Sampled Orchestra tricks [Archive] - Northern Sound Source

Thomas_J

07-01-2003, 11:09 PM

This is an interesting topic. There are many tricks that people use to get closer to the real thing, but the best advice I can give is to learn as much about orchestration as possible and know what the instruments sound like.

Apart from that, here are some simple, basic and effective tricks:

1) learn to ride the CC11 expression, it\'s your best friend.

2) Make X-fade programs for EVERYTHING, including solo instruments.

3) When you\'re sequencing rhytmical passages for strings try to load as many different variations of short bows as possible and play the rhymical passage as many times as you can with all the different patches. The result will be a very realistic and uneven passage.

4) Never think piano, think individual instruments.

5) Add an attack controller to your samples so that you can tweak the attack of a given note in realtime using any midi controller.

6) Avoid writing for trumpets unless you got some really great samples. It\'s pretty much impossible to sequence realistic trumpets.

7) Use as many neuance samples as possible for ensemble parts.

8) Never quantize.

9) Don\'t be a slave of your metronome.

10) Add a solo violin on top of your string ensemble to add vibrato and definition if your ensemble sound is getting washed out.

There are plenty more tricks but lets see what people have images/icons/smile.gif

Thomas

Russ

07-02-2003, 02:36 AM

Originally posted by Thomas_J:
6) Avoid writing for trumpets unless you got some really great samples. It\'s pretty much impossible to sequence realistic trumpets.Granted, this is Thomas\'s opinion but I do not agree. It\'s probably from my personal experience in playing one for years, but a trumpet is no harder to sample than a good french horn, violin, or cello. In fact, the french horn would be harder to sample as the margin for error is greater because of the greater risk of hitting a partial.

If you\'re going to stave away from writing for trumpet unless you have \"good\" samples, then do the same for strings, brass, and winds. Doesn\'t leave much left to choose from does it?

I would not say don\'t write for trumpet, even if the samples aren\'t the best, but just be aware of how you write for it. Not writing for it because of a lack of great samples would make it sound like everyone else -- horns, strings, and some woodwind runs or tills every now and then. If you\'ve only got something along the lines of Miroslav or AO, then you\'re not going to get the best trumpet sound (or any sound really) in comparison to a level like SAM, EWQLSO, or VSL (or even Dan Dean).

One comment I would add is be aware of the need for the \'player\' to breath. Don\'t alter the passage drastically, but make phrases. At the end of a short phrase leave off just a *tad* of a note, so as to simulate the player taking a breath. It may be my personal choice, but when I write solo and ensemble passages it makes it seems more human.

Yeah, bassoons are good for a nice warm sound, but just make sure it\'s appropriate for what you\'re writing. It could make it too warm in certain cases, or just not be the exact type of warmth you want.

My two cents.

Gary M. Thomas

07-02-2003, 05:08 AM

Wow, Thomas has pretty much covered it all ... One point that\'s worth mentioning....I find that it\'s extremely important to record EVERYTHING in real time and completely avoid \"Step Time.\" Except for maybe drums... Always record all your instruments \"live.\" Even if you have a repeating ostinato section, it sounds too artificial if it\'s sequenced and perfectly quantized (as Thomas mentioned.) Do this, and you\'ll find that your recordings will have a more natural feeling and won\'t be as mechanical sounding. Gary images/icons/wink.gif

carlmsmith

07-02-2003, 05:55 AM

Great thread, midiphase, and great tips guys. I\'m all ears. More, more, more! Question: In what order to you layer instruments? Start with the melody instruments, or lay the lower register foundations? I\'m not talking about an original composition, but one where you have the score in front of you.
Cheers,
Carl

07-02-2003, 06:14 AM

Originally posted by Gary M. Thomas:
record EVERYTHING in real time and completely avoid \"Step Time.\" <snip>

Whats \"Step Time\"?

Ed

Chadwick

07-02-2003, 06:38 AM

Ed,

Starting the sequencer and playing a part in is considered \'real time\' note entry, which can be quantized to some beat division to force notes to play with metronomic accuracy.

Step time is not a \'real time\' function in so far as the sequencer clock isn\'t running. You stop the sequencer, enter edit, locate the song position pointer to the place you want your fisrt note to be entered, select a beat division (usually what you would have quantized the part to if you were to have played it in real time), select \'step edit\', and enter notes and chords one by one - step by step.

