You are right, the VI are nearly as powerful as complicated to handle the more you want to use the full musical potential of all available patches. It definitly seems reasonabel for me that VSL-Developpers would think more about an easy and intuitive Handling of the vast variety of samples available.

For me at least It is much easier to search and apply the right Patch I need for a certain note by deciding which Qualities it should have than by reading again and again tons of articulations (let it be 75 or 300 for the Violins - and you have to do this for each orchestral Instrument) to find the right one.

To me it at least it would be a great help, if the VI software would react on the musical demands (= which qualitiy should the right patch have) more than on Matrices, grids, CC-Definition, Keys etc.

And since we can have with SSD's and large RAM all patches loaded which are available it is the pure annoyance either to reduce the amount of Variants in a instrument-track of the amount of displayable Articulations on my screen as well as is to me really tedious to search for each single note again and again all patches/articulations I have loaded.

I think if you really ever tried to programm a whole orchestral score this way, you will know what I am talking about.

When you can see all of the patches (of one instrument) at once, listed in a linear way by name not short abbreviation, it isn't very difficult to find the patch you want or to experiemt with different articulations in the list.

I open the Pro Player and watch the matrix. Important is a memorable structure.
Even more important is an intuitive structure of the interface for selecting the artikulations. The Expression Map is only a tool for the adaption of that interface to the matrix. So at least i don't need an artikulation list. Or am i wrong?

My question:
Where can i read something about String-Artikulation-Notation?
We have so many similar artikulations, and you have to give different names or symbols for each seperate artikulation. I find no rule for writing something or not. If you switch very fast, the words needs more space than the music.

I think legato should be written as a bow from the first to the last note of the phrase. How to do that?

Symbols for XFades from vib to no vib? Strange things to notate. Do you have ideas?

This is imho exactly the Problem:

• Wikipdia lists 12 Articulationmarks at all (including the fermata) and for all instruments.
• If you own the complete available VSL-Orchestra, you can have up to hunderts of different patches just for one instrumenttrack (with different reasonable combinations of dimensionstring I do have moe than 300 patches loaded just for the violintrack and it is for nearly each other instrument more or less the same: to few articulation cannot cover to much available patches).

Imho expressionmaps are definitly not ready to handle this amount of articulationpatches

It is this vast amount of available variety wich is as powerful as complex to handle.

I think the most intuitive way to handle would be to search the right patch by combining the demanded qualities. In parts you can programm something like this already now with VIPro matrices. But it is still quite tedious.

It would be great if the VSL-Developpers would began to think about this problem and make it more intuitive to work with their really great and impressive variety of orchestral samples..

More than a year later... I agree that Expression Maps in Cubase become unmanageable when trying to control VSL.

IMHO progress can only be made on Steinberg's part. I can't think of concrete changes to apply to the way VSL organizes its samples, but I've made tons of very practical suggestions to Steinberg over the years, with no visible feedback.

If you're using VIP in VEP, as many do, then you basically have a hugely configurable multitrack sample player. You still control it from Cubase, and Cubase is way behind on this. Among the things that can easily be added:

• The ability to rename Controller Lanes: "CC111 (Control 111)" doesn't mean anything, I don't even see why the parenthesis are there.
• The ability to add vertical colored shading to CC lanes per Expression Map, or snap CC data to several fixed & named values. An articulation could thus be named "Legato" with a CC lane called "Technique" with vertical divisions in it, clearly showing "Legato", "Portamento", "Glissando" etc.
• Or, have each Articulation behave like a drop-down menu, so you could have e.g. the "Legato" articulation with a drop-down arrow and select a sub-technique there.

There a many other suggestions. Nobody listens. They apparently prefer doing things like Chord Assistant. What can you do.

The greatest thing that could happen is if VSL took its experience and built a proper sequencer (with Kontakt and general plugin compatibility, needless to say). From my experience with VSL products — and I don't work for them — the interface, stability and ease of use would be a class apart (sorry, a bit off topic on that last bit...)

Thanks a lot for sharing, Stéphane. This is interesting. I've never went into the "groups" aspect of Expression Maps, and apparently it's easy to create a X/Y table using two articulations (I just tried it in Cubase). I'm not sure I understand what you're using Articulation 3 for, though. Aren't two articulations covering the 2 dimension of a VSL matrix already. Or is it just for naming and clarity? [EDIT] In other words, is there another reason for putting the OS/Forced 1-4 in Articulation 3 other than having a neat separation in the Key Editor?

Hello Talino.

This particular expression map is for Dimension Strings, and the articulation 3 column (OS - F I - F II - F III - F IV) is for forcing the strings on the instrument.  You can have the violin play vibrato on G string (vib + F I) or vibrato on D string (vib + F II) or non vibrato on D string (nvib + F II) and so on.

There are some ways of combining those articulations that prove efficient, and others not.

