores, i guess, but not very useful, otherwise.
i really wish plugin developers would focus more on modularity. this goes for soft synths, samplers, effects and everything else. i know, use something like reaktor, right? but, when every developer decides they're going to make the "ultimate synth" or "ultimate sampler", what you actually end up with is a huge array of synths and samplers that can do one or two things really well and are lacklustre at everything else. if there was an easily accessible interface within cubase where i could string filters and generators and specific libraries from different manufacturers together, i could take what i like out of synth x and connect it to what i like out of synth y - allowing me to create my own ultimate synth. and, ultimately that's what all us composers actually want, even if some of us don't have the clarity of thought to realize it. it makes it more like building your own modular system, or even like stringing guitar effects together.
it works with samplers, too. there's been this tendency recently to create these 50 gb libraries full of these ready-made samples. but, composers and arrangers and mixers and producers just don't think like that. the way we think is in terms of separating each track as much as possible. i've been sequencing some string sections recently and realizing that the best samplers are in kontakt, but you can't really separate them well without using 50 gb of ram. see, the flaw is that it's not designed to separate them, you're supposed to pick the ensemble you want out of the box. no real composer is going to want that, as it makes it impossible to isolate the tracks. i could, for example, want some bassy fuzz on the cello, a heavier distortion on the viola and a harmonic exciter on the violin. to do that in the kontakt sample libraries, you need to load the instance as many times as you have instruments - and it defeats the aim of the software. i'd rather see the sample libraries split into instruments. sell me 5 gb of cellos, 5 gb of violins, etc and let me load them as separate instruments with smaller footprints and mix it myself.
i know this is going to require a rethink and a new interface, but i think the developers have to come to the realization that they're using the wrong approach and go back to thinking in terms of modularity. ultimately, they're programmers - they get modularity, they're just ignoring it. perceived market demand for total solutions, or something. it's not actually what we want. what we want is control. these sample libraries - whether they're strings, horns or whatever else - are really largely useless to actually compose with.
OK
I wish everything worked more like Nexus tbh, yes it's simple and yes it's basic but damn that's how they should all work with added features instead of a new UI for everything and also having to have 49234932 different instances taking up 10x more ram that exists in your pc
deathtokoalas
the benefit of modularity is that it allows user control over the level of complexity. the way i would use a modular sampling system would be quite elaborate.
it's not like options don't exist, but they tend to be outdated and not really designed for modern daws - or they require a level of programming to build. when it comes to synthesis, that pre-requisite for programming is necessary. but, if i'm orchestrating something, i want to just do it, not write a program to do it. what they're selling is really the samples.
again, i think it's just a disconnect between what a composer is going to want and what the designers think they want. and i think it's sort of obvious that this standard approach is backwards for almost everybody, upon a moment's reflection. it's useful if you want to write film scores, i guess, but not very useful, otherwise.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)