For example, say you set a timing division of 1/8th notes for step entry. Play a note. When you let go it will be entered as an 1/8th note and the position pointer will automatically jump forward by 1/8th. Play another key and the same thing happens again. You now have two notes entered on successive quavers. You can play as slowly or as quickly as you like - any notes or chords you play will continue to be placed on successive quavers. Different sequencers accomodate various shortcuts for adding rests, changing divisions size mid phrase, changing note duration (as opposed to note value) etc.,

07-02-2003, 06:47 AM

Wow that was really helpfull, thanks for that!

Ed

christianb

07-02-2003, 06:59 AM

I\'m paying attention....

images/icons/wink.gif

christianb

James Thornton

07-02-2003, 07:04 AM

Originally posted by Thomas_J:

8) Never quantize.

9) Don\'t be a slave of your metronome.
I find this suggestion very interesting. I write mostly pop ballads & rock epics, but I was trained on classical piano and when I play to a strick metronome it feels like it\'s sucking the life out of the music. When I play I continually use small retards and accelerandos as an expressive device, which means every time I start a piece in my sequencer, I spend a huge amount of time trying to get the bars to line up with what I played. The question is, am I really making the pieces better, or am I just covering up for my poor ability to play along with a metronome. Any feedback appreciated.

Thanks,
James

Duncan Brinsmead

07-02-2003, 07:29 AM

I like to record roughly to a metronome, quantize a little, and then heavily edit the tempo track( beat by beat ). This makes it easy to coordinate and edit parts, and allows the music to be expressive. The hard part is translating one\'s feel for a passage into a painted tempo line. After a while I\'ve learned what general shapes seem to work and don\'t work. At the note to note level a little randomness can sometimes help keep things from sounding like a theater organ, although in general most rythmic variation should be intentional.. the result of human thought.

In general I find that the tempo for a standard 4/4 bar is a series of humps, with the low point at the first beat, and the second lowest point on the third. This provides a delay before the first and third beats, slightly accentuating the meter.

Another useful rule of thumb when coordinating different instruments is to make notes start earlier for instruments with slower attacks( performers on these instruments learn to anticipate the beat). I usually do this after I quantize a passage. Double bass needs a larger shift than violin. Percussive instruments like piano or glock would generally need no shift.

For mixdowns it is a good idea to use different amounts of reverb, based on the instrument and its position. French horns can take a lot of reverb, as they are at the back of the ensemble and the bell points backwards. I find that higher instruments like violin and flute do not take heavy reverb as well, although this could simply be the reverb I\'m using.

JonFairhurst

07-02-2003, 07:33 AM

One option is to play your own metronome. Boom, click click, boom, click, click. Ignore the MIDI clock. Think through the piece as you play the metronome. That way you create the tempo that is natural for you as a performer.

I actually find it easier to sync the remaining parts to my own metronome than to a mechanical one.

Ned Bouhalassa

07-02-2003, 07:38 AM

Would there be any chance of having a section of Northern Sounds where tips of this kind could be archived and organized like a FAQ? Could be a fantastic resource...

Runyon

07-02-2003, 08:41 AM

In regards to metronomic play: Young orchestral musicians are more metronomically accurate than ever before. This is especially true...and necessary....when playing new music, such as compositions by Boulez, etc.

There is far more to natural sounding orchestral emulation with samples than just accurate timing. Good, and creative use of dynamics plays just as vital a role.

For those without great keyboard technique, you can still get good interpretation with a savvy use of timing grids if you use step-input or quantize.

I\'m not sure how many of you go to real orchestral concerts, but if you do, you will have noticed how incredibly accurate the timing has become in recent years.

There is more to orchestral music than rubato heavy late 19th century styles.

My 2 cents

Duncan Brinsmead

07-02-2003, 10:01 AM

There is not as much rubato perhaps in some performances as in the past. However there is a great difference between an interpretation that is rythmically tight and one that is exactly metronomic. What can sound to ones ears to be a performance with no tempo variation is still filled with subtle delay on various notes and various parts for emphasis. The fact that it is subtle does not lessen its importance. I think that this give and take( often at a subliminal level to the performer ) is critical for good performances. Listen to a drum machine with a \"perfect\" beat and compare to the temporal nuance of a good drummer. It is hard to say which is more important subjectively.. the intensity of attack or the timing.. we are generally more aware of the intensity, although our mind translates slight delays into an effect of heightened expectation.

Meter and harmony are frameworks for music. The tension created by pushing away from this framework makes the music expressive.

