Quote: Original post by KylotanAll the pro audio gear you name is handy but nowhere near essential to the underlying task of 'writing music'.

The problem with this belief is comparable to graphics demands.

How many developers would 'want' to make a game in 8-bit color depth and SNES-quality graphics on an XBox360? I wouldn't care as long as it's a good game, but virtually no developers/publishers want to take that road.

Similarly, no developer wants to use the cheap-sounding synthesizers on major titles unless they have to. In terms of portfolio demonstration you certainly stand a better chance at getting noticed by presenting quality from a $5k+ sequencer setup than a cheap no-added-sample libraries $100 setup.

Writing music is just one part of producing music. At least with computers, I find myself 'programming' the tracks a lot, which takes at least some moderate knowledge of sound engineering and how effects can improve the sound, tweaks and what not... things that I find a lot of composers just don't do, or don't realize the improvement (such as, what I call the "keyboard effect", where all the notes line up and down vertically in unison. The result is a keyboard, fake-sounding sequence of samples). If you do not have a sequencer that can change entrances by a fraction of a millisecond, or devices to tweak intonation, or automation to adjust decays, faders, volumes, etc etc, then the task becomes a lot longer to achieve and edit).

As well, having samples with multiple articulations/expressions (where cheap libraries or free libraries do not have) improves performance.


The main question is, will a developer accept your $50 Roland Keyboard Toy over the $5k sequencer setup when the composer has bought everything already?

Quote: Original post by Kylotan

Quote: Original post by facher83
However, it's not really IDEAL of the general audience.

Can you imagine GM marketing a big-rig truck with 10 mpg in this economy and fuel capacity? People don't want it. Just like people, in general, don't play Muds due to lack of graphics.

Quote: Original post by Kylotan
...I don't think it's right to claim you need all this top of the line gear to create worthwhile results.

I didn't claim you did. I know I say it's definitely nice, but you can't convince me that developers would rather pay someone with better technology and end-results and use a cheaper-sounding setup (same person's talent) if they are going to pay the same wages.

This ideal that you are pressing is somewhat silly to me. Turning around and saying, "Well music doesn't need (insert cost here)." People don't -need- games in general. They don't -need- big screen TVs or XBox360s. But people -want- it. Hollywood directors -want- that big rock-orchestra Zimmer style, even though there are other options... it's about demand.

Nobody needs Hans Zimmer to write the Pirates soundtrack... but it's what they -wanted-. Not -needed-.

Sure, Hans Zimmer doesn't -need- an orchestra. I suppose he could simply record each instrument by playing each himself. That is a solution to needing an orchestra, to play everything yourself, but is that a reasonable argument to suggest not to record live orchestras for soundtracks?


Yes, yes, yes.. I hear you... We don't need computers, we don't need orchestras, we don't need sample libraries, we don't need sequencers, we don't need costly gear, to make soundtracks.

We could all sit down at a piano and record an entire soundtrack by banging on the keys. Will it be in demand? I think not. Can you imagine the Star Wars films with a piano-only soundtrack? It just wouldn't be as good.

I merely find your arguments to be illogical. Demand for things is there, despite the need for it. We don't need alcohol either, but people still demand it in society. We don't need cigarettes. We don't need movies/films. On and on.

If I accept your logic, I have to accept that nothing in life is necessary.

Quote: Original post by facher83
Yesterday I wrote a long response, but alas, the combination of IE and the gamedev forums hanging, I lost all the typing.

Haha, don't you just hate that! :P

Quote: Original post by facher83
In short, most of the concepts you listed as capabilities today were able to be done in the past, even with MIDI, with a little cooperation and planning between programmer(s) and composer(s).

You act like the move from MIDI to actual samples isn't a huge thing. Well, maybe you like listening to solely MIDI in video games, but most people were very happy to say goodbye to the little bleeps and bloops. I enjoy the retro experience now and then... but not all of the time. The mere fact that I can type in the text I want to hear, then test it with actual choir samples playing back at me is amazing. I've had pieces where people couldn't tell if I hired a live orchestra or used great samples.

Quote: Original post by facher83
I also understand the manufacturing problems with multiple CDs, but from a cost perspective, it's simply the corporate sector wanting to save a penny or two on each package - which to me isn't a valid argument, just another broken philosophy that has many game studios in a strangle-hold.

