About the sounds: I would really recommend NotePerformer! Not too expensive, quite realistic sounds compared to all the really expensive ones! Artificial Intelligence, with great dynamics and stuff. Love this series!
Thanks Hanneke. What a coincidence - we just re edited and re-uploaded (this morning!) episode 2 of our Notation series to include something about Note Performer. I totally agree with you. It is a huge improvement. Enjoy the channel . . EO. PS - a third episode on Notation coming up in a couple of weeks.
Are there a software out there that includes the best as far as notation software AND film score composing software, including realistic-sounding instruments?
@@kevinmkraft I really love Dorico in combination with NotePerformer. I rarely compose for films; but look up one of the many great videos on their RUclips channel: there are a few on video compositions as well!
7:43 - Another really helpful thing in writing for orchestra is to go to a local music store, rent an instrument of interest, and find a teacher. Tell that teacher, and yourself, “I’m not trying to become a great French-horn (or whatever) player; I’m not even trying to become a mediocre French-horn player; I just want to spend a couple months understanding the _general gist_ of the experience of playing the French horn.”
To discover what the real instruments sound like, there's a RUclips area somewhere that demos each orchestra instrument. Other than that to learn how the instruments sound, go to a live performance; or spend some time listening to recorded live orchestra. We do not have to learn how to 'play' each instrument in order to write for them, but that can help also. What I would mostly ask a real player is about performance issues with that instrument. For example, with violin tremolo, would you really write that to be played for 100 bars continuously? No, as it would literally wear out the violin player. Nor would you write a soft pp dynamic for a trumpet in its high range. But this kind of info can also be learned in orchestration texts like Rimsky-Korsakov or by Adler.
Very helpful and precious advices. I’ve lost years about tweaking softwares and loosing the main reason of all tasks: the music! Thanks for your videos
you can summarize that the instruments which depend heavily on tone cultivation - strings particularly, but winds as well - are really hard to sample, while pianos, percussion, harps, even guitars sounds pretty good in these softwares.
Well put. Or for synth users - anything where a player can manipulate the ADSR envelope whilst playing are harder to sample. With pianos and percussion, the envelope is pretty much predetermined - and so easier to sample. EO
Very interesting and very true over all. I use Finale purely for notation, not reproduction, the sounds are usually pretty awful, they're just there to check for wrong chords or notes. I compose/arrange for piano, organ and mainly choir. And let's be honest, musical life has improved so much since I could do away with pencil and paper. Image still having to write choral arrangements by hand and copying them.
Yes - I can dimly remember , and it was SLOW. Check the other two videos in the Notation series - I talk about Note Performer plug in, which massively improves the reproduction . . although not for choir, it has to be said. ruclips.net/video/qWiDaANErSc/видео.html. Thanks for the comment EO
This is a very well designed tutorial, strangely other videos I watched on the topic failed badly at answering my question: Why use a notation program instead of DAW, which is what I have used all my life.
Thanks Mutee. For me , the main advantages of these programmes over DAWs are 1) clarity of printed out scores - badly edited scores from DAWS can be almost unusable by musicians. Even terribly edited scores on Sibelius etc... tend to be readable. b) If you want to add a lot of detail (dynamics etc...) the Score programmes handle this very well. EO
Honestly, it’d be worth the money to buy dorico simply for the robust write mode features, and then XML out to Finale for the long hours deep work!! It works well as kinda a sheet music DAW, or an idea workstation
Really good idea about using a piano sound for everything. Even though the sounds I use sound pretty good (note performer), the sound, volume and timbre of the different ranges on the instruments are all quite identical and unrealistic, which can lead to misleading sonic ideas.
Thanks River North. Yes Note Performer is really good - we mention it briefly in the Part 2 episode. I've been using it a lot lately - it's a big upgrade, no question, and great value. But I still find that a kind of fatigue sets in , listening to a 'not-always-beautiful' sound when working long hours. A good piano is just really good company to spend the day with. I really only want to hear beautiful sounds in my life (!), as that is what I'm trying to do ultimately. I've found myself still using a (really good) piano sound for the inputting stage , and then checking my work on Note Performer every few hours. This way I actually look forward to hearing NP , rather than slowly getting irritated by it. PC
Thanks for your comment. I hope that tip makes life sound a lot more pleasant! More tips in Part 2 , which we recently re-uploaded with a segment on Note Performer plug in that you may find interesting EO
The clip you played from an old 1940"s movie was probably recorded with one or two mics in a room. Modern movie music often sounds as if each instrument has it's own mic. To me this is an indicator that the music was not performed by an orchestra in a room but by keyboards and computers.