Thomas_J

07-02-2003, 12:45 PM

Well, for samples that don\'t have multiple dynamics (so that you can make x-fades) it\'s better than nothing at all. In fact it\'s necessary to make a sequence come to life.
Use volume (CC7) to set the proper peak / balance for a given instrument, and then use CC11 to control the instrument within that volume range. The lower the CC7 volume, the higher the midi resolution gets. (Common trick used by James Newton Howard among others)

Bassoons do indeed warm up things, you just have to use them properly, and use good bassoon samples. And don\'t use bassoon ensemble samples. That will just clutter up things. Make sure you wrap it up in a good amount of verb, and don\'t make it too loud in the mix. It\'s hard to balance that instrument, but it makes a good difference.

Thomas

composer22

07-02-2003, 02:37 PM

Another thing to think about is detuning slightly your samples. For example, 2 bassoons in unison in an orchestra a2. One slightly detuned will make it sound real.

Scott Cairns

07-02-2003, 04:32 PM

Would there be any chance of having a section of Northern Sounds where tips of this kind could be archived and organized like a FAQ? Could be a fantastic resource...I couldnt agree more. I think I made a request for a knowledge base once. I guess though, in all fairness to Papa, this is a free resource and starting to archive and maintain a searchable knowledge base is also an economic consideration.

Scott Cairns

07-02-2003, 04:33 PM

Especially on those cold winter nights, when the rehearsal hall is unheated. A pile of burning bassoons warms the room right up! Bwahahahaha images/icons/smile.gif Yes I couldve phrased it better.

greatzed

07-02-2003, 05:57 PM

Just do what sounds good and don\'t stick to any sort of rule. If you do that, you concentrate too much on what sounds real and samples themselves. Concentrate on composition and creating your own style. I find if you do this, it\'ll sound real whether you want it to or not.

tomhartman

07-02-2003, 08:50 PM

Originally posted by Thomas_J:
Well, for samples that don\'t have multiple dynamics (so that you can make x-fades) it\'s better than nothing at all. In fact it\'s necessary to make a sequence come to life.
Use volume (CC7) to set the proper peak / balance for a given instrument, and then use CC11 to control the instrument within that volume range. The lower the CC7 volume, the higher the midi resolution gets. (Common trick used by James Newton Howard among others)

Thomas Thomas...could you elaborate on that for the thickheaded such as myself? Are you saying that at the beginning of a piece, one should record a CC7 message to set the overall volume lower? How does this help resolution? It certainly doesn\'t help getting levels at the mixing desk... images/icons/wink.gif

I certainly have to agree with Thomas on the trumpets, I haven\'t heard them sound convincing yet, although Nick\'s library is coming and I am not very familiar with VSL. It isn\'t that one can\'t get great sounding samples...it\'s in the playing of the parts that one can spot a midi job in seconds. Same, even more so, with sax.

Re the tempo things, yes, not quantizing helps. If you can\'t play it, slow it down and play it, but try only using quantize in certain little spots. Oddly enough, even real players hit it dead on, or within a few ticks, some of the time;)

To me, the biggest thing one notices about a real performance vs a midi performance is the dynamics. In a real section, the dynamics are changing ever so slightly throughout a phrase, I hardly ever hear this in even well done midi mockups. Perhaps with the newest libraries more of this kind of thing will be noticed.

REVERB......if you don\'t have a good one, don\'t try to cover weak samples with weak reverb. Better to rely on the room tone in the samples if there is any than use a cheesy sounding reverb.

Mixing libraries.....in strings....seems to work at times...at other times, depending on the piece, sounds like a mismash. Case by case decision.

Finally, don\'t use sections of instruments to play chords...use the number that would really be playing them ( I know, I know, it can sound cool, but it isn\'t very realistic).

TH

RickD

07-02-2003, 11:02 PM

Originally posted by Duncan Brinsmead:
...
Meter and harmony are frameworks for music. The tension created by pushing away from this framework makes the music expressive. Well said Duncan! This is one of my favorite parts of music, the subtle manipulation of time.

Rick

thesoundsmith

07-02-2003, 11:23 PM

Bassoons are really great for warming up an orchestra Especially on those cold winter nights, when the rehearsal hall is unheated. A pile of burning bassoons warms the room right up! images/icons/grin.gif

(Sorry, Scott! Couldn\'t resist...)

Actually, I\'ve tried this, and find the overtones from bassoon kind of \'metallicize\' the sound-those 3rd and 5th harmonics grate on my ear unless they are deliberate.) What register, compared to the rest of the track? Or, what arde you doubling? Bones, cellos?

Thanks.

