# Solos vs Sections



## EastWest Lurker (Jun 7, 2013)

Please do not be offended, this is not meant as a put down to ANYONE, but please don't respond if you have not been trained to write for real orchestras.

I am redoing my templates for the 9,341st time 

With certain libraries I use, like HollywoodOrchestral Woodwinds, there are only solos but for others, like Sonivox Woodwinds or Hollywood Brass, there are solos AND sections with multiple players, i.e 2 flutes, 6 french horns, etc.

How do you decide which is your go to? Obviously with an intimate piece, solos makes more sense, and with a big sound perhaps multiples, but if you were trained to write for a "french horn" and not 6 french horns do you adhere to it and write that way with the samples or do you just approach it on a case to case basis and alter your templates as necessary?


----------



## Synesthesia (Jun 7, 2013)

I haven't been 'trained'* apart from autodidactically, but nevertheless have written for real orchestra..

If its going to be performed and I'm replacing the samples I try to be as accurate as possible.

Otherwise, I use whatever sounds best.

Generally, in mockup, I'll have solos and a2 etc loaded ready to go, and use whatever the right sound for the part is.



* edit: I mean in orchestration.. I have four grade 8s and a MA degree, none of which means anything to any potential client of course. Although its useful being able to play instruments!


----------



## Per Lichtman (Jun 7, 2013)

It depends slightly on the project.

I often prefer to use solo players during the composing process because I find the exposed and precise timbre for the instrument often forces me to be a little more disciplined during the composition/tracking process. But for cues that are really meant to sound "larger than life", especially ones where the style deviates greatly from anything classical, I allow myself to use ensembles.

The other main reasons I use ensemble are when:
1) I find I'm getting too analytical in my writing and need to get broader in my approach.
2) When I want to force myself to stay simple in writing for a given instrument (in which case I limit myself to using the ensemble in unison, not stacking in chords as in the larger than life approach).

Honestly, I find it easier to make those decisions in regards to woodwinds and strings than for brass because I have more experience working with the players for those instruments.


----------



## utopia (Jun 7, 2013)

Same here. For me,the sampled a2 horns do not have the power and impact of the real thing and quite often I'll have the HB a2 patch and play a 3 or 4 voice chord with it. It really doesn't sound like 12 or 16 horns real horns. If i was to use solo samples and build a chord it really sounds too weak most of the time. For a solo line I'll also pick what sounds best depending on the context. In a large FFF tutti I may go ahead and use the a6 legato even though I wouldn't do so if I was writing for a real orchestra. It doesn't translate perfectly, writing for samples is not the same thing as writing for real players at least to me


----------



## Synesthesia (Jun 7, 2013)

Interestingly, and tangentially, a horn player once told me the reason the Horns are often separated 1,3,5 and 2,4,6 for ex, is that its hard to control your embouchure to play high if you have another Horn player sat next to you playing high, just from the physical vibrations.

Worth thinking about when considering the physicals of vibrations with multiple players cp to single players overtracked!


----------



## Vlzmusic (Jun 7, 2013)

I am certain there is no "right way", and real world practices do not always translate to sampled domain, specially if you after more beefed up, cinematic sound, but I always felt uneasy with this 4FH/2Tr etc. usage - though it gave me great results when applied properly. Its like I always had some uncertainty, whether or not should I separate voices within horns etc. 

I came thru different setups, but finally took the plunge with VSL dimension stuff + WW`s - and reside in Nirvana ever since. I realize it has specific sound - not suitable for all uses, but I love the individual voicings, to the point that I dismiss some of the Dimension Violins from playing in certain passages, or shift to other note - it gives me orgasmic feeling )

BTW I mock up some operatic stuff once in a while, and sticking to the score always pays off.


----------



## Daryl (Jun 7, 2013)

I always program as if I'm writing for real players, because that's the sort of music I like to write. And I usually am writing for real players. :wink: 

Having said that, there is no doubt in my mind that writing cleaner orchestration sounds much more interesting. Plunking down loads of chords with a 6 Horn patch does nothing for me at all.

