# Your Thoughts On Shorter Tutorials vs. Live Composing Sessions



## ChrisSiuMusic

Hi all,

I wanted to get your thoughts on whether you prefer watching tutorials on the shorter side (30min or less) vs. a 3-4 hour composing video detailing each musical decision (DJ/Dirk Ehlert just to name a few). Which do you prefer and why? 

Up to this point, I have only done videos around 20 minutes or less, but have received requests to do full live composing sessions. So I wanted to get your viewpoints on what you find valuable about each, and your preference! Thanks ☺️


----------



## Daniel James

Short form is if you want to teach or present something. Long form is more like hanging out with a friend.

Depends on what you want your channel to be about!

-DJ


----------



## JonAdamich

Daniel James said:


> Short form is if you want to teach or present something. Long form is more like hanging out with a friend.
> 
> Depends on what you want your channel to be about!
> 
> -DJ


Agreed


----------



## goalie composer

ChrisSiuMusic said:


> Hi all,
> 
> I wanted to get your thoughts on whether you prefer watching tutorials on the shorter side (30min or less) vs. a 3-4 hour composing video detailing each musical decision (DJ/Dirk Ehlert just to name a few). Which do you prefer and why?
> 
> Up to this point, I have only done videos around 20 minutes or less, but have received requests to do full live composing sessions. So I wanted to get your viewpoints on what you find valuable about each, and your preference! Thanks ☺️


Personally, I'm a fan of your short-format videos!


----------



## MarcelM

JonAdamich said:


> Agreed



prefer long videos. when i started out ive spend alot of time with DJ and dirk ehlert


----------



## R. Soul

I prefer the short ones. I want to finish a video in one sitting, and I usually can't spend more than max. 1 hour.


----------



## ChrisSiuMusic

Daniel James said:


> Short form is if you want to teach or present something. Long form is more like hanging out with a friend.
> 
> Depends on what you want your channel to be about!
> 
> -DJ


Thanks for your input Daniel!


----------



## ChrisSiuMusic

goalie composer said:


> Personally, I'm a fan of your short-format videos!


Thank you


----------



## CoffeeLover

short ones are nice for something quick "how to" tutorial inside a daw
longer ones for instrument introduction id watch in parts except Daniel James vids 
its like watching British comedy at times and then the video is finished and 
you realized over an hour plus had passed.
very entertaining and informative and educating.
im waiting for his vids to appear on Netflix.


----------



## sostenuto

Completing videos in ONE sitting is not a goal here, and I find it better to have most/all of what I need in one source.
I think Daniel James' comment is _fine_, but his 'hanging out' descriptor perhaps decries the encompassing value of his productions.
Each video needs to fit its intended purpose, and I would hate to see you, DJ, Dirk, Hagai, change what is felt appropriate for each topic.


----------



## ChrisSiuMusic

CoffeeLover said:


> short ones are nice for something quick "how to" tutorial inside a daw
> longer ones for instrument introduction id watch in parts except Daniel James vids
> its like watching British comedy at times and then the video is finished and
> you realized over an hour plus had passed.
> very entertaining and informative and educating.
> im waiting for his vids to appear on Netflix.


@Daniel James is definitely a wonderful entertainer in addition to being a fantastic musician and composer.


----------



## Kevin Fortin

30 minutes seems like a long time to me. Even with 10-minute videos I tend to skip through them if I even play them.

Two or three minutes would be good for tightly focused tutorials. Maybe 5 minutes per segment. Cut up a longer tutorial or walkthrough into segments, and have an index. My favorite set of videos so far is the ones for Lightworks video editor -- all about two minutes each, without time-wasting intros, wandering verbiage, dead air, etc.

Executive summary: Don't waste my time. Have a script or at least an outline ready. Free and open-source video editors exist, so there's no reason not to trim the bumbling and mumbling and dead air out of a video. And there's absolutely no excuse for a half-minute or longer channel-banner intro. This isn't the Bond franchise. Borodante gets it about right with the intro to his digital-art instruction videos.