And regarding quantizing, I agree never quantize to exact 1/8s, quafrters, what haved you; BUT mostquantize dialogs have options to quantize partially, say 50%, which gets you ighter without metronomic pecision. Also, if you have the offset option, you can shift the part forward or back a few ticks to better align and blend.

Dasher

Alexcremers

07-02-2003, 11:46 PM

Originally posted by Thomas_J:

1) learn to ride the CC11 expression, it\'s your best friend.

C11? Expression? Isn\'t that the same as volume?
Isn\'t the problem with controlling the volume is that the sound doesn\'t change? If you start with a \"p\" dynamic and raise the volume, the sample is still \"p\".

------------
Alex Cremers

composer22

07-02-2003, 11:59 PM

Originally posted by Alexcremers:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Thomas_J:

1) learn to ride the CC11 expression, it\'s your best friend.

C11? Expression? Isn\'t that the same as volume?
Isn\'t the problem with controlling the volume is that the sound doesn\'t change? If you start with a \"p\" dynamic and raise the volume, the sample is still \"p\".

------------
Alex Cremers <hr /></blockquote>The intensity and force of the individual attacks don\'t change. For example, you put more pressure on the bow to get forte, which results in a more forceful sound which you can tell at a low volume.

But, with a mix of volume control and xfading samples can work.

thesoundsmith

07-04-2003, 09:12 AM

Finally, don\'t use sections of instruments to play chords...use the number that would really be playing them That\'s what I loved about my old Jupiter 8. It had an \'omni\' mode where all the oscillators played, and got divided among the notes as you played chords 1 x 8, 2 x 4, 3=3+3+2, etc. I wish there were some way to do this in Giga, with solo instruments (4 trumpets, distinguish with 3 CC worth of filter per voice, 3 cents detune and 1.5 ms delay. now play the track with 1-4 notes and always hear 4 trumpets. oh well, giga 4.0 maybe, in 2050...

Dasher

Anders00

07-05-2003, 07:50 PM

The lower the CC7 volume, the higher the midi resolution gets. Common trick used by James Newton Howard among others I\'m also curious what you mean by this Thomas_J. Do you mean that you can use CC11 Expression with higher resolution?

-Matt

Joanne Babunovic

07-05-2003, 10:27 PM

Hi midphase, thanks for the great thread.

thomas j - can you elaborate on the statement about not letting pianos run the show? And for those who find it virtually impossible to compose the main theme without lead piano, any tips/tricks on how to do that?

Thanks,

Joanne Babunovic

07-05-2003, 11:30 PM

Hi Lee,

Yes, nothing wrong with developing the melody with piano, but I do exactly what you say is bad:
\"blocking in big chordal passages\" throughout the entire piece - it\'s making me nuts. I have no idea how to stop that except to maybe lead off with piano and then force myself to completely stop piano after the lead in and use other instruments to relay what the piano would have done. You\'ve suggested playing \"in line by line\". Can you expand on that?

Thanks,

thesoundsmith

07-05-2003, 11:57 PM

Joanne, I do this for big band style arrangements sometimes, but it\'s pretty easy to overcome - just play the piano chordal part, then add each instrument\'s part individually to map into the (approximate) voice from the piano chord - if you start with the section\'s lead line (which is not necessarily the lead instrument of the section, the highest note could be a harmony above the lead line) and then play in the rest of that section\'s voices, it works pretty well.

Then go back and dump that piano, and play the actual piano part...

I assume this works pretty much the same for orchestra as band.

Dasher

SteveHanlon

07-06-2003, 03:54 AM

Hey, Joanne. I do what you do sometimes but with my guitar. I just want to get the melody/harmony and any passing tone parts in. From that 1 part (which is using guitaristic chord voicings), I create a lead sheet with melody, chords on top (i.e. Fm7, D7, A9#5 etc) and from that lead sheet, I do the single line instrument parts.

Being a jazz guitarist, I just am so used to reading lead sheets as my starting point for composing/improvising. Even if it\'s a woodwind quintet I\'m writing, the lead sheet still work since most music, regardless of style, will have melodic and harmonic foundations.

Maybe that could work for you as well. Use the piano to compose, if that\'s what you\'re used to playing, since it will best capture what your hearing. but the next step is to get away from the piano technique and let the lead sheet/your ear guide the individual lines which will fall within (and outside) of the dictated harmony.

Alexcremers

07-06-2003, 07:00 AM

I too will give away a tip. Assigning a note cutoff on every sample (like you would do with hihats) on certain solo instruments can sometimes create a semi legato effect, especially on rapid notes and runs. I find this to be very effective for Miroslav, AO, and Roland. It certainly rules out those overlaps, in case you don\'t want them.