Yes - completely. Its a completely different process, and a different sound. And it is changing how people hear classical instruments, and what they expect to hear. I friend of mine who is a very well known TV and Film composer uses real orchestras a lot - but he records them all close mic'd and also goes for a very metronomic , quantised performance. They sort-of sound like a computer - but not quite. He likes the sound of the virtual instruments, and is using the orchestra to do an improved version of it. EO
I want to buy Notion 6 because it's the one with the best sounds from what I heards. Some of you have a comment for or tips for me? I don't want to imagine sounds. I need the software to sounds like a real orchestra right away. So any tips can be nice. Thanks !!!. Great video.
Thanks Nicolas. My first tip - watch the part 2 video ruclips.net/video/qWiDaANErSc/видео.html ! There is a third episode out after this week. I don't know Notion, but I know it is well regarded - especially for the sounds and I have a high regard for Presonus other products. However, If you don't intend to actually have your scores played by 'real' players, I'm not sure why you'd want to use notation software - a DAW will probably get you there quicker. My other tip is to remember that no software currently does EVERYTHING well - you might have to work quite hard to make some techniques sound good (e.g. fast legato scales on strings). A certain amount of 'imagining' is almost inevitable. If you want to mock up a 'real sounding' orchestral score , be prepared to do a LOT of fine tuning editing of sounds and articulations (this is usually easier in a DAW). Depending on what sound samples you use, you may find that you can't get a truly realistic sound of certain techniques no matter how hard you try. You'll have to write something else, something that the software CAN play well. Good luck! EO
All good, but funny part is that you criticising a lot on electronic music and I heard the background, starting and ending notation were produced in electronic music . It would be really happy if you have used or shown playing real instruments by the analysts in this video and used their music as background score ..
Thanks Srikanth. I love electronic music! I have written hours and hours of it. I also love acoustic music. I have worked with a lot of young composers over the years and found they get frustrated by the notation software - these three videos (on notation software) are the things that those younger composers found most useful. Great idea to use the interviewees music, but we couldn't afford it! Thanks for the feedback. EO
I use dorico, never repent of using it.. the only reason is I would love to hear my music and test my ability that’s why I mostly rely on software products just for a simulation ..there is no person on the earth who doesn’t love to listen live orchestral music . As you rightly said it’s pure imagination of human not the machine but here we have very limited resources to show case musical talent one such method is to simulate the live ..
Yes Dorico is really great - I think all of the 'big three' apps are superb. . It is very hard to get your music played live - it's expensive! - so the software is definitely a good second best. Have you tried using Dorico with Note Performer - this makes it even better.
I wonder if it would be interesting for you to 'play within your limits' sometimes - to play music that is technically very simple for your hands, so you can start to make more connections between what your fingers are doing and what your brain is doing? You might write some good new music that way . . . EO
Thanks for posting. I'm about to start a project of taking the piano I use to accompany the musicals I've written to make scores that are both understandable and expressive for other who might play them. Wondering if you've found a best/better real-time MIDI input software for piano? As you might guess (and you mention in a later video), being able to play the entire thing fully keeps its spirit alive much better than bar-by-bar; but don't know if there's a software program out there (Finale, sibelius, etc.) that can notate real-time piano in an even mostly accurate or satisfying way. Thanks for any tips!
Thanks Torsti. Finale and Sibelius (and Dorico) will capture MIDI, but the notation results almost never work straight away. Unless you play like a robot, it will tend to make mistakes. Personally I would (and do!) record into any DAW. I keep my original 'performance' (in case I need it later - for subtleties or dynamics that I will want to notate, or just to remember how it felt). I duplicate the file to transform into robot-style version. I then edit this robot version - in particular quantising (so notation software doesn't get confused) and separating parts into left hand/right hand, or as many lines as needed . I then export that MIDI file and open it in Finale or Dorico to make it legible. This saves time in the long run. Good luck! EO
@@EarOpener Thanks for getting back to me! It's certainly a process, but good to have an avenue. Next hurdle: find a way past the 'Well sometimes I play it THIS way, sometimes THAT way don't-want-to-pin-it-down' side! Cheers, and happy composing!