On the other hand, I don't mind the occasional leisurely, hanging-out-with-friends type of video, either, although of course I do skip around in those as well (if recorded), but that's just me and of course everything I have written here expresses my own preferences.


----------



## ChrisSiuMusic

Kevin Fortin said:


> 30 minutes seems like a long time to me. Even with 10-minute videos I tend to skip through them if I even play them.
> 
> Two or three minutes would be good for tightly focused tutorials. Maybe 5 minutes per segment. Cut up a longer tutorial or walkthrough into segments, and have an index. My favorite set of videos so far is the ones for Lightworks video editor -- all about two minutes each, without time-wasting intros, wandering verbiage, dead air, etc.
> 
> Executive summary: Don't waste my time. Have a script or at least an outline ready. Free and open-source video editors exist, so there's no reason not to trim the bumbling and mumbling and dead air out of a video. And there's absolutely no excuse for a half-minute or longer channel-banner intro. This isn't the Bond franchise. Borodante gets it about right with the intro to his digital-art instruction videos.
> 
> On the other hand, I don't mind the occasional leisurely, hanging-out-with-friends type of video, either, although of course I do skip around in those as well, but that's just me and of course everything I have written here expresses my own preferences.


Thanks for your thoughts Kevin!


----------



## StefanE

If the video is about hacks, technique a/o theoretical topics I usually prefer very efficient and effective ones, probably rather short, but with sufficient examples. These videos I look for to fill a certain gap of knowledge or to get an overview about something new for me. They tell me.
If the video is about more about individual creativity a/o personal workflows I enjoy longer videos, which show the process from the beginning to the end including the presenters' thoughts, experience, intentions. These kind of videos I prefer if my focus is more about others are dealing with challenges I am currently facing.


----------



## Saxer

For longer videos you should be entertaining. Loading Kontakt instruments is boring but watching someone loading Kontakt instruments is at least twice as boring. It's not easy to keep the energy level over a long time and create something useful simultaneously.


----------



## Vik

I never watch anything longer than 45-60 minutes. I could have watched something longer if it wasn’t for all the waiting and comments/opinions that aren’t that relevant to me.

Edit: having said that, I often find short walkthroughs too short as well, especially those - where they finally get to demoing the presets I'm most interested in, just either play a few notes or or something which doesn't really demonstrate what I want to hear. That could because there's too much reverb, or because presets aren't being demonstrated alone or with too much reverb etc. So guess a 2+ hour walkthrough could be really interesting too, if those who make these weren't - like me - too "lazy"  to edit them afterwards. Not meant in a negative way, of course - I know there are people who people enjoy and have time fore 3+ hours of loose improvised stuff including waiting/repetitions and all that. 

And to DJ - since you make the longest clips out there... this is no suggestion that you should change anything, but re. your comment above: if I would have bought a new lib and a friend came over to hang out with me and learn about this library, I wouldn't - of course  - ask him to sit in a chair for 3-4 hours while I was talking and playing. This makes a lot of difference, and probably explains why some of us find the 2-3+ hours sessions not that interesting. 

Another problem with long videos: if I want to check out eg how the Soaring Strings library works in the soft dynamic range (the lowest two or three dynamic layers), I would have to scroll a lot back and forth in a 3 hours YT-session to find the part I'm interested in. The fact that I have students, kids, work etc also means that I rarely have 3-4 hours to watch long sessions like that. 

OTOH, if there were in depth walkthroughs/demos (improvised or not), which are edited down to efficiently showing what a library can do, with many examples, I'd really enjoy (and find time to be) watching that - even if it was very long. 

The main problem nowadays, ironically - is the opposite situation; that some companies offer intro prices for products where some of the most essential stuff is not being demonstrated (legatos/portamentos etc) until *after* the intro offer has expired. That's kind of strange, because it's like saying "we have a great product, please buy it before you know how it works" - followed up (in some cases) by not implementing the kind of functions users want to see.


