What's new

Your way of doing orchestra articulations in 2021?

If you want to well use articulation management and Midi controlers too, may I suggest you to use Reaper. The expression maps of Cubase are now "has been" if you compare with Reaticulate tool of Reaper. The windows to create the expression map in Cubase Pro is a nightmare if you have big library and the expression list takes a huge area in the midi editor. There is no place for notes and Midi CC lanes... Expression maps are good if you use instruments with just a little list of articulations but if you use big libraries, it becomes unusuable. And with Reaper, you have the possibility to "name" all midi CC ... It is of course easier to work on midi CC if you read portamento, vibrato... on the midi lanes... With Cubase, you will see cc21 or CC45 and you have to remember in your rmind all assignements of all Midi CC for each instrument, it is designed only for elephant memory ! I used Cubase pro during three years and I switched to reaper 6 months ago.. now I use all my virtual instruments with all their features (midi CC, articulations...) with great pleasure... I consequently use one track per insturment as a real orchestra... It is a very nice job to do.
 
I consequently use one track per insturment as a real orchestra
I see that could be an aesthetic principle that helps the programmer, although the computer is indifferent and ultimately neither is the audience/listener aware. On that point: one advantage of the separate track approach is the opposite, i.e. the sound is not limited to just one articulation at a time! A common use would be, if a sustain articulation is too wooly, you can have the short articulation playing in tandem (with CC7 adjustment as neccesary), effectively stacking on the fly, on demand, in note by note resolution. And that's something the listener would hear.
 
But i use a lot phrases or sequences with a lot of articulation changes… for example, i sometimes could change articulations in a serie of three notes like this : first marcato legato for good attack, after sustain note and at this end a short detache…. With your solution, i would be obliged to have my short sequence divided in three tracks… i will be a nightmare to edit it… on another side, i never use « volume » because CC7 is as a knob on a soundmachine to adjust a sound level for loudspeakers… it is very far of playing technics to play soft or loud that we may approach using Cc1, Cc11 or velocities (depending of libraries we use)… but, all these remarks are due to the fact, i would like to simulate real players, i don’t want to « create » new sounds… In we open to new creation ways, we may do anything of course…
 
But i use a lot phrases or sequences with a lot of articulation changes… for example, i sometimes could change articulations in a serie of three notes like this : first marcato legato for good attack, after sustain note and at this end a short detache…. With your solution, i would be obliged to have my short sequence divided in three tracks… i will be a nightmare to edit it… on another side, i never use « volume » because CC7 is as a knob on a soundmachine to adjust a sound level for loudspeakers… it is very far of playing technics to play soft or loud that we may approach using Cc1, Cc11 or velocities (depending of libraries we use)… but, all these remarks are due to the fact, i would like to simulate real players, i don’t want to « create » new sounds… In we open to new creation ways, we may do anything of course…
Well, some of the best mockup artists on the planet are using a track per articulation with...rather good results :)
 
i sometimes could change articulations in a serie of three notes
Oh sure, whatever works for you by all means you should do it. I do use keyswitches myself when it's convenient, e.g. if there is a trill that appears just in that one bar. But when the number of keyswitch triggers approaches the number of notes itself, it's a diminshing return.

On the switching of articulations though: whether it's keyswitches or maps or separate tracks, from the computer's point of view it's the same stitch job, just in different guises. That is, in contrast to probably the audio modeling approach.
 
I think it's because keyswitches, maps, separate tracks etc. are just different user interfaces that can achieve exactly identical rendering.
Yes, I agree ! I'm using Expression Maps and a single track per instrument (with sometimes an additional MIDI track when I want a very special layering of articulations that couldn't be done otherwise).


This was just a reply to @wills , who seemed to say "I wouldn't be able to use one track per articulation, because I'm using a lot of articulations and am looking for realistic results".
 
Preferably all articulations in a single track. Expression maps combined with my pad (Lemur) makes life good...
 
Articulations map in Logic using Spitfire UACC (cc #32). I’ve programmed my other keyswitches-based libs the same way.
Then I’m using a combination of OSCulator + Open Stage Control + Keyboard Maestro to display current track KS and select it OR apply it to the selected notes in piano roll editor.