D


----------



## Arbee (Jun 7, 2013)

I find it really difficult to dismiss "real" orchestration principles and probably get far too hung up on it, unlike those with a more sound design approach (and whose freedom I sometimes envy). 

I normally start by playing in"first chair" parts (including strings) to get the parts anchored, then another pass to play in the appropriate section sizes. A bit tedious trying to get all the first chair parts right only to bury them in the ensemble later, but playing each line at least twice (unless it's a solo of course, and I don't bother with bases) works for me in terms of humanisation and colour. I may cheat a little here and there by layering a first chair horn part with a four horn ensemble, but essentially if I hear four horns in my head and that's the right balance for the string section size I'm using, then I want four horns on my track.

Not sure if that was the question you were asking...

.


----------



## Peter Alexander (Jun 7, 2013)

I've had experience writing for live and I've had one piece performed at Christmas for over 20 years. 

My approached is rooted in that after my Dad passed away, I took some of my inheritance money and bought the Vienna cube. 

Now that the VI player has power pan built in, and using VSS (where needed or alternatively), I don't have the same issues as you do for structuring a template. Here's my tutorial at Sonic Control:
http://soniccontrol.tv/2013/02/06/setting-up-a-matrix-template-in-the-vienna-instruments-player/ (http://soniccontrol.tv/2013/02/06/setti ... ts-player/)

Based on the "cell" approach (which is really a spreadsheet approach in my view), I can set up the basic articulations for a single brass instrument on one row, then on the next row setup for a section. Or, I just create a section template. Repeat with woodwinds, repeat with strings, etc.

Consequently, you can set up quite an indepth orchestral template and really not go over 32 tracks in the sequencer. 

To this I add Sample Modeling Brass and selected libs from EW that easily blend with VSL since both the Silent Stage and EW Studio have the same RT60. 

There are independent programs from Orange Tree and Brian Wherry that I understand work with PLAY (and Kontakt) and enable you to setup within those programs similar to what I've described with Vienna. 

Creating "2nds" with EW and Vienna is certainly easy enough with the transposition trick. 

For the final mix I'm keeping to simple solutions with the Vienna Suite and FORTI/SERTI. Please note, I'm speaking as a fellow writer here. I'm not a dealer for Vienna.


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Jun 9, 2013)

Thanks guys. Bottom line is I need two templates, I guess, one for a bigger sound and one for a smaller one.


----------



## windshore (Jun 9, 2013)

Jay,
I think your conclusion is a good one. I have often found that at least in the initial stages of writing, I'm better off with more "solo" instruments. - but lean toward instruments without legato. 

It's nice to have a VI that is a single instrument, but on which you can play more than one note at a time when you need. Then it's easier to work out polyphony according to what ensemble VI's you have, (and fuss with legato etc.)


----------



## Casiquire (Jun 9, 2013)

Personally the size of the ensemble being used at a particular moment is dictated by the arrangement. Everything I write is intended for a live orchestra so the size of the orchestra intended is always on my mind, so I start out on paper and if I have strings playing con sordino I will only use one or two brass instruments, but if I have tutti strings and woodwinds I'll need more in order to add volume unless they're playing as kind of a harmonic "bed" in the background. French horns have a very wide dynamic range so all four can play quietly behind the rest of the orchestra without overpowering everything else, but tubas, trombones, and trumpets just crash right through, so those stay at a minimum number unless I want their power.


----------



## Moderato Maestoso (Jun 10, 2013)

Peter Alexander @ Sat Jun 08 said:


> Creating "2nds" with EW and Vienna is certainly easy enough with the transposition trick.



Aha! A solution to the problem I was trying to solve... Thanks Peter!

M


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Jun 10, 2013)

What "transposition trick" can you do with Play, Peter?


----------



## Per Lichtman (Jun 10, 2013)

@EastWest Lurker Isn't he referring to incrementing the "Tune" and "Transpose" fields by opposite amounts on the instrument page in PLAY to trigger a different sample at the same pitch?


