rob1984

Any luck with getting this to work, particularly with EWQLSO Gold and Sibelius 5? I'd much rather use CC11 than CC7. Thanks

Broken link

Interesting point. If these changes are as wide-reaching and exciting as they sound this could be a huge thing for YC. I have also wondered whether the name of the site is a hindrance more than it is an asset especially when you consider that there are virtually no other good composition forums on the internet! This is by far the best website for composers to talk to other composers and get opinions on their work and I also wonder whether the name might narrow your potential userbase in the future. I'm a relative newbie to these new boards, so obviously ignore this if you want; I'm just throwing ideas out in the open. Oh, and of course well done on getting this new software deal sewn up. It's sounds fantastic. Congratulations, I can't wait to see it up and running!

As has been said before, if you want a really good sounding piece, use a sequencer. If you want a really good score, use notation software. HOWEVER, (ignore this point if you like, it doesn't make my first sentence any less valid), I find that my most interesting music comes from using notation software rather than a sequencer as I can see how the parts relate to one another much better. I'd suggest you keep going with the demos and see what you like best and what suits your style of composing more. Bear in mind the newst notation software allows you to use sample libraries like GPO (although not in the detail you can with a sequencer). I hope that helps!

Why does that make artistic vision limited? These kind of contrainsts can require more artistic vision than just putting together a piece of music that'll be performed in the concert hall. Furthermore, it takes just as much skill to compose a very good film score as it does to compose a very good symphony and it could be argued just as easily that only 5% of symphonies ever composed are genuinly original with many based on old styles, tried and tested techniques, understood orchestrations etc. (see, I can pick numbers out of the air as well, fun isn't it?!) And as for being crowd-pleasing, what on earth is wrong with that? I personally think a well-composed piece of music, whether for film or for the concert hall, that captures an audience's imagination is more successful than a well-composed piece of music that doesn't. But then I'm weird like that. :whistling: Tosh. So are you telling me that if you hear a piece of John Williams' music you're unfamiliar with you won't recognise it as John Williams. I think he has a very distinctive style. As for rewriting existing pieces of music; Williams is one of the best composers of a melody there is and you're doing him a huge injustice with your claims. Again, you're trying to compare apples with oranges and missng the point entirely! Film music isn't meant to give intellectual stimulation, it doesn't pretent to and it is therefore not failing in its function. You'd be mightily peeved if a film composer tried to be too clever by writing music that gave intellectual stimulation and ended up writing a score that ruined the film. Again, please don't compare film and concert music; they're written for such completely different audiences and purposes that it does your point no good to continue comparing them. Again, I disagree with you on this point. You're making film composers out to be little more than plagarists and that really bugs me, especially since borrowing of ideas isn't unique to the field of film composition. I know you don't like me saying this but it does strike me that you don't know what you're talking about when you say things like that. As for the accolades, well that's only natural. As long as top concert composers write music that will only appeal to niche audiences (music that is very intellectually stimulating), then they can't expect to gain mass recognition. They can't have it both ways and I don't suppose they'd want to becuase part of the appeal of "difficult" concert music is that it isn't mainstream. Furthermore, the lack of accolades for concert composers isn't film composers fault in the slightest. Do you honestly think if John Williams wasn't writing blockbuster film scores, there'd be a mass of people going out buying CDs of Ferneyhough? Your bitterness on behalf of concert composers isn't helping your point in the slightest. A Shostokovich Symphony would make a shite film score. An Elfman film score wouldn't work on stage without being rewritten becuase of structural problems. Again you're comparing apples and oranges and I'd urge you not to. As for whether it holds up "as music", that's such a ridiculously subjective argument it's hardly worth getting into. I can quickly get bored listening to an overly-long Handel aria, but could listen to the textures and sounds of, for example, Bernard Hermann all day long. That doesn't really answer my question. Do you consider film scores by the afforementioned composers as genuine compositions or not? What about VW's film score to Scott of the Antarctic which later became his Symphony Antarctica? Is that score not a genuine composition? Becuase you did say, along with regarding film composers as the world's worst repuable composers that you "don't regard film scores as genuine composition".