----------



## ChrisSiuMusic

StefanE said:


> If the video is about hacks, technique a/o theoretical topics I usually prefer very efficient and effective ones, probably rather short, but with sufficient examples. These videos I look for to fill a certain gap of knowledge or to get an overview about something new for me. They tell me.
> If the video is about more about individual creativity a/o personal workflows I enjoy longer videos, which show the process from the beginning to the end including the presenters' thoughts, experience, intentions. These kind of videos I prefer if my focus is more about others are dealing with challenges I am currently facing.


Thanks StefanE!


----------



## ChrisSiuMusic

Saxer said:


> For longer videos you should be entertaining. Loading Kontakt instruments is boring but watching someone loading Kontakt instruments is at least twice as boring. It's not easy to keep the energy level over a long time and create something useful simultaneously.


Agreed.


----------



## ChrisSiuMusic

Vik said:


> I never watch anything longer than 45-60 minutes. I could have watched something longer if it wasn’t for all the waiting and comments/opinions that aren’t that relevant to me.
> 
> Edit: having said that, I often find short walkthroughs too short as well, especially those - where they finally get to demoing the presets I'm most interested in, just either play a few notes or or something which doesn't really demonstrate what I want to hear. That could because there's too much reverb, or because presets aren't being demonstrated alone or with too much reverb etc. So guess a 2+ hour walkthrough could be really interesting too, if those who make these weren't - like me - too "lazy"  to edit them afterwards. Not meant in a negative way, of course - I know there are people who people enjoy and have time fore 3+ hours of loose improvised stuff including waiting/repetitions and all that.
> 
> And to DJ - since you make the longest clips out there... this is no suggestion that you should change anything, but re. your comment above: if I would have bought a new lib and a friend came over to hang out with me and learn about this library, I wouldn't - of course  - ask him to sit in a chair for 3-4 hours while I was talking and playing. This makes a lot of difference, and probably explains why some of us find the 2-3+ hours sessions not that interesting.
> 
> Another problem with long videos: if I want to check out eg how the Soaring Strings library works in the soft dynamic range (the lowest two or three dynamic layers), I would have to scroll a lot back and forth in a 3 hours YT-session to find the part I'm interested in. The fact that I have students, kids, work etc also means that I rarely have 3-4 hours to watch long sessions like that.
> 
> OTOH, if there were in depth walkthroughs/demos (improvised or not), which are edited down to efficiently showing what a library can do, with many examples, I'd really enjoy (and find time to be) watching that - even if it was very long.
> 
> The main problem nowadays, ironically - is the opposite situation; that some companies offer intro prices for products where some of the most essential stuff is not being demonstrated (legatos/portamentos etc) until *after* the intro offer has expired. That's kind of strange, because it's like saying "we have a great product, please buy it before you know how it works" - followed up (in some cases) by not implementing the kind of functions users want to see.


Great insight. I'm definitely considering doing this.


----------



## Akarin

Big fan of long form videos. Seeing someone starting from scratch and watching the magic emerge. That's how I tend to learn best. 

Short form is for a quick tip on a feature (like... "here is how you build an Expression Map").


----------



## christianhenson

** APOLS FOR SWEARING IN ADVANCE **

Don't usually contribute to threads other than SF / CHM but thought I could give an isight into this. 

I stopped doing live composition videos because...

1. They're incredibly difficult to do, imagine patting your head, stroking your tummy whilst standing on one toe but also trying to sound interesting and engaging. I run 2-3 cams on my shoots and until recently SLRs quit after 20mins (I think for tax reasons? The Gh5s run for the length that the SD cards will allow now thank heavens) so you're checking focus, exposure, and that they're still running on up to three cams, you're running screenflow which has to sync with all cams so every time you run cams you also have to run screenflow with some kind of sync clap, and then there's also the sound! So you're making sure that wherever your sound is running to (which you can't run in screenflow because you need to separate sound (music) and voice-over so you can mix it right because you'll get shouted at here massively if you don't) is also running and will be syncable to cam and screenflow footage. THEN imagine you have to genuinely think of a tune to write from scratch but write in a quick and concise manner so the video is not too long whilst also talking in a clear and not too stumbly manner, trying to remain engaging whilst also adhering to the marketing line you have agreed with your sales department, AND WHILST also teaching people about and how to use this new piece of tech. Net result = a C+ maximum on all counts.

