06-10-2018, 08:44 PM
On that note, I had a contest a few years ago where people were given a bank of about 50 samples and could only use up to 25 of them-
https://www.newgrounds.com/playlists/vie...bece818e1b
To be honest, some of the results surprised me a lot- if this is what we can do with 32 megs of decent quality samples and a little ingenuity, why the hell do I still hear generic tracks made with massive libraries? The amount to which the modern professional composer may use his/her advantages of gigabytes of samples as a crutch cannot be understated. Whether or not this is the downfall of creativity or a step towards more realism is a call we each need to make.
Not to pull things too off topic... The real difference (imho) lies in the attitude between dealing with a small set of samples and a large set of samples. When I load up a flute on the ESI-4000 or even a single flute sample in ARIA or something, it is a different mindset I am in versus when I load up a giant 10-articulation flute patch in Kontakt. For starters, the sound I get by its limited nature instructs how I should use it. I think I've said this before, but composers from before 2004 who really used their equipment to its maximum potential as Mattias points out, were not just intimately aware of the sounds and limits of those sounds, but were much better at perceiving how they could adjust and work with those sounds to bring out their strengths and weaknesses. A common example is pitch bend usage. I can try using pitch bend now, but it won't come anywhere near the skill of someone who has spent years learning to use it tastefully and suitably.
In addition to the inherent 'instruction' of how the sound should be used, it also forces me to be more creative to conceal the limited nature when the inevitable joints in the work are visible (e.g. switching between two distant samples may require using a leap to avoid an unseemly transition). You are also more likely to use effects and other resources to shape the sound of the sample to taste, as your changes will be more apparent and additionally help conceal the shortcomings of the samples even more.
With many large sample sets today, there is a 'plug 'n play' sort of design, which is most handy for composers for games and TV who need something ready when they load it. The shortcoming of this is the loss of a decades-old art of sample and patch tweaking. When I load up an instrument on the ESI-4000, there's about an 80% chance I'm going to tweak in somehow, even if it's just adding a control I like or changing an attack or release value to taste. When I load up a patch today on some big library, the most I might do is load a mic position.
Again, whether or not this is all good or bad is a matter of taste.
https://www.newgrounds.com/playlists/vie...bece818e1b
To be honest, some of the results surprised me a lot- if this is what we can do with 32 megs of decent quality samples and a little ingenuity, why the hell do I still hear generic tracks made with massive libraries? The amount to which the modern professional composer may use his/her advantages of gigabytes of samples as a crutch cannot be understated. Whether or not this is the downfall of creativity or a step towards more realism is a call we each need to make.
Not to pull things too off topic... The real difference (imho) lies in the attitude between dealing with a small set of samples and a large set of samples. When I load up a flute on the ESI-4000 or even a single flute sample in ARIA or something, it is a different mindset I am in versus when I load up a giant 10-articulation flute patch in Kontakt. For starters, the sound I get by its limited nature instructs how I should use it. I think I've said this before, but composers from before 2004 who really used their equipment to its maximum potential as Mattias points out, were not just intimately aware of the sounds and limits of those sounds, but were much better at perceiving how they could adjust and work with those sounds to bring out their strengths and weaknesses. A common example is pitch bend usage. I can try using pitch bend now, but it won't come anywhere near the skill of someone who has spent years learning to use it tastefully and suitably.
In addition to the inherent 'instruction' of how the sound should be used, it also forces me to be more creative to conceal the limited nature when the inevitable joints in the work are visible (e.g. switching between two distant samples may require using a leap to avoid an unseemly transition). You are also more likely to use effects and other resources to shape the sound of the sample to taste, as your changes will be more apparent and additionally help conceal the shortcomings of the samples even more.
With many large sample sets today, there is a 'plug 'n play' sort of design, which is most handy for composers for games and TV who need something ready when they load it. The shortcoming of this is the loss of a decades-old art of sample and patch tweaking. When I load up an instrument on the ESI-4000, there's about an 80% chance I'm going to tweak in somehow, even if it's just adding a control I like or changing an attack or release value to taste. When I load up a patch today on some big library, the most I might do is load a mic position.
Again, whether or not this is all good or bad is a matter of taste.
Sample library developer, composer, and amateur organologist at Versilian Studios.