# Using Sibelius & Garritan Libraries to Compose/Orchestrate BEFORE Moving to the Sequencer



## Moderato Maestoso (Jun 5, 2013)

Hi guys,

I'm interested in changing my orchestration/sequencing (and soon to be composing too) workflow, which I feel is very disjointed at the moment. I'm currently doing everything at the same time, which means I seem to be getting bogged down with the minutiae of sequencing, and losing any creative "flow" composing and orchestrating.

So, I'm thinking about doing the first two stages using Sibelius in conjunction with several of the Garritan libraries (GPO etc.). This will also give me the benefit of being able to work on my laptop away from my main desk (which is going to be very useful in my situation, because I need to spend quite a lot of time away from my home studio for medical treatment).

Opinions on this workflow and thoughts on the validity of the approach by people who have already done this are very welcome! I know I will need to be careful not to orchestrate to the strengths/weaknesses of the Garritan libraries, but it has to be an awful lot better than listening to the GM sounds of my laptop :D 

Cheers,

Martin


----------



## Vlzmusic (Jun 5, 2013)

Good idea if you plan working "outside" a lot,

BUT, my vote definitely goes for Notion. Last time I have seen, it sells for peanuts, and its a great notation/sequencing hybrid, with xml/midi export as well. Some decent sounds as well - and most important, lots of articulations which get triggered from notation.

Have some examples to share if you interested.


----------



## windshore (Jun 5, 2013)

Think you will find you're better off using Sib sounds or QT sounds in the composition/ orchestration stage. Using an outside lib with Sib is very inefficient. (not-friendly)

Yes, this is a great workflow depending on what you're final product will be. For pieces that will be recorded by real players, great. If you are simply starting in Sib to write something that will later be sequenced in Logic or something else, it's going to depend on the type of material.

I find composing in Sib is wonderful for more complex material. Parts that need to be carefully harmonized and have counterlines etc. - great. 
If the piece is more rhythmically based or ambient, then I find it much better to start in the DAW.


----------



## JJP (Jun 5, 2013)

windshore @ Wed Jun 05 said:


> I find composing in Sib is wonderful for more complex material. Parts that need to be carefully harmonized and have counterlines etc. - great.
> If the piece is more rhythmically based or ambient, then I find it much better to start in the DAW.


+1 for this except that I use Finale or good ol' pencil and paper.


----------



## rgames (Jun 5, 2013)

For me, if it's destined for live players then I usually start in the notation program (I use Finale). If it's straight to virtual instruments then I usually start in the sequencer (I use Cubase).

It takes a lot of extra time to sequence the output from a notation file so if it's not for live players then I'd say just start in the sequencer.

I disagree that GPO is better than synth sounds. At best it's about equivalent. I use it only because it's built in to Finale (it sounds terrible compared to other orchestral libraries). However, you're not using your notation program for realistic mockups so whether it's GPO or synth instruments really shouldn't matter. It's just there for convenience, not because it sounds good.

From another post - here's a recent work in progress that I just started sequencing from a Finale score (intro only, no perc added yet):

[flash width=450 height=110 loop=false]http://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http%3A%2F%2Fapi.soundcloud.com%2Ftracks%2F95024389&secret_url=false[/flash]

Here's the sketch score: http://www.rgamesmusic.com/clients/Temp/CatalinaFanfare_Intro_WIP_NoPerc.pdf (Catalina Fanfare - Work In Progress - No Perc)

rgames


----------



## ed buller (Jun 5, 2013)

i really like this way of working. I start off with a three stave piano in Sibelius. Then cut and paste into three more grand staves for woodwind , brass , strings using the symphobia sound sets http://www.soundsetproject.com/soundsets/projectsam/. Then export as midi into cubase to make it sound good. 



e


----------



## wst3 (Jun 5, 2013)

I most often start out with a simple piano staff, then add staves for the sections I need. I too use Finale, I'm OK with the GPO sounds, but the point about not orchestrating to their strengths and weaknesses is a good one.

