Striping - Hate it or not?

[Sharkissimo 1,973]

'Striping' is the industry term for the relatively modern practice of recording orchestral sections (e.g. brass, strings, percussion, and if you're lucky... those pesky woodwinds) separately, with each recording being a 'stem.' A stem can then be brought in or out on the console/Pro Tools, according to the whims of the composer/director/producer etc.

The benefit of this piecemeal approach is that allows greater freedom in mixing, since there's no 'bleed' from other unwanted instruments when you're trying to bring out the horns, for example. The downside is the orchestra loses that magical feel of playing together as one, and being in the moment.

What is your take?

[BloodBoal 7,538]

[BLUMENKOHL 1,068]

A Hammer.

Do you hate a hammer or not?

Striping is just a tool. It can be useful, it can be useless, it can be harmful. NEXT!

[Dixon Hill 4,234]

Depends on context really.

[BLUMENKOHL 1,068]

Depends on context really.

Nonsense. You either hate a hammer, or you love it. There is no context!

[KK 3,307]

Not a fan. I like the idea of having a full orchestra in a room when playing through something. There's a certain level of musicianship and craft that comes from musicians from different sections relying on each other, communicating and playing off of each others' beats. I think a more experienced composer would be able to orchestrate their work accordingly so that proper balance is attained.

I believe this practise is becoming more and more common in Hollywood, which is a shame. Sometimes directors find it beneficial just so they can play around with timings with the stems, as scores like Hobbit 3 have proven with disastrous results.

Having said that, for other composers, it's a deliberate method of choice, which allows for more interesting results when it comes to mixing everything, like Interstellar. So I suppose it depends on context, but you rarely get examples like that.

[Jilal 569]

It's one of the many interesting new recording techniques the modern era has to offer, permitting composers to conjure up a whole new array of otherwise impracticable orchestrations. In that respect, I wouldn't dismiss it. It does give certain musically ignorant meddlers even more on-the-go control over a composer's music, though ...

[Faleel 5,375]

Isn't this really just a development of something that has been done for a while know?

[Jilal 569]

By the way, just thinking about the extended freedom the technique is supposed to give the director/producer/etc. Wouldn't choices in the veins of dialing out certain sections, instruments, etc. rather be made upon hearing mockups instead of after the recording process? No one would want an entire section to be recorded when it's only to be dialed out afterward anyway.

[Not Mr. Big 4,644]

I've just learned of it and I already hate it! Gives the producers too much freedom with the music.

[Luke Skywalker 1,797]

I dont like it because when they try to release complete scores it's almost impossible to keep track of everysingle recorded layer and therefore you have mixxing errors with missing instruments.

[Jilal 569]

I've just learned of it and I already hate it! Gives the producers too much freedom with the music.

Our very own John Williams apparently does not, at least when it comes to percussion.

[Faleel 5,375]

And choir?

[Jilal 569]

Hmm, yes, that as well, cf. THE PHANTOM MENACE.

[Jay 37,412]

choir in all scores is recorded separately from the orchestra

[Jilal 569]

[Richard Penna 3,703]

I like the idea for separating orchestra and choir, but I don't really feel it's necessary to separate the orchestra. If every layer can be taken out, you'll never stop trying to tweak the mix.

Plus I hate buying a soundtrack to find that the mix is different because the film omitted a layer.

[Marian Schedenig 8,215]

It's where all those "orchestra only" tracks of choir pieces come from that some people seem to be enthusiastic about. I don't care much for them usually - it can be interesting to hear some instrumental details, but as an actual piece they usually don't work. Case in point: HA2's Merry Christmas, which was clearly written and orchestrated as a choir piece, so that the instrumental version lacks presence during the choir (now -less) parts.

As an idea, I don't very much like this technique. Of course what matters should be the end result, and I doubt that I personally could tell that the orchestra wasn't playing as a whole body, at least for "recording music" where the players aren't so familiar with the pieces that they have enough freedom anyway. And for close miked recordings at least it may even offer better sound when done right.

But as an (amateur) musician, I still like to think of a full group of people actually performing the music I'm listening to, and enjoying it for what it is, instead of each individual player just recording bits and pieces - and many of them probably never hearing what it actually sounds like.

Also, it means that much can be achieved in post production that used to be stuff a composer or orchestrator had to know about to get right. Of course, "popular" music has been recorded like this for decades, but that typically played with amplification anyway.

And there's another difference: A "classically trained" composer like Williams composes music intended to be performed by a full orchestra. Even if the recording isn't done like this, it can still be performed - and often is these days in concerts. No amplification necessary. But more and more film compositions rely on post production mixing magic, and that causes problems for live performances, often at least requiring soloists and choirs to be amplified - which typically sounds like crap. Case in point: Shore's LOTR scores, where I think all the soloists have to be amplified in a live performance, even if the orchestra isn't. With "popular" music, the issue is a bit different, because a typical rock band is based on playing live anyway - so even if there's a ton of (good or bad) post production on the album recording, they have an actual live version they can and do perform.