Hahaha, that's great. No offense but try saying that to whomever is bankrolling your project or salary. If I've learned anything in my time in this industry it's that the person that is paying for it controls alot of the project. Like it or hate it (most of us hate it by the way) but you're vastly down playing the restrictions publishers and investors can place on a development team. I've seen titles go completely unfinished simply because whoever had the funds changed their minds or lost faith in the project. If the publisher, who is paying for the project and paying your salary, says "keep it to X amount" or "only do this" or the classic "we're shipping this title in March no matter what" you can make a strong case, fight and scream... but at the end of the day it's who controls the money flow that has the final call. This is why some games are forced to ship before their ready which ultimately causes much more problems than solutions for both the developer and the publisher. But that's another discussion for another day!

Quote: Original post by facher83And last but not least, sampled music and effects, while they are technical abilities now available, it doesn't change the layout of the music... you can still write the same, and function the same as before. For example, a Halo game on 480p will not have very much difference in execution/gameplay than Halo running at 720p. While the graphics might be better, the gameplay execution hasn't changed in itself.

Music, and sound, can only be changed to a certain degree. At least with today's technology. If you're not looking for interactivity, higher quality, in-game generation and environmental changes, then what ARE you looking for? Remember how layers of the music would drop out when SFX were called back in NES? The number of voices has increased to prevent this from happening. You keep saying the way music is implemented hasn't changed much since the 8-bit days, but you're so very wrong. I think what you're forgetting to look at is the other audio content that is now in game. Remember how each action only had ONE sfx in NES games. Every jump was exactly the same. Every bullet fired was the same. Not anymore. There is so much more audio in games that it has allowed music to changed from a continuous element in the background (in an attempt to hide, substitute or cover the lack of audio ambiance) to more of a cue function. I think the way soundtracks have been implemented has changed over the years.

It's funny because graphics really have changed in 30 years either. They've just increased vastly in quality. We're not playing with holograms (God, I can't wait for that day!). We're not stepping into completely virtual 3D environments. Graphics, at it's basic level, is still a 2D collection of pixels being shown on a flat surface... or in other words a TV. You keep talking about this radical change, but I don't think you see that other elements of video games haven't made this HUGE jump either. They've just increased in quality and complexity. So again, what are you looking for here?

Another point: people still listen to music the same way they've done for over 200 years. Has the technology and fidelity changed? Oh you bet! But people still listen to music very much in the same manner.

Quote: Original post by facher83In comparison, having samples A) Doesn't make you a better soundtrack and B) doesn't change the way you can implement the soundtrack. Hence many NES/SNES soundtracks are still/more thematic and characteristic than new soundtracks.

The samples used or how you implement the soundtrack don't necessarily lead to a better, or more characteristic soundtrack. You're comments are quite broad and very presumptive. I could write terrible music using MIDI, implement just as was common back in the 8-bit days and still end up with a terrible soundtrack. I agree with you that having better samples doesn't automatically make a better soundtrack. It's the quality of the music that makes a good soundtrack. This can be achieved with MIDI, or high quality samples, having static music (i.e music that just plays and loops continuously in the background) or music that is highly interactive.

[Edited by - nsmadsen on May 7, 2009 1:52:12 PM]

I'll reply to you both in one post since you're making the same point in response to me. I think my original statement has been misunderstood.

Quote: Original post by nsmadsen
I understand that someone can go out and get the cheapest gear and write music. But does this prep them for a career in game audio? [...] Anyone wanting a career or wanting to land the big projects has to have a pretty hardcore studio to have the results those kinds of studios expect. [...]
(Maybe not the easy part directly but you were comparing it to other trades and passing off music as requiring less). I'd like to see a non-musical PhD in physics try and do my job for a day. I bet they'd have a hard time with! (As would I with their job!!!)

Quote: Original post by facher83

Quote: Original post by KylotanAll the pro audio gear you name is handy but nowhere near essential to the underlying task of 'writing music'.

The problem with this belief is comparable to graphics demands.

How many developers would 'want' to make a game in 8-bit color depth and SNES-quality graphics on an XBox360? I wouldn't care as long as it's a good game, but virtually no developers/publishers want to take that road.

You are talking about the requirements for a professional working on leading-edge products, but they are not what I was talking about. My original objection was solely about this statement, which I've seen here before in paraphrased form from other people, and on the Creative Arts forum as well (but never on programming forums): "by continuing to underpay those few lucky musicians who manage to get a gig [...] newer generations of composers will dwindle". It is not talking about professional composers, or contractors working on the top products, or anything like that. It simply says, 'composers', as if the lack of abundant opportunities at the top will mean the pool of talent as a whole will diminish. As if anybody who ever picked up a guitar or sat down with a sequencer does it purely in the hopes of landing a top job. And that is just blatantly and evidently false.

