# Sibelius as a front-end for any sequencer



## almound (Jun 22, 2015)

Imagine multiple MIDI controller keyboards inputting simultaneous MIDI into your sequencer ... dozens of tracks at a time ... each *independently* controlled (knobs tweaking, pedals pushing, even breath control)! No quantization issues!!! 

Check out my *FREE* tutorials which show how to make Sibelius notation program a front-end for any sequencer. (The technique should work for just about any notation program, including Finale.) Use the common language of musical notation to input your music with all the expressive power of your favorite DAW.

Just look for Al Johnston out on Youtube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5XeSTON5_iA


----------



## Rodney Money (Aug 10, 2015)

almound said:


> Imagine multiple MIDI controller keyboards inputting simultaneous MIDI into your sequencer ... dozens of tracks at a time ... each *independently* controlled (knobs tweaking, pedals pushing, even breath control)! No quantization issues!!!
> 
> Check out my *FREE* tutorials which show how to make Sibelius notation program a front-end for any sequencer. (The technique should work for just about any notation program, including Finale.) Use the common language of musical notation to input your music with all the expressive power of your favorite DAW.
> 
> Just look for Al Johnston out on Youtube.



I am very interested in this but how can I do this with Finale with Cubase when Finale is 32 bit and probably will not even open when I have Cubase open? I have 24 gigs of RAM.


----------



## Oberheim (Aug 11, 2015)

Rodney Money said:


> I am very interested in this but how can I do this with Finale with Cubase when Finale is 32 bit and probably will not even open when I have Cubase open? I have 24 gigs of RAM.


If you have opened Cubase, click on Finale icon and you open the Finale. 
I am using Overture 4 (32bit program) with Reaper (64bit program) and no problem (I used it with Sonar X2 64bit before). The problem you must resolve is maybe in audio engine in Finale, if it is possible, turn it off, because maybe you will not hear anything from daw. If it not possible, allways run daw first and then notation program.


----------



## wcreed51 (Aug 13, 2015)

I'm having trouble seeing why you'd want to do this rather then just export the MIDI or XML for Sibelius.


----------



## Oberheim (Aug 13, 2015)

I dont know if you ask me or another, but if me, my answer is: When you compose with this style, after finish composition, you only export MIDI, import to DAW, and what you do is, only set up midi track and export audio. Provided that you compose with full set up keyswitches and articulations for VSTi.


----------



## wcreed51 (Aug 14, 2015)

I was referring back to the original post


----------



## almound (Aug 24, 2015)

Rodney Money said:


> I am very interested in this but how can I do this with Finale with Cubase when Finale is 32 bit and probably will not even open when I have Cubase open? I have 24 gigs of RAM.


Review the videos that I did on DAW networking (https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLbJ3UqfveVHVnNuHh5oiVB_sF8YFWCP-_). In summary, it shows how I use a 4-core AMD, 17-inch laptop with an external USB sound card and an Ethernet network to control my server-level workstations using jBridge and a 32 bit program called Audioport ($79). Because it is 32 bit, the laptop must be set up with a version of Windows that is 32 bit (I use Windows 7 Pro). Despite the 4 GB RAM limitation inherent to Windows 7 Pro 32 bit, the result of networking is to utilize all the RAM on my 3 server-level workstations ... about 140 GB!
Now, getting this setup to work using Finale and Cubase is unknown to me just yet. You say that Finale probably wouldn't start up when Cubase is running. My guess is that you have Windows optimization issues. I cover those in the last of the DAW building series videos ( ). One can do a lot when one correctly installs and configures Windows and the software, much more than merely using a pre-installed machine and the default installation of most programs.
Now, I wouldn't recommend ReWire (as there are plenty of issues with ReWire). Rather, I would use the method I detail ... an internal MIDI cable (say, LoopBe30) that I illustrate in my videos and then experiment to find the appropriate track setup in Cubase that would work. [Note that one doesn't need to use Kontakt, at least with Sibelius. When one sets up the notation program as a keyboard controller in the sequencer, the DAW just treats it as MIDI controller input without prejudice. The sample player in the DAW will work just fine, without any special set up other than how one would normally set up a MIDI controller. I use Kontakt because of its instrument bank feature, mainly. But when I want to use Presonus Studio One 3 sound sets I just load them into its sound set player, Presence, and proceed as usual. In fact, any of Studio One's sample players including Impact, the drumpad app, works just fine that way.]
Al


----------



## almound (Aug 24, 2015)

wcreed51 said:


> I'm having trouble seeing why you'd want to do this rather then just export the MIDI or XML for Sibelius.