2. I felt that composing live presented a non-real-world presentation on how these tools are designed to be used. The composition would have to be overly simplistic in order to sound good so "same old tricks" and complaints of demos being too paddy, not enough counterpoint and movement etc etc. Or when attempting the latter the product would just sound shit BECAUSE, doing this stuff right, well it takes time! To write from scratch a 3 minute cue should take me at least 5-6 hours at a piano to really nail the right notes in the right order, then working it up should take at least 1 day and a half day to come back to it with fresh ears and revise and refine. 2 days total for 3mins. So for me live composition is either contrived (I'd write the stuff before hand and pretend this stuff was magically shitting itself out of my fingers and then edit the fuck out of it so it appears that every take is a hole-in-one and I'm somehow savant like forming an arrangement without any trial or error), or if it was done without contrivance it would be just... well, shit.

*I have to insist this is just MY experience and feelings of doing this stuff with my very limited theoretical knowledge and musical ability. I know I have said I can write 20-25mins of TV music a day, but this is with themes already established and the prospect of a live orchestra at the end of it to make it sound good! However if say, you got Ben Wallfisch to do live comps you would see a true genius at work, I've seen that man arrange directly into sibelius in real-time and what comes out of the other end is like f&%king Mahler.*

Just as a parting thought, I recently made a film about the future of earnings as composers and a lot of people mentioned these algorithmic 'bots' that create 'music' for free where no composer is involved. THE ONLY reason that this 'music' does sound convincing IS because there is a lot of really uninspired computerised music that we could all write in our sleep being made by real composers by the pound. So my final note on this is WE SHOULD SPEND time on composing, the minute you add a live instrument you have beaten any algorithm period, and time sat just sitting at a piano and waiting for the hairs on your arms to stand up, and the tears to well in your eyes will connect your music to others on a human level that no 'bot' will be able to replicate.

So I guess this is why I'm against ME doing live composition, because the real challenge of making something good is f$#king boring to watch!

I have thought of trying Twitch though, I see my kids watching some remarkably boring crap!

C. x


----------



## Divico

+1 for short form. I have little patience and often end up pausing the video and trying out some new stuff. Usually thats also where I get stuck and do not return for a longer time.


----------



## ChrisSiuMusic

Akarin said:


> Big fan of long form videos. Seeing someone starting from scratch and watching the magic emerge. That's how I tend to learn best.
> 
> Short form is for a quick tip on a feature (like... "here is how you build an Expression Map").


Thanks for your thoughts!


----------



## Land of Missing Parts

Aw, sounds like Christian needs a hug. It seems doing these videos is a thankless task at least in part because you don't get a whole lot of love back from the computer. But on the receiving end, it's like I've spent some good quality time with you guys even though we've never met.


----------



## ChrisSiuMusic

christianhenson said:


> ** APOLS FOR SWEARING IN ADVANCE **
> 
> Don't usually contribute to threads other than SF / CHM but thought I could give an isight into this.
> 
> I stopped doing live composition videos because...
> 
> 1. They're incredibly difficult to do, imagine patting your head, stroking your tummy whilst standing on one toe but also trying to sound interesting and engaging. I run 2-3 cams on my shoots and until recently SLRs quit after 20mins (I think for tax reasons? The Gh5s run for the length that the SD cards will allow now thank heavens) so you're checking focus, exposure, and that they're still running on up to three cams, you're running screenflow which has to sync with all cams so every time you run cams you also have to run screenflow with some kind of sync clap, and then there's also the sound! So you're making sure that wherever your sound is running to (which you can't run in screenflow because you need to separate sound (music) and voice-over so you can mix it right because you'll get shouted at here massively if you don't) is also running and will be syncable to cam and screenflow footage. THEN imagine you have to genuinely think of a tune to write from scratch but write in a quick and concise manner so the video is not too long whilst also talking in a clear and not too stumbly manner, trying to remain engaging whilst also adhering to the marketing line you have agreed with your sales department, AND WHILST also teaching people about and how to use this new piece of tech. Net result = a C+ maximum on all counts.
> 
> 2. I felt that composing live presented a non-real-world presentation on how these tools are designed to be used. The composition would have to be overly simplistic in order to sound good so "same old tricks" and complaints of demos being too paddy, not enough counterpoint and movement etc etc. Or when attempting the latter the product would just sound shit BECAUSE, doing this stuff right, well it takes time! To write from scratch a 3 minute cue should take me at least 5-6 hours at a piano to really nail the right notes in the right order, then working it up should take at least 1 day and a half day to come back to it with fresh ears and revise and refine. 2 days total for 3mins. So for me live composition is either contrived (I'd write the stuff before hand and pretend this stuff was magically shitting itself out of my fingers and then edit the fuck out of it so it appears that every take is a hole-in-one and I'm somehow savant like forming an arrangement without any trial or error), or if it was done without contrivance it would be just... well, shit.
> 
> *I have to insist this is just MY experience and feelings of doing this stuff with my very limited theoretical knowledge and musical ability. I know I have said I can write 20-25mins of TV music a day, but this is with themes already established and the prospect of a live orchestra at the end of it to make it sound good! However if say, you got Ben Wallfisch to do live comps you would see a true genius at work, I've seen that man arrange directly into sibelius in real-time and what comes out of the other end is like f&%king Mahler.*
> 
> Just as a parting thought, I recently made a film about the future of earnings as composers and a lot of people mentioned these algorithmic 'bots' that create 'music' for free where no composer is involved. THE ONLY reason that this 'music' does sound convincing IS because there is a lot of really uninspired computerised music that we could all write in our sleep being made by real composers by the pound. So my final note on this is WE SHOULD SPEND time on composing, the minute you add a live instrument you have beaten any algorithm period, and time sat just sitting at a piano and waiting for the hairs on your arms to stand up, and the tears to well in your eyes will connect your music to others on a human level that no 'bot' will be able to replicate.
> 
> So I guess this is why I'm against ME doing live composition, because the real challenge of making something good is f$#king boring to watch!
> 
> I have thought of trying Twitch though, I see my kids watching some remarkably boring crap!
> 
> C. x


Hey Christian, thanks for your thoughts! It’s an honour to see you here. I can only imagine the pressure you feel when having to compose live, but I feel like the editing that goes into it, especially if the end product really connects with the listener, is worth it. Now I don’t have 30+ projects at a single time like I’m sure you do, but doing something like this is something that people really seem to appreciate, which is why I want to give it a go. Twitch seems like the way to go!


----------



## Daniel James

ChrisSiuMusic said:


> Hey Christian, thanks for your thoughts! It’s an honour to see you here. I can only imagine the pressure you feel when having to compose live, but I feel like the editing that goes into it, especially if the end product really connects with the listener, is worth it. Now I don’t have 30+ projects at a single time like I’m sure you do, but doing something like this is something that people really seem to appreciate, which is why I want to give it a go. Twitch seems like the way to go!



Twitch is probably your best bet for Live streaming. You could stream direct to Youtube, but the community features are not quite as fleshed out as they are on twitch. And when composing live thats half the fun of it, playing off your audience. I have composed live many times live and its not as stressful as people would have you believe. Composing is fun as it is (thats why we do it) but composing with a bunch of other composers having a laugh and playfully pointing out when you are shit is actually something that grows on you over time. And it doesn't matter if its shit, its just one stream, and in the next one you can try something else. I never aim for a masterpiece when doing it live, just something fun that everyone can enjoy being a part of. Its a live performance of sorts, very rarely are the live versions of tracks the definitive version...same rule applies to composition! You are there to entertain and spread your love of the art!!

