196,640 users have contributed to 43,021 threads and 258,416 posts.
In the past 24 hours, we have 0 new thread(s), 0 new post(s) and 92 new user(s).
These are some of my points and other points made in sibelius thread; just keep in mind that most of it came from a desire to have a VSL notation editor with automatic setup and playback results, etc- BUT there are other aspects of a DAW that could possibly relate to this so I think any thoughts on it are great.
The main point is that with these feature ideas and others, a VSL tailored notation editor could create a comfortable enviornment for composition that currently hasn't been very successful in other DAW's or notation programs. Other DAW features that aren't even notation related might be useful as well. But like I said, this came from a notation forum. We all wanted to start a specific thread to this and I feel it's most appropriate in both forums, but it's regarding VE Pro or a new program that would still likely fit better in this thread.
-Sean
As I stated before in the notation thread ( Sibelius 7) I'm even willing to pay in advance for this notation editor implementaiton. Iscorefilm, you've covered great material there .Hope we're going to see more people joining this thread!!
By the way, you have been inspired with the title !!
Thanks for starting this thread,
Bogdan
Thanks... I love the title too, lol
I thought of something else. MIDI is an old protocol and its days are numbered. MMA HD was announced and it still isn't anywhere near being mainstream. I don't exactly know if VSL has faced limitations because of the amount of data that can be sent to VSL software via midi transfer... BUT if there have been challenges there... I imagine a VSL DAW could easily avoid those problems altogether. ??? Just a thought.
-Sean
Hello,
I´ve followed the posts in the SIBELIUS 7 thread with interest and I stay with bogdan in willing to pay in advance. ;-)
Cause the products VSL published in the past are well done and highly professional.
I do like my Sibelius 6 very much but a better integration with VSL would be nice.
So let us hope the quiet readers from VSL gets inspired from this thread if they don´t already are! :-D
regards
Torsten
I am not sure if I like this idea ...
VSL proved to be able to produce excellent samples, and marvelous software ... but ...
putting also sequencing / notation into their hand could mean
* Reduced Featureset for "common" sequencers
* Problems in adding additional libraries
* Less sales, because some products are "quasi standards" so VSL might be lessl likely to be purchased if not 100% running there
* Less time for VSL Developers in doing the things we all love ;)
rgds
Gabriel
gabriel81: Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to be rude at all- I just don't see any merit to your points.
Less time for VSL Developers in doing the things we all love ;)
Again, what composer hasn't wanted a 'natural notation' composing experience?' I realize that plenty of people like controller input but certainly don't discount that many people want a natural notation experience. There is a whole forum for notation software because of these people. I personally would only ever use notation, the only reason I don't is because it's FAR too much trouble and it's not a playback/performance-friendly method. If VSL did this, I'd sell half of what I own to buy it because it's what I've wanted since I started using cakewalk when I was around 14 years old. I know many others with the same desire. This is because it's the natural composing experience.
---
Despite my mentality, there are others who want to use VSL in this way so it's certainly a valid point. I definately don't want to start another one of these forum arguments, lol... I only mean that to me your points aren't enough to invalidate what I feel is a need of mine, and what others are also wanting.
Here's how I'd coin it: 'Midi is the protocol for the machine; but notation is our protocol, being human.'
No one has successfully developed software that does what we are describing and if we want a VSL tailored notation experience (or at very least a VSL-tailored DAW experience), then it would have to come from VSL. If there is any way to save us time in setup and performance, and offer features that take full advantage of this library... then this is the way.
-Sean
Hello gabriel 81,
Thanks for participating in this thread. I don't want to start a debate because actually there is no reason for that. What we're sugesting is making something additional, not completely transforming what is already great and very apreciated. So, many of your concerns which are totally justified, actually are not interfering with this idea. Just think of an extra feature more inclined to the notation/sequencing area. Since we all fabulate of this time , let's think that VSL is smart enough to hire someone oriented to this segment avoiding the curent developers for beign stopped in processing "the things we love". In the mean time I've seen isocrefilm responded more punctualy to your post.
Best
B
@gabriel81 said:
I am not sure if I like this idea ...
