Yay/Nay – K-Sound’s $799 Symphonic Dreams Complete 4 Library

[Epictetus]

Epictetus, am I understanding correctly then that you mix and master everything on your workstation? That you score to video using a workstation? That you write your parts by hand for your performers to play?

Yep!

I don't understand why you find it so strange. That's what composers were doing until a few years ago.

In fact, I even stopped using my notation software. It's just a needless bother.

Pencil and blank score. What else is needed? For most good performers a leadsheet is enough, even.

I mean, what ANYBODY is composing, on computers, that has to be handed to performers of a huge symphony orchestra? Or that is so complex that cannot be all written by hand easily enough?

I'd say, the reasons are often very different: many people can't write music to start with, and they don't know much about an orchestra anyways. But they think that a computer and a few libraries will turn them into composers.

I am not saying that that's your case...I am just speaking in general.

My conclusion is simply this: it's not true that a composer or a musician needs to work with computers; it's not true that computers give the best results; and it's not true that a powerful computer loaded with Cubase and a few sampling libraries, is a better tool than a top of the range modern keyboard workstation.

And certainly, it's not true that Eastwest provides the best 'tool'. In fact, I found it to be one of the worst.

That's all I am saying.

[SanderXpander]

I find it strange because virtually all of those processes are so much easier on the computer, if you're a little comfortable with the platform. But whatever works for you. "A few years" is kind of a stretch though.

[Epictetus]

virtually all of those processes are so much easier on the computer

Jesus Christ, not again. It's like a recurring nightmare. Someone please kill me now



No, seriously...I respect your opinion too. We'll just agree to disagree.

[Epictetus]

here's an interesting article by someone whose lectures I learn a lot from, and he's a top notch composer too. He's what I define a 'real composer' rather than a 'working composer'. Not that a 'working composer' isn't a real composer. And I am a bit of that too. But to me is the 'real composer' that I learn from. The 'real composer' is my role model: he composes what the heck he likes, not what the market requires. The 'working composer' is a consequence of being a composer, but it doesn't have to be a requirement, and it works towards a different goal, although not necessarily less worthwhile.

I am not strictly a classical musician, but I learn a lot from classical music.
Here's the article....sums up very well what I believe in :

http://www.robertgreenbergmusic.com/201 ... echnology/

[SanderXpander]

I think we're also talking about two different things. You can compose with anything. I often use mostly my piano. Of course I also prefer working with real musicians over a computer sample. If all I have to do is deliver the score and a usable demo, to be recorded by real musicians later, I wouldn't even bother with any extra sample library, I'd just use whatever I had on hand. But if I have to deliver something of reasonably high quality to be used in a production directly, I have to worry about it. In this case East West, LASS , VSL or Garritan offer me much more realism than the Kronos because it's much easier to "tell" string players how to play a certain note. At least to me. I wouldn't even have enough tracks on the Kronos to accommodate the different playing styles because you can only fit so many articulations in HD-1. I appreciate the immediacy of an instrument like the Kronos but I don't mind clicking my way through a piano roll and drawing expression curves if I can get a better result.

Of course this is also a question of budget but I don't see how it is ever not, unless there is unlimited money to record and rerecord orchestras as necessary.

Half the things I need to do I can't even do on a Kronos or they would take ten times as long, but that is also somewhat dependent on the style of music.

In addition, I have my mixing and mastering tools right there in the computer and without a large analog desk and a real EMT plate reverb and 20 outboard compressors I can do much more than I can with just the Kronos (or the Kronos and a bunch of modules). The O-Verb is decent but it's the only reverb I've ever heard in a workstation that I will say that much about. Without a ton of outboard gear I can't see how you deliver a finished product. How do you meter your loudness for commercial work? How do you master without any mastering tools (mid/side processing, linear phase EQ/MB compression, etc)?

I do a lot of contemporary music with vocals, there is just no way I could achieve the same quality with a workstation. I can't even comp vocals on the Kronos. I could overdub until I was cross-eyed but that's neither faster nor helpful to the creative process. Being able to quickly fix a note with iffy pitch also helps the performer relax and be confident to deliver more good takes.

So I suppose much of it depends on what kind of product you're expecting to deliver. I don't mean to say that you need to do things this way. Everyone should work the way that suits them best. But you came in here speaking as if you were reading the gospel that everything East West makes is crap and computers are the source of all evil. Perhaps that is just my perception or the nature of forum discussion, but I felt some impulse to disagree with both statements and I used the majority argument for that, since we're largely talking about "taste".

As a separate point, I think you're completely mistaken if you believe the Kronos/Motif/etc. are developed by musicians any more than sample libraries and VSTis are. The people who work at these companies often have a strong interest in music and/or audio engineering but their core business is making instruments.

Lastly, if you have any advice for the OP, please do share. I suppose you would advise against EW, but 30 bucks to try it out for a month seems pretty decent if there is even a small chance of success. I personally really wouldn't recommend spending 800 bucks on a sample library for the Kronos, but you haven't really said one way or the other yet.

