# Midi-Mockup: Tips & Techniques



## Frederick Russ (Nov 6, 2004)

I've been reviewing some of the mp3s I've downloaded to date and have been really impressed with many of the techniques used to make a midi mockup as realistic as possible. Some of these are mp3s from many of the talented members found on this forum. 

Got a tip to share that would help the other musicians and composers on this forum to improve their midi mockup skills? I'm always open to suggestions in this area - if you have something to share, please feel free to post them here! Thanks!


----------



## Buckles (Nov 6, 2004)

Geez...tips...I dont know if anything I do is different to anyone else 

Ok...here is my shortlist of 'rules of thumb' when I go do a mockup:

- Play everything in on keyboard (if you can...), and keep on recording until its perfect...DONT USE QUANTISATION! I hate when Midi sounds too perfect. Even with humisation presets, its still a bit iffy. I choose to play everything in by keyboard...which gives it a nice human element to the playing.

- I also render each part out into audio for the final phase of mixing and mastering the track...and then I choose to use tons and tons of volume envelopes instead of CC11 expression...just because Im a remnant of the Edirol Orchestral Softsynth...which really required the envelopes to sound somewhat realistic. I reckon this gives you greater control over dynamics...which I cant seem to achieve from cc11...probably cuz Im havent used it all that much...

Anyway, thats just what I do. Im sure they are widely overused tips, or not used at all because I dont know any better 

-s


----------



## christianobermaier (Dec 16, 2004)

>volume envelopes instead of CC11 expression

Um, how would cc7(volume) automation be different from cc11(expression) automation ?

Christian


http://www.artofthegroove.com/logic/mp3/Christian_Obermaier_demo.mp3 (show reel) http://uk.geocities.com/christianobermaier/home.htm (home page) http://uk.geocities.com/christianobermaier/Studio.htm (studio pics) http://uk.geocities.com/christianobermaier/Gearlist.htm (gear list)


----------



## lux (Dec 16, 2004)

Hey Christian,

what about some contribution too?

Luca


----------



## christianobermaier (Dec 16, 2004)

>what about some contribution too? 

Yeah, right, here you go.

- As Scott mentioned already, don't use quantization whenever possible, which also implies using a keyboard rather than the mouse. 

- Really, get a good 88note keyboard. It's your input interface to the computer and you don't want anything get lost here. You don't have to be a good keyboard player (i certainly am not) but you surely can learn to play two or four bars of a single line convincingly, and then work up from there.

- Always start with the real sounds you're gonna use in the final mix. If you do a mockup of the mockup, you will waste lots of time trying to bring your demo sounds to life, only to be forced to backtrack later on, because the large set will certainly need a different orchestration treatment.

- Make sure your instruments are properly panned and have the right amount of reverb (regarding distance to the listener). So, don't have the grand piano notes move from left to right as you go up the keyboard. This never happens unless you are Elton John at a rehearsal. Creating the right 'sound stage' for your orchestra makes it easier later on to convincingly manoeuver within musically.

- Don't play your orchestral music as chords and then distribute the lines to instruments. If you absolutely have to, in the planning stage, then replace this as quickly as possible by single, monophonic (well, sort of,) lines. Thinking in insrumental lines horizontally makes it really easy to avoid the 'look, my arranger keyboard 's got a string sound too'-effect.

- Try to get yourself into the mindset of the instrument player in question (well, maybe not viola players...anyone into musicians jokes ? - nah, scratch that). For instance, if its a wind instrument, i actually breathe while i play on the keyboard. Um, in fact i *always* breathe, but this time matched to the music. This makes it obvious where and how phrasing has to be done and where breathing pauses need be. Mind you, this looks extremely silly, as everyone in my house will gladly confirm, but i can live with that.