I agree. The biggest flaw using notation software with orchestral samples is that the combination is extremely poor at rendering believable fast legato strings and string "runs". To get them convincing requires a huge amount of concentration and infinite care. I'm pretty sure that's partly why many "composers" of "contemporary" film music actually avoid certain phrasing unless they have access to a fine live orchestra. The media composing world is now full of hideous cliches, over-use of bombastic percussion and very poor knowledge of BASIC harmony. Those "old fashioned Hollywood composers were light years ahead of most current media musicians who have no clue about harmony, polyphony or thematic development. Oh well.
Thanks. Yes it's an interesting moment for media musicians. My personal view is that while a lot of things have got simpler (harmony) and some others are radically de-prioritised (melodic development) - other things have got more complex - especially texture, sound creation and dynamic subtlety and detail. I know from speaking to Carly Paradis and Isobel Waller Bridge for this channel (both of whom definitely DO have a clue about traditional compositional tools) that they are simply thinking about different things - thinking of non-pitched sounds as the material or 'themes' they are developing., and creating counterpoint of non-tonal sounds rather than counterpoint of melodies. I expect there will be some kind of cycle to all this - people will return to (and hopefully re-think) some of the things you miss from golden era film scores. Thats my 2 cents . . .EO
That's very true - although this video is for beginners. My experience (except for Note Performer) has been that 3rd party VSTs are rarely a quick fix, unless you don't need keyswitching of articulations (and that is very very unlikely). I have many of the most widely used (and great sounding) packs (VSL, Spitfire etc) and honestly find it much less painful to use the on board sounds - I can get on with writing rather than managing weird behaviour of VSTs/host programme. For beginners it can actually make things harder to get an 'honest' version of your articulations with external VSTs. I'm sure things will continue to improve. In the meantime, Note Performer is superb - I discuss this in other videos. EO.
the piano technique is great exactly for this fast style, but for crescendos not good. I wondered about this, anyway i just dont use notation software to compose
Are there a software out there that includes the best as far as notation software AND film score composing software, including realistic-sounding instruments?
Thanks Kevin. There is no simple answer - any of the pro notation packages plus Note Performer will be a big improvement on the stick sounds (see Part 2 video). But most artists use a DAW and third party instruments (Spitfire, VSL etc etc) to actually work up their scores. The notation packages tend to be a means to an end. The DAW is more likely to be able to produce a sound you can use professionally.
It is possible to sync them , but I've never enjoyed working that way. Personally I just use MIDI files to move between the two in the early stages of a project. For me a project is usually 'played live' (so I need a score) or 'mocked up' so I need a good DAW session - after a while, I will usually commit to one. Remember you can use third party instruments in Finale, which makes a huge difference.
5:14 - Zackly! The most important thing is your audio-imagination (“audiation”) of your music. The playback from Sibelius or Finale (etc.) can only be used as a limited sanity check. Even traditional sight-singing is just a sanity check, because, obviously, you can’t sing an orchestra!
Ha ha - me too! - I talk about exactly this in one of the other videos. But I've found beginners get very confused about notation software - especially if they have already used a DAW of some kind - They expect way too much from how it sounds. So I wanted to deal with it straight away . EO
Any idea that one needs to be able to play piano in order to compose using sample libraries is a myth. I'm a guitar player, and the pro sample libraries aren't really designed for guitar, but for MIDI keyboard performance. And the down side of always relying on playing the keyboard to perform the samples can put your compositions in a corner, because your tendency when brainstorming for a melody or progression will be limited by your skill on the piano. And that means you will tend to fall within a pattern of what your ear likes, or just with what you know and can play. You will have a more difficult time discovering new techniques and sounds, and will tend to repeat what you would do when improvising. Composing on paper is different, because that is how you can actually express your composition knowledge which your lack of piano skills might prevent you from writing. Interval theory is an example, which theory does not always follow diatonic thinking or analysis.