Many reasons. First, when I write I hear what I'm writing with realism enough to help me orchestrate better. (It helps my deficit in that regard.) Second, ultimately much of the piano roll editing (as well as after-the-fact mixing) that must be done to enhance realism after loading any MIDI file into a sequencer can be avoided by automating such details via Sibelius playback. This gets realized by setting up the Kontakt NKMs appropriately and then linking the mods of those NKMs (via Kontakt automation) to normal Sibelius score features, such as dynamic and expression markings, in Sibelius' playback dictionary and engraving rules menus. Third, MIDI controllers that I don't own (like a breath controller) I can simulate by creating a new line in the engraving rules menu and assigning to it the breath controller CC number that the sample articulation uses. Fourth, the resulting Sibelius score makes sense not only to other classical musicians but will to me years from now when I want to modify it ... all the nuance is on the page, rather than hidden in right-click menus on each note of a piano roll editor. Fifth, there is a move in the industry away from QUERTY input. New sample libraries are being programmed to be used by inputting MIDI using a MIDI controller keyboard, and not with a notation program. The method I use makes Sibelius simulate a MIDI controller keyboard. Sixth, Even of the sample libraries supposedly designed with notation programs in mind, when you get under the hood, you discover the programming is shoddy ... better to do it yourself and in the process learn the library inside and out. Seventh, New sample libraries are programmed to sound epic or cinematic by default; but I'm interested to write concert music, and so I have different needs. Eighth, the MusicXML that Sibelius outputs is not very compatible and unrecognizable to many sequencers. When I write the music in Sibelius and then export it into a sequencer, I end up re-duplicating my effort by having to write much of the music again.
Al


----------



## cheul (Sep 20, 2015)

Isn't NotePerformer an alternative that is truer / sticks to the ethos of scoring and having everything notated, while being faster to setup and also cheaper ?


----------



## d.healey (Sep 20, 2015)

cheul said:


> Isn't NotePerformer an alternative that is truer / sticks to the ethos of scoring and having everything notated, while being faster to setup and also cheaper ?


Noteperformer is a sample library in itself and it won't work with other libraries because it has to buffer the score data for analysis before playback. It's great if you only need to use the instruments that it offers but if you want to use other sample libraries too then it's not a good option


----------



## cheul (Sep 20, 2015)

ok but when listening to the sound quality of the demos posted by the OP, I don't see why you'd want to put so much effort in using external sample libraries. Just linking the MIDI to the DAW with a bit of expression data doesn't really tap into the superior potential of the libraries it seems, it ends up sounding pretty stiff and synthetic. If it really sounded lively, dynamic and realistic I wouldn't even have brought up Noteperformer.


----------



## d.healey (Sep 20, 2015)

I haven't been following this thread, I just saw that note performer was mentioned and thought I'd chip in  I do tend to use Sibelius with other sample libraries, using Reaper as a VST host, but only for the composition, then I either perform it in the DAW or give it to musicians to create the performance. On some occasions I'll add controller data in to Sibelius live but it's not very intuitive and isn't easy to edit but the results aren't bad.

Here's an old example using mainly east west libraries:


----------



## almound (Sep 22, 2015)

cheul said:


> Isn't NotePerformer an alternative that is truer / sticks to the ethos of scoring and having everything notated, while being faster to setup and also cheaper ?



Which demos did you listen to? Not all the music at my Youtube channel was created using my latest method. Also, I'm interested to write original classical music, not EPIC or film music. The requirements are different. Were you expecting something else?