- Be generous with controllers on any sustained sounds. It's your ticket to realism. If your library doesn't have it, then implement them yourself. If your keyboard has MIDI faders, use them. If not, then get a faderbox. 
One cc (velocity only for anything percussive including piano) for pp-ff sample crossfading. 
One cc for pure level (can be cc11 or cc7). You will find you can often use both controls at the same time. Actually it is this volume balance on this orchestration- and composing-level which does the mixing, so essentially, when you're through with composing/orchestration, you're done, cause there's nothing left to mix later. I don't touch the faders of my desk. If the trombone is too loud, then it has to *play* quieter. 
One cc for attack rate and one for release rate. Especially a small extra amount of release can help cover your tracks when playing fast string passages when having notes overlap a little might be too obvious.
One for fine pitch if possible, because orchestral sound *loves* micro-pitch movements. 
One cc to introduce a hint of random LFO pitch modulation, works a treat when there's a problem with stale and static brass chords.

Christian


http://www.artofthegroove.com/logic/mp3/Christian_Obermaier_demo.mp3 (show reel) http://uk.geocities.com/christianobermaier/home.htm (home page) http://uk.geocities.com/christianobermaier/Studio.htm (studio pics) http://uk.geocities.com/christianobermaier/Gearlist.htm (gear list)


----------



## Aaron Sapp (Dec 16, 2004)

Balance.


----------



## PolarBear (Dec 17, 2004)

Structure.


----------



## Ned Bouhalassa (Dec 17, 2004)

Dynamic range


----------



## lux (Dec 17, 2004)

hmmm, there's a fee on number of words? :lol: 

Luca


----------



## CJ (Dec 17, 2004)

Hey Luca - you had some tips on another thread but they vanished - would you mind posting them again - I thought they were useful.


----------



## Ned Bouhalassa (Dec 17, 2004)

lux said:


> hmmm, there's a fee on number of words? :lol:



Busy. Later. :lol: :lol: :lol:


----------



## Frederick Russ (Dec 17, 2004)

Christian, which fader box would you recommend? Something inexpensive so I'm not forking over $1000 for a complete controller.


----------



## christianobermaier (Dec 17, 2004)

>which fader box would you recommend

Anyone will do, really, at least for me, because i remap everything in Logic. I built an elaborate Environment called Fader-Mangler, which has 32 programmable presets and can convert incoming CCs, pitch, and channel pressure into just about anything. So I'm writing 16 channels of automation in one instant, then three E-Mu envelope parameters and five EXS filters in the next and fifteen reversed drawbars for the B4 in the next. Looks like this:

http://uk.geocities.com/christianobermaier/Music/FaderMangler.jpg (http://uk.geocities.com/christianoberma ... angler.jpg)

The link is not hot-clickable, you have to copy and paste in your brower's address line.

So, this way i don't have to fiddle around with cryptic buttons and alien storage procedure on a faderbox, because Logic handles all this beautifully.

I started off right away and built my own 8-Fader box some years ago, which served me well until i replaced it recently with a 16 faders PocketFader by Doepfer. Lean and mean, i'd say. Nothing fancy, no blinkenlichts or somesuch. Faders, one button, one LED and that's it. Works a treat.

Christian


http://www.artofthegroove.com/logic/mp3/Christian_Obermaier_demo.mp3 (show reel) http://uk.geocities.com/christianobermaier/home.htm (home page) http://uk.geocities.com/christianobermaier/Studio.htm (studio pics) http://uk.geocities.com/christianobermaier/Gearlist.htm (gear list)


----------



## lux (Dec 17, 2004)

Here's again:

- *Woods and Brass*: everytime I find woods and brass sounds I reduce the release to ~120ms. Most libs come with long releases on woods and brass, that sounds unnatural to me. If I need to achieve a better legato, I use manual overlapping in piano roll.

- *Woods and strings*: woods and strings runs can be achieved better results duplicating the actual track and assigning it to half step trills, way lower in volume.

- *Brass:* mute simulation: its a little tricky, but working with eq at about 1.2 to 2.0 Khz and reduceing drastically with a low-mid Q we could try to simulate mutes in some passages. It works better or worser depending on lib used. Sometimes it works.

- *Strings*: I noticed that adding a subtle decrescendo to sustain notes on violins expecially, it results in more realistic lines. I apply it after the start of the note, descrescendo, and then crescendo again when the note its near to change.