I tend to find most of the audience likes to watch these things because they get the nice confirmation bias that other composers in general work the same way they do, there is no secret sauce just lots of hours of getting it wrong and correcting it for next time.

So yeah don't worry about external factors, just have fun with it. Do what you do. Don't worry about being shit, use the streams as a marker to track your progress over time. Carefully edited multicam setups are really pretty to look at and all, but there is something to be said about actually doing what we love to do, composing....and sharing that love and passion with others who want to share in it.

If you need help getting started with it shoot me a PM and i'll let you know how I have it set up for mine!

Just do what you do, have fun, spread your passion and people will watch. Not everyone. But the people you want to hang out with will be there 

-DJ


----------



## ChrisSiuMusic

Daniel James said:


> Twitch is probably your best bet for Live streaming. You could stream direct to Youtube, but the community features are not quite as fleshed out as they are on twitch. And when composing live thats half the fun of it, playing off your audience. I have composed live many times live and its not as stressful as people would have you believe. Composing is fun as it is (thats why we do it) but composing with a bunch of other composers having a laugh and playfully pointing out when you are shit is actually something that grows on you over time. And it doesn't matter if its shit, its just one stream, and in the next one you can try something else. I never aim for a masterpiece when doing it live, just something fun that everyone can enjoy being a part of. Its a live performance of sorts, very rarely are the live versions of tracks the definitive version...same rule applies to composition! You are there to entertain and spread your love of the art!!
> 
> I tend to find most of the audience likes to watch these things because they get the nice confirmation bias that other composers in general work the same way they do, there is no secret sauce just lots of hours of getting it wrong and correcting it for next time.
> 
> So yeah don't worry about external factors, just have fun with it. Do what you do. Don't worry about being shit, use the streams as a marker to track your progress over time. Carefully edited multicam setups are really pretty to look at, but there is something to be said about actually doing what we love to do, composing....and sharing that love and passion with others who want to share in it.
> 
> If you need help getting started with it shoot me a PM and i'll let you know how I have it set up for mine!
> 
> Just do what you do, have fun, spread your passion and people will watch. Not everyone. But the people you want to hang out with will be there
> 
> -DJ


Thanks Daniel, I really appreciate your POV. Indeed multiple cameras and careful editing exudes professionalism, but I agree that there are those who love the more laid back approach. Let me hit you up with a PM and discuss this. Thank you again!


----------



## markleake

Both Christian and DJ I think make good points, even though they seem to be coming from different perspectives.

I quite like watching both short and long formats. Short format I get very frustrated if within the fist 10 seconds the person hasn't got to the point and given an example of whatever it is... the biggest mistake people seem to make is that we are there to listen to them talk. We aren't, we just want them to get to the point.

For longer format, I don't mind about camera angles or such (I think most people don't care about that really, it's the content that matters more). I'm there to pick up some tips and ideas, enjoy watching the person muddle through and experiment, see some libraries in action that I don't have, and last but not least, get some validation like DJ and Christian are saying in their own way, that it's normal to take a long time to get just a few minutes of (hopefully) reasonable results.

For longer format, I tend to have them on in the background while I'm also doing other stuff, and so I'm not always listening intently to what is being said. I listen more attentively when they mention or demonstrate something I am particularly interest in. I think in that scenario also, personality of the presenter plays a big part. If they are relaxed and enjoying the experience (even if it is them just expressing their frustration), then I'll enjoy the experience also as the person watching, because I can relate.


----------



## MartinH.

christianhenson said:


> So I guess this is why I'm against ME doing live composition, because the real challenge of making something good is f$#king boring to watch!


For what it's worth on those of your videos that I watched I thought you did an excellent job . 



christianhenson said:


> I have thought of trying Twitch though, I see my kids watching some remarkably boring crap!


Imho twitch usually is not about watching _something _specific, it is about watching _someone _specific, and it almost doesn't matter what they do. Probably a bit different though for you and other composers, because you're pulling in your audience from a pool of people with very specific interests and wanting to get more specific things out of a stream, other than "feel like you have some company from someone you know well".


----------