At one point I was using Kontakt for playback in Finale, but that ended up being a distraction, so I stopped.

My rule of thumb is to try to make the transition between MIDI event and standard notation only once, but sometimes you have to make the return trip<G>!

It is worth it - I can think about the composition and harmony much more clearly in Finale, I can think about the arrangement and mix more easily in Sonar or StudioOne.

Different tools for different tasks.


----------



## Tatiana Gordeeva (Jun 5, 2013)

My vote also goes to Notion as a great notation/sequencer that comes with good sounds for about $100. There's even an iPad version which is not bad at all. You can import from and export to MusicXML and MIDI. Also supports GPO, VSL SE, EWQL SO and others at teh articulation level directly from your score.


----------



## Moderato Maestoso (Jun 6, 2013)

Wow! Thanks everyone. Very interesting replies there.



windshore @ Wed Jun 05 said:


> I find composing in Sib is wonderful for more complex material. Parts that need to be carefully harmonized and have counterlines etc. - great.
> If the piece is more rhythmically based or ambient, then I find it much better to start in the DAW.



Good point. For synthy stuff and rhythms I would probably continue to go straight to the DAW, but if I was doing any orchestral stuff to mix with that I'd be tempted to do THAT in a notation program.

Some real recommendations for Notion there! I've never used it, but I'll definitely have a look at it. I come from a Sib background - doing charts for theatre shows for years, I'm pretty speedy on Sib now, especially with a USB keypad under the fingers of my left hand.

(Although, it may be a good idea to learn a new program given that Avid has sacked the UK-based Sib development team, so there is something of a question mark over its future!)



rgames @ Wed Jun 05 said:


> I disagree that GPO is better than synth sounds. At best it's about equivalent. I use it only because it's built in to Finale (it sounds terrible compared to other orchestral libraries).



Agreed it sounds pretty awful, but at least I can load more than one instance of GPO and have more than 16 instruments playing - Sib by default loads separate sounds for each string line, so 16 channels are quickly used up!

Cheers,

M


----------



## Moderato Maestoso (Jun 6, 2013)

rgames @ Wed Jun 05 said:


> From another post - here's a recent work in progress that I just started sequencing from a Finale score (intro only, no perc added yet



I love the style! Sounds awesome.




rgames @ Wed Jun 05 said:


> It takes a lot of extra time to sequence the output from a notation file so if it's not for live players then I'd say just start in the sequencer.



I don't think I'd ever use a MIDI export as the basis for a sequence. I'd probably print each part and play it in the way I would if I were starting straight in the sequencer.

My problem with cutting the notation phase out as I said is that I get very bogged down in the technical side of things, which does tend to stop me in my tracks creatively speaking... I'm trying to separate the phases of work.

Also, while I'm learning and putting together a portfolio (rather than working to deadlines), notating everything mentally *implies* that it will be played by a live orchestra, which is after all what most of us want to aim for. I'm sure a majority would rather be on the podium conducting musicians than messing about with CCs #1 and #11 to get expression 

M


----------



## rgames (Jun 6, 2013)

Moderato Maestoso @ Thu Jun 06 said:


> I don't think I'd ever use a MIDI export as the basis for a sequence. I'd probably print each part and play it in the way I would if I were starting straight in the sequencer.


That's definitely a good approach and one used by a lot of folks. However, my keyboard chops are terrible (I'm a clarinetist) so I'm forced to use the MIDI export route.

My ability to imagine music far exceeds my ability to play it at the keyboard 

I agree that starting in a notation program allows you to focus more on the music rather than the production. We all start to tweak once we get into the MIDI data. Removing that temptation does, I think, allow you to focus more intently on the musical content first and the technical execution later.

rgames


----------



## jaredcowing (Jun 6, 2013)

windshore @ Wed Jun 05 said:


> I find composing in Sib is wonderful for more complex material. Parts that need to be carefully harmonized and have counterlines etc. - great.
> If the piece is more rhythmically based or ambient, then I find it much better to start in the DAW.



