# Your favorite MIDI orchestration tip



## Ashermusic

I am doing an article for macProvideo.com's Hub, Ask Audio magazine, on MIDI orchestration tips. Please give me your favorite and I will mention that it came from you in the article if I use it.


----------



## ghandizilla

The one I belove (in completion of piano roll randomizing tools) to get a human touch is a slight but constant variation in tempo. For instance, in a 90bpm piece, the tempo varies between 87-92.


----------



## Rodney Money

Play it in live.


----------



## Rodney Money

Also to trick the ear that the music is quieter, use smaller sections such as horn a2 for "quieter moments" and larger sections such as horn a6 for louder ones.


----------



## Nils Neumann

Don't copy and paste, especially if you are layering instruments


----------



## ed buller

controller data, controller data, controller data.....then MORE controller data

e


----------



## Jimmy Hellfire

In addition to all of the above:

Don't take note lengths too literally. Instead, listen to how the recorded samples actually behave.


----------



## Jdiggity1

Verb verb verb, verb is the word.


----------



## Dave Connor

A sustained tone should always be either rising or descending in volume. The rare exception being a deliberately held chord such as in a loud or soft brass chord where the _idea_ is that it should sustain at a particular volume. A whole note in the strings at 60 bpm should rise/sustain/fall. The main consideration is the speed of rise and fall natural to whatever instrument, which changes in context and should be studied by listening to the real thing (if realism is your goal.)


----------



## Guy Bacos

We seem to forget it takes a professional musicians at least 10 years before getting that sweet sound. I think people working with samples should invest much more time listening to what makes a nice phrasing, what are the combination of elements that gives it this sound, decompose it, study it, imitate it, experiment, refine your listening, there are no short cuts, it's an _"art". _


----------



## AllanH

I realize that the question is about midi orchestration, but even so:

The primary task is orchestration followed by refinement using midi, not the other way around. It’s easy to work on a 200+ track template and completely lose the primary focus: orchestration with an eye on instrumentation first, then refine, layer, and program using midi automation.


----------



## Maestro1972

I think we are all guilty of adding more instruments/sections than what is needed. This not only has the potential of making the mix extremely muddy but it can also drown the musical idea that you are trying to get across. So to put it simply, use only the instruments need to express your musical idea, the rest are just getting in the way.


----------



## Assa

To me, the most important thing is to balance the volumes of the individual sections...a lot of mockups I hear are good performance-wise, but incorrect volumes make it sound very unrealistic. Woodwinds are way too loud in a lot of templates that I hear especially.

Very often when winds are just there for adding texture...for example the beginning of the star wars main theme when the winds are playing trills at ~10 seconds, you CAN hear them playing when you are listening for them, but it's not obvious. As soon something like this is really noticeable in your mix it is very obvious that it's just a mockup.

So I trained this by mocking up a few short passages of those "you don't really hear it, but when it's not there, something is missing - things", and it helped me a lot improving my balance.


----------



## Parsifal666

I think it was Hans Zimmer who said (probable paraphrase) "there's no such thing as an orchestra at your fingertips". You can strive toward as good an approximation as you can, and that's the best you can hope for (and try not to rely too much on the fact that most non musicians don't have the easiest time telling the difference).

It will never be a live symphony orchestra; believing you can achieve that kind of edgy, gigantic sound can be a fool's game, and can negatively impact what you're doing.

Anyhow, that's my take on that quote.


----------



## Fab

I came up with a new one, quite recently...I sit quietly, then remember that hey! Andrew Blaney is still way better than me, so I find something else. Doesn't matter where, just find it cause he is going to keep getting better and I will never program like his last SF demo...

...and could 50 violins do 223 bars of constant col legno at 145bpm?

Respect the instruments you are emulating. Listen to what they do, where they usually sit, how they work etc.

All this has been already been communicated more elegantly by those above.


----------



## JJP

Dave Connor said:


> A sustained tone should always be either rising or descending in volume. The rare exception being a deliberately held chord such as in a loud or soft brass chord where the _idea_ is that it should sustain at a particular volume.



I'll second this. The shape of a sustained tone makes a huge difference. When musicians hold a note, it is rarely static. It is always going somewhere, though sometimes that motion may be quite subtle. I like to use a breath controller for expression/volume to create shape because I find it quick and intuitive. It also allows me to create a more complex shape without worrying about microscopic detail.

This shape is also quite important in the cutoff of a note. Does it stop suddenly? Does it dovetail under another voice's entrance? Does it build to this cutoff? Does it taper down to a low level, hold there, and then imperceptibly disappear? Does it sound like a consonant or a vowel if you were to sing it?

I still have some old choir samples in my library that began their life on an S-760. Occasionally I use them because they are simple patches I can quickly shape to make them sound believable. They don't work for everything, but in certain situations they are the perfect answer. I've had people accuse me of overdubbing live choir simply because the notes move in ways people expect from singers.


----------



## KEnK

I like to nudge things forward or back depending on the desired feel.
Works great on bass parts
Also- I like to move all snares and kicks in opposite directions (kick ahead, snare back or vis versa))
works well on hats too
Very effective.

k


----------



## Karma

Adding to the point mentioned above, a big turning point for my compositions was when I really started to pay attention to variation in the tempo track. In the right context adding a dip or increase in tempo at the end of a phrase can completely change a piece.


----------



## AllanH

Karmarghh said:


> Adding to the point mentioned above, a big turning point for my compositions was when I really started to pay attention to variation in the tempo track. In the right context adding a dip or increase in tempo at the end of a phrase can completely change a piece.


I really wish my DAW would let me automate the tempo map, but no such luck.


----------



## NoamL

*1. "Playing it in live" is good but, IMO, over rated.* Yes _some_ humanization is nice but it doesn't transform notes into music. For that you need phrasing - think like the musicians - when would you breathe? how would you break bows? Where is the phrase "going"? Sing it if you're not sure (hurray for soundproofed studios...)

*2. You don't hear all the instruments at ff.* Exactly like @Assa said! Orchestrating real scores into MIDI can be very educational. Realistically in a tutti, you mainly hear brass and percussion and the rest becomes textural.

*3. Line up your transients! *Bounce them to audio if you're not sure. Every developer seems to have a different philosophy about exactly what "attack" means.


----------



## NoamL

And a great tip from @Rctec:
*



"Don't even think about doing the drums until you've written everything else!

Click to expand...

*


> Fit them around the music. Once you cover everything in drums, there is no more room for inventive writing and your bass end will become problematic... I always put the perc in last, but I write and orchestrate everything else knowing what perc I want to use and intimately knowing my sounds - and what I want the perc to do. Which means leaving lots of head-room in the rest of the piece. If I put perc in too early, I will not spend any time getting a subtle and wellcrafted track - perc at a "Zimmer" level marks all sorts of mistakes in the orchestration that you then don't hear until its played on a big screen with a huge, proper, theatre soundsystem, with you dying in front of your friends.
> It takes me forever to program a good perc track. I remember spending a whole week on the "Jack Sparrow" suite in "Pirates", just trying to get it to sit well in the track and not get boring or overwhelming.
> Since most of my perc is recorded at AIR, I have a whole load of baked-in reverb (Which drives Steve Lipson crazy, but Alan - who does my more "epic" scores, loves). I can control the mics in my sampler, but I love the sound of the room more than the close-mics. But obvious one trick that helps to preserve clarity is to move the far mics and out-riggers forward in time and line all the transients up. I know that's impossible in nature - that time is determined by the distance of one mic to the other - but it still gives me a huge sound without getting all that flammy transient shit. Plus, rather than compressing the drums, I use AHDSRs to basically make a transient designer, and tailor the releases. This works a lot better than compression or gating, since it's not amplitude dependent.
> The other thing is, line your tracks up properly. All engineers I work with spend the majority of their time making sure all the note-starts are really together. That's where the power is.
> I try not to double too many hits. just get the one great drum, and don't mess up it's frequency spectrum with another one blurring the tone.
> I like copying patterns, but I make sure there is enough 'round-robin' stuff going on. Most good 'real' percussionists don't throw a bunch of variation into a take. They play the part - even if its a one-bar loop for the whole piece. But the subtle variation in tone from each hit makes it just interesting enough.
> Watch out that your high end isn't too bright. It's cheesy (as are cymbal rolls, belltrees, etc.) and is the antithesis of big and epic.
> 
> I never cut the bottom end on my perc. If it really is a problem, I let the dubbing engineer deal with it - usually he wants more low end, since a good theatre system - like IMAX - will extend pretty low (I just had all my synth modified so that they go down to 10 hz. most of them rolled off at about 35...)
> 
> But orchestration is mixing...
> 
> -Hz-"


----------



## storyteller

*Rule 1: Dont turn knobs because you think you are supposed to.*
Just like in studio recording, if the engineer has done his/her job and has used the right signal chain (e.g. preamps, cables, microphones, a/d converters), very little to no EQ will be needed. The same goes for professional sample libraries. Assume little to no EQ is needed unless it is intended to serve a purpose such as to create a specific sound (such as "bombastic" percussion) or to match sample libraries. The exception to this rule is the use of the low-cut filter (also known as the high-pass filter) to remove unwanted buildup of the lower end frequencies of the noise floor.


----------



## Soundhound

Time is everything. Groove is everything. I come from jazz, blues and rock and am a baby orchestral composer, but it seems to apply here as well, though applied very differently. As Miles said, it's not the notes you play, it's the notes you don't play.


----------



## pmcrockett

There are no bar lines; there is no grid. Edits should be made based on how they sound, not how they look.


----------



## Maxime Luft

Make it breath ! Try to put some short pauses between your motives and phrases. 
Each note will have more value and all that process is certainly going to highlight all your musical ideas 

I think this applies to nearly all types of music...


----------



## karelpsota

The lower the instrument - the more "time and harmonic" separation you need.


----------



## Arbee

Given that MIDI orchestration, like modern 3D graphics of buildings and other physical things, is a virtual rendering of reality, you need to immerse yourself thoroughly in the real thing first in order to be effective and make the appropriate rendering decisions. I can't imagine anyone who hasn't actually been an architect or engineer rendering a workable 3D walk-through image of a shopping centre or a new car design.

This assumes of course we are talking about MIDI orchestration in that context, not as a pure art form in its own right or as sound design.


----------



## Assa

Arbee said:


> Given that MIDI orchestration, like modern 3D graphics of buildings and other physical things, is a virtual rendering of reality, you need to immerse yourself thoroughly in the real thing first in order to be effective and make the appropriate rendering decisions. I can't imagine anyone who hasn't actually been an architect or engineer rendering a workable 3D walk-through image of a shopping centre or a new car design.
> 
> This assumes of course we are talking about MIDI orchestration in that context, not as a pure art form in its own right or as sound design.



I think that is a very true statement! Musical knowledge is more important than technical. It's not a conincindence that the mockups that impress me the most are made by skilled composers who know how to write for live orchestra as well.


----------



## Deleted member 422019

Here's a tip I learned: 


Soundhound said:


> Time is everything. Groove is everything. I come from jazz, blues and rock and am a baby orchestral composer, but it seems to apply here as well, though applied very differently. As Miles said, it's not the notes you play, it's the notes you don't play.



Yep. I'd add also that it's the space between the notes, the silence, which has an uncanny way of influencing the entire sound of the piece, paradoxical, but where does sound come from if not silence? It's not only the notes you play, but _how_ they are played. I agree that groove, that sense of flow that gives music its life, its magic, is fundamental to all music be it orchestral or virtual orchestral.

Jerry
www.jerrygerber.com


----------



## Deleted member 422019

Here's some tips: Go for balance, transparency and and pay attention to orchestral weight.

1. Balance: Does the texture as a whole work, is any frequency range too loud or too soft?, Do the instruments added together create only volume, or do they also create a pleasing tone color?

20-200hz low range
200-1000hz low mid-range
1000-5000hz high mid-range
5000-20000hz high range

2. Transparency: Even in a dense, fully orchestrated passage, the orchestration, voice-leading and counterpoint should be able to be heard, in other words the melodic motions of both inner and outer voices should be clear. 
There are some situations where this may not be desirable, but usually it is.

3. Orchestral weight: How many instruments are you assigning to one part? Why? Sometimes it's done to reinforce the loudness of that line, other times to affect the color and volume.

In real composition, these above principles are continuously in flux, as Mahler said about orchestration "Variety, variety, variety!"


----------



## thov72

hey. great posts. nice


----------



## Silence-is-Golden

1) Go to live concerts

2) there are many tutorials on youtube by professional musicians that tell a lot about what is possible for each instrument.

3) learn what each instruments pp to ff are, and balance accordingly in your template.
Also the range of an instrument will determine if it can play pp or forte for example.
Try to let a flute player pp high up or forte in lower registers is something to know about.
( see tutorials)
Normalised sampled instruments can fool us of its dynamic range accross the whole register.

PS: @Jay: if you use any of these tips from this post is up to you, but "anonymus" is good by me.
It is more that this post is an interesting collection of everyones experience and tips for sharing amongst each other.

PS2: @Jay you probably let us know when the article is published?
Thanks for the initiative for this.


----------



## garyhiebner

Modulation and Expression are your best friends. Don't forget to use them


----------



## Living Fossil

One extremly important thing to know: our perception of an "orchestral" sounds relies in a big part on the fact, that the intonation in orchestras is not exact.
This goes specially for octaves:
In the real world it's simply never perfect.
That's a reason why very often really good samples may sound bad:
Perfectly tuned octaves in strings sound like synth-strings.
Perfectly tuned octaves in woodwinds and brass sound like an organ.

And another thing:
Very often, musicans (specially string players) speak about "just intonation".
That's maybe the biggest urban myth in music.
And the only reason it's still so popular is that people are too lazy to analyze what has been played
(in fact, there are lots of accurate analyses and they quite clearly show that in the opposite, string players prefer rather "exagerated" - too sharp or too flat - intervals, except for closing chords, which sometimes really are almost in just intonation).
Intonation can have a big impact on the way chords sound.
Just intonation on major chords gives a very static, harmonic & quite sound.
Sharper intervals make chords sound more dramatic.
(That's why for good musicians and singers intonation is a vital factor in shaping the expression)
However, in large orchestras, stochastic deviations are essential.


----------



## Ashermusic

Thanks guys, but a lot of this has to do more with composition and traditional orchestration and not MIDI orchestration specifically. And no they are NOT the same. And also, some of you are assuming that the goal is "realism." As I am well known for saying, and my article will reflect this, unless you are mocking up a Classical piece, know when to say, "screw what the real thing is, samples are not the real thing. Focus on making it sound good."

I love for instance Jerry Gerber's comments about balance and transparency, but take issue with weight that he raised. That is far more true with real instruments than sampled instruments, It just is. 

Mahler, great as he was, did not compose with samples 

So far my favorites, because they really IMHO are good for MIDI orchestration and that I will probably use are:

Dave Connor: "A sustained tone should always be either rising or descending in volume. The rare exception being a deliberately held chord such as in a loud or soft brass chord where the idea is that it should sustain at a particular volume."

This is especially true with samples, When static, they just have no life.

Nils Neumann: "Don't copy and paste, especially if you are layering instruments."

I already had that one as it is an article of faith for me. Additionally if you must because of a time crunch, use a "humanize " feature if your DAW has one.

Rodney Money: "Also to trick the ear that the music is quieter, use smaller sections such as horn a2 for "quieter moments" and larger sections such as horn a6 for louder ones."

I need to do that more.

I also like Storyteller's comment: "Dont turn knobs because you think you are supposed to. Just like in studio recording, if the engineer has done his/her job and has used the right signal chain (e.g. preamps, cables, microphones, a/d converters), very little to no EQ will be needed. The same goes for professional sample libraries. Assume little to no EQ is needed unless it is intended to serve a purpose such as to create a specific sound (such as "bombastic" percussion) or to match sample libraries. The exception to this rule is the use of the low-cut filter (also known as the high-pass filter) to remove unwanted buildup of the lower end frequencies of the noise floor."

Too many people ruin the sound of these libraries by EQing when they don't really know what they are doing.
Still not 100% sure that people do not overdo the low cut filtering also.

And finally, not surpsrisingly, Han's comment:
"Don't even think about doing the drums until you've written everything else! Fit them around the music. Once you cover everything in drums, there is no more room for inventive writing and your bass end will become problematic... I always put the perc in last, but I write and orchestrate everything else knowing what perc I want to use and intimately knowing my sounds - and what I want the perc to do.


----------



## AlexanderSchiborr

Maybe this is a very cheap one: But learn and spent time to know your libraries. That means: Spent a good amount of time in playing around with the patches and know them pretty good what you can do with them and what not. The longer you work with one library the more comfortable and more effective you write with them and you know where they shine and not.
Another cheap one: When you have a libraries (most modern have that) with multiple micings use micing faders for ambience and natural Reverberation because the baked in reverb is the most authentic ones you can get.

And a last one conected a bit to the previous tip:

Use Reverberation for glue and not always to create ambience on samples.

There is nothing bad to add another reverb "to glue" a bit more the sections ecpsecially when you work with libraries from different companies. But don´t overdo it with the wet Signal. As much as needed as less as possible.


----------



## Living Fossil

Ashermusic said:


> And also, some of you are assuming that the goal is "realism." As I am well known for saying, and my article will reflect this, unless you are mocking up a Classical piece, know when to say, "screw what the real thing is, samples are not the real thing. Focus on making it sound good."



Our perception is shaped by the real thing to a certain extent.
I've heard many, many mockups that sounded great, until the perfectly tuned octaves came.
From that moment they sounded cheap. Extremely cheap.
And that's the opposite of "sounding good".


----------



## Karma

I would argue that making use of the tempo track is still very much related to MIDI orchestration just as much as general. It's a crucial part in helping a piece to breathe, whether the goal is realism or not.


----------



## Ashermusic

Karmarghh said:


> I would argue that making use of the tempo track is still very much related to MIDI orchestration just as much as general. It's a crucial part in helping a piece to breathe, whether the goal is realism or not.



I agree and will be including that one.


----------



## Ashermusic

Living Fossil said:


> Our perception is shaped by the real thing to a certain extent.
> I've heard many, many mockups that sounded great, until the perfectly tuned octaves came.
> From that moment they sounded cheap. Extremely cheap.
> And that's the opposite of "sounding good".



And conversely, I have heard a lot of them that arguably sounded "more realistic" that nonetheless were lousy to listen to compared to ones that sounded less realistic but more musical to me. It is a balancing act.

But true about the perfect tuning.


----------



## Living Fossil

Ashermusic said:


> And conversely, I have heard a lot of them that arguably sounded "more realistic" that nonetheless were lousy to listen to compared to ones that sounded less realistic but more musical to me. It is a balancing act.



Of course.
However, i think a good mockup with perfect octaves in fast(er) melodic line will sound much better if those octaves are edited a bit. Additionally, the problem with perfect octaves also touches the perception of the reverberation: it takes that line out of the common space, it's really a weird psychoacoustic thing. 
(To be exact: it's rather our brain which behaves in weird ways when perceiving music)


----------



## Guy Bacos

AlexanderSchiborr said:


> Maybe this is a very cheap one: But learn and spent time to know your libraries. That means: Spent a good amount of time in playing around with the patches and know them pretty good what you can do with them and what not. The longer you work with one library the more comfortable and more effective you write with them and you know where they shine and not.



Not cheap at all, in fact I insist on that a lot, and I'm about to give up on giving this advice because people want more and more short cuts.


----------



## ghandizilla

Guy Bacos said:


> Not cheap at all, in fact I insist on that a lot, and I'm about to give up on giving this advice because people want more and more short cuts.



