What's new

Cinematic Studio Woodwinds?

The Darris

Senior Member
Chris, I'm curious about how you'd typically handle mocking up a string part on CSS if the score calls for divisi. Say the cellos split into three legato parts for a bar, would you just use the CSS cellos three times, or maybe switch to SCS or Afflatus?
Depends on the situation. Are you talking about mocking up for a feature where you are recording the score or just doing mock ups of existing pieces?

For the gigs I've done. We rarely use divisi, mainly because the type of projects I've worked on benefit from just traditional scoring within the one string section = one part mentality. If we do divisi, we tend to just turn off legato and sequence the lines polyphonic-old school style. Since I layer with other libraries, you can hide the seems very well. The orchestrators that I've worked with also make their creative decisions. In many cases, they avoid divisi, especially if we have a small recording budget and can't get a large string section. Overdub limitations make that a challenge. So, I've learned to write more simplistically whilst not trying to be creatively limited. Either way, having a good orchestrator makes a difference. Good ones take what you've done that sounds great with samples and alters it to sound great for the live players you get to record.

If you are talking more about doing covers of existing scores. It depends on the library. For something like CSS, again, I just turn off legato and write polyphonic arco lines in a single patch. CSS has a small enough string section that you can get away with it. The same goes for other libraries like Spitfire Chamber Strings. I've also used Cinematic Strings 2 as a "B section" to CSS to write divisi harmonies with a lot of success but again, I rarely write divisi so it's not a huge concern for me.

Best,

C
 

Land of Missing Parts

flibbertigibbet
Depends on the situation. Are you talking about mocking up for a feature where you are recording the score or just doing mock ups of existing pieces?

For the gigs I've done. We rarely use divisi, mainly because the type of projects I've worked on benefit from just traditional scoring within the one string section = one part mentality. If we do divisi, we tend to just turn off legato and sequence the lines polyphonic-old school style. Since I layer with other libraries, you can hide the seems very well. The orchestrators that I've worked with also make their creative decisions. In many cases, they avoid divisi, especially if we have a small recording budget and can't get a large string section. Overdub limitations make that a challenge. So, I've learned to write more simplistically whilst not trying to be creatively limited. Either way, having a good orchestrator makes a difference. Good ones take what you've done that sounds great with samples and alters it to sound great for the live players you get to record.

If you are talking more about doing covers of existing scores. It depends on the library. For something like CSS, again, I just turn off legato and write polyphonic arco lines in a single patch. CSS has a small enough string section that you can get away with it. The same goes for other libraries like Spitfire Chamber Strings. I've also used Cinematic Strings 2 as a "B section" to CSS to write divisi harmonies with a lot of success but again, I rarely write divisi so it's not a huge concern for me.

Best,

C
Good info, thanks Chris. :)
 
I wasn't trying to imply that LASS doesn't serve a purpose anymore. I was simply making the point that in my experiences, the composers I've worked for and with avoid using it on productions because of the complexity of using it. It takes quite a bit of work to set it up, especially if you want to use auto-divisi. That's time consuming when you're on a tight deadline. Load and play libraries that sound great are in demand by working composers. Sure, there are still older libraries with amazing features like LASS that can still hold their own against the competition but the point is that something so simple can hold it's own too which is why I don't really want to see Alex go down that path. He's found a great business model and should stick to it for now. If he can find a way to innovate without jeopardizing the simplicity he's created with this series, then I will certainly be an early adopter and take back some of the claims I've made here. In fact, I hope that happens. :)

Best,

C
The divisi features of the new AudioBro Brass library seems wonderful, maybe the strings will get the upgrade eventually too. Meanwhile, templates solve the deadline problem in most cases for me.
 

The Darris

Senior Member
The divisi features of the new AudioBro Brass library seems wonderful, maybe the strings will get the upgrade eventually too. Meanwhile, templates solve the deadline problem in most cases for me.
Yes, templates do but you still have to set them up (especially custom templates for the particular project) which takes time. I try to carry over as much as I can from one project to the next but there is a huge difference in writing for a suspense/adult themed thriller versus a children's animated feature involving magic. In most cases, you'd want to custom build your template for said project so you don't find yourself writing the same exact stuff. In cases like the job I'm on right now. I was brought on at the last minute. I had a day to prepare my template for the genre we are working in which was a lot different from the previous gig I had worked on. The last big project I worked on involved a lot of string FX and textures and not so much writing thematic material. This project is the opposite. It's full on Williams/Powell type stuff. Very dense. My only other argument for constructing a new template per project is that you won't be carrying over any issues or problems you had in the previous template. It allows you to develop your workflow for the better. If it's anything I learned, fixing or changing your template mid through a project can really throw a wrench into your workflow. Maybe I can share a "lessons learned" about that sometime.

You can certainly argue that I'm set in my own ways which I totally am. I will admit that. I honestly prefer being able to just plug and play versus any additional setup outside of routing midi channels and mixing on the DAW end of things. In my experience using custom kontakt multis or saved VEPro meta frames or whatever they are called (outside of a template) has always ended in weird routing issues which is a time killer for me. When something screws you up once in this job, you tend to avoid that issues altogether, even if the company of said products with said issues say they fixed them. Find a workflow that works and stick to it. Cinematic Studio Series approach fits my workflow flawlessly which is why I've made the points I've made about it today. Sorry for the long winded responses. Haha, I've had a lot of coffee and I've been doing orchestration prep all day.

Best,

Chris
 

The Darris

Senior Member
If we're on the topic of the Cinematic Studio Series, here is my suggestion on what I think is needed to supplement their current available and projected catalog.

One library dedicated to musical gestures like swells, crescendos, fx, etc. This is very prominent in the new Audio Bro brass library. However, I'd love for Alex to create a library where it's all in one for each instrument section and its universal. Being one shots whether tempo sync'd or not would have a lower ram footprint than one with legato. There are great libraries already out there that do this but a one stop shop for those types of samples is lacking in this market in my opinion. Usually, FX are recorded as a, "We have left over session time, lets grab some FX." There are outliers like OT's Berlin Strings FX but even that library has a lot of short comings.

Just my take on what I'd love to see from Alex after he completes the Studio Series.
 

a113jackson

aspiring composer
I can't wait. My only woodwind library at the moment is EastWest's Hollywood Orchestral Woodwinds, and I absolutely hate them. I'm really hoping the English Horn and Bassoon sound alright.
 

constaneum

Senior Member
I can't wait. My only woodwind library at the moment is EastWest's Hollywood Orchestral Woodwinds, and I absolutely hate them. I'm really hoping the English Horn and Bassoon sound alright.
i didn't use Hollywood Orchestral Woodwinds even though i got them as part of a very affordable bundle with the rest of the Hollywood series. I'm currently using Berlin Woodwinds legacy and Auddict Woodwinds. Didn't quite like the flutes of Berlin Woodwinds. The piccolo sounds a bit dull also. Auddict's flute sounds more lively.
 
I'm just hoping it includes English Horn, Bass Clarinet, Contrabassoon and Contrabass Clarinet. Reckon it'll include these? A lot of woodwind libraries seen to exclude them unless they're Spitfire or Orchestral tools.
 
Top Bottom