# Best way to orchestrate with PROFESSIONAL libraries?



## Mark Kouznetsov (Sep 13, 2020)

Hello everyone!

I'm currently trying to switch my workflow from ensemble libraries to professional/individual ones. The question is, how do I make that jump?
Writing with ensembles is not a problem for me and I find that the biggest advantage is that I can see my 4-part harmony/voices all together on one screen/piano roll. That way I know exactly what voice is playing what etc... It's sort of as working with manuscript and pencil.

However, I'm a little intimidated with having separate track for everything and constantly switching between them to find one mistake (for example) or many other issues that will appear from using individual instruments. 

I have to mention I'm using Studio One which is not the best in terms of midi (compared to Cubase). So if I'm going to edit 4 tracks at once, it'll quickly become confusing (as to which part is currently selected/highlighted). So you always have to double check which instrument is specifically selected and all. 

Plus, if you make a mistake for example:
Vl.1 and Vl.2 playing in thirds but there is one note that turned out to be the exact same (unison by mistake), in Studio One, if I'm editing multiple midi's at the same time, if I delete that note working on Vl.1, it will automatically delete it from VL.2 as well. It's really frustrating.

So, what is the easiest/most efficient way of switching to pro libraries in terms of arranging things? I'm afraid I'm not the type of composer who can just sit down and play every individual part correctly from the top my head. Do I need to write it on paper first? One of my own ideas is kind of laying down bass and melody first and then maybe violas and violins 2 the last?

Thank you.


----------



## muk (Sep 13, 2020)

There are various ways. Best to try them and decide what suits you the best.


Use notation. At least a sketch for the strings can be super helpful. Then you can build your orchestration in your DAW from there. You can also fully orchestrate with paper and pencil first. See what the quickest method is for you, and which gives you the best results.
Write as you are used to with an ensemble patch. Then break out the lines for the individual sections. I. e. if you used a strings ensemble patch, consisting of all five sections, replace the top line that you played with an individual violins 1 patch. The middle lines with a violins 2 and a viola patch, and the lowest lines with celli and basses. That way the writing process stays the same for you as you are already used to. But instead of keeping the ensemble track, you'll then break it out to individual sections.
Sketch on a piano track. That way you have all the parts in one track. Tweak the lines until they are as you want them. Then copy each line to the individual section (top line to vl 1 etc.). Either add cc1 data (record cc1 data on top of the track, or using the drawing tool), or rerecord the whole line anew. It's similar to using an strings ensemble patch. But on a piano it's sometimes easier to hear what you are doing with the individual lines, as they are not preorchestrated through the ensemble patch.

Unfortunately I can not give you any practical advice regarding Studio One.

Overall, I think there is a different frame of mind behind writing individual parts vs using an ensemble patch. When using an ensemble patch I tend to write pianistic parts. I write what my fingers can play on a keyboard. That's not necessarily what's idiomatic for strings. When writing individual lines, my part writing tends to be much better. Your mileage may vary though.

Anyway, here is a link to a tutorial I wrote a while back with some pointers on what to lookout for when writing indivual lines:






Part writing or the importance of not being lazy – complete with fancy pictures and sound


Have you ever heard of some arcane device called ‘part writing’? Ever wondered if it could help you improve your writing? If the answer to the second question is no then congratulations. You can save yourself the hassle of reading through this and just have a quick glance at the fancy pictures...




vi-control.net





My apologies if I misunderstood your post and you are mostly looking for technical advice.


----------



## jbuhler (Sep 13, 2020)

You might first try replacing ensemble patches with parts on the melodic material and other places you feel you need detail. That is, replace a generic woodwinds patch with flute, oboe, etc. Use a first violin or cello patch for the string melody as the case may be, etc. The idea here is to use the individual libraries to add detail. You will likely find yourself adding more and more detail but you can continue to use the ensemble library as a kind of glue. But pretty soon you’ll find you no longer need the ensemble library at all and that it sometimes even gets in the way...