VSL proved to be able to produce excellent samples, and marvelous software ... but ...
putting also sequencing / notation into their hand could mean
* Reduced Featureset for "common" sequencers
* Problems in adding additional libraries
* Less sales, because some products are "quasi standards" so VSL might be lessl likely to be purchased if not 100% running there
* Less time for VSL Developers in doing the things we all love 😉rgds
Gabriel
I think some of these worries have been addressed in the original VSL DAW request - http://community.vsl.co.at/forums/p/28179/183579.aspx#183579 if you wish to take a look - as well as in the recent SIBELIUS 7 thread.
My idea that VSL could make a profit out of creating such a platform is a) that it already has done most of the difficult work, and b) because of their VE PRO, which allows for the utilization of any library, not just their own. As far as "less time for developers...", I doubt that they would embark on this without hiring some new people, or acquiring rights to some existing independent platform, so there will be no hiatus in VI development, only some initial additional investment. Lastly, they would still be offering their products in isolated form like they do now - you don't have to purchase the Cube if you only want Horns. So, there is no forseeable problem with what you say might be a "quasi standard" product, only interested parties will purchase it, the rest of the world can go on collecting the rest of their high standard offerings independently.
I think you need to ask yourself what exactly are you looking for and trying to accomplish when you speak of a "VSL DAW" or whatever notation variant you may have already high-level suggested in previous posts. So,
a) A "DAW" digital audio production. Not sure VSL would ever consider going there.
b) An integrated full blown "Notation" package, to the extent of competing with Sibelius or Finale, not a trivial enterprise to embark on. It has taken years and years for these two packages to evolve and reach the point they are at. And we end-users are still far from content about them.
.
Having said that, I gather from reading what you guys have said to this point that one of the key 'features' you'd love to see on such implementation is an automatic matrix creation where the right articulations are assigned depending on the entered notation. I have a very hard time trying to figure out how you'd ever accomplish that in an touchless/effortless manner, without some human intervention. In my experience, every single composition requires certain degree of matrix customization. Do you want simple sustain samples, or do you want a detache/sustain? Do you want stronger vibrato on certain parts or certain others just the plain sustain sample? Do you prefer repetition samples or regular legato? At 92bpm, is the attack too quick or too long? Does the portamento articulation require stretching? Even if the stretching is done somewhat automatically, are you happy with the way it sounds or need to fine-tune it? And so on...
.
Some of the automation built into Sibelius and Finale often times is more of a hassle than a time-saver. For instance, magnetic layout. Sometimes I find myself spending more time fixing the 'automatic' errors than if it was turned off. I foresee a similar situation with the above.
.
I think the only real goal I've had since 'the beginning' was to have notation with playback that's a realistic representation of an orchestra, no fine tuning required. The problem is, VSL's the only good sounding library out there but fine-tuning is certainly needed.
I think most if not all of us "electronic composers" sympathize with you re- your first sentence. I think you get a reasonable level of quality by using VIP to create some basic articulations and using that as a general framework. The 'art' of accomplishing a more realistic mock-up is in going deeper into your programming. Time consumming? Heck yeah. But you have full control.
.
I beg to differ with your second statement. In fact, so many of us nowadays use multiple libraries, not only VSL, because other competitors have certainly reached a high-quality level, and their libraries exhibit different tonal characteristics that maybe more suitable for certain compositions. Just like the Vienna Philharmonic sounds different to the San Francisco Symphonic to the London Symphonic orchestras. If this were a VSL-exclusive tool, how do we deal with the rest of our libraries? To me this is something for the Sibelius and the Finales to continue working on with the library companies like VSL, to offer better out-of-the-box templates included in their products. But it's up to you to work and customize your matrixes, as you deem necessary. In the end, keep in mind pro-commercial composers don't look forward to creating a perfect final product using a sample library, they still want the human feel and touch a real conductor and a full flesh orchestra add to their composition.
Hi Gusfmm,
"b) An integrated full blown "Notation" package, to the extent of competing with Sibelius or Finale, not a trivial enterprise to embark on. It has taken years and years for these two packages to evolve and reach the point they are at. And we end-users are still far from content about them.
.
I have to disagree with this statement (b). Indeed, it has taken years and years for these packages to evolve ...but to what? I still believe instead of writting thousands of pages of support on forum , because of various problems within the notation programs such as Sibelius and Finale, it would be better off to construct something that just works within a known environment. Nobody is going to take the posibility of using your VE pro with other libraries. But for those who want their VSL library to be interpreted well, the notation implementation is definetely an asset.