It's like saying, "if the money paid to race drivers drops, nobody will drive in the future". Those guys can legitimately turn around and say, "hey, I'd like to see a nuclear physicist do my job, or someone with no budget for a decent vehicle", and they'd be 100% right, nobody could do what they do without investing in equipment and training. But does that mean driving is going to dwindle if these race drivers get underpaid? No, of course not. 'Driving' is cheaper to get into and there are other motivations for doing it. The same applies to music. That's no insult to the guys who've put the time and effort in, just a fact that the barrier to entry for 'composing' (not 'composing for a well-known AAA game franchise') is low.

Quote: Original post by facher83

Quote: Original post by Kylotan
...I don't think it's right to claim you need all this top of the line gear to create worthwhile results.

I didn't claim you did. I know I say it's definitely nice, but you can't convince me that developers would rather pay someone with better technology and end-results and use a cheaper-sounding setup (same person's talent) if they are going to pay the same wages.

This ideal that you are pressing is somewhat silly to me. Turning around and saying, "Well music doesn't need (insert cost here)." People don't -need- games in general. They don't -need- big screen TVs or XBox360s. But people -want- it. Hollywood directors -want- that big rock-orchestra Zimmer style, even though there are other options... it's about demand.

I never said there is no need for anything. I was talking about a sense of proportion. I don't doubt there is some demand for the utter best that can be produced. But demand does not always match the realities of quality. In music especially there is a trend to equate more expensive gear with a vast improvement in music quality that often doesn't actually exist. You can easily quadruple the budget for a 5% increase in quality that nobody but other composers or sound engineers will notice. So the question is, does the premium that you pay for someone who has all the top of the line gear work out as value for money?

If it does, and that extra quality is worth the money and there's demand for it as you say, that's fine. It implies there is little problem with game audio funding. Some people want the stuff, and they're paying for it.

On the other hand, if it doesn't supply extra quality, or that extra quality is not in demand, then the suggestion that cheap composers is a bad thing is shown to be false. They are providing most of the product at a tiny fraction of the price, and lower budgets are justified.

I spend a bit of time on sound engineering and production forums. There you hear people arguing for hours about which expensive pre-amps, amps, cabinets, and microphones are best, often insisting that you need the >$5000 combination for it to sound decent. And some people will indeed insist on these things, and pay for it. Other people will come along with tracks that sound almost identical, and then reveal they did it with freeware VSTis. It's not the VSTis that are underpriced; it's the expensive stuff that is overpriced. If the 'pros' lose some business because of such things, they have to raise their game or cut their prices, and I think that's reasonable.

You know, I bet there are traditional composers out there who are unhappy that you guys can buy a computerised digital orchestra for $5000 and bypass the old need to pay the musicians and conductor, hire the hall, position an abundance of microphones etc. We have sympathy for them, but ultimately the benefit they provide over a well-programmed MIDI orchestra is only going to be noticed in a tiny number of cases. And I bet some of those guys say, "computer musicians working at cut-rate deals will cause newer generations of composers to dwindle". They were wrong; the nature of the art just changed somewhat. Computer musicians have to avoid the same trap. If you're being undercut then it's rarely a sign that someone else is charging too little, but a sign that you're charging too much for what you offer.

Quote: Original post by Kylotan
You are talking about the requirements for a professional working on leading-edge products, but they are not what I was talking about. My original objection was solely about this statement, which I've seen here before in paraphrased form from other people, and on the Creative Arts forum as well (but never on programming forums): "by continuing to underpay those few lucky musicians who manage to get a gig [...] newer generations of composers will dwindle". It is not talking about professional composers, or contractors working on the top products, or anything like that. It simply says, 'composers', as if the lack of abundant opportunities at the top will mean the pool of talent as a whole will diminish. As if anybody who ever picked up a guitar or sat down with a sequencer does it purely in the hopes of landing a top job. And that is just blatantly and evidently false.

It's like saying, "if the money paid to race drivers drops, nobody will drive in the future". Those guys can legitimately turn around and say, "hey, I'd like to see a nuclear physicist do my job, or someone with no budget for a decent vehicle", and they'd be 100% right, nobody could do what they do without investing in equipment and training. But does that mean driving is going to dwindle if these race drivers get underpaid? No, of course not. 'Driving' is cheaper to get into and there are other motivations for doing it. The same applies to music. That's no insult to the guys who've put the time and effort in, just a fact that the barrier to entry for 'composing' (not 'composing for a well-known AAA game franchise') is low.