I’ve found Studio One works pretty well up through about 30 tracks, which is plenty for an ensemble plus detail approach and even works for all individual instruments if you are judicious and use keyswitches rather than individual articulations. For larger things I always use a Logic. I’ve periodically tried big templates on Studio One because there are things I prefer about it, but I always regret it. Others on the forum though have had much better luck, so it could be something about my particular workflow.


----------



## Mark Kouznetsov (Sep 13, 2020)

Yes, I've read your tutorial a while back. And you're right, I had more of a technical question, which you touched upon at the top of your message. I thought about the 2nd method myself, guess I'll try that. I'm only concerned with times when voices move closer together (like in the high register), it will probably be trickier to separate them apart to make sense for each individual instrument.


----------



## Mark Kouznetsov (Sep 13, 2020)

jbuhler said:


> You might first try replacing ensemble patches with parts on the melodic material and other places you feel you need detail. That is, replace a generic woodwinds patch with flute, oboe, etc. Use a first violin or cello patch for the string melody as the case may be, etc. The idea here is to use the individual libraries to add detail. You will likely find yourself adding more and more detail but you can continue to use the ensemble library as a kind of glue. But pretty soon you’ll find you no longer need the ensemble library at all and that it sometimes even gets in the way...
> 
> I’ve found Studio One works pretty well up through about 30 tracks, which is plenty for an ensemble plus detail approach and even works for all individual instruments if you are judicious and use keyswitches rather than individual articulations. For larger things I always use a Logic. I’ve periodically tried big templates on Studio One because there are things I prefer about it, but I always regret it. Others on the forum though have had much better luck, so it could be something about my particular workflow.



Yes, I already tried doing that with specific solo instruments/groups, it works. I was just wondering how to switch to full-time individual libraries.

Unfortunately, I use PC so Logic is not an option. And I also really like Studio One. I'll have to try to use ensemble patches as glue, nice advice. It's kind of like layering multiple libraries, only you also have 5 parts played by dedicated patches. I kind of forgot about that, for some reason I never though about that: I used to layer ensembles with ensembles and dedicated with dedicated but not two together.


----------



## Ashermusic (Sep 14, 2020)

muk said:


> There are various ways. Best to try them and decide what suits you the best.
> 
> 
> Use notation. At least a sketch for the strings can be super helpful. Then you can build your orchestration in your DAW from there. You can also fully orchestrate with paper and pencil first. See what the quickest method is for you, and which gives you the best results.
> ...



Excellent post.


----------



## jbuhler (Sep 14, 2020)

Mark_Kouznetsov said:


> Yes, I already tried doing that with specific solo instruments/groups, it works. I was just wondering how to switch to full-time individual libraries.
> 
> Unfortunately, I use PC so Logic is not an option. And I also really like Studio One. I'll have to try to use ensemble patches as glue, nice advice. It's kind of like layering multiple libraries, only you also have 5 parts played by dedicated patches. I kind of forgot about that, for some reason I never though about that: I used to layer ensembles with ensembles and dedicated with dedicated but not two together.


The ensemble library as glue will sometimes get in the way of what you are trying to do when you work with individual sections, so you might end up replacing it entirely, but especially when moving from ensemble libraries to sections keeping the ensemble patches as a layer can help with the initial balancing of the template. I still use ensemble libraries for sketching (I dislike sketching with piano) and when I need to compose very quickly. But I now also go from paper sketch straight to dedicated section libraries, or indeed compose straight to sectin libraries once I know what the piece is about. I never compose with notation programs. I can't stand them, and use them only to produce score/parts. When I compose with notation, I always work on paper.

