artomatic
I compose with my EARS
Much respect, @AlexanderSchiborr
Your composition/talent really shows in this piece!.
Hats off to you!
Your composition/talent really shows in this piece!.
Hats off to you!
First of all, let me say this is great work you're doing and I have tremendous respect for your efforts. You're really making significant progress learning about composition and orchestration in the Star Trek genre.
I relate to what you are saying above but I don't necessarily agree that members don't want to discuss issues about music more than gear. Its just "easier" to talk about gear. And while music is all about what you hear, composition is also about what you write....
Another reason people don't want to discuss is because they don't have anything nearly as good as the piece you're posting. So why would you want to hear from me? I'll just remain in lurk mode most of the time until I have something equally worthy to share.
If its the composition you'd rather discuss rather than "which library did you use?", it might help to create a score or at least as sketch. When it gets into orchestration, it would really help to see a full score though. Otherwise, we're left only to discuss the sound or the production engineering process which tends to lead toward the typical "gear talk". And that's a lot easier to do than studying your score in depth and looking at the harmony, orchestration, voice leadings, etc. So when I want to really study a score, I tend to pick one up by Prokofiev or Stravinsky and have a discussion with myself (as nobody around here seems to ever want to discuss about someone else's score - though it would seem fun to me to have a thread discussing a particular great orchestration and hear various observations, opinions and possibly mockups on it). Unfortunately, the psychology of internet forums would probably lead us toward endless arguments over which composer or orchestration is really great before a true discussion about the details of a piece could get off the ground.
We did at one time have such discussions here on this forum when Peter Alexander (RIP) started a free online orchestration class. It was open only to members who joined. and he moderated in such a way that required everyone participating to use their real names and to only provide constructive supportive criticism. Members were very helpful to each other in this sheltered environment because they had a commitment towards each other and towards a common goal and a moderator to keep the balance. There was no trolling, nasty comments or bullying which is what commonly destroys open forum discussions. I guess that's part of the success over at redbanned is that people feel its a community (along with an outspoken moderator) and this is the same thing that Spitfire seems to be attempting to cultivate. Though it doesn't always work out like that (quite a lot of fighting over on the VSL forum as egos battle for territory).
1) Did you study any of the Omni scores such as Horner, Silvestri or Goldsmith or are you just learning "by ear" and transcribing?
2) Assuming you don't have a score and wrote the to DAW from a piano sketch, how did you balance the orchestration? IOW, did you wing it as you laid down tracks just adding tracks section by section as you felt were needed or did you use some other method? However you worked, your orchestration sounds quite balanced between the various sections as well as within each section. I have no idea how you would accomplish this without a written score which is why I'm curious.
3) Nice dynamics and mixing balance. I assume you played the parts in mostly? Though some would seem hard to play (fast brass repetitions, runs, etc.). How do you handle these more difficult passages? Pencil pecking at the piano roll? Or slowing the tempo to play by hand?
4) Not being able to see the score, I can't ask any questions about orchestration but it sounds really balanced and very playable by a real orchestra. One of the things I'm trying to learn about now are dynamic markings and how to balance them between various sections. When I play popular scores in Sibelius, the better ones tend to balance out quite nicely but not always. Sometimes I have to make dynamic alterations to get a more balanced sound. I'm not sure if this is due to a flawed representation by Note Performer or whether is actually a problem with orchestration. Any thoughts on how to learn this? I assume that only with time and enough experience one would build a mental consensus of what works and what doesn't. I'd be curious to hear your thoughts on this topic.
I'll stop before I hijack your thread with random drunken talk. Oh, btw, if you get a mug to drink your beer from, it will taste so much better!
@AlexanderSchiborr with this new template, you have moved far beyond my skills and are reaching new levels of excellence. It is more than just the library used. You have an excellent ear and I am positive that you are using EQ and mixing close and room mics very carefully to get the wonderful sound you are achieving.
But just out of curiosity I will ask about the libraries. Previously you used an all Spitfire template. Now you are using an all Berlin (except percussion) template. After now having mastered the Berlin libraries, I have a couple of questions if you have time to answer:
1) What do you think are the greatest strengths and weaknesses of Spitfire and Berlin?
