# DAW or notation first



## ptram (Jan 13, 2018)

Each composer seems to have his preferred workflow, starting either with a DAW or a notation program. I fear my workflow is going to be even more complicate.

1. Compose in a DAW with all the available sounds. Make the most realistic-sounding piece without thinking to what you would do with real instruments. Create a piece for your virtual orchestra.

2. When the piece sounds great, export a Music XML file and load it into a notation program. Transcribe the piece you composed into an actual score, something real musicians would be able to play.

3. When the score looks great and ready for publishing, export it to a DAW, and make it a great sounding piece, exactly as you would do by making a mock-up of a classic piece.

An incredibly long work. But it seems technology is not meant to help us do it faster.

Paolo


----------



## jhughes (Jan 13, 2018)

This is why I now limit attempts at DAW composed pieces. When I write I want to focus on the writing and not all the other stuff...Not to mention my string library cannot play in time so anything exported is notated wrong due to the delay. I write it on paper or directly into Finale first. 
Many people use the workflow you describe successfully, all it makes me want to do is pull my hair out. I would say the more sound effects you use the more it would make sense.


----------



## CT (Jan 13, 2018)

I started out as a pencil and paper person, and had assumed that was it for me. How could I ever stay focused and maintain control over what I was doing any other way? Fortunately, I wised up and realized that composing in real time, basically one part at a time, at the DAW, is a much better choice for me in almost every respect. 

If I need a score, I simply make one after the fact. Logic isn't *awful* about notation, but if it's truly unsalvageable, it doesn't take that long for me to just transcribe it by hand.


----------



## jmauz (Jan 13, 2018)

This process wouldn't be necessary if you spent a small amount of time learning some basic information about each instrument you're using. For example, if you know each instrument's range and a little about what's technically possible then each part should translate into things that can be performed by humans.


----------



## CT (Jan 13, 2018)

Agreed. It's just my meaningless opinion, but I think anyone working with orchestral VI's owes it to themselves to learn at least the rudiments of orchestration, even if they intend to throw it all out the window after.


----------



## Rodney Money (Jan 13, 2018)

Depends on who I am writing for: if it's for media, then straight to the DAW, and for live players, straight to notation knowing that the live version will sound better than a DAW rendition.


----------



## Piano Pete (Jan 13, 2018)

At this point, even if I am composing for the concert hall, I'll still put in my notes via a DAW and import the midi into Finale. I wish the notation programs would get with the times regarding a lot of things, especially input.


----------



## Rodney Money (Jan 13, 2018)

Piano Pete said:


> At this point, even if I am composing for the concert hall, I'll still put in my notes via a DAW and import the midi into Finale. I wish the notation programs would get with the times regarding a lot of things, especially input.


Do you mean sound quality or input if notes?


----------



## Piano Pete (Jan 13, 2018)

Inputting notes. I have saved a lot of time by doing my "input" via the DAW and tweaking it after importing into Finale. This method may not be for everyone.


----------



## Rodney Money (Jan 13, 2018)

Piano Pete said:


> Inputting notes. I have saved a lot of time by doing my "input" via the DAW and tweaking it after importing into Finale. This method may not be for everyone.


Since the 90's I've simply used Finale's hyperscribe for inputting playing it in.


----------



## holing (Jan 13, 2018)

I used to do notation first before I put it into DAW, because I tend to be more imaginative when I see them on paper and imagine the sound in my head instead of hearing the MIDI. But it takes a much longer time to do that. So now I'd just do the voicing sketch on paper and put it into my DAW directly.


----------



## angeruroth (Jan 13, 2018)

Years ago I used to write in a notation software and play there. Not the best sound, but it was cool to use a PC for this, and the hability to change everything with a few clicks, trying weird things, was inspiring.
Then I got a DAW, and libraries, and I started exporting from the notation software to the DAW, but that was very frustrating. Things lost in the process, things to add, a not much better result unless changing everything...
Now I only use the DAW, but sometimes I miss the feeling of writing notes instead of painting lines.
IMHO the tools you use to create the music (DAW, notation software, paper, piano... whatever) change what you make, not only how you do it.