Try this demo. Bear in mind that I haven't implemented automated mixing and mastering yet.

 
Does Noteperformer do better than that? Can you post an example?


----------



## cheul (Sep 23, 2015)

almound said:


> Which demos did you listen to?
> Try this demo.
> Does Noteperformer do better than that? Can you post an example?



That's precisely the demo I had listened to. My post wasn't meant in an inflammatory tone and I have no prejudice against your method, but seeing how much effort goes into this, yes I expected more. I'm not saying Noteperformer would fare better but would give at least the same result. Think of it as "non inferiority test" if we were comparing medical drugs. I will give your example another listen, I don't mean to sound unfair at all. I remember a passage in the winds for instance sounded superior to Noteperformer.

What Noteperformer lacks is a certain "sheen" to the sound that is probably a limit of the technology chosen. But listening to your example there's only part of the sheen we could expect from samples and certainly not the fluidity of inputing a lot of controlling data. On this account Noteperformer would certainly do a better job at the fraction of the sweat. I have nothing to support my opinion more than the points I raise, I mean I'm no expert and not pretending to be. I do own a license to Noterperformer but won't say it's perfect, and I think I remember Wallander has never pretended the sound quality would match that of samples. It's still a valuable tool when you take into account the total amount of efforts put into the programming.

I don't have your level of proficiency in writing such works so I can't post an example of mine. There are plenty of examples on the developer's site, of famous works, which makes the comparison more useful.


----------



## almound (Sep 23, 2015)

Thanks for your honesty and for your evaluation of my sound. Being the person doing the work, I get emotionally attached and it is good for me to hear some criticism once in a while that brings me back to earth. I appreciate you taking the trouble to investigate my methods, as indeed there has been a lot of effort put out so far. But I hasten to add, there is more to do.

And I don't mind to do it, as I feel I am closing in on my goal of developing a system to predictably mock up *original* classical music just by using Sibelius notation program. I'm no expert either. I'm just a user and, in fact, I feel quite put out that I have to bother to do any of this at all. (It seems to me realism is the job of the companies I bought the software and samples from.) But all I can do is pursue what I see best.

If I read your post correctly, you are saying that I get slightly better sheen than Noteperformer but that it comes about through far more effort and along a much slower workflow. Let me answer this way. Think of the demos you have heard from me so far as more like raw material, rather than finished work.

Note that my goal is to create my demos straight from sheetmusic playback, without subsequent manipulation of data in a sequencer. Toward that end, I expect it to take a bit of work to accomplish "sequencer-less" realism. But after taking the basic steps to implement the method, the actual use of it is not so labor-intensive as you might think.

There are stock words and phrases that repeat for each instrument. Copy and paste is quick for these. As for dynamics, I modified a Sibelius plug-in that converts standard dynamics to custom dynamics, and also reverts them back again. The plug-in also raises or lowers a selection's dynamics one level higher or one level lower. I liberally use keyboard short-cuts for plug-ins like "Search and Replace" and also for selecting various elements on a staff, such as "just the notes." For others who want to take advantage, I make all these basic files and templates available for free, as well as information how to adapt one's own sample libraries to the method. So there are lots of tools that make creation of a score relatively swift, once I decide what music it is that I want to write.

Now I must admit, though, I am a bit uncertain as to what you are driving at by your term "sheen." Do you mean by "sheen" the overall ambiance of the sound, in other words to that which results from implementation of stereo separation, reverb, and other VST plug-in modifiers? Are you referring to the prettiness or sweetness of the notes, that which has more to do with the quality of the sample library used? Or are you referring to an overall standard of professional sound that you have heard in other demos, say, from sample library producers?

Realize that I have not yet finished implementing further innovations to my method that should make for demos that have more the character of "sheen" for which you are looking. I intend to add Kontakt automation to attenuate the ASHDR curve (which would obviate the piano roll editing so crucial to obtain a true legato or detache' string sound), and to add Kontakt automation necessary to implement the basics of orchestral mixing and mastering. These further refinements should produce the quality of "sheen" that you are listening for.

