I want to try a new workflow for composing, but...

[FMiguelez]

.

Hello, everyone.

Wow! It's been slow in this parts of the forum, lately. Since I'm convinced I need to try a new workflow for composing, I thought I could discuss it here to stimulate some useful conversation.

From now on, I want to go back to Finale and do all my composing there. At least the orchestral assignments. I USED to know Finale really well back at College. In fact, I was the "go-to" guy for Finale licks. Well, that was then. Long time ago. I can tell the newer versions are a different beast. I have Finale 2004, but haven't opened it for such a long time.
What worries me is that most of the comments I've heard about Finale have been less than flattering. Especially for the newer versions.

Are they really THAT bad? If so, how?

Most important to me will be:

--- Being able to import easily my conductor track from DP. Tempo changes, meter changes, markers and everything. And reliably.

Regarding this, do you know which markers DO get imported? Locked and unlocked? What about the ones that are marked with the Find green checkmark (for the hits)? Do they make it as some kind of special marker in Finale?

--- Being able to hear what I write with decent sounds. Doesn't need to be VSL, but I just don't want to hear a fart when I need a trombone sound

MORE important than the quality of the sounds, though, would be the ability to make some kind of patch changes easily. I remember old Finale being able to do this. You could get a pizzicato sound out of the actual expression mark in finale. I could have my violas track playing with the bow, and switch to pizzicato sound for whatever was after the pizz mark in the score.
Has it been improved in this area? I don't expect perfect legatos for notes under slurs, but at least getting the basic playing techniques to sound what the score reads they should sound (accents, staccatos, etc).

I understand the new Finale comes bundled with Garritan sounds? Are they good?


--- Being able to import a QT movie file, hopefully not bugging down the app.

--- After the score is finished, it would be IMPERATIVE for me to be able to export everything back into DP to do the production part there.
How well do things translate form Finale to DP? What happens with the divisi tracks? How does DP interpret that there are 2 different flutes playing on one track? Does it automatically create a different one for each of them?
And if I write a transposed score in Finale, will DP automatically transpose the sounds back to where they actually sound? Or would it be better to write a "Concert" score?

Or, maybe even better, from the printed score I could then re-sequence everything in DP very quickly. I could record every single line in real time (to get the "human factor"). Then, in DP I'd do what I've been doing for a while (assigning/programming the sounds to VSL, and the whole enchilada).


So far I've only asked about Finale because it's the app I'm familiar with.
Is Sibelius notoriously better than Finale in any of the above areas?
If so, is it THAT much better that it would be worth it to learn a new app from zero?
I wouldn't mind this last point too much, since I realize I'd really have to dive in Finale again pretty heavily anyway. I'd have to start from page one of the manual to remember what I used to know, re-learn the new features, etc. So in terms of learning it would probably be similar for one app or the other. Well, except that I already own Finale, and it would be cheaper to upgrade to the new version (2008) than buying a different app.


Also, there was this intriguing feature (I THINK it was Finale), that was like a "sketch-pad"?
If so, what exactly is it, and how has it been useful in your own workflow?

I know there are 2 Finale heavyweights in this board (MLC and Frodo). Hopefully you will chime in


For the composition side of things, I don't know. I just think I write better things when I can easily look at the whole picture (the score). I seem to be able to come up with better lines, and SEE how everything relates. Since DP's QS is not one of its strong areas, I've had to relly on memory a lot, or just by plain old hearing. But I feel more comfortable looking at the voicings on the score, 1 STAFF per instrument (instead of 10-15 different ones per instrument on DP), etc.

Or do you actually just write your scores using paper and pencil? Wouldn't mind re-trying that either I still have with me A LOT of my printed template score paper back from College times

[MIDI Life Crisis]

And chime in I will...

I'm confused. You want to work in Finale but be able to port it over to DP to do the production work. What production work?

I wouldn't work in Finale if I am going to end up in DP. It just ain't worth all the typesetting headaches if I don't have to end up printing a score. Besides, if you are talking about exporting a Finale file to play back in DP as your production copy, I find that it usually sounds overly quantized and rigid to me. I don't like to hear bar lines...

I found the most reliable version of Finale to be 2006 (I have 2007 but don't use it). I also have Sibelilus but have really delved into it in the 2+ years I've owned it.

Can't really tell you about markers and such as that is not the way I work. If I am scoring orchestral music, I start and finish in Finale and never touch DP. But I will use DP for playback via IAC so I can access more VI's and synths. I also don't use human playback in Finale as I prefer more control over my output.

