Menu
What's new
By:
Filters

Auto-playing libraries?

M

monnui

New Member
Hiii everyone,
I've noticed there are libraries out there that will do quite a bit of playing for you, if you press one finger on one key. I'm talking Action Strings/Woodwinds, but also Kepler Orchestra, all the way to the UJAM stuff, and to more synthy things like Fables and Lores.
I'm curious, what is the general consensus on these? I personally tend to steer clear of anything that can be described through some variation of "lyrical phrases", "rhythms", "runs", or "textures", as I find that working with that stuff is... not "composing" anymore, in a way. Yes you're still building a piece through combining different sounds, but with many of these libraries the building blocks feel quite a bit too big for me.

Do you use libraries with pre-built or programmable phrases/soundscapes? Do you have an ethical and/or pragmatic position on the matter? If you do use them, when? What is the use case of this kind of product?
Click to read more...
 
I'm curious, what is the general consensus on these?
Click to expand...
You should never base anything off of the "general consensus". Imagine what the history of music would look like if musicians decided to make music based off the "general consensus"

but with many of these libraries the building blocks feel quite a bit too big for me.
Click to expand...
So don't use them, plain and simple. Those products are not for you and that's ok.

These days I see way too many people spend way too much focusing on the "ethnics" or whatever of how they're making music. These are all tools that help people make music. If you don't need them, don't use them. JUST. MAKE. MUSIC.
 
I'm starting out in this musical composition and production. I am 51 years old. I do it for pleasure and because I like it, as a hobby.

And precisely because I want to learn and I want it to be a challenge for me, I refuse to use set phrases, loops or similar things.

I'm finishing my first composition. It is in the mastering phase. It would have been much easier to use ready-made sequences, but there is no incentive. I have done all the percussion by hand (more than 10 tracks) and I have reproduced all the instruments. In total it is a project of almost 80 tracks.
Yes, it would have been easier and faster to use drum loops, kits and phrases, but I think that's not composing. It's just putting pieces together, and anyone can do that. It's like using generative AI in Photoshop. That's not photography.

Mine won't be good, obviously. But it's mine! And of that I am proud.

Maybe as inspiration when you start it can be helpful. But not as a source of your work.

In my case, true, I have had to use some voices. Basically because I don't have the ability to sing, nor do I have a pretty voice, nor am I a woman. But they were merely a complement for a few seconds and do not constitute the main part of my composition at all.
I'm going to start practicing kargyraa, so if I get it, one less thing I'll need to use!
Then all I need is to be a woman and have a beautiful voice! :2thumbs:
 
Buffalo Bill said:
I'm starting out in this musical composition and production. I am 51 years old. I do it for pleasure and because I like it, as a hobby.

And precisely because I want to learn and I want it to be a challenge for me, I refuse to use set phrases, loops or similar things.

I'm finishing my first composition. It is in the mastering phase. It would have been much easier to use ready-made sequences, but there is no incentive. I have done all the percussion by hand (more than 10 tracks) and I have reproduced all the instruments. In total it is a project of almost 80 tracks.
Yes, it would have been easier and faster to use drum loops, kits and phrases, but I think that's not composing. It's just putting pieces together, and anyone can do that. It's like using generative AI in Photoshop. That's not photography.

Mine won't be good, obviously. But it's mine! And of that I am proud.

Maybe as inspiration when you start it can be helpful. But not as a source of your work.

In my case, true, I have had to use some voices. Basically because I don't have the ability to sing, nor do I have a pretty voice, nor am I a woman. But they were merely a complement for a few seconds and do not constitute the main part of my composition at all.
I'm going to start practicing kargyraa, so if I get it, one less thing I'll need to use!
Then all I need is to be a woman and have a beautiful voice! :2thumbs:
Click to expand...
Amen to all that.
 
One example I can think of though is if there is a texture you know how to compose, but your regular samples simply can’t reproduce it well, that might be a time where a texture library would make perfect sense to use, especially if your mock-up is the final product. But that said, I don’t actually have any texture libraries 😅
 
Last edited:
monnui said:
Hiii everyone,
I've noticed there are libraries out there that will do quite a bit of playing for you, if you press one finger on one key. I'm talking Action Strings/Woodwinds, but also Kepler Orchestra, all the way to the UJAM stuff, and to more synthy things like Fables and Lores.
I'm curious, what is the general consensus on these? I personally tend to steer clear of anything that can be described through some variation of "lyrical phrases", "rhythms", "runs", or "textures", as I find that working with that stuff is... not "composing" anymore, in a way. Yes you're still building a piece through combining different sounds, but with many of these libraries the building blocks feel quite a bit too big for me.

Do you use libraries with pre-built or programmable phrases/soundscapes? Do you have an ethical and/or pragmatic position on the matter? If you do use them, when? What is the use case of this kind of product?
Click to expand...
My personal standing is that I want the CFS sound be 100% original and I don't like taking shortcuts on originality. I don't use loops, or soundscapes, or phrase-based libraries, or AI composition assistants, or premade MIDI, or anything else that isn't my work (I do use synth presets but even then I always adjust the parameters to my liking first). I'm not trying to be preachy; but you asked for my opinion so by golly you're going to get it. Heck, I have two ostinato strings libs I got with the century strings bundle that I still haven't used yet. Although I feel less strongly about ostinatos than other "shortcuts," I'm still idealistic as of right now. I don't know if I'd call it an ethical scruple, as I don't think it's unethical for someone to use loops and the like, but I don't think it's right for me and I'm very firm about that.
 
