I frequently receive questions about music from other Christians brothers and sisters that go something like this: Does God care what music I listen to? Is it a sin to listen to ____ genre? Do genre and aesthetics matter? Are there biblical principles that govern how we make and listen to music? Is music moral, or amoral? Does it matter what music we listen to? Can we listen to music written by non-Christians? Is all musical meaning subjective and relative?
These are some tough questions to be sure, and ones that the American church at large has not offered much substantial teaching on in recent generations, despite how important and omnipresent music is in our everyday lives and modern culture. Back in March of this year, I very ambitiously attempted to tackle some of these questions at a local event in a two-part series on music, in all likelihood biting off a good deal more than I could chew. The first part was focused more on the theological and philosophical considerations regarding music and our involvement in it as Christians (which I believe is the more fundamental lecture), and that is what I’m posting today. The second part was focused more on the science and mechanics of music (which is really, really, cool, BTW), but that talk relied on visuals and audio very heavily and will probably not be making it’s way online–at least not anytime soon.
Personally, I feel woefully inadequate to properly address many of these issues, but I do really want to help those out there (like me) with big questions and few answers, so hopefully this talk will provide–at a minimum–a starting point for the discussion and the introduction of some very important concepts. Though I cannot guarantee a response, I do appreciate any emails or comments with questions, critiques, additional viewpoints or considerations, as I believe there is still a lot to learn and I want to make sure I’m not making arguments that fall apart when examined, or saying things that are untrue.
The woodwind section of the orchestra has had less than stellar representation in the field of available orchestral samples over the past couple years. With many or most of the major orchestral sample developments being focused on improving strings and brass (and there have been some considerable ones), a number of us sample-based composers have found ourselves just not writing with woodwinds of late because our old wood samples pale in comparison to our next-gen string ostinatos and brass stabs.
The primary reason for this dearth of substantial woodwinds is probably lessened demand. The film-score flavor of the decade has, for the most part, been moving away from the symphonic John Williams sound that dominated the 80s and 90s, which was very woodwind heavy, and morphing into the orchestral/modern hybrid sound of Hans Zimmer and his friends at Remote Control Productions, which is not. It’s very common in the latter style to hear dense string and brass combinations lavishly layered over a groove of sweeps, swoops, whumps, and drums the size of small houses, but orchestral woodwind usage (Ethnic winds excepted) is generally one dimensional or non-existent. (Note: this is not intended to bash the guys at RCP whom I greatly admire and have learned a lot from—just a fact)
As a consequence, a lot of the up-and-coming composers of my generation who immerse themselves only in the clichés of the day are forgetting what woodwinds are for and how to use them. This fact saddens me when I consider all the melodic, harmonic, and tonal possibilities that lie inherent within the richly colored palette of the woodwind section. How I would love to see the woodwind-rich understanding of orchestration espoused by Tchaikovsky, Debussy, Rimsky Korsakov, Dukas, Stravinsky, Korngold, Goldsmith, Williams and others make a comeback, but this drought of good sampled woodwind options has not aided that end.
Fortunately, all that is changing.
The Great Woodwind Summer (as it will be known to future generations), is upon us in full heat. Three substantial next-gen woodwinds libraries have just been released by three different esteemed developers at almost exactly the same time:
Those of us who have been tracking these releases diligently (we few, we happy few) have been in a transport of fragile giddiness for months, as we go from extreme excitement to confusion to frustration and back to excitement again… tracking the demos, pre-order pricing, feature lists, and release dates. How to choose between all these exciting options… buy them all??? Well, most of us can’t afford to, and the ones who can don’t have time to fiddle around with three libraries, so let’s talk about some important decision-making factors and calibrate our grid of analysis.
The first question is this: “What sort music are you trying to write, and what do you plan to use woodwinds for?” Well, let’s do a quick overview of…
Woodwinds: Their Fundamental Role in the Orchestra
Symphonic orchestration is all about creating a unified texture and sound. The orchestra is not merely a room full of individual players with equal voices having their own say–it’s only in their togetherness and unity that they become special–become a team–an orchestra. Despite most orchestras having between 50 and 80 players, there are usually no more than 3 or 4 concurrent musical elements or lines going at any given moment, thus a lot of orchestral writing involves writing unison parts and/or what I call “invisible parts”, i.e., parts that cannot easily be heard while everyone else is playing, but add to the overall sound. The woodwind section, due in part to their relative softness, plays “invisible parts” quite often—but this is ok, because vibrancy of color can cut through and augment a mix even when quiet. Composer and instructor Robin Hoffman summed up this concept very well in a recent “daily scoring tip”:
07/12/12: It is in the nature of orchestral music to not be able to hear every instrument clearly in the mix. Some instruments like woodwinds even regularly “drown” in tuttis and their only purpose is to add to the ensemble sound. This is actually a main factor of creating that ensemble sound. I’m not speaking for undefined muddy orchestral mixes here but a certain degree of intransparency in mixes actually adds to the realism of orchestral music. So when you’re mixing your music (especially sampled music) don’t try to mix it too clinical as this will reduce the ensemble feeling.
The easiest and most obvious way to use woodwinds is to place them in the foreground or your mix, usually with a solo carrying the melody. There is an important place for this, but if you arrange in this way exclusively you will miss a lot of creative possibilities. Take advantage of the rich tapestry of colors found in the woodwind section, and apply liberally. Woodwind tones can be flighty, nasal, pompous, cowardly, plaintive, mystic, pinched, breathy, thin, growly, silky, and more. Trying to write full, rich orchestral music without them is kind of like trying to copy a Monet and having only 2 of the 3 primary colors to work with. Listen to some rich, full, orchestral music from the late romantic era… even if at first you cannot specifically hear a lot of woodwinds, it doesn’t mean they’re not there or not important. Take a look at the orchestral score and you can see what all is REALLY going on.
Common orchestral uses of the woodwinds include (but are not limited to):
– Carrying the melody (solo wind) on top of other accompaniment
– Carrying the melody (wind ensemble) on top of other accompaniment
– Doubling string or brass melodies
– Doubling chords and harmonies
– Runs, trills, grace notes, flutters, to accent, add flourish or movement–add sparkle or spontaneity
With that established, let’s see how Berlin Woodwinds stacks up.
Berlin Woodwinds Overview
Here is a video overview I did of Berlin Woodwinds to show some ways it can be used, to do a patch run-through so you can see how it’s laid out and how the patches sound when you’re just monkeying around on the keyboard. Bear with me–some of the content is a little redundant with this review, and I did this live, so it’s a little sloppy.
True Legato for all instruments and ensembles, powerful 8x RR Staccato and Staccatissimo Patches, playable runs, DIVISI with 2nd and up to 3rd instruments, Trills Orchestrator with up to never before recorded 5th trills, RUNS BUILDER, Up to 3 different vibrato styles, Controllable key and wind noises, ARTICULATIONS PERFORMER: Switch and x-fade through the articulations and create your custom keyswitch sets!
100 GB of samples (53 GB compressed)
24Bit / 48KHz Patches
Works with the free Kontakt Player 5 or Kontakt 5
As of this writing, Bass Clarinet and Contrabassoon are not included, but Orchestral Tools has mentioned that they will be coming in a future update (it’s not clear yet if it will be a paid update or free). It would be nice to also have Alto Flute and Bass Flute, but that is not a glaring or disabling omission. Not every possible woodwind effect is included—certain types of rips and overblown staccatos and stuff you will have to find elsewhere, but orchestral FX libraries are pretty common these days. I should point out what I hope is the obvious… being an orchestral woodwind library there are no ethnic winds included.
What’s the sound quality like?
When I first heard about this library, I was doubtful if it would compare in recording quality and musicianship to the libraries recorded at Hollywood recording stages with full-time Hollywood players. Soon after the install, my fears were relieved. The sound quality, venue, and musicianship is excellent, and the small amount of “baked-in” reverb from the Teldex hall (which is very pleasing to my ears), seems to blend very well with other big name libraries… especially when you take into consideration the multiple mic positions you can use to modify the environment.
How playable are the patches? Does it require endless tweaking to sound good?
If you stick close to the beat, follow basic principles of arrangement and voicing, and use the samples as they’re intended to be used (no runs with sustain patches, please), there shouldn’t be much to tweak. When I compose, I always spend extra time fine-tuning the phrasing and dynamic levels to get my performances sounding as alive and expressive as possible, but if your instincts are really good this can theoretically be done on the fly.
The only thing that needs to be taken into consideration at this point is that, as of the 1.0 and 1.1 versions, when you crossfade between dynamic layers in some of the solo legato patches you can hear overlap between dynamic layers which can sound like two players a once. This is the biggest issue with Berlin Woodwinds at the moment, but the team at OT has been working on this and has said that they will continue to work on the legato scripting to minimize or eliminate this phasing issue–just a week after release they already had an update (1.1) that drastically improved this problem. Will it always be noticeable? I guess I can’t say with certainty, but I have good confidence in OT that BWW’s best days are still in the future.
That said, there are easy workarounds, and not every legato instrument has this problem to a noticeable degree. When you load the patch you want to use (say, 1st Oboe Legato) play around with it and figure out if it has any weak spots in the crossfading. Take note of where they are, and don’t make a quick crossfade through those regions when that patch is playing an exposed line. Is this limiting? Theoretically, yes, but let’s be realistic: all of sample composing (or composing with real instruments!) has limits and boundaries that you need to work around.
The way I see it, there are 2 fundamental principles to creating realistic and powerful orchestral mockups:
1 – Write Like you would for a live orchestra… work to know “proper” orchestration, understand how the instruments are used, know their limits, etc.
2 – Understand the limitations of sample technology, and don’t do what samples cannot.
Bring your strengths to the foreground. Push your weaknesses into the background. Example: if your sampled solo cello sounds like rubbish, don’t write pieces where your rubbish solo cello will be exposed and make the rest of the piece sound like rubbish. (I used “rubbish” three times in a sentence and I’m not even British–do I get points for that?)
For me, the legato phasing, even in its current state, is not a paralyzing issue. And just so you can be sure that I’m not saying BWW sounds like rubbish, listen to this demo featuring the legato patches… written with a pre-release beta version.
If the weakest part of BWW sounds as convincingly real as this, I think that speaks pretty well for the rest of the library.
I think this product is beyond exceptional. Berlin Woodwinds has extended the boundaries of my creativity in writing, because it fills what has been for a long time, a gap in my palette of orchestral colors. Ever since getting BWW I’m continually thinking of places I would have used them if I’d had them. In my piece “When I Think of My Bride”, I was running into the problem of running out of colors and instruments to work with. I’d write a segment with soft strings, and I’d want to maintain the softness of the piece, but didn’t want to bore the listener and wear out the piece by having the same soft string ensemble to carry the next segment too. If I’d had BWW, it would have added freshness by having a soft wood choir carry the melody for a bit, and the whole piece would have been stronger. I also wouldn’t have been ashamed to expose a solo flute or clarinet.
I used to really play up my strings and brass and hide my woodwinds, but now I’m finding that I’m writing with a preference toward the woodwinds, and that I’m actually using them to make my brass and strings sound better. With instruments or with life, it’s exciting when your biggest weaknesses become your biggest strengths, and this has been my experience to date with BWW.
I don’t have either Hollywood Orchestral Woodwinds or Cinewinds, so although I’ve been following their spec sheets and announcements and demos closely, realize I can’t speak with final authority to this: even though I have great respect for both of those developers and use many of their products daily, I have a hard time imagining that they can beat BWW after playing around with it for a while. If you have to chose just one woodwind library, I think that Berlin Woodwinds is probably the woodwind library to get if you’re interested in using woodwinds in the orchestral tradition of Williams, Rimsky Korsakov, Stravinsky, Tchaikovsky, Debussy and other symphonic greats. I think there is very little that cannot be done with this library given you know what you’re doing.
To take full advantage of this library’s potential (actually this is true about any library), I recommend doing some additional research on woodwinds and how to use them. Mock up some existing classical music, read up on the chapters of Rimsky-Korsakov’s principles of orchestration that regard woodwinds, listen to a lot of woodwind writing and copy it, observe in orchestral scores how woodwind voicing is usually done, etc. Don’t just think of your BWW purchase as adding a new tool to your sonic toolbox, but as a learning opportunity. Sample technology is getting to the point where the samples themselves are rarely the biggest roadblock between you and professional sounding, expressive music.
Composition: Toccatta and Fugue in D Minor by J.S. Bach
Orchestral Arrangement: Leopold Stokowski
It’s a legitimate question–‘why can’t we’? …Or maybe the question is ‘why don’t we’? We’ve got unparalleled access to vast quantities of music and possess instrumental tools that Bach and his contemporaries would have traded their wigs for (wigs were a big deal back then).
Hearing this music just makes me wonder what sorts of musical achievements Bach would have accomplished (on top of all his other unparalleled musical achievements) if the modern symphonic orchestra (that Stokowski helped develop) had existed during his day. Then I wonder a step further: if Bach had access to the musical tools of today, not to mention the virtually unlimited access to sheet music and recordings of basically every piece of music written in the last 400 years that we have access to (including the 260 years of music written after Bach’s death he never was going to hear), what more might he have accomplished with that knowledge?? Yeah, it’s kind of a humbling thought.