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Jun 10, 2013)

Per Lichtman @ Mon Jun 10 said:


> @EastWest Lurker Isn't he referring to incrementing the "Tune" and "Transpose" fields by opposite amounts on the instrument page in PLAY to trigger a different sample at the same pitch?



So the theory is you avoid phasing with another instantiation using the same patch? it seems to me to be fixing a problem that I do not hear as a problem.


----------



## Per Lichtman (Jun 10, 2013)

@EastWest One of the main advantages is that it allows you to "thicken" the sound on the unison in a way that using the same sample twice wouldn't really do. It's partially meant to allow you to write each part independently without worrying about the sound getting smaller whenever you hit that unison.

Same basic idea as J's Ensemble Make or Nils Liberg's Part Maker scripts for Kontakt.


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Jun 10, 2013)

Per Lichtman @ Mon Jun 10 said:


> @EastWest One of the main advantages is that it allows you to "thicken" the sound on the unison in a way that using the same sample twice wouldn't really do. It's partially meant to allow you to write each part independently without worrying about the sound getting smaller whenever you hit that unison.
> 
> Same basic idea as J's Ensemble Make or Nils Liberg's Part Maker scripts for Kontakt.



I see, so +1 coarse tuning +1 transpose for the 2nd oboe, and +2 coarse tuning +2 transpose for the 3rd oboe?


----------



## Per Lichtman (Jun 10, 2013)

EDIT 2: I didn't look carefully enough before I posted. Fixed.

@EastWest Well, no - opposite directions. 

There are a lot of different approaches to which instrument gets transposed which direction, but I tend to alternate between up and down so that the distance transposed doesn't get as far (which is the way J's Ensemble Maker works as well).

I often transpose down for the higher parts and vice-versa for the bottom so that I don't limit my range through transposition.

So for example:

1st Oboe: -1 transpose, +1 coarse tuning
2nd Oboe: 0, 0
3rd Oboe: +1, -1

But in the end it's all about what sounds best to your ears.


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Jun 10, 2013)

Per Lichtman @ Mon Jun 10 said:


> EDIT 2: I didn't look carefully enough before I posted. Fixed.
> 
> @EastWest Well, no - opposite directions.
> 
> ...



I just tried this Per. I can't honestly say I hear a difference.


----------



## Per Lichtman (Jun 10, 2013)

EDIT 2: Examples have been replaced with 44.1 16-bit versions for compatibility.

It depends both on the patch - with some it is more noticeable than others.

Here is a pretty dramatic one using tuba (first version without the "transpose trick" and the second using it at 1 semitone intervals).

http://perlichtman.com/vi-control-examp ... -trick.wav

Of course if the instrument isn't sampled chromatically, then the amount has to be increased.

So intervals of 2 or 3 instead of 1, for instance such as:
+2, -2
0, 0
-2, +2

Anyway, here are two much less dramatic examples using bassoons.

Standard vs 1 semitone interval
http://perlichtman.com/vi-control-examp ... mitone.wav

Standard vs 2 semitone interval
http://perlichtman.com/vi-control-examp ... mitone.wav


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Jun 10, 2013)

Different libraries, different results perhaps?


----------



## Per Lichtman (Jun 10, 2013)

@EastWest Lurker Those are all from the same EWQLSO library.


----------



## Per Lichtman (Jun 10, 2013)

Okay, I updated the examples so they are 16-bit now.

Anyway, of course you are right that you could get different results from different libraries but all I was trying to say was that sometimes the difference is more or less dramatic within the same library as well.


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Jun 10, 2013)

Per Lichtman @ Mon Jun 10 said:


> @EastWest Lurker Those are all from the same EWQLSO library.



But maybe HOW is different. Or maybe my ear are old :lol:


----------



## Per Lichtman (Jun 10, 2013)

@EastWest Lurker Any of those things are possible, of course. 

Did the tuba example I posted sound more dramatically different to you?


----------



## germancomponist (Jun 10, 2013)

Listen to this: https://www.box.com/shared/ny6b9hjtw8

Not perfect, but interesting?... .

What you hear are many solo violins from different libs, and I also had used the bespoken trick here.... .


