|| brian eno

Concept Albums, Influences and the Reinterpretation of Feelings – Pt.1

March 14th 2016  || by  || Add Reply

I like some creators’ concepts a lot, but ironically, I’m not passionate about their music. And those artists’ music that I find exciting for stylistic or other reasons, often have a concept behind them that I can’t associate myself with – or have no concept at all.

This brings up an interesting question about the relationship between concept and taste. Should a piece of art that you find interesting have a concept that you can relate to? Does a concept that greatly interests you guarantee that you will like the art that’s formed around it? I certainly don’t think so. Yet, concepts can make a piece of art much stronger and more timeless. Concept albums ideally sprout from the exploration of feelings or ideas, opinions or facts, and express them through one or another art form. I say ideally, because technically we shouldn’t call an artwork concept-based if the work was retrofitted with a concept after it was created, but in some cases the realization or idea of meaning might actually come during or after the creative process.

Concept vs. Style

So how is it possible that I keep finding myself on either side of this equation but rarely in the intersection of them? I believe that the answer is: evolution of ideas and an organic process to create originality.

I see the “lack of finding work right in the intersection” problem as an opportunity for a natural evolution into new territories, aspiration to create the new, that will belong to that intersection – at least for some. Let’s say you love what an artist says about his/her inspirations, creative process, concepts that their music is expressing, but you don’t care for their music. It happens to me quite often that someone describes their ars poetica or creative process, which makes me excited to hear their music, but when I hear it, the music doesn’t resonate with me at all and I stop listening with disappointment. Artists, like all humans, subconsciously build their previous experiences into their own work; so what do creators do when they get inspired by a concept, feeling or idea but don’t agree with its expression? They create their own version to express it their way! Or create a variation of it. Or (sub)consciously build it into their own concepts. Either way, the result becomes something new. Like a story that gets embellished with lines borrowed from other stories and told differently every time. After a while it becomes a different story, filled with diverse roots and influences. Once you tell your own story (concept) your own way (musical expression), it should become a perfectly matched intersection between feel/idea and musical expression – at least for one listener: you. And when publicly released, the work can continue the process of influencing others by its concept (message) or by its design (music).

Is having a concept a must?

What about great music with no concept whatsoever behind it? As much as I appreciate original compositions and unique sonics (the value or originality in these is actually even measurable to a degree), I don’t think that it’s enough; I just don’t think that a conceptless album is as strong of a piece of art as the same release with a concept can be. After all, music is the most universal language (no, it’s certainly not math!) – but just beautifully speaking that language while having nothing to say isn’t appealing to me. However, once it’s expressing a message (whether abstract or concrete), the mix of that message and its expression can trigger a reaction with our own feelings (memories), which in turn can modify the intended meaning of the concept. It can effect us differently from the way it was meant to – isn’t that the basis of progression, though? Isn’t it beautiful how mutually influential the elements of concept and style can be?

One of my teachers in elementary school said, as the class was analyzing a poem, “What matters is not if you know everything about the circumstances in which the poet wrote this poem and you can analyze what he meant by every line. What matters is what the poem means to you.” So true. If it means something to you, if it effects you, it was worth creating it.

Ironically, I used to say quite often that my life is all about music, composition and sounds. Now 39 years into it I feel that music is “just” a tool, although an extremely powerful one, that we can use to communicate emotions and concepts with. However, those feelings and ideas should exist in us in the first place.

Art forms influencing each other

Another aspect of this theory that fascinates me is the cross-influence between various forms of art and expression. For example, a photograph at an exhibition might have a certain emotional effect on me. This emotion, combined (usually subconsciously) with my own related feelings can result in a new feeling, which then I express (and let my audience experience) – but not necessarily through photography, but music. Or sculpture. Or another expressive form. Thematically there might be no detectable link between the original photograph in the museum and the music track on my album, but the emotional connection (translated by my own experience of those emotions) might be extremely strong. In fact, it can be stronger than just to call it influence – it might be a variation of the same message (but without any relation to the way it was expressed by the original photographer). We could even think of it as my personal musical score to the original photograph – without having an understanding of how the photo made it’s photographer feel in the first place. But without that photo, my expression of it wouldn’t exist either.

Based on this thinking it might be unsurprising that many composers (myself included) are more influenced by other forms of art than other pieces of music. (I’m actually working on an “influence gallery” for this very website.) I believe that influence should be more about a new interpretation of the concept, the feeling, the idea (of another type of work or experience), than the kind of musical expression (style, melody, etc.) that was used to bring it to light and which you might like. Again, a photo or a country song with a strong concept might have a bigger effect on the originality of my work in electronic music, than hearing electronic music with a similar style to mine. In the latter case, I’d be more likely to subconsciously copy elements of expression (melody, harmony, rhythm, texture, performance), as opposed to be thematically influenced by an idea.

Follow the process from top left to bottom right. The shaded grey area represents the listeners. The orange elements on the right represent those listeners who are creators themselves.

Musical concept, feeling, meaning, influence and re-interpretation. The relationship between concept albums, creators and audiences. (click to open large)

So then why do interviewers always ask about our musical influences? Isn’t that just asking about the wrong side (the language, not the story) that you might have grown up with and actually can’t get out of your subconscious? If anything, that kind of influence is actually a narrowing factor in the originality of your expression, rather than an actual influence on your message. When listening to me speaking about my music, wouldn’t you be more interested in what stories, feelings, ideas we might have in common, than what kind of music we both grew up with or enjoy listening to (the “packaging” we both prefer before we unwrap the message)?

You will see another funny thing when you look at the middle area of the diagram on the right. The parts that many producers, writers, etc. focus on the most is technology. While production technology (i.e. recording software, the engineering, the studio) can greatly influence the musical expression (hence the dark blue arrow pointing left, back from production to expression), it is a relatively small part of the overall journey, and this reverse direction (using the technology as an idea-generator and not as a tool to translate one) can even be responsible for a disconnect from the original concept…  just think of those instances when a suddenly found “cool sound” caused your work to deviate from the originally intended feel.