------------
Alex Cremers

Robert Kral

07-06-2003, 10:46 AM

Re: Thomas J\'s volume advice....

I never play a line into midi without one hand on the midi volume slider (external hardware). (EXCEPT for more recent libraries that have very god modwheel control for layering in which case I then always use that to modulate). As he says : it\'s your best friend. For me, playing midi lines without midi volume controlling it is like playing a real wind instrument without any breath. (Can\'t be done!!).

An initial volume level should be set at the beginning of the sequence or at least before each instrument entry because between different sequences these may need to be, well, different. Your flute will come in at the volume level it was LAST set at, is it too loud, too soft? Maybe it\'s not audible at all, becase at the end of the last sequence you faded it out completely. Rather than go throuh hunting down why you can\'t hear some of your instruments, getused to ALWAYS grabbing the volume slider and adjusting it during the bar before you come in with that instrument.

Volume slider technique ( and I believe this is what Thomas was getting at), is your BIGGEST help for making your sequences more expressive and real. I couln\'t ever go without it, on every instrument. (I do tend to go without spellcheckers on my posts, however).

Re: MELODIES: try to write the melody with the instrument it will end up on. Each of my orchestral sections features a \"lead / scratch pad\" instrument. It may not be the best or most expressive sample: but its the sample that covers most of the bases sonically, that seems to represent the instrument the best, and I write for each section with each of these when it comes to melodies (and chords). If you know the melody will be for horn, play it and compose it, improvise and workshop it, with a horn patch. This way you will hear right away wether what you are writing really sounds right for horn or not. This is an ADVANTAGE to the midi composer over the composers who work with pen, paper and a piano. ITS AN ADVANTAGE! Same goes for strings, flute, etc etc in fact all the instruments.

Put it this way, when writing for percussion you don\'t grab a piano and hammer out a rhythm, trying to imagine it with percussion instruments!! Same goes for the other orchestral sections. Work with the sound it WILL be, and you will WRITE it differently because you are already working with the correct color. (A painter doesn\'t grab red paint for a blue sky, imagine it blue, then paint over it with the color he wanted it to be in the first place!)

Please note, the question was in relation to MELODIES, when you are trying to write a song, or a composition and you are improvising with both left and right hand, chords, harmony and melody all at once, then sure the piano scratch pad can be much easier to deal with.

Re: Trumpets.
Trumpet section samples have been so bad, so weak etc in the past I have avoided writing for them. Dan Dean\'s trumpets are the most powerful (loud) I have heard so far, with VSL coming second for LOUD power. VSL comes first so far for other areas of realism. What I do is layer MANY MANY trumpet section instruments and plau them seperately (dont cut and paste!), and have different VOLUME SLIDER performances on each, deliberately making the volume slider different (slightly) on each. This way you hear the layers, resulting in a realistic texture. Some layers I only fade in and out as part of a crescendo. I might save the loudest, brightest layer for only the end of a phrase that has a crescendo. Layer this with a loud solo trumpet for the louder parts of the phrase (the volume slider is NOT to be use in a subtle way for this: be drastic). Faster notes in the phrase are layered with staccatto trumpets. This is the same for all brass sections, by the way, but Thomas is right: the trumpets have been the most lacking section for power and realistic results so far. Dan Dean trumpet sections and VSL are doing a lot to change that.

Another trick with brass and power, and realism: occasionally layer MUTED solo brass with your melody or phrase. This is a trick often used in acoustic film music recording. It doesn\'t SOUND muted, but adds a lot of bite.

KingIdiot

07-06-2003, 10:57 AM

hmmm

I think what Thomas was getting at was that you set your maximum level with CC7. You do this with all the instruments, set them to the correct level to \"balance\" the orchestra. Basically match them using a tutti performance.

THEN LEAVE IT!!! Use CC11 to do expressive curves. This way your orchestra will always stay in balance. Of course using Xfades is better, but you never know how they balanced their layers. Are they matched to the recordings? by ear? normalized then attenuated?.... etc

About resolution, what happens is since you are using two seperate controllers for volume, you actually are able to get 127x127 values, thus giving you tons more resolution than just using one of the other.

but this really shouldn\'t matter much, what you want is to leave CC7 alone. You also want to use it this way (not reversed) because different MIDI modules respond differently to CC7, or start up with dofferent \"0\" positions. As well its easiest to set these in sequencers global to the whole track.

but yup its your best friend. Any type of expressive/dynamic curve control is. If the lib is programmed well its even more fun to play this type of stuff too images/icons/smile.gif

As for trumepts,

I think SAM will do some major damage.