Working with IAC does (as you know) require that your Finale articulations need to be programmed to patch changes or separate channels (my preference).

So you are going to have make a good case for porting out of and back to DP from Finale. Seems like a lot of extra work to me. If you are talking about a hybrid score with some live and some sequenced, then I get it, but I would only bother setting the live instruments and leave the sequenced parts in DP. If the conductor needs a reference, make him a piano reduction. He won't be conducting (directing) the sequenced parts anyway. One conductor I work with prefers piano reductions he can mark up (for performance, not for rehearsals) as they are more efficient. He conducts for many of the Big Boys (Williams, Elfman, etc.) and often gets piano reductions for the performances. Of course, full scores are absolutely necessary for study and rehearsals (if only for reference is questions or other issues arise).

[mhschmieder]

It's funny, but I've been going through a similar thought process of late.

I wear many hats and cover many genres, so it's rare that I have time to go deep on anything, in terms of developing new workflow. On two separate weekends though, I did exactly that, in two completely separate areas: drums/percussion for my non-classical stuff, and orchestral for my classical stuff.

I'm now happy with the drums/percussion workflow, but not with the classical. I'm getting way better results now than before, but it is in spite of the workflow and not because of it.

Basically, like you, I am wondering if it is better to go back and forth between a DAW and Notation package, start with one and then move to the other, or something else.

I spend so much time tweaking MIDI for good results, when what I'm trying to do is equivalent to just writing actual notation markings. But those don't export to MIDI.

My idea has been that I'll save Notation packages for when I need to produce a musically informative score to actual live musicians (or even for myself, if I decide to re-track certain parts using real instruments).

But now I'm wondering if it is better to START the project with a Notation Tool, and whether this is more efficient in terms of preserving and capturing expressive intent as well as more quickly arranging the score in a more traditional and familiar manner (like handwritten notation).

I use Notion as my notation program, and it's great for notation itself compared to Finale or Sibelius (or even Encore), but hasn't been as good with MIDI interoperability, so I've been nervous about investing a huge amount of time (which I don't have right now) in trying an experiment with its MIDI import/export capabilities (such as whether any notation markings get interpreted and/or recast on import).

Just to complicate matters, the Vienna Ensemble interface from VSL now encourages us to set up our instrument arrangements (mix levels, panning, etc.) in one place, with Total Recall (presets/templates), which increases the efficiency of the DAW-side of the workflow considerably. I doubt this program could be used from within Notion or even Sibelius or Finale.

I think DAW's and Notation programs may eventually converge, but until that time, it does remain confusing as to what is the best way to most effectively use the two tools together, for projects that demand more detail than is provided by built-in DAW notation tools.

Of course each project could be different as well, depending on how much you have conceptualised up front. I tend to have grand inspirations in one Big Bang, so for me, I usually already know the whole score before I set out to annotate and/or record it, and the challenge is to note lose/forget any of it in the process. I thus tend to gravitate towards whatever tools are the least distracting in their depth and concept from the primary focus of retaining a lot of parts in my head while getting them down in some form.

[FMiguelez]

.

And chime in I will...

I'm confused. You want to work in Finale but be able to port it over to DP to do the production work. What production work?

Glad you chimed in

Ok. What I mean by production work is programming the notes with VSL sounds. This involves (at least with the PRO Edition) breaking a single line for a single instrument in what seems to be endless numbers of MIDI tracks to get all the different articulations, playing techniques, etc. I have to do this for every instrument. After this then I start MIDI-mixing. After I get a decent MIDI mix, THEN I print to audio every instrument separately. Then the "real" mix process begins. That's what I meant by "production work".

Why would I think it's worth moving back and forth between Finale and DP?
That's where I'm not even sure it could work...

Maybe I'm being a little naive, but keep in mind I'm assuming that moving between this apps would take no longer than 5 minuets. Just a few clicks.
Am I dreaming here?

In short: I want to keep my workflow the same, EXCEPT for being able to do the composing/orchestrating in Finale. Ideally this would be so transparent that I'd hardly notice I switched apps.
IOW, when I orchestrate in DP, I do it as if I was working on Finale anyway. Only QS falls too short. So, if the import/export process is transparent and quick, the extra 10-15 minutes would be totally worth it.

I'd like to prepare my cue sheet in DP as usual (markers, hit points, work out the tempos/meter changes, etc.) After that's done in DP (because I suppose it is a superior tool for this), then I could port to Finale to actually compose and orchestrate.