My conclusion – and advice

Understand your own message but do let yourself be influenced by others’ interpretations.
Don’t let technology interfere in impressive but irrelevant ways – experimentation is fantastic as long as it is purposely channeled towards enhancing your initial concept.
Rather, be open to get influenced by experiences, concepts, feelings coming from other forms of art than yours. Unlike those “how to break writer’s block” articles that tell you to listen to more music of your peers, or copy the style of other composers, I suggest that you first figure out what you want to say and focus less on how you want to say it.  A strong concept will inspire the “how”-s automatically.

To be continued…

 

Three Less Obvious Enemies of Originality

July 28th 2013  || by  || 1 Comment

“What’s wrong with not being original?” – asked the celebrity and stepped back into his mansion.

Too Many Options

Brian Eno once said: “What you need are fewer possibilities… that are more interesting. It’s not more options that you want, it’s more useful options”. I think this is more true today than ever, and I might add: those few useful options will often come from the least obvious sources. So you want to be different, express your individuality, your personal message, come up with original content? Think about how you could make your process simpler. Think about how you could use gear that not everyone uses (sorry, NI). Restrict your convenient options – set up rules that prevent you from taking the same route from idea conceptualization to production twice. Work within these new set of rules, then destroy them and create new ones. Give up as much convenience as much you can handle. Let me know what results you have achieved.

When it comes to gear or software, there is a certain temptation for many of us who like diversity in sound generation and processing, to have lots of it. However, the truth is that you have to allow time for yourself to grow up to your gear. It’s kind of like a friendship. To make new friends every week and spend thirty minutes weekly with each new friend will less likely result in a strong friendship, than meeting fewer people and getting to know them better. Which situation do you think will get you farther, a lot of acquaintances or a few close friends? So, after you have gotten to know your gear down to the smallest details, let yourself run out of the obvious options; that’s where the real discovery starts. The reward comes when you start taking different than usual approaches to achieve interesting results. I’m not talking about ignoring the presets here, I’m referring to more or less ignoring the whole system (long live Anonymous!) – the methods by which the instrument or piece of equipment is supposed to be used.

I realize that I am also guilty of surrounding myself with too much gear. I remember the times when I had a very small studio and I was able to operate it with my eyes closed (literally – even navigate in sub-menus of certain equipment). Some of those pieces are still part of Studio CS today, and I keep on finding new and interesting ways of using them. On the other hand, I still have a lot of experimenting to do with my current setup, to venture into the sonic excursions I haven’t taken before. Not only I refrain from using any presets, but I’m rarely satisfied with the results that come from the “normal use” of these pieces of gear. Ultimately, I often gravitate back toward using the equipment I had developed a more in-depth “relationship” with. (A neat example would be my Yamaha PSR-6 synth, which is basically a toy that I had bought on eBay for $20, to bring back the memories of my first childhood keyboard, a PSR-2. Today, it certainly does sound like a toy, yet those sounds are part of game menus and movie soundtracks you might have already heard… yes, a $20 synth in major productions. Other sounds from this “toy” even found their way into my upcoming album [edit: the already released forgotten future], after some multi-tracking and lots of processing. Makes me think of pointless conversations about 192kHz and the need for pristine-sounding elite preamps…

This is not to say that less is always more. Although, if you are a new, aspiring composer or producer, less is definitely more, more becomes more after (many) years of use experience. With the friend analogy, once you have a few really close friends, why not have a couple more who you can get to know just as well? But it definitely takes thousands and thousands of hours to get to the point where one can utilize a studio full of equipment in a truly original ways. Most gearheads think that it would be so cool to take over a professional studio for a week… imagine what would happen if you had all the gear you can imagine at your disposal? There is a great (I believe Hungarian) phrase to describe it: “the abundance of confusion”. Probably you wouldn’t get much interesting music done, unless you resorted to using a couple of pieces of gear.

Reflex meeblip SE

Reflex meeblip SE – it doesn’t get much simpler than this, you would think. Actually, with an interesting combination of processes, even this simple piece of gear (the simplest equipment in Studio CS) is capable of reaching a wide range of unique sonic territories.

Several years ago I actually went through a period when I couldn’t get the music in my head realized the way I imagined – for a few months, none of my sessions were productive, at least by an elevated standard of originality. It was quite frustrating: sitting in the studio full of equipment, with ideas in my head (so not a “writer’s block”), yet I wasn’t able to get my idea to the point of solid realization. I thought I was ready to use a great diversity of technology simultaneously – turns out I wasn’t. After many lost session, I solved this issue by temporarily eliminating most of the equipment from my process and using only a couple of pieces. It worked great. Then I would designate a couple of months to work only with a very limited set of equipment, to get the most out of each piece according to my given needs. You would think of this masochist method as restrictive, but it was quite the opposite.  After years of working this way, I have almost grown up to Studio CS and developed a really good yet different “connection” with each piece.

Lack of true physical connection

Cables. They’re great. They let you be modular. They let you break rules. They let you hold your sounds and music in your hands while you’re deciding where to send them next. Cables stand for hands-on, physical connections and outboard gear. No plugins, no mouse, no updates, no launch errors, no forced upgrades. They represent the real stuff, something tangible. Virtual connections are just like software – flexible, convenient, but try to grab the ones and zeros they are made of. They don’t exist. Cables definitely do… and have something physical on both ends. A tube compressor. An analog synth. An effect pedal. There is nothing wrong with using virtual connections, but at least, try to combine the best of both words and keep some real cables in the part of your signal path that you wouldn’t even think could be used creatively.

Cables

Spare cables with undetermined purpose laying around before my recent studio relocation. I love cables; in my mind, they represent flexibility and provide an experience to music production that’s as far form a mouse pointer as it gets.
Sure, they’re messy. So is cooking, as opposed to junk food from the drive-thru.