So what? Just program a bunch of drums, and call that a film score?? Nah... there's enough of that being called 'modern' today, which really isn't music but is just 'beats'. Not all Notation software is the same. StaffPad and Noteperformer probably have the 'closest' sound to a live orchestra, but of course there will always be a level with samples that still won't be exactly... as good as a real live instrument. Yet the samples can get very close, close enough as a matter of fact that most non-musically trained folks cannot tell the difference. So really, the cheap samples that come with Notation software like Sibelius or Finale, etc., shouldn't even be used in comparison when speaking of quality samples. Not everyone is a concert pianist: 19th century French composer Claude Debussy wrote some very difficult to play pieces on the piano, and that was because of his ability on the piano. Hand him a guitar and I strongly doubt he could write the same stuff. See the difference? This is also a problem with using sample libraries, because not everyone can play in the parts to get the best possible sounding performance. However, the modern DAW is advanced enough today where the composer can enter in the music notes manually, and then used MIDI controllers to affect the performance, and get close to the sound of a live instrument performance. Dorico and Sibelius allow manipulation of individual notes to affect performance, while others like Finale and StaffPad, not so much.
![The Pros And Cons Of Using Notation Software [Part 2]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/qWiDaANErSc/mqdefault.jpg)
![The Pros And Cons Of Using Notation Software [Part 2]](/img/tr.png)
About the sounds: I would really recommend NotePerformer! Not too expensive, quite realistic sounds compared to all the really expensive ones! Artificial Intelligence, with great dynamics and stuff.
Love this series!
Thanks Hanneke. What a coincidence - we just re edited and re-uploaded (this morning!) episode 2 of our Notation series to include something about Note Performer. I totally agree with you. It is a huge improvement. Enjoy the channel . . EO. PS - a third episode on Notation coming up in a couple of weeks.
@@EarOpener Oh wow, the algorhythm at work!
Are there a software out there that includes the best as far as notation software AND film score composing software, including realistic-sounding instruments?
@@kevinmkraft I really love Dorico in combination with NotePerformer. I rarely compose for films; but look up one of the many great videos on their RUclips channel: there are a few on video compositions as well!
Oh, thank you! This really helps!
Omg... This channel. Is sooo underrated!
We're glad you found us! Spread the word. EO
7:43 - Another really helpful thing in writing for orchestra is to go to a local music store, rent an instrument of interest, and find a teacher. Tell that teacher, and yourself, “I’m not trying to become a great French-horn (or whatever) player; I’m not even trying to become a mediocre French-horn player; I just want to spend a couple months understanding the _general gist_ of the experience of playing the French horn.”
Thanks Gary - great point. EO
To discover what the real instruments sound like, there's a RUclips area somewhere that demos each orchestra instrument.
Other than that to learn how the instruments sound, go to a live performance; or spend some time listening to recorded live orchestra. We do not have to learn how to 'play' each instrument in order to write for them, but that can help also. What I would mostly ask a real player is about performance issues with that instrument. For example, with violin tremolo, would you really write that to be played for 100 bars continuously? No, as it would literally wear out the violin player. Nor would you write a soft pp dynamic for a trumpet in its high range. But this kind of info can also be learned in orchestration texts like Rimsky-Korsakov or by Adler.
Very helpful and precious advices. I’ve lost years about tweaking softwares and loosing the main reason of all tasks: the music! Thanks for your videos
Thanks Tommaso - yes software can be your best friend and your worst enemy. Good luck with your work . . . EO
you can summarize that the instruments which depend heavily on tone cultivation - strings particularly, but winds as well - are really hard to sample, while pianos, percussion, harps, even guitars sounds pretty good in these softwares.
Well put. Or for synth users - anything where a player can manipulate the ADSR envelope whilst playing are harder to sample. With pianos and percussion, the envelope is pretty much predetermined - and so easier to sample. EO
Very interesting and very true over all. I use Finale purely for notation, not reproduction, the sounds are usually pretty awful, they're just there to check for wrong chords or notes. I compose/arrange for piano, organ and mainly choir. And let's be honest, musical life has improved so much since I could do away with pencil and paper. Image still having to write choral arrangements by hand and copying them.