Some folks have had good luck with working with Studio One and large templates, so it is definitely possible. Some run one instrument per Kontakt instance in Studio One, others work by using Kontakt multis. So you might try both methods to see which works best for you. As I mentioned, I haven't found that Studio One works well with large template for my workflow, and I've tried both ways of assigning instruments in Kontakt. If you are finding you are running into lots of issues with Studio One and larger templates, it might be worth considering a different DAW. (Logic was not meant as a recommendation, just an example.)


----------



## JohnG (Sep 14, 2020)

Hi there,

Not trying to discourage your quest -- always up for trying to learn -- but I wonder a few things when reviewing the initial post:

1. Can you read music at all? A little?

2. What is your goal in dumping the ensemble patches?

The second question, why have you set yourself this mission, I raise because I'm wondering if you are just trying to learn, or if you want to hire some real players to record some of your material, or if you just think you're 'supposed to' write that way?

If it's the latter "I ought to learn this" then that's kind of loaded. Most samples-only mockups sound pretty bad, honestly, so if you are getting pleasing results with an ensemble, I wouldn't change. I certainly wouldn't discard them altogether, but maybe start supplementing with individual instruments.

*The Real Thing*

Part of my reasoning is that a single cello or trumpet or viola is so absolutely amazing in what it can do. I had a single violin player last week (and actually later today, same player) and she brought magic, feeling, tenderness, wistfulness -- all of that from one player. The melody is fine but what she brought to it -- wow.

So what I'm getting at is that probably there is more great music discarded because people try to realise it with hideous, dull, poorly tuned, and simply lifeless samples. If only they had a string quartet or a few woodwinds or anything, some of that music would breathe and maybe go somewhere.

Consequently, if you're writing good-sounding material with the ensembles, don't toss them aside because you are "supposed to write like a real composer." I don't know if there are 20 composers alive today outside of media who get their pieces played by an orchestra any more, and even within media, how many get any time to rehearse, or anything you'd call a "proper" performance? Precious few.

So, don't do anything because someone implied or you assumed what you already are doing is "wrong."

And real performers are only a click away these days. Many soloists can record your piece at home and work that way.


----------



## Mark Kouznetsov (Sep 14, 2020)

Thank you for both answers. Yes! I actually can read music (I'm a pianist). I'm just finding ensemble patches start to feel limiting, I need more freedom with individual voices. I finding myself loving romantic/sweeping string pieces where you can pick apart voices coming in and out and so on. I'm not a fan of "block music". And with ensembles all voices are equal. Yes, you can add some soloists here and there but it's not the same. I actually tried writing with separate instruments to somewhat great results! That's exactly how I imagined it. So I went back to my last track and divided my string section to individual patches and I kid you now the whole piece came alive!

I studied music so writing "on paper" is not a problem for me. The problem was how to do it "straight in the DAW" without it being as fast or as easy as writing it down and seeing vertical lines/chords/bars when writing harmony.

So I found what works for me: maybe writing with ensembles and then dividing and fleshing it out in terms of voices and automation. Seemed obvious but I guess I never sat down and actually REALLY tried. Now I know and it works for me! 
Cheers! 

P.S.: Actually, editing multiple MIDI tracks at once is not bad at all, I already got somehow used to it in Studio One 5! I can actually understand what's going one in each of the lines now.

P.S.S: Actully, mixing in ensemble patches (from a different lib), gives it a something "extra". Tried using Symphonic Strings and leaving/mixing Tundra Con Sordino. Sounded even better than SSS alone.


----------



## Dave Connor (Sep 14, 2020)

Many composers well versed in composition/orchestration write with an ensemble patch or piano v.i. (as they might working with pen and paper) and then assign the parts to the individual instruments (Muk‘s 2nd point.) So that approach isn’t any kind of compromise.

The advantages to splitting out the parts are considerable since they can be given their own independent arcs in volume and expression while also being panned correctly in the orchestra. Those factors are why in most cases, split out, separately controlled parts sound far more realistic and expressive than an ensemble patch which has a number of compromises built into it by necessity.