David Govett

07-06-2003, 01:27 PM

More on harp glissandos.
The advice given earlier is great and perfect for runs of any instrument. However, to take it to the next level, you can do the Garritan Pedal harp technique that we invented. I think there is a version for VSL that I did as well. What we do is use dimenensions and MIDI controllers to stretch the notes of each key up or down a half step, just like a real harp. Move the breath control up or down and all the C notes stretch up or down, move CC 16 and the D notes and so on. This allows you to accurately create glissandos the way the real harp does. The MIDI only method works fine but the repeated notes are just repeated notes of the same string with the same pitch. With the harp pedal method, the repeated notes in the glissando are the same note but different strings stretched up or down just like the real harp. To create this in a harp, you first have to have chromatic mapping. If you are using an older harp like miroslav that stretches some of the notes, you have to run the wizard tool and map every half step. Then you kill all the black notes. Then create a 4 dimension split with all the C notes set to breath for instance, all the D notes to cc16, E to cc17 and so on until you have 7 controllers. Then you change the unity notes up or down to create the pitch changes. I let the middle two dimensions be the default, and the lowest dimension pitch up and highest dimension pitch down a half step. (or vice versa) You can go left to right from C-B or do like the real harp and go D-C-B E-F-G-A and read real harp pedal positions. Thats just a down and dirty explanation. When I have time later this year, I\'ll try to put out a cheap product (Harp Mastery perhaps?) for 20 something bucks that will have articulations and nki and other synth files for all the harps available with c-b and real harp pedal options with a tutorial and charts for all the chords and MIDI files of all the chord settings. Until then, be sure to experiment with these settings.
Have fun
Dave

MikeGraybill

07-06-2003, 01:47 PM

Originally posted by Bruce A. Richardson:
I spent the first 1/3 or so of my career doing everything \"right.\" Every chord was aloof with art-school voicings, every phrase had the perfect little sneer...and if I wrote something from the heart that wasn\'t \"cool\" enough, I\'d strip it down and rid it of that silly sentiment (in favor of some sly turn).

Now when I listen to that stuff I cringe, because in following every rule of being a totally hip musician, I was tragically unhip...disconnected from the reality of flesh and inspiration. Preach on, brother Bruce! I\'m a comp major at an artsy university and while I\'m just about the only one here \"in the know\" with the likes of VSL and what not, this serves to only keep my peers from knocking me too much, distracting them from my actual music because they can\'t belive how good the samples, etc are... If its not an $***ed up mode or built on a 12 tone row then it\'s just sentimental rubbish that couldn\'t possibly stand the test of time.

Without forcing yourself to work within the confines of \"art music,\" (which I like to think of as \"music by numbers\" most of the time) there are probably many lessons that won\'t be learned as well. But unlike my fellow composers in class (almost all of which I respect very much) I believe now that these are only exercises, a method for garnering a bigger toolset, which should ultimatley be used to construct ideas that actually mean something to the writer, rather than being and end unto themselves.

I know I\'m not the only one feeling this, and college seems to be one of the harshest enviornments a composer endures in this regard. Just wanted to chime in and say that Bruce\'s words are wise ones, and highly relevant. (unlike my post so far images/icons/wink.gif )

So here\'s a small tip, tho I\'m sure lots of people here do something like this already:

Template building - take some time to build up a good general template utilizing lite versions of samples, pack as many as you can of the best all encompassing/representative samples into giga. The degree to which you can do this is obviously different for each person depending on how many comps, etc you have, but the idea is to have access to as much of your orchestra as possible at once.

Nothing stiffles my creativity less than having to stop and unload/reload samples while I\'ve got an idea churning around upstairs.

Have other templates that maximize your resources with each section/instrument. For examples, solo strings with every articulation you possess loaded may take all the ram you\'ve got, but make and save that template. Do this for all the instruments.

This helps me write for the actual instrument, as Robert recommends above, with my lighter samples, then when I come to a place mentally where its time to tweak more than write, I can start with a section and load that sections\' full range of articulations and really make it come to life. Render this down and move on to the next instrument group or solo. Reload the templates as necessary (and it probably will be as you\'re fine tuning the orchestra, since the samples will be changing somewhat).

This is just a creative flow tip, but it\'s helped break me away from mostly using general patches and has gotten me to use much more of the libraries\' respective potentials.

