UJAM STRIIIINGS

[revvy]

Because people spend countless hours trying to eliminate such imperfections from their work.

And they fail.

And even for the absolute best, we hear it in their beautiful playing and don't hear it in the uncanny valley of sequenced acoustic guitar plugins, for example. I imagine it's the same with all string instruments.

i don't care how someone got there (a real guitar, a keyboard guitar plugin, a loop), i only care whether music moves me in some way (or not).

these string phrases are great, and there are lots of variables (some under our control). if i can use it, and enjoy using it, am not worried about anything else. but that's just me

Of course. I enjoy lots of different stuff too and I'm not bemoaning the quality here, far from it, I like UJAM. I was just following up to one thing bones said. Nuances in discussions are allowed on KVR, yes?

(that said - and specialised genre alert - nobody wants to hear programmed flamenco, for that and other intensely acoustic genres I personally DO care because it really doesn't sound right).

[fisherKing]

Because people spend countless hours trying to eliminate such imperfections from their work.

And they fail.

And even for the absolute best, we hear it in their beautiful playing and don't hear it in the uncanny valley of sequenced acoustic guitar plugins, for example. I imagine it's the same with all string instruments.

i don't care how someone got there (a real guitar, a keyboard guitar plugin, a loop), i only care whether music moves me in some way (or not).

these string phrases are great, and there are lots of variables (some under our control). if i can use it, and enjoy using it, am not worried about anything else. but that's just me

Of course. I enjoy lots of different stuff too and I'm not bemoaning the quality here, far from it, I like UJAM. I was just following up to one thing bones said. Nuances in discussions are allowed on KVR, yes?

(that said - and specialised genre alert - nobody wants to hear programmed flamenco, for that and other intensely acoustic genres I personally DO care because it really doesn't sound right).

of course, we're both free to express our opinions and i hear you about flamenco (i also don't want to ever hear a keyboard-played sax solo).

[revvy]

of course, we're both free to express our opinions and i hear you about flamenco (i also don't want to ever hear a keyboard-played sax solo).

Agreed.

[SparkySpark]

I can't understand why they don't even introduce sound guitar fret noises every now and again, or some more instability in tone and tempo overall (as there are sliders for it, in Royal at least).

Because people spend countless hours trying to eliminate such imperfections from their work. I had a guitar sound in Studio One's ROMpler that was driving me mad because one of the notes in the MIDI file I was playing triggered one of those annoying fret noise things.

Cool thread.

Just waiting for you Bones to chip in.

Note that I don't disagree with you (I think). What I meant was that the riffs are too perfect because they are too spot on, time after time after time. Hope this makes sense.

When I worked as a marketing manager in the music software biz around year 2000, our software (notation with patented realistic playback options) had a humanisation factor. It was set at 9 (of 10) as default, meaning a professional orchestra (10 would be robotic). At 3, it would be more of a high school orchestra. ...and note this was twenty years ago!

I'm not the greatest singer and not fantastic at mastering either. When I introduce an amazing bass or guitar player, it sounds robotic compared to the rest of my production. Besides, if I were a million-dollar name, wouldn't I simply use a real bass player? (And yes, I know there are instances when it would make sense, but let's face it: the majority of UJAM buyers are probably not multi-million dollar studios.)

So: what I'm after is not bad-sampled notes. What I'd like to see - in all UJAM software - are things that make them more human, like fret noises added at random (but realistic) places. If you listen carefully to a guitarist, he or she never plays every single note perfectly, unmuffled, un-fret-noised etc throughout a song, so why should my plugin do that?

I've had the exact same problem with EZDrummer (ten years ago). It was just the same MIDI file played over and over. I then switched to JamStixx, and what a relief! At "random" places, it inserted some extra tom or so, never repeating itself.

As someone said, it's wise to use another plugin together with Striiiings, but why should we need to? The entire point of an UJAM product is to sound great but realistic, and to arrive there fast. If it's too perfect it sounds like a sample played over and over again, and fixing that is not fast. I can't understand why UJAM has never got around to fix this, such as easy task.

[fisherKing]

What I meant was that the riffs are too perfect because they are too spot on, time after time after time. Hope this makes sense.