Now for some additional demos. Probably the most difficult ensemble to mock up is a string quartet. Note that the following are of simple sheetmusic playback, without any Kontakt automation to attenuate the ASHDR curve (which would obviate piano roll editing), or Kontakt automation to implement orchestral mixing or mastering.




Listen and comment on how this "raw material" sounds, remembering that demos found on a producers product page typically do not represent results that one will get at home. They have taken extra pains to produce their demos; not just any music is presented, but only that appropriate for the "sheen" you mention. Unlike those demos, I'm striving for a method that accommodates the music that I want to write. I'm tired of having to change the music to suit the software and samples I'm using. (That's why I emphasize "*original* music" in the titles on my Youtube channel.) It is quite possible to build a method so that it does well with a known piece of music, but it is another thing entirely to develop a mock-up technique that can handle anything a composer can throw at it.



cheul said:


> That's precisely the demo I had listened to. My post wasn't meant in an inflammatory tone and I have no prejudice against your method, but seeing how much effort goes into this, yes I expected more. I'm not saying Noteperformer would fare better but would give at least the same result. Think of it as "non inferiority test" if we were comparing medical drugs. I will give your example another listen, I don't mean to sound unfair at all. I remember a passage in the winds for instance sounded superior to Noteperformer.
> 
> What Noteperformer lacks is a certain "sheen" to the sound that is probably a limit of the technology chosen. But listening to your example there's only part of the sheen we could expect from samples and certainly not the fluidity of inputing a lot of controlling data. On this account Noteperformer would certainly do a better job at the fraction of the sweat. I have nothing to support my opinion more than the points I raise, I mean I'm no expert and not pretending to be. I do own a license to Noterperformer but won't say it's perfect, and I think I remember Wallander has never pretended the sound quality would match that of samples. It's still a valuable tool when you take into account the total amount of efforts put into the programming.
> 
> I don't have your level of proficiency in writing such works so I can't post an example of mine. There are plenty of examples on the developer's site, of famous works, which makes the comparison more useful.


----------



## wcreed51 (Sep 24, 2015)

"Note that my goal is to create my demos straight from sheetmusic playback, without subsequent manipulation of data in a sequencer."

So then why host VSTi in a sequencer instead of Sibelius?


----------



## d.healey (Sep 24, 2015)

wcreed51 said:


> "Note that my goal is to create my demos straight from sheetmusic playback, without subsequent manipulation of data in a sequencer."
> 
> So then why host VSTi in a sequencer instead of Sibelius?


My main reasons: Quickly switch between projects without having to reload all the samples. If Sibelius crashes don't have to reload samples. Ability to play back same score through different sample templates.


----------



## wcreed51 (Sep 24, 2015)

VE Pro provides all that...


----------



## d.healey (Sep 24, 2015)

wcreed51 said:


> VE Pro provides all that...


But more expensive than Reaper + I use Reaper for a ton of other stuff


----------



## almound (Sep 24, 2015)

wcreed51 said:


> "Note that my goal is to create my demos straight from sheetmusic playback, without subsequent manipulation of data in a sequencer."
> 
> So then why host VSTi in a sequencer instead of Sibelius?



This video gives about a dozen reasons why using a notation program coupled with a sequencer is better.


----------



## wcreed51 (Sep 25, 2015)

I must be missing something... The video give's reasons not to play parts into a sequencer with a MIDI controller, but doesn't say anything about why you'd want to host VSTi in a sequencer rather then just in Sibelius...


----------



## snattack (Sep 26, 2015)

This would make most sense (at least to me) if:

1. You would send the note data only into the sequencer just to get the opportunity to manually program expression data (which is mainly what humanizes stuff, even more than timing), and

2. Use some kind of delay plugins on the tracks so that everything is slightly off.

It's not better than recording everything, but certainly faster if you're not s very good keyboard player.

Personally I use Noteperformer for mocking up stuff that's eventually is going to be performed/recorded live. And a sequencer for stuff that requires realism. I personally don't find any reason to put more work into stuff that's meant for live performance. But I have the opportunity to regulary have orchestrations performed live, perhaps if I wasn't in this situation I'd put more effort into making my notation sound realistic.

