Hi Dave,

Thanks for your intrest.
Yes it's true I love that music and I'am quite ravished to see the Symphonic Cube can cope with it, while its not that easy for proffessional Orchestras too.

OK it was not played by a midi keyboard. I only had bad copies of an old pocketscore from a public library. I tried to scan them with smartscore. with just enough success that I didin't gave up immediatly. to correct those scanned 107 Pages in Smartscore and again the Midifile in Finale 2007, to get a reliable midifile out of it was indeed the hardest part of the work.

After that it take me about a week to programm the Präludium with the VI-Samples, the Reigen about one and a half week and another month for the Marsch.

Wonderful work with VI - I suppose it still will take at least the same time to rehearse that piece to get it played by a regular professional Orchestra.
[[;)]]
best
Steffen

Thrilled to see you used finale (I use Sibelius and am working towards some big orchestral stuff in the future).

I don't believe finale can host the Vienna Instruments so how did you assemble the performance? and what are your computer specs?

Did you tweak the performance in finale and record it in one take or did you export audio for each part/section into a sequencer and tweak there?

What reverb did you use? It sounded like a fairly dry studio recording sound. I thought perhaps the instruments were a little too close together.

Did you experiment with a big hall sound?

Hope you don't mind all these questions [:)]

Hi Dave,

Here are the answers:

1) I just used Finale for another correction of the scanned score. which seem to me in some cases more easy than in smartscore, particularly if it comes to organize the on each side of the score diffrent viewable parts and systems to the right midichannel. Of course I didn't used FInale as sequencer but exportet the midifile into Cubase 4.

2) No I just made shure to have all dynamic signs for instance applied at the right bars and parts, which still naturally did'nt make very much of the necessary performance work. The main work on the Performance was done in Cubase 4 and consists in the decision for the right samples, the right velocity and if necessary adjustments of the resulting volume which I tried to avoid as much as possible to leave the dynamic differences mainly to the different velocitys. In so far there was of course not that much left, what Finale has written in the midichannels because those things mainly were volumechanges.

3) It is just the Cubase "Roomworks"-Reverb and its preset "Hall Grand Chamber". There are some reasons what may cause your impression of dry studio sound.
- Cause of the complexity of the score I were quite reluctant to add to much Reverb
- The enormous differences of dynamic situations in Bergs Score made it necessary to add a bit compression. this seem to tear the single instruments more in the foreground.
- Compared to traditional romantic Orchestration, the instrumentation of Berg aswell as in the second viennese school in genereal (Schönberg, Berg, Webern) often tends to focus more the Reeds and Brass than Strings to get more clear and precise voices than the much more romantic roomflooding strings.

Thank you for your questions, I'am looking forward to hear your big orchestral stuff with the same intrest in future.

best
Steffen

Good morning Steffen, thanks for your answers.

My "big orchestral stuff" is still some way off not least because I haven't saved up sufficient $£ for all of the cube yet. My first project will be a Havergal Brian symphony and then the mammoth "Jami" symphony by Sorabji for which I will need the VSL choir so several years yet!

My main interest is also creating the performance in Sibelius which as you may know can now host VSTs which is why I was so interested in how much of the performance you had created in finale.

You can also host Altiverb in Sibelius so the only limitation on creating a one take performance in Sibelius is the demands on the PC/CPU.

Are you a hobbyist or proffesional musician? and what's your next project? perhaps Gurrelieder?

Hi Dave,
Yes I have noticed, Sibelius can host VST. Since I am used to Finale I am to lazy to change, since I am also used to work with Cubase 4. On the other hand I expect Finale won't stay behind very long in that hosting question.

If i am hobbyist? I am no professional filmmusician, but professional educated Pianist and Pianoteacher (You'll find some Demos I played on the Synthogy-Ivory-Grand HP) and graduated musicologist. And its my personal intrest to explore the possibilities of digital music.

My next project?
Here some Ideas listed relating to their priority for me
1) The complete Liszt Pianostudies (I have done the complete Haydnsonatas for my pupils last year) currently I work on "mazeppa"
2) Schönbergs early D-Major Stringquartett from 1897 with VSL
3) I still have to do something with the Fablesound bigband, which i own but didn't worked with yet.

hope I answered well
best
Steffen

This is a style of music that challenges me. However, I love that people have so much passion for so many different types of music and that VSL can help us all realize the music that most speaks to each of us.