And honestly ....to let Sibelius and Finale to fix the integration of VSL library is something like offering to Beethoven a finished average symphony and ask him : please corect what you can, and bring me a masterpiece. I bet he would start a completely new one from scratch, even he would use the same notes...but maybe arranged in other way;))!!
@Gusfmm: If you read my original post more carefully - if at all (and what I've said since in the latest threads), most of the points you raised are already addressed. As far as the 'time for development' for a Sibelius/Finale competent program, it's possible that you are right, but I never said this would happen overnight. Finally, there is no insurmountable problem with the output of such a sequencer as discussed - again, read previous posts carefully; the DAW will be reading all articulations, expressions, dynamics, tempi, etc. from the written page - yes, it does pressupose that one won't just write notes, but a detailed full score - and interpret them using default settings for each value (like Notion SLE does), determined by VSL. It goes without saying that users will tamper with those settings and make their final mixes on the actual DAW in MIDI, but my point is that at the composition and the orchestration stages, the perceived feedback will be far better than Finale's, Sibelius' or anybody's. That alone will be a tremendous help and time-saver, not to mention the advantages of an integrated system that grows commensurately.
Tons of people use VEP with other libraries. In fact, it seems to almost be a common denominator in professional set-ups. So many other libraries that run on Kontakt benefit from VEP's hosting capabilities. Many report using it perfectly with the recent Play 3... So how would an exclusive VSL notation facility help people utilize their other libraries?
.
On the other thought, I never spoke in terms of "integrating" anything, that's a huge term in itself, but rather providing more detailed soundsets (in the case of Sibelius) and maybe even predetermined matrixes to go along with, in the specific case of the VSL libraries.
.
Question- Are you all using the existing VSL-provided Sibelius soundset templates and the house style files? Are you uncomfortable with them? Or are they not up to what you consider a reasonable orchestral representation of your notation? I'm a Finale person, but after reading the available documentation on Sibelius here on VSL, I personally get the impression that a good deal of notation can be properly handled by the use of these templates. Please correct me if I'm mistaken.
I thought it was clear. In this hypothetical scenario of a VSL all inclusive DAW, the Notator (say), through VE PRO would trigger sounds from your other libraries as you assign them. Obviously, VSL's interpretational presets would be limited to VSL's own instruments and any other library's would play through some MIDI allocation I would imagine, I am not a professional programmer. This would only be a problem - if at all - with the manuscript side of things, not the sequencing, automating, mixing, etc. However, at the composition/orchestration stages, would you really need access to all your libraries? Wouldn't the VSL's sounds be enough? I mean you would buy the VSL DAW if you owned enough of their library, otherwise you would stay with Finale and ProTools if you only owned VSL's Flutes.
Far from clear as you can see. I'm not certain how others go about composing, but why would you not need to have all your tools in your toolbox available for use at the most important moment in the process, when you are creating, and then orchestrating? On the other hand, if this were to be exclusively fine-tuned facility for VSL libraries, then in order for someone to incorporate other libraries and sounds you would still need to resort to Sibelius or Finale, or your (real) DAW software to continue composing?
.
My previous question remains unanswered. What is it that you'd want that Sibelius' capabilities, and the VSL-Sibelius soundset and house style files don't currently do?
.
Hate sounding like a party-crasher, not my intention, just offering my opinion.
Hey Gusfmm,
Maybe I'm getting it totally wrong..but are you suggesting that Sibelius and Finale work with VSL library without problems ?
I mean the hairpins are doing what they have to do, the cc11 from Finale is acting perfectly and so on..Have you followed how many times users from Finale complained to Andi about the hairpins and HP messing the sound of samples ? Or how about the dynamics limitation? Is not that I have something with Finale or Sibeliius ( I own both and Notion also) but if it can be done something better why not...ohh..and by the way, how about the lack of midi controll...somehow Notion started this idea notation + midi control ..but still, it requiers more work and their team looks like is not so willing to rush things.
And by the way, the most important process ( the creation itself) comes differently to every composer. Some rely on inspiration and cut the unwanted things after, some (more into classical aproach) on techniques such as counterpoint , motivic development and so on...and of course a third category which probably are the best can combine everything on the fly. I can not see why you are not convinced that such a tool would be a benefit for every composer from the categories mentioned above.