Hope this helps someone,
mike

David Govett

07-06-2003, 04:00 PM

Good grief. The profanity censor cuts out the name **** . (as in Richard) How about D i c k Clark? (preview post) There we go. You may now use profanity as long as you put spaces between the f u * # i n g letters. (self censored a bit) I cracked the code!

Anyway, I\'m with Mike. I can\'t stand to work without a full template online. It kills my creativity and saps my energy to go back and load or hunt or reload various sounds, not to mention the potential lack of organization.

The Freeze utilities sound nice and will be great for the \"all in one box\" users but it would simply not work for me. I like everything possible online at once.

My current template is 250 MIDI channels and growing. I created several XL files that chart out my entire studio and one for each computer for each section. (perc, wood, brass, strings etc)

Check out

www.davidgovett.com/charts (\"http://www.davidgovett.com/charts\")

to see a couple example of charts in progress. This is just the perc & harp and studio. There are also huge charts for brass, wood and strings. (strings use like 6 MIDI ports worth)
Everytime I change anything in my template or connections, I change it in the chart. This has saved untold hours of grief and hunting around for things.

So, there is a good tip if can do it. Try to create a huge orchestral template and have everything organized and charted as detailed as you can. Also, at the link above are some images of what it looks like in Logic audio. I use the icons extensively and it really helps. I can zip to any instrument just about instantly because of the icons.

Hope you find it inspirational and useful.
Cheers
Dave

x$$$

07-06-2003, 05:11 PM

Originally posted by David Govett:
So, there is a good tip if can do it. Try to create a huge orchestral template and have everything organized and charted as detailed as you can. Also, at the link above are some images of what it looks like in Logic audio. I use the icons extensively and it really helps. I can zip to any instrument just about instantly because of the icons.

Hope you find it inspirational and useful.
Cheers
Dave Thank you, David! (And thanks to all here for all of these tips...)

God, I just love this forum. images/icons/grin.gif

Joanne Babunovic

07-06-2003, 05:52 PM

Thanks dasher and steveh,

Spent the entire day taking my two-fisted piano cords and mapping strings (violin and cello) and a profound sam horn to each note of the chord. It was painful and it sounded, well, \"different\". This will take lots of work and I needed exactly what you gave, a step by step \"how to\", as this is so foreign. What was interesting is that the same instrument, say violin played like a piano cord sounded better than the chord played with part violin and part cello. What\'s this thing I have for a blending of chords/harmony using the same instrument? Or maybe I simply don\'t know what sounds good.

Bruce,
When I post a demo dripping with clunky piano chords, I\'ll refer to your post explaining, \"it\'s all Bruce\'s fault.\"

Scott Cairns

07-06-2003, 06:17 PM

If I can offer one tip that has helped me as a beginner to orchestration it is the book and cd\'s; The Study of Orchestration by Samuel Adler.

It helps to know what the natural (not sample stretched) range is for each instrument. It also goes so far as to show some exmaples of an instruments \"sweet spot\" E.g; the same piece played up high on a cello may sound a little strained and thin but resonates on the viola beautifully.

The cd\'s have video clips showing you playing techniques like, glissandos, spiccato, flutter tongue, etc, etc.

Some other great techniques are mentioned; for example timpani enforcing a brass part. (and others I cant think of right now!)

The CD\'s have many audio clips that you can listen to. The book will draw your attention to some aspect of the piece and provide a corresponding score to read along.

Regards, Scott.

Bruce A. Richardson

07-06-2003, 11:13 PM

Here\'s my tip.

Remember that a rule is there to help you, and that norms are only that. They exist to tell us what we have done, not what we are doing. The moment a rule or norm stifles a creative impulse, save the impulse and banish the rule!!

If pounding two-fisted piano chords connects you to the creative force, then pound them and be thankful you\'re connected. Do something amazing with it...feature yourself pouring out your guts on the piano, and orchestrate around it. I\'d rather hear an inspired piano performance than a pained orchestral masterpiece. Play to your own strengths.

I spent the first 1/3 or so of my career doing everything \"right.\" Every chord was aloof with art-school voicings, every phrase had the perfect little sneer...and if I wrote something from the heart that wasn\'t \"cool\" enough, I\'d strip it down and rid it of that silly sentiment (in favor of some sly turn).