I also admire the tremendous effort and skill that went into your performances. Well done!

Best,
Jay

Thanks Jay for your kind words.

What I am intrested seems to me by far not that many types of music as I have already heard as wonderful examples of musical skill, variety and passion made by JBacal

At least I hope you'll may find some moments you like in Alban Bergs music too.
best
Steffen

Steffen:

Great to hear these realizations of Berg. I love the music and your "performance." Made me wonder what you'd do with the Lulu suite....

@stevesong said:

Steffen:
" Made me wonder what you'd do with the Lulu suite....

first of all : listening [[;)]]
Thanks for your appreciation steve.

Well, I am relatively new to the whole idea of sampling, so I hope you won't mind a few preliminary questions. I didn't realize that you could get a good performance out of the computer without playing it into the computer. You said that you exported the midi file from Finale into Cubase 4. Did you export each instrument's parts separately, and then add the reverb and such? Do you use keyswitches, or midi cc? I assume either one would have to be put in after it has been moved to Cubase. I just didn't realize that this kind of work-flow was possible.

Colin Thomson

Hi Steff,

Nice to finally see your Berg on the forum, and certainly well deserved, I had already told you through emails when you sent me a sneak peak of it, how impressed I was and still am. It's also refreshing to have some Berg on the forum, not many people would dare to attempt a mock-up by him. I appreciate especially the meticulous way you layered all the instruments, I haven't seen this score recently but I could imagine it must of demanded a lot of concentration.

Now I'll be brutally honest, despite the great qualities that are present, to me the atmosphere is dead, sorry to put it this way but I'm being honest. It sounds TOO perfect, TOO worked, TOO evenly balanced etc... to me it needs to loosen a bit but keeping it in a disciplinary way. Sometimes I feel all the instruments are all lined up.
All in all some human touch wouldn't hurt. Please take this with a grain of salt. [:D]

@Another User said:

Do you use keyswitches, or midi cc? I assume either one would have to be put in after it has been moved to Cubase.

Colin Thomson

Yes I work for the most time with keyswitches because I am more used to, meanwhile it depends how you programm your VI-Matrices, so you may do the same thing with CC's or via both which I did in some moments too.
Hope I answered well .

@ColinThomson said:

...I didn't realize that you could get a good performance out of the computer without playing it into the computer....

Colin Thomson

Colin, now that Sibelius (and presumably Finale not too far down the road) can host VSTs it is possible to create an entire orchestral performance in the notation programme including using Altiverb without a keyboard in sight (which is good for those of us who don't even own one).

All the Vienna Instrument functions can be controlled thru midi commands imbedded in the score and every aspect of "human performance" can also be notated in the score. I would even suggest it is possible to get a more subtle performance in a notation programme than playing everything in from a keyboard.

With top of the range dual and quad core PCs (I know nothing about macs) you could probably play a chamber orchestra size work live (how could you do that with a keyboard and only two hands?). With big orchestral scores you would have to record off line (as you can in Sibelius). But all on a single PC.

The future looks bright for creating performances with Sibelius and VSL.

@Guy said:

Hi Steff,

being honest. It sounds TOO perfect, TOO worked, TOO evenly balanced etc... to me it needs to loosen a bit but keeping it in a disciplinary way.
All in all some human touch wouldn't hurt. Please take this with a grain of salt. [:D]

Hi Guy,
Thanks for commenting my first serious VSL-stuff I've programmed.
From a grandmaster of VSL-Programming like you, I'll take this as the huge compliment,

I wish if ever you'll have the chance to comment any further piece I've programmed, I'll deseve it, that you'll critizise it the same way. [H]

(At least, I wish anyone would judge like this about the permanent disorder in my living room :wink[:)]
best Steffen

David,

So are you saying that in the future sequencers (like Cubase, or, in my case, Logic) will become irrelevant for mock-ups? If not, what will be their purpose? Thanks.

@ColinThomson said:

David,

So are you saying that in the future sequencers (like Cubase, or, in my case, Logic) will become irrelevant for mock-ups? If not, what will be their purpose? Thanks.

No of course not, it's horses for courses.

It seems to me the sample world and mock up scene has been dominated by the midi keyboard/sequencer and many composers who use samples don't use notation.

The advances in notation programmes and sample libraries means that traditional(?)/old fashioned composers who start from notating music and get into technology thru notation programmes are only now becoming able to create virtual performances with their notation programmes without having to go down the very technical route of the traditional DAW.

