191,221 users have contributed to 42,789 threads and 257,330 posts.
In the past 24 hours, we have 2 new thread(s), 8 new post(s) and 41 new user(s).
Hello Bill!
As mentioned earlier, our Instrument collections and Single instruments include lots of articulations that can't be triggered with the Human Playback system, and custom text doesn't seem to be an option. Furthermore making such HP files for all our libraries would be very time consuming. Please understand that we can't spend that much time on something that wouldn't work to a satisfying degree anyway.
Best,
Andi
In the meantime, would you suggest that, if starting a composition in a notation program,to then export it and move it across as an xml or MIDI file to a DAW,[i]then[/i] add articulation, expression, etcthere ? It is just so time-consuming, ugh, and a steep learning curve at first (for me anyhow) ,.. especially for orchestral or larger ensembles.. AHi Ariam, I started out with a very similar desire to avoid the daw...it simply is a necessary part of creating the best quality performances from your scores, possible. Case in point: I just completed a clarinet concerto (it's linked a few posts down in the compositions subforum if you'd like to hear it). The composition took four days to complete in Finale...just a bare bones score, sans artics, dynamics, etc. I imported it in to Cubase, and spent literally 2 weeks shaping a midi performance. Now, I'm back in Finale to complete th score with dynamics, articulations, tempi, etc. This new approach for me lets me craft a performance in Cubase, free of the limitations of prescribed notation indications, were I to put them in the score first. Doing it that way (as in entering markings in the score prior to exporting to Cubase), often I would end up changing dynamics, or articulation markings during the mockup phase and then have to go back to Finale to reflect these changes. Now, at least, I get the score done in one go, which accurately reflects the performance I've done in Cubase. Basically, the composing always is far quicker than the production, and for large orchestral scores, shaping three or four cc lanes of data, velocities, etc. times 25+ parts for a twenty to forty minute work is absolutely a daunting task...but the end results will always bring greater satisfaction than a rudimentary playback from finale. Hope you find a workflow that suits your needs and is as efficient and painless as possible! Cheers, Dave
Interesting discussion.
It strikes me as too bad that Finale really seems to have very little interest in optimizing their program for use with non-Garritan libraries. I bought Dorico this year, but am still using Finale as Dorico (2.0) still has some major issues for me (no swing feel; limited control of velocity, even though they have a piano-roll editor).
In Finale, I've managed to have a lot of success using keyboard maestro (I'm sure any other keyboard shortcut prog. would work) in combination with the midi tool. I have various macros programmed to adjust velocity, y axis, slot crossfade etc. It can be pretty quick when it's working - unfortunately their visual feedback (Finale's) is archaic, so it's time consuming to see what's already been entered.
It is a real bummer that the custom text triggering doesn't work better than it does. I do find that VI Pro makes good HP playback possible, and I've never used the VSL Finale matrices. I make my own (I mostly don't use the SE libraries anymore either), but it doesn require a lot of hands-on tweaking, some of which can be done relatively quickly on the fly. For instance, I usually have a layer of the matrix dedicated to the various performance repeat patches (legato, staccato, etc.). If I have 4 instruments playing a bunch of repeated notes, I can highlight all the notes, and with little more than a push of a button move their instruments to the appropriate level on the Y matrix. I find the repeated note patches make a huge difference in realistic playback.
Hi Dave,
Many thanks for sharing your approach to composing and production. Much appreciated!
As I understand it then, you're essentially using Finale (for intial composition-notation) > then moving this (sans artics) to DAW (Cubase) for artics/expression added via CC lanes etc, > then importing back again to Finale to add notated expression/artics as implemented in Cubase. I think I'll try similar, ..which means (for me) back to the J-curve and the time-consuming process of learning and streamlining/optimising this methodology.
(Btw I'll try and find time to go and check out your new clarinet concerto!)
Thanks so much again for your very helpful tips and insights..
Cheers, A
Hi Daniel,
It strikes me as too bad that Finale really seems to have very little interest in optimizing their program for use with non-Garritan libraries. I bought Dorico this year, but am still using Finale as Dorico (2.0) still has some major issues for me (no swing feel; limited control of velocity, even though they have a piano-roll editor).
Yes I agree it's a pity Finale doesn't seem to be investing more support for 3rd party VIs, other than Garritan. (Unless they're working behind the scenes on this? I certainly hope so.)
It seems to be such a logical step to me that Finale offer far better and seamless support for VSL's VIs and libraries, especially given that many of their users (including me) are writing for orchestral instruments, and that their notation software (Finale) is very sophisticated and a traditional notation program aimed at professional composers scoring for small or large ensembles for these very kinds of instruments! I feel VSL have the sophisticated VIs to match the sophistication of Finale's composing/notation program. How ironic that they have (to date) apparently left the workload to VSL to make a move in this direction, with VSL at least providing a library keyswitch and CC dump for Finale.
Finale is such a powerful notation program and I would like to continue to use it for similar reasons to the ones you mentioned. Thanks also for your tips re implementation of your own matrices, and the 3rd party short-cut software (which I think is only available for Mac, but will check again).