Yes - I can dimly remember , and it was SLOW. Check the other two videos in the Notation series - I talk about Note Performer plug in, which massively improves the reproduction . . although not for choir, it has to be said. ruclips.net/video/qWiDaANErSc/видео.html. Thanks for the comment EO
This is a very well designed tutorial, strangely other videos I watched on the topic failed badly at answering my question: Why use a notation program instead of DAW, which is what I have used all my life.
Thanks Mutee. For me , the main advantages of these programmes over DAWs are 1) clarity of printed out scores - badly edited scores from DAWS can be almost unusable by musicians. Even terribly edited scores on Sibelius etc... tend to be readable. b) If you want to add a lot of detail (dynamics etc...) the Score programmes handle this very well. EO
@@EarOpener Much thanks for further clarification. Since I am not versed in reading/writing notation, I suppose DAW is my only option.
yes - DAWS are much nicer to work with if you're not printing your music out
Honestly, it’d be worth the money to buy dorico simply for the robust write mode features, and then XML out to Finale for the long hours deep work!! It works well as kinda a sheet music DAW, or an idea workstation
Very good point Nick - I might even try that! EO
Really good idea about using a piano sound for everything. Even though the sounds I use sound pretty good (note performer), the sound, volume and timbre of the different ranges on the instruments are all quite identical and unrealistic, which can lead to misleading sonic ideas.
Thanks River North. Yes Note Performer is really good - we mention it briefly in the Part 2 episode. I've been using it a lot lately - it's a big upgrade, no question, and great value. But I still find that a kind of fatigue sets in , listening to a 'not-always-beautiful' sound when working long hours. A good piano is just really good company to spend the day with. I really only want to hear beautiful sounds in my life (!), as that is what I'm trying to do ultimately. I've found myself still using a (really good) piano sound for the inputting stage , and then checking my work on Note Performer every few hours. This way I actually look forward to hearing NP , rather than slowly getting irritated by it. PC
Yes just using piano as the instrument is a wonderful piece of advice!
Thanks for your comment. I hope that tip makes life sound a lot more pleasant! More tips in Part 2 , which we recently re-uploaded with a segment on Note Performer plug in that you may find interesting EO
The clip you played from an old 1940"s movie was probably recorded with one or two mics in a room. Modern movie music often sounds as if each instrument has it's own mic. To me this is an indicator that the music was not performed by an orchestra in a room but by keyboards and computers.
Yes - completely. Its a completely different process, and a different sound. And it is changing how people hear classical instruments, and what they expect to hear. I friend of mine who is a very well known TV and Film composer uses real orchestras a lot - but he records them all close mic'd and also goes for a very metronomic , quantised performance. They sort-of sound like a computer - but not quite. He likes the sound of the virtual instruments, and is using the orchestra to do an improved version of it. EO
I want to buy Notion 6 because it's the one with the best sounds from what I heards. Some of you have a comment for or tips for me? I don't want to imagine sounds. I need the software to sounds like a real orchestra right away. So any tips can be nice. Thanks !!!. Great video.
Thanks Nicolas. My first tip - watch the part 2 video ruclips.net/video/qWiDaANErSc/видео.html ! There is a third episode out after this week. I don't know Notion, but I know it is well regarded - especially for the sounds and I have a high regard for Presonus other products. However, If you don't intend to actually have your scores played by 'real' players, I'm not sure why you'd want to use notation software - a DAW will probably get you there quicker. My other tip is to remember that no software currently does EVERYTHING well - you might have to work quite hard to make some techniques sound good (e.g. fast legato scales on strings). A certain amount of 'imagining' is almost inevitable. If you want to mock up a 'real sounding' orchestral score , be prepared to do a LOT of fine tuning editing of sounds and articulations (this is usually easier in a DAW). Depending on what sound samples you use, you may find that you can't get a truly realistic sound of certain techniques no matter how hard you try. You'll have to write something else, something that the software CAN play well. Good luck! EO
All good, but funny part is that you criticising a lot on electronic music and I heard the background, starting and ending notation were produced in electronic music . It would be really happy if you have used or shown playing real instruments by the analysts in this video and used their music as background score ..