And I'm talking about virtual performances as compelling and sophisticated as those of our resident mock up wizards.

There seems to be something of a coming together of disciplines which is a good thing.

The Sibelius people repeatedly say that Sibelius is not a sequencer whilst in the same breath they continue to add more and more sequencer type features. As long as they keep moving in the dual direction of the best notation programme with increasingly sophisticated sequencer functions they can call it what they like.

I have also frequently heard sequencer folks complaining bitterly that the score notation functions of their favouruite sequencers are naff.

It seems that notation programmes are moving in the right direction where sequencers don't seem to be making any inroads into the notation side.

Once 64 bit OSs are audio stable and RAM access takes a quantum leap forward, which may well be only a few years away, I hope we will be able to create live virtual performances of the largest most complex scores.

Surely in that, the notation programme has the advantage because how can one person with a midi keyboard create such a live performance with 20, 40+ complex lines at once.

Interesting times.

@ColinThomson said:

David,

So are you saying that in the future sequencers (like Cubase, or, in my case, Logic) will become irrelevant for mock-ups? If not, what will be their purpose? Thanks.

Surely in that, the notation programme has the advantage because how can one person with a midi keyboard create such a live performance with 20, 40+ complex lines at once.

Interesting times.

not just "20, 30 or 40"

Präludium= 48 miditracks
Reigen = 53 miditracks
marsch = 74 miditracks

In my opinion its somwhat childish to think musical inspiration depends on the fact, that you have played all your miditracks "by hand" in your midikeyboard.
musical imagination is not a question of fingertips and plastic keys, but of muscal imagination.
the greatest composers (Mozart, Beethoven, Brahms etc. have composed major works travelling or hiking throu natur and just imaginating what they want to hear. They tried to comunicate with notation what they intended and we try to realize it with all our possibilitys. If ever music achieves to become human and understandable, its not because of inprezise or hot fingers, but because of the warmth of our musical imagination that speaks - nothing else (imho).

Therefore to me each tool that helps to realize as prezise as possible what musical imagination intends will help. for me its much easier to prezisely control the performance in sequencer and to organize scores in notationsoftware. Perhaps both kind of apps will merge sooner or later. but since there is already now no exportproblem - nothing is missing for me.
best steffen

Wow. So that would be (for March) 74 separate lines on the manuscript paper? Is that how it is notated, or is it different?

@ColinThomson said:

Wow. So that would be (for March) 74 separate lines on the manuscript paper? Is that how it is notated, or is it different?

The finalescore has just 61 lines and this is of course more than you'll find in the "optimized" pocketscore. because often 2,3 or 4 divided parts are notated together in the same line, but has to be seperated to make profit of the performance legato.

The Cubase Project has still some other extralines, because high strings and low strings do have their seperate Slave-PC's in my setup Since Appassionata chamberstrings and Solostrings are - due to the licening - not divided I had to dublicate those stringlines that uses samples from different slave-PCs.

best Steffen

Hello all, I haven't had time to listen to the three pieces yet but well done Steffen for the considerable effort you put into creating them. It's good to see the work of less well-known composers getting an airing here.

Just wanted to react to two comments:

Guy: "It sounds TOO perfect, TOO worked, TOO evenly balanced etc... to me it needs to loosen a bit but keeping it in a disciplinary way."

Dave: "I would even suggest it is possible to get a more subtle performance in a notation programme than playing everything in from a keyboard."

If you use a score to create sequences, every note will be quantised, i.e. perfectly in time. Conversely, if you play a line into a sequencer in real time, most of the notes will be slightly ahead or slightly late of the click (metronome beat). The difference in timing of individual notes can be as little as 10-20 milliseconds, but when listening to a phrase, the difference in FEEL between a quantised perfomance and a live one is enormous.

As we know, most sequenced pop music relies heavily on quantisation for its rhythm tracks, but usually live guitar or percussion (etc.) is added, which has the effect of 'spreading' the beat. if you quantise absolutely everything, your track will end up sounding like Kraftwerk (a German synth band whose music is designed to sound robotic and mechanical).

In my experience, orchestral music sounds terribly unrealistic if you quantise all the tracks. Real musicians just don't play that way, so if its realism you're after, you'll have to play in the lines to introduce some real human feel. Having said that, it's great that notation programs can scan scores, thus allowing us to quickly hear individual parts without the slog of playing them in by hand.