# 90 seconds of Stravinsky à la Spitfire (latest: v5)



## Øyvind Moe (Jan 5, 2017)

Technically not a member composition, but since there's no "Orchestral Mockups for n00bs" sub-forum ...

I've had a go at making something with my newly acquired Spitfire libraries. This is the "chug-chug" part from The Rite of Spring. Mostly short notes, so nothing too complicated. Overall, I'm quite pleased with how good the libraries sound, even for someone with basically no experience. I can't really continue this piece until I have more detalied strings, but it's been a nice first experience.

Libraries: Spitfire Symphonic Woodwinds, Spitfire Symphonic Brass, Albion ONE, Spitfire Percussion

Original version:


Latest version - intermediate versions below:


----------



## Andy B (Jan 5, 2017)

Hi Øyvind, 

I think you've done a pretty good job and considering you have little experience, there are places where it's quite convincing. The strings obviously need more bite and could do with some ambient mics mixed in, in fact there are a number of instruments that sound too close for me, for example the muted trumpet, but this is a great start. 

I did a short mock-up about five years ago of part of the Rival Tribes going into the Procession of the Sage. Great fun and just goes to show how important good orchestration is when using samples.

Thanks,

Andy.


----------



## Rob (Jan 5, 2017)

great job! Sounds good to my ears...


----------



## byzantium (Jan 5, 2017)

Great work. Spitfire, especially the winds I think sound good / realistic here, sitting there together consistently in that big hall.


----------



## Noiseguild (Jan 5, 2017)

Nice work! 
Especially the woodwinds sound quite close. The heavy downbows in the strings are a bit lacking though, they sound more vigorous in the original. Interesting to compare this with the vsl version on their site, by Jay Bacal. I think your woodwinds sound better..

There seem to be some wrong B naturals i.s.o. B flats at 39' ? 

Han


----------



## ed buller (Jan 5, 2017)

nice...needs to be wetter, larger , this was a huge orchestra . Remember IGOR had eight horns on those string accents !!! they should be much louder. The woodwinds sound very good ( which is no mean feat for stravinsky copying) . Id suggest messing with the timing a bit too. Play with the tempo and quantizing...all a bit mechanical ...but amazing job none the less

e


----------



## Mithrandir (Jan 5, 2017)

Noiseguild said:


> Nice work!
> There seem to be some wrong B naturals i.s.o. B flats at 39' ?



Amazing, right, how we can point out wrong accidentals in a piece that at its premiere was still full of wild and flavorous uncharted harmonic territory?


----------



## Øyvind Moe (Jan 5, 2017)

Thank you all for your comments and suggestions. I agree it could/should be wetter. I've had another go at it, adding ambient mics to pretty much everything (too much?), adjusting the close/tree levels as well as some overall levels, and tweaking some velocities.

@Andy B : I'm not sure how to get more bite out of the Albion strings. Close mics are at full level. I've increased the velocity to trigger some different samples, and I think it sounds a little chunkier now. It's louder at any rate. 

@Noiseguild : I'm not sure what you mean by wrong notes. Everything is fairly meticulously copied from the score, but I'm open to the possibility of having made a mistake, if you could be a little more specific?

UPDATE: See below for a version that fixes the wrong notes referred to by Noiseguild.

Here is version 2:


----------



## Øyvind Moe (Jan 5, 2017)

@Noiseguild : Never mind, I found it ... Fixing it now. Good spot, thanks!


----------



## Øyvind Moe (Jan 5, 2017)

Here is version 3, which fixes some wrong notes in flurry-o-flutes between 0:33 and 0:41. Thanks to @Noiseguild for the spot!

UPDATE: Brassier horns below!


----------



## Øyvind Moe (Jan 5, 2017)

Oh, and @ed buller : I did try messing the timing up a bit before posting (I assume you're primarily refering to the chugs), but I couldn't get it to sound like anything other than a sloppy/"washed out" attack. I'll give it another go come the weekend, though. Thanks for the suggestion!


----------



## NoamL (Jan 5, 2017)

Øyvind, this is really good! The WW sound surprisingly accurate, very close to how I remember this section of the ballet. The reeds sound very "primitive", quite nice! Perhaps you could set the trumpet and the flutes a bit further back in the stage.

The strings and horns are off though  they need to be more ferocious! especially the horns need to have a rough brassy edge. Your v3 is much better but this might be an area where the samples are letting you down:



Come to think of it I don't know of any developer that has sampled the repeated-downbow articulation, even though it's something of a cliche in string writing.


----------



## ed buller (Jan 5, 2017)

Øyvind Moe said:


> Oh, and @ed buller : I did try messing the timing up a bit before posting (I assume you're primarily refering to the chugs), but I couldn't get it to sound like anything other than a sloppy/"washed out" attack. I'll give it another go come the weekend, though. Thanks for the suggestion!



Well everything really. I'd randomise your midi by a tiny amount and do some tempo ramps. And the Horns still need to be nasty !

E


----------



## Øyvind Moe (Jan 7, 2017)

New version. I've switched the strings to the time machine patch to get a slightly tighter and bouncier sound. I've also added a small randomized note delay, so hopefully the attacks sound slightly less mechanical. I've changed the horn stabs from the a2 patch to the a6 one. It's certainly brassier, maybe a little too massive (essentially now a 48 piece section)? Also, a few level and velocity adjustments, and I've pushed the master fader as I could without clipping, because louder = better. 