Dunno if they work for you, to me they worked.


----------



## Herman Witkam (Dec 17, 2004)

Thanks Luca. Those are some useful tips. Although I think no.1 and 3 are mostly useful for dry libraries. I actually did that thing with the trills once, accidentially, because of a program change that took effect too late


----------



## Frederick Russ (Dec 24, 2004)

Carefully layering libraries helps as well (SISS and VSL Legato Strings, for instance). Also (for VSL users) utilizing the dynamic crescendo and diminishing patches if possible sounds better to my ears (instead cc7 or cc11) because they're actual recordings of those techniques rather than artificially applied after the fact.


----------



## christianobermaier (Dec 25, 2004)

>Also (for VSL users) utilizing the dynamic crescendo and diminishing patches if possible sounds better to my ears (instead cc7 or cc11) because they're actual recordings of those techniques

Right, but at the same time, their timing is *never* right for the task at hand, so one is easily tempted to write for the library, rather than for the music.

Christian


http://www.artofthegroove.com/logic/mp3/Christian_Obermaier_demo.mp3 (show reel) http://uk.geocities.com/christianobermaier/home.htm (home page) http://uk.geocities.com/christianobermaier/Studio.htm (studio pics) http://uk.geocities.com/christianobermaier/Gearlist.htm (gear list)


----------



## Scott Rogers (Apr 5, 2005)

..........


----------



## Ted Vanya (Jul 3, 2005)

*Thanks.*

Just heard about this Forum, visited and you guys impressed me so much, I signed up. Thanks Cristian, and others,just on this one thread is great!

Ted


----------



## Frederick Russ (Jul 3, 2005)

Greetings Ted - nice seeing you here 8)


----------



## gugliel (Jul 17, 2005)

A little late to this but here's one tip exactly contradictory to some other tips before: NEVER play in an instrumental line on a keyboard, unless it is for a keyboard instrument. The technique of a clarinet or a violin or a trumpet or a drum is just too different, and nearly every instrument has its own peculiarities that your brain can make your mouse clicks imitate, but that your hands on a blackandwhite keyboard smash right across and blur away. 

My tip would be to take the time saved by not playing in notes and use it learn about a clarinet, and internalize the chalameau (sp?) and the break and the other technical factors (no, i'm not a clarinetist), and learn about a violin and what the open strings mean and what the positions mean, and learn about timpani strokes, and learn everything.

It's also painfully boring to play in most orchestral parts, imo -- better results can come from patiently sculpting every note, one at a time, slowly, but eventually you'll move fast. For the slow-noted parts especially, playing them is just silly (opinion, opinion) and slow (experience, opinion) and applies a kind of accidental expression that would be better planned. 

And get rid of rhythmic rigidity by thought and planning, not by finger accidents or momentary inspiration.

Here's another tip: always use two tracks minimum per instrument, dividing lines constantly between the tracks. Helps to avoid overlaps, phase problems from reverb of repeated notes, pitch bend overlaps, etc, etc. Also, if you use slightly different panning, can help to put a little subtle liveliness in the sound.


----------



## Simon Ravn (Jul 17, 2005)

Gugliel - hmmmmmm.... hmmmmm....  I play in all my lines, no matter what instrument it is. I wouldn't want to follow your tip that's for sure. Even though it's a clarinet or whatever instrument I don't see your point in why it should become more realistic by putting in the keys with some tool in a sequencer instead - besides I would never finish a piece if I had to resort to this slow technique - AND how would I be able to improvise and try out melodies etc... no... sorry but I think this tip is a very bad one.

Also, the "two tracks per instrument"... I don't buy into that either, sorry


----------



## Niah (Jul 17, 2005)

I totally agree Simon. Since I've been playing all my lines my midi-mockups have improved greatly. 
You can't exactly capture the playing technique of a particular instrument while playing the keyboard because you are playing with samples, and samples have limitations. So adding each note on your sequencer isn't going to do any good IMO. In fact I think playing your lines is the only way you can achieve a natural/human feeling.
Then of course you can always edit and tweak to death these same lines.


