Roman, I think you'll find that things will advance quite a bit in the future. Right now alot of the limitations in VSL is coming from Gigastudio itself. The Legato performances themselves are extensively programmed beyond "normal" giga limitations creating "mock dimensions". As giga opens in up 3.0 there will be alot more control features.

@Roman Beilharz said:

How could I know that Peter wrote the manual?

Actually, my wife Caroline wrote that section of it with excellent support from David Govett, Tom Hopkins and Ashley Witt, and of course, Herb's demo at NAMM.

"My highest goal in this game is to be able to increase real-time-music-access and decrease technical setup."

AMEN! We attempt the same thing in the books we put out, especially the new ones on Cubase SX and Sonar 2.2 coming out this summer. I believe that your concept is very much a quality control (QC) issue that most in MIDILand don't pay enough attention to. We call this, "the user experience." Our approach is rooted in what's called Six Sigma quality planning and training which starts with defining the customer's expectation.

We define a good user experience as productively implementing the software/library within a few hours, then going on to more advanced training. For our software training, we screen shoot every move. So, we get people operational pretty quickly, often within 6 hours, even on a difficult program like Logic.

For the Performance tool, Legato mode was the easiest portion. Alternation mode, Caroline struggled with a little more until we figured out that Alternation mode could really have been named Phrase Shaper. Once we were clear that we were alternating between keyswitches (hence, alternation tool), we then saw the musical application was quickly shaping a phrase using alternating up bows and down bows, etc.

The Repetition tool was the most difficult for Caroline, because we were operating on a false concept. In the VSL literature, it talks about groove patterns. Over here, we thought this was a form of Groove Control similar to what Ilio uses. But it wasn't! Once we saw that you had to play in the repetitions, that's when we understood what was going on. Up to then, Tom, Dave and Ashley were trying all kinds of things to help us get the instruction going. So no, it was not obviously clear, and I hope for the future that the GUI (graphic user interface) will be improved to more "telegraph" to the eye what's going on.

When you consider the "hidden" trumpet repeat fanfares that John Williams often sticks in, you now have with the Repetition tool, a way of replicating that. So I feel it's definitely worth learning, but you do have to set aside the time to do so.

BTW, I hear you're a drummer! I was a percussion major at Berklee ('75) where I lead my own big band playing Kenton, Rich and Don Ellis charts.

Look forward to hearing from you.

Peter Alexander
lacomposers@msn.com
310-559-3779

King,

I am looking forward towards GS 3.0 as we surely all do. I know Perf.Leg. pushes the GS-design to the limit and beyond. But even if there were more dimensions, I am sure we will again run out of them pretty soon, so I am convinced, that a workaround like the multi-channel-approach will not be out of discussion by the release of 3.0. For the real-time-approach a channel/articulation-distribution works perfect and allows me to have as many dimensions as I need NOW. So I think it is important to focus on that part of the cake: what happens with MIDI BEFORE recording, too. No tweak is faster to be done than to change the MIDI-channel of a note to change its articulation. The keyswitchy part of the processing of course stays better behind the sequencer, no doubt. So I propose to think about e.g. a legato-processing, that is capable of "overlooking" more than one channel (mono-mode) for dynamics. I have ideas on how to "recognize" short note/repeated playing and auto-triggering the short-note samples etc. But that leads for off here, so let's discuss that another place.


Peter,

sorry, my deepest respect for your wife Caroline and her obviously very serious and competent work. And yes, I am a drummer (who talked - Tom, eh?). Played a lot of Big-Band stuff, too when I was young (hoooooo, that sounds funny, I am 31 now, but it is true, it was when I was around 16-22 years old...). Let's mail in private for more brabrabra, if you like. Nice to hear that you have this background, too (any background you don't have?? [;)] ).

All the best


Roman

I dont know, I think with double the dimensions, I'd have just about everything I'd want in keyswitch or auto-alternate (I'd also have some RAM Hogging patches). Not focusing on how far they've pushed things already jsut seems to undermine what they've done and also doesn't really let in on what they could be doing for the future/pro edition release.

Anyway, about the repetition tool. I look at it as an option for "after" I've done my composing. I use the regular stacattos and sfz/dynamic samples for playing in real time, then I go back over the parts with the repetition tool to make it sound more realistic if I need to. It is possible to use the repetition tool the way you commented on, in realtime.