You really seem to be harping on this payment issue. I know that you were originally responding to the 5th point that Chris Kline made. I was responding to the fact that many seem to feel that composing music is cheap and easy. At the professional level, it isn't. Besides you seem to be comparing apples to oranges. Much of the discussion is about well-known AAA game franchises and the music used in those titles. The core of the debates is if the music in those games are good or not. The discussion isn't focused on hobbyist or amateur game titles. So it feels like you're jumping to another tangent by discussing music composition at the very start of someone's career (often when they're working for free or for peanuts just to get a shot at this industry) while the rest of us are talking about pro level music and games.

Besides, I don't think anyone is saying that musicians will stop or cease to exist if a large number of composers work for much cheaper rates. I know some say it's a bad sign, but I don't think composers will vanish. (This always seems to be your example.) But it's a proven fact that a tidal shift in the cost of an industry can affect many in it. If everyone started working for much less, then it forces many other competitors to change and adjust their prices. What happens this if folks have to charge less for the same amount of work. Meanwhile due to gradual inflation and other economic factors the price of gear and living costs continue to rise?

Here's what seasoned pro Will Loconto has to say about this very issue:

Quote:
I think it does a lot of damage to the both the industry in general and to every working composer and sound designer. Unfortunately, we don't have a situation where producers are always looking for the best audio they can afford. While there are several companies that do strive for the best, a large number just want to "get something in there" and if it's free, that would be even better. When composers or SFX designers line up to offer services at no charge, it lowers the perceived value of the audio across the board. Once a producer gets his game scored for free, why would he ever pay someone for the next one?

This devaluation of audio also harms working composers and their families who have to pay mortgages, insurance, and other living expenses. It's difficult to charge a fair rate while trying to compete with people willing to work for free. Even though the adage "you get what you pay for" is generally true, the reality is that some producers don't care. I have personally lost a job just before signing the contract because an audio post house with no game experience was willing to score the game for free. The producer is a friend of mine and when he called and gave me a chance to match their great offer, I had to tell him that I can't compete with free. On his next project, he'll be looking for someone else to give him a free score, because sometimes the budget is the most important thing.

So yes, artists working for free hurts the composers, SFX designers, and ultimately the entire industry. It goes both ways though. The producers willing to ask or allow someone to work for free are a huge part of the problem. When I outsource any sound or music work, I never allow the work to be done for free. I feel like I'd be taking unfair advantage of a composer's eagerness and enthusiasm."

Finally I'd like to point you to this video (which has been posted here before):

">Pay the Writer

(He's pretty colorful.... and so is his language. :P)

Not sure why, but some people seem to put seasoned pros in a bubble and think they're not affected but changing trends in their industry. That's completely untrue and here are two pros saying so directly.

Thanks,

Nate

[Edited by - nsmadsen on May 8, 2009 9:58:38 AM]

Quote: Original post by Kylotan
I don't doubt there is some demand for the utter best that can be produced. But demand does not always match the realities of quality.

I'm not sure we're all on the same wave length here.

A) The issue with the article is the lack of demand for -great- music; that developers don't care about having a sub-par soundtrack that doesn't inspire humming but just fills the air.

So in a sense, the article is complaining about lack of demand for music. And thus, you say there just isn't a demand for top-notch music. So, at the root of the debate, we are all agreeing and we don't know it... you're just simply stating it a different way (or in other words, "Get over it" is your response, and also in response to the article). If this were taken without hope at all, then the article would never have been written and the author would simply submit to your 'reality' of music not being in high-quality demand.

Am I to believe Jeremy Soule isn't in demand? Of course not. It's just that more developers don't demand quality sound of that substance (orchestral and thematic).... and that is the -problem- with the industry. Indy games love to work with music and every wanna-be Indy developer I've talked to has an incredibly high regard for highest quality music they can find. I'm just not convinced, with games that I've seen recently, that the artistic talent is desirable to the developers, only what screams money - and cheapest.

B) (I forgot what my other point was). I'll just add, having gamedev.net hang on me in two consecutive posts over the past two days is annoying... it makes me not want to log on.

Quote: Original post by facher83
B) (I forgot what my other point was). I'll just add, having gamedev.net hang on me in two consecutive posts over the past two days is annoying... it makes me not want to log on.

I've noticed this too and this has been brought up to GD.net management. Hopefully it will be fixed shortly.