Speaking of physical connections, I have to mention the very interface we use to input music into our sequencers or recording software. These days we use software for most everything, and from year to year it takes less and less effort to interface with computers. The mouse is going out, leaving space for the one- and more finger-operation of touch screens. While I recognize their advantages and superiority over the mouse, I believe that they can’t yet replace (but rather complement) the act of physically touching actual 3-dimensional objects – in music production, these can be sliders, faders, buttons, knobs, dials, keys, keyboards, strings, sticks… you name it. The expressiveness we can transfer through, and the tactile feedback we receive from these objects is much more diverse than using a flat-surface touch screen for everything. We use a mouse or two fingers for browsing, email, work, shopping online, watching movies online… shouldn’t the process of creation be utilizing some different gestures than those that we use throughout the day anyway? No wonder that some of the electronic music instrument developers see the future of music technology in the way we interface with our instruments, rather than the sound generator itself. Robert Moog realized this early on, and focused on theremins before he re-started his synth manufacturing operation in 2002. Even then, his biggest new addition to the Voyager (relative to the Model D) was the 3-axis control pad. (More about the consequence of diverse interfaces and the advantages of physically generating and performing music in my Analog vs. Digital synths article.)

More cables

More analog and digital cables at Studio CS. Some connect synths to effect units, others connect seemingly unmatchable pieces of gear, taking the sound to a new direction.

Templates and signature sounds

Sometimes a computer virus can be a good thing. Of course, they are a curse when they strike just before you wrap up an important project and they wipe out your drive. But when you “only” lose the old files or templates you use for your projects, a virus can be a great benefit and have a healthy cleansing effect on your creativity. Having to re-create things or start from scratch in most cases ensures that you’re going to end up with different, often more interesting results, maybe better ones than what you would have gotten with your trusty templates.

In music, repeating yourself is too easy; it’s for the lazy and those who prefer convenience over originality (see quote on top). Of course, I’m talking about independent work – not industrial production work, like film scoring or mainstream songwriting, where safety, convenience, speed, trends and even imitation can often be more important (and better paid for) factors than originality; it usually doesn’t matter if the composer uses his or her template (or even “borrows” someone else’s), as long as it fits into the process: done as expected, submitted on deadline. For these quick and efficient type of projects, viruses can halt production and cause serious financial damage.

About a decade ago I stopped saving my sounds and settings into the synths and processors I created them with. I decided to deliberately cause this inconvenience for myself, to make sure that even when one of my previously used sounds would work well in a new piece, I would have to create a new, original one. I have not regret it a bit. Just think about the pre-digital times, when sounds, effects, mixing settings couldn’t be saved simply by pushing a button. How much more originality came from that era, when most sounds and most every piece of music was created from scratch, and was often impossible to repeat (perform) the same way. Originality wasn’t a goal artists were forcing, it just happened organically. Even the patch drawings (of settings) didn’t give the composer exactly the same results every time.

The only two exceptions from this practice are performances and signature sounds. If the style of a composer or producer is heavily characterized by the sounds or instruments used, sometimes it’s understandable if s/he wants to re-use these elements; that is, if the reason is not laziness but the desire to evoke the feel of a previous music piece, to create a link to an earlier work (hopefully rather an emotional, than a promotional link), or to perform the music live. For instance, I have kept three of my used-to-be signature sounds (they come from the time of Mountain Flying) but have used them maybe three times in the past 15 years. The main lead sound from Mountain Flying I, II and III had been quietly resting in a sound module for years before I decided to use it again for the lead part of Fly Away (on Transitions). Fans had been asking for a sequel to Mountain Flying, and though I was not intending to create a sequel album, one day in 2004 the track Fly Away was born. My old MF sound not only worked perfectly for the lead, but was largely responsible for bringing back the feel of the windy, snow-covered mountains from 1999’s Mountain Flying.

1999's Mountain Flying CD Cover (Periferic Records original edition)

1999’s Mountain Flying CD Cover (Periferic Records original edition)

Signature sounds and live performances aside, I can only respect and celebrate those composers and producers who sound themselves but do not sound the same over and over again – especially in electronic music, where texture is a major building block of music. I suspect the same applies to painters, sculptors, graphic artists, videographers, animators, writers, poets and most everyone who creates original work – where templates can be the enemy of originality. Convenient, but limiting: they might not let you see different directions, take new approaches, change up the usual process.

Have you discovered some other not-so-obvious enemies of originality? Comment or let me know.

 

Technical Illusion vs. Originality

March 29th 2013  || by  || 5 Comments

This year I finally realized, how insignificant and meaningless the NAMM show (the largest music- and audio technology exhibition) has become to me from a musical perspective. Most “new” products are all about either re-selling old ideas, re-creating vintage equipment from the ’70s & ’80s in a cheaper, plastic-y (but usually more amateur-proof, more convenient) package, or making complex or experience-based processes easy for beginners, so that they can get “professional” results with a push of a button, without needing to have a clue about what’s really happening in the background, and enjoy the results – which can sound just like their favorite “Major Artist” (more about this in a later post). So where are the truly creative products? Those that make you think and work harder to achieve genuinely different (dare I say: original) results, which will enrich the cultural legacy that we leave behind on this planet…? I can’t see very many.

Don’t get me wrong, I love to use technology; I have been using it for as long as I can remember working with audio and music (28+ years). The trend I’m really not interested in, and frankly I’m against, is how digital technology is making humanity lazier, easier to get impressed, but less skilled, way less creative, and ultimately less happy. We can’t even begin to describe the difference between how Schaeffer or Moog must have felt when creating something original, never before heard/seen, and how users feel today when they finally figure out how they can get to a menu in their newly upgraded software. I’m certainly not criticising the advantages that technology brings to the medical fields, to various sciences or to the military, and not disputing its benefits (at least for their respective users) either. My issue starts where technology becomes more than a tool, it becomes a way of thinking, a way of life: it becomes the purpose. The time when you start depending on technology to carry out fundamental human actions (cooking, entertainment, learning, creating art or simply being happy) and to interact with others (communication or expressing emotions in other ways), is precisely the point when it starts making you, and your creations, less human. I believe that a large portion of our society has already passed that point.