+1

Remember this topic? -> http://www.vi-control.net/community/threads/the-force-awakens-trailer-rescored-with-original-music.50053/


----------



## stonzthro

Here are a few tips I have to offer. None are easy, most are tedious in some way. I find the worst programming comes from people who "just want to play" and get confused that writing on a computer is not the same as playing in a group - not when you are being serious about getting your mockups to sound good. I have a good friend who is a fantastic composer and orchestrator, but not very good at mockups because he finds it boring. With that, these work for me, some things are more mitigating efforts than outright tips (like not stacking brass); some are common sense that seem to have little to do with MIDI orchestration but I think they are worth adding. 

1. Stack strings and percussion, but not brass (at least not note for note).
2. Figure out a way to be able to see what each instrument is capable of doing - I use Logic's track notes, which is always open.
3. Assign the MIDI CCs across your template to be somewhat similar if at all possible - this can cause issues with some libraries - Spitfire's mics conflict with Orchestral Tools - so you have to make some concessions.
4. Use the different mics to get the mix you want, not just EQ.
5. Take the time to program/adjust what you played in before you add another pass/stack.
6. Fist-o-chords works well for pads, not strings - if you want your strings to sound good, play them in one at a time, with different MIDI CC (don't copy-paste unless you are in a hurry).
7. Discover the quantize % feature and humanize feature in your DAW, please!
8. Learn key commands.
9. Build a template and stick with it for a while (a long while if possible); also, create different templates for different needs.
10. This should actually be #1, but write and orchestrate something every day you are in your studio - you'll figure out your own "tricks" that work for you.
11. Stack timpani at the octave if you want them to cut through (there are probably 50 different small tips like this, but I don't have time to write them all... see #10 for more info).
12. As stated before, keep some motion in your static parts, either through MIDI CCs or inner voice movement.


----------



## J-M

stonzthro said:


> 6. Fist-o-chords works well for pads, not strings - if you want your strings to sound good, play them in one at a time, with different MIDI CC (don't copy-paste unless you are in a hurry).



Sorry, english isn't my first language, so I got to ask. Do you mean that, for example, if I had the 1st violins playing a two-note chord I should record each note separately?


----------



## Ashermusic

OK, it is done and I will submit it late tonight.

Thanks to Nils Neumann, Rodney Money, Dave Connor, Karmarghh, NoamL, Storyteller, pmcrockett, and jsg. If any of you want me to use your real name instead of your forum name, PM me it.

Also, thanks to Craig Sharmat, who years ago showed me a useful trick I included, and of course Rctec, who was quoted here and I included the quote.


----------



## jononotbono

This whole thread is turning into a Gold mine of information for every misfit and recluse dedicated to becoming Midi Mockup Rockstars. Thanks for starting it!



Ashermusic said:


> OK, it is done and I will submit it late tonight.
> 
> Thanks to Nils Neumann, Rodney Money, Dave Connor, Karmarghh, NoamL, Storyteller, pmcrockett, and jsg. If any of you want me to use your real name instead of your forum name, PM me it.
> 
> Also, thanks to Craig Sharmat, who years ago showed me a useful trick I included, and of course Rctec, who was quoted here and I included the quote.


----------



## Deleted member 422019

I love for instance Jerry Gerber's comments about balance and transparency said:


> Orchestral weight does play a more significant role in the acoustic world because with samples it's possible to change the volume via velocity, controls 7 or 11, at the mixing console or virtual mixing console, or at other places in the signal chain. I think that's what you might mean. But the idea itself still holds weight (no pun intended!) because adding more instruments to a melodic line will thicken it, make it louder and change its tone color.
> 
> The way to give samples life is to continually change them through modulating attack and release times, velocity and start time, and changing articulation and orchestration. In the acoustic world, Mahler said about orchestration "variety, variety, variety". In the world of the virtual orchestra I'd add "variety, variety, variety, variety, variety"!
> 
> Jerry
> www.jerrygerber.com


----------



## Deleted member 422019

I wish the word "mockup" only existed for commercial scoring purposes and never used when speaking of the virtual orchestra as an artistic medium. It really doesn't serve us well...

Jerry
www.jerrygerber.com


----------



## jononotbono

jsg said:


> I wish the word "mockup" only existed for commercial scoring purposes and never used when speaking of the virtual orchestra as an artistic medium. It really doesn't serve us well...
> 
> Jerry
> www.jerrygerber.com



I certainly don't lose sleep over the word "mockup". Music is music.


----------



## Rob Elliott

I am sure you have this one but often over looked. On 'sustain' patches (really any library / section) - we give great care to making sure not all 'starting' notes are EXACTLY together (for liveness) - but we often forget about how we 'lift our hand' (releases) when playing in - In many ways this is key - especially if you want to hear the nuances BETWEEN ideas/notes. I am not talking 10 note block chords (sketch writing) but 2-4 note inner harmonic duty. If you have a library with individual recorded players samples (horn 1, horn 2, strings 'desk', etc.) then assign each of these notes to those individual tracks for even better results.


----------



## Ashermusic

Rob Elliott said:


> I am sure you have this one but often over looked. On 'sustain' patches (really any library / section) - we give great care to making sure not all 'starting' notes are EXACTLY together (for liveness) - but we often forget about how we 'lift our hand' (releases) when playing in - In many ways this is key - especially if you want to hear the nuances BETWEEN ideas/notes. I am not talking 10 note block chords (sketch writing) but 2-4 note inner harmonic duty. If you have a library with individual recorded players samples (horn 1, horn 2, strings 'desk', etc.) then assign each of these notes to those individual tracks for even better results.




I am sure I am being dense, but I am not following you here, Rob. One more attempt for the slow group?


----------



## Rob Elliott

No worries - bottom line - NEVER have all the notes of ANY chord end at the exact same time (be adventurous and liberal on how different each note in the chord's end note is - best results are often more than you think). Think sloppy - both for starting and especially ends of notes in the chords (releases).


----------



## Deleted member 422019

Here's an article I wrote several years ago on MIDI orchestration. I hope it is helpful to others..
http://www.jerrygerber.com/midiorchestration.htm

Jerry
www.jerrygerber.com


----------



## Deleted member 422019

Rob Elliott said:


> No worries - bottom line - NEVER have all the notes of ANY chord end at the exact same time (be adventurous and liberal on how different each note in the chord's end note is - best results are often more than you think). Think sloppy - both for starting and especially ends of notes in the chords (releases).



I wouldn't say "never". Different styles and context should be taken into account. Sometimes one wants more precision than at other times, components such as tempo, release time and style are also considerations...


----------



## Ashermusic

Rob Elliott said:


> No worries - bottom line - NEVER have all the notes of ANY chord end at the exact same time (be adventurous and liberal on how different each note in the chord's end note is - best results are often more than you think). Think sloppy - both for starting and especially ends of notes in the chords (releases).


Ah, got it


----------



## Rob Elliott

jsg said:


> I wouldn't say "never". Different styles and context should be taken into account. Sometimes one wants more precision than at other times, components such as tempo, release time and style are also considerations...


Of course in art - season to taste. Relative to your comments - what just worked 2 bars ago may not work in current bar. The point is just don't get to sterile in how you 'play in' the parts. When I play in front of folks (live) I am usually thinking a LOT more precision - but with midi-mockups - I am not.


----------



## Rodney Money

There was a thread back in September where a member wanted to get quieter dynamics in his renderings but did not want to sound small. Here's what I fully wrote in his thread:

There's many tricks of the trade in still getting softer dynamics without sounding small: using solo ethic Woodwinds for dramatic effect, using string harmonics, piano with spacious reverb but still sounds close with some effects or syths happening in the background, write mallet percussion parts instead of loud accent drums, using smaller brass instead of the epic large brass sizes (example 2 horn patch instead of 6 or 12,) mix mellow Woodwinds in unison with the mellow brass, use swells and crescendos, write for the alto and tenor voices for the melodies, example horns, bassoons, cello, Viola, instead of high: trumpets, violins, oboes, and flutes, play high single lines with light chords on the piano, switch to loud parts by adding the high voices, choir, larger sections in the brass and strings (6, 9, 12 horn patches for example,) and percussive accents.


----------



## Guy Bacos

Nils Neumann said:


> Don't copy and paste, especially if you are layering instruments



As long as you make the appropriate changes to your copied track, I see no harm in doing that.


----------



## Parsifal666

Guy Bacos said:


> As long as you make the appropriate changes to your copied track, I see no harm in doing that.



That's the one I hesitated on earlier. I think Guy is right. I mean, nobody wants too much staticity, but there are cases where this works.

I'm also a believer in the "know the rules so you can break them" credo, which has been mentioned here earlier. I've heard mockups made from samples that would never go over in an authentic symphony orchestra...but sound fantastic. And I studied orchestration intensively for nearly two years.

Also mentioned, it does really depend on whether you want this mock up to be your final product; this goal has worked out great in my more Rock-oriented compositions, where the authentic sound wasn't as important. And it can work if that's ALL you want to do, if you're NOT particularly interested in ending up with a live orchestra.

It's up to you, and that's one of the really cool things about making music today.


----------



## Christof

Most important thing:Think as a live player.Forget the grid, forget the piano roll.It is a good reference point but should not me more than that.
Phrasing, timing, intonation are the most important aspects.
All this can be done with some easy edits in your DAW.
NEVER EVER copy/paste or loop anything.
A live player NEVER EVER loops a phrase, each bar is played differently.Then the magic happens.


----------



## Guy Bacos

Christof said:


> Most important thing:Think as a live player.Forget the grid, forget the piano roll.It is a good reference point but should not me more than that.
> Phrasing, timing, intonation are the most important aspects.
> All this can be done with some easy edits in your DAW.
> NEVER EVER copy/paste or loop anything.
> A live player NEVER EVER loops a phrase, each bar is played differently.Then the magic happens.



I know what you're saying, and respect it, and being a live performer myself, it makes sense, however, with my experience and dealing with the world of samples, there are more than one way to create the magic, what's important is that you can channel your emotion on the notes you want, whether they were played live of or added with the mousse, for me it's just as valuable.


----------



## Ashermusic

Guy Bacos said:


> As long as you make the appropriate changes to your copied track, I see no harm in doing that.



Yes, IF you make changes. Otherwise, it becomes like an accordion. Also, no two libraries by two different devlopers react to the same MIDI exactly the same.


----------



## Ashermusic

NEVER, EVER, say "NEVER, EVER!"


----------



## Guy Bacos

Of course, any good live performance of a passage is the best way to go, not denying this, but you can also reconnect the dots other ways and have a result just as effective.

Like an actor rehearsing a line, it's not his real emotion, but for us it's as convincing as it gets, and he keeps repeating his line, fabricating the right emotion until it's exactly as it should be. But it's all fake!


----------



## Parsifal666

If you're getting paid to write a mock up specifically geared for a symphony orchestra, then make sure you do what you're paid to do. If you're doing if for yourself, with the idea that money isn't your primary directive, do whatever you feel expresses your original vision in the most satisfactory way. If that means making orchestration faux pas in your projects, what do you care as long as the end product matches (or even goes above and beyond) what you envisioned?

After having the (wonderful) experience of studying orchestration with a fairly well known guy in the business, I started grabbing up sample libraries and aiming at moving a bit away from my original Rock idiom into more Opera, Traditional, and film music. When I delved into certain territories I found myself becoming a bit TOO retentive when it came to the orchestration and instrumentation, and I just wasn't hearing what I wanted. That was when I changed my approach, and I became commensurately happier with my compositions.

Knowing the rules of orchestration is a fantastic thing, it will pay off for you from every level. But when you're writing with your heart first, there are no rules.

A Rock analogy: look at Slayer. When they came out, the mega-retentive, laughably titled "neo-classical" trend was going on in guitar/Rock music at the time; it seemed many California guitarists were going to school and learning all this theory and they ended up mostly sounding the same. I met guitarists back then that could blaze through two scales in one lick within a split second, and say absolutely nothing new...nothing unique. When Slayer came out, they didn't care about scales, didn't care about keeping perfect time, guitarists to this day dump all over them for their lack of care for the rules...and they produced a Gold album that spawned countless subgenres and remains deservedly revered to this very day.

Or watch Captain America: Civil War. Same difference


----------



## Parsifal666

Ashermusic said:


> NEVER, EVER, say "NEVER, EVER!"



Post of the year.


----------



## Parsifal666

I like what Jerry G. wrote:

"In the electronic orchestra, even just one synthesizer timbre can be a complex texture in and of itself, with multiple amplitude and filter envelopes, dynamic panning and modulation of harmonics synchronized to tempo. This is new territory and the point where classical orchestration is not going to be of much help. The virtual orchestra gives us new options: We can use samples of acoustic-based instruments to orchestrate our music and/or we can use sounds that cannot be duplicated in the acoustic realm; these sounds are often complex, sometimes with non-whole integer harmonics and often with a built-in rhythmic pulsation produced with sample-and-hold, LFO or other devices. When using complex electronic sounds, listen to the harmonics and rhythmic patterns that are present. This can provide a hint as to how to proceed to integrate this timbre into an orchestral setting."


----------



## Deleted member 422019

Guy Bacos said:


> I know what you're saying, and respect it, and being a live played myself, it makes sense, however, with my experience and dealing with the world of samples, there are more than one way to create the magic, what's important is that you can channel your emotion on the notes you want, whether they were played live of or added with the mousse, for me it's just as valuable.



Must agree with Guy here, there are many ways to achieve the magic, one can copy and paste and still introduce random elements in terms of velocities, note lengths, start-time position, attack/release times or tempo changes. Sequencing, at least for me, is about 20% note entry and 80% editing.


----------



## Deleted member 422019

Guy Bacos said:


> Of course, any good live performance of a passage is the best way to go, not denying this, but you can also reconnect the dots other ways and have a result just as effective.
> 
> Like an actor rehearsing a line, it's not his real emotion, but for us it's as convincing as it gets, and he keeps repeating his line, fabricating the right emotion until it's exactly as it should be. But it's all fake!



I would substitute the word "fake" for "illusion". All art, after all, is the making of an illusion, and illusions can often be closer to the truth that so-called facts. When we watch a film, we're seeing 24 frames per second rush by giving us a satisfying illusion (if we like the film) that there are actually people up there on the big screen moving and talking. But there's nobody there, our brains complete the illusion and an artistic experience is achieved. That's what we composers do with music, create illusions - and either people buy into it and enjoy it, or they don't.


----------



## Christof

Ashermusic said:


> NEVER, EVER, say "NEVER, EVER!"


Well, you know how it was meant


----------



## pkm

Break every rule you learn at least once. And break some of them all the time.

It's the only way to know you're doing what works best for you and why, and not just because someone told you to.


----------



## SymphonicSamples

I think when it comes to Midi Orchestration tips, one thing comes to mind............

Use the 4th's Luke, let it guide your actions


----------



## Nils Neumann

Guy Bacos said:


> As long as you make the appropriate changes to your copied track, I see no harm in doing that.



I wanted to keep it simple. And I'm guilty of overusing copy and paste too but in theory we do many thousands extremely little things that non musicians would never hear to create a good sounding song/cue. Eq with -0.5 to -1 db. Compressors with 1db gain reduction, using sample libraries with 10-20rr, insert tons of velocitiy/modwheel/expression/CC data, layering with many libraries and mic positions. Complex reverb routing to create a "realistic" sound stage.

Copy and paste will give you a static performance, (I should mention that I never write for an orchestra or try to achieve realism). Adding +20 to velocity in the final section of a cue will not be the same as performing this a second or third or tenth time in your sequencer. 9 out of 10 people will not here the difference, but do this for every Instrument and hear the difference. As said before we do thousands little things to make something special. Good midi material should be at least on of that.

A second problem with copy and paste is layering. Sometimes the attack of the samples will not fit, the dynamic level between libraries can be extremely different (Imagine HW Brass 6Horns (pp-fff) and Ark I 9Horns (f-fff)). Some Percussion libraries tend to go from f to fff in 100-127 and some others have a linear dynamic mapping.
I think its faster to perform this a second time then trying to fix everything by hand.


----------



## Parsifal666

Nils Neumann said:


> I wanted to keep it simple. And I'm guilty of overusing copy and paste too but in theory we do many thousands extremely little things that non musicians would never hear to create a good sounding song/cue. Eq with -0.5 to -1 db. Compressors with 1db gain reduction, using sample libraries with 10-20rr, insert tons of velocitiy/modwheel/expression/CC data, layering with many libraries and mic positions. Complex reverb routing to create a "realistic" sound stage.
> 
> Copy and paste will give you a static performance, (I should mention that I never write for an orchestra or try to achieve realism). Adding +20 to velocity in the final section of a cue will not be the same as performing this a second or third or tenth time in your sequencer. 9 out of 10 people will not here the difference, but do this for every Instrument and hear the difference. As said before we do thousands little things to make something special. Good midi material should be at least on of that.
> 
> A second problem with copy and paste is layering. Sometimes the attack of the samples will not fit, the dynamic level between libraries can be extremely different (Imagine HW Brass 6Horns (pp-fff) and Ark I 9Horns (f-fff)). Some Percussion libraries tend to go from f to fff in 100-127 and some others have a linear dynamic mapping.
> I think its faster to perform this a second time then trying to fix everything by hand.



Great post, Nils, but I don't see you as "guilty" of anything but making your music fit your vision.


----------



## Guy Bacos

Nils Neumann said:


> I wanted to keep it simple. And I'm guilty of overusing copy and paste too but in theory we do many thousands extremely little things that non musicians would never hear to create a good sounding song/cue. Eq with -0.5 to -1 db. Compressors with 1db gain reduction, using sample libraries with 10-20rr, insert tons of velocitiy/modwheel/expression/CC data, layering with many libraries and mic positions. Complex reverb routing to create a "realistic" sound stage.
> 
> Copy and paste will give you a static performance, (I should mention that I never write for an orchestra or try to achieve realism). Adding +20 to velocity in the final section of a cue will not be the same as performing this a second or third or tenth time in your sequencer. 9 out of 10 people will not here the difference, but do this for every Instrument and hear the difference. As said before we do thousands little things to make something special. Good midi material should be at least on of that.
> 
> A second problem with copy and paste is layering. Sometimes the attack of the samples will not fit, the dynamic level between libraries can be extremely different (Imagine HW Brass 6Horns (pp-fff) and Ark I 9Horns (f-fff)). Some Percussion libraries tend to go from f to fff in 100-127 and some others have a linear dynamic mapping.
> I think its faster to perform this a second time then trying to fix everything by hand.



It's all about the right dosing. You have to respect, it may not work for some but for others, it can. You can't start bringing strict rules in this art form.


----------



## David Chappell

When working with samples that are fixed rolls/ fx and the like, it's handy to bounce them to audio since it makes lining them up with the track a lot easier than trying to sync up a midi note


----------



## Nils Neumann

Guy Bacos said:


> It's all about the right dosing. You have to respect, it may not work for some but for others, it can. You can't start bringing strict rules in this art form.



This was just a tip, never said it is a strict rule. I'm not a native speaker but I don't see where I forced you to accept this as a rule. Just sharing my opinion, no need to be offended


----------



## Ashermusic

People, people people.....I think in discussions of this sort invoking Beethoven, Mozart, etc. There are no Beethovens or Mozarts here. You are talking about geniuses who come along a handful of times in a generation and the mathematical odds of even one of them landing here is ridiculously small.

So what I raised with this topic for was a simple question about you make your sample library/VI based compositions sound better and more distinctive, not how you produce lasting works of art with them. It accomplished that goal. 

If you want, perhaps start a topic or a poll "Is it possible to produce works of art with sample libraries?"