So the sounds that would come out of Finale would only serve as a guide to write. With this I could give a decent sounding demo to the directors, so they have an idea of what the music will sound like.
I would stay in Finale until they SWEAR to me there won't be further changes (because of what I mentioned I call "the production process" above, regarding VSL), and until they give me the locked Final QT movie.

Also, working in Finale will allow me to print a great score (with as little or as much detail as I need) that I can take home and just review the orchestration, see everything the way I'm used to (in terms of looking at a score), etc. But more importantly, it would give me the perfect method for recording manually every single track in DP as naturally as possible, so the normal human imperfections start making things more realistic.

I suppose I can read good enough to be able to very quickly record everything in DP using generic sounds for each instrument. After everything is in place, then the "VSL process begins (what I described above)
This is the most tedious part of the process, but the results are always worth it.


The process I described might sound convoluted and clumsy by reading it, but it is not that bad, actually. What is really tedious and slow is the VSL programming part.
I REALLY REALLY need to get the new VSL. More sounds/articulations, etc., but MOST IMPORTANTLY, the streamlined new interface. That, alone, would save me at least 60% of the production time (but also leave me several thousand dollars poorer )

I wouldn't work in Finale if I am going to end up in DP. It just ain't worth all the typesetting headaches if I don't have to end up printing a score.

Hmmmm. This sounds to me like: "dream over. Wake up!"
So I take it is nowhere as near as transparent as I'm assuming?

Besides, if you are talking about exporting a Finale file to play back in DP as your production copy, I find that it usually sounds overly quantized and rigid to me.

You're totally right. That's why I'd need to record manually everything in DP, but by READING from the Finale score. This wouldn't take very long.

Working with IAC does (as you know) require that your Finale articulations need to be programmed to patch changes or separate channels (my preference).

Are the included sounds from the later Finale versions good?
Are they relatively "complete" in terms of different articulations, playing techniques, etc?

In your experience, what gives you better results for an orchestral project, working in Finale or working in DP? This in terms of general workflow and getting the best sound.
Do you use the same sounds when you work in Finale than when you work in DP?

So you are going to have make a good case for porting out of and back to DP from Finale. Seems like a lot of extra work to me.

It does seem like that indeed, unless importing the conductor track to Finale, and importing back the composition in DP is very fast... which it seems to be NOT the case.
So it's not like a 5 minute thing?

[FMiguelez]

It's funny, but I've been going through a similar thought process of late.

I wear many hats and cover many genres, so it's rare that I have time to go deep on anything, in terms of developing new workflow.

Me too. And I've experienced that if I don't properly identify my hats, and wear them according to the "stage" or process I'm currently at, I run into all kinds of trouble.

I'm getting way better results now than before, but it is in spite of the workflow and not because of it.

Same here

In my case, what slows me to a snail's pace is the VSL programming. It's just ridiculous. Absurd. I'm talking, of course, about the PRO Edition, NOT the new one with all those amazing features and dedicated VSL player.

I've been saving for this. It's just so expensive. And extensive. But it will be worth every cent I spend with it.

I tend to be too hopeful sometimes, but if it works as advertised (and have NO reason to doubt this) it would save me AT LEAST 60%-70% percent of programming time. This, of course, providing I have good working templates, etc.

I use Notion as my notation program, and it's great for notation itself compared to Finale or Sibelius (or even Encore)...

Is this the app that Dr. Jarret from Berklee wrote?

... and the challenge is to note lose/forget any of it in the process. I thus tend to gravitate towards whatever tools are the least distracting ...

This is what it is all about. worrying about tech things the LEAST possible in order not to interrupt or interfere with the creative process.


Actually, the easiest thing, and the BEST BY FAR, would be if MOTU gives us much more power with QS. And I'm not asking too much. Just some more basic to medium features.

Just imagine how popular DP would become if they gave us a GREAT notation implementation? And it's not like they have no experience with this, right?

Could THAT be why it's taking so long for DP6 to come out???

Here I go.... dreaming again

[MIDI Life Crisis]

Can't you use VSL via IAC and program the Finale articulations to correspond to your VSL channels - or at least patch changes?

Re: Finale's sounds - I don't know, I never use them.

Here's the deal (IMO):

You could record in Finale and playback the performance while setting to a quantize grid - at least I'm 80% sure you can. So the feel of the playback can be less rigid.

The kicker is this: Finale's MIDI implementation SUCKS. Let me say that again:

FINALE'S MIDI IMPLEMENTATION SUCKS!

Want to know how I really feel about it?

DP's notation implementation is cursory. It is not intended as a notation program and I forgive it that defect. I don;t forgive Finale for having suck SUCKY MIDI implementation, however, because it takes away control over playback for the composer/arranger.