Also I agree that the Human Performance algorithms (swing etc) in Finale surpass Dorico 2.0 at this stage. Yet to be fair to Dorico, Finale has been around a lot longer and has had much more time to develop the software over many iterations. But I do like Dorico's interface, "workflow" and their inclusion of a piano-roll editor, even though it still seems a little rudimentary, and certainly not 'a Cubase within their notation program'. On this point it would be great to have a super-quick workflow: interchanging instantly (via a keystroke, say) between Dorico and Cubase, and having artics automatically updated in Dorico that reflect CC channel changes made in Cubase (and vice versa) while working on the same composition file and without needing to go through the hassle of xml or MIDI imports/exports! I dream on .. yet one day maybe ??
Cheers and many thanks,
A
Hi Dave,
Many thanks for sharing your approach to composing and production. Much appreciated!As I understand it then, you're essentially using Finale (for intial composition-notation) > then moving this (sans artics) to DAW (Cubase) for artics/expression added via CC lanes etc, > then importing back again to Finale to add notated expression/artics as implemented in Cubase. I think I'll try similar, ..which means (for me) back to the J-curve and the time-consuming process of learning and streamlining/optimising this methodology.
(Btw I'll try and find time to go and check out your new clarinet concerto!)Thanks so much again for your very helpful tips and insights..
Cheers, A
Yes, that's exactly the workflow I'm currently exploring. Daniel's ideas, and your own desire to see greater integration between notation software and DAW would be most welcome for those of us that have to go back and forth between two programs that don't play nicely together. You're absolutely right in wanting to make the process more efficient. Time will tell if developers can incorporate these ideas in to their products.
Cheers!
Dave
Based on some posts in this forum, I've decided I'm going to take a closer look at Notion 6.
1) I've already found that they have better support for artic-maps for certain 3rd party VIs, and thanks to Andi's research ^^, this currently includes VSL Special Editions 1-4. Would love to see them support VSL's full VIs, even if one-by-one!
2) I've felt that, in any notation program, the quality of sound of the VIs and expressive potential and realism of the instruments can actually inspire the creative process and the desire to compose, and can influence the direction and orchestration of a work. Perhaps some other notation programs have underestimated this??
This personal experience I found echoed elsewhere, e.g. in a quote by J.J. Abrams (Star Wars: The Force Awakens, Star Trek, Lost) "If you're lucky, the tools themselves will inspire you..." . NB: He was speaking of composing with VIs, software, ..compositional 'tools generically' (I presume) and, to be fair, not specifically about VSL. Nonethless I feel the principle applies more broadly to top-of-class VIs in most compositional work, especially within notation software and in writing for orchestral instruments.
4) Presonus (who make Notion) also make a powerful DAW: Studio One which is Rewired to Notion 6. Whilst it may not be a perfect dovetailing of the two yet, at least they're trying to support and streamline composers' workflows, as well as offering (?increasing) support for sophisticated 3rd party orchestral VIs for Notion (through their own time and investment), such as those made by VSL.
5) Even if a program might lack some features of other notation programs, yet if they devote their own in-house dev-time to support high-quality 3rd party VIs more than their competition, then imho they might win over more interest. And customers? Especially if they also escalate the sophistication and competitiveness of their notation software. If they do offer more in-program support for 3rd party VI artics & samples, then perhaps VSL might reciprocate this support in their VIs?? ..A win-win..
Feedback/experience/suggestions from others would be most welcome..
Cheers,
A
Hi Bill,
Thanks for that lead! Apols it's taken me a little while to reply.
Yes I've looked up the Overture notation website (sonicscores.com) and see it's already at version 5 and has, as you say, got quite sophisticated integration of notation and daw features! Plus, the price is much more affordable compared with many other competing notation programs. I may try it out, and thanks again for the suggestion. Hopefully their support for 3rd party VIs like VSLis good, or that they're actively working on it..
Cheers,
A
Based on some posts in this forum, I've decided I'm going to take a closer look at Notion 6.
I have decided to go in the same direction. I just purchased Notion 6 and Studio One 4. I have invested a lot of money into my VSL libraries and I want to get the best bang for the buck. I have put a lot of time into learning Logic Pro X as well as VEP 6. I too tried to avoid a DAW and tried to get my recordings from Finale. However, I am convinced now that the folks at Makemusic are only interested in Garritan.
Yes, learning yet another DAW and notation program is going to take the time that I don't want to invest. However, I do like to way Notion 6 works with Studio One. So, once I finish up the current stuff that I am working on, I will have to work toward that goal.
Jonathan
Based on some posts in this forum, I've decided I'm going to take a closer look at Notion 6.
I have decided to go in the same direction. I just purchased Notion 6 and Studio One 4. I have invested a lot of money into my VSL libraries and I want to get the best bang for the buck. I have put a lot of time into learning Logic Pro X as well as VEP 6. I too tried to avoid a DAW and tried to get my recordings from Finale. However, I am convinced now that the folks at Makemusic are only interested in Garritan.
Yes, learning yet another DAW and notation program is going to take the time that I don't want to invest. However, I do like to way Notion 6 works with Studio One. So, once I finish up the current stuff that I am working on, I will have to work toward that goal.
Jonathan
E Erisno moved this topic from Notation Programs & Vienna on
E Erisno moved this topic from Finale on
E Erisno moved this topic from Notation Programs & Vienna on
E Erisno moved this topic from Dorico on
E Erisno moved this topic from Notation Programs & Vienna on