----------



## Guy Bacos

Nils Neumann said:


> This was just a tip, never said it is a strict rule. I'm not a native speaker but I don't see where I forced you to accept this as a rule. Just sharing my opinion, no need to be offended



There's a difference between being offended and disagreeing. Perhaps my choice of words was exaggerated to make you think this? Maybe I got thrown off by the "NEVER, EVER" comment. And since I was a big Dallas fan, I like JR: Never say never.


----------



## Greg

Don't be afraid of tempo curves. I love using them to act like a subtle conductor for my midi score


----------



## Fab

can we have this as an open thread stickied?


----------



## BenG

Not sure if these have already been said but here are a few 'real-world' orchestration tips that have helped my mockups.

*1. Dovetailing
*
The overlapping of phrases from one instrument to another will always ensure a much smoother transition from section to section.

*2. Sustains*

Having a sustain line/element in the background of a lot a piece with lots of movement/staccato can create the sense of a more full sound without mindlessly doubling parts.

*3. Compose for Musicians! *

Whether I get the opportunity or not, I always write music with the intention of having actual musicians perform it. This boils down to, how well you know each instrument/group and what limitations they have or how they behave. E.g.

- Brass like to start off slow/quiet and need to 'warm up'
- Winds must be able to breath!!!
- Play in strings parts live and in tempo (with all of the velocities, note lengths, timing left as is)
- When performing, think of longer phrases with an overall arc as opposed to overemphasing each note
- When programming MIDI, stagger instruments entrances like real (imperfect) humans would 

*4. Percussion (or lack thereof)*

This may be personal taste, but I prefer to use percussion sparingly. It can be great for added colours, transitions, accents, doublings and obviously many other applications....just not all the time

There's plenty more but these are just a few that others have suggested to me and were a huge help!


----------



## Parsifal666

Ashermusic said:


> People There are no Beethovens or Mozarts here. You are talking about geniuses who come along a handful of times in a generation and the mathematical odds of even one of them landing here is ridiculously small.



Is it? I would think it possible, why not? How would we know the habits of such a person? All respect, but this is very presumptuous, we really don't know any of that. You contradict yourself by talking about mathematical odds and earlier never saying never.

I admit the dismal fact that even if there were truly mind-blowing talents (and unlike you, Jay, it wouldn't surprise me), there are one heck of a lot of stumbling blocks today even for a excellent composer. Given the fact that the overwhelming majority choose to be spoon fed music today, I think it's more than possible there are at least a handful of fantastic composers whom nobody has ever heard of. There's so much garbage out there it often takes an outrageous gimmick (besides the usual pretty face and appropriate fashions) to get heard, and then one has to deal with people seeing you as that gimmick, and not so much for your music.

I personally have had some acclaim (most *DEFINITELY* not a Mozart or Beethoven, or even a Goo Goo Dolls), but a lot of that has to do with the people I've had working for me, who were already pretty famous in their genre. Without them, I would have been as crushed under chaff as the rest of us composers today. Does it bother me, this fact? No, because I'm not great and I know it.

However, in this big old world, I want the cream to rise to the top. And I would like the young people who post here to know the greats and to aim toward being the best they can be, because the potential exists. I believe that.

So yes, I'm straying here, but I had to be honest and forthright. I believe there will be someone to blow everyone else away someday in the future. I have to, because I believe in music and the human condition. This world hasn't seen the last of the great composers...I just don't believe that.


----------



## Danial

Listening back, be honest with yourself. Shut your eyes, then press play.


----------



## Ashermusic

Parsifal666 said:


> I. I believe there will be someone to blow everyone else away someday in the future. I have to, because I believe in music and the human condition. This world hasn't seen the last of the great composers...I just don't believe that.



I do too. I just don't believe that person is or ever will be here. I have heard fine competent work here, but nothing all that brilliant that it could be mentioned even in the same breath as Mozart or Beethoven.


----------



## Parsifal666

Ashermusic said:


> I do too. I just don't believe that person is or ever will be here. I have heard fine competent work here, but nothing all that brilliant that it could be mentioned even in the same breath as Mozart or Beethoven.



Well...of course I haven't heard that level here (though I've heard some _*really fine*_ music on these pages). However, I guess I see your outlook as a bit cynical. Nothing wrong with that of course, more power to ya, and please keep in mind my own judgement is one of an idealist and hopeless optimist.

Maybe if we keep trying to help younger composers here, we might help the person whom actually _does _become one our hallowed greats. And I differ from you, because my heart believes it's possible.


----------



## Ashermusic

Call it cynical, I think my view is realistic but a lot of people here swear by what i consider pipe dreams.

When you get to be 68, as I am, to quote the State Farm commercial: "We know a few things because we have seen a few things." I have encountered a tremendous amount of very talented people in my career, but only a handful of geniuses and nobody I would rate with Mozart or Beethoven.


----------



## Parsifal666

Ashermusic said:


> Call it cynical, I think my view is realistic but a lot of people here swear by what i consider pipe dreams.
> 
> When you get to be 68, as I am, to quote the State Farm commercial: "We know a few things because we have seen a few things." I have encountered a tremendous amount of very talented people in my career, but only a handful of geniuses and nobody I would rate with Mozart or Beethoven.



It's such a high bar...but I believe we'll see it, and in our lifetimes. And hey, I'm not super far away from you in age, Jay, to reinforce what an optimist I am


----------



## Parsifal666

Perhaps even better would be to see a revolution in the music industry...where music people get paid more often. Anyhoo, I'm off topic in a big way, many apologies.


----------



## Ashermusic

Parsifal666 said:


> Perhaps even better would be to see a revolution in the music industry...where music people get paid more often. Anyhoo, I'm off topic in a big way, many apologies.



No worries, you are a good person, one of the better ones here in my estimation.


----------



## Arbee

Ashermusic said:


> I do too. I just don't believe that person is or ever will be here. I have heard fine competent work here, but nothing all that brilliant that it could be mentioned even in the same breath as Mozart or Beethoven.


In much the same way that we'll never see another Sistine Chapel, when that future brilliance emerges we won't recognise it if we're still waiting for another Beethoven. The context will be totally different (and as history predicts, they may perhaps not be fully acknowledged until they're dead!).


----------



## InLight-Tone

Ashermusic said:


> I do too. I just don't believe that person is or ever will be here. I have heard fine competent work here, but nothing all that brilliant that it could be mentioned even in the same breath as Mozart or Beethoven.



Hmmm, I know this may be unpopular, but I consider Zimmer to be the Mozart of film (modern opera), and a master of modern scoring despite not sticking to conventional orchestra technique/section size and all of the other high-brow judgements. (And he posts here pretty regular...)


----------



## InLight-Tone

Ashermusic said:


> Call it cynical, I think my view is realistic but a lot of people here swear by what i consider pipe dreams.
> 
> When you get to be 68, as I am, to quote the State Farm commercial: "We know a few things because we have seen a few things." I have encountered a tremendous amount of very talented people in my career, but only a handful of geniuses and nobody I would rate with Mozart or Beethoven.



Without "pipe dreams" you're as good as dead...


----------



## Ashermusic

InLight-Tone said:


> Without "pipe dreams" you're as good as dead...




Well pardon me if I decide to continue living


----------



## Ashermusic

InLight-Tone said:


> Hmmm, I know this may be unpopular, but I consider Zimmer to be the Mozart of film (modern opera), and a master of modern scoring despite not sticking to conventional orchestra technique/section size and all of the other high-brow judgements. (And he posts here pretty regular...)



I have great respect for Hans and he is a terrific film scorer. But taking the music away from its impact on the picture and just listening to it as "music", no.


----------



## Vik

Parsifal666 said:


> Which imo is a different realm


Exactly. Besides, it's not about being the best Beethoven or Mozart, but (for each of us) to be the best me. Also; if the legendary composers would have lived today, most likely many of them would have used internet and orchestral libraries, but they wouldn't have composed the same kind of music they did if it were to be used as film music in 2016.

IMHO we don't need any kind of "best composer here"; "the new Mozart" or "best person" here...

Having said that, and talking of Mozart and contemporary composers, here's a recommendation for some good listening if anyone is interested: the relatively (internationally) unknown Marcus Paus has made some brilliant music (including several pieces where he actually is flirting with Mozart, like Andante Erotico), but he definitely has his own voice. My favourite piece of his is "The Conversation"; highly recommended. And no, it's not me and I don't know him.

At least some of this was on topic... or maybe not?


----------



## Ashermusic

Well anyway, thanks to all who contributed tips and I will let you know when the article is posted.


----------



## InLight-Tone

Ashermusic said:


> I have great respect for Hans and he is a terrific film scorer. But taking the music away from its impact on the picture and just listening to it as "music", no.



Hmmm, I completely disagree, his music inspires me emotionally. But then again, I love melodic hard rock or metal or even a well crafted pop tune so we probably have different tastes...(You're a pokey dude at your age, most men settle down by the time they are 40, (that's a compliment))!!!


----------



## Guy Bacos

Sorry, I need to educate myself here, what"s a "pokey dude"?


----------



## ed buller

Ashermusic said:


> I have great respect for Hans and he is a terrific film scorer. But taking the music away from its impact on the picture and just listening to it as "music", no.


 You should come on our holidays Jay...Barreling down the autostrada to Rome with Mombassa full blast !!!

e


----------



## InLight-Tone

Guy Bacos said:


> Sorry, I need to educate myself here, what"s a "pokey dude"?



(A shit disturber, pot stirrer etc...)


----------



## Parsifal666

Jay didn't mean HansZimmer's music didn't provoke emotion, he just meant that from a purely musical perspective we're not talking Mozart, Beethoven (might as well throw in Mahler and Wagner to be a little bit more recent)...

He is right about that. However, I LOVE many of Hans' soundtracks (along with Goldsmith and Williams he's my favorite movie composer). So that's something, at least to you and me, *InLight-Tone*.

Forgive me if I misinterpreted, Jay.

I disagree with his negative views on someone (conceivably soon) coming around to join the above hallowed names on their more-than-deserved pedestals, but I also sympathize with the member who asserted it likely we wouldn't really know who that was until post-mortem anyway.


----------



## Ashermusic

Parsifal666 said:


> Jay didn't mean HansZimmer's music didn't provoke emotion, he just meant that from a purely musical perspective we're not talking Mozart, Beethoven (might as well throw in Mahler and Wagner to be a little bit more recent)...
> 
> He is right about that. However, I LOVE many of Hans' soundtracks (along with Goldsmith and Williams he's my favorite movie composer). So that's something, at least to you and me, *InLight-Tone*.
> 
> Forgive me if I misinterpreted, Jay.
> 
> I disagree with his negative views on someone (conceivably soon) coming around to join the above hallowed names on their more-than-deserved pedestals, but I also sympathize with the member who asserted it likely we wouldn't really know who that was until post-mortem anyway.



Parsifal666, you have me right. I don't want to go down the "if I like it, that makes it great" rabbit hole argument again, because it never leads to anything good, but I can divorce what I like to listen to from therefore rating it as great as Mozart or Beethoven. So sure, I like to listen to many of Hans' scores as music, but that has zero to do with whether or not he is a Mozart.


----------



## Parsifal666

Ashermusic said:


> Parsifal666, you have me right. I don't want to go down the "if I like it, that makes it great" rabbit hole argument again, because it never leads to anything good, but I can divorce what I like to listen to from therefore rating it as great as Mozart or Beethoven. So sure, I like to listen to many of Hans' scores as music, but that has zero to do with whether or not he is a Mozart.



To me...if we're talking about Mozart or Mahler, that's music that pays off from manifold perspectives. Like any great art, it offers up rewards with each experience, compelling the listener to both savor and remain mindful during listening.

Okay, I sense I'm getting to my longwinded, euphoric-rhapsodizing-over-Mahler soliliquoy, and thus driving this topic further off course, so I'll stop now.


----------



## RyanMcQuinn

stonzthro said:


> 1. Stack strings and percussion, but not brass (at least not note for note).


Could you expand on this please? What happens that's negative if you stack brass? Are you also against doubling at the octave? Is this a midi specific tip? Thanks!


----------



## RyanMcQuinn

Nils Neumann said:


> I think its faster to perform this a second time then trying to fix everything by hand.



+1 Sometimes it takes a lot of effort to be lazy lol. It's like doing work in my backyard and walking around the same potted plant 50 times before finally moving it. 

With all the different settings in quantize and humanize, not to mention differences between libraries and the way swells etc can sound different in the same library from one instrument to the next, it's very hard to make a rule about copy and paste that is always right. When I'm in session, I just try to make good decisions by treating each situation uniquely. If I try a copy and paste and it sounds really weird, I try to remember to work smarter not harder: move the potted plant. Of course this is easy to say in a forum. Much easier to lose perspective when actually doing it.


----------



## RyanMcQuinn

Ashermusic said:


> I do too. I just don't believe that person is or ever will be here. I have heard fine competent work here, but nothing all that brilliant that it could be mentioned even in the same breath as Mozart or Beethoven.



Many of us here aspire to be great. I hardly think joining a forum reduces those chances. The chances may be reduced however if comments like this are taken to heart and result in discouragement.


----------



## Ashermusic

RyanMcQuinn said:


> Many of us here aspire to be great. I hardly think joining a forum reduces those chances. The chances may be reduced however if comments like this are taken to heart and result in discouragement.



True greatness will out, forums or no forums. I don't Corigiliano is spending much time on forums.


----------



## Parsifal666

Ashermusic said:


> True greatness will out, forums or no forums. I don't Corigiliano is spending much time on forums.



I think that elucidates Jay's point best. Many people get strung out on forums. A truly great composer wasn't magically "born" with his or her abilities (it could be argued that Mozart's father and his ruthless methods were the prime reason the composer became great, not some god-granted power). One has to work like hell, for hours and hours...popping in and out of a forum loses its attraction, especially when you make a living doing it.

I mean, the best work I did (the things I received my deservedly small measure of acclaim for) had me busting my butt for twelve out of sixteen hours a day. The editing alone took forever.

Then there are the times I just had to put the composition away for awhile (sometimes months) so I could go back for a fresh perspective later. For me, breaks like that were_ essential_ to the composition process. Butt hats need not apply.

Getting paid to make music is seriously hard work, period. We never really get paid enough these days, imo, and that's also why a lot of people quit early on.

Even further off, I saw a show where the protagonists were trying to come up with a plan (can't remember the details). They met some guy at library as they were planning, who had some great ideas, and the crew tried to recruit him for implementation. The same fellow said "aw...no, I'm more of a big picture guy".

The big picture guy today really ain't what he or she was in the past. Inspiration is wonderful, it can be supremely intoxicating. Translating it into the real world, a world that requires certain methods of communication, takes a LOT of time and effort. More than I could ever describe to a person new to composition.

Forums can, however, give you an idea of what young composers are doing, new developments, etc. There is a value I feel anyone can take advantage of.

Okay, PM me for No-doz lol!


----------



## RyanMcQuinn

Imagine if Mozart had to write using samples and just couldn't seem to get the finished product right due to technology. His reverb was unnatural, he couldn't quite decide on when to sweeten with close mics, contended with worldwide market oversaturation, etc. Would his music push through in a forum like this, or would we all just tell him to fix his reverb etc and move on? I'm very thankful for this thread as it may help each of us to have our music heard for the notes in an age where the production quality is given more weight than musical content.


----------



## Ashermusic

Parsifal666, i think I am going to disagree with "A truly great composer wasn't magically "born" with his or her abilities".

I think they are AND they have to work like crazy to maximize that.


----------



## RyanMcQuinn

Ashermusic said:


> Parsifal666, i think I am going to disagree with "A truly great composer wasn't magically "born" with his or her abilities".
> 
> I think they are AND they have to work like crazy to maximize that.


It reminds me of athletes that are talented vs those that have less talent but work harder vs the legendary athletes with work ethic that matches their inherent amazing talent.


----------



## Parsifal666

Ashermusic said:


> Parsifal666, i think I am going to disagree with "A truly great composer wasn't magically "born" with his or her abilities".
> 
> I think they are AND they have to work like crazy to maximize that.



What's honestly interesting to me is your dichotomous Kunstanschauung. You say you're generally realistic and yet you bring up believing in born musical geniuses. You're a complex personality.

People have always wanted to believe there was some mysteriously bestowed "gift" upon the greatest artists, leaders, etc. I don't buy that, and many of the notable people I know don't either (all of whom were extremely dedicated, hard workers). To me, such belief also tends to encourage indolence/amotivation, ultimately apathy. Why work hard at all when I can just take a bunch of samples, make yet another one minute loop among my thousands, and then take the rest of the day to run around the forums?

Please understand, I might be biased by the fact that I both wasn't born with even average musical abilities, and am a barely making it composer who gave up hope on being Wagner many years ago lol! I mostly just do what I have to to pay the rent and hope to help young composers (i.e. the Future) here in any way I can.


----------



## stonzthro

RyanMcQuinn said:


> Could you expand on this please? What happens that's negative if you stack brass? Are you also against doubling at the octave? Is this a midi specific tip? Thanks!


Stacking brass can work fine, but this is a mitigating tip in that often it leads to the dreaded synth-brass sound; so I generally avoid stacking brass libraries. Doubling at octaves is fine, and beyond that I just use what sounds good.


----------



## RyanMcQuinn

stonzthro said:


> Stacking brass can work fine, but this is a mitigating tip in that often it leads to the dreaded synth-brass sound; so I generally avoid stacking brass libraries. Doubling at octaves is fine, and beyond that I just use what sounds good.


Gotcha! Avoiding the synth brass sound. That makes sense. Thanks!


----------



## ctsai89

Parsifal666 said:


> What's honestly interesting to me is your dichotomous Kunstanschauung. You say you're generally realistic and yet you bring up believing in born musical geniuses. You're a complex personality.
> 
> People have always wanted to believe there was some mysteriously bestowed "gift" upon the greatest artists, leaders, etc. I don't buy that, and many of the notable people I know don't either (all of whom were extremely dedicated, hard workers). To me, such belief also tends to encourage indolence/amotivation, ultimately apathy. Why work hard at all when I can just take a bunch of samples, make yet another one minute loop among my thousands, and then take the rest of the day to run around the forums?
> 
> Please understand, I might be biased by the fact that I both wasn't born with even average musical abilities, and am a barely making it composer who gave up hope on being Wagner many years ago lol! I mostly just do what I have to to pay the rent and hope to help young composers (i.e. the Future) here in any way I can.




I think it really depends on what you think "musical gift" is. Some say Wagner wasn't born with gift just because he didn't have perfect pitch like most of his colleagues and predecessors did but honestly I have something close to perfect pitch and I consider Wagner one of the most gifted musicians I've yet to discover. I actually agree with the guy before your reply to his. Yes it takes some form of gift in the first place, and then working very very very hard (like a slave) to music would be the way to achieve composing the style you have dreamed of. Wagner's gift imho is: having a great taste. He knew the kind of directions he wanted in his chord progressions and harmonies and how it would programmatically reflect a drama scene. His music is full of feelings and soul. It's ecstatic/rupturous. And Scriabin is someone that takes it even further, but he claims to possess synethesia/perfect pitch.


----------



## ctsai89

And it also depends on the present enviroment of a composer. If we lived back in those times when John Cage or those extended technique composers were considered the coolest, you might as well not have needed any "musical gift" to be considred musically gifted. 4"33 was genius


----------



## Morodiene

stonzthro said:


> 11. Stack timpani at the octave if you want them to cut through (there are probably 50 different small tips like this, but I don't have time to write them all... see #10 for more info).


Do you mean the same timpani instrument played an octave above or below? (I assume above, but not sure). I have a timpani part in a tutti section that needs to come out more.


----------



## RyanMcQuinn

Morodiene said:


> Do you mean the same timpani instrument played an octave above or below? (I assume above, but not sure). I have a timpani part in a tutti section that needs to come out more.