Who says a composition needs to be original, new and revolutionary to be any good? I agree, some film composers go too far in their borrowing of ideas. The similarity between parts of Zimmer's Gladiator score and Holst's Mars from The Planets is uncanny; so much so that I can't believe it is a coincidence. But blatent examples like this are rare and are not a good enough reason to tar all film composers with the same brush. Film scoring is an incredibly complex process and film composers are probably the most versatile composers in the world; a good film composer can write music in almost all styles without losing their own sound. John Williams, for example, is a master of his trade; it might not be the most original music but there are few better than him at getting the atmosphere exactly right at the right moment. And technically his music is well composed. In short he knows what he's doing and that's why he's been at the top for so long. Film scoring isn't about revolutionary music (although it can be). By comparing film scores with concert music you're comparing apples with oranges and that's not fair. They're composed for different purposes and one is not inherently worse than the other because of this. Yep, completely disregard an entire profession and an entire body of works stretching back almost a century, that's sensible. :unsure: Are you seriously dismissing John Williams, Jerry Goldsmith, Ennio Morricone, John Barry, Korngold, Elfman, Fenton, Herrman (!) etc. and saying they were some of the world's worst reputable composers? Furthermore, would you not regard film scores by the likes of Vaughan Williams, Prokofiev, Copland, Shostokovich, Glass, Walton, Bernstein and Arnold as geniune compositions? The line is a blurry one. Be careful before you dismiss a whole genre of music and a whole generation of composers. I don't have a problem with you nominating a particular film composer or even two or three in this thread, but the fact that you "see the need to nominate film composers as the world's worst reputable composers" suggests to me you know little of what you're talking about - ironic given your username!

Are you still living in the 20s or something? Why are film composers not "proper" composers? :O And how is Lord of the Rings like Sibelius? It all sounds very Celtic and melodic to me. If anything, I think those film scores would have been better if they were more Sibelian!

Yeh, I'll have a go. Are there any rules over length, number of movements etc?

Could be a processor issue I guess. I'm only using a 2.6ghz P4. You're obviously lucky enough (or have a powerful enough engine) to be able to keep your samples and sequencer together. I've not been able to do this. You're right, if it works, use it. :)

I can only speak from personal experience; a second hard drive made a huge difference to how my system ran whilst composing. Here's a more technical summary I found from someone who knows what he's talking about: This is exactly what I had, clicks, pops, CPU spikes, instrument drop outs. Getting a second hard drive got rid of all of these instantly.

Did you?

Well, try that if you like MrTrent but you'd be very lucky if you get results from bunging everything on one HD! I, and many others, have found one hard drive for everything doesn't work. A second hard drive for samples is highly recommended. It'll even tell you this in the EWQLSO manual!! I had terrible problems with clicks and glitches and even lock ups until I bought a second hard drive (USB external, get firewire if your computer can cope) for my samples. At a stroke it solved all the problems I was having. It also at least doubled the loading time of each instrument! Best buy I made for my system. BTW, not that I'm trying to drive you away from here or anything as it's a good forum, but the northernsounds forum is somewhere much more geared towards answering your tech questions: northernsounds.com - Home

Somebody's overcomplicating this methinks!

Wow! Using a soundblaster with EWQLSO Gold?! The best thing you could do is buy a better sound card (Audiophile by MAudio for example isn't pricey but you should notice the difference) Also a RAM upgrade would make a world of difference if you keep locking up. Going from 512mb to 2Gb helped me a lot. Finally, keeping your samples on a seperate hard disk to everything else is essential.

For the end result, a finished piece. And you can say (hopefully) "Wow, I actually created that". It's satisfying. In fact, a lot of the time the actual process of composing can be a real scallop and a bit of a chore, more so than it used to be. But creating something beutiful from nothing is well worth it in the end.

Yep, 2GB Ram, 2.6GhZ Pentium 4, Internal hard drive for running the software, external USB hard drive for all my samples (the second hard drive is essential in my experience). Oh, and obviously a good sequencer or somerthing like Sibelius 5 is needed as well. All a big investment but well worth it. Once you've got it all running if you want more samples it's just a matter of buying them and sticking them on that second hard drive. Robert Henson - Composer creating original compositions --- www.roberthenson.net --- Hope that helps

Depends how much you want to spend. For orchestral stuff I use EWQLSO Gold and would recommend it: EWQL Symphonic Orchestra Gold Edition :: Classical/Orchestral :: Virtual Instruments :: Sounds Online

I was going to say Ravel but you'd already mentioned it. Borodin and Debussy are also worth listening to: Amazon.co.uk: Debussy; Dutilleux; Ravel - String Quartets: Music: Claude Debussy,Henri Dutilleux,Maurice Ravel,Belcea Quartet ^ This is a great CD BTW! Amazon.co.uk: Borodin - String Quartets: Amazon.co.uk:: Alexander Porfir'yevich Borodin

Unless we're talking about improvisation

So music has to have a higher purpose than to purely entertain for it to be any good?

You keep repeating this as though repetition will make it true. It's not; not for me anyway and certainly not for Robin and some of the others who've contributed to this thread. Sure, I appreciate the skill of the musician, but I also appreciate the notes and yes, I do appreciate the music for the music's sake. How could I not? Your point, and the one you made in the pop music thread ("There is "pop" music that is good, and there is pop music that is social interaction. One is music, one isn't.") makes me wonder what exactly you consider as music.

A hell of a lot of music throughout history was written for social functions and not purely as music to be appreciated in a dark room by yourself and it's none the worse for it.

Oh God, here we go again...

Well, that's the most popular site out there at the moment? If you're going to have those four, mightn't it be a good idea to have one for Facebook as well?

How about Facebook?