Also +1, and will add that if you're working on a piece and need the flexibility of being able to insert measures, delete measures, move themes around, adjust meters and tempi, Sibelius is much much more flexible than a DAW. I find once I have the music arranged and all the sequencing/programming done in Logic, it's a whole lot more work to make these sorts of adjustments- best do those changes early at a stage where all you're worrying about are the notes themselves and not how to make the vi libraries sound good.


----------



## Mike Marino (Jun 6, 2013)

jaredcowing @ Thu Jun 06 said:


> windshore @ Wed Jun 05 said:
> 
> 
> > I find composing in Sib is wonderful for more complex material. Parts that need to be carefully harmonized and have counterlines etc. - great.
> ...



+1


----------



## ed buller (Jun 6, 2013)

seeing as we all pretty much have the same issues ....how come CUBASE and other DAW designers have not tried to implement these features in their software ?

I really LOVE the plug ins in Sibelius . It's very easy to try lot's of new ideas quickly. Transposing is a doddle. Whereas the transposing tool in CUBASE is always wrong.

seems a pity that no one can cover all this
e


----------



## rgames (Jun 6, 2013)

jaredcowing @ Thu Jun 06 said:


> Also +1, and will add that if you're working on a piece and need the flexibility of being able to insert measures, delete measures, move themes around, adjust meters and tempi, Sibelius is much much more flexible than a DAW.


Interesting - I find those sorts of things very easy to do in Cubse (so long as you use Expression Maps). Also, I have no issues when transposing in Cubase - I do it all the time.

The problem I have with notation in a DAW is in managing output - how the notation looks on the page, linked parts, etc. Creating/editing the musical material is actually as good or better than a notation program. It's just nowhere near as good for getting that music onto a printed page so live musicians can read it.

rgames


----------



## Jdiggity1 (Jun 6, 2013)

I'm hoping that Steinberg's up-and-coming notation software will be closely integrated with Cubase and solve many of the aforementioned issues.


----------



## midi_controller (Jun 6, 2013)

I'm actually surprised how many people are able to work this way, it's pretty incredible. I honestly can't do it. I'd rather sit there with a notation program muted and a piano loaded into Kontakt. I just can't do those on board / GPO-ish sounds, they absolutely kill my creativity. If it sounds bad in the notation program, I'll just get it into my head that it's total shit and delete everything. I really need to stop doing stuff like that. :D


----------



## Erik (Jun 7, 2013)

As Sibelius user for many years now I use it moreover for works/arrangements that I use in my classes: I feel quite comfortable with its workflow and I use the baked in sounds only to check possible errors in the score. The print results are still unsurpassed for me (I started once with Encore then Finale, but I hated that 700 pages of manual).

Composing I usually do with Overture however, because it is so easy to combine all kind of libraries and synths to my own taste, with the possibility of handling midi parameters with ease (which is a painful procedure in most notation programs), at least for the first sketch. On my Win7-x64 I load all instruments in a VST host (like Cantabile) and make channel settings accordingly in Overture. For a start I just load a basic choice of patches that doesn't hurt my ears too much.

Later on, going into detail, I decide if I stay in Overture itself or continue the whole work in Cubase, which has of course more possibilities than the combination of Overture/Cantabile. If Cubase had a better score implementation I maybe would have started there, but I can't simply handle that feature in Cubase, after all those years working with decent notation programs.
I know that many people dislike Overture for different reasons: stability problems, lay out of the score. I seldom had any issues in the Win7-x64 configuration btw.

Anyway, as mentioned here before: it depends highly on what you have in mind with the composition in the first place itself, meant for real life or not, complex or simple, combining libraries and samples etc. etc.
And don't forget Notion indeed: it is much cheaper than before (I wasn't aware of this fact), it has a nice workflow and the built in sounds are pretty OK for sketching.