I imagine he meant above, but that clarification would be helpful for me too. @stonzthro , I would actually like to hear your 50 more tips, regardless if you are concerned they are too minor. I want to pay attention to as much detail as I can be enlightened about!


----------



## Ashermusic

Parsifal666 said:


> What's honestly interesting to me is your dichotomous Kunstanschauung. You say you're generally realistic and yet you bring up believing in born musical geniuses. You're a complex personality.
> 
> People have always wanted to believe there was some mysteriously bestowed "gift" upon the greatest artists, leaders, etc. I don't buy that, and many of the notable people I know don't either (all of whom were extremely dedicated, hard workers). To me, such belief also tends to encourage indolence/amotivation, ultimately apathy. Why work hard at all when I can just take a bunch of samples, make yet another one minute loop among my thousands, and then take the rest of the day to run around the forums?
> 
> Please understand, I might be biased by the fact that I both wasn't born with even average musical abilities, and am a barely making it composer who gave up hope on being Wagner many years ago lol! I mostly just do what I have to to pay the rent and hope to help young composers (i.e. the Future) here in any way I can.



Sorry, it is simply true. I was the acknowledged most talented guy in my generation in a small Massachusetts town. When I got to Boston Conservatory, I encountered people who improved way more than I did with commensurate effort, because they were born more talented. 

Stevie Wonder is a genius and was from an early age. I could practice and study 17/7 every year and I would not be as brilliant a musician as he is.


----------



## Morodiene

Ashermusic said:


> Sorry, it is simply true. I was the acknowledged most talented guy in my generation in a small Massachusetts town. When I got to Boston Conservatory, I encountered people who improved way more than I did with commensurate effort, because they were born more talented.
> 
> Stevie Wonder is a genius and was from an early age. I could practice and study 17/7 every year and I would not be as brilliant a musician as he is.


I'm on the side of talent + hard work.

"Talent" is that nebulous word to describe all of the other factors that go into someone being great at their craft (genes, encouragement, exposure at a young age, mental aptitude, etc.). I've had voice students that for the life of them wanted to sing, but even if I got them to sing in tune and produce a somewhat decent tone, it would never become a great voice no matter how long they studied and worked at it. Then there were those who needed to just be pointed in the right direction and they would take off and be very easy to teach. They were never limited in the repertoire they could sing like the "non-talented" ones.


----------



## storyteller

Morodiene said:


> I'm on the side of talent + hard work. "Talent" is that nebulous word to describe all of the other factors that go into someone being great at their craft (genes, encouragement, exposure at a young age, mental aptitude, etc.)...


I think of talent as a wellspring within. Some people are born with this spring flowing forth. For the rare, it is like a geyser at birth. For others, well, they may need to search out a set of Divining Rods and seek out this wellspring. Kind of an appropriate name for the rods right? But regardless, however this wellspring is found within, a person still has to know what to do with it. You may just want to sit in a lawn chair with a friend drinking a beer and talk about this random geyser that popped up in your yard. Or perhaps you can do something constructive with it and use it for the unlimited source that it is. If you only see a trickle, then bust open that hole and allow it to burst forth. If you desire it and you don't see a spring, seek it out. It is there for everyone to find. I don't have any doubt about that.


----------



## Morodiene

Everyone can improve, but I just don't think the if you want ti badly enough it will happen" kind of thing. There are physical/genetic limitations, not to mention the emotional blocks that people can have that prevent them from advancing. But even assuming they correct the emotional stuff, how do you overcome a physical/genetic limitation?


----------



## Saxer

I think talent is a lucky combination of everything. Genetic is a factor but not the only one. You need health and intelligence. But music doesn't come from inside. You first have to learn it. To become a big musician you have to learn music as your native tounge. That means it has to happen in your first years of life. Not especially playing a specific instrument but listening and emotional understanding. You have to be furthered from people you grow up with. You have to have people around you that are role models for being creative and motivated. You have to get emotional feedback for success. And you must be kind of hungry and addicted to what you do. To become really good in something you simply have to do it all the time. The old formula that you have to do something for 10 000 hours to reach a professional level is rather true and even children who are good in playing their instrument reach this amount of time. You can't decide to become a musician. At the time you are able to decide you already have to be one. Most talented musicians came from a musicians family. Everything has to fit to create this big puzzle called talent.


----------



## Arbee

True greatness to me seems to occur when everything, simply everything, aligns for the cumulative effect. Crude analogy, but somewhat like a successful pop artist - right DNA, right work ethic, right song, right time, right network, right advice, right publicity etc. If just one of those is missing, great becomes "just good".


----------



## Vik

Saxer said:


> That means it has to happen in your first years of life.


This is an interesting and....large topic, which certainly be better off in a separate thread, I guess. But musical talent as such is about both composing and playing and much more. And while certain people may compose great music just out of natural "talent" and not so much work, others may make even more interesting music with less talent and a lot of time. But - if one really loves music, or certain kinds of music - why not spend a lot of time developing a "learned talent"?
Singing is something else. Dancing too. And learning abilities. The ability to communicate with music, let alone touch someone. 

"You can't decide to become a musician." I think that's possible, but that doesn't mean that one can decide to become a Glenn Gould. But there are people who have been doing it really well who started very late.


----------



## Florian_W

trying to get back to the topic... this thread is pretty advanced and this tip might be mentioned before but what I learned pretty late is that I often need to ignore quantization when using samples. With Legato Strings in particular, you often need to pull the notes a few ms to the left... also with drum samples sometimes. I know a lot of libraries with bad sample timing...


----------



## Morodiene

Florian_W said:


> trying to get back to the topic... this thread is pretty advanced and this tip might be mentioned before but what I learned pretty late is that I often need to ignore quantization when using samples. With Legato Strings in particular, you often need to pull the notes a few ms to the left... also with drum samples sometimes. I know a lot of libraries with bad sample timing...


Yes, this is what I discovered. It's that it takes a while for the sound to reach it's fullest from the inertia of the bow. Similar to playing with a big of latency (or on a pipe organ), you have to sound it a bit sooner. What I do is exactly what you've stated here: I play it in first just to get the general pitches and timing, and then fiddle with it afterwards until it sounds on time.


----------



## ZeroZero

Here is mine: Cubase 8.5, Take any Audio track, let Cubase suck out the hitpoints then push it into a rhythm for your MIDI Grid - natural timing for MIDI, no more metronome.


----------



## Vik

Since there still are some Logic users out there who aren't aware of Logic Pro's ancient voice separation tool - here you go:

With this method, one can record a polyphonic idea in real time over MIDI; and assign it to different MIDI Channels (which equals polyphonic voices in Logic) without too much hassle. This is possibly the fastest way to check out how your idea will sound with each of the voices assigned to different (Kontakt) instruments - without placing each of the voices on separate tracks.


----------



## ZeroZero

Someone asked me how to take a groove from audio and create a MIDI groove.

Go to Media bay, choose the sub category beats (there will be something in there if not then download some audio loops Music Rader is a good source.
Like one? Double click and it goes into you project

Now double click on the Audio File. Your now in the sample editor. Head for the button called Hitpoints in the Inspector. Hit the sub button edit hitpoints. Voila!These are the points where the Amplitude peaks (well - ish it goes deeper) . You can tweak and edit but I shall skip that here. You can refine them but let's leave that here. (Manual Pg 468).

Head for Button in the Inspector marked Create Groove click it.

Close down the Sample editor

Head for the Quantize list. You should find a MIDI groove find a groove that is named after your original Audio track.

You will find that the grid in your Key Editor/Drum Map now morphs itself to the groove of the audio file - synching the project to that feel. All your MIDI will have that vibe.

Warning: This only saves the groove preset to this project. It CAN be made a universal preset, but, you will NOT find the option here. BUT, if you click on the little grey rectangle next to the quantize list (RHS), then the Quantize Panel opens. Click on the quantize list WITHIN this app and you will find the option to save preset (to media bay).

In this way you can be like a vampire and suck the groove out of any recording, whether its swing or Latin or reggae. It Humanizes the grid and all your MIDI will now synch top the audio track. Two Blessings!!! Very powerful!

Explaining (and reading) this is like chewing cardboard - but actually it takes around 15 seconds of your time once you have chosen your audio. If you have both a (blank if you wish) MIDI track and your Audio track loaded.

Hitpoints work well these days, sometimes you might want to delete a hit point, shove it around, that sort of thing. Pg 475 of the manual gives the full SP.

Here is a how to video:

Zero


----------



## Patrick de Caumette

I have turned this thread into a sticky, so that it is easily accessed when searching this forum.
Thanks to Jay for initiating it.
Please try to stay on topic, so that a newcomer doesn't have to scroll through pages and pages in order to get valuable information...
Thanks!


----------



## novaburst

Some great tips and advice here,

My tip would be is to know how to superimpose, and manipulation of sound and instruments,

With the use of the DAW and other aids to our midi music mainly that of orchestral music, a big advantage we have in enhancing our music is manipulation and superimpose,

I guess you would need a good ear, and a good sense of feel of how you want your piece of music to sound, like some of the other tips in this sticky that comes by tons and tons of listening to other orchestral pieces.

With a good knowledge of how the DAW works and knowing your way around it, and of course some good library's, a basic to good understanding of music, there really is know reason to complete a piece of music that sounds bad. 

With the DAW and the library at our finger tips and the time you put into your composition, you should be able to visualise your music as a colouring book, that has limitless colours to work with, and choosing what ever colour you feel sounds nice to the ears. 

This is what I mean by superimpose, 

Also with this midi orchestral music, inside the DAW, you should be able to move sound around to the point where the listener hears what you want them to hear, this is what I mean by manipulation of sound and instruments.

We are all doing this at a certain level crafting our sound to a certain degree, 

Again as I have read in this sticky thread, there is no shortcuts, 

And listening and listening and listening and more listening to orchestral pieces can really help in superimposing, and manipulation of your own orchestral pieces.


----------



## Reaktor

My absolute favorite is the one which ZeroZero tipped me just few weeks ago - how to use disabling to save ram on Cubase. This was huge thing for me, as I was finally able to create template of my dreams without memory restriction, my CPU problems (made by few VSTs on template) and my loading times shortened by 100 times. Simply amazing.

I made an short tutorial of this subject.



As far as I have heard the Reaper has the same feature, but apparently Logic doesn't. To best of my knowledge Studio One 3 and FL Studio also miss this feature.


----------



## Arviwan

I've read it all and didn't mind digressions about Mozart, Zimmer and all of us 
A big big thank to @ZeroZero for the Cubase tips : don't hesitate to post more and tell me if it's ok to PM you with a few questions


----------



## ZeroZero

Yes that is ok


----------



## ZeroZero

Here is another Cubase 8.5 tip. We now have file/import/import tracks from projects. This is very powerful. What you do is click on a project and a list of tracks from that project become available. Choose your tracks and click - they are imported, along with settings and their routings. This very powerful because it means you can work in a completely different way. Firstly, you create some monster project (or two, or three). In the morning you walk the dog, then load up a virgin project - nothing in it. When you need a track - ready to rock and roll with settings, you just go to one of mother ship projects and pick and choose right off the shelf. 
Working this way you have_ *no overheads*_, there is no need to save tack presets too. You _*won't need big templates*_, everytime you set up a track, its there for all your other projects. Just be a bit methodical with naming etc, and it is easy.

Z


----------



## Ashermusic

May I point out that this thread was about MIDI orchestration tips, not "how to use your DAW efficiently."

Just saying.


----------



## Ashermusic

The article is posted.
https://ask.audio/articles/11-tips-to-help-your-midi-orchestration-stand-out


----------



## jononotbono

I read it yesterday! Very good! Thanks for that!


----------



## Rodney Money

Yay, I made the cut!


----------



## Karma

Oooh.. I'm famous!

EDIT: In all seriousness, great article!


----------



## Parsifal666

I LOVE that site! Another super cool article.


----------



## ComposerWannabe

Thanks for your hard work and effort! Gonna benefit from that!


----------



## ZeroZero

A concept that made me think was "long term machine gun effect". We all know what machine gun effect does, it bores the ear which is fatal to interest, but also I think there is the same thing on a long term basis, if you use the same samples (or even same techniques) too much.


----------



## westlake79

Get good at writing at _ppp_. Turn the monitoring master volume up. Loud. Louder. Leave it there and don't change it. Use a marker. Spend very little time at the upper limit of your dynamic ranges. Your libraries should still be audible even at very low CC11 and especially low CC1. The biggest, most bombastic part of your cue should just barely touch 0 unity gain on the master fader, preferably a little lower. 

Also, there's a special place in hell for people who abuse _fff._


----------



## NoamL

I was reading back through this thread yesterday and the tip about perc masking orchestration mistakes is so true. It's easy to let dynamic, active perc disguise badly performed lines and sometimes even harmony mistakes. On a recent piece that I wrote rather hurriedly, only after muting the perc I realized that the voice leading of my brass chords was all wrong.

So my tip for the new year is _*always write in stems*_. Usually Hi/Lo/Mid PRC, Melody, Bass, Longs/Pads, Shorts/Rhythm, and PBH (these can be further split up for instance Long Strings and Long Brass)

When each stem is balanced, then you've got a better shot at mixing the whole piece. 

Also when you organize by function instead of by instrument then you have a better chance of catching mistakes. Like: are all your bass instruments playing the same bassline? Are you suuuure?


----------



## RussellSzabados

stonzthro said:


> ...6. Fist-o-chords works well for pads, not strings - if you want your strings to sound good, play them in one at a time, with different MIDI CC (don't copy-paste unless you are in a hurry).


This is a really good tip. I tried this last night after reading stonzthro's post from October 2016 and I'm really happy with the result.

It's worth taking the time to read all posts in long threads.  Thank you!


----------



## jvsax

My #1 tip: For pop/rock/jazz/country styles...there's almost always a certain amount of "swing" quantization required. This is obvious for jazz, but the other styles can really benefit from it, too.


----------



## Gordon_hiphoplp

Ashermusic said:


> Thanks guys, but a lot of this has to do more with composition and traditional orchestration and not MIDI orchestration specifically. And no they are NOT the same. And also, some of you are assuming that the goal is "realism." As I am well known for saying, and my article will reflect this, unless you are mocking up a Classical piece, know when to say, "screw what the real thing is, samples are not the real thing. Focus on making it sound good."
> 
> I love for instance Jerry Gerber's comments about balance and transparency, but take issue with weight that he raised. That is far more true with real instruments than sampled instruments, It just is.
> 
> Mahler, great as he was, did not compose with samples
> 
> So far my favorites, because they really IMHO are good for MIDI orchestration and that I will probably use are:
> 
> Dave Connor: "A sustained tone should always be either rising or descending in volume. The rare exception being a deliberately held chord such as in a loud or soft brass chord where the idea is that it should sustain at a particular volume."
> 
> This is especially true with samples, When static, they just have no life.
> 
> Nils Neumann: "Don't copy and paste, especially if you are layering instruments."
> 
> I already had that one as it is an article of faith for me. Additionally if you must because of a time crunch, use a "humanize " feature if your DAW has one.
> 
> Rodney Money: "Also to trick the ear that the music is quieter, use smaller sections such as horn a2 for "quieter moments" and larger sections such as horn a6 for louder ones."
> 
> I need to do that more.
> 
> I also like Storyteller's comment: "Dont turn knobs because you think you are supposed to. Just like in studio recording, if the engineer has done his/her job and has used the right signal chain (e.g. preamps, cables, microphones, a/d converters), very little to no EQ will be needed. The same goes for professional sample libraries. Assume little to no EQ is needed unless it is intended to serve a purpose such as to create a specific sound (such as "bombastic" percussion) or to match sample libraries. The exception to this rule is the use of the low-cut filter (also known as the high-pass filter) to remove unwanted buildup of the lower end frequencies of the noise floor."
> 
> Too many people ruin the sound of these libraries by EQing when they don't really know what they are doing.
> Still not 100% sure that people do not overdo the low cut filtering also.
> 
> And finally, not surpsrisingly, Han's comment:
> "Don't even think about doing the drums until you've written everything else! Fit them around the music. Once you cover everything in drums, there is no more room for inventive writing and your bass end will become problematic... I always put the perc in last, but I write and orchestrate everything else knowing what perc I want to use and intimately knowing my sounds - and what I want the perc to do.



I would like to add few more points if helpful-

1. Round robins- some libraries provide 7-8 sets round robins some provide more to make the sample library more realistic and to counter the machine gun effect but the problem with round robins is that during fast phrases of staccato, spiccato or Marcato you will see it some times changes the pattern and sounds totally different then what you have programmed, now here comes the game of key switching where you can reset the round robin from the first set but sometimes it's not possible with certain libraries as they don't have keys witching option or sometimes despite having round robin reset switch you are not getting desired sound so to fix it, you can layer the phrase with other library underneath and now it would sound more organic and less repetitive as the other library too have couple of round robin sets also layering can be a good option to make certain things sound the way you want them too be, for example symphobia is more aggressive library as compared to Kirk hunter, some libraries sound thin in high register or may be you want to make low marcatos more powerful so it's always best to layer the sound in those cases...

2. Panning is the second most important element in my opinion when it comes into programming orchestra, i feel it's even more important then reverb in most cases, try to pan the elements in right way, for example if the score requires classical music approach then try to imitate real orchestra with panning by panning 1st violins to left, cellos to right 2nd violins and violas in between and bass in centre if it's more of a hybrid score then you can really experiment with it more,also if you will pan things in right way you will see you will get some headroom too and your arrangement will breath a little and would sound better as now every section as a place of its own in the mix...

3. Attack- every library has certain advantages and certain disadvantages, some libraries have samples with long attack time and some have shorter attack duration, and sometimes no matter if you play and record the midi performance but the notes and phrases are not just starting the way you want let's say you programmed high staccato phrase with violins, piccolo and trumpets but the library of trumpets you are using has long attack duration and they always lag behind violins and piccolo so the nice way is to work with delay compensation in your daw to increase or decrease the predelay of the sample also you can do it in Kontakt but that's more time taking and less intuitive as compared to setting predelay in your daw...

4. Pitch- for ultra realistic midi programming you can play with pitch too, let me explain a little, in the past when they used to record a live orchestra then there was a wider spectrum of pitch now a days all the samples are perfectly tuned so there isn't that much width left in pitch, for example A4 note has a frequency of 440hz so, when you record live musicians for score then all of the players are playing at same time, somebody might have jumped to the next note few milliseconds ahead of the other so it creates a wider spectrum also it's is very much possible somebody's violin is tuned at 435 Hz while some body else's is tuned at 445hz so you have a spectrum width of like 10 Hz now this width has decreased a lot to like 3-4hz max with sample libraries and that is also a reason everything sounds more artificial may be you can detune certain phrases to in points like 0.11 or 0.05 without crossing the semitone threshold and for me this is like something with which you can experiment and see if the results are desirable, but again don't go crazy with it too as then the entire score will sound detuned....

4. Low pass filter- some libraries don't have much expression(change in timbre) with modwheel and some have no expression at all with mod wheel so low pass filter can be helpful, it can be mapped to any cc within kontakt and you can adjust it or you can put a filter on your track and automate its frequency both ways work...(please don't get confused with cc11 expression as that is more about change in volume and mod wheel or cc1 is more about change in timbre)

5. Divisi and orchestrating right- now we hear lots of epic orchestral scores with poor division of notes in different section as the chords sound more keyboadyy and but the thing to keep in mind is that real orchestra has much more wider range so to make it sound big try putting notes or chords or arco in octaves apart in different sections to make it sound more larger, again that completely depends on what composer has in mind, my point is just on how to enhance your midi programming and making it more authentic... realistic division of notes and setting the higher and low notes for certain instruments is very crucial...

there are lot of things which can be discussed like reverb, key of the score and all that kind of technicality but just for the sake of this discussion I will keep it as shorter as I can..