----------



## Herman Witkam (Jul 17, 2005)

christianobermaier said:


> >Also (for VSL users) utilizing the dynamic crescendo and diminishing patches if possible sounds better to my ears (instead cc7 or cc11) because they're actual recordings of those techniques
> 
> Right, but at the same time, their timing is *never* right for the task at hand, so one is easily tempted to write for the library, rather than for the music.
> 
> Christian



To overcome that problem, additional expression control can be used to correct the softest parts. Just let the note start too early and then start tweaking the volume of the first part of the note when crescendo and vise versa with decrescendo/diminuendo. Start or end with 0 expression. With reverb added this will be masked enough not to be audible. It works especially well with low instruments for me.


----------



## Herman Witkam (Jul 17, 2005)

gugliel said:


> A little late to this but here's one tip exactly contradictory to some other tips before: NEVER play in an instrumental line on a keyboard, unless it is for a keyboard instrument. The technique of a clarinet or a violin or a trumpet or a drum is just too different, and nearly every instrument has its own peculiarities that your brain can make your mouse clicks imitate, but that your hands on a blackandwhite keyboard smash right across and blur away.
> 
> My tip would be to take the time saved by not playing in notes and use it learn about a clarinet, and internalize the chalameau (sp?) and the break and the other technical factors (no, i'm not a clarinetist), and learn about a violin and what the open strings mean and what the positions mean, and learn about timpani strokes, and learn everything.



Gathering knowledge about the instruments is a great thing. While time consuming, it's also good to learn and play (one, or more) instruments. I myself want to learn as many woodwind instruments as possible, to perform some live and to improve my understanding of how the instruments work.

After having gathered knowledge about these instruments you can of course still play the parts on a keyboard. I find playing drum/percussion parts (including rolls) on a keyboard quite valuable. Same goes for anything staccato.

Btw - The Chalumeau is the medieval predecessor of the Clarinet


----------



## Dr.Quest (Jul 17, 2005)

I'm with Simon on this as well. I can't imagine composing without playing, especially to picture. I always imagine how the instruments sounds in my head and apply those ideas. And not being a piano player means that I don't approach the parts as a piano player. Expression for me comes from playing the part in and all the accidents (happy or otherwise) that might bring with it.
Cheers,
J 8)


----------



## TARI (Jul 17, 2005)

I think it should be a mix, everything played to give your spirit to the music, but after corrected in the matrix, that's the way I work... :wink:


----------



## fictionmusic (Jul 17, 2005)

[quote="Herman Witkam]Btw - The Chalumeau is the medieval predecessor of the Clarinet [/quote]

Its also the name a lot of texts give the lowest register of a clarinet. I think that was what Gugiel was refering to.

For my part, I use a guitar and a keyboard for entering notes. Both require a bit of post performance editing. Right now I am seriously considering building a midi continuous controller foot pedal (retro fitted from a wah), to handle stuff when I play gtr (a Godin Multiac)


----------



## Herman Witkam (Jul 17, 2005)

fictionmusic said:


> Herman Witkam said:
> 
> 
> > Btw - The Chalumeau is the medieval predecessor of the Clarinet
> ...



Of course - lol, thanks. 

The name makes sense though, because the range of the medieval Chalumeau is around the same as the clarinet's Chalumeau.

Those Godins play great btw!


----------



## José Herring (Jul 17, 2005)

Please forgive me for joining in. I don't consider myself a great midi mock up artist yet but I'm improving rapidly in that area. For me I've noticed a couple of things in criticing others and in improving my own work.