So you are, in fact, kind of stuck. If you want to move back and forth and have everything the way it should be, there is going to be a lot of editing and even then, you probably will never get it exactly the same. If I understand what you are saying (and I think I do) I would write in Finale and playback in DP via IAC and forget Finale's built in instruments. You might want to mess with human playback - I don't.

Surely you could write some quick cues in DP and port them to Finale, but overall, I would keep the majority of the score in Finale and use DP as a sketchpad. Again, that is if you want to see nicely printed scores. Otherwise, DP is certainly a better option.

[FMiguelez]

Can't you use VSL via IAC and program the Finale articulations to correspond to your VSL channels - or at least patch changes?

That sounds very interesting indeed.
I'm digesting what you just wrote.

That's another approach. And it sounds good

The kicker is this: Finale's MIDI implementation SUCKS. Let me say that again:

FINALE'S MIDI IMPLEMENTATION SUCKS!...
...If you want to move back and forth and have everything the way it should be, there is going to be a lot of editing and even then, you probably will never get it exactly the same...

Then it is, I suppose, the end of my dreaming. Too much trouble to encounter unreliability and new issues.

If I understand what you are saying (and I think I do) I would writing Finale and playback in DP via IAC and forget Finale's built in instruments....

Yes. Well, that approach you suggested seems much more effective anyway.

OR, just use Finale so it provides me with the score I'd need to record directly in DP the MIDI instruments from scratch. This would be very fast to record.


To tell you the truth, I'm beginning to suspect I'm idealizing Finale a bit much in terms of ease of orchestration and work flow improvement.

Do you know what, Michael?
On the way back home I was thinking about what you wrote up-thread...

All I really want is to be able to compose by looking at score paper, looking at ONLY ONE STAFF per instrument (instead of 10), and getting just "decent" sounds (decent enough to show as a mock up reference for directors) that will sound what the playing technique in the score indicates, in an easy and fast manner.

QS could do that if MOTU thought it was important. After all, how hard would it be for them to feature symbols (alla Finale) that are programable to do patch changes, being able to have 2-3 instruments per staff properly notated (like Finale's layers maybe?), and being able to personalize a bit more what one sees on the score in general? That's it.

I suppose it was much harder to program the pitch-correction feature...

[MIDI Life Crisis]

Yes and no. First to correct my typo. I meant to say " write in Finale and playback in DP." My bad. Duh!

As far as more "robust" notation in DP, it isn't as easy as you might think. Look at how much work it has been to get Finale and Sibelius to behave and all they really do is notation.

The conversion from graphics to sound is a tricky beast (unless you're a decent sight reader ). But for computers, there is a lot going on under the hood. DP is also a complex beast, and to put both those together might be way more than most "all in one" apps can handle.

Why? Because (at least my theory is) both apps have to be able to handle whatever you throw at them. They have to have a lot of code to do that. So where do you draw the line? If DP handles ties better, perhaps the MIDI filter might be a little less useful. If Finale could handle smoother volume changes, then perhaps the hairpins would suffer. It all gets down to the software engineers (programmers) and the people in charge of what features get included and which don't.

That's also why Excel and Word aren't the same program, or why Photoshop and Acrobat are separate apps. For that matter, that's why we have all separate apps and not one big, happy OS that does it all. Only humans have that Happy to say...

[FMiguelez]

.




That picture could've been drawn by my girlfriend!

Except she would have to add a "wasting too much time in the internet", and another one for "spending too much time at Unicornation" areas.

[mhschmieder]

In order to take in the full context of this discussion for further comment, I am printing it out now -- I can't see enough of it at a time on the screen to feel like I'm getting the gist of it (including my own reply ).

I am hyper-focused on gig preparation at the moment (which includes using DP to further hone backing tracks, where used), but have a bit of a break from major gigging after this weekend, and have a couple of recording projects that will be bringing the questions in this post to the fore. I expect to have a bit more time to look deeper into how best to utilise the various features of VSL (and Vienna Ensemble) and evaluate the effectiveness overall.

I took a bit of a gamble in reinvesting much of my recent gig income into VSL libraries. So far, I have had incredible luck with the download-only classical guitar, the full harp library, and the percussion. I've got a lot more work to do before I get anything as acceptable out of the strings as I was able to get from Kurzweil's PC2-series synth modules. I am hoping that when Chamber Strings I arrives, I will find the Matrix and Performance setups improve the articulation-mapping of my parts.

[FMiguelez]

.

Mhschmieder:

So which VSL libraries do you currently own?