----------



## ptram (Jan 14, 2018)

Thank you everybody for the very interesting insights. I think I feel very much like angeruroth, in missing the immediacy of writing in notation, and not being satisfied by the bad sound rendition of notation software. When writing straight to the score, I prefer to turn the audio preview off, to avoid being mislead by what I hear (that is never what I imagine).

Logic still misses any association between notation symbols and audio. Write a dot on a note, and it will simply ignore it. Microtuning alterations are totally missing. What looks like an easy task for a powerhouse of a program, is not even imagined. And it seems like notation is conceived for the most basic pop scores, than for even something for classical music of centuries ago.



jmauz said:


> This process wouldn't be necessary if you spent a small amount of time learning some basic information about each instrument you're using.



Or, it wouldn't be as easy, since this kind of issue is usually solved by composers in their early youth (in my case, when I wrote my first orchestral piece at 14). Now that we know something about instruments range, we have to deal with things like this:


----------



## jamieboo (Jan 14, 2018)

My process is probably foolish.
I input note by note via mouse in the Cubase Score Editor.
So notation, but within the DAW.


----------



## ptram (Jan 14, 2018)

Jamie, aren't you giving up to the best of a DAW, that is the ability of playing your music as it should sound? Are you following an hybrid procedure, with further work done on the raw notes to make them sound more real?

Paolo


----------



## jamieboo (Jan 14, 2018)

I tweak a bit to randomise - to make it less 'on grid' etc. And of course play with velocities and CCs.


----------



## ptram (Jan 14, 2018)

I wonder if what you do in the Score page of a DAW couldn't be done in a notation program. For example, velocity values and CC data could be automated via expression marks and hairpins (even hidden ones, for the most subtle dynamic changes).

What I wouldn't be able to do is giving life to the phrase. I feel that it is not just a matter of randomization. There is some other arcane quality in live playing, that is not limited to a slightly delayed or anticipated attack. I've never been able to understand it, despite the many texts read on lab performance analysis.

Paolo


----------



## jamieboo (Jan 14, 2018)

You are absolutely right - I find this very interesting!
For I have noticed that if my composition process involves playing something on the keyboard, although it may result in a more living performance it is simply not as good musically. If there is a keyboard in my process then my output becomes slightly limited to keyboard based conceptions. The composition flows relative to a mental image of a keyboard - not to mention those shapes my hands are comfortable with.
This doesn't happen if it goes simply from my mind to the page. It feels less limited. As though it is avoiding a reductive lens.
I know it's probably silly but I will happily sacrifice a bit of performance fidelity for the sake of improved compositional quality.
But I would never recommend my approach to ANYONE!


----------



## angeruroth (Jan 14, 2018)

Wow, Jamie, I'm amazed. I tried that (it was one of my reasons to pick Cubase) but I just couldn't work with that editor.
Now I use the piano roll or the Yamaha, but I'll give that another try.
ptram, yes, the sheet editor works like any notation program, and it's integrated with expression maps, so the idea is not bad (everything in the same software).
IMHO, the trick when not playing the keyboard is to listen the result carefully (the selected patches sound) and change the notes ignoring the ruler. It also helps using tiny randomizations with layering, and paying parts with the piano so it feels less machine made.


----------



## robgb (Jan 14, 2018)

DAW only. I don't read.


----------



## Rob (Jan 14, 2018)

hybrid mode here, between improvising at the keyboard and writing on paper/finale... but my very first tool for composing is imagination. I try to imagine the mood, pace, colors, dynamics, melodies, instrumentation etc before even touching the keyboard or page.


----------



## joebaggan (Jan 14, 2018)

robgb said:


> DAW only. I don't read.



For any composer that ever hopes to have live musicians play their music, then reading and writing notation is a basic essential skill.


----------



## Vik (Jan 14, 2018)

ptram said:


> Microtuning alterations are totally missing. What looks like an easy task for a powerhouse of a program, is not even imagined.


Logic actually has a number of microtuning options. 





Which notation program would you use if you should do all the work there?

I'm asking because I have started to use Dorico, and while it'a going to be a very good program, it misses many basic functions: real time MIDI recording, there's no proper control of automation, tempo maps, beat mapping /time warping and other functions which can be very useful to composers - depending on how they compose, of course.

