Modartt have released a new instrument for Pianoteq: the Bösendorfer 280VC. "Authorized by Bösendorfer, the physical model of PIANOTEQ faithfully captures the rich resonance and dynamic spectrum of the instrument, making it a true joy to play and bringing many hours of listening pleasure. This instrument pack offers a range of exciting presets, adapted for various music genres."
I made a few demos for it, one of them The Strniša File, 2 minutes and 40 seconds of mock-70's suspense tv- or movie music. Typical of many mixes of the time, everything but the piano is panned pretty much hard left or right. Harp, vibraphone and wah-clavinet are Pianoteq too.
Listening to the demos this piano sounds very good. How do you like it Piet? I always wanted to lay my hands on a real Boesendorfer. So this might be a poor mans solution.....
Well, to be honest, I still don’t really know what to make of this one. It’s certainly a good virtual piano and if you play to its strengths, it’s a great one, but I hesitate to recommend it unreservedly because some people — and maybe you are one of them, Markus — just can’t get over the pianoteqness of Pianoteq pianos. If that’s the case, I doubt this Bösendorfer will change your mind.
Me, I happen to like Pianoteq a lot. I like its weaknesses as much as its qualities, I like to struggle with it as much as I like playing it. And 80%, or thereabouts, of my composing activity is done on a Pianoteq piano. (There’s something about them, for me, I don’t know what it is, that seems to draw the Muse in.) But I’m not deaf to the timbral and sonic problems a Pianoteq piano can bring to a mix (and this Bösendorfer is no exception) — I’m not saying ‘always brings’, I’m saying ‘can bring’ — and I also fully understand anyone who says that the Pianoteq sound is just not for them.
The best I can do, and forgive me for it being so little, is to tell you to take another good, attentive listen to the demos. Not mine because I tend to focus on too much else besides piano in my demos, but pick a few of the solo piano ones. (And try to listen both on speakers and on a good set of headphones.) The ‘Rhapsody In Blue’ excerpt, for example, paints, in my opinion, a very honest picture of the instrument’s strengths and weaknesses. If you like what you’re hearing, well, that’s exactly what you’ll be getting with this Bösendorfer. And if you don’t like it, then the matter, I would think, is solved too.
Thanks Piet, well I happen to be one of those who likes Pianotec a lot. I practice everyday (not very much) with it and get ideas down almost only with it. (Bechstein is my goto). Similar as you describe. It's one of the few vi's that feels like an actual real instrument to me- playing wise not soundwise. Since I'm not a piano player I'm not that much bothered by the subtleties of the sound. I understand why would it be for others as well. But the responiveness is much more important for me. The question is if the Boesendorfer adds anything worthwhile to what I have. I'll check the demos. Only listened short on an ipad. So it's a good recommendation to listen on speakers.
Markus, I forgot to mention that you can of course demo the Bösendorfer (after updating Pianoteq to the latest version 8.3.0). The demo version has a handful of silent notes, but there are enough that do sound to help you decide whether this is an instrument for you or not.
I don’t think in my lifetime I will ever own one, but whenever I had the chance to play on a Bösendorfer it has become the golden standard in my taste.
The warm tone and the subtle timbres possible especially when playing softer passages, together with its excellent mechanics made it such an accessible instrument.
Rachmaninov’s piano concertos played on a Bösendorfer is such a great pleasure to listen to.
Markus, I forgot to mention that you can of course demo the Bösendorfer (after updating Pianoteq to the latest version 8.3.0). The demo version has a handful of silent notes, but there are enough that do sound to help you decide whether this is an instrument for you or not.
__
Yes of course. Thank you Piet for the hint. I made a short testing yesterday and it was interesting to compare the different presets. The one that was most convincing and had the most natural feel was the Boesendorfer 280 CV (does it compare to the prelude presets of the other pianos?). To my ears the others had more of this typical Pianotec artifical sound.
Since there is no intro price there is no need to hurry to get it. I probably wait for a sale. It's nice and definitely very different from the Bechstein.
Off topic: I would love to hear more of your inspiring music as your demos show again. Why not release something for us few who just like good music and don't care about genres, marketing and stuff? You even can make your own artwork on high level. So what's holding you back?
I don’t really know how they decide on the names of the presets, nor what most of these names are supposed to suggest. (‘Felt’ being an exception of course.) I don’t really care either. ‘Prelude’, what does that mean, after all? Or ‘Warm’? Even more specific names like ‘Classical Recording’, ‘Jazz Recording’ or ‘Pop Mix’ have no meaning or use to me whatsoever.
You may well be right that the ‘280CV’ preset corresponds to what, in other instrument packs, is called ‘Prelude’, but I’m not sure. (I could ask, if you really wanna know.)
I’d love to share more of my music, but what’s forever keeping me from doing that is that I’m never satisfied with my mixes. I always have a very specific sound in my head for each and every piece I’m working on, and when I say ‘very specific’, I mean: ‘very-very-very-very specific’, and only in the rarest of cases do I manage to get somewhere in the vicinity of that sound. Whenever I get close enough (that would be about 2% of my mixes), I usually post the piece, if not (the remaining 98%), I won’t. But, in the case of the Pianoteq demos, you’ve committed yourself to deliver, so you deliver.