Thanks and I hope it helped..


----------



## skyy38

Maestro1972 said:


> I think we are all guilty of adding more instruments/sections than what is needed. This not only has the potential of making the mix extremely muddy but it can also drown the musical idea that you are trying to get across. So to put it simply, use only the instruments need to express your musical idea, the rest are just getting in the way.



Yep! Less is more in this case, where each section of the orchestra can be clearly heard.
If, for instance, a piece of your music sounds just fine with strings alone, then don't try and "dress it up" with needless instrumentation-it's probably fine the way it is.
"Question and Answer" is a good technique for keeping mixes clean.
State something with strings, for however many measures it takes, and then answer it with another instrument, or texture.


----------



## skyy38

AllanH said:


> I really wish my DAW would let me automate the tempo map, but no such luck.



Are you referring to the use of rubato, in your music, or are you talking about something else?


----------



## skyy38

Guy Bacos said:


> As long as you make the appropriate changes to your copied track, I see no harm in doing that.



I would think that copy and paste would be quite handy if your DAW didn't happen to have a tempo map and, for a technique like rubato, it would actually be faster and more accurate than having to "program" the tempo map, to get the perfect "quickening and slackening" effect.

Lay down your first track with violins, for instance, anyway you want.

Copy and paste the first track to track 2, and then change the patch to something like double basses.

Keep on copying and pasting and changing patches until you have what you want.

Much faster, I believe than all of the "trial and error" of having to play EACH track in separately while trying to keep track of WHERE your "fast and slows" are and what duration they have in "free time."

The only SLOW part of this process I can think of, is if you want to add counterpoint ( correct term?)
to your rubato section, but I'm sure for most of you, this would be a minor issue, even if it did take a few tries to nail it down, but remember, after your "guide track" is set, then it's just more of C+P and changing patches!
And if by chance, it sounds a little too "static", well I'm sure you have tools to "humanize" the section, in your DAW, as well!


----------



## skyy38

Christof said:


> Most important thing:Think as a live player.Forget the grid, forget the piano roll.It is a good reference point but should not me more than that.
> Phrasing, timing, intonation are the most important aspects.
> All this can be done with some easy edits in your DAW.
> NEVER EVER copy/paste or loop anything.
> A live player NEVER EVER loops a phrase, each bar is played differently.Then the magic happens.



Well a "live player" doesn't have a deadline looming over his/her head to get a soundtrack done.

If I'm the one who plays in the music for my parts or loops then I have NO problem with using copy and paste-none whatsoever. Your only other choice is to play each track in from beginning to end and hope you can nail it in correctly the first time. This would become quite laborious with a 5 minute piece

I'd also be willing to bet that most people on these boards prefer to work in small sections and then string it all together.


----------



## skyy38

Guy Bacos said:


> Of course, any good live performance of a passage is the best way to go, not denying this, but you can also reconnect the dots other ways and have a result just as effective.
> 
> Like an actor rehearsing a line, it's not his real emotion, but for us it's as convincing as it gets, and he keeps repeating his line, fabricating the right emotion until it's exactly as it should be. But it's all fake!



If you're referring to step sequencing (just one example I'm sure), doing that makes your music sound as robotic as the AT-AT's (from THE EMPIRE STRIKES BACK) *look*.

Also, articulations are a part of an actors line rehearsal- He or she doesn't go back and add "articulations" later.


----------



## skyy38

jsg said:


> Must agree with Guy here, there are many ways to achieve the magic, one can copy and paste and still introduce random elements in terms of velocities, note lengths, start-time position, attack/release times or tempo changes. Sequencing, at least for me, is about 20% note entry and 80% editing.



As regards the note entry and editing, the reverse goes for me.


----------



## Guy Bacos

skyy38 said:


> If you're referring to step sequencing (just one example I'm sure), doing that makes your music sound as robotic as the AT-AT's (from THE EMPIRE STRIKES BACK) *look*.
> 
> Also, articulations are a part of an actors line rehearsal- He or she doesn't go back and add "articulations" later.



This can be argued at different levels. For the inexperience musician, it will sound robotic for sure, however, for the musician with enough experience who can hear in his head exactly how he wants to phrase a melody and feel it in his heart, all he needs to do is connect the dots on his sequencer or step sequencing. But you really need to be able to hear it in your head with the right phrasing, not just the impression you did that, and is not that obvious for everyone, which demands a certain skill. I wouldn't do an entire piece this way, but for some passages, can work perfectly.


----------



## skyy38

pkm said:


> Break every rule you learn at least once. And break some of them all the time.
> 
> It's the only way to know you're doing what works best for you and why, and not just because someone told you to.



Hear, hear PKM! RIGHT ON!

And also, respect other peoples choices-you never know if you might learn something new from them that you didn't know before!


----------



## skyy38

InLight-Tone said:


> Hmmm, I know this may be unpopular, but I consider Zimmer to be the Mozart of film (modern opera), and a master of modern scoring despite not sticking to conventional orchestra technique/section size and all of the other high-brow judgements. (And he posts here pretty regular...)



One of the most innovative things that Zimmer ever did was to be a "one man band" in service to the soundtrack for DRIVING MISS DAISY (1989) , which was done with nothing but off the shelf Roland gear.
I didn't find this out until years later, when I read an article about DRIVING MISS DAISY and the origin of the soundtrack, which consisted of nothing but acoustic emulations.
I'm still waiting for the director of a movie, who by leap of faith, uses some unknown composer, who would DARE to do an entire ORCHESTRAL score, for a major motion picture, using nothing more than samples.
Let's face it-it's TIME we got to look forward to something like that, wouldn't you agree?


----------



## skyy38

InLight-Tone said:


> Hmmm, I completely disagree, his music inspires me emotionally. But then again, I love melodic hard rock or metal or even a well crafted pop tune so we probably have different tastes...(You're a pokey dude at your age, most men settle down by the time they are 40, (that's a compliment))!!!



Age is just a number.
I'm 54 and I STILL refuse to "grow up."

And I have the heart of a five year old.

It's sitting in a jar on my desk. *lol*


----------



## skyy38

Guy Bacos said:


> This can be argued at different levels. For the inexperience musician, it will sound robotic for sure, however, for the musician with enough experience who can hear in his head exactly how he wants to phrase a melody and feel it in his heart, all he needs to do is connect the dots on his sequencer or step sequencing. But you really need to be able to hear it in your head with the right phrasing, not just the impression you did that, and is not that obvious for everyone, which demands a certain skill. I wouldn't do an entire piece this way, but for some passages, can work perfectly.



You HAVE to be EXPERIENCED in order to detect ANYTHING that doesn't look or sound natural.
That's what experience is for.

I have heard PLENTY of INEXPERIENCED "MIDI DUDES" music on the web over the years and THEY are not experienced enough, not yet, to realize that a clarinet player does NOT blow straight through 18 bars of music WITHOUT taking a breath, among other such things.

Also, experienced people know that when they don't have their "usual things" to rely on, they can always "punt" and use something else.

As a chef friend of mine always likes to say "If you run out of Fennel, use Anise!"


----------



## skyy38

RyanMcQuinn said:


> Could you expand on this please? What happens that's negative if you stack brass? Are you also against doubling at the octave? Is this a midi specific tip? Thanks!



This is a very VAGUE tip.

Elucidate further, please....


----------



## skyy38

RyanMcQuinn said:


> +1 Sometimes it takes a lot of effort to be lazy lol. It's like doing work in my backyard and walking around the same potted plant 50 times before finally moving it.
> 
> With all the different settings in quantize and humanize, not to mention differences between libraries and the way swells etc can sound different in the same library from one instrument to the next, it's very hard to make a rule about copy and paste that is always right. When I'm in session, I just try to make good decisions by treating each situation uniquely. If I try a copy and paste and it sounds really weird, I try to remember to work smarter not harder: move the potted plant. Of course this is easy to say in a forum. Much easier to lose perspective when actually doing it.



"Copy and Paste" is NO different than a fashion designer using a PATTERN to make their clothing.

I input the notes in my work, MYSELF, in the initial parts.
I have NO problem with "Copy and Paste" because it is a tool for being "on time" rather than a substitute for *knowledge*. And it is STILL *me*.

I mean, you all have heard about the 4th grader, who took a pocket calculator to school and it was promptly confiscated by his/her teacher, right?

The teacher then said something like " This might be hard for you to believe, right now, but when you reach High School, YOU and everyone around you will have a pocket calculator-it will be a part of your educational arsenal."
"But, for NOW, you have yet to learn the rudiments of math, in general, and THIS will NOT help you learn. It won't help at all, at your stage of learning."

And you know what, she was right!


----------



## skyy38

RyanMcQuinn said:


> Many of us here aspire to be great. I hardly think joining a forum reduces those chances. The chances may be reduced however if comments like this are taken to heart and result in discouragement.



Not to get "off subject" here, but HOW many of YOU know, that the eventual manufacture


Morodiene said:


> Do you mean the same timpani instrument played an octave above or below? (I assume above, but not sure). I have a timpani part in a tutti section that needs to come out more.



An octave, for Timpani, above or below?

Really?

What's wrong with panning?


----------



## Iskra

skyy38 said:


> PLENTY of INEXPERIENCED "MIDI DUDES"





skyy38 said:


> HAVE to be EXPERIENCED in order to detect ANYTHING



Just to be sure, you know that capital letters are the forum equivalent of real life yelling, right? 
Small letters are always fine, it's even more comfortable to read


----------



## lucor

Not a midi orchestration tip per se, but something that is easily done in the world of midi and helps me a lot:
When you have worked on a piece for a very long time and your ears are completely dead and lose the last bit of objectivity, I like to temporarily transpose the whole piece up or down by a half or wholestep. Listening back to it that way often reveals faults that I haven't noticed before. I don't know why but it works wonders for me.


----------



## Guy Bacos

Iskra said:


> Just to be sure, you know that capital letters are the forum equivalent of real life yelling, right?
> Small letters are always fine, it's even more comfortable to read



 I told my dad this a few times, the times he emails me.


----------



## givemenoughrope

The tip that stays with me: This is midi, these are samples. It's not a real orchestra. It's an electronic mockup. If you listen for realism or to it as a "real" thing then you are actually just listening to electronic music. It's an idea that is meant to be a placeholder for an actual performance with people. Using string samples behind a piano, some synths and maybe some soloists is actually just a really sophisticated "synth patch" in a way. I know this is all obvious...but tell that to the other you who falls down the rabbit hole chasing "realism"...trying to piece together snapshots of sounds and passing them off as real. I think dropping that and just pursuing the musical ideas is a better use of time. I'm not trying to sound like a pretentious wank...I just have to remind myself of this often.


----------



## The Darris

Stay away from writing brass chords where all of the notes are in the upper dynamics. Put the loudest dynamic on the note you want to be the dominating pitch (usually the highest) and then have the rest of the brass samples playing in their mid to lower dynamic ranges. However, you will need to balance them so that the volumes match. This will keep the chord from sounding super harsh and synthetic.


----------



## Living Fossil

Gordon_hiphoplp said:


> ...for example A4 note has a frequency of 440hz so, when you record live musicians for score then all of the players are playing at same time, somebody might have jumped to the next note few milliseconds ahead of the other so it creates a wider spectrum also it's is very much possible somebody's violin is tuned at 435 Hz while some body else's is tuned at 445hz ...



An orchestra where one violin is tuned at 435 Hz and another one at 445 Hz is not an orchestra but an army of deaf zombies.
The reason why there are big differences in intonation are 1.) due to limitations in the accuracy of the fingers (specially on fast notes in the higher register slight distances on the fingerboard have consequences) 2.) due to the fact that most intervals have a certain scope.
[String players often claim to play in "just" intonation. Usually, it's rather kind of "self-righteous" intonation.]
However, as i've written several pages earlier, it's only the imprecision that makes an orchestra sound real.
Perfect octaves in strings or in woodwinds or in brass usually sound like organs/synths. 
To my ears, runs in perfect octaves in mockups are among the ugliest acoustical experiences. They can be heard quite often.


----------



## skyy38

Rodney Money said:


> Play it in live.



STILL the best way to get the "human touch!"


----------



## skyy38

Ashermusic said:


> Thanks guys, but a lot of this has to do more with composition and traditional orchestration and not MIDI orchestration specifically. And no they are NOT the same. And also, some of you are assuming that the goal is "realism." As I am well known for saying, and my article will reflect this, unless you are mocking up a Classical piece, know when to say, "screw what the real thing is, samples are not the real thing. Focus on making it sound good."
> 
> I love for instance Jerry Gerber's comments about balance and transparency, but take issue with weight that he raised. That is far more true with real instruments than sampled instruments, It just is.
> 
> Mahler, great as he was, did not compose with samples
> 
> So far my favorites, because they really IMHO are good for MIDI orchestration and that I will probably use are:
> 
> Dave Connor: "A sustained tone should always be either rising or descending in volume. The rare exception being a deliberately held chord such as in a loud or soft brass chord where the idea is that it should sustain at a particular volume."
> 
> This is especially true with samples, When static, they just have no life.
> 
> Nils Neumann: "Don't copy and paste, especially if you are layering instruments."
> 
> I already had that one as it is an article of faith for me. Additionally if you must because of a time crunch, use a "humanize " feature if your DAW has one.
> 
> Rodney Money: "Also to trick the ear that the music is quieter, use smaller sections such as horn a2 for "quieter moments" and larger sections such as horn a6 for louder ones."
> 
> I need to do that more.
> 
> I also like Storyteller's comment: "Dont turn knobs because you think you are supposed to. Just like in studio recording, if the engineer has done his/her job and has used the right signal chain (e.g. preamps, cables, microphones, a/d converters), very little to no EQ will be needed. The same goes for professional sample libraries. Assume little to no EQ is needed unless it is intended to serve a purpose such as to create a specific sound (such as "bombastic" percussion) or to match sample libraries. The exception to this rule is the use of the low-cut filter (also known as the high-pass filter) to remove unwanted buildup of the lower end frequencies of the noise floor."
> 
> Too many people ruin the sound of these libraries by EQing when they don't really know what they are doing.
> Still not 100% sure that people do not overdo the low cut filtering also.
> 
> And finally, not surpsrisingly, Han's comment:
> "Don't even think about doing the drums until you've written everything else! Fit them around the music. Once you cover everything in drums, there is no more room for inventive writing and your bass end will become problematic... I always put the perc in last, but I write and orchestrate everything else knowing what perc I want to use and intimately knowing my sounds - and what I want the perc to do.



Why should a "classical piece" be different from a "soundtrack piece" in terms of trying to achieve realism?
If you have a crappy sounding patch either in a classical piece OR soundtrack piece, either way, it's
"Game Over."


----------



## skyy38

NoamL said:


> And a great tip from @Rctec:



First of all let's clarify something.
In an orchestra, it's not called "drums", it's called "percussion."

Drums are for rock bands.

But the principle remains the same. Percussion is the last thing to add.

Myself, if 3/4 of the orchestra is "food groups" then percussion is the "condiments".
Use sparingly, for the most part, like John Williams does.

Of course there will be some days when you want to have a little "coffee with your sugar" but other than that, KISS for percussion.


----------



## skyy38

Ashermusic said:


> Thanks guys, but a lot of this has to do more with composition and traditional orchestration and not MIDI orchestration specifically. And no they are NOT the same. And also, some of you are assuming that the goal is "realism." As I am well known for saying, and my article will reflect this, unless you are mocking up a Classical piece, know when to say, "screw what the real thing is, samples are not the real thing. Focus on making it sound good."
> 
> I love for instance Jerry Gerber's comments about balance and transparency, but take issue with weight that he raised. That is far more true with real instruments than sampled instruments, It just is.
> 
> Mahler, great as he was, did not compose with samples
> 
> So far my favorites, because they really IMHO are good for MIDI orchestration and that I will probably use are:
> 
> Dave Connor: "A sustained tone should always be either rising or descending in volume. The rare exception being a deliberately held chord such as in a loud or soft brass chord where the idea is that it should sustain at a particular volume."
> 
> This is especially true with samples, When static, they just have no life.
> 
> Nils Neumann: "Don't copy and paste, especially if you are layering instruments."
> 
> I already had that one as it is an article of faith for me. Additionally if you must because of a time crunch, use a "humanize " feature if your DAW has one.
> 
> Rodney Money: "Also to trick the ear that the music is quieter, use smaller sections such as horn a2 for "quieter moments" and larger sections such as horn a6 for louder ones."
> 
> I need to do that more.
> 
> I also like Storyteller's comment: "Dont turn knobs because you think you are supposed to. Just like in studio recording, if the engineer has done his/her job and has used the right signal chain (e.g. preamps, cables, microphones, a/d converters), very little to no EQ will be needed. The same goes for professional sample libraries. Assume little to no EQ is needed unless it is intended to serve a purpose such as to create a specific sound (such as "bombastic" percussion) or to match sample libraries. The exception to this rule is the use of the low-cut filter (also known as the high-pass filter) to remove unwanted buildup of the lower end frequencies of the noise floor."
> 
> Too many people ruin the sound of these libraries by EQing when they don't really know what they are doing.
> Still not 100% sure that people do not overdo the low cut filtering also.
> 
> And finally, not surpsrisingly, Han's comment:
> "Don't even think about doing the drums until you've written everything else! Fit them around the music. Once you cover everything in drums, there is no more room for inventive writing and your bass end will become problematic... I always put the perc in last, but I write and orchestrate everything else knowing what perc I want to use and intimately knowing my sounds - and what I want the perc to do.



I love copy and paste-it's been my closest ally since my days of sequencing on the Alesis MMT-8, in more ways than one.
For instance, did you know that C+P can help you bop out a guitar solo, even if you are not skilled in doing so?

Quantize, in terms of orchestral percussion, has NO place, at least not the way I work.
Let me reiterate- I don't use it for ANYTHING.

And if a "real" orchestra is supposed to have imperfect intonation, why does it sound like crap when I try to detune a few cents ( aka "chorus") on my string sections? And why can't I hear imperfect intonation on most anything by the London Symphony Orchestra or most any OTHER orchestra, for that matter?

And frankly gents ( and gentettes ) all the time that I read about all the time you spend, trying to get this MIDI orchestration caper, "right" is astonishing to me.
It is also apparent to me, that most of you spend more time "massaging" your music than you actually do composing it. How are deadlines met in this manner?

Anyone here remember that old NIKE tag line from the 80's?

"Just do it."

Sage advice for today, I would like to think.


----------



## skyy38

Assa said:


> I think that is a very true statement! Musical knowledge is more important than technical. It's not a coincidence that the mockups that impress me the most are made by skilled composers who know how to write for live orchestra as well.



John Williams is a skilled composer, who writes for orchestra, naturally.
However, put something like an arranger keyboard in front of him, and he'd be "lost at sea."
Mr. Williams still uses pencil and paper......
The Orchestra, is in his head.
And that's all he needs.

Which is the big difference between him and the rest of us.


----------



## skyy38

Ashermusic said:


> And conversely, I have heard a lot of them that arguably sounded "more realistic" that nonetheless were lousy to listen to compared to ones that sounded less realistic but more musical to me. It is a balancing act.
> 
> But true about the perfect tuning.



I offer this:

 @ 1:01

The octave strings sound perfect to me!

And THIS is an orchestra. So what is wrong with YOUR samples?

The only strings that sound "fake" to me, is anything that ROLAND produces.

THEY are still stuck in the 1980's.