Thanks Srikanth. I love electronic music! I have written hours and hours of it. I also love acoustic music. I have worked with a lot of young composers over the years and found they get frustrated by the notation software - these three videos (on notation software) are the things that those younger composers found most useful. Great idea to use the interviewees music, but we couldn't afford it! Thanks for the feedback. EO
I use dorico, never repent of using it.. the only reason is I would love to hear my music and test my ability that’s why I mostly rely on software products just for a simulation ..there is no person on the earth who doesn’t love to listen live orchestral music . As you rightly said it’s pure imagination of human not the machine but here we have very limited resources to show case musical talent one such method is to simulate the live ..
Yes Dorico is really great - I think all of the 'big three' apps are superb. . It is very hard to get your music played live - it's expensive! - so the software is definitely a good second best. Have you tried using Dorico with Note Performer - this makes it even better.
@@EarOpener no I will definitely give a try thanks for the suggestion.
I arrange for piano.. When I play it is hard for me to listen objectively because I am concentrating on playing. So I enter into Noteflight.
I wonder if it would be interesting for you to 'play within your limits' sometimes - to play music that is technically very simple for your hands, so you can start to make more connections between what your fingers are doing and what your brain is doing? You might write some good new music that way . . . EO
6:19 LOL🤣🤣🤣🤣
Thanks for posting. I'm about to start a project of taking the piano I use to accompany the musicals I've written to make scores that are both understandable and expressive for other who might play them. Wondering if you've found a best/better real-time MIDI input software for piano? As you might guess (and you mention in a later video), being able to play the entire thing fully keeps its spirit alive much better than bar-by-bar; but don't know if there's a software program out there (Finale, sibelius, etc.) that can notate real-time piano in an even mostly accurate or satisfying way. Thanks for any tips!
Thanks Torsti. Finale and Sibelius (and Dorico) will capture MIDI, but the notation results almost never work straight away. Unless you play like a robot, it will tend to make mistakes. Personally I would (and do!) record into any DAW. I keep my original 'performance' (in case I need it later - for subtleties or dynamics that I will want to notate, or just to remember how it felt). I duplicate the file to transform into robot-style version. I then edit this robot version - in particular quantising (so notation software doesn't get confused) and separating parts into left hand/right hand, or as many lines as needed . I then export that MIDI file and open it in Finale or Dorico to make it legible. This saves time in the long run. Good luck! EO
@@EarOpener Thanks for getting back to me! It's certainly a process, but good to have an avenue. Next hurdle: find a way past the 'Well sometimes I play it THIS way, sometimes THAT way don't-want-to-pin-it-down' side! Cheers, and happy composing!
I agree. The biggest flaw using notation software with orchestral samples is that the combination is extremely poor at rendering believable fast legato strings and string "runs". To get them convincing requires a huge amount of concentration and infinite care. I'm pretty sure that's partly why many "composers" of "contemporary" film music actually avoid certain phrasing unless they have access to a fine live orchestra. The media composing world is now full of hideous cliches, over-use of bombastic percussion and very poor knowledge of BASIC harmony. Those "old fashioned Hollywood composers were light years ahead of most current media musicians who have no clue about harmony, polyphony or thematic development. Oh well.
Thanks. Yes it's an interesting moment for media musicians. My personal view is that while a lot of things have got simpler (harmony) and some others are radically de-prioritised (melodic development) - other things have got more complex - especially texture, sound creation and dynamic subtlety and detail. I know from speaking to Carly Paradis and Isobel Waller Bridge for this channel (both of whom definitely DO have a clue about traditional compositional tools) that they are simply thinking about different things - thinking of non-pitched sounds as the material or 'themes' they are developing., and creating counterpoint of non-tonal sounds rather than counterpoint of melodies. I expect there will be some kind of cycle to all this - people will return to (and hopefully re-think) some of the things you miss from golden era film scores. Thats my 2 cents . . .EO
I guess now we have vst support in notation software🎉
That's very true - although this video is for beginners. My experience (except for Note Performer) has been that 3rd party VSTs are rarely a quick fix, unless you don't need keyswitching of articulations (and that is very very unlikely). I have many of the most widely used (and great sounding) packs (VSL, Spitfire etc) and honestly find it much less painful to use the on board sounds - I can get on with writing rather than managing weird behaviour of VSTs/host programme. For beginners it can actually make things harder to get an 'honest' version of your articulations with external VSTs. I'm sure things will continue to improve. In the meantime, Note Performer is superb - I discuss this in other videos. EO.
the piano technique is great exactly for this fast style, but for crescendos not good. I wondered about this, anyway i just dont use notation software to compose
Thanks. Yes, this is very true - you have to imagine the crescendos. But this is actually easy to do once you get used to it - it works for me. EO
Are there a software out there that includes the best as far as notation software AND film score composing software, including realistic-sounding instruments?