1) Every instrument plays in it's own way. After I write the music I then go back and adjust the performance according to the character of the instrument.
2) Non-quantized sections sound sloppy. While quantized solo lines sound fake. I always quantize sections. A non-quantized violin section line sounds really fake because if you're timing isn't perfect the whole patch is out equally which will never sound like a real violin section. And, if you have the whole string section playing, having the different lines slide in and out is really not good. So for large sections and even small ones I quantize immediately and then try to make it sound more live with adjusting articulations and volume controls. Plus a few other things.
3) I always set sections to the same velocity for a given passage. I think it sounds really unnatural to have one velocity for this note then another for the next ect., if the passage is suppose to be around the same dynamic level. So I level them off within a particular dynamic level and again achieve expression some other ways.
4) Balance the instruments realistically
5) Know your orchestration inside and out.
6) And, route your mod wheel to control the volume envelop,plus pitch, plus filter. When you do a swell each instrument goes through some different changes and it sounds sythy to me not to have also some pitch change and some brightening of the sound when there's a swell.
7) I'm having some sucess these days in adding some microtuning gliss to t-bones and other brass to get more of a realistic attach. I'm now trying to find a way to tie it over to velocity so the harder you hit the note the more out of tune it starts.

Jose


----------



## lux (Jul 17, 2005)

Simon, I agree with you about playing all notes, no discussion imho.

Still liked to see some longer contribution from members as you, as mentioned earlier in this old thread. Correcting another post is good, but not that good imho.

I have to recognize to Guglielmo at least that he tried to add something to this thread.

Luca


----------



## jc5 (Jul 17, 2005)

These days thanks to the variety of actual articulations this is no longer so much of an issue (though it does turn up periodically!), but in the old days of 'one generic patch fits all' it was frequently possible to clearly make out the _keystrokes_ in the string and wind lines of... lets say... 'less experienced' midi producers.. :wink: 
Clearly not a good thing.

Now with stacs that are stacs, trills that are trills, tremolos that are tremolos, etc. this is much rarer.
Then as now if one is playing in the lines it is important to keep in mind the characteristics of the instrument in question - to shape the phrase as that instrument would. 
However, having heard pieces by most of the contributors to this thread, I think it is safe to say that this is news to no one here. 8)


----------



## fictionmusic (Jul 17, 2005)

Herman Witkam said:


> The name makes sense though, because the range of the medieval Chalumeau is around the same as the clarinet's Chalumeau.
> 
> Those Godins play great btw!



Well there you go, you learn something new everyday. I always wondered what the term Chalameau was in reference to.

Yes the Godins are pretty wonderful midi gtrs. They tracking is pretty responsive (better on higher strings than lower) and even more so with dead strings (less harmonic content to drive processors into second guess mode) and with a little track shifting, emminently usable.


----------



## José Herring (Jul 17, 2005)

edit: OOPS. Never mind. Carry on fellows.


Jose


----------



## synergy543 (Jul 17, 2005)

I always play parts in on a keyboard and make heavy use of the mod wheels to get maximum expression. Still it sounds fake, but much more "human" than entering notes into the computer. Afterwards, I always go in and edit the timing to clean up sloppiness but with the minimum amount of change necessary to create a tighter feel (so as not to loose the "human" performance aspect).

Also, with some sounds (if they are sluggish) I might move the entire phrase by several MIDI ticks to compensate for the lag of the envelope or the MIDI delays.

The trickest part for me is balancing the expression controllers (usually CC1 and CC11) with the overall volume (CC7) mix. The problem I run into is that changing one parameter affects the others so its tricky to balance it all out. In a real orchestra, all of the players get to hear each other while following the conductor so there is an amazing "fine-tuning" that is hard to re-create with samplers for me.


----------



## gugliel (Jul 17, 2005)

synergy543 said:


> In a real orchestra, all of the players get to hear each other while following the conductor so there is an amazing "fine-tuning" that is hard to re-create with samplers for me.



that's the central truth to our efforts with samplers! 

I acknowledge that people get good results who 'play in' their parts. It's probably just my own personal combination of patience and impatience that leads me to find 'tweaking' them in using edit and cut and paste faster in the end and less draining of inspiration than playing at a boring pace (especially replaying after a mistake) and then tweaking to correct. 

So just wanted those who seek 'tips' to know that there are those (one at least, ME) who have a great deal of experience, anyway, even if no particular laurels, who choose the computer keyboard over the piano keyboard for midi input. Any developmental noodling I do is at a real piano on another floor of my house, and with manuscript paper at hand.


