Jump to content

Your Ad Could Be Here

Will Realism No Longer Matter?


Recommended Posts

As I compose orchestral accompaniment, I strive for realism. I want it to be plausible that what you hear, could be played by live performers. The sound library I use, already restricts the range of notes to what can actually be played by the instrument being simulated. Likewise, sustained notes, on wind and brass instruments, do not sustain indefinitely because a real player would run out of breath.

 

But I'm wondering. We all know what we're hearing is not a recording of live musicians. So should we stop pretending? If I want a violin note to go beyond the end of the instrument, should I do it? If I want a flute note to sustain for an unreal length of time or for brass and woodwind sections, should I avoid too many sustained notes in a row since it would not give a brass player a chance to breathe? Would most people even notice?

 

This occurred to me as I was writing a part for pan flute. I had a couple of fast notes (easily played by a regular flute) and I wondered if a pan flute player would be able to play those notes that fast since he/she'd have to physically move from one pipe to the next to play the notes or if I should adjust the part to be certain it was playable (I decided to take a chance that a good pan flute player could play the notes).

 

So far, I do my best to recognize and to work within the limitations of the actual instruments but will there be a point where no one even tries anymore and we embrace the fact that we can exceed the performance of live musicians especially if a live musician will never need to play the part? Will such music be better?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It only matters if you intend to publish the music and get an orchestra to play it. Then it has to be realistically arranged. 

 

If you are happy to leave it as it is then do so. Why limit yourself to what real musicians can do if they never have to play it?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tunesmith, thanks for the link to your blog post where you discuss a simliar/related topic. It gave me something to think about.

 

I can definitely see both sides of this. I see the practicality of not being overly concerned by the few people who would notice the difference but at the same time, should we cater to the lowest common denominator or should we strive for better? How much effort can be justified for what could amount to a very small difference or is this a slippery slope to ending up with a hit song in the distant future that is little more than a sine wave and a click track?

 

I agree with Hobosage that there is a certain satisfaction in meeting the challenge of keeping things realistic. I also ensure my drummer only has 2 hands but would a song with a 3 handed drummer sound better to most people than a song with a 2 handed drummer? Eventually will a song that strives to sound realistic, also seem inferior to a song that exceeds realism? I think this already happens in movie soundtracks where it's likely impossible to recreate the fullness of the sound without studio processing to make orchestra sections seem bigger than they actually are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nice Article Tom, well worth the read.

 

Music is full of compromises.  When I first got a ztar it was on the hopes of exploring tonal clusters (chords) not accessible via my guitar. And the hope for a less compromised "Soloist" musician experience. In those things it has served me well. It's also reminded me that simply having the tools at my disposal doesn't mean I get a free pass on mastery.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is the issue as I perceive it.

 

1/ The music is the only consideration. It doesnt matter how you get there. Its the result that counts. Employ 3 handed drummers and 4 sided triangles if you need to.

 

2/ Perception about music. It can mean that you want to know that the soloist struggled to get that brilliant take. Or that an impossibly speeded up passage ruins such an illusion.

 

 

 

I struggle with this myself.

If I record a difficult unaccompanied solo guitar piece, there are little bits and pieces that are imperfect. So I'm faced with the following choice.

 

1/ Make 50 or 60 takes and hope I get one really good one.

 

2/ Double track it by recording the melody (fingers) separately to the counterpoint (thumb). This way it comes out perfect and gets done quicker.

 

The problem with 1/ is that I can get tired of the music and lose enthusiasm for it, resulting in a spiritless take.

 

The problem with 2/ is my ego. I struggled for many years to learn how to fingerpick this way, and now people will assume that I cheated because I wasnt good enough to play it properly.

 

Take your choice.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hendrix would overdub and then find himself in the position of having  to re arrange his parts for live situation.

 

I too feel your frustrations especially in arrangement / performance It takes me an unreasonable amount of time to get to the mastery level I want to record. And then in the recording process I'm usually obsessing about things I can't control it distracts me from doing the thing I can control...my own playing. The longer it takes me to master something the more I'm prone to walk away from the project..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rudi, TapperMike, you both bring up another interesting dilemma which has to do with honesty in the recording. Do I want what I record to be an honest representation of my skill with whatever instrument I'm playing or do I want it to sound better than that (I want both but not always possible).