Just set up one Keyswitch to look like this

1:0:0:0:0:0:0:0:0

and one to be:

0:0:0:0:0:0:0:0:1

then either one like this:

0:1:1:1:1:1:1:1:0

or multiple variations of that with some middle ones turned off

then just hit the first KS on the first note, then the third for "repetitions" and the last for "ending notes" in phrases. Its just too much of a pain to do this in fast sequences, so I dont deal with it. Its also impossible to have it automated without some sort of mind reading tool [:)]

I have some other ideas that I'm going to pass on to the VSL guys that might make it easier to do using some CC controllers and a slider. Its still something I'd do after the fact tho, to get it "right"

@KingIdiot said:

It is possible to use the repetition tool the way you commented on, in realtime.

The repetition tool is/was designed to be used in real time. Period. That's how Herb designed it. You might want to review Caroline's documentation on it.

PA
peter@alexuniv.com
310-559-3779

I'm really confused now - does this mean the repetition tool really doesn't work well if the music is notated in? I would have imagined, that very fast repetitions would be better notated and in fact, difficult to play in realtime.

Perhaps Herb or someone at VSL could give more of an explanation of this tool - particularly for intended buyers who don't have access to the explanatory pdf file or manual.

Herb, would it be possible to post just the string part of your Dvorak piece or another example of the repetetion tool with strings?

They're saying the opposite, that your sequenced part will be a direct musical representation of the actual sounding part. You will play (or program) every note in rhythm, and the tools do the job of alternations or repetitions.

@Bruce Richardson said:

They're saying the opposite, that your sequenced part will be a direct musical representation of the actual sounding part. You will play (or program) every note in rhythm, and the tools do the job of alternations or repetitions.

100% Correct!!!!!
PA

[[;)]] Thanks guys.

It would still be good to have a pdf file available on the site with more information about the repetition tool, plus a definitive example of the repetition tool at work (by itself) in a demanding classical piece.

@Another User said:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by KingIdiot
It is possible to use the repetition tool the way you commented on, in realtime.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



The repetition tool is/was designed to be used in real time. Period. That's how Herb designed it. You might want to review Caroline's documentation on it.

PA
peter@alexuniv.com
310-559-3779

I did say *is* [[:)]]

and what I mean is real time playing in notes. It doesn't mean its always the best way to work with it tho [[:)]] In fact, I find it more useful to adjust midi sequences after I've recorded them, instead of playing in realtime trying to get all the keyswitching "right". Some speeds are just impossible to get done correctly, if you have multiple Keyswitches. The chaining is a bit too universal to work through out a whole piece.


And yes, notating in stuff and having the tool is definitely one of the best ways to work. Still tho, you may find that you'll want to make slight adjustments in either the settings on the tool, or the note on/off positions. Depending on your pickyness, and certain tempo settings, as well as instrument choices.

[*-)]: "I can just play all dynamic-layers of the performance-legatos by auto-distribution to separate MIDI-channels and I use keyswitches to choose short notes and other articulations needed. This way I am able to nail down one line after the other hardly without editing."

Roman, would you be kind enough to tell us how you constructed this setup in Logic? Is it some kind of transformer in the Environment , routing notes to channels according to velocity?

Thanks for this very interesting & informative discussion!

Nigel [/quote]

Nigel,

yes, it is a ciruit using mainly a bunch of transformers. The basics are:

At a definable velocity-split-threshold (using a meta-fader that alters the minimum velocity-condition of a transformer that adds +1 to any incoming note's MIDI-channel) all notes are being sent to the next higher MIDI-channel (which I put the louder patch to, e.g channel 1 p and channel 2 mf). It gets a little more complicated if you like to process 3-4 channels of 3-4 dynamics. And in fact I use a mod-wheel>CC11/velocity-remapping to simulate the behaviour of a multi-layer-crossfade-patch. I am sorry it is far to complicated to describe here. Please mail me in private and I will try to send you a layer as soon as I have some days off to create a special version for interested VSL users (too much special freak-stuff within my layer right now). Give me a week or two. I have heaps of things to catch up with before, because I have been knocked out for a whole week. Damned influenza (no, this is no italian rondo-dance, you know: fever, coughing, headache...).