As someone said, it's wise to use another plugin together with Striiiings, but why should we need to? The entire point of an UJAM product is to sound great but realistic, and to arrive there fast. If it's too perfect it sounds like a sample played over and over again, and fixing that is not fast. I can't understand why UJAM has never got around to fix this, such as easy task.

perhaps it depends on the music you make. for me (making mostly pop/hiphop) it works beautifully, and the sound itself is realistic, in that context. personally, i don't find it too spot on, either.

hard for a developer to know what 'quirks' are important to any specific user. but i would imagine it's a 'no-win' situation; one person wants more 'quirks', another might want less.

i just mixed a band, and the squeaks on the acoustic guitar on one song were profound (not in a good way); i spent an hour automating tiny level drops, to soften or remove those squeaks.

sometimes, things can be too real...

[rikki rivett]

Agree @ SparkySpark. Striiings sounds *great* - and the SAME, over and over and over and over .....once I've heard any part twice I'm done. I have to admit though that I'm looking at it in the context of wanting to create an actual string part with some development, rather than as an extra/"add-on" in a Pop or HipHop track.

I do feel the variations are really boring....just adding denser rhythms (of which there are just 5) and those -to me- very uninspired "additions" ....a bit more imagination there would not have been too hard.

And the entire thing -patterns- totally uneditable and un"playable". A missed opportunity...but it seems the product is in line with UJAMS strategy, so there you go. Anyway: now I've thoroughly moaned and dissed it I'll go and see what sort of fun I can have with what it can actually do .

[fisherKing]

Agree @ SparkySpark. Striiings sounds *great* - and the SAME, over and over and over and over .....once I've heard any part twice I'm done. I have to admit though that I'm looking at it in the context of wanting to create an actual string part with some development, rather than as an extra/"add-on" in a Pop or HipHop track.

I do feel the variations are really boring....just adding denser rhythms (of which there are just 5) and those -to me- very uninspired "additions" ....a bit more imagination there would not have been too hard.

And the entire thing -patterns- totally uneditable and un"playable". A missed opportunity...but it seems the product is in line with UJAMS strategy, so there you go. Anyway: now I've thoroughly moaned and dissed it I'll go and see what sort of fun I can have with what it can actually do .

maybe the point is... to use a tool for what it is (and/or stretch that as far as you can). i mean, am not going to use sylenth1 if i want a piano, or, for that matter, pianoteq if i want a synth bass.

for what this is, it's impressive, fun to play with, and has enough places to tweak to keep my happy.

[SparkySpark]

Agree @ SparkySpark. Striiings sounds *great* - and the SAME, over and over and over and over .....once I've heard any part twice I'm done. I have to admit though that I'm looking at it in the context of wanting to create an actual string part with some development, rather than as an extra/"add-on" in a Pop or HipHop track.

I do feel the variations are really boring....just adding denser rhythms (of which there are just 5) and those -to me- very uninspired "additions" ....a bit more imagination there would not have been too hard.

And the entire thing -patterns- totally uneditable and un"playable". A missed opportunity...but it seems the product is in line with UJAMS strategy, so there you go. Anyway: now I've thoroughly moaned and dissed it I'll go and see what sort of fun I can have with what it can actually do .

maybe the point is... to use a tool for what it is (and/or stretch that as far as you can). i mean, am not going to use sylenth1 if i want a piano, or, for that matter, pianoteq if i want a synth bass.

for what this is, it's impressive, fun to play with, and has enough places to tweak to keep my happy.

Yes, and it can be used in quite inspiring ways, like in this video by Boris himself. While I may not agree with his choices on that particular track, it goes to show how creatively this plugin could be used.

@FisherKing: what I proposed doesn't have to be an either/or. Adding the odd fret noise sample when moving between chords would increase realism (I don't think I've heard any pop song without them, like ever), and with a slider from 0-100, one should be able to control the likelihood for fret noises to occur. In fact, they could make the plugs multi-out and put fret noises etc on its own channel, to keep both user groups happy.