Exactly like you, I'm not sustaining a party for the sake of it , just adding my opinion..
lol, fun forum eh?
Example: First note tied to a second note, and the second one is tremolo; no software currently crossfades that automatically. No one is saying VSL should reinvent the wheel or even compete with other DAW's. What we are saying is that no other software currently allows a real implementation with VSL's playback flexibility in an intuitive way that would save users time.
Sibelius is my notation preference but its soundset management is horrendous. I time stretch and more... so I don't use the VSL presets. Creating my own Sibelius presets would be an utter nightmare. So for people who customize samples, notation isn't really an option. VSL would face the same customization issues, BUT unlike Sibelius (or others), VSL would actually care to address them. THIS is why we want it. Some want automatic. Some want custom... but no notation offering currently implements with VSL in a way that could even remotely be called efficient.
Many people already use more than one DAW and no one toolbox currently does everything anyway. VSL could allow people to make presets for other libraries (in a more 'complex library' way than other notation programs, and it wouldn't be more work cause designing it to work with VSL's complexity would already do most of that work) - OR... VSL wouldn't even have to. If VSL's notation editor worked with VSL and no one else... this doesn't prevent you from using other libraries with VSL. Like others have said. These features take nothing away... but would only add. Not only do they add, they serve what many have only ever wanted. I think some people have just been away from notation too long. I'll never prefer any other system but notation, for good reason.
Hopefully that helps. I kind of half-rushed my points.
-Sean
A far more contributive way to continue this discussion would be to suggest things that this could solve, or feature requests relating to this so we can at least gauge what needs users have in relation to this area. I mean no offense, simply that bickering over the 'why do we need it' forgets that every user has different needs'. The main point here, is that some users want a better notation implementation for VSL- one that is more automatic in setup and in playback. Currently not one program accomplishes this. So there is really no discounting that this could benefit the user. What's more important here is to gauge how many users want it or gauge what other problems this might solve. - it would be better to focus our time on what this could offer, rather than talk about comparing this idea to current offerings (especially where we've clearly defined why current offerings aren't addressing some problems).
Any suggestions out there relating to a VSL DAW or VSL Notation editor? Or even a way for VSL to implement these things in other software. If VSL could tie to Cubase and Sibelius in ways that would solve our problems, then fine... we want to hear it! lol - We simply feel that those methods are far less likely to succeed or even happen because of the different companies involved. So again, what VSL benefits or suggestions are there? That seems to me the better way to continue this discussion.
-Sean
The company resource issue is a big one. Most companies that fail do so by over expanding without a corresponding increase in actual cash flow. Another prime cause of failure is moving away from core successful areas. Sometimes one has to, and sometimes one can be very successful (witness the transformation of Apple), but successful transitions are not that common.
It is interesting that no one yet has come up with a truly fully integrated outstanding notation/sequencer program. Many sequence users (thinking the Sonar forum) simply do not want a sequencing program to be bogged down with notation capabilities.
If VSL could profitably create such a program - great. The question is what is the risk/return ratio? How many additional resources would be required to do it well, and would the interest be sustained, or would only a handful of core customers be interested? In the end, could they differentiate their product from all the other competitors? It is easy, and with good reason, to wish for a VSL DAW. For VSL to really do it, and do it well, all sorts of complex financial and marketing questions become key.
Hi noldar12,
As I said on other thread ( Sibelius 7 ) I think, there are a lot of places where VSL can make its entry. For example clases of composition and orchestration from conservatories or universities are struggling with Finale and some "light" libraries. I already mentioned that the campain to promote their product must be more "agresive". Put some flyers on the move ( even it costs a little) but in the end, they will add that something. I remember the demonstration that Paul had it in Montreal, beautifully done..indeed we were basically a core of people as you said ..but that because we, the users, received an email alert...( or maybe was more than that , I really don't know exactly about advertising that event). But sending to the entire music universities around, definetly would have been other thing.
As to conclude, as a theory assistant I presented some works done with VSL to my class...there were probably more than 25 students who received them as giant musical leap ( refering more to the samples here) :))). These samples integrated in a notation program help composers but also orchestration professors.
I know the description is not the same with making a marketing plan ...but just adding some thoughts..