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Jun 10, 2013)

Per Lichtman @ Mon Jun 10 said:


> @EastWest Lurker Any of those things are possible, of course.
> 
> Did the tuba example I posted sound more dramatically different to you?



Yes, I did.


----------



## Blakus (Jun 11, 2013)

I find that I use section samples (i.e. 4horns/2 trumpets patches) for unison lines, then I break out into solo patches for chordal writing. There's something about a recorded section that just can't be reproduced by stacking solos on top of each other. Even in the chordal writing, I will often leave the ensemble patch to play the top part at a slightly reduced volume - this seems to add a bit of that "ensemble cohesiveness" sound to the parts.

Here's a bit of brass that does what I described.
[mp3]https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/3363455/BlakusBrass.mp3[/mp3]


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Jun 11, 2013)

Blakus @ Tue Jun 11 said:


> I find that I use section samples (i.e. 4horns/2 trumpets patches) for unison lines, then I break out into solo patches for chordal writing. There's something about a recorded section that just can't be reproduced by stacking solos on top of each other. Even in the chordal writing, I will often leave the ensemble patch to play the top part at a slightly reduced volume - this seems to add a bit of that "ensemble cohesiveness" sound to the parts.
> 
> Here's a bit of brass that does what I described.
> [mp3]https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/3363455/BlakusBrass.mp3[/mp3]



Blake I have great respect or you, especially for giving us that cello 

But that does not sound like real brass to me _at all_. And I am not a "reality uber alles" guy.


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Jun 11, 2013)

germancomponist @ Mon Jun 10 said:


> Listen to this: https://www.box.com/shared/ny6b9hjtw8
> 
> Not perfect, but interesting?... .
> 
> What you hear are many solo violins from different libs, and I also had used the bespoken trick here.... .



Hmmm, interesting. I am becoming convinced thai it depends very much on the libraries. I will experiment some more.


----------



## Blakus (Jun 11, 2013)

Haha Jay, fair enough!

I agree it doesn't sound very real, probably not the best example. In context it serves me well and I like it. Although, isolating any single section usually sounds like absolute turd to me when it comes to samples.
Anyway, I think the combination of solos/ensembles works, at least for me. Alright alright, I'll stop now! :lol:


----------



## wst3 (Jun 11, 2013)

minimally trained... but I am going to come at it from a slightly different direction anyway!

There are several variables which you have really only skimmed:
1) How you were trained - there are different schools of orchestration (prior to the advent of sample libraries).
2) Even within a given grande approach there may well be different techniques for different applications.
3) and then there is the application - are you writing this for live performance only, or for recording only, or for both?
4) of course the elephant in the room is the difference between different libraries.
5) Finally, there is the music. Does it need a solo instrument or a section?

In all the families there are big differences between one instrument, two instruments, and lots of instruments. One of the first things that they teach you in synthesizer 101 is that it is easier to synthesize a section than a solo instrument.

My library collection is very meager, so I can't really talk about specific techniques for specific libraries.

But I can point out that if you are writing something that may be performed or recorded by a live orchestra, but you are using libraries for a mock-up then you are recording it. I'm not sure that it matters a lot that you are recording it with previously recorded recordings<G>!

Live, recording live, or recording samples share some common traits. You can control the volume of each part, although the mechanisms differ. More to the point, the result of controlling the volume differs, often greatly.

In a live or live recording setting you have the breadth of live players, real instruments, and almost infinite variation. With a library you have what the producer captured. It's getting better all the time, but it is a limit.

In all three cases I think it makes the most sense to write to the strengths and weaknesses of the medium. If you are writing for more than two then you have to be willing to adjust as you move from one to the other.

Now this is probably a luxury of the small collection of libraries, but I keep almost everything at hand. If I had more or bigger libraries I guess I couldn't do that<G>!

And another luxury is that I'm still developing my workflow as I go, adapting it to new tools as I get them.

Which means that my approach and your approach are going to be markedly different - we have different resources and different levels of experience. And probably different goals.

So I can't really provide answers, but maybe I can throw enough questions out there to help?


----------