Paper and pencil is also quite useful. But at the moment, composing in a DAW which has at least some notation capabilities and exporting the piece later to a good notation program could be the best idea.


----------



## robgb (Jan 14, 2018)

joebaggan said:


> For any composer that ever hopes to have live musicians play their music, then reading and writing notation is a basic essential skill.


Or hiring someone who can read and write notation to do the math. Worked great for Elfman, Berlin and Bart.


----------



## ptram (Jan 14, 2018)

VIk,



Vik said:


> Logic actually has a number of microtuning options.



I suspect I have a language issue, here. I was trying to refer to the use of quarter tone and microtonal alterations in a score. Something that has become quite common in some contemporary music, in particular after the spectral music movement.

Logic does not even have the needed symbols. Sibelius, for example, has them as commonly used symbols in the keypad.

I don't have a program that can do everything. I dream of a hybrid between Sibelius 6 and Logic Pro X. But I fear that Sibelius development will only move toward the need of kids at school, and Logic will only go toward the needs of the next wave of hip-grunge music.

Paolo


----------



## joebaggan (Jan 14, 2018)

robgb said:


> Or hiring someone who can read and write notation to do the math. Worked great for Elfman, Berlin and Bart.



Sure, you can hire anyone to do anything, to create your DAW project for you or even write your music. But having a rudimentary music foundation will give you a lot more control over your work.


----------



## robgb (Jan 14, 2018)

joebaggan said:


> Sure, you can hire anyone to do anything, to create your DAW project for you or even write your music. But having a rudimentary music foundation will give you a lot more control over your work.


It's quite possible to have a music foundation without understanding the math. There are plenty of examples out there. Maybe McCartney should hire someone to write his music, since he couldn't read? The statement is ridiculous. I'm not saying that being able to read is a bad thing. I'm simply saying it isn't an absolutely necessary thing. And the control over the work is your ears. Or maybe we should learn to play all the instruments in the orchestra so we have more control over our work... Different strokes for different folks.


----------



## Jeremy Spencer (Jan 15, 2018)

robgb said:


> It's quite possible to have a music foundation without understanding the math. There are plenty of examples out there. Maybe McCartney should hire someone to write his music, since he couldn't read? The statement is ridiculous. I'm not saying that being able to read is a bad thing. I'm simply saying it isn't an absolutely necessary thing. And the control over the work is your ears. Or maybe we should learn to play all the instruments in the orchestra so we have more control over our work... Different strokes for different folks.



I agree. I'm currently taking formal piano lessons, and it has definitely helped my playing skills and music theory. However, I will probably never be a notation-type composer (nor do I really want to). I have had to provide various scores occasionally, but for those situations I simply hired someone and it was quick and painless.


----------



## dcoscina (Jan 15, 2018)

I just started a piece in Cubase using MA3 and some other OT products but I'm finding it exceedingly difficult to develop the piece with Cubase 9 (as good as it is- section changes aren't its forte- DP is much better at handling this stuff). Because I'm composing this movement in a style similar to Shostakovich, playing stuff in is really not feasible so I'm continuing to develop using Sibelius.


----------



## ptram (Apr 28, 2018)

I have a memorable statement for the world!

"Writing music in a notation software is like writing a screenplay, with all the instructions needed to create the play as it should. You can't hear your voice, but you can figure all the voices of the perspective actors.

Composing at the DAW is like improvising your new play to the tape with your voice. It's more natural, but either you are immediately perfect, or you have to find a way to annotate things to be perfected or performed otherwise later".

Paolo


----------



## MatFluor (Apr 29, 2018)

I have two workflows:

Unimaginative? Directly into DAW and try out stuff. Maybe a melody played with the Solo Trumpet would trigger my creative juices?

A clear plan at hand: Notation sketch. I don't write out every part, part a two-4 staff sketch is 90% enough. That way I have harmonic control, see how the lines interact with each other.
Then I simply play the lines in as annotated (e.g. top line is Vn I + Fl 8va) - good notes are key.

That all said - currently I find my self working far more directly inside the DAW then on paper/Sibelius. But that might be more because I'm doing some synth-heavy done/atmosphere stuff - notation is not the right choice there.