“Sure…”, you might think, “this is an old argument that I have heard many times”.  I have, too, yet I don’t see that the majority would agree, and would stop supporting and praising the exponential technical “evolution” of the human race. Is it really evolution, when you become a technology-dependent user? I have been listening to some of my otherwise pretty smart friends for years, talking in awe about how fantastic their new xyz music production- or photography software is, because with it they can effortlessly and conveniently produce the “perfect” results (which, in my opinion, doesn’t exist anyway, not to mention that “perfect” should be a moving, evolving target, not a stationary idea). I understand that for those who can’t hum a tune or take a snapshot with a film camera,  toys can be great; they let them play around and make fun things that otherwise they would not be able to. But, if you consider yourself an advanvced amateaur, not to mention a professsional… your goal should definitely not be making your pieces to sound or look like the mainstream, nor to get results in a convenient way thank to some dumbed-down processes.

I have recently watched the biographic movie of the late Joseph Weizenbaum, who realized the curse of AI (after spending the majority of his life as one of the pioneers who helped paving AI’s way), and in the same film, listened to the idiotic, demagogic (and surprisingly naive) monologues of self-proclaimed futurist, Ray Kurzweil. It’s a great documentary. Then, when further researching the subject, I came accross excerpts from the movie on YouTube, and sadly found that most user comments are blindly supporting Kurzweil’s ideas and are describing singularity as the ultimate human experience and heaven-like state achieved with technology. They just really don’t get it…  does it seriously require so much of humanness in our hearts and brains to understand why you don’t want to become an always happy, “perfect” humanoid thing? Or, why it’s not a great idea to replace your good and bad memories with only positive ones, modified by ones and zeros custom-designed for you – and call it total happiness? I guess the “make it a good day” phrase would get a whole new meaning… Has Kurzweil not seen (or get the point of) Bruce Willis’ Surrogates? Instead of a “perfect” life for 150 years, I would personally go for a shorter one that is filled with realism and adventure – no question about it.

How ironic – from the ’60s through the ’80s, the “human machine” used to be a futuristic idea, which was different enough to be cool, but was not meant to be taken too seriously, at least not as a plausible and desirable future (nor did it take itself too seriously). From 1978 on, Kraftwerk’s Die Mensch Maschine let us imagine an alternate yet clearly fictional reality, it let us play the role of a machine – the keyword being play. Playing is imagining, imagining leads to creating. Creating means using our brain not to repeat, not to copy, not to imitate, but to  invent what doesn’t exist yet, to express thoughts/feelings in ways that have not been expressed before, as each of us has a unique view. To enrich the human history with something that is fundamentally new and original, and human, something that wouldn’t exist without you or them or I creating it. Those were great times.

But, now in the 21st century, wealthy “futurist” tyrantopaths and powerful companies are actually making purpose-lost humans believe, that living a virtual or by-choice software-supported life is cool and that the convenience of imitation (as opposed to creation) is what will make everyone’s life better and happier. They state that a “perfect” human will have a “perfect life” (apparently they haven’t taken a look at depressed lottery winners, wealthy hardcore drug-addicts, alcoholic- and bankrupt celebrities, etc.). Hiding behind misused words (like creativity) and syrupy advertising (you can create anything), they are managing to convince a large portion of population, that by clicking around in a simplified, purpose-built software, the user can actually get really inventive and achive the euphoria of creating something totally new, that was only possible for those with some specialized equipment, extreme dedication and (too much) time a few decades ago. They’re smart marketers; “optical illusions have gotten old, let’s keep everyone entertained with the technical illusion (and make a few billions along the way)”.

What does all this have to do with the NAMM show and music composition/production? Technology in music has served humans really well until is was enabling us more to come up with new ideas than to replicate old ones easier. Just like in many other areas, it has become a simple, quick and cheap way for anyone to imitate ideas – ideas, which have been already conceptualized and executed a long time ago, by those who pushed the boundaries of their mind, not (just) the technology of their times. Those who got something more out of new technologies than the masses (think of tape recorders and musique concrete). Technology is not inspiring users to push the boundaries of originality in music or sound – despite of what your favorite music store’s email newsletter tells you. If you have listened to mainstream radio or have seen what’s been coming out of Hollywood for the past decade, you know what I’m referring to. (It would be nice to have a recognized and truly independent award for those rare exceptions).

I do think that there are no limits to the extent and form of originality that one can come up with in music and sound today, despite of the sheer volume of ideas that the entertainment industry has wasted as over-exploited musical products, which it shoved down the consumers’ throat, especially in the past thirty-plus years. Ideas are so much more powerful and diverse than technology is! I often tell my students not to let technology drive their creative decisions, but the other way around – the leaders of the music technology industry seem to be on the opposite side (unlike some exceptional, respectable small companies).

''I'm the artist of the future!'' Let's make everything perfect, like on TV.

“I’m the artist of the future!” – Let’s make everything perfect, like on TV.

I urge programmers and software engineers to design products that help users to push the limits of our imagination, not the speed of the processors, and to contribute to the real progress of the human race, not products that make our lives overly comfortable and only seemingly happy. It might already be too late for that, as most users don’t realize how limiting this modern-day dependence actually is (try to get a sense for this dependence by turning off everything digital for a week in your house and at work), and they support it by favoring convenience and the illusion of their personal creative evolution, over creative thinking and hard work. This is especially true for today’s electronic music. Do unsuspecting users seriously think that the latest xyz plug-in that takes their sound closer to an [insert ‘major’ artist name] -track will open up their world of creativity and get their music launched into some brand new musical landscape? Do they seriously think that buying Native Instruments’ latest six-hundred-forty-million Terabyte sample library will help them to get their name written into the music history books? I hope you don’t. Real success happens when you are creating from your own, completely original ideas, your uniquely expressed feelings, personal experiences and memories that you turn into sound, music, image, etc., and when you let go of control and give space for happy accidents to happen.

