That is an excellent point, and you can hear that effect all the time in Hollywood scoring. Somebody writes utter, nearly infantile claptrap and the orchestrators and generally excellent studio orchestras make it sound like music. Play the same thing on a piano and everyone would laugh it out of the room. You can fill in the blanks for whatever current composer you wish to accuse. There are lots of them.

I also agree on Svetlanov very strongly. My example is the Borodin B Minor symphony. I heard this played by another big shot conductor and major orchestra (non Russian) and it sounded pathetic and limpwristed. Then I heard this performed by Svetlanov and the USSR and it was like night and day. Extremely powerful and definitely an example of one's heart being in it.

I must confess this issue as a weakness in my own work. I tend to write and orchestrate well enough but the shaping of lines dynamically I tend not to do. Probably do to the fact that I don't perform the parts in that way enough. If you don't do that your left having to enter the dynamics after the fact which is really too late because of the relative nature of all the parts. So it's something I'm going to concentrate on.

Would you agree that a combination of samples that have the appropriate dynamic curve and creating these curves through modwheel and midi control for more static samples is the way to go? What might one add to that? I do work with tempo quite a bit.

Dave Connor

"your left having to enter the dynamics after the fact which is really too late because of the relative nature of all the parts" - Dpcon

I don't think it is necessarily too late, though I have felt this way sometimes. After-the-fact adjustments like curves for expression, velocity and modulation are about the same as real-time performance in the final result, if they sound good. I have noticed a striking thing about VSL instruments - the consistency of programming makes the use of after-the-fact adjustment of MIDi parameters extremely useful. Previous sample libraries were not so consistent and demanded more strict real-time performance that had to be intuitively learned.

Also, on individual line shading, one thing that makes it possible to do it afterwards is that each line has its own inherent curves based upon instrument characteristics and divorced from the dynamic relationship to other lines. Once the expression/mod/velocity shading is in place, then the relationships with other instruments can be adjusted with additional tweaking in either MIDI cont. 7 or the mix. I like the idea of cumulative control of dynamics - the first level is MIDI 7, the next expression combined (in potentially very complex ways) with modulation. The next is either DSP volume or mixing volume envelopes, which do not negate but can refine all the previous controls.

Dave,
in relation to dynamics after the fact, do you sketch out first on 'parchment', then program?
I'm interested as to why the dynamics don't go in at the same time.

Regards,

Alex.

William,

I agree with your post which seems to agree that it's a healthy bit of work afterwords which no doubt would help (and I'm sure I do it to an extent but perhaps more as a kind of mixing.) It just seems to be an unnatural approach like having an orchestra play lifeless and then tweaking somehow later. OTOH Beat Kaufman uses this (after the fact ) approach totally with great results as he is completely thorough in controlling dynamic elements. My approach (which had never been truly thought out) has been a kind of let's see what I can do with samples thing. Due to the numerous technical learning curves with unfamiliar things like: PC's, GS, VSL, Dig Audio, Processing, Mixing with Samples/MIDI and so on.

I wrote for 25 piece orchestras with the best players in Los Angeles 20 years ago along side veteran writers considered to be some of the best in TV. They were pretty impressed. But that was after intense study and training. However not a one of the principles cited above came into play.
I now feel like I can make some musical statements with those factors at least improved enough to provide some satisfaction.

After noticing a friend of mine entering in parts (written on the spot) with total dynamic consideration I realised I needed to emphasize this more in my approach.

Dave

Alex,

Your insight is exactly right. In fact I didn't bother to type out in my post that a huge culprit has been composing at the keyboard/CPU instead of keyboard/parchment (which is my natural way.) All the important work I will do now (as far as original composition) will be written out and then played from the score. This will solve countless problems as the musical construction will be far stronger as will be the orchestration, dynamics and so on.

If you consider I spent the entire last month trying to get a new Gigastudio machine to work properly you will understand how the natural equilibrium of a composer is thrown by technology.