----------



## skyy38

Living Fossil said:


> Of course.
> However, i think a good mockup with perfect octaves in fast(er) melodic line will sound much better if those octaves are edited a bit. Additionally, the problem with perfect octaves also touches the perception of the reverberation: it takes that line out of the common space, it's really a weird psychoacoustic thing.
> (To be exact: it's rather our brain which behaves in weird ways when perceiving music)



How about humans perceiving COLOR on a Black and White TV?

Or the ability for dogs to hear that, which humans can't?

Or the ability of a horse, to be able to smell water that is located miles away AND underground?

On a song a recorded long ago, on the mixed down version, in between a poly synth patch and an organ patch, my brain was hearing an acoustic guitar, even though I had NOT recorded an acoustic guitar part!

Good ol' psychoacoustics!


----------



## skyy38

Guy Bacos said:


> Not cheap at all, in fact I insist on that a lot, and I'm about to give up on giving this advice because people want more and more short cuts.



For MOST people, "short cuts" are just an excuse for "lack of knowledge."

For the SKILLED who have their own short cuts, it is just another means to the end, without undermining their skill.

Famed Illustrator JACK DAVIS was once questioned about "Magic Markers" as opposed to the traditional
"Ink and Pen" approach.

His answer? "I like magic markers-they're FAST!"


----------



## skyy38

jsg said:


> I wish the word "mockup" only existed for commercial scoring purposes and never used when speaking of the virtual orchestra as an artistic medium. It really doesn't serve us well...
> 
> Jerry
> www.jerrygerber.com



There is something about the term "Mockup" which just doesn't sit well with me either.

It implies "fakery" without honest artistic intent.

Sorry to let most of you know this, but most of you are NEVER going to be within spitting distance of an ACTUAL ORCHESTRA, and that in itself, might be a good thing.

Especially, in light of the fact of what happened when Mike Verta wanted to record his OWN music WITH an orchestra, but it didn't turn out the way that he expected-FAR from it, according to the article, which I will try and post later.

ALSO, just because something is REAL doesn't mean that it is aesthetically pleasing, soundwise or otherwise.
THOUSANDS of "real" videos are taken yearly at various events, but it STILL doesn't make the camera operator a "cinematographer."
And you know what? I would vastly prefer a MIDI Orchestra over the orchestra that was assigned THIS unfortunate task:



And then:


----------



## skyy38

RyanMcQuinn said:


> Imagine if Mozart had to write using samples and just couldn't seem to get the finished product right due to technology. His reverb was unnatural, he couldn't quite decide on when to sweeten with close mics, contended with worldwide market oversaturation, etc. Would his music push through in a forum like this, or would we all just tell him to fix his reverb etc and move on? I'm very thankful for this thread as it may help each of us to have our music heard for the notes in an age where the production quality is given more weight than musical content.



Production quality, is a given-THIS will always remain true.

But going over hundreds of posts in this forum, gives me the sense, that there are MORE technicians, than actual musicians. And you DO need musical experience, in order to accurately lay down your MIDI tracks.
Just because you give someone a .44 Magnum, doesn't make them DIRTY HARRY.

If you are a musician, then all you need to learn are the technical aspects of MIDI and how it works.

I as a musician, had to learn this very same thing, when I started my first project studio.

As for the REST of you, who have seemed to wandered into this field and expecting "magic" without knowing the FIRST thing about music?

SORRY people, but the LIFETIME that it took us musicians, to learn our craft, one way or another, CANNOT be substituted with TECHNOLOGY.

Technology is a means to the end. But if ANY of you have NEVER had experience with a REAL musical instrument, or the situations involved, then even the BEST of VSL will never be able to help you.

It's NOT about "tips and tricks".

It's about education......


----------



## skyy38

RyanMcQuinn said:


> Gotcha! Avoiding the synth brass sound. That makes sense. Thanks!



John Williams stacked brass sounds and IT didn't sound "synthy."


----------



## Nils Neumann

skyy38 said:


> If you are a musician, then all you need to learn are the technical aspects of MIDI and how it works.


Wow, you make it look so easy... no but seriously that is kind of arrogant, production and good sounding mockup is not just learned by reading so manuals about midi. People tend to be very romantic about the "hard learned musicianship", everything can be replaced by technology it is just a matter of time. Just imagine telling people 100 years ago that a full Orchestra can be emulated by a little box!


----------



## Nils Neumann

skyy38 said:


> John Williams stacked brass sounds and IT didn't sound "synthy."



it is a sample problem not a real orchestra problem


----------



## The Darris

Layering is also a good technique to establish early on. Keep in mind, this is mixing too. You shouldn't just load two patches up on the same track and go. I keep things separate and then I mix on the fly. For instance. For production reasons, I've moved away from using Spitfire's orchestral samples, except percussion, because of how they mix with live instruments. I stick with Cinematic Studio Strings and Cinematic Strings 2. I favor CSS in my mix more because it has more detail in the samples. I blend CS2 in to create more depth. These two are so easy to work with since they have very similar designs and functionality. I can copy and paste directly. However, CS2 is much louder by default so I tend to rework in the midi programming on CC1 and CC11. The only other strings I layer with them are some oldies but goldies. Albion 1 Legacy's Low Strings Octaves. Albion 2's Harmonics, Trems, and Low Pizz (those low pizz have some f**king body to them that can almost be used as a synth for low stabs and punch when you really need some bottom end). I also layer the measured trems in Spitfire Chamber Strings with the measured trems in CSS because CSS can sound a little choppy whereas Spitfire's sound more fluid. They blend well together. I don't send Spitfire's stuff through my reverb chain. I use the Lexicon PMC Native Random Hall with a tail of around 2.10 second and send my CSS and CS2 strings to that and really just judge by ear with how much I send as it may vary from cue to cue. For any spiccato osti's of the likes, I favor CSS and actually vary the short articulations to get a little more character out of the passages but layer CS2, Albion 1 Legacy, Sonic Implants Symphonic Strings, and Orchestral Tools Nocturne Cello (the shorts in this library have so much freakin bite). All of those together just have a nice sound. Thick, warm, and full of bite when you need it. For percussion, I layer Timpanis from Orchestral Tools and Spitfire and sometimes Timphonia from Modwheel. The reason I do this is that I've learned The Timpani from OT and Spitfire just lack some bottom end body (all bouts that bass) soooo, blending the two helps give me what I need but I also add a Transient Master on them and increase the Sustain a bit to give me more body (a built in feature I learned from Modwheels' Timphonia). This helps. The simple workaround but is more expensive would be to buy CinePerc as the timpani in that library is a beast but since that library is now $800, I will work with what I got. The last tip I can give that you need to do when layering is exaggerate your dynamics. Use both CC1 and CC11. The more you layer, the less definition you have so the more extreme you need to be, at least in my experience. 

Oh, I guess I could share another that has helped me. Percussion grooves. It's easy to copy and paste a loop. But, you can tell when it's a loop because its the same damn programming every time. Make sure you are adding variations to each looping phrase whether it's slightly different accents or entirely different velocities (my favorite). The easiest way to do this, if you are in Cubase, is to setup some Logical Editor Presets to randomize velocity between a certain range. By default, there is a preset that will do this between 60-100. I've found this to be the best starting point so I setup a Key-command (because you can do this in Cubase) to the "~/`" key which is right next to Q and W which are my quantize keys. In three clicks, I can quantize the start and end note positions and randomize all of the velocities. Then, I just compress them a bit to my liking and add accents where I want them. Simple. Quick. Efficient. This makes my percussion loops sound performed versus copied and pasted and I can save time going through each repeated phrase. 

At the end of the day, I guess I have been listening to HZ's teachings which is "know how to use your DAW." The only reason I've gotten away from playing everything in is because I use so many different libraries and they are so inconsistent that I've learned how to program them in instead. To each their own. Either way, learn how to do it to the fullest extant. 

Cheers,

-C


----------



## novaburst

Christof said:


> NEVER EVER copy/paste or loop anything.



Totally agree especially if you want to create a forward motion, the human ear is very advanced in picking up a quick sand effect coursed by past and loops.



Christof said:


> each bar is played differently.Then the magic happens



Again another essential ingredient to the momentum of a musical piece, when a bar is repeated often times and the mood feels good the bar is played differently some times with more feeling, emotion, but it all contributes to movement, and forward motion, and interest and build.


----------



## novaburst

skyy38 said:


> But if ANY of you have NEVER had experience with a REAL musical instrument, or the situations involved, then even the BEST of VSL will never be able to help you.



Oh darn that's it I'm giving up...

I was pinning my hopes on VSL


----------



## Gordon_hiphoplp

Living Fossil said:


> An orchestra where one violin is tuned at 435 Hz and another one at 445 Hz is not an orchestra but an army of deaf zombies.
> The reason why there are big differences in intonation are 1.) due to limitations in the accuracy of the fingers (specially on fast notes in the higher register slight distances on the fingerboard have consequences) 2.) due to the fact that most intervals have a certain scope.
> [String players often claim to play in "just" intonation. Usually, it's rather kind of "self-righteous" intonation.]
> However, as i've written several pages earlier, it's only the imprecision that makes an orchestra sound real.
> Perfect octaves in strings or in woodwinds or in brass usually sound like organs/synths.
> To my ears, runs in perfect octaves in mockups are among the ugliest acoustical experiences. They can be heard quite often.


Yeah you are correct but again It was just an example to describe the imperfections of pitch in live orchestra, but you missed the point-definitely strings are tuned to perfect pitches but again the movement of notes while playing them will cause slight detuning in intervals and that causes that frequency spectrum to widen up also instruments in brass family need air pressure to reach certain frequencies or notes it depends upon person to person on how they are blowing the air, though they are all trained people in orchestra but that's the truth, I have heard somewhere that if a trained classical piano player will record their performance with metronome(without the articulations that cause tempo changes in between like adante or retard) they will still be off of the beat in between though it can be very subtle but human is human and mistakes happens all the time consciously or unconsciously and the thing with frequency is if you just listen to one note you can tell if its right or wrong but when it is played by group of people it gets hard sometimes for our ears to recognize any imperfections in tune as now it becomes one layer for frequency that has very subtle harmonics changes going simultaneously, just to make it simple, you must have heard of detuning the oscillator in synthesis or sound design, guess why do they do it, I guess zombies would have never done it, its humans that like those slight imperfections which make it more realistic and that's how you come up with those realistic sounding synth string patches any ways I believe that though we have captured live musicians in our sound or sample library but to me that sample library is just like any other synth that can be always tweaked and designed to the way you want it to be heard, I must have edited my previous post and made it more descriptive, I just didn't check it, but music is a dynamic thing and you can experiment a lot to see certain things, because the sound that we hear live and the sound that we capture with mic is certainly different.....its like capturing video of a real world lol... where a man looks like a man but isn't a man, its just a movement of electrons on your screen and a real man is more then those pixels or electrons whatever... good luck


----------



## JohnG

1. Study John Williams scores.

2. Do that. Adjust as necessary.


----------



## NoamL

Indeed John, a mentor told me there are only 2 phases in a composer's career:

Phase 1. You haven't studied enough scores
Phase 2. You're too busy to study scores


----------



## The Darris

Christof said:


> Most important thing:Think as a live player.Forget the grid, forget the piano roll.It is a good reference point but should not me more than that.
> Phrasing, timing, intonation are the most important aspects.
> All this can be done with some easy edits in your DAW.
> NEVER EVER copy/paste or loop anything.
> A live player NEVER EVER loops a phrase, each bar is played differently.Then the magic happens.



Honestly, a lot of your thoughts here are subjective. If the mock-up is the final product then maybe. In the work I do, I have to work to the grid because it goes to players and syncs to picture. There isn't time for custom tempo maps. There are ways to do this and still be musical. Especially if you get a good conductor who isn't scared to do a scene without the click. 

In terms of "NEVER/EVER." Haha. I do it all the time. Do I produce the greatest mock-ups of all time? No, nor will I ever probably. That's not my goal in life. I produce good mock-ups that have gotten me consistent work so far this year. I put the effort into the composition and focus on writing music that fits the picture and specific scene I'm working on.


----------



## novaburst

The Darris said:


> In terms of "NEVER/EVER." Haha


I would say this is for writing too, your bars must show a rise or a decline in movement so when you look back you can see you have moved away from the start.


----------



## Vik

Christof said:


> Most important thing:Think as a live player.Forget the grid, forget the piano roll


Agree. However, that's kind of difficult when one tries to compose in a notation program.


----------



## reddognoyz

I sketch off the grid to picture, with a melody or some repeating figure until I get something I like, and or a feel I like, and then conform the tempo map to what's played. I will sometimes remove some of the variations in tempo, which is a form of quantizing I suppose, and if the hits drift too far off I'll go back in and adjust the tempo to rematch up the hits points. No tempo map makes it tough to control the outcome if I need to quantize or step in parts I cant play in.


----------



## Christof

The Darris said:


> Honestly, a lot of your thoughts here are subjective. If the mock-up is the final product then maybe. In the work I do, I have to work to the grid because it goes to players and syncs to picture. There isn't time for custom tempo maps. There are ways to do this and still be musical. Especially if you get a good conductor who isn't scared to do a scene without the click.
> 
> In terms of "NEVER/EVER." Haha. I do it all the time. Do I produce the greatest mock-ups of all time? No, nor will I ever probably. That's not my goal in life. I produce good mock-ups that have gotten me consistent work so far this year. I put the effort into the composition and focus on writing music that fits the picture and specific scene I'm working on.


You are right, my NEVER/EVER quote caused some problems here already


----------



## Living Fossil

@Gordon_hiphoplp : As written previously, my concern with your post was not the mentioning of intonational deviations (which i pointed out as crucial myself in a previous post), but rather the numbers you mentioned.
The interval between a 430 Hz and a 450 Hz note is about 80 Cents, and that's almost a half tone step...


----------



## Gordon_hiphoplp

Living Fossil said:


> @Gordon_hiphoplp : As written previously, my concern with your post was not the mentioning of intonational deviations (which i pointed out as crucial myself in a previous post), but rather the numbers you mentioned.
> The interval between a 430 Hz and a 450 Hz note is about 80 Cents, and that's almost a half tone step...


yeah you are right, I just used it as an example(though I said 435-445), but if you will check all the half tones(either flat or sharp) have at least 20-25 hz or may be more difference to their adjacent notes and if you will do little research you will see that some people who create sample libraries tune their samples just to make sure if that is pitch perfect, let me give you a link of Christian Henson's video doing it in esx24 around 11 minutes I guess



No hard feelings, we share what we know and perceive, it may not work for everyone and we can be wrong sometimes, we are good, cheers... good luck....


----------



## Gordon_hiphoplp

Gordon_hiphoplp said:


> yeah you are right, I just used it as an example(though I said 435-445), but if you will check all the half tones(either flat or sharp) have at least 20-25 hz or may be more difference to their adjacent notes and if you will do little research you will see that some people who create sample libraries tune their samples just to make sure if that is pitch perfect, let me give you a link of Christian Henson's video doing it in esx24 around 11 minutes I guess
> 
> 
> 
> No hard feelings, we share what we know and perceive, it may not work for everyone and we can be wrong sometimes, we are good, cheers... good luck....



even that deaf zombie was epic thing, it made me laugh lol...


----------



## Living Fossil

@Gordon_hiphoplp : When speaking about deviations, you should always use cents, never Hertz.
Cents always mean the same interval; Hertz is completely dependent on the range:
20 Hz -> 40 Hz -> 1 octave
10000 Hz -> 10020 Hz -> 4 cents
in both cases the difference is 20 Hertz

In faster figures, sometimes deviations around 20-30 Cents are not unusual.
However, intonation has become much better in the orchestras during the last hundred years.

(QUOTE)(though I said 435-445) (/QUOTE)

Yes, sorry, i've broadened the interval 
However, for me the difference between 440, which i use as tuning in projects without recording musicians, and 443, which i use when i record musicians, is huge, since i feel more home with 440 Hz.


----------



## skyy38

Don't be HAMSTRUNG by everyone else's OPINIONS.

They are ONLY opinions and NOT fact.

For example- LOTS of people on these boards claim that LASS is the BEST for strings.

Is that FACT , or merely OPINION?

OPINION will always be debatable.

FACT is the absolute TRUTH, as we all KNOW IT, so far.

In other words, go with what is best for YOU and NOT "someone else."

Follow your heart and your best instincts, for only YOU know what is *best* for you.


----------



## e-nemy

Fantastic thread. So much useful information here. I enjoyed reading it not only for the handy tips but also the display of lively personalities. I wouldn't say anyone was going out of their way to be rude, they were just passionate, which is pretty much what you'd expect for people on this site. I'd be quite disappointed if everyone were indifferent.

The only thing I can add (still a novice here and I know it's not MIDI related) is that you should take a break from your music when you notice fatigue coming on. Although sometimes we don't realise when we need to rest because we get caught up in excitement. But the difference is quite noticeable and I wake up the next day to hear a completely different song...not in a good way either. It's like audio gremlins came out during the night and wrecked havoc in my studio! Because when I make the mistake of pushing myself too far I lose perspective. In my tired state I usually end up leaving the project in a direction where ideas becomes lost, mangled or lose coherency (my main sin). Then there's less inspiration and I get discouraged to complete the piece. Perhaps some of you can relate?

Second thing I can add is that sometimes it's tempting to use all your ideas that come to surface in the immediate track you're working on. But if it conflicts with the theme, unnecessarily complicates it, or adds nothing to it... it may be better suited for a forked off track or even discarded. Easier said than done though. I've committed this cardinal sin many times and probably will continue to do so .

But my most important lesson to take from this thread is that I've learnt I have a lot more to learn than I initially thought. Cliche. But true for me nonetheless. I grossly underestimated the vast ways of how I could improve on my compositions. And this frightened me at first because I knew it's going to be a long road ahead but then I realised I'd be encouraged by the extremely satisfying journey of musical discovery. But no, for those of you reading, I won't become obsessed with technicalities. I'm more interested in how I can use knowledge as a tool to ignite my creativity and free me from stagnation, not imprison me with its weight. No accusations here. It's from personal experience not just with music but other fields I dabble in too.

Many thanks to everyone who contributed to this thread and I hope it still continues to grow. I have benefited and read every single post in this thread without discounting anything. You never know what can come in handy even if it goes against "common sense". I have a lot of unlearning to do too; so many bad, bad habits. I feel a bit like I've just watched the director's commentary on my composer life past and shocked at all the things I missed. Many things I cringed at, at first because I had overlooked the obvious but I'm over that stage. No more self-flagellation... it's time for orchestration!

Oh, and the most important tip: don't forget to rehydrate. OK, kidding on that one.


----------



## brek

Confession: I quantize. Not all the time, but often enough. I sometimes wonder if there are others like me, carrying this shameful secret that must never be spoken out loud. I have my reasons. It makes my job easier when the picture goes through a million edits a million times and I need to rearrange my season to match. (This can range from simply quantizing the first note of every section to saying f it and hitting "Q" on everything for the heavy hack and slash jobs). It also makes the music editors job easier when that task eventually falls to them. 
Anyway, if you're going to quantize use MIDI pre delay. NEVER/EVER quantize string parts without it.


----------



## ChrisSiuMusic

Just uploaded a new video


----------



## mcalis

Getting back into the "MIDI tips" part of this thread:

You can 'fake' measured tremolo on strings with a spiccato patch quite easily. This trick was mentioned in Alex Wallbank's Cinematic Strings 2 video and he took it from Jasper Blunk again. I use this trick quite often with good results and it is an actual midi trick.