[Epictetus]

Oh, and by the way: I truly believe that instead of splashing out on Eastwest libraries, it's a FAR better idea to spend the money on Greenberg's courses.

I promise, whoever does that, will never be a half-baked musician again. I am not of course referring to anybody here. But many of us worry too much about all this other crap and we don't know nearly enough about music itself.

I will say it again: getting a computer with a few expensive sampling libraries doesn't turn someone into a composer. To be a composer, you have to worry 95 per cent about actual notes, and 5 per cent everything else: how you record, etc.

Everything else is easy, really. Mere little details. Yet many people do exactly as Greenberg writes in the article: they mistaken the means for the end.

[Epictetus]

"A few years" is kind of a stretch though.

It is, indeed. I wish I had realized what I realize now, about computers, much sooner. I would have used the time I wasted in far more profitable ways.

To me it's been mostly a waste of time. Again, there's nothing, musically speaking, that I can't do without a computer. To me it's an hindrance, not a help. I am very technically minded, but I prefer to deal with the technique of music itself, like I wrote earlier. I don't use a piano roll graph to correct an error. I don't change velocities by dragging a pencil tool. I worked like that, and disliked the process. I'll just re-record the passage. And if I can't play it properly, I will practice harder and improve my playing technique.

If it were only for that reason, it would be all the reason I need for me to prefer a keyboard workstation to a computer with eastwest libraries. But there's many more reasons too.

[SanderXpander]

Oh, and by the way: I truly believe that instead of splashing out on Eastwest libraries, it's a FAR better idea to spend the money on Greenberg's courses.

I promise, whoever does that, will never be a half-baked musician again. I am not of course referring to anybody here. But many of us worry too much about all this other crap and we don't know nearly enough about music itself.

I will say it again: getting a computer with a few expensive sampling libraries doesn't turn someone into a composer. To be a composer, you have to worry 95 per cent about actual notes, and 5 per cent everything else: how you record, etc.

Everything else is easy, really. Mere little details. Yet many people do exactly as Greenberg writes in the article: they mistaken the means for the end.

It's become more and more clear to me that we mean different things when we say "composer". I automatically assumed you need to deliver finished audio. Perhaps because in my world of pop music "producer" and "composer" are often used interchangeably. If you're old school and just deliver score that's a different story. But there will be a whole team between you and the finished product in that case. That's a wonderful way to work but as you said, on the cheaper end of the market music also needs to be delivered. I assumed that that is where the OP is. If he wants to compose and have the tracks played by real musicians later on I would recommend not buying or renting any samples and just concentrating on the piece.

[SanderXpander]

here's an interesting article by someone whose lectures I learn a lot from, and he's a top notch composer too. He's what I define a 'real composer' rather than a 'working composer'. Not that a 'working composer' isn't a real composer. And I am a bit of that too. But to me is the 'real composer' that I learn from. The 'real composer' is my role model: he composes what the heck he likes, not what the market requires. The 'working composer' is a consequence of being a composer, but it doesn't have to be a requirement, and it works towards a different goal, although not necessarily less worthwhile.

I am not strictly a classical musician, but I learn a lot from classical music.
Here's the article....sums up very well what I believe in :

http://www.robertgreenbergmusic.com/201 ... echnology/

Nice piece, and one I can agree with. It's definitely important to not lose yourself in the technological side of things. There are two ways around it though - either you don't use it at all, or you use it until it's a natural part of your workflow and it doesn't get in your way. Even Greenberg seems positively excited about using Finale.

[Epictetus]

It's become more and more clear to me that we mean different things when we say "composer". I automatically assumed you need to deliver finished audio. Perhaps because in my world of pop music "producer" and "composer" are often used interchangeably. If you're old school and just deliver score that's a different story.

I am not just someone who 'needs to deliver score'. I am not old school or new school. I am a composer, probably more similar to you than Greenberg. Greenberg is a classical composer who composes contemporary classical music. I don't do that as I am not interested in that type of music. I like pop music too. I need to produce the piece too. That's what I am saying. I don't need a computer even for producing pop music.

Give me a Motif or a Kronos and I will have ALL I need. I will deliver to you, in finished format, -whatever- you require. Pop soundtracks, rock soundtracks, classical soundtracks, soundtracks for documentaries.

That's what I trained myself to do.

The only thing I don't do is writing lyrics. Never been good at it. As for everything else, I have enough confidence to do it. Without a computer.

[Epictetus]

There are two ways around it though - either you don't use it at all, or you use it until it's a natural part of your workflow and it doesn't get in your way.

If the latter is what you can truly say about yourself and computers, good for you. That was not my experience. Not because I could not do it, but because I didn't like the process. Since I have to write music and not doing a day job or something, I have to like the process. I don't fix a mistake by opening a piano roll or dragging a velocity with a pencil tool on a screen, I will just play the passage again, with the sound I have in my mind.

I want to play the music, not program it. If you are comfortable with the latter, good for you. I am not. I like to sit at the instrument, improvise a lot and compose and record on the spot.