Now when I listen to that stuff I cringe, because in following every rule of being a totally hip musician, I was tragically unhip...disconnected from the reality of flesh and inspiration. Not coincidentally, this was taking place just as MIDI sequencers were coming out for Apple II, and of course, I was Mr. Sequencer the moment that stuff came out (and my dual floppy Apple IIe rig was the envy of all). Suddenly it was easy to carve and carve and tweak and tweak...

Even though the technology has moved ahead so dramatically, the experience-curve of becoming a producing musician stays pretty much the same. It\'s a product of your inherent musicianship foremost, followed by your acquired skills, and finally, the development of your taste. The technology really doesn\'t help speed a person\'s artistic development. Every person develops these aspects at a different rate and ultimate level.

So Part B of my tip is to always take stock of your total artistic self, and make sure you know what parts of your practice need nurturing. In turn, your overall musicianship gets better, and every aspect of your production life gains perspective. Sometimes a bad-sounding mix isn\'t a mix problem, but an orchestration problem. Sometimes it\'s the opposite. The root of a deficiency in the final product is not always obvious, especially if it\'s your product, and you\'re dog tired and desperately trying to figure out what\'s gone south!!

The only other thing I\'d say is just another angle of the same hint--try very hard to respect what comes into your head and out of your body as art. Listen to yourself, and to the universe. I realize this is probably a little off-topic if we\'re just talking about tricks to make mockups sound better. But nobody really wants to say their art is mocking anything...so I think the deeper question is how to make really significant musical art with samples. So first, acquiring a level of achievement musically--being able to really express complex ideas--is the biggest hurdle. Those matters of taste and of hearing the music full-technicolor in your head come with time. The way to accelerate them is mostly not in the slavish woodshedding and learning of tricks, but in the absorption of life, literature, and art. Learning to paint can make you a better musician. Learning to drum will make you a better trumpet player.

As an exercise, break every rule in this thread...

carlmsmith

07-07-2003, 07:57 AM

TNM

07-07-2003, 08:22 AM

>Originally posted by Scott Cairns: If I can offer one tip that has helped me as a beginner to orchestration it is the book and cd\'s; The Study of Orchestration by Samuel Adler.

Well, I raced right out and found the book and CD on half.com for $238!!!! (granted, I can find the book only for much less).

Anybody know where I can find a used set at $50 U.S. or less??
Carl

That is rediculous - I buy almost all of my books from Borders.com resellers and haven\'t had a complaint yet - the lowest price they have there is $45.74 - I have written the seller an email to be sure it comtains the audio CDs and isn\'t just the book. Borders.com sells the set new for $71.
Tom Martin

midphase

07-07-2003, 08:24 AM

Wow, this thread has really grown quite a bit!

Since we\'re getting into the didactic side of things, I\'d like to offer a little known secret for learning some great things about orchestration and the orchestra in general.

It\'s a video collection by the great Leonard Bernstein for Young People but I found it to be a great resource for anyone interested in orchestration.

Here\'s a link:

Amazon Bernstein Link (\"http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/6304419562/qid=1057590836/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/102-5072041-8427324?v=glance&s=video\")

carlmsmith

07-07-2003, 08:53 AM

Originally posted by TNM:

>That is rediculous - I buy almost all of my books from Borders.com resellers and haven\'t had a complaint yet - the lowest price they have there is $45.74 - I have written the seller an email to be sure it comtains the audio CDs and isn\'t just the book. Borders.com sells the set new for $71.
Tom Martin

Thanks for the tip, Tom! Guess I didn\'t expect anyone to undersell half.com. I will place an order immediately as soon as they reply positively to my own query. Thanks again.
Carl

David Govett

07-07-2003, 11:34 PM

Last but not least, the hands down best thing you can do to learn orchestration is to actually play in a live orchestra. One advantage the band\\orch geeks like me have is that we got to start in 6th grade and watch everybody learn their instruments and got a real good feel of how they sound and work. You get to see how horrible the oboe sounds when the 2 kids that are crazy enough to take it on start playing it. It sounds absolutely horrible. Its an ugly duckling big time. You would never know what a beautiful sound it can produce when you first hear the beginners learning it. Same for strings of course. It gives you a sacred respect for a good sample library. The library litterally represents many lifetimes of dedication and practice and very expensive instruments to boot. A good harp costs at least 25,000. First chair violins can run into 6 and 7 figures. So, the libraries prices actually seem reasonable in that light. At the very least, see if you can sit in on some rehearsals of any sort of orchestra or band that you can. Even a volunteer civic orchestra or church orchestra will be nice to check out during rehearsal. Concerts are nice but try to go behind the scenes if possible or join a group if you play an instrument.
Later
Dave