In my personal opinion, I find the phrases to be somewhat rigid. However, there is no denying its success as an out-of-the-box solution, which caters well to its targeted users. From my point of view, I believe that these phrase libraries ought to offer customizability options at minimum, if not complete editor capabilities such as drag-and-drop features directly into Digital Audio Workstations. Certain existing phrase libraries do provide this functionality.
 
To throw a wrench in the purist machine, isn’t using ensemble patches also “cheating”?

I get that libraries like the orchestra complete goes a step further to add the rhythm, but in my mind it is simply another step down that same path.

I for one use all of the above - solo, ensembles, tutti patches, and from time to time phrase based libraries to add texture (Noir and Expressivo which have performances you cannot recreate with regular samples). And I have also used TOC3 and the Orchestrator in Opus.

Now I’ve gotten divisimate, and some decent dedicated sections, so I don’t use them as much, but I still see it as a handy tool - if nothing else just to spark some creativity.
 
These libraries are very useful specially because most of those phrases are live recorded and once you add them into your music, it will sound very realistic. I use the Indie library by Sonoknetic to blend with my strings and it is very useful and makes my work faster. I also frequently use the Duduk phrases from Era - Ancient Persians and the amazing phrases from the Voices of Empire. I would never be able to program those.

But this is more for production. If you want to have 100% control of what you are wiriting than you don't use them.
 
We never have 100% control over what we write. Or in this case, you have to build your own sample libraries, your own synth presets and why not code your own effects.
To write an ostinato, you may have learned it in a school, read it in a book or used this kind of library. In all three cases, you didn't create this ostinato. And that's okay. What is important is not this ostinato but what you do with it, how you combine it with other elements to obtain a finished piece that is your creation.

These libraries are tools. If they suit you then use them. If they don't suit you for personal artistic or moral reasons, then don't use them.
It seems to me that we should not confuse the tool and the composition.
 
peterharket said:
To throw a wrench in the purist machine, isn’t using ensemble patches also “cheating”?

I get that libraries like the orchestra complete goes a step further to add the rhythm, but in my mind it is simply another step down that same path.

I for one use all of the above - solo, ensembles, tutti patches, and from time to time phrase based libraries to add texture (Noir and Expressivo which have performances you cannot recreate with regular samples). And I have also used TOC3 and the Orchestrator in Opus.

Now I’ve gotten divisimate, and some decent dedicated sections, so I don’t use them as much, but I still see it as a handy tool - if nothing else just to spark some creativity.
Click to expand...
To take it even further... isn't pressing down a midi key to play a perfect cello sustained note in AIR also cheating? Did you spend the time to learn how to play that cello? Did you sit in that straight-backed chair in the studio and use your bow? Do you know how mad people were when Bob Dylan switched from acoustic to electric?

I've had a very similar debate with my wife for years over photography, and we all have different lines we draw on what is too far. To her, she doesn't consider it photography when you take a picture, put it in photoshop, and begin the editing process to refine it something more beautiful than the scene that had actually been in front of you. And she especially hates composites, which is the combining of two or more different pictures you've taken in to one finished work. (Think of a tree in a purple field of flowers with the milky way stretched out above it.)

She wants it as pure as possible and does not believe you should enhance it past what you actually saw when you were there. That is also tricky and relies on our memory, which we know is absolutely terrible.

So, my question to her always is, "Where is the line? If I remove a mustard stain off a shirt, is that a problem? Did you know Ansel Adams was a huge fan of dodging and burning to create dark skies and contrast?" We all have to draw it for ourselves on what we believe is too far. And in my photography art, I do like to go further in the editing process than she does.

Where I draw the line is when I stop using my mind and my hands to create the ideas, play or write them in, and organize them into a final piece of work. I will never be on board with AI prompt-based music or photography. Never. I will die on that hill. It takes the soul out of pursuits I love to do, and I will literally go to the grave before I use AI to "create" music or photography for me.

I want to personally go on a hike to take a picture from the top of a mountain in the morning, and I want to use my hands to play and write songs. Phrase-based libraries like Fantasy are not too far in my book. They aren't creating a track, and I think they are similar to synth presets. However, some people think this is too far.

But your own answer to the question is the only important one. Where is your line?
 
Last edited:
There's no right or wrong way to create music. All that matters is that the final result expresses your musical intent and was personally satisfying to create. How you get there is totally up to you.

We have such an amazing array of musical tools available to us these days - it's a great time to be alive making music. In Bach's day, you pressed a single key and got a single note. Nowadays, you press a single key, and any number of notes might play. This is the nature of the tools available to the modern composer. Choose the ones that work best for you.

I have a friend who "constructs" his music by combining loops from various loop libraries. I've tried to do it, but find the experience to be empty, severely limiting, and quite frankly, boring. But it works for my friend, so more power to him.

Also, keep in mind there are many situations where professional composers and songwriters rely on the talents of hired studio musicians to contribute creative ideas and come up with parts. That's how I view self-playing libraries. A good example is EZkeys. Let's say I need a gospel piano part for a song. I don't know the first thing about playing gospel piano, but I can feed a chord progression to EZkeys, select the gospel filter, and it'll give me a choice of appropriate piano parts. This is no different than hiring a gospel piano player and handing him/her a chart.

One final consideration... you may want to be careful about making heavy use of melodic phrases if your music is going to be released commercially, since it may trigger a copyright clash if another piece out there used the same melodic phrases. But ostinatos, rhythmic pulses, incidental fills and accents, and drum loops are generally fine.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom