Samples, VST Instruments, Drum Machines?

[Wirebird]

I primarily use live recorded instruments, but sometimes samples here and there, mostly for ambient effects. Most of them I've sampled myself as I often find it to be a more convenient and faster way to get what I want.

 

[noisewreck]

Well, listen to this track ("Hunter" by TeeBee, one of the best Drum and Bass acts in the world).

Drum and Bass is an electronic dance music form, and as the name suggests its main elements are drums and bass. Everything is (almost always) electronic, based on drum loops, and a heavy use of samplers.

There is no way anything in this track could be done by conventional-stick a mic and record-way. I especially want to bring your attention to the main melodic "bass" line, the way its timbre gets twisted around through some heavy and very intricate filtering. This kind of sound doesn't exist in the "natural" or acoustic world, however it does come naturally to some samplers.

While I can understand that many on this board view samplers as a way to imitate (and in many cases poorly) other instruments (strings, pianos, etc...) and thus refer to them as "not real instruments" or "artificial" however, that's a very limited view because most of you are missing the point of those electronic instruments.

The above example is a perfect illustration of my point because it uses the sampler as an instrument in its own right. The main sound (and many others) is not trying to imitate anything else. It is it's own entity. It is "naturally" electronic in it's best sense of the word as it wouldn't be possible to get that sound any other way.

We can argue about the drum loop, however, you'd be hard pressed to get that particular sound by recording an actual drum set with an actual drummer. Yes, there are drummers that have no problem playing the drumset in the 165-180BPM range of Drum and Bass, but it wouldn't sound the same. The drums in the above recording are obviously sourced/sampled from a recording of actual drums, however they have been processed, pitch-shifted, sped up, layered with drum hits from other samples, to make a sound that is obviously electronic.

In conclusion, what I am getting at is while I can understand why some of you refer to sampled sounds as "artificial" because you are only referring to instances where you are imitating an instrument (mostly poorly) that could be recorded with mics and all that, and the most usual victim of this approach is the drumset. However because you view the sampler only as an "imitator" you are failing to see the larger picture, and failing to realise that the sampler itself is a very powerful instrument in its own right, as it is capable of producing unique sounds that only can be done through the use of the sampler.

Rami's post is most telling, where he's "proud" that he doesn't use samplers, sequencers and other electronic stuff. Well, that's because he's doing rock and that genre, let's face it sounds really "fake" when you substitute real drummer with a drum machine. However, I say listen to Rammstein for some very fine use of samplers and synthesizers in heavy metal/industrial rock music.

However, I am sure TeeBee is very "proud" of that twisty sound that he came up with through the very creative use of his sampler.

Again, my main pet peeve is this limited and skewed viewpoint of seeing electronic instruments only as imitators, rather than instruments in their own right.

Use each instrument for what it is, instead of trying to make an instrument into what it is not and then dismiss it because it "doesn't sound natural", because it WILL sound fake.

 

[Bguzaldo]

If you haven't yet, check out Animal Collective Noisewreck. Heavy heavy sampler influenced band. They use samplers in a very instrumental way. I'm not saying if I like them or not, but they definitely use the sampler in ways you wouldn't expect.

-Barrett

 

[noisewreck]

Hmm, maybe I'm not listening to the right band? I googled them, found some stuff on mp3 arena, and all I hear is some artless guitar strumming and bad singing. Am I missing something?

 

[noisewreck]

OK, I found some other samples. I see what you mean. Not really my cup of tea as they sound a bit too "happy" but nevertheless that's some pretty cool stuff.

 

[Barry B]

I voted yes. I have an MPC. I use that to trigger my samples. I mess with the filters and other stuff. I would consider it to be an artifcial way of doing things.

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

While I can understand that many on this board view samplers as a way to imitate (and in many cases poorly) other instruments (strings, pianos, etc...) and thus refer to them as "not real instruments" or "artificial" however, that's a very limited view because most of you are missing the point of those electronic instruments.

I am pretty much in complete agreement with your viewpoint, George, and you know that.
But this public debate is just too much fun not to jump in and muddy up a little more .

Somebody alluded to this a bit earlier, but I'll add to it; I don't think the divide is so much defined by the instrument, but rather by it's relation to the performance.

There's a difference between capturing a performance and creating one. In capturing a performance, any sound intentionally captured as generated by the performance would be "natural to that performance", for lack of a better term offhand. Whereas those introduced in post could be delineated as "artificial" to the performance. A MiniMoog recorded as part of the performance - i.e. as played by the kybd player in the live room - is natural. A miniMoog used in post to replace the cheesy Farfisa the keyboard player used in the original performance is artificial to that performance.

Note that the use of the word "artificial" here is not meant to be derogatory, just a neutral adjective.

Where things get muddy is when the "performance" is manufactured; i.e. when it's not a recording of a performance, but rather a creation where the post-production studio itself becomes the instrument, where the audio engineer/producer is the main musician playing the DAW and the mixer and the recorders, etc. In that case, whether one calls all the sounds completely artificial because the whole thing is 100% "manufactured", or completely natural to the performance because the "performance" is 100% behind the glass, is a POV distinction that serves to do little but create forum thread debates and bar room arguments .

Most stuff is some blend of the two. One could argue that even things like compression and EQ are artificial, to which I'd agree. That might get a bit muddier if they are meant to try and re-create a documentary sound rather than synthesize an affected sound, but again, that's a distinction in intent, not in technology.

G.

 

[Bguzaldo]

OK, I found some other samples. I see what you mean. Not really my cup of tea as they sound a bit too "happy" but nevertheless that's some pretty cool stuff.

Hahaha yeah I'm not exactly familiar with your music tastes, but my friends are crazy about them and I know they are a sampler band so I figured it'd be worth mentioning.

 

[noisewreck]

I am pretty much in complete agreement with your viewpoint, George, and you know that.
But this public debate is just too much fun not to jump in and muddy up a little more .

You HAD to go and muddy things up didn'ch'ya?

Somebody alluded to this a bit earlier, but I'll add to it; I don't think the divide is so much defined by the instrument, but rather by it's relation to the performance.

Yes, I agreed with GOYA's point of view and agree with this assessment.

There's a difference between capturing a performance and creating one.

This is where our POV diverges. I say the differences are dependent only on the circumstances and even then there is a vast gray area between the two.

When your POV is what you state in the rest of this paragraph...

In capturing a performance, any sound intentionally captured as generated by the performance would be "natural to that performance", for lack of a better term offhand. Whereas those introduced in post could be delineated as "artificial" to the performance. A MiniMoog recorded as part of the performance - i.e. as played by the kybd player in the live room - is natural. A miniMoog used in post to replace the cheesy Farfisa the keyboard player used in the original performance is artificial to that performance.

I completely agree with you on this. However that is only one side of the coin.

Let's compare two scenarios both involving an electric guitar and delay. Then, I'll through in an extension to this and let's see where it goes...

• In the first instance you have a fine electric guitar performance, recorded dry, except for say distortion. During mixing, the engineer perhaps with the instruction of the producer adds a delay to this as a send effect.
  
• In the second instance, the guitar is patched through a delay stomp box and then routed to the amp.

One can argue that the delay in the first instance is and "artificial" addition or a "sweetener" to the performance. While in the second instance obviously the guitarist will react to the delay and perform "to it" if you will. In this case the delay becomes an integral part of the performance.

I think so far we can agree on the above comparison. However, let's view this scenario:

You have a certain guitar tone in mind. However you need that sound to play certain chords, they need to change on every 16th note in rapid progression at around 150BPM, and it is pretty much impossible to finger those chords at that fast a rate and let's say this is going to last for 8 bars. While you are at it, you want the sound to start dull and get brighter as you approach the end of this riff.

Given this scenario I would ask have the guitarist to play those chords one-by-one, perhaps sustaining them and letting them die out naturally. Then I'd take the recording of those chords, load them in a sampler and play the riff, while tweaking the lowpass filter cutoff to start dull and end bright, while either playing it live with the rest of the band, or overdubbing the part, since I need to groove with the rest of what's going on.

Is this a natural performance? Well, depends how you want to view it. It is certainly NOT a natural guitar performance. However, I'd argue that this is a natural sampler performance.

Where things get muddy is when the "performance" is manufactured; i.e. when it's not a recording of a performance, but rather a creation where the post-production studio itself becomes the instrument, where the audio engineer/producer is the main musician playing the DAW and the mixer and the recorders, etc. In that case, whether one calls all the sounds completely artificial because the whole thing is 100% "manufactured", or completely natural to the performance because the "performance" is 100% behind the glass, is a POV distinction that serves to do little but create forum thread debates and bar room arguments .
G.

That's really the crux of this whole discussion isn't it? I suppose it depends on whether you are Benny Goodman or Frank Zappa

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

You HAD to go and muddy things up didn'ch'ya?

CANNONBALL!!!! [*sploosh*]

Is this a natural performance? Well, depends how you want to view it. It is certainly NOT a natural guitar performance. However, I'd argue that this is a natural sampler performance.

Well, unless I'm missing a point, that's just another illustration of post production as an instrument in and of itself.

There is a natural bias to draw a distinction between a performance and a construction, though I'm sure fuzzy logic could be applied to a large gray area in-between. For example, it's kind of easy (for some) to say that manually assembling samples into a rhythm track or programming a sequence is not so much a performance as it is simply the result of playing back a program, that the act of programming itself is not a "performance", perhaps because it's not a live act. But I don't - as I imagine you don't - think that's a valid distinction; one could argue that a loop player or a sequencer is an instrument that is designed to be programmed and played back and not played in real time, so that "rule" of live performance does not apply. Plus, it still takes human talent to put together a *really good* loop or sequence.

But look out, I'm jumping back in the mudhole again, butt first. All the above said, even after all that knocking down of the lines between "natural" and "artificial", I am going to try and illustrate a way in which I still see a distinction. It may be more bias on my part that could be torn apart with more logical analysis, but it's a bias that I'll have a hard time letting go of without a lot of irrational kicking and screaming .

This distinction is related to performance, but it's also got a strong tie to *intent*. This applies in large part to drum samples, but it can apply to any sample type. I have no problem with the use of samples in a programmed sequence (though it usually isn't going to sound as "human" as a human, I can understand their use.) I also don't have a problem with the occasional use of a sample here or there to replace an occasional small glitch or mis-hit by the original artist. But when the original artist so obviously can't play their instrument to save their momma's eyes that a majority of the strokes need to be replaced in post by a sample or adjusted in time to actually keep a sembelence of a beat, that's an artificiality that I just can't abide by. Either get a drummer that can actually drum, or use the computer and admit to it, but don't give the drummer credit for being a member of the band when the engineer has to replace most of his work.

It's a similar thing with something like Autotune. Sure, if you need to adjust a note here or there, fine. But if it's someone who can't carry a tune in a suitcase, then don't make them the lead singer and make Autotune and the Autotune engineer do all the work. Kick them off the freakin' stage and get someone in there who can actually sing.

Yeah, yeah, it's one of those "where do you draw the line?" fuzzy logic situations. How many corrections are OK and how many are too many? I think that line needs to be defined somewhere within the parameters of figuring whether the performer is good enough to do a signiofiganly better job within a couple of takes and this was just a bad take, or whether you know that you can re-take the track all day and it won't get significantly better. It's hard to put a specific metric on it, but it's like pornography, you'll know when you see it.

G.

 

[noisewreck]

CANNONBALL!!!! [*sploosh*] Well, unless I'm missing a point, that's just another illustration of post production as an instrument in and of itself.

You ARE missing the point. To make it more vivid... What if this was a live performance situation, it is not a programmed sequence, but the riff is played LIVE on the sampler, on stage, with other band members. Again, I am not talking about using the sampler to "fix" a bad performance or to cover for a guitarist who doesn't have the chops. I am talking about a performance that genuinely would not technically be possible on the guitar, even if your name is Steve Vai.

In this instance the original recording of the guitar chords are being used on the sampler just as the strings are being used on a banjo, they are the sound "generator". As such, it is a live, human performance, where the instrument happens to be a sampler rather than a traditional instrument like a kazoo.

As you are making a distinction in intent... the intent here is not to cover up the deficiencies in our hypothetical guitarist, but rather to present a musical idea that while uses the electric guitar timbre, in the end sounds nothing like an actual guitar.

Sure, one can argue whether live performance vs. triggering a preprogrammed sequence is the distinction, which is why I wanted to make sure to remove that aspect of the use of the sampler (or other electronic instruments) from the discussion, which is why I am giving you a live concert stage setting.