2) Could you have achieved such excellent results with Spitfire?
3) Which do you enjoy working with the most, Spitfire or Berlin?
Wow!
Great orchestration and arrangement.
Very inspiring!
I absolutely LOVE your orchestration and themes here, well done!!
My only complaint is the actual libraries you chose. Not sure if it's your programming or the actual patches, but to me they sound very "synthy" throughout the piece, and unrealistic. Sorry, I don't mean to be insulting.
I posted there once. However there was this asshole named Doug Gibson who kept on pissing me off.
Fuck him.
I felt somehow the other way around in that regards. Not that they don´t want to talk about that but to be honest still I think the majority ot people here come for techtalk and not that much for music talk. First it is easier to talk about gear and libraries and second the focus of what they want to create with that libraries is very much either that epic music or trailer sound stuff. Plus my music contributions are not featuring any Zimmer or epic trailer music. So of course the interest is decreasing in those things when most of the people here want to write Zimmer ´esque composition. (few exceptions excluded). And then they struggle with their approach because it doesn´t sound that good. And why is that? Imo it is because they lack total fundamentals. And to be clear: There is nothing wrong with the dominance of epic / trailer music here, but looking at the last 2-3 years threads here ongoing I feel that this is what most want to talk about about but forgetting to learn and improve compositional aspects.
Alexander, you hit a BIG nail on the head. And its so big I don't know where to start. Well first, yes, I agree with what you say completely. However, its not just a symptom of this forum, but a much more general tendency towards shallowness throughout the world today. People in general want instant answers and are not willing to dive deep and commit themselves to intense study as you're doing. It seems to me (based on historical theory books I've been reading and music history) that 100 years ago the general public was much more eager to learn and study music. However, you have to compare other aspects too. 100 years ago they didn't have Facebook, Youtube, TV, Grand Auto Theft, Army of One, etc. where people can rot their minds consuming trivial content as compared with studying a textbook in depth over the course of several months. And distractions today are far more numerous than I even implied. We live in a world that seems to suffer from ADHD, and a divisive one at that, where everyone seems to be polarized in extreme opinions and only willing to argue with each other rather than be tolerant of different opinions and be willing to discuss them logically.
However, I think its important to realize that 100 years ago, while people may have aspired to study more seriously, not everyone became a Stravinsky or a Prokofiev. Though in general, there was more musical talent overall, in part, because music was one of the few forms of entertainment and many more homes had pianos which were more the center of entertainment than today. Music was also not devalued as it has become today. Still, there were only a relatively small number of people that emerged from this environment to become considered serious talent. And even seriously talented people had a very difficult struggle (you should read Gjerdingen's book on Partimenti about how difficult things were back in time).
I think the answer, as you likely realize, is not to compare yourself with others nor try to teach them a lesson as its futile, but rather to focus on your own self. if you do, you'll find much that you can criticize about yourself and focus on areas where you can self improve. Of course, this is difficult to do, as its easier to criticize others than oneself. Yet, its far easier to improve oneself than it is to change others! These may all seem like trite observations to you, but I don't think this is a common way of thinking in our society today. Which could explain why you're one of the few that's willing to make a deeper commitment to yourself to learn deeper things. So the questions you should focus on, is not why others are not willing to learn, but what you can do to further improve yourself. Its a selfish approach, but in another respect, you're setting an example that others might follow.
I share your desire to join with other like-minds to discuss and learn to improve composition and orchestration. Yet, part of the problem is that were in the wrong space. Even with the internet, its hard to find such a similar group of focused learners. The truth is though, were likely in the wrong place due to our various circumstances. There are people who are extremely focused on composition and orchestration at schools such as Julliard, Eastman and other conservatories around the world. But most of us on the internet forum tend not to be members of those schools which concentrate on the very thing we desire to focus on is. My wife went to Julliard and I went to USC for a year so I have a bit of a glimpse of those worlds and they are very intense. When I was there, the focus on composition was to create something new and different more than on something that sounded good to my ear (which is why I left). However, today I think it might be a bit different and there may be more openness to tonal works such as what you're interested in. However like me, its probably hard for you to go back to such a school due to your life circumstances. So the alternative left for us outliers is to study on our own. And if you want one hell of a challenge, well then you chose a good one!