----------



## KEM (Apr 29, 2018)

robgb said:


> DAW only. I don't read.



Same, I don’t mess with all of that sheet music nonsense haha, I’ll leave that to more capable people...


----------



## Saxer (Apr 29, 2018)

There are styles which can't be realized without notation. At least I never ever heard any example. DAW-only arrangements always provide some kind of problems when translating to real players. It's more than calling it 'the math' of notation. Orchestras consists of mostly monophonic lines and people behind their instruments performing it.
The art of orchestration is to give every player a useful part in itself. DAW-arrangements mostly don't give a shit who plays what. Chords vary from two to eight voices that has to be played by i.e. four players in the orchestra (if it's for example played by 'low woodwinds'). If you just write it down you have to switch between four orchestras and a half to translate that. And none of them get a proper line from start to end of this part.
The other thing is to have musical lines inside of 'pads'. Any chord change is a chance to give a beautiful line with tension and release to any of the chord voices. Each finger on the keyboard playing a chord is a living person in the orchestra. It sounds always bad if a line starts and ends somewhere without a musical reason. In DAW only compositions it happens all the time.
You can avoid those problems by using monophonic sounds only and have a clean 'one track per instrument' DAW layout. But composing monophonic lines without a plan who plays what is practically impossible. You have to write that down. And that's what notation is.
I'd compare it to a screen play. No one would seriously try to become an analphabet screenwriter. Yes, you can record your voice into your phone and let Siri interpret your text and print that out. But the end result is more or less a laughing stock. The writing itself is part of the mental organizing of the whole process.

I don't want to say it's impossible to create music in the DAW without notation. I do that all the time. There are even styles that work better in a DAW than with a live orchestra (like some kinds of textures, rhythmical stuff, sequenced parts, stacking libraries, all production related elements). But that is not orchestral music even if it uses samples of orchestral instruments.
What orchestrators do is mostly listening to a DAW track, write down the essential elements and start to arrange it from the ground up. They mostly don't use any of the midi tracks. In most cases they would write the same or at least very similar stuff if they just get a piano sketch with some markings (strings there, woodwinds here...).


----------



## CT (Apr 29, 2018)

Saxer said:


> You can avoid those problems by using monophonic sounds only and have a clean 'one track per instrument' DAW layout. But composing monophonic lines without a plan who plays what is practically impossible. You have to write that down. And that's what notation is.



I have to disagree with this. There's a huge learning curve to it, coming from previously relying on notation, but I believe it's entirely possible. With enough forethought and focus, you can write any type of music "live." I don't know how well that can be done if you don't have the experience with notation to build off of, though.


----------



## Divico (Apr 29, 2018)

I used to be DAW only. Now I started to write things down in Musescore. For me it´s way easier to understand what Im doing theorywise. Also way easier if it comes to orchestration. Also I think its useful to have written down everything including dynamics and to perform afterwards.


----------



## Replicant (Apr 29, 2018)

I always used to do notation first because that's how I started, but now I've come to realize the DAW is generally superior.

Reason has to do with MIDI. With ghost notes and such it's way easier to see how the part writing/counterpoint is turning out and easier to spot problems; At least, it is for me.

Still start with a piano sketch, tho.



Saxer said:


> The other thing is to have musical lines inside of 'pads'. Any chord change is a chance to give a beautiful line with tension and release to any of the chord voices. Each finger on the keyboard playing a chord is a living person in the orchestra. It sounds always bad if a line starts and ends somewhere without a musical reason. In DAW only compositions it happens all the time.
> You can avoid those problems by using monophonic sounds only and have a clean 'one track per instrument' DAW layout. But composing monophonic lines without a plan who plays what is practically impossible. You have to write that down. And that's what notation is.



I really can't agree with that. Not saying the issue you're referring to isn't a reality, but I don't think it's a result of DAWs; it's a result of not knowing what you're doing and notation isn't going to fix that.



Saxer said:


> Each finger on the keyboard playing a chord is a living person in the orchestra.



Right, but whether those fingers are notated as traditional notation or directly to lines of MIDI, doesn't really make a difference in how good the composition turns out.