Good night europe

Roman

Roman

yes, that does sound a bit like "rocket science". I, and I'm sure many Logic Users, would certainly appreciate having a Layer like that.

Get well soon [:)]

Nigel

@Nigel Watson said:

Roman

yes, that does sound a bit like "rocket science".

I originally studied to go to the US Air Force Academy. Rocket science is much easier.

[H]

Hello again,

as I have been experimenting with the rep.-tool (don't we have a "republican-tool" to switch some of those guys off in time, hehe) recently - I even read the - btw. excellent - manual carefully this time, line by line [[;)]] - I just wanted to tell you what I am thinking about it after all. To make this post not too lengthy, I try to nail my points on the board one by one:

1. I understand now, how it is possible to create very convincing repeated note's lines with various dynamics and/or tempi. The tool offers many more ways to manage repetitions than anyone was able to check out in a short period. I know I will love the feature in quite some occasions being in production. I consider it to be a fantastic toolbox for digging into patterns and rythmic/minimal stuff.

2. Nevertheless I still don't think, that the achieveable results justify the repetition-tool's long learning curve/awful handling and the time-consuming setup. It feels like filling the bathtub with a liner-cap, somehow. The tool offers endless repetition-patterns, only that I don't find it essential to have them. Yes, it is the LATER thing currently, but this section cries for the NOW-approach: Let's have the NOW version LATER, OK, Peter?. I don't see any reason, why the UI shouldn't get much more simplified in the future and I miss one IMO very important factor: randomization (of note-cycles between start and end-note AND of timbre as well as - optionally - tuning to mask the cycles).

3. Having to deal with note-tails at the BEGINNING of each repeated note makes it very difficult to PLAY repetitions, the delay-compensation for the start note seems no big helper, if you don't substitute pre-recorded lines by a repetition-performance. Timing is hard to get right. Furtheron, the concept limits the tempo-range where repetitions sound good and notes connect seamlessly dramatically.
I experimented with staccato brass-samples, that have natural decay. As soon as I have enough samples to alternate after an accented (short) starting note, the note tails don't run into phase interference while overlapping each other (using random that avoids direct repetitions: 124532154213415 etc.). When I add random alterations of brightness (slight) and tune (+/- 5 cent), the sample-repetitions are hard to get recognized as such. When I place a note, that is a little longer than all others and a bit more pronounced at the end of a repetiton-phrase, the whole thing sounds perfect to me. The achievable "good" tempo-range is much larger due to the fact, that there are no tail-interuptions by design. The timing is easy to nail down. I don't see why the repetitions shouldn't get automated to get widely playable AND post-fiddleable repetitions at the same time - e.g. tapping the pedal for the last note (I love to have my left hand free for switching articulations via keyswitches). Sorry if I repeat myself (a real repetition-post, eh?).

4. The cresc./dim. repetitions sound fantastic, if I use them as recorded. But of course they can't get automated in a "similar-to-3." way, because no tool will ever be able to anticipate the number of repetitions you are going to play to adjust the cresc./dim. "curve" accordingly. I have to repeat myself again: IMO nothing beats the mod-wheel-to-dynamics (xfade-layers) concept. As long as we have enough dynamic-layers (at least 4 for best results), I prefer realtime-control and freedom of curvature to depth in natural timbre. With a patch/tool-combination as described in 3. , that was constructed as a multi-layer-xfade-patch, I had the choice to play whatever dynamic progression within ANY repetition-line SPONTANEOUSLY. OK, maybe I am one of a rare species, that still plays and improvises lines, but that is how I see it. Besides - Peter mentioned that Perf.-Legato is the star in hollywood - I am convinced that such a NOW-repetition-thing would

SELL LIKE HELL (in case there is a chance to top your sales at all [[;)]]... )

Instant gratification. That is where it goes to - everywhere. As it seems to me. At least.

And please note, that I appreciate very much to have the repetition-tool even as it currently IS. I just can't shut up as long as I see the potential to go for more. I am thankful, that this tool has made me really think about the whole repetition-issue at all. Lots of manpower in there, I have deepest respect for what VSL comes up with NOW. So many fantastic ideas at your fingertips, that of course I am nitpicking somehow. - Just to be understood right.

All the best


Roman Beilharz

PC & Musik, Germany

Roman, I have VSL perf. for about a week now and could not agree more.