----------



## closemike (Jul 24, 2005)

*i 'mouse' my parts, thankyouverymuch*

Hello all,

I couldn't disagree more with those warning 
about the use of quantization. Quantize/humanize can be an incredibly flexible tool; putting all note-start-times exactly on a beat is just one 
(rather simplistic) way of imagining it.

Writing parts from a keyboard offers no true advantage to a composer who knows how to use quantize/humanize; in fact, unless one has some keyboard chops, I wouldn't recommend keyboards at all. 

With a top-down approach (by this I mean working from the general to the specific), one can transform even the most robotic step-sequenced parts into living, breathing, natural-sounding music--one simply needs the right tools, and to know how to use them. I write directly to the piano scroll. I quantize everything first, often getting creative with templates. Any rhythm, or 'resultant rhythm' (the rhythm that results when summing two or more parts) can be used as a quantization source. After quantizing, I have my software generate randommness that falls within certain parameters--usually 3 or 4 ticks either side of a beat will give a generized looseness. Of course most 'real' performers have slants or (how do I say this...) re-occuring patterns of psuedo-randomness (yuck); so then it follows that it is advantagous to give ones dequantizing/humanizing template a more specific slant as well--a 
'personality'--as it were.

If you have an idea in your head of what you're trying to do--a 'conception', then there are innumerable methods available towards achieving your musical goals, and 'mousing' suits me at this point in time just fine. Working top-down usually gets me 90-95% there, the last five 
percent is spent zeroing in on few problems that remain; then it's the nitty-gritty of mousing individual notes: stretching a duration 'here', moving a notes start time 'there'. 

I think we all tend to tout the method which we personally feel comfortable with and use. I used keyboard controllers for several years; but not being a natural player, found the amount of time spent thusly to be frustrating.

Cheers!


----------



## Buckles (Jul 25, 2005)

I dont know whether this has been mentioned, cuz I couldnt be bothered going back through the thread...but...

Ive found in the last few months or so, that using varying amounts of Compression on the main mix actually adds a certain amount of realism by trying to mimick what an orchestral recording would sound like. It may not be good for the purist classical composers, but for us filmies, that push-pull feel as the frenchies cut through the mix, or big timpani accents...compression can just give the mix a little breath of life. 

Just dont use too much. 

-s


----------



## José Herring (Jul 25, 2005)

Interesting you should mention compression. I had an engineer friend back in New York who use to say that the ear naturally compresses as the sound passes the natural threashold of the ear. Since most recordings are heard at a comfortable listening level, he would say that an uncompressed recording sounds unnatural to the human ear when music approached louder sections.

In my recent study of mastering I found that multiband compression actually gives the recording that natural undulation that I use to hear so much going to live orchestra concerts at Avery Fisher hall and Carnegie both of which accoustically are some of the livest halls I've been in. Though Avery Fisher is only really live in the first 1/3 of the hall from the orchestra to the 2nd tier. Anything beyond that don't waste your money. Carnegie on the other hand is actually more live in the back of the hall in the upper balcony.....but I degress.

Cheers,

Jose


----------



## TheoKrueger (Jul 25, 2005)

I think its a good idea to use the +/- time option that most sequencers have for some samples. Especially brass. I find it very useful for the lower register brass like Frenchies, Trombones and Tuba. Tuba takes hours for the actuall attack to come in so it helps setting the start time of the track to minus. I believe it sounds smoother.

Personally i use EWQLSO Gold. The good thing with Gold is that the attacks are not very tight, that means that there is bit of "real stuff" before the actual sample starts playing. So by setting the midi track time to minus, you get the actual attack coming on time and you get the "Stuff" as well before the attack. You might need to overlap some notes for better transitions.