But also, since I switched to Aaron Venture’s Winds, I don’t need keyswitches anymore which is perfect to me.
 
As we see….everyone uses his method… in fact, when articulation management becomes a very easy process (as in Reaper, logic, Studioone, Cakewalk… ) it is very easy to use one track per instrument… if we use Cubase pro, for example, due to difficulties to prepare and to use Expression maps, it could easier to use one track per articulation… it is only my opinion of course,not an universal truth !
 
As we see….everyone uses his method… in fact, when articulation management becomes a very easy process (as in Reaper, logic, Studioone, Cakewalk… ) it is very easy to use one track per instrument… if we use Cubase pro, for example, due to difficulties to prepare and to use Expression maps, it could easier to use one track per articulation… it is only my opinion of course,not an universal truth !
There's no issue with Cubase expression maps. Set them up once, you're good to go. My entire 500+ track template is based on expression maps. Same with many other composers.
 
Some instruments I use 1 track, some 2, with articulation maps. Two reasons why I use 2 tracks.

1. Sometimes, articulations aren't properly balance and switching between them has too much volume difference.

2. If there is a sudden volume change in the music, from soft to loud, even within the same articulation, the release tail of the soft note in increased.
 
@Babe Good point, but the tail is due to reverb though, right? Otherwise wouldn't the instrument send a 'note off' MIDI signal upon attack of the next note?
 
Last edited:
Some libraries do actually do this, for example to control the tail sample of a release, or some mid-note embellishment.
But then that would be a different sample that the playback engine/script triggers after the main note sample has triggered.
 
But then that would be a different sample that the playback engine/script triggers after the main note sample has triggered.
Of course. But that's beside the point. He was saying keyswitches always precede note-on, and I was saying there are times keyswitches modify active notes. They change the current sample -- into another sample.
 
Strange how folk sort themselves into two tribes: Keyswitchers vs Separate tracks.
The best answer IMO, is both! Depending on the work and context.

For key switching, Logic's articulation system is doing it for me. I love the way I can send the switches to an iPad, main keyboard, 25 key mini etc etc, depending on what I fancy at the time.
 
There's no issue with Cubase expression maps. Set them up once, yo for a common collection. u're good to go. My entire 500+ track template is based on expression maps. Same with many other composers.
Yes, the reliability is not a problem. But if yu want to prepare a Cubase pro expression map for, for exmple, Synchron strings of Vienna Sl , or Chris hien solo strings... ... it is a huge job. You have to manually introduce about three data per articulation and the dedicated window doesn't communicate with the virtual instrument (If you click on your articulaiton, nothing happens on the VSti... it is a main difficulty when you want to check your new Expression map). You also can't do any copy/paste to prepare its . It is consequently a huge work to prepare an Expression map (I did about one hundred !) and after if you want to view the expression map in your midi editor, the area reserved for that is very large... you have no place for notes or midi CC lanes ... With some other daws, as Logic , Cakewalk, Studioone or Reaper, The building tool is very easy to use and you may see the articulations clearly written in text on a common line which takes just a little place in the midi editor. As mentionned before, I am pretty sure that Steinberg is working on this feature in order to simplify it...
 
and after if you want to view the expression map in your midi editor, the area reserved for that is very large... you have no place for notes or midi CC lanes ... With some other daws, as Logic , Cakewalk, Studioone or Reaper, The building tool is very easy to use and you may see the articulations clearly written in text on a common line which takes just a little place in the midi editor.
You can solve for this by using "Attribute" expression map articulations instead of Direction.
 
You can solve for this by using "Attribute" expression map articulations instead of Direction.
in my opinion, attribut/direction has no interest. Others DAWs don’t use this distinction, and if you only use attribut, the presentation of the expression map, in lines, is the same. It just modify the length of the blue case.… you always have a line per articulations, except if you don’t show thecexpression maps and you use the top editor info… with others you only have a line with articulations clearly written.. and all art are in direction…
 
Top Bottom