Roman,

Caroline and I both read your post and we do agree with you. Caroline also noticed the timing issues with those samples. Unfortunately, the last version of the manual we did was the day the Performance tool was released. So as it was being released morning time in Vienna, 3AM in LA Caroline was finishing it and sending it over! So we had no "play" time.

Overall, not to be critical of Herb or Chris, we did feel that the Repetition tool was not NOW oriented enough. In fact, in all our sales presentations done in our studio today, we don't show it, because once composers saw it in earlier demonstrations, the immediate reaction was, "Oh my God, what's THAT!?"

The next reaction was, "Holy S***! How long does it take to learn that?"

Thus, we keep the focus on the Legato tool and the Layers because that gets everyone going the quickest.

You know, we have a 35-lesson Logic course. And as you know by experience, Logic is a deep program, and many have difficulty getting going with it. I can't begin to count how many hours I put in to make Logic so simple that within 6 hours, someone could be sequencing with it and feeling good about the experience.

I feel the same is true with the Repetition tool and to some degree with the Alternation tool. But it takes time and organization to know how to make it simple so the customer can be using it NOW. For example, I'm reading through the strings "manual" now. Nearly 100 pages! It takes a lot of reading to find the articulations that can be applied with the Alternation tool. And the way the Instruments are named doesn't help. I can't just look at a VSL Instrument's name and know/guess what it is. I have to look it up every time.

That's time consuming and it adds to the learning curve for the other tools.

I have the same critique with GOS, SISS, and the DD naming structures. And when every company has its own naming convention, it's a nightmare to figure them out unless you keep a notebook.

So it's not just the UI, it's the naming conventions, too. And there's one other issue: orchestration knowledge.

If the user doesn't know his/her orchestration (and a lot DON'T), then the tool's are even more complex.

So when you add it all up, these tools require:

1. a clear naming convention for the instruments
2. a clear actionable user interface that looks simple and inviting
3. a practical orchestration knowledge
4. a practical knowledge of sound reproduction to understand tails, and other terms.

All of these design issue affect the NOW usage.

But in saying this, understand I speak for myself and no one at VSL.

PA

To check where you can use the alternation tool is not so difficult.
Genreally it works for mappings which are using key switches.

In the orchestral cube you find all keyswitch combinations under the Label name "COMBINATIONS".

If you see at the end of the intsrument name "1+2", you know that there are two variations. If you see "all" you have more, and so on.
If you analyse one string, woodwind and brass instrument, you should be able to manage each instrument and the labeling.

Further the Alternation Tool works for all BASIC INSTRUMENTS.

You can also combine very easy runs and 0 runs. (Performance Set).
(I'll post an example in the upcoming midifiles)

And at last, all of you, who are not afraid of the giga editor, can build their own combinations.


I would say, the difference between legato mode and alternation/repetition is:

In legatomode you simply play.
For the other tools (if you want to use them advanced) you should have a concept before playing.
If you simply use the alternation tool to switch between two variations, of course you don't have to plan very much.

Herb

@herb said:

If you analyse one string, woodwind and brass instrument, you should be able to manage each instrument and the labeling.

I think the point Roman is making, Herb, is that this should be laid out so that the user doesn't have to analyze. It's there before him, so that he can quickly go to the Tool and use it fast.

Although I am aware, that this discussion leads far beyond its original intention, I like to add some thoughts I have about controlling instrumental samples and audio workstations in general. Peter you pushed my buttons again, thank you for your additions and explanations.

Logic Audio is a good example that I know very well (I guess that's why you choose that comparison, hm? I see you are a very skilled pedagogue, Peter! [:)] ). I am really into that program, because I have been learning computerized production of music using "C-Lab Supertrack", the grand-grandfather of Logic, on a good ol' C-64 when I was around 10 years of age. My cousin had one of the first MIDI-based studios on the planet and I had the opportunity to learn the tools right from the fall of men - witnessing the labor pains of this way of producing music. I had been recording my first dubbed tapes when I was 6 years old. I recorded a beat on my drum on one cassette and recorded its playback while plaing the guitar along with it using a second cassette recorder. Then I added the piano by playing the second generation and recording a third. More didn't work well, because the quality degraded too much. As I entered the computerized section, I realized things would probably become more comfortable in a very exiting way. Then the journey took me to Scoretrack, then Creator 1.0, Notator on the Atari and finally to Logic and then Logic Audio on the Mac. Now I am on the PC and quite happy to be stuck with 5.5.1. My Emagic-journey has ended somehow [[;)]], and I don't even regret it. Maybe I will go for the Mac again someday, when they decide to build a true Pro-Line again. I hate small cases with only 2 free slots that I can't configure in a way I want...