We can argue until we're blue in the face about the pros and cons of particular methods, but it's not really about the tools — it's about the person using them.


----------



## JohnG (Apr 29, 2018)

Replicant said:


> We can argue until we're blue in the face about the pros and cons of particular methods, but it's not really about the tools — it's about the person using them.



Yep.

My background is in orchestration and all that, so when I use electronics I am always thinking about whether the part is playable or not, even when I don't know how many players I'm getting or even if I won't have any.

Mind you, it's nice to write for six trumpets on the DAW if that's what you feel like. Doing that right now...


----------



## trumpoz (Apr 30, 2018)

Rodney Money said:


> Depends on who I am writing for: if it's for media, then straight to the DAW, and for live players, straight to notation knowing that the live version will sound better than a DAW rendition.


I'm with Rodney on this. There is plenty that I write for live players and publication so it is logical to go in to Sibelius. I have NotePerformer and that gives a good enough rendering for demo purposes. If it is a big band chart I'll write in Sibelius and then do a quick render in Cubase whilst recording the trumpet parts live. 

For anything media related it is straight in to Cubase.


----------



## Rodney Money (Apr 30, 2018)

trumpoz said:


> I'm with Rodney on this. There is plenty that I write for live players and publication so it is logical to go in to Sibelius. I have NotePerformer and that gives a good enough rendering for demo purposes. If it is a big band chart I'll write in Sibelius and then do a quick render in Cubase whilst recording the trumpet parts live.
> 
> For anything media related it is straight in to Cubase.


Good to see you again, my friend.


----------



## fixxer49 (May 1, 2018)

Rob said:


> hybrid mode here, between improvising at the keyboard and writing on paper/finale... but my very first tool for composing is imagination. I try to imagine the mood, pace, colors, dynamics, melodies, instrumentation etc before even touching the keyboard or page.


+1. I’m always _thinking_ in notation, even if I’m working 100% in DAW. Sometimes it’s good for me to get away from the computer screens, and work out parts on paper. Sometimes its just good to get away from computer screens, period.


----------



## ism (May 1, 2018)

I recently entered the midi data from paper into notion iOS - the apple pencil + the handwriting recognition are reasonably good actually. From there I exported the midi to logic. 

I had initially tried to write using the Logic score editor + the apple pencil and duet to use the iPad as a second screen, but that was a terrible experience. Would be nice if logic remove could integrate the score editor /w proper ui for the pencil.

Still not sure I've settled on a workflow here, but some interesting ideas here.


----------



## d.healey (May 1, 2018)

ism said:


> still not sure I've settled on a workflow here, but some interesting ideas here.


Sounds like you could speed things up by eliminating the paper stage since you're writing out the notation twice.


----------



## ism (May 1, 2018)

d.healey said:


> Sounds like you could speed things up by eliminating the paper stage since you're writing out the notation twice.



As I say, I'd really not settled on a workflow at all. But there is a fluidity to working on paper that I just feel in any notation software. Notion ios has the most fluid data entry, but it lacks even some of the most basic functions that you get in a daw. 

And it face it's more complex that that. Recently I've been sketching in Logic - kind of like a first pass with a water colour brush to get some of the large scale structures and textures - for instance how would you even notate a sound like the Olafur Arnalds Chamber evo #15, much less compose for it on paper - and then shift to paper to work our finer details. 

I keep looking for a 'best of both worlds' solution, and just don't see it. Despite some promising development recently, I'm not sure we're much closer that 20 years ago.


----------



## d.healey (May 1, 2018)

ism said:


> But there is a fluidity to working on paper that I just feel in any notation software.


I 100% agree with you, paper is so much faster too.


----------



## ghandizilla (May 2, 2018)

I switched to piano -> paper -> DAW (instead of raw DAW) about five months ago, which led me to have a better picture of what I aim to do, so my work is more understandable. It's still messy, but it's not a total mess like when I inputed the score directly on the DAW.

But when I say piano, it's just a one-handed line I harmonize in a second time (I'm never out of harmonization ideas, and this two-times work on the piano lets me think of a harmonic structure/disambiguation). When I say paper, it doesn't mean notation. It means I literally write on an A4 blank page things like (just copying verbatim the latest one) :
"[7]
Line : tpt 3b 6b + vlns1 8a + flute (acce.) 16a
2nd line : [blank]
Chords : tbns + vlcs
Accom. : hp + vlas
Bass : tuba + timp (acce.)"
And I stick to that.