Let’s not waste these precious advantages–nay, privileges–that we’ve inherited, and let’s not be lazy. Maybe we can apply a Bach-ian level of industry to our craft and, standing on the shoulders of such great men, progress beyond even their accomplishments, for as J.S. himself said:
“I was obliged to be industrious. Whoever is equally industrious will succeed . . . equally well.”
Every musical project requires a certain amount of preliminary experimentation and ground work before you can begin on the final thing. For Ace Wonder, I spent a long time working up an assortment of little musical ideas and sketches based on the adjectives and vision the director (John Moore) articulated for me. (At this point in the process, I had also read the script and was getting little clips of the film to wet my musical appetite, but did not have an edit of the film.)
I immediately started versing myself in the pieces of music that possessed the flavor and feeling that John particularly liked– I also had a number of ideas of what existing pieces of music would capture the essence of his verbal descriptions. Wading through a lot of existing music first can really help the composer understand the musical tastes of the director. This is crucial. John’s understanding of what “Crazy- madcap-science-steampunk- action-adventure-detective-noir-mystery-music ” sounds like may differ greatly from my own, or may not be fully formed yet.
The pool of inspirational material we dove through was pretty wide and ran quite deep. John Williams, John Powell, Danny Elfman, Michael Giacchino, Randy Newman, Hans Zimmer, James Horner, Michael Kamen and more– all these composers and their scores were frequently referenced in our dialogue as we tried to mold and define that Ace Wonder “sound.” If someone asked me what my main source of inspiration for this project was, I would have to hand them half of my music library.
At least that’s what it felt like.
I wrote of dozens of these short, rough musical sketches, experimenting with everything from instrumentation to rhythm, melody, and meter. It took anywhere from 20 minutes to a couple hours to sketch one of these up, so every couple days I would send John a new batch of samples for him to peruse and pass judgment on–every piece of feedback I received told me a little bit more about the way John’s mind ticks in regard to music.
After a while of this, we ended up having a pretty good sense of the feel and flavor for the music and had worked through melodic ideas and the use of themes throughout the film. I was ready to begin scoring to picture, which at that point was nearing the “locked edit” stage.
In the field of film scoring, as in all fields, raw talent or ability is entirely worthless if it is unaccompanied by professional integrity.
Too often I see talented and skilled students of composition who sabotage their own efforts and success because when the first whiff of difficulty comes, they wimp out. They whine. They lie, slander, throw tantrums and run from responsibility, pulling the rug out from under someone else on their cowardly dash out the door and out of the trust of the professional community. Some display their poor character more obviously than others, but the problem is widespread.
For a director, the ability to work well with and trust your composer is so key that many of the more successful composers I know are not the ones who write the best music or ooze the most raw talent… they’re the ones who are quick to hear, slow to speak, willing to summit to authority, redo a tough cue, who are prepared to do what it takes to give a client happiness, even if it comes at the expense of their own. Inside and outside the film industry I have friends who have been offered high-paying jobs at positions totally outside their fields of expertise based solely on the reputation they had as confidential men of character. In this day and age, integrity is in lesser supply than skill, which is saying something.
For a culture that has rejected Christ’s word as the foundation (i.e. source of definition) for all morality and character, this isn’t really much of a surprise–the absence of God must necessitate the absence of anything godly, which the attributes of professionalism most certainly are. The pathetic result is a generation of men unable to reliably reason, commit, honor a contract, persevere, guard a trust, serve others, be faithful with the little things, rejoice in trial, or love.
To clarify in advance for those who may think I’m belittling talent or skill, I’m assuming that honing and sharpening your chops as a composer is already a given. I mean to address the other half of the coin: the oft-neglected and/or mis-defined role of true professionalism, which is not just a factor for those desiring business success (though it certainly is), but is a factor necessary for the Lord to be pleased with us and our work. I don’t really make much of a distinction between the word “professional” and “righteousness”, which is basically just doing what is right in regards to God, man and duty all the time. Why is there a difference perceived between the two? Why should there be a difference?
It’s time to re-evaluate our assumptions of what determines professional conduct. This has been on my mind a lot over the last few months as I’ve noticed a number of genuinely unprofessional attitudes and habits in myself that I’m working to eliminate. I will be starting a series of posts on this topic, varying from general concepts to ones specifically applicable to the craft and business of film scoring.
What things do my readers see as key points to address?