[fisherKing]

Agree @ SparkySpark. Striiings sounds *great* - and the SAME, over and over and over and over .....once I've heard any part twice I'm done. I have to admit though that I'm looking at it in the context of wanting to create an actual string part with some development, rather than as an extra/"add-on" in a Pop or HipHop track.

I do feel the variations are really boring....just adding denser rhythms (of which there are just 5) and those -to me- very uninspired "additions" ....a bit more imagination there would not have been too hard.

And the entire thing -patterns- totally uneditable and un"playable". A missed opportunity...but it seems the product is in line with UJAMS strategy, so there you go. Anyway: now I've thoroughly moaned and dissed it I'll go and see what sort of fun I can have with what it can actually do .

maybe the point is... to use a tool for what it is (and/or stretch that as far as you can). i mean, am not going to use sylenth1 if i want a piano, or, for that matter, pianoteq if i want a synth bass.

for what this is, it's impressive, fun to play with, and has enough places to tweak to keep my happy.

Yes, and it can be used in quite inspiring ways, like in this video by Boris himself. While I may not agree with his choices on that particular track, it goes to show how creatively this plugin could be used.

@FisherKing: what I proposed doesn't have to be an either/or. Adding the odd fret noise sample when moving between chords would increase realism (I don't think I've heard any pop song without them, like ever), and with a slider from 0-100, one should be able to control the likelihood for fret noises to occur. In fact, they could make the plugs multi-out and put fret noises etc on its own channel, to keep both user groups happy.

the problem is... you want this thing, someone else wants something else, and finally... there are a lot of things people want, and each of them think that what they want is 'most important'.

in this case, the developer's presented what they've chosen to present, and you go with it... or not (altho no harm requesting features, and who knows what updates might bring).

[SparkySpark]

the problem is... you want this thing, someone else wants something else, and finally... there are a lot of things people want, and each of them think that what they want is 'most important'.

in this case, the developer's presented what they've chosen to present, and you go with it... or not (altho no harm requesting features, and who knows what updates might bring).

Yes, thanks for your nice reply BTW.

Coming from the software world, I know! But I bought Virtual Guitarist like fifteen years ago... and... well...

Perhaps I've been unclear. Looking at Wikipedia, "fret noise" and "string noise" doesn't have to mean the same thing. I mean - of course - string noise! Just listen to U2s majestic Red Hill Mining Town (link below) and remove the string noise. It just wouldn't be the same.

Of course, now we're talking Striiiings, but a focus on perfectionism applies here as well. The sort of one-dimensional professional aspiration is less problematic here though, as a string orchestra typically sounds more professional than a guitarist on the same level (since they're an ensemble with instruments full of harmonics at that - especially with gut strings).

You know what? I'll talk to UJAM and see what they respond. After all, as you said, "who knows what updates might bring".

(On a completely unrelated note, it's fitting that my 2001 post is on orchestral instruments. )

[BONES]

And even for the absolute best, we hear it in their beautiful playing and don't hear it in the uncanny valley of sequenced acoustic guitar plugins, for example. I imagine it's the same with all string instruments.

Maybe you do but I don't value musicianship and, except in a very few cases, I don't notice the performance at all. If it's something technically brilliant I am more likely to think of the musician as a wanker who is showing off than be impressed by it. It's why I hate jazz in all its forms - it is self-indulgent wankery.

OTOH, production is something I definitely notice, and it's a big part of why I don't like much music from the 60s and 70s, but musicianship means nothing to me and doesn't affect my enjoyment of music in the slightest, either positively or negatively.

[Dirtgrain]

it is self-indulgent wankery.

Irony

[revvy]

I don't value musicianship
I am more likely to think of the musician as a wanker who is showing off than be impressed
self-indulgent wanker
musicianship means nothing to me

We're lucky to have you.

[fisherKing]

Maybe you do but I don't value musicianship and, except in a very few cases, I don't notice the performance at all. If it's something technically brilliant I am more likely to think of the musician as a wanker who is showing off than be impressed by it. It's why I hate jazz in all its forms - it is self-indulgent wankery.

haha, it's generally hard to tell if you're being serious, or just trying to be difficult. 'self-indulgent wankery'? your statement is pure jazz....

[revvy]

you mean jizz...