[Richard Penna 3,703]

Are you implying that if a soloist has to be amplified during a live performance, then the orchestration is wrong?

[Dixon Hill 4,234]

Isn't this really just a development of something that has been done for a while know?

Well it's the way that 90% of recorded music is produced, it's only recently found its way into orchestral music. When used as a crutch for bad writing, it's dumb. When used creatively, it's neat. I don't mind if it makes live performances difficult. Film music's final product is the recorded score. That's what matters.

choir in all scores is recorded separately from the orchestra

Nah not always.

[Luke Skywalker 1,797]

I hate when the mixed in choir or vocals have this high pitched background sound (due to high volume i think). If all was recorded in the same place you wouldnt have that.

[Jilal 569]

Film music's final product is the recorded score. That's what matters.

Ha, I remember Williams lamenting Alex North's unwillingness to adapt his orchestrations for the concert hall in an interview concerning North.

[Dixon Hill 4,234]

Yeah why bother! If concert hall snobs deign to perform my big biblical epic score with twenty brass players, they'd better fork over the cashola to perform it properly.

[Jilal 569]

Well, if orchestrations not realizable in a concert hall setting make your score a better one, why not go for it. Interest for concert performances of film music written by composers who would consciously apply striping is as low as can be, anyway.

That, or we need concert halls with larger stages.

[Dixon Hill 4,234]

They did Interstellar (a "striped" score) live and it rocked. The dimensions of the ensemble were necessarily shrunken a bit though.

[Jilal 569]

Wish I could've been there!

[KK 3,307]

Well I think the concert hall today is more open to such modifications in orchestration. So bring it on. It just limits how often the work can be reprogrammed beyond its "premiere".

[Marian Schedenig 8,215]

Are you implying that if a soloist has to be amplified during a live performance, then the orchestration is wrong?

I'm implying that if you're composing a work for a, more or less, standard orchestra setup and feature instrumental soloists, I consider it a missed opportunity if you don't orchestrate it in such a way that it can actually be performed like it was written, and without amplifying the soloist, which in most circumstances sounds like crap.

Composers over the last few centuries have managed to write concerts for sizeable orchestras and still have a solo instrument as the primary performer, so just drowning the solo instrument in unnecessarily dense orchestrations and then relying on the recording mixer to save the day seems the easy way out.

[BLUMENKOHL 1,068]

Are you implying that if a soloist has to be amplified during a live performance, then the orchestration is wrong?

Composers over the last few centuries have managed to write concerts for sizeable orchestras and still have a solo instrument as the primary performer, so just drowning the solo instrument in unnecessarily dense orchestrations and then relying on the recording mixer to save the day seems the easy way out.

You're making a preposterous luddite argument. How disappointing.

But then, that's what JWFan is, isn't it? A bunch of whiny boys in comfy mass-produced sweatpants sitting at home under air conditioning, with electricity, wireless internet, a keyboard, a mouse, a smartphone, a refrigerator, sunglasses, glasses and then bitching about how being able to independently adjust the volume of an instrument/voice is "the easy way out."

LOL.

I'd take you more seriously if you at least hand wrote that post with a quill pen and ink well.

[Dixon Hill 4,234]

Indeed, like I said, if it's film music, the recorded score is the final product and the composer should do whatever they need or want to in order to achieve what they're after, without worrying about the logistics of future live performances. Dubbing soloists often has to do with aesthetic needs rather than taking an "easy way out."

[Marian Schedenig 8,215]

You're making a preposterous luddite argument. How disappointing.

Am I? I'm not complaining about anyone composing like this for artistic reasons. Nyman's band uses plenty of amplified instruments. It was written for that, and that's fine. It also works live, and I'm sure he wouldn't write like this if it didn't.

And that was exactly my point: You can write this music so that it has the desired effect and can also be performed in a concert setting, without compromising the sound quality. And composers like Williams write like this regardless of how the actual recording is done. But it seems to me that it's not unusual for music to be written just for the recording, without the extra effort of making it possible to perform it live, simply because it can be done and is easier. And that, in my view, is an artistic shortcut that shows in those situations where the music is then, unexpectedly, actually performed in a concert. I think that's unfortunate.

[Dixon Hill 4,234]

Nah. The composer should do the music according to his or her vision of it as a recorded film score. No other concerns necessary. Live performances are novelties. The possibility of them shouldn't dictate how the music is crafted. Not unfortunate at all.

[BLUMENKOHL 1,068]

You're making a preposterous luddite argument. How disappointing.

You can write this music so that it has the desired effect and can also be performed in a concert setting, without compromising the sound quality. And composers like Williams write like this regardless of how the actual recording is done. But it seems to me that it's not unusual for music to be written just for the recording, without the extra effort of making it possible to perform it live, simply because it can be done and is easier. And that, in my view, is an artistic shortcut that shows in those situations where the music is then, unexpectedly, actually performed in a concert. I think that's unfortunate.