And this is what I was trying to say about Eastwest. This stuff is to program music with. Many people think it's player friendly. It's not. Even worse, they thing that it's like buying a library for the Kronos: it will feel player friendly, but just sound so much better.

It doesn't do that. These libraries aren't for players, they are for programmers. The Kronos or the Motif is a musical instrument for players; a computer with eastwest libraries isn't for players. And in the case of Eastwest, it has glaring defects too. But we already mentioned all that.

So, yeah if you are comfortable with computers and their endless problems and limitations (oh yeah, I see lots of -limitations- in them, while everybody seems to focus on the opposite), then great.

How many pieces have you produced with computers, from start to end, in the last 5 years, with computers alone?

I have ammassed a mountain of pieces that I have to record. With computers I only recorded about 5 or 6 pieces. And believe me, I tried. I hated it.

I have got the same outcome with keyboard workstations in a couple of weeks. And I loved every moment.

I mean, the results spoke for themselves, as far as I am concerned.

As for Greenberg and Finale, here's the thing: if someone would force Greenberg not to use it ever again, Greenberg would never miss it either. Virtually nothing would change for him. He only uses Finale after he already composed the piece. He doesn't use Finale to check if he's on the 'right track' or anything like that.

[SanderXpander]

Programming and playing aren't mutually exclusive to me. Sometimes I feel I can do a better job playing a part again. Sometimes I feel the feel was overall good but I hit one bad note, or hit the right note slightly too soft or loud and then it's a lot quicker to fix it in the piano roll. Just today I did a bunch of mostly retracking and over dubbing because the piece required. Still quicker on the computer for me, but in this case I probably could've done nearly as well on the Kronos.

One thing I agree with wholeheartedly is that the average VST string library isn't meant to be played, but programmed (or at least in part). If this is something that messes with your creative process I understand why you wouldn't want to. You found your workflow and are happy with results, so we don't really need to speak any further about it. For me, the order of achievable quality is something like;
1. Real professional performers
2. Properly programmed VST libraries
3. Live played workstation with decent library
4. Live played VST library

Or such has been my experience. This is why I suggested the OP try EWQL, if he was already using a DAW and is comfortable with it (which he says he is), rather than spend 800 euros on an expansion for his workstation.

[kronoSphere]

With music in mind anything (computer, forest noises, bottle of beer, chapel-harmonium, open (de)tuning guitars etc) can be used for it. Sometimes my hands play backward my new song arrangement on piano while I record it and after : I play it backward again and here is my song rightly played with a reversed piano ready ! - No rules : never

[PCFREE]

SanderXpander always gives honest, unbiased 'sound' advice !
The Kronos is excellent, but depending on what you want to achieve, other options can give better results with much more flexibility.

Are you doing that yourself ? Are you composing soundtracks with those other 'more flexible' options?

Hi

I'm certainly not claiming to be an expert.
I use the Kronos a lot as well as VSL and Kontakt libraries amongst others. The truth is, I don't use any one exclusively. I actually like the brass and woodwinds library in the Kronos expansion libraries very much indeed! It depends on the application.
I'm not in anyway bashing the Kronos because the truth is, I use it more than anything else but I like to have a flexible approach.
I do like the idea of trying to get the most out of a particular workstation -but if I can get better results from another platform for a specific task, I'll use that. I believe this to be a logical and sensible approach - keeping my options open.

Hope that answers your question

Regards

[Akos Janca]

Sorry for the off topic discussion but it's getting very interesting about composition and computers.

I’m composing, too, and I think the answer depends on genre and instruments.

I agree, strictly saying - if we are talking about the tradidional, essential way of composing, using notes, tunes, harmonies, rhythms, forms, polyphony, arrangement etc. - you don’t need a computer to compose at all. You need your imagination and experience (paper, pencil, period). You may involve an instrument or a computer but it is not necessary: it is only a question of taste or working style. It is true for most genres and instruments.

Interestingly, there are other genres or instruments, like of eastern music, where you usually cannot use a computer for composing, even if you want to. Because this is not capable yet to imitate the nuances well enough (tuning, sound, expression, playing techniques).

And there are some genres, like contemporary electro-acoustic / electronic music, where computers are essential, they are used together with loudspeakers as musical instruments, literally. Here you must use a computer in many cases (however, not always). Think about John Chowning, Dennis Smalley, Horacio Vaggione, for example:

Turenas: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kSbTOB5ft5c
Phoné: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Jcb57ntzTg
Wind Chimes: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g2KcSqiuY3A
Thema: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tAtwS5mbuEQ

----

Of course, after composing there are still many steps in the workflow to achieve the final result which can be delivered to the audience. The final sound is usually done, at least partially, by using computers - see recording, mixing, mastering.

Finally, there are mainstream products where the sound is even much more important than 'music' – as a usual concept – itself (including the traditional ability of composers, musicians, singers etc.). Here the computers are essential, you must use them for editing, quantizing, auto-tuning, brickwall limiting etc.