If I may ask you, could you give a general overview of your instruments in terms of:
-Improvement from ProEdition
-Ease of programming
-DP integration

Did you upgrade from a previous version, or did you just jump straight into the new version?
-Are you running a computer farm, or everything inside your Mac?

In terms of performance, how many instances can you open in your Mac? Do you wish you could have more instances? (what a stupid thing to ask )

My credit card is sitting dangerously close to me. I swear I can almost hear it saying: "use me. That's what I'm here for. VSL is SO nice".

The thing is that buying the new library is just the beginning. I'd probably need at least 2 more computers (to run everything in real time, etc)

Cheers, mate!

[mhschmieder]

I never, ever, use more than one enabled instance of a single VI at a time. My computer can't handle it. It crashes frequently as it is when I try to load certain patches in East/West Quantum Leap Play. So that's a simple answer!

Most of my VSL purchases are recent, but I can tell you for certain that even if I switch to an "equivalent" patch in the Vienna Instruments library from the Special Edition, there is a huge difference in quality in MOST cases. I don't think they documented this thoroughly, but some have said Special Edition has lower resolution and/or fewer samples (with some sample-stretching).

Only the VI collections have things like Legato Performances, Repetition Performances, etc. These do not require programming; they are automatically triggered from within the VI -- though there are probably rules of thumb for note overlap lengths and/or note gap lengths, for best results (in some cases this may be more tempo-related than strict MIDI related).

The main change in my workflow was to start delving into the Matrix Mode (I had only used Patch Mode before, thinking my computer couldn't handle anything else without crashing, but only if going all the way to the level above Matrix Mode, which I think is called Preset Mode, do I run into major trouble). In the full VI libraries, there are quite a few cases where the second row has a couple of patches that are programmed to know how to switch between two patches (they act as macros). The most common of these, which is extremely useful for avoiding messy programming in the MIDI, is the combined staccato attack with sustain.

Although further finessing is always recommended (and time-consuming), I am finding that even the little bit extra that I get with still-fairly-simple use of the Matrix Mode in the full libraries (vs. Special Edition) has already improved the realism and expression in my mixes by 400%. But this does not mean that I am home free; I do need to take time to introduce extra articulations and articulation switching within given passages, which I have now decided is preferable to having separate tracks (partly because the results seem to more predictably do the right switching at the right time; even though supposedly separate tracks run at the same time through the same VI instance should theoretically result in the same switching). I have come to accept having MIDI CC's and "beyond natural scale" notes in my score to handle articularion (Patch) switching within a Matrix.

I guess these results convinced me that VSL is worth the money, and is superior to the sample modeling approach (for now) in most cases, when it comes to score-based rendering (vs. live playing, which is another matter entirely, and I always reach for physical modeling solutions vs. sampled solutions when I really want to dig in and put my own feeling into something). Also, I am convinced that they are dedicated to improving the usability over time, based on track history. They understand that it isn't JUST about quality samples, but also about how they are put together to make real music.

I still can't get Vienna Ensemble to behave stably enough on my system to trust it for regular workflow, so will wait for my computer upgrade. I may evaluate it further soon though, just to help inform whether I should take the Mac Mini computer farm approach, as many are doing. If I'm brave enough, I'll do that real soon, because it will definitely make a huge difference in workflow with several projects that are coming up, as I tend to have two bassic approaches I take for ensemble mixing, based on large-scale vs. chamber scale (actually, I have two additional approaches when using orchestral instruments in the context of pop and rock).

I now own more than half of the VI collections, with my main resistance being towards the strings (and the woodwinds, which are a bit redundant in my case as I own and am proficient on several members of that family of instruments). I skipped Woodwinds I/II, Brass I, and all of the Strings (though I just ordered Solo Strings and Chamber Strings I, and will order Chamber Strings II soon).

My favourite by far is the Harp library, which is trivial to work with as it has so many performance options (it's one of the few for which I own the Extended license, as it was so affordable). The Classical Guitar is right up there with the Harp Library in quality and ease of use. I now regret spending so much money last year on Chris Hein Guitars, as I have yet to produce musically acceptable results with it (primarily because my computer can't handle its "fully loaded" Kontakt Instruments, and stepping down to the "lesser" versions is fairly unsatisfactory).

My other regret is in spending $1000 for the full Special Edition. I thought it was all that I would need, but the only parts that were useful to me (musically) were the instruments that were least well represented and which I now have in full libraries (organ, percussion, harp, etc.). They don't allow resale, but supposedly after 15 July they will introduce "loyalty prices" for the full libraries and extended licenses for VSE owners.