 

But, I was reading a book about classic composers and many of them would compose piano or violin parts (if they played the violin) that they themselves could not actually perform and they required a virtuoso performer to play it (in one case, he'd compose it but his wife had to perform it). I have not yet resorted to recording the left and right hand parts of a piano or organ part separately. I still want the performance to be at least mostly me so I haven't quite given up practicing yet but the more time I spent composing, the less time I actually spend practicing an instrument.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
  • Noob

In my opinion realism isnt that important.

There is a whole industry and scienced based on manipulating natural sound. People use effects for just about every instrument trying to find a unique sound.

So

....no I dont think it matters as long as the overall sound works

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In my opinion realism isnt that important.

There is a whole industry and scienced based on manipulating natural sound. People use effects for just about every instrument trying to find a unique sound.

So

....no I dont think it matters as long as the overall sound works

 

It should work that way. But I once ruined a Deep Purple concert for a friend because I didn't agree that the guitarist was good. It should make no difference how good a musician it takes to make music, but for some reason we appreciate, or even need, to perceive the struggle. 

 

Otherwise why would so many players pull faces when playing? They don't do that when they practice.

 

There are many who could not come to terms with the realisation that their heroes are only averagely skilled. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In short, no, realism will not matter. Amplifiers, auto-tune, midi are all examples of why. There are a lot of musicians that shiver (or shivered) at the thought of any of those being used but they're here and here to stay. We'll get old and die out and the newer generations will do what they do by providing change. I hope it doesn't happen, but I'd bet it will.

 

My other point on that matter is the younger generations are growing up with a different view of music, bands, shows, etc… We saw musicians up on stage, playing live, making mistakes that only made it all more real. The kids 1-20 don't see that. They see television shows where you go and try out to be a star. They see "concerts" where there are scantily clad dancers around a singer who is lip-syncing and putting on a show but no real music is actually being played. Even though some shows have musicians that are pretending to play. Have a song with an impossible part being played? Put that guy center state, take his shirt off and have him put on an incredible show while pretending to play it. The audience will eat it up. ONLY real musicians would see through it and/or care. But they are too few compared to those that don't care. And as long as the music is making money, producers, record labels, etc… won't really care either.

 

The soul will further be taken out of music.

 

HAD TO ADD

I'm not saying there won't be music with real musicians. Just that it won't matter if the song needs real musicians or not, as long as people like hearing it.

 

Randy "the happy, happy, joy joy guy"  :)

Edited by Just1L
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rudi, TapperMike, you both bring up another interesting dilemma which has to do with honesty in the recording. Do I want what I record to be an honest representation of my skill with whatever instrument I'm playing or do I want it to sound better than that (I want both but not always possible).

 

But, I was reading a book about classic composers and many of them would compose piano or violin parts (if they played the violin) that they themselves could not actually perform and they required a virtuoso performer to play it (in one case, he'd compose it but his wife had to perform it). I have not yet resorted to recording the left and right hand parts of a piano or organ part separately. I still want the performance to be at least mostly me so I haven't quite given up practicing yet but the more time I spent composing, the less time I actually spend practicing an instrument.

 

Paul

 

On a similar note I had belonged to a forum for those who composed and transcribed using Guitar Pro (midi/ tablature software)  These guys were amazing in their abilities to transcribe songs and write them. One time a fellow who I had great respect for as a composer / arranger posted a video of him and his band.  Mediocre to say the least. Still I have to applaud him for his ability to overcome his limitations on his instrument in order to bring his creations to life via midi.

 

 

Otherwise why would so many players pull faces when playing? They don't do that when they practice.

 

Rudi, I had to practice making facial expressions and remind myself to do so live. Early on when performing at my best my face and body would be deadpan still. Some people thought I was in a meditative state others thought I was in a psychotic state.  Even now when I'm practicing a difficult passage I have to remind myself to smile because I'm supposed to enjoy playing guitar. It has a wag the dog effect and soon I'm not as frustrated. Simply by imagining I'm playing for an audience even if it is an audience of one (as I practice alone and only have myself to perform to) My heart is lightened.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