In my case, I've got to go back to work for a number of hours before I can get back to my focus on music. And by that time, I'll be a bit more tired. But I'll keep plodding along as best I can (though it does seem like a fruitless effort) as I have so many personal challenges at this time (which I won't bore you with). However, excuses are meaningless and won't change a thing. Only I can make change where ever I see it possible. And to fight the tendency of distractions in modern society is an even bigger challenge than even my one personal issues.
Before I run though (and sorry about another long rant), I'd like to share what has been valuable to me. I suggest you check out archive.org and dive into some of the older theory and orchestration books. These are free and you can learn so much from these. Combined with scores from IMSLP and sounds from youtube, you have a treasure trove that can allow you to learn as much or more than you could in an intense music conservatory. The limit is your own focus on what to study and your own drive. I suggest this as a way to expand your horizons beyond film composers of the 80s. IOW, as Mike Verta suggests, study what those guys were studying! If you want suggestions for details on which books I've found interesting you can send me an e-mail (synergy543 "at" gmail) and I'll get back to you later. Sorry I have to run now.
Congratulations that's good news and I look forward to seeing it.Good news to Everyone: There is a plan (which I get help with) to create a full orchestra scoresheet from the 2nd version of this track. So stay tuned!
Congratulations that's good news and I look forward to seeing it.
One thing I would like to say is that if you're truly serious about learning orchestration and improving your composition you'll get your hands on a copy of Sibelius or Finale and learn to score yourself (preferably Sibelius + Note Performer). Not that you should have any reason to listen to me, but if you look back in history, all great composers copied scored. And it wasn't just because they didn't have xerox machines or IMSLP. Rimsky-Korsakov would have his students copy scores, and by doing so it forces you to think about each instrument, each line, the voice-leading, the interaction with the surrounding instruments, etc. in a way that you don't get by just transcribing. Nor by score-reading. Call it transcribing by writing if you will, but the process is different and it will create impressions on your brain that you don't get by just reading or playing. And it also lets you analyze scores in a way you can't by just listening.
I know Mike Verta has really been pushing transcribing and people are taking this to heart which is really wonderful and amazing. However, Mike also knows how to score, read clef transpositions, and read scores but for some reason, he doesn't seem to push this aspect of his own skill base. Maybe he's smart enough to know that less than 10% of the base will "get it" and be willing to do learn these skills (as many don't even read). And pushing the scoring/reading side is not necessarily advantageous for him because he's unlikely to convert the other 90%. However, if you ask him directly, I'm sure he'd agree that scoring to paper is an essential skill. Apparently though neither he nor Desby use Note Performer and I think this is a tremendous tool for anyone learning orchestration. With Sibelius and NotePerformer, you can listen to various combinations of sections or solo lines and really rip apart a score in ways that would otherwise be very hard to accomplish. Of course, the playback sound is compromised compared with the quality of a DAW and performing in the parts with a good library. However, that's not the point. The point is not to get a good performance, but to use the tools to study and analyze and this is where they are a tremendous asset that I think is far under-appreciated in this community. My guess is that only about 10% "get it" because its quite a bit of extra work.
In any case, that's my opinion. I would at least hope you'd try it at least once and see if you don't learn one hell of a lot. There's a bit of a learning curve to these scoring programs but there are some good tutorials for Sibelius on MacProVideo.com by Thomas Goss that I would recommend. Plus, I'm sure many people who know the programs would be willing to answer questions. Once you get past some of the initial snags, it will start getting pretty fast and payback of your effort will increase tremendously.
Alex, bravo!!! This is an extremely good piece of music...and me being a big fan of Star Trek loved it even more! Well done!
Btw, someone mentioned that higher strings during some parts sound like synth and I have to agree, but none the less, amazing job!
Very very nice Alexander!