According to Brian Eno, “Perfection is characterlessness”. I could not agree more. Throughout my career I have composed music both with the intention of creating “perfection” relative to industry expectations and trends, and also music not limited by particular guidelines or standards. I feel that my more predictable, more “perfect” pieces could have been created by many other composers… but those that were not born from the application of the established approaches, processes and techniques, but ventured off to take unplanned, untested directions while disregarding any routines or expectations, became the ones that would not exist without my existence – in turn, making my existence, and humble contribution to humans’ musical legacy, worthwhile.

My point? Next time when you’re enjoying the latest and greatest all-in-one easy-to-use music production software and feeling creative, challenge yourself by turning it off, grabbing a microphone and an object that you’d unlikely to ever record, or grab that $20 old toy synth (or other instrument with seemingly limited capabilities) from eBay, and start creating an experience. Instead of starting with a mass-produced algorhythm and your mouse, try some of the most human methods: discovery.

Singularity? The day when we trade our individuality for perfection – I despise that idea. We are alive as long as we are unique. Spending your money with companies that don’t sell you fake “creativity” but actually enable you to find your voice and ideas, will not only get you farther in your artistic endeavors today, but will help you to step on a currently unpopular road to an alternate, totally crazy, almost unimaginable and unbelievably human future as well: one with less perfection and less convenience.

Sampled Orchestral vs. Electro-Orchestral Music

November 15th 2011  || by  || Add Reply

Although the technical difference between them is significant, what really sets sampled orchestral music and electro-orchestral music apart is the idea behind the composition, and the type of sonic character and musical expressions the composer prefers to communicate these different ideas with. Let’s take a look at these two approaches to music composition, which can result in very diverse types of music.

Basics of a Sampled Orchestra

A sampled orchestra is a close imitation of a real one, or rather, the special-purpose recording and triggered playback of the sounds of individual orchestral instruments (or section of instruments). The playback of the sounds is accomplished by a new musical performance on a keyboard or with another type of midi- or non-standard digital controller. The way the samples are made ready for a composer’s use – the sound sourcing process – is fairly simple and standard:

First, high-quality recordings of individual notes played by various instruments are made, one by one across their entire musical range, capturing each note performed with different expressions and techniques, possibly using different microphone setups and even various spaces (concert hall, performance stage, studio, etc.).

Secondly, the combination of the hundreds of recorded samples are organized in a digital sample player (hardware or software) in order for the appropriate notes (samples) to be played back when striking the keys across a keyboard (or other midi controller) with various strength. For instance, when one hits a middle C softly on the controller keyboard, the “soft middle C piano” sample (a short recording of the instrument’s softly played middle C note) will be played back by the sampler, sounding until the key is held. Once the key is released, the “middle C string soft damping with hammer action noise” sample is played back, imitating the noise of the real piano key’s release. The keys of the controller keyboard act like playback start buttons, each triggering the playback of the appropriate combination of recordings.

The performance can be quite convincing, especially to the untrained ears. The majority of the orchestral scores of movies and tv films made in the past 10-12 years were produced with this technique. The goal is to create an orchestral recording, which gives the impression of a real orchestra’s performance – without the logistic challenges and serious expense of hiring an orchestra, support staff, renting a sound stage or concert hall, etc.  Sample libraries produced by several companies who specialize in sample-set production can be purchased – you can put together an imitation orchestra sample library for as little as $500 (or for serious professional work for as much as $50,000). However, the challenge isn’t so much in achieving a great sound quality (today’s samples are usually pretty high quality recordings), but in making the performance believable.

Sampled Orchestral

With sampled orchestral setups, the challenge isn’t in achieving a great sound quality but in making the performance believable.

The character and expressive playability of real instruments come in large part from their design – the way they are designed to be played. In general, we know not only the sound character of an instrument, in case of a violin, the timbre of the violin, but we know the sound of the violin when played by a violinist. After we transfer the various sound samples into a sampler, we will be playing every instrument using a keyboard. Without a bow, without strings, and without the techniques acquired and perfected by years of violin practice, we will not be able to use the pure sound of a violin with the same expression as a violin player can.

Of course, technology tries to have an answer for everything – in this case mostly by imitation of reality (though never a perfect copy – which would defeat the purpose anyway). Sample manipulation, software programming and audio mixing tricks, as well as the use of various performance controllers on keyboards (buttons, levers, pots, sliders, ribbons, etc.) can add more life and expression to the sound by changing certain characters of it (i.e. the more important parameters of the samples). Moreover, some less traditional midi controllers have emerged in the past decade, with the promise of a more varied, sometimes more natural performance communication between the player and the sample playback device or software. While some of them are played by blowing and striking, other controllers use buttons, digitally cnotrolled valves, touch-pads and laser, infrared or ultrasonic beams. Although with all these controllers we can add a wide range of expressions to the sound, or smoothly switch from one playing technique / sample to another during the performance, something is missing. It is the organic, human touch what makes a real performance come alive; the imperfections, noises, and the fact that on real instruments, the same notes never sound the exact same, and they rarely sound perfect.

A popular technique called sweetening is often used to help this issue; by adding a few real musicians’ performance on real instruments to the mix of the digitally-created orchestral parts, imperfections, noises and subtle variations in performance can be introduced. The intention is to “humanize” the piece and mask the overly polished sound of the sampled orchestra at the same time. Although this masking doesn’t make ones and zeros become organic material, the difference between a real orchestral performance and a well-produced sampled orchestra can be unrecognizable by most listeners. (Some exceptionally well-produced compositions can give a hard time even to professional composers and orchestrators when trying to guess whether they are listening to sampled & sweetened or an entirely orchestral performance).