UPDATE: New version below.


----------



## Øyvind Moe (Jan 7, 2017)

Alternate. If 48 horns weren't enough, here I've layered them with the a2 bells up patch for a brighter sound. It's way OTT, of course, but it's certainly an interesting sound. I can't decide which one I prefer.

UPDATE: New version below.


----------



## byzantium (Jan 7, 2017)

These later versions are fantastic! I'm really getting in to them here now! Max volume! Well done. (Maybe Spitfire would use as a demo....?)


----------



## Øyvind Moe (Jan 7, 2017)

byzantium said:


> These later versions are fantastic! I'm really getting in to them here now! Max volume! Well done. (Maybe Spitfire would use as a demo....?)


Thanks! The strings have definitely got a way to go, but I don't know how much better I can make them given the samples I have (I'm sure these *can* sound better, though) and my lack of skill and experience.


----------



## s_bettinzana (Jan 7, 2017)

I like your last versions. You have done a great job!

Silvano


----------



## Øyvind Moe (Jan 7, 2017)

s_bettinzana said:


> I like your last versions. You have done a great job!
> 
> Silvano


Thank you!


----------



## Mithrandir (Jan 7, 2017)

Øyvind Moe said:


> Alternate. If 48 horns weren't enough, here I've layered them with the a2 bells up patch for a brighter sound. It's way OTT, of course, but it's certainly an interesting sound. I can't decide which one I prefer.




This is more like it! Try slightly randomizing the velocity of the string spiccati to reduce the machine gun effect. I'd say the strings are slightly too close compared to the brass (horns in particular).

Don't worry about any number of players - even though you're using a surreal amount of musicians, this sounds a lot like the Rafael Frühbeck de Burgos/LSO recording which is one of my favorites in terms of sound.


----------



## Øyvind Moe (Jan 8, 2017)

Version 5:

Added a velocity randomizer to the strings. Had to be careful with the amount to avoid random notes sounding accented, so it might not have the greatest effect, but I do think it eases the monotony a little. In addition, I reduced the number of round robins from 4 to 3, so their repetitions don't lock to the bar. I pulled the close mics back a bit and pushed the ambients ever so slightly. I also EQ'ed the bottom end a bit, as I felt it was quite "boomy". Overall, strings should "gel" better with the horns now.

As for the horns, I went with the layered approach, but pulled the bells up patch back a bit. They're a little better balanced now, adding definition to the top end instead of being overpowering, and the range of the bells up only covers the top five notes anyway. I also added bells up longs to the final horn octave. Again, the lowest note is out of range, but it adds a nice definition.

I added a bunch of tempo automation, but only by tiny amounts. It is, after all, "tempo giusto".

Finally, I made a few level tweaks here and there.


----------



## ctsai89 (Jan 8, 2017)

Øyvind Moe said:


> Version 5:
> 
> Added a velocity randomizer to the strings. Had to be careful with the amount to avoid random notes sounding accented, so it might not have the greatest effect, but I do think it eases the monotony a little. Pulled the close mics back a bit and pushed the ambients ever so slightly. I also EQ'ed the bottom end a bit, as I felt it was quite "boomy". Overall, strings should "gel" better with the horns now.
> 
> ...




wowzers. nice one. Wait till I finish scriabin's symphony #3 with spitfire (except imma replace the trumpets with sample modeling) :D


----------



## desert (Jan 8, 2017)

SilentBob said:


> I must confess to my disgrace that, after the first hearing, actually already after the first seconds of your first version, I had no further interest in this thread. But ... wow ... what mistake. What came out of it .....
> 
> Your Sacre became better from version to version. In real life I prefer a slightly accelerated tempo, but all is so well implemented that the genius music catches you immediately. Samples? No matter.
> 
> A joy to listen. Great work and use of the libraries.


Same, 0yvind definitely improved as he went along


----------



## Øyvind Moe (Jan 8, 2017)

SilentBob said:


> I must confess to my disgrace that, after the first hearing, actually already after the first seconds of your first version, I had no further interest in this thread. But ... wow ... what mistake. What came out of it .....
> 
> Your Sacre became better from version to version. In real life I prefer a slightly accelerated tempo, but all is so well implemented that the genius music catches you immediately. Samples? No matter.
> 
> A joy to listen. Great work and use of the libraries.


Hey, I don't blame you. Maybe I posted too early (libraries only finished downloading Tuesday night, and I started messing with this on Wednesday afternoon, with no prior mockup or production experience), but on the other hand, it wouldn't have improved as much without the feedback I got here. I feel like I've learned a lot in a short amount of time. As for the tempo, I prefer it on the heavy side. Thanks for giving it a second chance!


----------



## Øyvind Moe (Jan 8, 2017)

ctsai89 said:


> wowzers. nice one. Wait till I finish scriabin's symphony #3 with spitfire (except imma replace the trumpets with sample modeling) :D


Thanks! Can't wait to hear it!


----------



## Øyvind Moe (Jan 8, 2017)

desert said:


> Same, 0yvind definitely improved as he went along


Thanks to the awesome people who took the time to help me out. Thank you for listening!


----------