Thanks Kevin. There is no simple answer - any of the pro notation packages plus Note Performer will be a big improvement on the stick sounds (see Part 2 video). But most artists use a DAW and third party instruments (Spitfire, VSL etc etc) to actually work up their scores. The notation packages tend to be a means to an end. The DAW is more likely to be able to produce a sound you can use professionally.
@@EarOpener Thanks for your insight. I appreciate it.
@@EarOpener Is it possible to use finale together with daw?
It is possible to sync them , but I've never enjoyed working that way. Personally I just use MIDI files to move between the two in the early stages of a project. For me a project is usually 'played live' (so I need a score) or 'mocked up' so I need a good DAW session - after a while, I will usually commit to one. Remember you can use third party instruments in Finale, which makes a huge difference.
Google 'rewire finale and logic' and yo'll find some tutorials on how to do it
5:14 - Zackly! The most important thing is your audio-imagination (“audiation”) of your music. The playback from Sibelius or Finale (etc.) can only be used as a limited sanity check. Even traditional sight-singing is just a sanity check, because, obviously, you can’t sing an orchestra!
what piece started at 4:28?
thanks for the comparisons
Thanks MB - it's from. a Preston Sturges film from 1942 (Palm Beach Story) - score by Victor Young.EO
PS Check out the Part 2 video on the channel. Part 3 coming next year (more about using the software than the sound of it)
I need that Vienna Symphonic plugin to drive my neighbours into madness.
good luck with that!
6:19 😆 so worth it
for your listening pleasure! EO
Informative
Ps fullow me2.ty 4d aupport
Thank you RO
Funny that you start with how it sounds, that's the part of notation software I never use.
Ha ha - me too! - I talk about exactly this in one of the other videos. But I've found beginners get very confused about notation software - especially if they have already used a DAW of some kind - They expect way too much from how it sounds. So I wanted to deal with it straight away . EO
Good bedside manner I'm thinking
We try! Enjoy the channel. EO
Any idea that one needs to be able to play piano in order to compose using sample libraries is a myth. I'm a guitar player, and the pro sample libraries aren't really designed for guitar, but for MIDI keyboard performance. And the down side of always relying on playing the keyboard to perform the samples can put your compositions in a corner, because your tendency when brainstorming for a melody or progression will be limited by your skill on the piano. And that means you will tend to fall within a pattern of what your ear likes, or just with what you know and can play. You will have a more difficult time discovering new techniques and sounds, and will tend to repeat what you would do when improvising.
Composing on paper is different, because that is how you can actually express your composition knowledge which your lack of piano skills might prevent you from writing. Interval theory is an example, which theory does not always follow diatonic thinking or analysis.
So what? Just program a bunch of drums, and call that a film score?? Nah... there's enough of that being called 'modern' today, which really isn't music but is just 'beats'.
Not all Notation software is the same. StaffPad and Noteperformer probably have the 'closest' sound to a live orchestra, but of course there will always be a level with samples that still won't be exactly... as good as a real live instrument. Yet the samples can get very close, close enough as a matter of fact that most non-musically trained folks cannot tell the difference. So really, the cheap samples that come with Notation software like Sibelius or Finale, etc., shouldn't even be used in comparison when speaking of quality samples.
Not everyone is a concert pianist:
19th century French composer Claude Debussy wrote some very difficult to play pieces on the piano, and that was because of his ability on the piano. Hand him a guitar and I strongly doubt he could write the same stuff. See the difference? This is also a problem with using sample libraries, because not everyone can play in the parts to get the best possible sounding performance. However, the modern DAW is advanced enough today where the composer can enter in the music notes manually, and then used MIDI controllers to affect the performance, and get close to the sound of a live instrument performance. Dorico and Sibelius allow manipulation of individual notes to affect performance, while others like Finale and StaffPad, not so much.