Sampled orchestras tend to work better for large symphonic pieces, than for solos and chamber setups, where the digital nature of the sampler performance is harder to hide. Of course, knowing the attributes and limitations of all traditional instruments, their performance techniques and tricks, as well as being experienced at orchestral work is a major advantage for composers who venture into performing sampled orchestral music. Naively, some feel like an instant “orchestral composer” by simply playing a keyboard and switching between various orchestral samples. The affordability and convenience of technology has falsely empowered many, often only to result in embarrassingly fake-sounding recordings (even in “professional circles” – let’s not mention the A-list examples here).

Sounds of the electro-orchestral music

Since electro-orchestral music isn’t really orchestral music as far as the instruments concerned, we approach it with a healthy absence of preconceived notions or expectations. In the above example of the violin, we all know what this traditional instrument sounds like, what sound to expect to come out of it. But, we usually don’t know what an electronic musical instrument sounds like before we hear it. Synthesizers and other electronic instruments sound the way we make them sound. Not only there is no “perfect sound” to match, nor centuries-old standards and performance techniques to imitate, often, the more original or unique character they produce, the better. As the phrase “electro-orchestral” suggests, the music is usually composed on and produced with electronic instruments, and the sound itself is electronic in nature… but then what makes electro-orchestral orchestral?

If a piece of music sounds “kind of like orchestral” but it’s not, the chances are it was simply poorly produced; it might be trying to sound like orchestral, but the quality of samples, or more often, the sub-standard performance gives it away. Many who don’t have the access to high quality samples or the knowledge and experience to write orchestral music for an orchestra, make the mistake of trying to sound like one, using a common rompler plugin, cheap samples or a digital synth or workstation. It is not what electro-orchestral music is.

Electro-orchestral music is one that sounds “almost like an orchestral piece” because of the overall grand feel of the sonic experience and the structure/arrangement of the music, but it does not intend to sound like an orchestra at all. The various sections of an orchestra, like strings, brass, woodwinds, percussion, can be represented by electronic sounds with similar general character to their related orchestral instruments/sections, but with no intention to imitate the traditional orchestra’s sound. Their place in the overall sonic palette of the music and their role in the arrangement and orchestration (electro-orchestration would be a better phrase) can be very similar, however. For example a violin-like sound playing a melody line in the higher octaves, a bright brass-like sound playing a mid-range melody or stabs that the horns would play in an orchestra, or a flue-like sound playing a counter-melody or small micro-melodies in the style of a typical woodwinds section. However, these sounds are not created by traditional instruments nor by their samples, but by various electronic components found in hardware instruments such as synthesizers, or by software algorithms.

Electro- Orchestral

Sounds created by electronic instruments can introduce the new element of sonic texture to the musical environment, a dimension relatively limited in pure orchestral music. This new element can strongly influences the feel the music carries or creates, and ultimately effects the entire ideology behind the composition and the compositional process.

In addition, sounds not even remotely reminiscent of traditional instruments can be used, often adding important flavors to the electro-orchestral piece. An arpeggiated bass, a randomly changing lfo-d filter, a glitch-y percussion part, a sweeping pad, an ethnic instrument’s lead or some manipulated environmental noise can complement the more standard parts of the orchestration structure well. In a sampled orchestral piece, they might work against the goal of imitating an acoustic instrumentation, but in electro-orchestral music, they can add original character, a unique feel and expression to the piece. At the end, a deliberately electronic instrumentation, giving the overall feel (but not the sound)  of an orchestral-size performance will carry the composer’s message to the listener.

Differences beyond technicalities

The type and purpose of music that the composer desires to create determines the approach, tools and techniques (s)he uses to achieve the best results. For example, to score an emotional cue in a romantic movie, a composer might use real strings, woodwinds and piano, but without the budget (mostly the case) or time to record live players, a good alternative is to imitate them by a sampled-orchestral performance. This also gives the composer the flexibility to easily re-write and re-arrange parts later. The goal is still to sound as close to the real soaring strings of an orchestra as possible.

A completely different purpose and style might inspire the composer to turn to the electro-orchestral approach. Sounds created by electronic instruments can introduce the new element of sonic texture to the musical environment, a dimension relatively limited in pure orchestral (real or sampled) music. This new element can strongly influence the feel the music carries or creates, and ultimately effect the entire idea behind the composition and the compositional process. An example of this would be a score for a futuristic movie, that requires the music cues typically used in such movies (action, romance, surprise, mystique, etc.) to support the plot and characters, however, carries the futuristic environment in every bit of the sound. Think of Blade Runner – an orchestral score could have worked fine, but the electro-orchestral approach doubled the impact and unique feel of the movie. While sounding somewhat traditional, the score was entirely produced with synthesizers.

(A challenge for composers: let’s switch up the instrumentation and genre of the last two examples. Writing an orchestral score for a sci-fi movie is the easy part – can be done routinely, have been done many times. But how would you approach scoring a real-life story’s romantic scene with electronic instruments? This forces you to think about sounds, textures… go beyond the traditional musical elements of rhythm, melody and harmony, and ultimately create something more original.)

While movie scores are the most representative examples, the same is true for musical works. We often don’t realize that the reason behind the largish feel and “full”, “well-though-out” and “complete” sound of a track is its orchestral-like arrangement- and instrumentation structure, but it being performed with non-traditional sounds doesn’t make the similarity obvious. This is even true for many mainstream songs today. It is interesting to note, that some typical sounds and sound categories of early (and actually, even many of today’s) synthesizers are named mirroring their orchestral “inspirations”; some of the most known (and now classic) synth patches are the likes of “Jupiter-6 strings”, “CS-80 brass” or “DX-7 piano”. Although at more than one point in the history of electronic music (see “Ambient vs. New-Age”) these instruments did try to imitate their real counterparts, they remained far-from perfect impressions of them, but with a unique character of their own, responsible for great success of some excellent non-orchestral composers. (They eventually became classic electronic sounds themselves, subject of imitation and sampling by newer electronic instruments and software – more about this later in another post, until then listen to some famous sounds here).