Mike Verta literally draws lines on blank conductors. Alain Mayrand does 4-staves short scores. I tested both approaches and came up with this system I found was faster.

I thought at first playing the lines on piano would take time, but in the end, I gained time since I don't lose hours tryings to get lines half-randomly on the piano roll.

I also thought at first the shore scores would take time, but in the end, it avoids some over-orchestration stuff that is overwhelming and takes time.


----------



## trumpoz (May 6, 2018)

Rodney Money said:


> Good to see you again, my friend.


I'm around - we've come across each other on Facebook: Trumpets, Tumpeters, Trumpeting. Initials RL - a photo of me with a silver strad and an old guy next to me!


----------



## Rodney Money (May 6, 2018)

trumpoz said:


> I'm around - we've come across each other on Facebook: Trumpets, Tumpeters, Trumpeting. Initials RL - a photo of me with a silver strad and an old guy next to me!


Ah! Found ya, lol. Plus, we have a mutual friend that is very dear to my heart. We went to college together majoring in music at the very same time.


----------



## trumpoz (May 6, 2018)

Fantastic Rodney - a lovely person and fine musician. Has landed a VERY nice teaching job recently. I was sad to lose such a good person and brass teacher.


----------



## Steve_Karl (May 7, 2018)

I think maybe seeing the title of this thread sent me back to paper and pencil a few weeks ago.
I'm getting better and faster at it again and enjoying not having to boot up a PC to capture ideas.


----------



## marclawsonmusic (Dec 27, 2018)

Sorry to re-open an old thread, but for those who do 'notation first' (for orchestral music), how successful have you been exporting MIDI and loading into the DAW for final production?

I am finding that getting a score to 'sound right' in Sibelius (w/ Note Performer) takes enough time on its own - dynamics, articulations, hairpins, etc. And of course the MIDI output is perfectly quantized and robotic when loaded into a DAW... So you have to repeat the whole process of getting a good performance. Ugh.

I feel that if I could orchestrate inside the DAW, that would be the holy grail... but I am finding that difficult. Working in a reduced score in Sibelius is easier for me even though pen-and-paper is not my background. I just can't find a better way to do good part-writing and voice leading.

Has anyone else struggled with this and found a solution? As an example, I have seen that John Powell takes a MIDI piano performance and drops into Logic where he does orchestration from there. I have tried this approach with some success but feel that I sometimes miss the details. Thoughts?


----------



## d.healey (Dec 27, 2018)

There is no shortcut, taking the output of a score editor and putting it in a DAW with some nice sample libraries is only a small percentage of the work. If you want a realistic mockup you either need to spend many hours/days/weeks tweaking the MIDI data in the piano roll or you need to play it in (and spend possibly less time tweaking).

Alternatively you could hire someone else to make the mockup for you or record it with real musicians if you can.


----------



## marclawsonmusic (Dec 27, 2018)

d.healey said:


> There is no shortcut, taking the output of a score editor and putting it in a DAW with some nice sample libraries is only a small percentage of the work. If you want a realistic mockup you either need to spend many hours/days/weeks tweaking the MIDI data in the piano roll or you need to play it in (and spend possibly less time tweaking).
> 
> Alternatively you could hire someone else to make the mockup for you or record it with real musicians if you can.


Thank you, David. I pretty much knew the answer to this question, but it does help to hear someone else say it. I'm not crazy after all.


----------



## T-LeffoH (Dec 27, 2018)

marclawsonmusic said:


> Thank you, David. I pretty much knew the answer to this question, but it does help to hear someone else say it. I'm not crazy after all.



In the end, doesn't the answer to your question really just depend on the practical application of what you're doing? I agree there is no real shortcut to writing but isn't the use case what dictates how you might go about the work?

For example, I personally prefer writing in a DAW environment but, generally, I wouldn't take the time to flesh out an elaborate DAW mockup if the end product was a piece of music intended for say...a marching band performance, as it would just eat up time with work in one environment inevitably needing to be ported over to another. I would just draft the majority of it in notation software.