I was born 200 years late I suppose. If I had been born 200 years earlier I would share Mozarts exact birthday (his talent I would gladly share just a little of.)

Dave

Dave,
I can relate to the time taken sorting out soft and hardware issues, and as i've never really sat down for a length of time and learnt this part of the modern composers process, it's an ongoing thing. I'm at the stage of setting aside time to learn properly, because i suspect i'd be a lot quicker with the added knowledge.

I wrote music for ads for some years, and in the early stages of Cubase, was able to write directly into the box without sketching first. But, i have to confess, this was the only music i wrote this way, the rest being sketched first. It gave me, in my opinion. far more control over what i was actually trying to create. I found with writing direct to the box, that the sounds available tended to determine the output, and i have always been worried this approach would 'limit' me in some way.
The study i'm doing here at the moment has had an additional benefit. With only a laptop and notation software to use, with poor sounds, i'm writing so much more armed with pencil, rubber, and parchment. And the orchestra in my head is a lot stronger as a result. I'm hearing stuff again, without needing 'confirmation' from an external source, and the writing is improving by the day, with, as you said, stronger orchestration, etc. I'm a better composer for the 'enforced' reminder of what we're actually trying to do, write music.

On a lighter note,
I would think your common birthdate with Mozart could bring other, perhaps unthought of benefits. As with the thread entitled fine art, sampling fine wine and women was a fond pastime of amadeus.

Was this the real cause of potential genius, and an avenue worth pursuing?!

Regards,

Alex.

Sex, Drugs, and Rock n' Roll = The Consummate Musician

I'll do very rough sketches when I improvise ideas at the piano but once I sit down to write I need to flesh out the main parts fast. So I use a Rhodes sound. I like to use this more generic timbre because:

1. It keeps me from writing too dense. I find that samples can get crowded quick, achieving the "pipe organ" effect. The more space, the more real it will sound. A piano sound is too thin, I can get away with more notes which will only lead to more editing later.

2. I don't have to fight the computer with performance tools or some such thing. Besides, if I haven't quite decided if I'm going to use flute or oboe for a certain part, let's say, I don't have to concern myself with that for the time being.

3. I can't "hide behind the sound." Too many times I've compromised the piece because I've fallen in love with the sample. If the piece can stand on its own with just one timbre then the chances are much greater that the whole thing will be that much stronger when the extra colors are added.

Of course, I'm simplifying this a great deal; while sequencing the rhodes sound I'm aware of the instruments I already want to use, I'm careful to retain good voice leading (avoiding the "block chord" thing) while using the same number of voices (unless I know that there is an entrance or exit, etc.)

One caveat: I am a very skilled pianist and improvisor so this process is much much faster than paper for me.

So while the rhodes becomes my grand staff sketch, I can get instant feedback on whether or not it will work.

The reason that I describe the above process is this:

ALWAYS I have the sound in my head. It is not necessary for me to hear certain subtleties when I am shaping the composition. Part of me is always thinking way ahead, making adjustments while I mess with more mechanical issues. My method keeps me from trying to finesse parts that might be changed or thrown away, thus saving me precious time.

Finally, this approach emphasizes performance (conducting?) at all times. I always perform the parts in real time, making sure the phrasing is as natural as possible. From my point of view, dynamics are much easier to imagine than good phrasing.

Clark

I'm going off-topic here...

@Another User said:

P.S. Svetlanov is the man. He's conducting my favorite version of the Rite of Spring in my CD collection.

Can you ell me which label released the CD? Thanks!

The rite is my favorite musical work, and so far no version of it compares to Stravinsky's own recording for Columbia (altough the recording from the 50s I believe, is supposed to be even better performed). I really love new angles on this work!

Melodiya released the CD in 1991. It was originally recorded in 1966. The CD issue # is SUCD 10-00192.

It is a russian label.

Clark