----------



## Waywyn (Jul 25, 2005)

i personally think, you have to know the instruments well. what is the character and the behaving of the instrument or of the player in certain parts. listen to music in everything. i also went that far to buy a cheap violine to just know how it feels to play strings. 

if there is a heavy horn melody i sometimes play with my whole arm, so not with just the finger but i try to make it heavy and then hit the notes, tho you have the feeling you are always a little laid back when it come to really deep and heavy melodies.

also you can adjust a lot through the track latency thing. like it was mentioned earlier, just add charakter for certain instrument, like the violins put a little -10 on it or the tuba a little +20 etc.

a good thing i never want to miss is my midiman radium 61 keyboard. i have so many controlllers on this thing i barely used everyone but you can program all the midi commands on the buttons, switches and whatever (yes i know, basically like you can do on every keyboard) but it is still cool.

sometimes if i am not sure how to put my expression or mod on it, i just play the melody and then record the expression commands with an overdub, so i can listen to the melody and control the expression at the same time.

well, i am certainly not one the master mockup composer guys but this is what i found very helpful.


----------



## TheoKrueger (Jul 25, 2005)

Waywyn said:


> sometimes if i am not sure how to put my expression or mod on it, i just play the melody and then record the expression commands with an overdub, so i can listen to the melody and control the expression at the same time.



It would be really cool to have a long vertical rod of with a feel sensor, or a slider of some sort with which you could control expression. If you make a comparision of a Modwheel with a conductor with a batton you can get the feel of how limiting it is. Imagine a conductor moving his baton 5CM up and down, from 0 to full volume in those 5CM. Sounds pretty un-smooth... but then again, midi has only 127 increments.

Waywyn, have you tried drawing expression in at the piano roll? Do you think Modwheel gives better results?


----------



## jorgen (Jul 25, 2005)

I prefer to make a piano sketch first - in order to get the timing right - especially when writing to picture. Knowing of course what will later be orchestrated as this or that instrument. I never think or write a line without knowing what instrument it is played by!

This way I keep it simple and easy to overlook the music - instead of immediately getting caught in tech considerations - what samples to choose/effects etc.

It's like building a house; first you make the simple sketch, then you elaborate and end up doing a 3d-model.

BUT then other times I start out knowing the exact sample I want to use and just play away (sometimes even without setting a tempo in the sequencer - ooooo, naughty- ei?  )

As Folman said; there are many ways to the result...


----------



## gravehill (Jul 25, 2005)

TheoKrueger said:


> It would be really cool to have a long vertical rod of with a feel sensor, or a slider of some sort with which you could control expression.



You might want to check out the R2M MIDI ribbon controller by Doepfer ( http://www.doepfer.de/home_e.htm ). It's more intended for playing notes in theremin/trautonium way but you can use your host program to convert the notes to cc.

With my music I find I'm rarely using any other controllers except velocity. I find that slightly exaggerating the velocity differences in solo lines (with pretty much any instrument sound) makes the part sound more realistic in full mix. 

Then again, I get some advantage from the use of electronic sounds. Even a bit worse quality samples tend to sound more "real" when put in context with some clearly synthetic sounds.

BTW, someone asked about the cc controller boxes. One item I'm most definitely going to buy in the near future is the BCR2000 rotary controller from Behringer. It has 32 knobs which you can assign to what ever controllers you want.


----------



## TheoKrueger (Jul 25, 2005)

jorgen said:


> BUT then other times I start out knowing the exact sample I want to use and just play away (sometimes even without setting a tempo in the sequencer - ooooo, naughty- ei?  )


 Haha yeah, sounds pretty scary to me! :shock: 

Gravehill thanks for the link man. Thats a really cool All-Controller site!

Strange that you don't use any controller apart from velocity. Usually doing some dynamics with CC11 just before every new note comes in helps realism, like a soft crecendo or decrease of volume and then rise again. Also fading in and out each instrument line makes a difference or accenting the very last moment of the last note. But if it works for you man....

Quote Jorgen who quoted Folman:
"As Folman said; there are many ways to the result..."