However, if I'm working on a piece of production music I would focus my time in a DAW and not notation software. I would only take the time to develop a manuscript in certain circumstances.

From the former business analyst side of my professional experience, I tend to think the underlying technique remains the same - just how efficiently one chooses to use the tools at your disposal is what might logically dictate the process.


----------



## marclawsonmusic (Dec 27, 2018)

T-LeffoH said:


> In the end, doesn't the answer to your question really just depend on the practical application of what you're doing? I agree there is no real shortcut to writing but isn't the use case what dictates how you might go about the work?



Yes, it depends on the output. But if the goal is a nice orchestral mockup rendered in the DAW with quality samples, there is no choice but to carefully craft the performance of each part / instrument. Importing MIDI from notation software might be a good starting point, but in the end, I think you run the risk of getting a robotic sounding mockup if you go this route.

When writing orchestral music, I find that notation software is helpful in working out parts - e.g. making sure the brass choir has good voice leading. For me, this is more challenging to do in the DAW because each instrument can have multiple articulations (e.g. longs, shorts, legatos, marcatos, etc.). So, figuring out your brass voices when you have the choir distributed across 50 MIDI tracks can get cumbersome. In notation software, you would only be working with 2 or 3 staves.

Maybe one solution is to use ensemble patches to sketch out parts (and voice leading) in the DAW. Once that's right, you can distribute the parts to various instruments / articulations. Hmmm... I should experiment with that a bit.


----------



## jbuhler (Dec 27, 2018)

marclawsonmusic said:


> Maybe one solution is to use ensemble patches to sketch out parts (and voice leading) in the DAW. Once that's right, you can distribute the parts to various instruments / articulations. Hmmm... I should experiment with that a bit


Though I was trained exclusively on pen and paper, this is how I usually work these days and, for better or worse, only rarely pass through notation even when doing intricate counterpoint.


----------



## T-LeffoH (Dec 27, 2018)

marclawsonmusic said:


> When writing orchestral music, I find that notation software is helpful in working out parts - e.g. making sure the brass choir has good voice leading. For me, this is more challenging to do in the DAW because each instrument can have multiple articulations (e.g. longs, shorts, legatos, marcatos, etc.). So, figuring out your brass voices when you have the choir distributed across 50 MIDI tracks can get cumbersome. In notation software, you would only be working with 2 or 3 staves.
> 
> Maybe one solution is to use ensemble patches to sketch out parts (and voice leading) in the DAW. Once that's right, you can distribute the parts to various instruments / articulations. Hmmm... I should experiment with that a bit.



In my DAW session I tend to have a generic ensemble patch for every orchestral section and will sometimes sketch out in there before porting over to other tracks.

Or more often I'll just program in more intricate parts subsection by subsection with a filtered MIDI graphic view open on one of my displays of whatever subsection I'm working at the given moment (i.e. strings or winds or brass or other), so I can see the voicing of the parts in a wholistic view as I'm building out a passage, separate from my editing window. For me, this view tends to be all-encompassing of all articulations as I'm filtering on all strings tracks or all brass tracks, etc. So am still able to see everything together.


----------



## marclawsonmusic (Dec 27, 2018)

T-LeffoH said:


> In my DAW session I tend to have a generic ensemble patch for every orchestral section and will sometimes sketch out in there before porting over to other tracks.
> 
> Or more often I'll just program in more intricate parts subsection by subsection with a filtered MIDI graphic view open on one of my displays of whatever subsection I'm working at the given moment (i.e. strings or winds or brass or other), so I can see the voicing of the parts in a wholistic view as I'm building out a passage, separate from my editing window. For me, this view tends to be all-encompassing of all articulations as I'm filtering on all strings tracks or all brass tracks, etc. So am still able to see everything together.



This is very helpful. Thank you!


----------



## CT (Dec 27, 2018)

I feel like this is relevant:

https://vi-control.net/community/th...is-obviously-be-a-standard-daw-feature.77363/


----------



## T-LeffoH (Dec 27, 2018)

marclawsonmusic said:


> This is very helpful. Thank you!



You're welcome!


----------