----------



## JohnG (Sep 14, 2020)

Mark_Kouznetsov said:


> So I found what works for me



Excellent!

Have fun and share some music with us some time.

Kind regards,

John


----------



## Mark Kouznetsov (Sep 14, 2020)

These ware the exact reason I asked, ensembles are just not enough to express how it should sound. Like 99.9%. But of course, 0.01% part of that was also because I just wanna hang out with the big boys!


----------



## JohnG (Sep 14, 2020)

I can understand wanting to get to the next level. Luckily, music is so vast a subject; no matter how much we think we know, just open a score from R. Strauss or A. Silvestri or Ravel -- always a good reminder how much is left to tackle.


----------



## Mark Kouznetsov (Sep 14, 2020)

Went back and re-uploaded updated versions of my tracks with "proper" separate tracks. I know it's hard to compare without the originals, but having heard both, the difference during climax moments is NIGHT and DAY, really. The ensemble versions even layered with other libraries and legatos on top just didn't sound as it did in my head. These finally do AND require actually LESS effort and messing around WITH better results! Thanks to everyone's contributions and enjoy!

Take a listen:





1st track presented here wasn't THAT bad with ensemble patches, but got very noticeably improved.
2nd one... I spent half a day trying to get the sound I wanted, but never did. It's really close with individual parts now.


----------



## Alex Sopala (Sep 14, 2020)

Mark_Kouznetsov said:


> Went back and re-uploaded updated versions of my tracks with "proper" separate tracks. I know it's hard to compare without the originals, but having heard both, the difference during climax moments is NIGHT and DAY, really. The ensemble versions even layered with other libraries and legatos on top just didn't sound as it did in my head. These finally do AND require actually LESS effort and messing around WITH better results! Thanks to everyone's contributions and enjoy!
> 
> Take a listen:
> 
> ...




What libraries did you end up using?


----------



## Mark Kouznetsov (Sep 14, 2020)

Alex Sopala said:


> What libraries did you end up using?


Symphonic Strings. Those are doing all of the heavy lifting. Albion V in the background (VERY subtle if you mute it, but there is a slight difference).


----------



## jbuhler (Sep 14, 2020)

Mark_Kouznetsov said:


> Symphonic Strings. Those are doing all of the heavy lifting. Albion V in the background (VERY subtle if you mute it, but there is a slight difference).


Yes, I’m fond of using Loegria or Neo this way, though I generally use SCS instead of SSS.


----------



## Mark Kouznetsov (Sep 14, 2020)

jbuhler said:


> Yes, I’m fond of using Loegria or Neo this way, though I generally use SCS instead of SSS.



I have no experience with SCS as I kind of disliked it sound out of the box (violins). But then again, I can say the same for SSS. But then you start programming and it blows all the other ensemble libs away. It's silly but so human, start an ensemble patch, play a chord and think: "Yeeeah, it's not my kind of sound". That's why I used albion for the past month: easier and sounds better out of the box. Silly me, it's actually the other way around.

There are a couple of libraries that you buy, play around and feel buyer's remorse. Then, long time after, you go back, thinking: "I paid money for it. I HAVE to use it" and it turns great, actually. (Although, it seems, not always, in some cases I've seen).


----------



## AndyP (Sep 14, 2020)

I really like the atmosphere of your titles. Very intimate, melancholic.
At the end of the fjords title I have the feeling that you hear that it was originally composed with an ensemble. From about 6:10. 
It´s over is great! Very soulful.

Which piano did you use?


----------



## Mark Kouznetsov (Sep 14, 2020)

AndyP said:


> I really like the atmosphere of your titles. Very intimate, melancholic.
> At the end of the fjords title I have the feeling that you hear that it was originally composed with an ensemble. From about 6:10.
> It´s over is great! Very soulful.
> 
> Which piano did you use?


Thank you!

I believe it's NI's The Grandeur (custom settings).