Gravehill: that ribbon controller is exactly what i was thinking of! Thanks again. Damn, i've heard that word hundreds of times but never asked what it was


----------



## Waywyn (Jul 25, 2005)

TheoKrueger said:


> Waywyn, have you tried drawing expression in at the piano roll? Do you think Modwheel gives better results?



thats exactly the point, when you draw stuff you just look at the notes and draw where you think it is best, then listen 450 times and do some edits, but if you draw it directly while listeing you can literally interact with the "player" and i think the results are better ... and you just need to edit 158 times after that


----------



## Dr.Quest (Jul 25, 2005)

TheoKrueger said:


> It would be really cool to have a long vertical rod of with a feel sensor, or a slider of some sort with which you could control expression. If you make a comparision of a Modwheel with a conductor with a batton you can get the feel of how limiting it is. Imagine a conductor moving his baton 5CM up and down, from 0 to full volume in those 5CM. Sounds pretty un-smooth... but then again, midi has only 127 increments.



I've started using the Alesis Photon x25 controller. It has buttons and knobs that can be assigned to anything. The buttons control Logic Play/Record Etc. so I use the qwerty keyboard less doing composing. But the interesting thing is it has a AXYZ Beam controller that you can just wave your hand over to control CC info. I have the z axis set for CC#11 so after I record a line I can go back and "conduct" it with this controller info. It has potential.





Cheers,
Jamie


----------



## TheoKrueger (Jul 25, 2005)

Waywyn you have a real good point there man. That always happens and its so time consuming.

Dr.Quest the Beam controller seems great! Thanks for sharing that. It seems to be the ideal solution since waving your hand up and down is a simple natural move.

Do you think its worth 200$ from your experience and also, could you please elaborate a bit on the results you get from waving your hand-- is it smooth?

Thanks


----------



## Dr.Quest (Jul 25, 2005)

TheoKrueger said:


> Dr.Quest the Beam controller seems great! Thanks for sharing that. It seems to be the ideal solution since waving your hand up and down is a simple natural move.
> 
> Do you think its worth 200$ from your experience and also, could you please elaborate a bit on the results you get from waving your hand-- is it smooth?
> 
> Thanks



Theo,
I bought the X25 mainly for all the knobs and buttons to control Logic, which it seems to do quite well. I wanted something with more going on then the Oxygen 8 that I was using (this is in addition to my main keyboard). The beam control has potential, I think to be very expressive. I have it set to the z Axis with the control reversed so that the closer you are the quieter it is . This seems to be best when controlling CC#11.
I just suspend my hand above it and move it in time to the recording. It is smooth but of course it generates a lot of data.
It is a USB audio interface as well so for $200 you get a lot but if it's just for the beam I'm not sure it would be worth it. It might be something to try before you buy to see if it works for you.
So far I like it a lot.
J 8)


----------



## Tod (Jul 26, 2005)

Hi Everybody,

I use EWQL-Gold and Kontakt-2 a lot and in order to get more realistic sounding Instrument lines I tend to use some rather exagerated cc-11 between notes. The big problem with this is that trying to balance between the "Rel" tail of one note and the "Attack" of the next note can be frustrateing to say the least.

Of course you could use two midi tracks and instrument slots useing different channels and stagger the notes but thats not acceptable.

A work around for me is to make a simple KeySwitch in Kontact. So far I've only done this with instruments that have only two groups but I think could basicaly be done with any instrument.

What I do is take an instrument and set up it's groups to start at say "C0" (under the "Group Start Options"). I then copy those groups and paste them back in as separate groups (this doesn't add any samples or extra load on the CPU as far as I know). I then select the group I've pasted (make sure the Edit All Groups is off), set them to "C#0" in Group Start Options, and then change the Midi cc11 (under "Modulation" in the Amplifier section) to cc12.

What I end up with is an Instrument that will react to two different Volume Controls (cc11 & cc12) depending on how I use the KeySwitches. I then stagger the Keyswitches in the Midi track and use either cc11 or cc12 to correspond with the Keyswitch. "NO MORE SUCKING SOUNDS" or other aggrivated problems associated with lots of cc11. :D 

Another little side advantage to this is if your like me and like to keep each Midi track to single note lines with separate volume controls but end up with just a few notes that require the same instrument, I can now add those notes to the same Midi track but still have different Volume controls for them. This saves from haveing to add another midi track along with another instrument just to take care of these few notes.

Most of you are over my head and probably have a better way of dealing with this but since I didn't see anything I thought I'd add it anyway.

Tod


----------