After thinking about this for a while, I have the answer for me. Realism probably doesn't matter to the masses, most wouldn't have a clue, and to be honest, if I hear a violin note that is too high for an actual violin, I won't notice either. I'm aware of the limits as I'm recording because limits are imposed by the sound library I use (for which I'm grateful - although I would have looked up the instrument ranges myself otherwise), but I still like to imagine real players playing what I've created. I like to imagine my music written out as an orchestral score. I find it inspires me and offers an interesting extra challenge even if no one but me would ever know the difference.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Realism matters to two 'entities'. You, and your 'audience'. If you are happy with what you are creating, that's great. But, you can't expect your audience to be as impressed with your work as you are, if they want to see a live band (even if most of them do not know what's going on 'behind the scenes'), to make the band sound like they do. And then you have to ask, where is the 'purity line' drawn? I agree that a much younger generation will not care. But, I've seen die-hard traditionalist bluegrass fans go NUTS because something wasn't 'traditional' (two mics instead of one, an electric bass instead of bass fiddle). One day I watched almost 20 percent of an audience get up and walk out on an international star when his sound crew started setting up for his set. If it makes you happy, go for it. If you are trying to make others happy, give it some thought.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But, you can't expect your audience to be as impressed with your work as you are

 

I certainly don't have any such expectation. I'm well aware that some of the effort I make towards realism will only ever be known to me. I still derive satisfaction from meeting the challenge of keeping things as real as I can.

 

 

And then you have to ask, where is the 'purity line' drawn?

 

Yes. That is a good question and I think that line will always be on the move and will certainly vary from one genre to the next.

 

 

Seriously...if something you see a sound crew do prompts a partial audience walk-out, their expectations were too high to begin with.

 

Unless you showed up to hear acoustic folk music and you see them setting up a huge wall of Marshal amps :punk:

 

:D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unless you showed up to hear acoustic folk music and you see them setting up a huge wall of Marshal amps

 

Judas !!!  ;):no1:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 One day I watched almost 20 percent of an audience get up and walk out on an international star when his sound crew started setting up for his set. 

 

I remember a story of some musician back in the 60's I think it was. From what I remember reading he was a folk singer and really pissed off a lot of his fans just because he decided to use an amplifier for his concert. Can't recall what ever happened to him though, probably was so distraught he never played again. :)

Edited by Just1L
Link to comment
Share on other sites

To the point of two drummers; it was about 1980-81 or so I saw the Henry Paul Band (Grey Ghost)...at least i think it was them, they used two drummers.  Then Rossington Collins came out with two lead guitars...I left seeing double everything so my memory is a bit cloudy.  But as far as multiple instuments...that's what an orchestra is.  now i have to look up the word orchestration.  The answer to your question lies in the definition of what it is you're doing. 

 

he,he,he....like I would know :huh:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I remember a story of some musician back in the 60's I think it was. From what I remember reading he was a folk singer and really pissed off a lot of his fans just because he decided to use an amplifier for his concert. Can't recall what ever happened to him though, probably was so distraught he never played again. :)

 

I can never remember if that was Neil Young or Bob Dylan. I often get them confused but I was thinking about exactly that as I was reading Danidog's post.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re Bob Dylan.  I remember all that in retrospect (way after the fact)  I'm fairly sure he was the first to replace playing an electric (strat) guitar at folk shows here. 

 

I used to get that all the time playing midi guitar.  Still do, even more so with the ztar 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One time I travelled way back up into the Appalachian mountains for a three day bluegrass festival. Rustic camping provided. Now, if you go to a bluegrass festival back up in the hills, you damned sight better know that these folks are 110% TRAD. 

 

I found that out in the campgrounds at night when people would gather around and just start jamming and before you know it, fist fights are breaking out because someone done brought in a Taylor guitar to a bluegrass get together. If you had a Martin, you were golden, a Gallegher (sp?), and you must know what you were doing 'cause that's what Doc played. 

 

The venue I went to where so many people left was funny as hell. All the other famous bluegrass folks were done for the day and that evening R. S.  was scheduled for one of his 'super-sets'. Everyone else had to do two sets a day, but Ricky always only did one ninety minute set. So, his sound crew comes out on stage and with all the 'stuff' and start setting it up. Someone up in front yell's, "what the hell is all that stuff for?" The sound guy was very polite and explained that, "once you hear the show, you will know."  Wrong answer..., . R. S. paid for the fact that he sold out bluegrass for Nashville country and then when he wasn't popular there any longer, he was  all of a sudden a bluegrass man again.

 

But it is changing now, Jerry Garcia was a big help with Greaful Dawg, Nickelback was young and very good and a few other newgrass groups started making people take notice. All in all, I like the change but it's going to come slow for some.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

Your Ad Could Be Here



  • Current Donation Goals

    • Raised $1,040.00
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By continuing to use our site you indicate acceptance of our Terms Of Service: Terms of Use, our Privacy Policy: Privacy Policy, our Community Guidelines: Guidelines and our use of Cookies We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.