Tradition and Progression

Personally, I have a great respect for the traditional instruments of the symphonic orchestra, and have used them quite a lot (from large real orchestras to cutting-edge sampled orchestral setups). But I have an even bigger appreciation for the electronic instruments; when using them, we don’t imitate, rather create sounds (and even new imaginative instruments). We create more than just a melody, a theme, a piece, a mood, we create a feel that even a single note can carry! Why limit ourselves to the 35-40 traditional orchestral instruments when writing music with grandiose feel or for expressive instrument solos, if we can have the luxury of using thousands of traditional and non-traditional ethnic instruments (or their samples) and an unlimited number of electronic sounds as well?

I believe that the electro-orchestral (and various electronic, ambient, etc.) music opens up the boundaries and greatly expands the limits of the (otherwise fairly versatile) traditional instruments. It must have been super exciting to first explore these possibilities in the 60’s and 70’s with the first synthesizers, however with today’s music technology industry on one side, and the challenge to create truly original sounds and new musical instruments on the other side, it is still a never-ending adventure. Many of us have first-time memories of a feel or a sonic experience created by some non-traditional sounds in a movie, a film trailer, or even just a song on the radio. And while some of yours might be electronic in nature, it’s interesting to realize that their role in the music might have been the same as a traditional instruments role in the most known classical pieces a few hundred years ago.

Same structure or not, the new dimension of sonic textures might just be what gives us the amazing feeling of discovering new musical landscapes today.

Ambient vs. New Age

June 29th 2011  || by  || 4 Comments

I want to clear up a misconception / misuse of two words. Many people think (even some composers and those in the music business), that the musical styles “Ambient” and “New Age” are the same and these two expressions are interchangeable.  Especially in the US, people tend to pigeonhole both into some simple, mellow, uninteresting, cheesy (yet not even existing) style of “mood music” or “elevator music”. And they could not be any more wrong. Although these days they can be partially right. More about this later. In Europe, as electronic and various contemporary instrumental musical styles are much more popular, the mix-up is less of an issue, however the differences are often just guessed and not clearly understood.

First let’s take a look at what these wonderful musical genres are not. Although the categories “elevator music” and “mood music” do exist, these phrases reference the use, rather than the genre of such music. Especially elevator music – which has become a somewhat cynical phrase in English to describe an uninteresting wall of background music – is not descriptive of a music genre; I have heard classical, contemporary orchestral, country, big band, electronic, new age, jazz, and even rock music in elevators. There are “mood music” or “atmospheric music” CDs available as well, some not even containing music but sound effects, some featuring classical music. Therefore, these aren’t musical styles, rather modern-day expressions describing the use, or (sometimes rightfully) suggesting the lack of diversity and musical depth of a track.

Let’s go back to the question of Ambient vs. New Age music. In their “lighter”, commercialized form, well known since the ’80s, these can be some gently flowing, predictable pieces of music, often using only a few basic chords, inspiring melodies and simple, most likely synth – based instrumentation, with frequent use of piano and strings (or string-like synth pads), maybe some arpeggiated synth parts. However, in the late ’60s, pioneers of electronic music were already working on a compositionally and aesthetically much deeper level to create Ambient pieces (and New Age music later in the ’70s).

While Ambient music in the ’60s and through the ’70s usually referred to new experimental music, noise- and sound-inspired music (such as music concrete) – contemporary electronic music with no- or very limited commercial intentions, – early New Age (and a handful of Ambient) compositions were popularized by the great modern composers of instrumental-electronic music, such as Vangelis, Eno (who first started using the phrase “ambient music”), Jarre, Oldfield, Schulze, Clarke, etc.  Of course, I do not blame these wonderful creators for the commercialization of the style – that was the (unavoidable?) side effect of the popularization of their work itself! Also, thank to them, electronic music in general gained a much wider acceptance, and later appreciation… without which only a few of you would be reading my lines now, or, maybe electronic music would mean something entirely different today (an interesting topic for another time).

the music industry is squeezing out everything it can from new age music

In the ’90s, the music industry was squeezing all it could out of New Age music, eventually making it into atmospheric relaxation cheese.

In a way, New Age helped to make electronic music accessible and enjoyable for the quality-demanding audiences, especially in Europe where electronic and rock instrumentations were kept more separate (outside of the Lucky Man type of approach) than in the U.S. However, the process in which New Age music got diluted into some atmospheric relaxation nonsense (and yes, typical elevator music), is another, rather unfortunate matter. I won’t mention the names of the performers with pretty smiles, long hair and white pianos here, as they were only messengers with a bad taste and too much hunger for fame. Not bringing up the listening standards of the masses to the already popularized electronic/new age music, but dumbing down a style to create assembly-line type of products that appealed mostly to an overly romantic segment of the audience was an unforgivable yet familiar deed of the music industry. It is their greed that has made New Age into what it is today.

While New Age often intended to express traditional (romantic, classical) ideas by replacing orchestral instruments with synthesized sounds, Ambient music has always contained a certain level of experimentation and sonic risk (from a popularity angle). Although the philosophy and driving force behind the evolution of the New Age and Ambient styles have been different from the beginning, there are countless examples for their marriage, often blurring the line between the two genres – especially in the early ’80s (think of Vangelis or Eno).