I can see why it may be noticible if it was originally composed with ensembles. That part was the most difficult: because of rubato everything went off the grid and it was kind of a pain to get it right. Initially it featured only solo piano there so I didn't really care. Who knows why I have decided to add strings?


----------



## jbuhler (Sep 14, 2020)

Mark_Kouznetsov said:


> I have no experience with SCS as I kind of disliked it sound out of the box (violins). But then again, I can say the same for SSS. But then you start programming and it blows all the other ensemble libs away. It's silly but so human, start an ensemble patch, play a chord and think: "Yeeeah, it's not my kind of sound". That's why I used albion for the past month: easier and sounds better out of the box. Silly me, it's actually the other way around.
> 
> There are a couple of libraries that you buy, play around and feel buyer's remorse. Then, long time after, you go back, thinking: "I paid money for it. I HAVE to use it" and it turns great, actually. (Although, it seems, not always, in some cases I've seen).


Yes, not everyone likes the sound of SCS, but I’m very fond of it and it’s long been my base string library. And by that I mean I do like the sound of it at a visceral level, though many find it nasally. And I like its ensemble patches too, which I often use for sketching. (I rotate among SCS, Loegria, and Neo for sketching and I can’t really tell you why I select the one I do for the sketch work of a particular project.) By contrast I’ve struggled with SSS. That’s nothing against SSS, it’s just interesting how these things work.


----------



## Mark Kouznetsov (Sep 14, 2020)

jbuhler said:


> Yes, not everyone likes the sound of SCS, but I’m very fond of it and it’s long been my base string library. And by that I mean I do like the sound of it at a visceral level, though many find it nasally. And I like its ensemble patches too, which I often use for sketching. (I rotate among SCS, Loegria, and Neo for sketching and I can’t really tell you why I select the one I do for the sketch work of a particular project.) By contrast I’ve struggled with SSS. That’s nothing against SSS, it’s just interesting how these things work.



I very like the overall direction of your collection: SCS, A2, Neo. Maybe also parts of Olafur Arnalds Chamber Evolutions here and there. Glass & Steel also would go well. I very enjoy that Northern style of writing, although you have to be careful with some of OA stuff like Stratus (that one kind of sounds the same no matter who uses it). It's too characteristic of Olafur's style and there are too many people sounding like him (especially with stratus). If I want a similar sounding soft piano, I try programming it myself. The same goes for Noire. There is that Particles Engine thing, you can hear it everywhere and everyone sounds the same.

How is Neo, btw? Everyone says it's like Tundra 1.5 (better). I kind of like divisi sections there and those.. seagulls (?) string articulations sound beautiful. Worth buying if I already have Tundra?

P.S.: I do like the demos of SCS and final proper tracks with it. It's just I imagine I would be a little discouraged launching 1st violins, pressing a key and being like: Ehh. But then again, you can write with other libraries first and then replace it.


----------



## Mark Kouznetsov (Sep 14, 2020)

JohnG said:


> Hi there,
> 
> Not trying to discourage your quest -- always up for trying to learn -- but I wonder a few things when reviewing the initial post:
> 
> ...


Forgot to mention, btw, I totally agree that even one live player changes EVERYTHING.


----------



## JohnG (Sep 14, 2020)

Mark_Kouznetsov said:


> Forgot to mention, btw, I totally agree that even one live player changes EVERYTHING.



...or singer... [clears throat, begins warmup exercises]


----------



## jbuhler (Sep 15, 2020)

Mark_Kouznetsov said:


> I very like the overall direction of your collection: SCS, A2, Neo. Maybe also parts of Olafur Arnalds Chamber Evolutions here and there. Glass & Steel also would go well. I very enjoy that Northern style of writing, although you have to be careful with some of OA stuff like Stratus (that one kind of sounds the same no matter who uses it). It's too characteristic of Olafur's style and there are too many people sounding like him (especially with stratus). If I want a similar sounding soft piano, I try programming it myself. The same goes for Noire. There is that Particles Engine thing, you can hear it everywhere and everyone sounds the same.
> 
> How is Neo, btw? Everyone says it's like Tundra 1.5 (better). I kind of like divisi sections there and those.. seagulls (?) string articulations sound beautiful. Worth buying if I already have Tundra?
> 
> P.S.: I do like the demos of SCS and final proper tracks with it. It's just I imagine I would be a little discouraged launching 1st violins, pressing a key and being like: Ehh. But then again, you can write with other libraries first and then replace it.