Sorry, back to the topic: Although I really know how to get the best and almost all I want from Logic (as long as I have ReCycle and Acid as helpers), I think it is seen from the perspective of handling and ergonomic structure the worst program after Samplitude 5.x. Besides their quite complex specific basic-structure etc., I think in general, that there are much better ways to control parameters on a screen than by simulating knobs and pot's having to "turn" round. It is like having to type a text on a screen-keyboard by clicking the letters. Controllers that simulate the original physic of a mixer can be a helper for us crusted relics of the analog days, but to me it looks like "two steps ahead, three steps back". Back to the future - welcome to the eighties! Only that you can automate everything - not that I am not appreciating this. It is just a rather conservative approach, despite all the hype about the admittedly amazing possibilities that we have now. Imagine you bought a Synclavier 15 years ago and you get warped to 2003 where a guy buys a discount PC for $800 and blows your head off using a hand full of app's... I know all that, but time runs fast and I have to say: Where are the truly visionary concepts amongst all those hopelessly familiar looking hardware simulations? Melodyne maybe. Its key-features should be a basic part of upcoming sequencer-systems. Freedom of time and pitch right at the timeline. But you know, all those funky screen mixers... - And the upcoming generation of musicians/engineers maybe only knows a real mixer desk from the museum - forget they have had hands on or even routine with a dinosaur like that, so why should we go on cloning questionable and limited-to-the-means ergonomic concepts, when the technology was able to offer macros and voltage-free-processing that would overcome the limitations of analog audio and the physics of modifyable resistors easily:

Imagine I recorded a bass, the system recognized the instrument as such and offered me pre-defined parameters/modeling-functions for a bass to mix by default: Fat/Thin (intelligent and signal-dependent EQ/BassEnhancement, Soft/Tight (intelligent Enveloper and Compression), just to mention two ideas. To achieve the intended result (let's say a fat sound that has a soft attack) I painted a fat line with my finger that looked like a roll-off-symbol on the touch screen of my tablet: Such a thing would just feel natural for a homo sapiens: ergonomic, single-surface control (looking at the screen while fiddling at a separate controller to me is a double-surface-task which is much more abstract to do). With a single wipe of the finger we had been substituting around 10-20 mouse/keyboard-actions (open EQ, adjust Q, Gain and Frequency of 3 Bands, open Bass-Enhancer, adjust 3-4 parameters, open Compressor and so on). Of course it was necessary to have all the detail if you liked, but not at the first sight!

Thinking about instrumental-samples my "soon"-vision looks like this:
I have about four layers of looped performance-legatos, that can be morphed in realtime using the mod.-wheel (layering always multiplies the voices needed). Release triggers allow to stop the notes at any time with a natural decay. When I turn up the PBend wheel, the sound would increase to vibrate. When I turn down the PBend wheel, the tonal content would decrease and noise would increase (bow-noise for strings, breath/air for winds). A macro-keyswitch like C1 would make me play those brothers. D1 would give me the same options with grace legatos, E1 would give me short notes, that can get repeated naturally by just playing, an end note would be tapped (as before). Release triggers for these short notes would allow me to play very short and a little longer short notes within the same patch. More macro-keyswitches would give us more special articulatins (pizzicati, tremolo etc.). We could go from any articulation to the perf-legati, the tool handled the necessary "ghost"-key for the natural transitions between articulationsautomatically.

The alternation-tool btw. is a great automation to organize all set up macro-keyswitches - now and then. All I moaned about referred to the repetition concept only, just to make sure. With an improved GUI, it will be more easy to preset figures and ornaments like triplets etc.. I would just name it differently - how about "Phraser" [[;)]] ?

Ooooops, this really lead somewhere. I hope noone minds. Now I REALLY have to write more for the mag and less over here! Holy sh**! Excuse if I went too far, but the whole thing really made me glow...

Roman