----------



## Moderato Maestoso (Jun 7, 2013)

Erik @ Fri Jun 07 said:


> The print results are still unsurpassed for me



+1. Slightly OT, but over the years I have developed a pretty good "musical theatre" template (8mm staves, slightly thicker staff lines and beams, a nice sans serif condensed font, auto headers and footers etc.) which means that I barely have to mess around with the parts to get perfect layout. Since magnetic layout has been implemented Sib is the perfect notation for me.

Back on topic, I think I have a workflow developing in my mind. I'm going to notate in Sibelius first (I'm going to stick with Sibelius - familiarity etc, and the panorama view is great for me), before being played (or step inputted as required) into the sequencer.

Synth, FX, and percussion elements I will "sketch out" in Sibelius, but it will be a simple sketch. I'll develop the ideas properly in the sequencer.

This thread has shown that there are different strokes for different folks... I think the notate/sketch first, sequence later approach is going to work best for me. In any case, I'm not tied to it. If I try it and find that I hate it, I can always change  

Thanks!

Martin


----------



## ed buller (Jun 7, 2013)

rgames @ Thu Jun 06 said:


> [quote="jaredcowing @ Thu Jun 06, Also, I have no issues when transposing in Cubase - I do it all the time
> 
> rgames



hmm that's interesting. Could you try a simple test ? Play a scale in c major quarter note's. Then select transpose and try some of the scales. For me I always get doubles. Ie...two e's or two b's...I never get seven notes mapped to seven notes....

dealt with here:
https://www.steinberg.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=146495





e


----------



## jaredcowing (Jun 7, 2013)

midi_controller @ Thu Jun 06 said:


> I'm actually surprised how many people are able to work this way, it's pretty incredible. I honestly can't do it. I'd rather sit there with a notation program muted and a piano loaded into Kontakt. I just can't do those on board / GPO-ish sounds, they absolutely kill my creativity. If it sounds bad in the notation program, I'll just get it into my head that it's total shit and delete everything. I really need to stop doing stuff like that. :D



I feel for you there, it's all too easy in Sibelius to deem the music crap because of the bad sounds. On the other hand, it does force you to stop listening to the colors/timbre and think more about the notes/themes/theory... With a DAW, I feel like I'm just falling into the trap of going with what sounds good right away- I find my music sounds more original when I start with Sibelius than going with a vi library and doing what the library does best, and getting a cue that sounds like everyone else's. But, the flip side is you can write something really unique and cool in Sibelius that the vi library just can't replicate convincingly... you need live players to make it work. There are cues where I really need to start with the vi library because it's more important for the cue to sound solid than "different." Just depends on the task at hand!


----------



## JT (Jun 7, 2013)

I usually use notation software and start from that point. Since I'm usually writing for live players, it's much easier to be aware of voice leading, page turns, etc... and all of the practical aspects of playing live.

I use Finale for this, and have finished creating a custom set of HP preferences for Sable. It's working really well so far. Just by seeing a staccato, slur, bartok pizz. symbol, or other text like Flautando, Finale is seeing this and triggering the correct articulations. If anyone is interested in this I could share the Finale 2012/Sable template I've created.

JT


----------



## Moderato Maestoso (Jun 7, 2013)

JT @ Fri Jun 07 said:


> I use Finale for this, and have finished creating a custom set of HP preferences for Sable. It's working really well so far. Just by seeing a staccato, slur, bartok pizz. symbol, or other text like Flautando, Finale is seeing this and triggering the correct articulations. If anyone is interested in this I could share the Finale 2012/Sable template I've created.



I think this is one area where Finale surpasses Sibelius. Although Sib can change patch on articulation, it can be a bit iffy. I tend to just stick to arco and pizz patches when I'm notating!

M


----------