See the video for details. The video will start playing at the appropiate timestamp for the trick:


----------



## jaketanner

Someone said that playing it live is overrated...I think it's the only way to get a true live feeling performance...but I think the better way of saying it, is only quantize when absolutely necessary...And never at 100%. Secondly, PERFORMANCE is key...aside from playing it live, you need to "perform" the part as a real musician might do...Give room to breathe, don't play out of range or in a range that's not comfortable and make sure your tempo is comfortable as well...etc, etc. Third, BALANCE YOUR TEMPLATE..lol Sorry for yelling, but this is absolute key to realism. Making sure the parts are well balanced amongst the orchestra is more important that having the most realistic samples. Playability of your samples is also key...they need to do what you want them to. And lastly...as others have mentioned, never set to a perfect tempo...fluctuate a bit as a conductor might have you do to create excitement and more movement from the samples.


----------



## gohrev

Randomise your little midi stubs. Move some notes a bit to the left, to the right. Make them last a little longer or shorter. Maybe let the first violin start the phrase just a liiiittle bit earlier than the rest. Don't give it too much thought, simply pick a note every now and then and have some fun with it.


----------



## Living Fossil

berlin87 said:


> Make them last a little longer or shorter. Maybe let the first violin start the phrase just a liiiittle bit earlier than the rest. Don't give it too much thought, simply pick a note every now and then and have some fun with it.



No. Just no.
With the wrong lengths and positions you can completely mess up the feeling of a texture.
The lengths, volume and exact position of a note can be completely crucial and often requires a lot of fiddeling.

Of course, a too quantized playback sounds usually bad. But you have to have an idea why you introduce which deviations. It's not a bricolage...


----------



## dfhagai




----------



## TomislavEP

Personally, I've gave up the quest of pursuing and achieving "realism" in virtual orchestration quite some time ago. While I believe that it's possible, as numerous audible examples by other composers and members of these boards prove, above all I cherish the certain "democracy" that MIDI orchestration provides: the ability for musicians and composers who don't have traditional music education and training (like myself) to also express themselves through orchestral music.

I like to think that I know a thing or two about orchestration, at least in theory, but for me those principles were always more the aesthetic guidelines than a strict rules that I aim to follow to the letter. That being said, here are my favorite principles about virtual orchestration:

1) Don't take a french horn patch and play a boogie-woogie piano lick with it;

2) Try not to use close and dense voicing while using ensemble and especially section patches;

3) Try to use dynamic and expression as much as possible.


----------



## iliatilev

If you cannot play the parts live and you need to program them..Just turn off the snap feature off and program them manually.. It makes everything much more alive..


----------



## Abdulrahman

ghandizilla said:


> The one I belove (in completion of piano roll randomizing tools) to get a human touch is a slight but constant variation in tempo. For instance, in a 90bpm piece, the tempo varies between 87-92.


Does FL Studio have this option?


----------



## Snarf

Abdulrahman said:


> Does FL Studio have this option?



In case you have not yet figured it out by now, yes you can. Just automate the tempo by creating an automation clip!


----------



## river angler

When working with orchestral instruments, particularly emotive, engine driven ones, never let the plugins overtake your own inherent creative input to the point where you become too reliant on them, in turn growing lazy and loose site of the base content of any ongoing composition.





__





Are virtual instruments veiling compositional content?


As more and more emotive and engine driven orchestral, synthetic and sound design type libraries hit the market I can't help thinking that these instrument plugins are fast taking over the main impetus that goes into a composition: numbing the true creative potential of the composer himself...




vi-control.net


----------



## mikeh-375

river angler said:


> When working with orchestral instruments, particularly emotive, engine driven ones, never let the plugins overtake your own inherent creative input to the point where you become too reliant on them, in turn growing lazy and loose site of the base content of any ongoing composition.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are virtual instruments veiling compositional content?
> 
> 
> As more and more emotive and engine driven orchestral, synthetic and sound design type libraries hit the market I can't help thinking that these instrument plugins are fast taking over the main impetus that goes into a composition: numbing the true creative potential of the composer himself...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> vi-control.net




Amen. Eg. it's too easy to play that harmony just with string spiccato chords, so why not try a slur here and there to create rhythm with variation....unless the deadline is rapidly approaching.


----------



## Pug user

pmcrockett said:


> There are no bar lines; there is no grid. Edits should be made based on how they sound, not how they look.


But aren't bar lines as same as the measure on the score? Won't it be confusing if we actually want to notate the song afterwards? I totally agree on your opinion but just curious because I am trying to control and find the right bpm to make a song according to the bars and grid as if I am writing a song on the paper. 

My apologies if I did not properly get what you wanted to tell.


----------



## GtrString

Favourite? Write first, edit later. Like in any type of authorship, get some work done as first priority, and finetune it second. But separate those two tasks, so you dont have to deal with them at once.


----------



## Ashermusic

GtrString said:


> Favourite? Write first, edit later. Like in any type of authorship, get some work done as first priority, and finetune it second.



Good one.


----------



## storyteller

I've been toying around with just bypassing the grid all together. It takes everything out of the performance. No amount of faking the tempo changes, etc can seem to solve this problem for me. I kinda wish there was a single-click grid-to-my-playing feature that worked accurately. That would resolve my biggest headaches.


----------



## Ashermusic

storyteller said:


> I've been toying around with just bypassing the grid all together. It takes everything out of the performance. No amount of faking the tempo changes, etc can seem to solve this problem for me. I kinda wish there was a single-click grid-to-my-playing feature that worked accurately. That would resolve my biggest headaches.



Well the great thing with Logic's new Smart Tempo is that you can at least play in your primary part, e.g. piano, click free, and it builds a tempo map for you.

I am not a fan of the term "game changer" because it's usually hype, but for me this _is_ a game changer.


----------



## storyteller

Ashermusic said:


> Well the great thing with Logic's new Smart Tempo is that you can at least play in your primary part, e.g. piano, click free, and it builds a tempo map for you.
> 
> I am not a fan of the term "game changer" because it's usually hype, but for me this _is_ a game changer.


I'll have to check it out. I didn't realize that was added to Logic. I've been heavily invested in time and workflow management in Reaper the past few years. Hopefully Reaper will have a solution for it... but I will check out Logic's Smart Tempo for sure. Thanks for the suggestion Jay.


----------



## PaulieDC

storyteller said:


> I've been toying around with just bypassing the grid all together. It takes everything out of the performance. No amount of faking the tempo changes, etc can seem to solve this problem for me. I kinda wish there was a single-click grid-to-my-playing feature that worked accurately. That would resolve my biggest headaches.


Cubase's Tempo Detection also does what you're asking (I think). Greg Ondo does a demo of that feature in a video he put out showing a ton of Cubase's features. The temp detection section is here. I'm not suggesting you switch to Cubase but see maybe if this would solve it. It's probably the same thing as Logic's new Smart Tempo.


----------



## Ashermusic

storyteller said:


> I'll have to check it out. I didn't realize that was added to Logic. I've been heavily invested in time and workflow management in Reaper the past few years. Hopefully Reaper will have a solution for it... but I will check out Logic's Smart Tempo for sure. Thanks for the suggestion Jay.



You are welcome. The developers have told me that this is only the beginning of plans for Smart Tempo.


----------



## pmcrockett

Pug user said:


> But aren't bar lines as same as the measure on the score? Won't it be confusing if we actually want to notate the song afterwards? I totally agree on your opinion but just curious because I am trying to control and find the right bpm to make a song according to the bars and grid as if I am writing a song on the paper.
> 
> My apologies if I did not properly get what you wanted to tell.


The bars still define where the beat is; I'm not necessarily suggesting that people record or edit completely without a metronome or a visual reference. What I'm taking about is matching the samples to that beat based on what you hear rather than by snapping notes to the barlines. 

There are a couple of things to consider here. First is that samples generally have some amount of attack before you get to the part of the sound that you actually want to land on the beat, and the duration of this attack often changes from articulation to articulation or even from sample to sample. This means that snapping the MIDI note to the grid may make the sound lag behind the beat just a bit, so you may need to balance that by placing the MIDI note slightly before the beat (or by setting a time offset on the entire track).

There may also be cases where you don't want every instrument to be exactly on the beat -- sometimes giant tutti _fff_ stabs sound more impactful if notes are staggered a tiny bit, for example. Or you may want a soloist to push ahead of or lag behind the beat just a bit. And these are things that can be best determined by listening, not by looking at the MIDI.

So as long as you're hearing things that align with the beat in the way you want, it doesn't matter where the MIDI looks like it is in relation to the grid.


----------



## Leandro Gardini

If you want to sound realistic, do not write for samples but instead, write as if you were writing for real players.
It works like a charm!


----------



## Ashermusic

leogardini said:


> If you want to sound realistic, do not write for samples but instead, write as if you were writing for real players.
> It works like a charm!



Yes and no. On a real slide trombone there is a slur going from first position to seventh positio. That doesn’t happen with a sample library. With real instruments a single trumpet is louder at forte than an entire woodwind section playing unison. That is not necessarily true with sample libraries.

MY advice is to be _informed_ by what happens with the real guys, but don’t be _imprisoned_ by it.


----------



## Leandro Gardini

Ashermusic said:


> Yes and no. On a real slide trombone there is a slur going from first position to seventh positio. That doesn’t happen with a sample library. With real instruments a single trumpet is louder at forte than an entire woodwind section playing unison. That is not necessarily true with sample libraries.
> 
> MY advice is to be _informed_ by what happens with the real guys, but don’t be _imprisoned_ by it.


That was my two cents. It’s up to you, I am not here to debate what we think it’s true or not.
However, I’ve said “if you want to be realistic “ and it’s self-explanatory.


----------



## mikeh-375

One problem with writing as though for real with samples is that unless you limit yourself to the usual techniques, there are creative restrictions that tend to dictate. So although I agree that the music should be the main priority and to hell with samples, it is not so clear cut. Besides, AsherM's warnings about unrealistic balance are a real danger if the composer is inexperienced or lacks knowledge. Midistration for it's own purposes is fine, but it aint necessarily orchestration.


----------



## HardyP

Ashermusic said:


> You are welcome. The developers have told me that this is only the beginning of plans for Smart Tempo.


Jay, thanks for that insight! Planned in LPX, or the next one?


----------



## Ashermusic

HardyP said:


> Jay, thanks for that insight! Planned in LPX, or the next one?



No, they are never specific like that with me.


----------



## HardyP

Ok, thanks.


----------



## Rob Burnley

Less is more - if one violin says what you want, don't use 18

And there will always be better sound libraries


----------



## Ruchir

Here’s one for creating fast orchestral buildup runs: create a simple run, duplicate on another track and stretch by twice the length. Duplicate that in turn on another track and stretch again by 2, but change the instrument. Add cymbal crash and a couple of horns, and Bobs your uncle.


----------



## Michael Antrum

I know it's not exactly what was being asked in this thread originally, but I'm sure the deadline for that question passed some years ago, but the biggest thing that has changed my composition recently is actually an iPad app called Staffpad.

I'm pretty much doing most of my composition on it, and because I am writing to staves, I have a really clear overview of my orchestration and voice leading. Far more saw than using a traditional DAW.

I am now bouncing back to text books more than I ever had to clarify things I would never have picked up in a regular DAW. And I can do this wherever I like as its completely portable, and easy to transport. I even have one of those mini bluetooth keyboards set up with a piano app running in the background for those occasions I need to use it (more as a crutch than anything else).

I honestly feel more connected to the music, and more in control of it.


----------



## Pando

If you play your string library like a synth, it will sound like a synth.


----------



## Ashermusic

Pando said:


> If you play your string library like a synth, it will sound like a synth.



Bingo.


----------



## Terry93D

If you don't have a keyboard, set your note input to the smallest possible value and draw it in manually, using the grid as a guide. (Reaper goes down to the 128th triplet, and it has a keycode you can press to get even smaller then that.) It's by no means perfect, performance will get you better results for obvious reasons, but nonetheless, if what you have is a mouse, this will get you a little closer to the ideal of realism.


----------



## purple

Listen to more music. You can't expect to get a realistic mockup if you don't actually know what the instruments are supposed to sound like and what they can do.


----------



## jsg

Here's an interview I did for SoundBytes on this very subject:



http://www.jerrygerber.com/soundbytesinterview2019.pdf


----------



## cmillar

jsg said:


> Here's an interview I did for SoundBytes on this very subject:
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.jerrygerber.com/soundbytesinterview2019.pdf



Great! Thanks for posting your interview. Very inspirational to one like myself, who is a middle-aged musician who has composed/arranged in all styles and media, using real players as well as creating tons of virtual music for various projects over the last 25 years with computers.

And I play trombone professionally, as well as being lucky enough to have gotten into arranging/composing before the advent of computers, scoring programs, and DAW's.

That's just some background as to why I think your interview is one of the greatest things I've read concerning music and our times.

Really.... very wonderful to hear your views on the current music scene. 

These are the thoughts that I've struggled with ever since being a Sibelius, Motu DP user, Cubase user, and owner of many sample libraries (with the exception of any VI's libraries!....sorry!...but maybe they'd solve a lot of my questions and answers to musical solutions!.....god knows I've bought many libraries that are just collecting digital dust on a harddrive....I've been using Kirk Hunter libraries for most of my work with orchestral instruments and add in from other libraries when needed to give me something that might be missing.)

So I would hope that your interview can 'make the rounds' in order to provide some intelligent reading for everyone involved in todays composing world. The last paragraph is priceless and very timely.

Having heard you name before but not really knowing your music, I'm a new fan, and will be treating myself to buying some music as I go over your website. 

Many thanks!


----------



## Eloy

jsg said:


> Here's an interview I did for SoundBytes on this very subject:
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.jerrygerber.com/soundbytesinterview2019.pdf


Jerry,
What a pleasure this morning it was reading your SoundBytes interview. You have great tips and yes your comment about “robots and joy of creativity” - spot on. Perhaps I can return the favor. Below is a link to a Faust video- VSL put it on their YouTube page- I hope you get enjoyment from the new score. Thank you, Eloy


----------



## jsg

Thanks Eloy and cmillar for your comments! I am glad you found something of value in the interview.

Best,
Jerry

p.s. CD Baby is no longer in the business of selling CDs, so I am in the process of trying to figure out how to sell my albums. If you are interested in purchasing one with a "VI Forum Discount", please contact me directly.


----------



## jsg

Here's a tip when orchestrating for 3 trumpets:

If you're writing a passage where 3 trumpets are playing the same line do the following:

1. Detune the 2 of the trumpets about 5 cents up and down. You can use either the pitch wheel or RPN tuning to achieve that. Let's assume you're using the pitch wheel:


Interval Pitch Wheel Value (+ or -) Cents


Whole step 8192 = 200 cents

Half step 4096 = 100 cents

Quarter step 2048 = 50 cents

Eighth step 1024 = 25 cents

16th step 512 = 12.5 cents

32nd step 256 = 6.25 cents 

64th step 128 = 3.125 cents


In the event list insert the pitch wheel command either at the beginning of a track or at the point in the track where you want some detuning. Do this for two tracks, one trumpet a bit higher, one a bit lower. I usually use values of 128 or 256, which corresponds to 3.125 or 6.25 cents.

Next, stagger those same two tracks so that the passage that is monophonic has one trumpet playing slightly early and one slightly late. I usually move each trumpet 8 or 10 ticks in both directions.

That's it! Now you'll have a chorus effect sounding more like 3 instruments playing and you'll also avoid any phase cancellation. Of course, if you are using samples of 3 trumpets in the first place you don't need to do this.


----------



## jsg

Here's another tip when sequencing:

Always make sure that any cc data and patch changes that you want to effect a passage are placed a few ticks BEFORE the note you want to effect. For example, let's say you want a patch change and a cc change before the note G#4, do this:

Measure Beat Tick

m22 b2 t240 Patch change
m22 b2 t241 cc change
m22 b2 t242 g# note

By doing this, you'll ensure that the note actually is impacted by the midi data. If you put the above MIDI data all on the same tick, it's often the case that the patch and cc data will miss the note where you want the alteration to start.


----------



## PeterN

Heres my own tip.

The better melody you have, the more beautiful piece of music you have created, the less motion and instruments etc. in there. Then on the other hand, the crappier piece you have made, the more movement and noise there to cover it.


----------



## PeterN

Patrick de Caumette said:


> Here is my tip: Better say nothing when you have nothing to say...



For me?


----------



## river angler

PeterN said:


> Heres my own tip.
> 
> The better melody you have, the more beautiful piece of music you have created, the less motion and instruments etc. in there. Then on the other hand, the crappier piece you have made, the more movement and noise there to cover it.



Can't agree with this... or at least the latter half of it- crap content is only ever going to be crap no matter how much you try to dress it up... sadly there's a hell of a lot of published junk out there already that never should have graced our ears. Quality content is far more important to nail before any instrumentation/production. Period.


----------



## Nils Neumann

PeterN said:


> Heres my own tip.
> 
> The better melody you have, the more beautiful piece of music you have created, the less motion and instruments etc. in there. Then on the other hand, the crappier piece you have made, the more movement and noise there to cover it.


So John Powell, Ravel, Debussy have nothing to say?


----------



## PeterN

If you get 3 critics this fast it must be true or very near truth.

Anwyay, no intention to disturb a good thread, if it messes the thread, mod just pls delete.


----------



## Patrick de Caumette

PeterN said:


> If you get 3 critics this fast it must be true or very near truth.
> 
> Anwyay, no intention to disturb a good thread, if it messes the thread, mod just pls delete.


If it was accurate no one would object.
But it is a personal opinion that is not verified, in many instances.
Good melodies still need much consideration on how to best orchestrate around them, and piling up more stuff on the top of something bad is not going to help either...


----------



## novaburst

jsg said:


> If you're writing a passage where 3 trumpets are playing the same line do the following:
> 
> 1. Detune the 2 of the trumpets about 5 cents up and down. You can use either the pitch wheel or RPN tuning to achieve that. Let's assume you're using the pitch wheel:



You could use trumpets from different libraries, when you think about it all musicians that play in an orchestra have different makes of the same instrument if that makes sence


----------



## PeterN

Patrick de Caumette said:


> If it was accurate no one would object.
> But none of it is true.
> Good melodies still need much consideration on how to best orchestrate around them



Yea, well, I disagree on this and I believe this is incorrect. Heres my correction of your quote.

Patrick: Good melodies still need much consideration on how to best orchestrate around them
Peter: Good melodies need much consideration on how to avoid orchestration around them.

See, I have something to say.


----------



## Patrick de Caumette

PeterN said:


> Yea, well, I disagree on this and I believe this is incorrect. Heres my correction of your quote.
> 
> Patrick: Good melodies still need much consideration on how to best orchestrate around them
> Peter: Good melodies need much consideration on how to avoid orchestration around them.
> 
> See, I have something to say.


I was teasing you.
To go along with your statement, a good melody makes working with it easier than the alternative.
It may also require nothing else, if such is your fancy.

But i certainly do not agree with your original statement, that the stronger the melody " the less motion and instruments etc. in there"
That is a very personal statement, and not a principle.
Can you picture how many great melodies have been developed into pieces that include plenty of motion and a large group of instruments?!


----------



## Johnny

This relates to midi, however my tip is more of a post production process: don't be afraid to re-import your midi instruments back into your session as audio files for further manipulation. After all, they are samples of real instruments in the end- no matter how you implemented and controlled their performance. I always re-import everything orchestral back into my session and further invigorate the performance- whether using tape delay, (_ALAN MEYERSON _tip of the day) or Brauer motion to add more movement overall.


----------



## Cathbad

Here's a small one that I hope will save you many Homer Simpson moments.

Make sure the MIDI you're editing is indeed from the track you've soloed and have playing...