One I found of great use, especially for all the dynamic patches, is to use articulation 2 as short medium and long, instead of 1 second, 2 seconds, 3 seconds, 4 seconds, 5 seconds, 6 seconds, 8 seconds, which anyway never apply to all the patches.

I also struggled a lot and did many trials of building my own presets with all the available articulations in logical order, knowing that I never play live, but rather program all the prases.  It takes me more time to play the phrase and then correct it and then sculpt the articulations, than to immediately program the phrase as I hear it inside.

I also never do any live work with VSL. Most of the time I just play the notes and then spend hours drawing CC curves. Your setup is very instructive and opens up possibilities I didn't think of. But Cubase is still way behind VSL in the way articulations are handled IMHO (although I'm not aware of any other sequencer that does it better). 

This discussion is very interesting as it highlights all the reasons I don't use Expression Maps. Yet. However convenient it might be for me and my set-up, there is no better way than using Keyswitches. Obviously one has to set things up the correct way so that there are pretty much no caveats. I'll follow this discussion with interest, because whilst I pretty much know all my KS from memory, it is not so easy for my assistants who don't deal with sample sequencing as often. Expression Maps would put us all on an equal footing.  😉

DG

I'm not sure I understand what you mean. Unless I miss something, In Cubase, using Keyswitches without Expression Maps (whether inside the same MIDI part as the notes or on a separate track), basically amounts to having a list sitting next to you with e.g. "C#0 = Portamento" which, for people like me who could never commit that to memory (or don't have assistants), is a rather painful experience...

Steinberg could easily solve this by making the articulation lane a single-row thing, where user-definable menus + submenus simply enable the selection of the defined articulations. That way you just see, e.g. "Legato" below the notes, followed by "Pizzicato" and then back to "Legato" etc. There's no point in having all the possible articulations listed under the notes with empty lanes for each and every one of them. It's a no-brainer, really.

@Talino said:

I'm not sure I understand what you mean. Unless I miss something, In Cubase, using Keyswitches without Expression Maps (whether inside the same MIDI part as the notes or on a separate track), basically amounts to having a list sitting next to you with e.g. "C#0 = Portamento" which, for people like me who could never commit that to memory (or don't have assistants), is a rather painful experience...

It would be, if I didn't have a Lemur with all the patch names on it. So all I have to do is enter Steptime (via a macro on the Lemur, for various reasons), click where I want the KS, touch the correct button on the Lemur, hit the macro button again, and all's well. With this system I can enter as many KS as I like anywhere I like and don't have to remember anything. Although as it's laid out really logically, it is pretty easy to remember, and no matter how bad your memory, you only need to remember 4 or 5 things.  😉

As an aside, I would never put Portamento on a KS. It's not necessary. It only happens when using a legato type articulation, Velocity xFade would always be used for dynamic changes, and it is a one-shot sort of articulation, so using a high velocity is a perfect way to do the Portamento. In fact I have 4 different speeds set to different velocities, so that I have a choice how pronounced the slide is.

DG

Lemur is nice, as is TouchOSC or any other remote control solution. However, none of these solve the issue of seeing in the Cubase Key Editor, next to the controller lanes, which articulation is being used (unless you add all of them and enjoy looking at staircase patterns which are visually non-sensical). Like I wrote, a single-row text bar would be enough IMHO...

As to Portamento, why not. That's the method used by LASS, too. But that's a matter of personal preference, which I believe software should allow, not impose.

EDIT: DG, your PM inbox is full... This is off-topic: for interfacing Cubase & Lemur are you using the Lemur Daemon or something like OSCulator? Thanks.

@Another User said:

EDIT: DG, your PM inbox is full... This is off-topic: for interfacing Cubase & Lemur are you using the Lemur Daemon or something like OSCulator? Thanks.

I am using the original hardware Lemur which comes with its own software and interface.

DG

I've been getting used to composing in Cubase (instead of Sibelius and/or Logic) and found this thread while researching how to make that huge articulations lane more manageable. I have to say I do love the expression maps technology (and I'm waiting with baited breath for Dorico to perfect its implementation, and particularly to get their controller lane working!). But selecting articulations is pretty laborious... For me, I find it too hard to tell what articulation I'm hovering over, with the names way off to the left of the screen. One thing I find absolutely amazing, from a UI design perspective, is that they didn't at least add a horizontal (y position) guide along with the vertical (x position) guide. It's just crazy... such a simple solution...

Or better yet, they could highlight the expression at the current vertical mouse position... Or, probably better still, they could place a little hint popover to the left of the cursor, indicating the articlation at that y position (i.e., when you hold the option key)... So many solutions...

Or maybe I'm just missing a setting somewhere?

J.

Ah!! Okay... heh... just found the "Crosshair cursor" --> "show horizontal line" setting... sorry Steinberg... Mind you, the hint popover is still a good idea, since it would remove the need to have the lane tall enough to keep all the text visible.