Your point reminds me a little of the argument that advocates that Toyota and BMW ought to make cars that people can still repair in their home garage. Back in the day making a car was about slapping together some parts, putting it all on four wheels, and putting a body around it. Now the level of optimization and engineering needed to make cars safe, efficient, and refined puts repairs out of the purview of a humble cottage garage.

The divergence between concert and film is the result of a similar increase in the technical complexity of film music. For most of Hollywood's history composers wrote concert music, with some structured timings, that got added to picture and that was enough. It really wasn't so much film music, as music that happened to accompany a film.

In 2015, we have actual film music. Music that is optimized, engineered, and designed for film as its final destination. And the result, regardless of our opinion of the aesthetic direction of it, is generally music that more tightly fits its film, at least from a technical standpoint.

This isn't some sign of artistic decline. The simple fact is that no one is going to hire a composer who wants to build the equivalent of a Ford Model T for the modern world.

Even John Williams gets this divergence. It's why JWFan complains that he's writing less "concert-y" music in the 2000s. But even before the two side diverged so dramatically, he wrote film music and concert versions of music from the film.

And it's far from "easy," because the composer's job is far more ambiguous than when John Williams was writing Star Wars. Writing to a defined set of parameters is a trivial exercise compared to writing to ambiguous and moving parameters. John Williams' more concert-y music doesn't lend itself well to the ambiguity of modern filmmaking practices. Or do you want to re-watch the botching of his music in the Star Wars Prequels to re-appreciate that?

[Wojo 2,453]

*whistles*

[Datameister 2,047]

Generally speaking, orchestral music tends to sound best to me when individual sections or instruments don't sound like they've been unnaturally amplified. Recording stuff separately can be a useful tool and it doesn't have to interfere with the quality of the end product. It's all about the creative intent behind it and the skill of the team producing it.

I will say, though, most of my favorite scores were pretty much just recorded all at once.

[publicist 4,643]

John Williams' more concert-y music doesn't lend itself well to the ambiguity of modern filmmaking practices.

I smell a rat!

[Dixon Hill 4,234]

A correct rat.

[publicist 4,643]

The discussion wouldn't be any less useful if it was about aviation manufacturing technology. None of you here is really prone to the daily specifics of filmmaking so why bother?

[Dixon Hill 4,234]

Not necessarily....

[publicist 4,643]

Differently phrased: i don't believe anyone here is connected to the film industry in such depth that he can make sweeping statements about how all kinds of movies are put together and why. It probably is done for a variety of reasons which in most cases are logistical/pragmatical. I cannot think of one composer interview i've ever read that flat-out stated that the composer loves to record all sections at a different time because he gets better music that way (though it may happen on occasion).

[BloodBoal 7,538]

Differently phrased: i don't believe anyone here is connected to the film industry in such depth that he can make sweeping statements about how all kinds of movies are put together and why. It probably is done for a variety of reasons which in most cases are logistical/pragmatical. I cannot think of one composer interview i've ever read that flat-out stated that the composer loves to record all sections at a different time because he gets better music that way (though it may happen on occasion).

You'll soon read that when TGP will be famous and giving interviews.

[Marian Schedenig 8,215]

I cannot think of one composer interview i've ever read that flat-out stated that the composer loves to record all sections at a different time because he gets better music that way (though it may happen on occasion).

I believe I read something just like that a couple of months (or perhaps longer) ago. Can't recall who it was though.

[publicist 4,643]

Tidbit: some old Jerry interview with some relevance to the topic.

[BLUMENKOHL 1,068]

Shocking! Man trained in symphonic music feels new recording methods lose the "natural quality" (whatever the hell that means) of the music.

We should interview a Southern Baptist about the types of classes being taught in school today!

[Dixon Hill 4,234]

He's talking about spot mics, not striping. And as with striping, it's a fine technique if used for a specific aesthetic end, and a crap one if used as a crutch for bad writing or because you just don't know better.

[BLUMENKOHL 1,068]

I'm aware. I just disdain his "back in the old days, we have one mic, and we liked it!" phrasing.

[publicist 4,643]

Shocking! Man trained in symphonic music feels new recording methods lose the "natural quality" (whatever the hell that means) of the music.

We should interview a Southern Baptist about the types of classes being taught in school today!

Thank god we have you, for sure an authority on music recording techniques of any kind.

[BLUMENKOHL 1,068]

Shocking! Man trained in symphonic music feels new recording methods lose the "natural quality" (whatever the hell that means) of the music.

We should interview a Southern Baptist about the types of classes being taught in school today!

Thank god we have you, for sure an authority on music recording techniques of any kind.

You're welcome!

[Dixon Hill 4,234]

Isn't Cauliflower an artiste?

[BLUMENKOHL 1,068]

I don't record music sessions. But there are certain trains of bullshit that are domain-independent.

Having fervent opinions about tools and techniques is one such brand of bullshit.