I like Neo and its extensive collection of sul tastos and flautandos, super and otherwise. In that respect it’s the chamber version of Tundra.(I also have both Arnaulds evolutions but neither Stratus nor the toolkit.) But i actually use Neo most for doing quick theater orchestra things. It’s very useful for making fast arrangements of Tin Pan Alley songs, and mocking up silent film music written for small theater orchestras. (I teach this stuff and there are not a lot of recordings that match the scores and sheet music I have.) I've also found the non-orchestral selections of Neo more useful than those in the other Albions, though I’m not fond of the EDNA engine. 

I don’t find it overlaps much with Tundra. The ensemble sizes are so different. It has more overlap with the strings of Loegria and SCS (ensemble patches) as far as the strings are concerned. The range of the low string legato in Neo doesn't extend very high, making it almost useless for tenor lines. The winds have a nice sound, and are usefully different from those in Albion One. The winds also have noise issues (saxes) and the original issue had some really bad tuning issues. The tuning issues have allegedly been fixed but I haven’t checked them since the update. The brass is an odd combination but like the winds it works surprisingly well for stock theater arranging, so long as you don’t need to rely on the brass to carry the tune.


----------



## Mark Kouznetsov (Sep 15, 2020)

jbuhler said:


> I like Neo and its extensive collection of sul tastos and flautandos, super and otherwise. In that respect it’s the chamber version of Tundra.(I also have both Arnaulds evolutions but neither Stratus nor the toolkit.) But i actually use Neo most for doing quick theater orchestra things. It’s very useful for making fast arrangements of Tin Pan Alley songs, and mocking up silent film music written for small theater orchestras. (I teach this stuff and there are not a lot of recordings that match the scores and sheet music I have.) I've also found the non-orchestral selections of Neo more useful than those in the other Albions, though I’m not fond of the EDNA engine.
> 
> I don’t find it overlaps much with Tundra. The ensemble sizes are so different. It has more overlap with the strings of Loegria and SCS (ensemble patches) as far as the strings are concerned. The range of the low string legato in Neo doesn't extend very high, making it almost useless for tenor lines. The winds have a nice sound, and are usefully different from those in Albion One. The winds also have noise issues (saxes) and the original issue had some really bad tuning issues. The tuning issues have allegedly been fixed but I haven’t checked them since the update. The brass is an odd combination but like the winds it works surprisingly well for stock theater arranging, so long as you don’t need to rely on the brass to carry the tune.



Oh, yes, I remember I heard about NEO replacing Albion II now. Makes sence! But does it really? Does it feel like it's a replacement or is it totally different?


----------



## jbuhler (Sep 15, 2020)

Mark_Kouznetsov said:


> Oh, yes, I remember I heard about NEO replacing Albion II now. Makes sence! But does it really? Does it feel like it's a replacement or is it totally different?


The strings are very much in the same vein as Loegria. They are not simple substitutes though in the way Albion One replaced Albion (whether or not one prefers the original version). I think Neo's strings were crafted to fit as a chamber extension of both Albion One and Tundra. I always found the rest of Loegria to be incoherent—recorders, sackbutts, and the horneuph. Neo is laid out much more coherently, and the winds and brass work more or less as sections, even if I wonder if they made the right orchestration choices for the chamber feel of Neo's strings. So, no, Neo is not really a replacement for Loegria, even if not entirely different.


----------