I’d love to redo all of those demos. All of them. Pretty happy with the musical content in most of those pieces, but it’s the mix and the sound that always makes me bury my head in my hands when I listen back to them.
Piet De Ridder wrote: ↑Jun 14, 2024 3:49 am
I don’t really know how they decide on the names of the presets, nor what most of these names are supposed to suggest. (‘Felt’ being an exception of course.) I don’t really care either. ‘Prelude’, what does that mean, after all? Or ‘Warm’? Even more specific names like ‘Classical Recording’, ‘Jazz Recording’ or ‘Pop Mix’ have no meaning or use to me whatsoever.
You may well be right that the ‘280CV’ preset corresponds to what, in other instrument packs, is called ‘Prelude’, but I’m not sure. (I could ask, if you really wanna know.)
I’d love to share more of my music, but what’s forever keeping me from doing that is that I’m never satisfied with my mixes. I always have a very specific sound in my head for each and every piece I’m working on, and when I say ‘very specific’, I mean: ‘very-very-very-very specific’, and only in the rarest of cases do I manage to get somewhere in the vicinity of that sound. Whenever I get close enough (that would be about 2% of my mixes), I usually post the piece, if not (the remaining 98%), I won’t. But, in the case of the Pianoteq demos, you’ve committed yourself to deliver, so you deliver.
I’d love to redo all of those demos. All of them. Pretty happy with the musical content in most of those pieces, but it’s the mix and the sound that always makes me bury my head in my hands when I listen back to them.
__
I don't care for the names of the presets but I simply thought some sound more natural and less pianotequi if you will...
Regarding your music- maybe just think that a bit less of desired perfection on your side and therefore a bit more exposure to the public might bring a lot of joy to some listeners like me who doesn't really care about the last 2% of the mix that might lack to your ears. Quality wise it's far above of what most of us can do anyway. But hey it's your thing you can do whatever you want.
I agree with Markus, Piet. Your worst mix is better than my best, and while I know you don’t sign on to the meme “perfection is the enemy of the good”, it would be nice to hear more of your work.
One of the reasons that I’m endlessly dissatisfied with the mixes of my pieces is that I strongly believe that the mix is part of the composition, an integral part of the (musical) identity of the piece. And when I don’t get the mix right, I feel the piece is unfinished. I really do.
It’s not that I can’t make a reasonably good-sounding mix, it’s that I *want* to arrive at that one mix that is an inextricable part of the music it contains, so to speak. Sometimes, I work for a day or two on a mix only to find, on the third morning, that the mix has sort of ‘separated’ itself from the music. And that’s no good. I don’t want that. Even if it sounds good. Music and mix should be one.
It’s a problem — or, at least, I make it a problem — specific to the use of virtual instruments and mocked-up musical presences in a mix, I find. There’s a HUUUUUUGE difference with mixing “While My Friends Are Here”. That track can be mixed in dozens of different ways and, assuming one doesn’t make a complete mess of it, it’ll always be more or less ‘right’, some mixes probably slightly more appealing than others, but all of them doing what a good mix can and ought to do. That’s because all the authenticity of the track, its very heart and soul, is captured, or embedded, entirely in the performance and the recording. Everything you hear in that track has a completely and effortlessly natural and authentic presence. And that’s precisely what you don’t have — *never* have — with virtual instruments and mocked-up elements. Unless you treat the artificiality of the virtual world as an authenticity all its own.
So when I’m mixing my pieces, there are hundreds and hundreds of things to consider which needn’t be considered when mixing “While My Friends Are Here’: the dynamics of the mix need to correspond not only with the character of the piece but also with all the choices you made when picking libraries, synths and virtual instruments, the artificialities in the performances need either be masked or turned, like I said at the end of the previous paragraph, into aesthetic choices (and the same goes for the limitations of all the virtual ingredients in the mix), the sonic texture you go for needs to tell the same story as the music does, the space or spaces have to become a logical part of the arrangement or orchestration, the implications of the panning (stylistically and technically) require attention too, authentic electronic sounds need to shake hands with fake acoustic sounds, … the list goes on and on. And at the end, all of it needs to stand, shoulder to shoulder, and be the music I want it to be.
But I just haven’t enough technical skill to master all that in a musically coherent AND sonically solid way, I fear. But I sooo like the struggle, I never get tired of it. Failure after failure after failure and then some more, all the while making slow, baby-steps progress and, on very rare occasions, hitting upon what I was after. Love it.
I understand what you’re saying. I’ve never actually been satisfied with a single mix (with good reason) however, I’ve often been satisfied with my writing, especially songwriting, so I do my best mix and put things out in the world.
Horses, courses, whatever. I so enjoy your many skills and your work ethic.
Songwriting is a skill set. Composing is a skill set. Playing an instrument and singing are skill sets. Manipulating samples is a skill set. Mixing is a skill set.
Some of these I am confident I do really well, some adequately, some merely the best I can.
I have learned not to stress over it, since a fair amount of people seem to enjoy what I do. AFAIK, nobody here is attempting to create "music for the ages".
Charlie Clouser: " I have no interest in, and no need to create, "realistic orchestral mockups". That way lies madness."