----------



## Yogevs

Cathbad said:


> Here's a small one that I hope will save you many Homer Simpson moments.
> 
> Make sure the MIDI you're editing is indeed from the track you've soloed and have playing...



Usually happens to me when I'm editing the VST - no the MIDI :(


----------



## AudioLoco

Cathbad said:


> Here's a small one that I hope will save you many Homer Simpson moments.
> 
> Make sure the MIDI you're editing is indeed from the track you've soloed and have playing...




That NEVER happend to me five times a day!!


----------



## mcalis

You can do a fake re-bow with most strings sustain/legato patches by adding a quick steep "mountain peak" CC1 curve like so:






The results differ per strings library of course, and it doesn't quite sound like a re-bow, but in a mix it certainly can give the appearance of there being two repeated notes instead of one sustained note.


----------



## PeterN

_Secret midi trick. _

Mess up the tempo bar. See what it does. This is a _secret_ trick.


----------



## Paul Owen

PeterN said:


> _Secret midi trick. _
> 
> Mess up the tempo bar. See what it does. This is a _secret_ trick.


I think I know what you mean...could you explain a little more please?


----------



## PeterN

Paul Owen said:


> I think I know what you mean...could you explain a little more please?



Sure. But it depends on musical style. It wont work with rock music as an example. I havent tried it, but I doubt it.

If you have piece of floating style symphony music, we could say, for example, Beethovens Moonlight sonata in chamber setting. And no percussion keeping a steady pace, a pizzicato bass can be ok, you can randomly alter the tempo and check where you make a perfect hit. This is similar to flipping a random note in the piano roll sequencer, or trying random midi notes (in piano roll) on a ready composition, or even by mistake, and then find some brilliant ingredient. You get it, sometimes when you hit the wrong key, it was the right one. Same can go for tempo.


----------



## Loïc D

mcalis said:


> You can do a fake re-bow with most strings sustain/legato patches by adding a quick steep "mountain peak" CC1 curve like so:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The results differ per strings library of course, and it doesn't quite sound like a re-bow, but in a mix it certainly can give the appearance of there being two repeated notes instead of one sustained note.


I tend to insert a short silence before the peak to emulate this.
I even tried to script it (using Scripter in LPX).
The outcome totally depends on the library used (okayish in OT, doesn’t work with Spitfire, I didn’t try more).
Anyway it sounds a bit fake - especially on ensemble - and one should avoid exposed passages to use the trick.


----------



## TimCox

My favorite tip? Stop molesting CC1, real players don't go that crazy on their expression *unless* it's a solo.


----------



## jaketanner

TimCox said:


> My favorite tip? Stop molesting CC1, real players don't go that crazy on their expression *unless* it's a solo.


This is true...as much as live players use dynamics, it's not that big of a leap within a phrase.


----------



## Dave Connor

jaketanner said:


> This is true...as much as live players use dynamics, it's not that big of a leap within a phrase.


But it might take a leap to get to the right volume/velocity layer you want so it’s entirely dependent on one’s ears as opposed to a particular, generalized approach. Move as much or as little as required.


----------



## gohrev

jaketanner said:


> This is true...as much as live players use dynamics, it's not that big of a leap within a phrase.


This is arguably one of the more valuable things one has to learn when driving CC1 automation. I myself am trying to "unlearn" the incessant moving up-and-down of my CC1 fader..


----------



## I like music

berlin87 said:


> This is arguably one of the more valuable things one has to learn when driving CC1 automation. I myself am trying to "unlearn" the incessant moving up-and-down of my CC1 fader..


Since I can't play stuff in, I just do some lazy clicks with mod (e.g. sometimes very very little to no movement) in ensemble contexts. I did this with a few Williams and Goldsmith mocksup. Then I tested it against the "try to impart lots of expression" (whatever that means). The first (lazy) approach sounded much better. 

Phew, a nice time-saver it was.

But as Dave says, context-dependant so use your ears. I'm just glad that now I know that in certain circumstances I need to do far less CC massaging than I thought I needed.


----------



## jaketanner

berlin87 said:


> This is arguably one of the more valuable things one has to learn when driving CC1 automation. I myself am trying to "unlearn" the incessant moving up-and-down of my CC1 fader..


I find that it is easier to make markings on your wheel OR your fader where the crossfades are between dynamics. With sliders, it's easier if you use a strip of artist tape (white....same used on recording consoles) and have various markings on each per library. What would be cool to implement, is a mod wheel that has light indicators when switching between velocity dynamics...similar to how the button lights on smaller keys to indicate the octave you are in.


----------



## jaketanner

One other thing to consider when using the mod wheel...think in terms of the actual markings on the score...most music doesn't go from p to ff very often...it will be on a specific dynamic for a bit, then gradually move on to another.


----------



## MauroPantin

There's never enough dynamic layers to imitate a score in a realistic manner. Going from mp to mf, transferred into dynamic markings is like moving the CC wheel +10 or something similarly mundane. 

Rather than go from 5 to 120 on CC1 to get some life out of samples, I prefer to go from say 60 to 80 on CC1, but also have a similar motion on CC11 and have the velocity match that increment as well. If that's not enough, I also go for CC7 a bit. Numbers vary according to the sample library you're using, also CCs, but the point is that the entire instrument suffers the effects of more intense playing and I have to hear that when I press play, so I take the time to reflect that concept on any controllable parameter I can use. The reason samples sound lifeless sometimes is because they don't have enough dynamics as the real thing, and because of stiff tempos.


----------



## Dave Connor

The thing that we try to capture with the controllers mentioned here is an _envelope_. If it isn’t there in the sample we have to put it there. It may be very subtle or pronounced. Plus we’re not just dealing with samples but with computers which are going to do absolutely nothing until told to. This sort of default, rigid, stasis is the inverse of musical performance, which is full of both unintended and intended variation. That’s why you have interfaces with options to introduce tuning inaccuracies randomly. Not to mention loops of noises and squeaks in a hall to bring in that imperfection.

Much of controller function is not to get a sample to do something but to s_top _doing something. A sustained note in the strings will never be at the identical volume from start to finish but many samples will do that every time out. That is, the sample left alone will do things wrong at the rate of 100% of the time. Which is to say nothing of creating _expression_. So if you want a volume arc in any direction you have to put that in but you can’t stop there because you’re handing things over to the computer which will do nothing - which in many cases will sound very odd. A real player will still add expression _after _following an indicated one. Or they will simply ease off in preparation for the next bowing. But they won’t do 0. Only a computer can do that.


----------



## gohrev

Very interesting views @jaketanner @MauroPantin and @Dave Connor 
One thing I've come across many a time was the notion of mainly riding the CC1 fader/wheel, and leaving CC11 mostly untouched. I am starting to think it should be the other way around — for most libraries, that is.


----------



## Ashermusic

Dave Connor said:


> Plus we’re not just dealing with samples but with computers which are going to absolutely nothing until told to. This sort of default, rigid, stasis is the inverse of musical performance
> .


Exactly..


----------



## Patrick de Caumette

Talking about envelopes: rendering to audio, and then fine tuning the samples envelope for long notes is often a necessity, since original samples were recorded at a certain pace, with a specific vibrato timing which may not work well at a different tempo.
Long notes often have dynamic "bumps" at undesired locations, so evening out those bumps makes the line more musical.


----------



## dcoscina

I like using DB to double tuba. I might not do it in a real situation all of the time but in sample mock-ups it fortifies the tuba and low end in general. sometimes a sub-bass ever so slightly underneath. 

I also like to double spiccato with pizz accents on the strong beats. 

Additionally, I like to add a nonobtrusive pad to the strings to fill out the texture. None of this is news but it's what I like to do. I tend to use step entry more these days and then futz with the notes in the piano roll after. There are phrases that real-time keyboard playing just cannot accomplish well for orchestral mock-ups.


----------



## Uiroo

I have some shortcuts that I set up only recently that speed up my workflow quite a bit which is:
Shift - C (copy selected notes and set locators)
Shift - X (copy and delete selected notes and set locators)
Shift - V (paste selected notes at locator)

So the same as Ctrl - C etc does, just with setting the locators too. Really simple, but also really useful.

Also I did a video about how you can switch between sections in the key editor in Cubase.


----------



## jaketanner

berlin87 said:


> Very interesting views @jaketanner @MauroPantin and @Dave Connor
> One thing I've come across many a time was the notion of mainly riding the CC1 fader/wheel, and leaving CC11 mostly untouched. I am starting to think it should be the other way around — for most libraries, that is.


Think of it this way...there is no volume knob on an acoustic instrument..it is solely controlled by dynamics and velocity. So you NEED to use the dynamics as a volume...however since they are samples, and a limited number of sampled dynamics, you need the "help" of the expression control to fill in the blanks of missing dynamics (between the dynamics that are sampled)...if that makes sense.


----------



## gohrev

jaketanner said:


> Think of it this way...there is no volume knob on an acoustic instrument..it is solely controlled by dynamics and velocity. So you NEED to use the dynamics as a volume...however since they are samples, and a limited number of sampled dynamics, you need the "help" of the expression control to fill in the blanks of missing dynamics (between the dynamics that are sampled)...if that makes sense.


100% makes sense -- Especially for woodwinds libraries, I notice


----------



## MauroPantin

It's just a matter of variance. As an example, 5 dynamic layers with a volume curve that covers the 128 CC1 values is one thing. But, that same thing, times the 128 possible CC11 values to control range is so smooth it might as well be analog. It is still discreet in terms of absolute values rather than an analog continuum, which would be more akin to a real instrument, but at that point I feel like it has enough values to fake it.

EDIT: BTW, I gotta say this is easily one of the most helpful threads in here. Thanks everybody for chiming in with awesome stuff!


----------



## Ashermusic

Glad I started this, high quality discussion.


----------



## PeterN

Start with the intention to make a simple piano ballad - not orchestral. When you have filled in all countermelodies, ear candy, horns etc. - which you cant resist - its suddenly *grand orchestral*. And delicate. It was not meant to be orchestral, but - voila - its perfectly orchestral.


----------



## Broth3rz

I tend to play it in LIVE, then I drag that to the right and remake it note by note on the left by taking the live note length and rounding it up or down, where it doesn't change the timing, it keeps everything equal, in time and less confusing when dealing with sustain. Then randomize the velocity between X to X then I think 80% of the human touch is then MIDI automation. So with this style you get timing, cleanliness (visual simplicity), velocity changes and MIDI automation (all of them). I have learned that MIDI automation should most likely be last... as if you have to remove, add or reprogram any notes, you affect the automations.


----------



## germancomponist

Do built sections out of solo instruments and detune ..... . The faster the passage is, the more detune .... .


----------



## Emanu1674

My best tip is, if you use FL Studio and you use keyswitches a lot, then you should be using BRSO Articulate. If you aren't, download it and thank me later.


----------



## Hawks Music

My best tip when using midi is to play it live if you can and only quantize it partially. You want to keep things slightly humanized still.


----------



## Project Anvil

I have a new one that I accidentally came across. This won't apply if you don't layer libraries.

I had a timpani playing two hits fairly closely together. I used two libraries: Hollywood Percussion and Abbey Road One Foundations.

Now, Abbey Road One sounds pretty glorious, but if I _only_ used it, the second hit gets somewhat muddled by the built-in tail/reverb from the first hit.

What I ended up with was HOP hitting both notes using a fairly dry mic (no added reverb or eq), and had the Abbey Road timpani only hit the 2nd note. See the image below:







You get the clarity of the first hit from HOP, and in the 2nd hit you get the space from AR1. If you'd only use HOP, it would be clear but there would be no space. If you'd only use AR1, every 2nd hit would be obscured by the tail from the hit preceding it.

Sound example (point being here that you probably would not have guessed it's two libraries. Both clarity and room are maintained):



In other words: when notes are rapidly succeeding each other, consider using a dry/drier sample to prevent tail buildup and only use the "roomy" sample(s) when the final note rings out.


----------



## chrisr

Previously missed this thread somehow?

My midi programming tip is simply.... start trills late/after the beat.

When a player plays a trill they often attack the note(s) with gusto and the physical prep for this usually means they are late.

Honestly - it sounds nuts, but I find it helps realism.


----------



## Steve_Karl

Very interesting thread.
Where I'm "usually" at now, is playing everything in with a keyboard. I'll play to (but more "around") a click track where there is nothing there at the start, but once I have the first instrument or 2 in place I most always turn the click off and play "with" the first players that went down. I'll do tweaks with a pencil if I can't get it right in a few passes, but I never snap to the grid, even though I'm watching the grid. I'll look at where the played part sits, and adjust the part I can't quite get right, by ear, with the help of seeing the grid, but making my ear and feeling about it be the boss.
I'm **always** in Piano Roll view when recording parts.

I really like velocity sensitive instruments, but when they're not I find a way to make them feel the part with CC01 or CC11. I sometimes play my controllers in on a second pass.
I often draw in tempo variations, during and later, as the piece progresses, but totally based on how it feels. Not because I think I need to do it.

I'll occasionally drag copy an area of bars to save time, because I hear the (general) repetition sneaking up on me right around the corner ... but I always change or add something different to the copie(s) to make them different from the first ... extra harmony, different harmony, variation in the melody ... or drop things out. It depends on what the piece "tells me it wants."
Which brings me to the main thing that I've learned that is most important for me ... is to trust my inner voice, and feeling ... my internal clock, my core sensations ... that place from which it comes that still seems to be a magical gift from the unknown.
I find for me that there's a delicate balance of thought and sensation that makes it happen for me.

I listen to a lot of old dead composers. Hindemith is this weeks go-to.
The more I listen the more it then effects how I compose and play.
I've always been a feel player.

I agree with a lot I've seen in this thread. One that I remember most is
learn your instruments ... how they play and feel under your fingers.

It's not a midi tip but the best thing I can suggest to anyone is always trust your inner voice.
The quiet one ... that isn't the verbal stream.

LOL ... I think Hindemith just played the lick from "In A Gadda Da Vida"!
I'm sure he quoted "blow the man down" a few times earlier.


----------



## gohrev

Your post is as helpful as it is beautiful, @Steve_Karl


----------



## dcoscina

Listen to live orchestras. Seriously.


----------



## PeterN

Favourite midi orchestration tip?

*Avoid midi*. Main instrument should not be midi. Or, at least, you need to go around MIDI somehow. Figure that out.


----------



## Ivan M.

Do you think samples are harsh? When I listen to live recordings, even during loud passages, the sound is still pleasing. However, with samples I have to constantly fight them. Quiet or loud, they are harsh. I'm really, really tired of doing this.
Is this just a matter of careful orchestration and midi/audio polishing, or is this just the nature of samples? Maybe I simply need better sounds? What's your experience?


----------



## jaketanner

Ivan M. said:


> Do you think samples are harsh? When I listen to live recordings, even during loud passages, the sound is still pleasing. However, with samples I have to constantly fight them. Quiet or loud, they are harsh. I'm really, really tired of doing this.
> Is this just a matter of careful orchestration and midi/audio polishing, or is this just the nature of samples? Maybe I simply need better sounds? What's your experience?


I believe even Cinesamples has a video showing to cut the mid for this reason. Not so much they’re harsh, but if you hear a live orchestra, you’re not hearing it up close. Maybe the conductors perspective would be different, but from an audience perspective, you won’t hear the rosin on the bow. So depending on you’re needs, yes…cut the mid that are causing this.


----------



## novaburst

I think also you can refer to a talented mix engineer, because they often know and hear things we don't and can make a big difference to a mix


----------



## Vik

novaburst said:


> I think also you can refer to a talented mix engineer, because they often know and hear things we don't and can make a big difference to a mix


True, and there aren't only files that are meant for streaming or CD production that are boing through a mastering process after the mixing.


----------



## Project Anvil

Ivan M. said:


> Do you think samples are harsh? When I listen to live recordings, even during loud passages, the sound is still pleasing. However, with samples I have to constantly fight them. Quiet or loud, they are harsh. I'm really, really tired of doing this.
> Is this just a matter of careful orchestration and midi/audio polishing, or is this just the nature of samples? Maybe I simply need better sounds? What's your experience?


My suspicion is that it has to do with instruments or sections being sampled in a room with no one else in it but those players. For that reason most sampled instruments cover more of the frequency spectrum than they would in context. That is to say: sampled instruments are generally more full sounding than they would be in context.

It might seem somewhat ridiculous but the body mass of other people and their instruments would certainly impact the sound. There is a difference between sound waves bouncing around in a barren room vs sound waves bouncing off of other people and (resonating) instruments, even if they're not playing.

If that sounds insane to you, consider that in some spitfire audio samples from AIR, you can hear the organ in that space resonating.

So the somewhat simplistic but truthful answer to your question is to use EQ. Now it's impossible to make specific recommendations but in general I find 200hz and 400hz to be problematic in almost all libraries because that's the area where there is a lot of low-mid build up.

Harshness is likely to be in the 2k range or higher, but that really depends on the instrument of course. Cinesamples has a whole EQ series on their channel that may help out:



Joël Dollié also has a lot of very good videos on EQ (and other processing) specifically for orchestral music.

The best thing you can probably do is get a reference soundtrack, something that is as unprocessed as possible, preferably only has the decca tree/AB sound in it and that isn't too dense in the orchestration, then try to match to that.

Narrowing the stereo image can also help in some cases because (hall recorded) samples generally occupy too much space both in the frequency spectrum and in the stereo width.

In addition to EQ you can also look at the attack and release settings if they're available. A shorter release can result in a drier sound which may be desirable if there are annoying frequencies in the tail. This Metropolis Ark 4 video shows that quite effectively:



Depending on how far you want to go, your final resort is to reprogram/resample instruments. It's not good for your sanity, but it will allow you to remedy serious imbalances in some of the commercial offerings and will allow you to make the necessary EQ, ADHSR and stereo width adjustments at the source.


----------



## Jett Hitt

Just for an instant, I saw the topic by Jay Asher, and I thought he was back. But no. . . .


----------



## jadedsean

Jett Hitt said:


> Just for an instant, I saw the topic by Jay Asher, and I thought he was back. But no. . . .


Why where is he gone?


----------



## Jett Hitt

jadedsean said:


> Why where is he gone?


I don't know really know why. Just one day he wasn't here anymore. I liked him and found him very helpful at times.


----------



## jadedsean

Jett Hitt said:


> I don't know really know why. Just one day he wasn't here anymore. I liked him and found him very helpful at times.


I hope he is okay and keeping healthy, i also found him helpful. pity is not here anymore.


----------



## Project Anvil

He's around on other forums.


----------



## Markus Kohlprath

Jett Hitt said:


> Just for an instant, I saw the topic by Jay Asher, and I thought he was back. But no. . . .


AFAIK he is banned here. I don't know why. But it should be reconsidered imo.


----------



## OleJoergensen

jadedsean said:


> Why where is he gone?


Admin explained this some month ago…..
In the end Jay left the forum, if I remember right. 
An other forum member, who knows Jay, told Jay is fine. 

I also had good help and inspiration from Jay.


----------



## doctoremmet

Jay is still active over at KVR Audio and TheSoundBoard.


----------



## gpopemusic

Apologies if duplicative, but as an orchestrator and conductor I run into many composers who've worked mostly in the box and are not yet aware of the dynamic nuances of a live orchestra. This becomes a particular problem when samples are balanced in unrealistic ways in the mockup. Conversely, a composer familiar with orchestral realities might either build their mockup with a more authentic balance, or rely on a good orchestrator to make the adjustments when translating the mockup for live players. If the latter, the composer must be amenable to some distribution changes, etc. Ironically, sometimes to _sound_ most like the mockup, which some composers really do want, the actual orchestration must diverge a bit from the MIDI input. Hope this helps.

----
www.MusicalProblemSolver.com


----------