But it's an ambitious project Al, good luck with development!


----------



## almound (Sep 28, 2015)

wcreed51 said:


> I must be missing something... The video give's reasons not to play parts into a sequencer with a MIDI controller, but doesn't say anything about why you'd want to host VSTi in a sequencer rather then just in Sibelius...



Actually, you are right. But most people are so turned off by playback through any notation program that reasons not to use a notation program to host VSTi must seem pretty obvious to them. Anyway, I see you use both a notation program and a sequencer. Depending upon what you use them for, you might save some time doing your sequencer input in this way.


----------



## almound (Sep 28, 2015)

snattack said:


> This would make most sense (at least to me) if:
> 
> 1. You would send the note data only into the sequencer just to get the opportunity to manually program expression data (which is mainly what humanizes stuff, even more than timing), and
> 
> ...



Thanks for your encouragement. So far in my development, point (1) of your reply is right.
What I've implemented so far has been the ideas in Peter Alexander's Visual Orchestration #2; essentially establishing a sonic space in which to work through stereo spatialization and reverb, then calibrating each articulation of each instrument to the dynamic of piano within that space.

But what comes next to implement are the ideas contained in Peter Alexander's Visual Orchestration #3; essentially refining the sonic space already established through various customized reverb settings and filters, mixing practices, and mastering concepts. For instance, achieving realistic legato or detache' in strings can be achieved without the need of a piano roll editor, because it would be done during playback as a Kontakt player automation on the instrument articulation's AHSDR envelope during playback, prior to the MIDI being sent to the sequencer.

Point (2) of your reply is a great idea I hadn't thought of yet. Of course, I mainly do orchestral mock-ups of classical music, which wouldn't need a delay normally. But other kinds of music sure could!


----------



## almound (Sep 29, 2015)

Perhaps I can clear up a misunderstanding by mentioning that while it is certainly possible to export MIDI out of a notation program and then into a sequencer, I generally use my setup to avoid doing that. Here's the scenario. Simultaneously, I have the sequencer, the notation program, and Kontakt (as a sequencer VSTi) up and running. I use the sequencer for its audio engine ... I use it to play back the score (instead of using the audio engine of the notation program). 

So I guess what, in fact, I'm doing is piggy-backing onto the sequencer's audio engine. Audio engines for notation programs are notoriously crumby, whereas those for sequencers can give fine performances (provided the MIDI input is nuanced enough to attain the desired result). Even the excellent audio engine of Kontakt player suffers horribly when used as a VST instrument in a notation program. (To be fair, notation programs are desktop publishing packages, after all, and really make no pretense about being able to produce HD audio. However, they do match the notation on their staff to MIDI output exceptionally well, which makes this setup viable.) 

Thus, my methodology is to link notation program and sequencer together in a Siamese-twin sort of arrangement, with playback of the score handled mostly through the sequencer's audio engine. Therefore typically, as I'm playing back my score via the sequencer's audio engine, the sequencer's transport function is turned OFF! (albeit the tracks are set "record-enabled"). A bit counter-intuitive, I grant you. Note that it is *entirely possible* to go ahead and actually record the result of the playback (i.e the MIDI) into the sequencer. 

At this point, I am mainly interested to develop Kontakt automation. It is through Kontakt automation that I hope to avoid most of the mixing and mastering tasks which currently are the reason why many export MusicXML out of the notation program and into the sequencer. I want all that to be handled at the time of playback through Kontakt automation on the sample libraries.

This is a lot for anyone to wrap their head around. It is a completely different approach to DAW ... no MIDI controller keyboard to play in the music, no quantization headaches, no need for most mixing procedures (as these will be automated during playback). Yet because the sequencer is available, there's no reason not to have "live" tracks being mixed in during playback.

So, my aim is that this method will do away with exporting MIDI out of a notation program and importing it into a sequencer for the purpose of MIDI editing, as many do now.


----------