With the explosion of digital technologies and their application in music production, the two styles’ deviation accelerated in the early to mid-90s, thank to the better mass-appeal and marketability of New Age, and as a consequence of these new technologies’ effect on electronic music production, serving up the two genres’ differing fundamental ideology in different ways. While it became even easier and a fairly challenge-less task to produce New Age records, with every record farther diluting the already over-digested writing- production- and listening experience, Ambient music stayed true to its origin and took the harder road: the challenge of originality. Although not yet in a widely published way (not that it has ever been widely published), Ambient music started truly benefiting from the advances in digital audio- and music production, especially sample manipulation, new synthesis methods and new electronic instruments and controllers.

Ambient Evolution

Digital technologies opened up new dimensions for Ambient music. From sample manipulation to new synthesis methods and processing techniques, ambient music has now unlimited territories to explore on all levels of sonics. At least, unlimited as long as the entertainment industry stays away.

By the end of the ’90s, the focus shifted from interesting chords and repurposed real-life sounds to produced-from-scratch soundscapes, and sounds constructed and modified in new and original ways. The decade-long influence of popular electronic music (mainly techno, then trance and drum&bass around the turn of the millennium) breathed new life into Ambient. The 2000s brought the rediscovery of integrating acoustic instruments and the benefits of using new performance techniques into electronic music, which further shaped Ambient music into what some refer to as “the classical music of the digital age”.

I feel that these days “New Age” has a less flattering connotation than ever before, while “Ambient” has expanded from the textural and very loosely structured compositions into various electronic and electroacoustic directions, which make it appealing for a wider audience than before, yet its philosophy and complexity keep it “niche enough” to prevent it from the dangerous commercialization New Age went through. In 1981, I would have gladly announced myself as someone working in either genres, however, today I rather introduce myself as a composer of ambient electronic music, to avoid any preconceived ideas.

Of course, all these expressions, sub-genres of electronic music, transformations and influences aside, what matters is the music itself, not what we call it.

Click here for a followup post on this article.

  • Re-End Prologue
  • forgotten future W1 (2015)
  • https://www.juliusdobos.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/ff-W1.jpg
  • ALL CATEGORIES
  • https://www.juliusdobos.com/musicmp3/re-end-prologue.mp3
  • https://www.juliusdobos.com/musicmp3/re-end-prologue.mp3
  • Guts' Epic Fight Theme (Berserk)
  • Julius Dobos (2021)
  • https://www.juliusdobos.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/Guts.jpg
  • ALL CATEGORIES
  • https://www.juliusdobos.com/musicmp3/Guts Epic Fight Theme (shortened).mp3
  • https://www.juliusdobos.com/musicmp3/Guts Epic Fight Theme (shortened).mp3
  • Siggraph Event Theme & Show
  • Siggraph (2019)
  • https://www.juliusdobos.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/Siggraph-19-logo.jpg
  • ALL CATEGORIES
  • https://www.juliusdobos.com/musicmp3/2019 Real-Time Live Show.mp3
  • Parallell Realities Epic Monk Rmx Live
  • Live in California (2017)
  • https://www.juliusdobos.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/Live-in-CA.jpg
  • ALL CATEGORIES
  • https://www.juliusdobos.com/musicmp3/Live_in_CA_sample_2.mp3
  • Short Message
  • from Connecting Images (1998)
  • https://www.juliusdobos.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/Connecting-Images.jpg
  • ALL CATEGORIES
  • https://www.juliusdobos.com/musicmp3/shortmessage.mp3
  • https://www.juliusdobos.com/musicmp3/shortmessage.mp3
  • Live in California (sample)
  • Live in California (2017)
  • https://www.juliusdobos.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/Live-in-CA.jpg
  • ALL CATEGORIES
  • https://www.juliusdobos.com//musicmp3/Live_in_CA_sample_1.mp3
  • https://www.juliusdobos.com//musicmp3/Live_in_CA_sample_1.mp3
  • Another Present
  • Realignment (2016)
  • https://www.juliusdobos.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/Realignment.jpg
  • ALL CATEGORIES
  • https://www.juliusdobos.com/musicmp3/another-present.mp3
  • https://www.juliusdobos.com/musicmp3/another-present.mp3
  • Witnessing the Forces
  • forgotten future W1 (2015)
  • https://www.juliusdobos.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/ff-W1.jpg
  • ALL CATEGORIES
  • https://www.juliusdobos.com/musicmp3/witnessing-the-forces.mp3
  • https://www.juliusdobos.com/musicmp3/witnessing-the-forces.mp3
  • Hymn to The Fukushima 50
  • Lost Tracks (2011)
  • https://www.juliusdobos.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/Juius-Dobos-lost-tracks.jpg
  • ALL CATEGORIES
  • https://www.juliusdobos.com/musicmp3/f50preview.mp3
  • https://www.juliusdobos.com/musicmp3/f50preview.mp3
  • Ultimate Mission
  • The Lost Tracks (2011)
  • https://www.juliusdobos.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/Juius-Dobos-lost-tracks.jpg
  • ALL CATEGORIES
  • https://www.juliusdobos.com/musicmp3/ultimatemission.mp3
  • https://www.juliusdobos.com/musicmp3/ultimatemission.mp3
  • Puzzletime
  • Transitions (2010)
  • https://www.juliusdobos.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/transitions.jpg
  • ALL CATEGORIES
  • https://www.juliusdobos.com/musicmp3/puzzletime.mp3
  • https://www.juliusdobos.com/musicmp3/puzzletime.mp3
  • Walk
  • The Lost Tracks (2007)
  • https://www.juliusdobos.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/Juius-Dobos-lost-tracks.jpg
  • ALL CATEGORIES
  • https://www.juliusdobos.com/musicmp3/walk.mp3
  • https://www.juliusdobos.com/musicmp3/walk.mp3
  • Adventure
  • Mountain Flying (1999)
  • https://www.juliusdobos.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/Mountain-Flying.jpg
  • ALL CATEGORIES
  • https://www.juliusdobos.com/musicmp3/adventure.mp3
  • https://www.juliusdobos.com/musicmp3/adventure.mp3