The rest of your post, and mine, we can argue one way or another 'til we're blue in the face, overall are pointless, even though it would make for a fun conversation over a pint of beer as you suggest.

Again, my original beef with how this thread started and how I, I am sorry to say ended up derailing it, is not to argue the merits of using Autotune (and even less how MUCH it should or should not be used to be considered fake), but rather this narrow minded, perhaps elitist, and perhaps uninformed attitude that a banjo is a real instrument while the sampler or synthesizer is not and that they are only used because one doesn't have the "real thing" or because they are used to "fix" something.

The rest of the arguments whether a DAW is an instrument or whether one performs or constructs riffs with sequencers is pure semantics and intent. Sometimes you want that mechanical relentless sequence on the grid (some great examples of this can be heard on Rammstein's "Mutter" album for example) and sometimes you don't, so you have Emerson play the Minimoog for you

Both are equally valid given the right musical context.

I agree with you on most things, the only differences are, to make a political analogy (pardon for that) you are somewhat right of center, while I am somewhat left of center

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

you are somewhat right of center, while I am somewhat left of center

Wow, you live long enough, you'll see anything. That's the first time in my life I've ever been referred to as politically right of anything (even though I know it's just an analogy and not a literal description)

but George, I don't see where we disagree at all on this one. I have no qualms with any of your last post, you seem to be taking my earlier description of two points of view as my automatically siding with the other one; it wasn't - it was just meant as an "independent" assessment of the two sides.

And as far as my qualms about the artificiality of giving credit to non-musicians for actually making what was 90% the work of the engineer, I don't feel this is off-topic at all. This entire thread is about the use of "artifice" in recording, and no one knows just what "artifice" means, because everyone has a different opinion. Therefore a discussion of this topic is required in order to discuss the OP's question, and has a DIRECT effect on how to answer the poll question.

For me, artificial means pretending to be a musician and covering the fact that you're not with studio tricks. Under that definition I'd have to answer the poll by saying I never do that; if my clients suck at making music, they'll have to find another engineer that'll purposely hide that fact, I'll only make their suckiness sound as sonically good as possible.

If, however, "artificial" goes by a more mundane definition of the type you and I have demonstrated as being invalid, then my answer would me, yes, quite a bit, as the production needs it.

G.

 

[noisewreck]

Wow, you live long enough, you'll see anything. That's the first time in my life I've ever been referred to as politically right of anything (even though I know it's just an analogy and not a literal description)

Yeah, I knew you'd get a kick out of that one

but George, I don't see where we disagree at all on this one. I have no qualms with any of your last post, you seem to be taking my earlier description of two points of view as my automatically siding with the other one; it wasn't - it was just meant as an "independent" assessment of the two sides.

I stand corrected. I think what threw me off was your comment about "fixing it in postproduction" that was in relation to my original example of sampling the guitarist, and was trying to make sure I made myself clear.

If only congress worked this well

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

If only congress worked this well

Simple. All we gotta do is get rid of the Democrats and the Republicans!

G.

 

[Toasta Whales]

I'm 17 with limited funds so almost all of my music comes out of either my keyboard, midi sequencers, or acoustic beatcraft. There's a guitar here and there and maybe a tambourine or two, but the majority of my instrumentation is digital.

 

[kcearl]

I play bass and guitar and make most of my own keyboard loops...I dont really use any pre-recorded loops but wouldnt have a problem if it made a song better...Id use all samples if thats what I was after...who cares if the end result is your aim

I use drum machine software and either program my own with an MPD24 and sonars sequencer or use midi clips...I dont have the skills or time to learn to be a drummer at the moment but I dont need someone turning up drunk, two hours late and trying to sleep with my woman either

 

[Amos McWoods]

I use it in pretty much every song...for now until I can get ahold of a drum kit (and a place to play it without the cops showing up) I'm using "Session Drummer" program in Cakewalk. Sounds pretty good to my ears.

On top of that, I sometimes also use Hammond organ (artificial pipe organ) and Nanotron (artificial Mellotron (artificial choir, strings, flute))

Other than that, all guitars, bass, pedal steel, lap steel, percussion "out of the box".