Questions on Notation Software vs. Sequencers and How They Interact

I guess I don't really have any explicit questions. I am just trying to understand how notation programs (such as Finale / Sibelius) can interact with sequencing programs (such as cubase / reaper / logic).

For example, could I write out a score in Sibelius and then import the resulting wav file into reaper and add sequenced samples on top of it? Or, would it be more productive to just use the samples as a VST in Sibelius and forget the sequencer altogether?

Is it common practice in the world of working mock-ups to create the mock-up solely in a notation program (like Sibelius using a VST plugin such as EWQL) or is part done in notation and part through looped and/or sequenced samples, or do they just use the notation software for the printed score and then recreate all the sounds through a sequencing program?

The reason I ask is because I would like to produce professional quality mock-ups for marching band shows and film/tv music. So far, I have only had Sibelius 5 "play" the score for me, but this leaves much to desire. Would it be a more worth-while investment in time and money to learn how to use VST through Sibelius to produce better mock-ups OR is my time and money better spent using Sibelius only for the visual score and then to recreate the music completely through a program such as Reaper, using EWQL, etc samples?

Thanks -- and sorry for my haphazard writing style. :w00t:

Generally speaking, notation programs are for notation, and sequencing programs for sound. So if you don't want to make any nice scores but just produce a good sound, sequencers are the much more versatile choice. I don't know any notation program in which you can fine-adjust the sound output like you can in a good sequencer. (And this applies even more when you're combining MIDI with audio channels, where you have for example a specific soloist actually recorded.)

If you also want to create scores with Sibelius, I suggest first making the score, then make a midi file out of it, importing it in a sequencer and use all the samples, effects, etc. there. (Some sequencers are a bit messy with MIDI file import though - Logic is, in any case.)

That's at least how I -would- do it, but I've never been into digitally producing music (well, apart from computer music), so others (Nikolas, Marius, etc.) are a lot more knowledgeable in this respect.

"If you also want to create scores with Sibelius, I suggest first making the score, then make a midi file out of it, importing it in a sequencer and use all the samples, effects, etc. there. (Some sequencers are a bit messy with MIDI file import though - Logic is, in any case.)"

Since MIDI export is notoriously difficult to work with, would it be advantageous to export audio instead and then add whatever else is not in the score using the sequencer. For example, if I am creating a film score, and I write all the woodwinds, brass, and strings in Sibelius and want to add percussion, sound effects, etc after (without explicity writing out the parts), would it be good to use Sibelius (and GPO or EWQL plugins through Sibelius) to create the audio for those parts and then layer the extra stuff in Reaper?

Or, does the customization available through sequencers make the playback features of notation programs so obsolete that its not even worthwhile messing around with playback in Sibelius?

Sibelius' playback is poor to very poor to begin with.

Hi Bryan,

I don't have too much time so I'll be brief for this first answer. Basically, especially if your main interest is realistic mock-ups, then you'll want to be working with a sequencer and leave the notation software for notation. If you're most comfortable working by actually writing out all the notes, then do so in Finale/Sibelius, export the MIDI, import it into your sequencer, load up the necessary VST instruments, and then sit down and start tweaking the MIDI data in detail so that you get the best possible sound out of your libraries.

Usually what I do is write the instrumental parts like this and set up my score so that it's basically useless for real-life performance because I have, for example, separate staves for a violin playing legato and one playing staccato, because I know I'll need to load two separate patches from my sound libraries to render it properly. There are ways around this that keep the score looking pretty but I don't get my pieces performed by live musicians so it's really not a concern very often for me.

Anyhow, once you have the MIDI and import it into your sequencer, you can just load up your VST instruments like I said and start tweaking. This is also the stage where I add the percussion and effects, as well as any other parts that I record myself. In point of fact, I tend to prefer just sketching pieces in Finale and then loading a workspace in my sequencer and actually PLAYING all the instrument parts in myself via MIDI keyboard...saves a shitload of time with minute and tedious MIDI data tweaking and gets me to a realistic mock-up that much faster.

As a general idea, you CAN do all your rendering right from within notation software and get a remarkably good result, but the fact of the matter is that "the way it's done" in real studios is using sequencers, so if you envision yourself pursuing this as a future career then you're going to want to be as familiar as possible with the technology as early in the game as possible so that it all becomes second nature and you can focus on the music and not the nerdy bits.

Feel free to keep asking more precise questions; like I said, I'm in a hurry just now so I just wanted to get the basics out of the way. :thumbsup:

Thanks Marius,

I think you are insightfully getting to the true core of my question here.

So, it seems like the crux of the matter is who will be performing the music. If its solely electronic, then focus more on the sequencer and use notation only to sketch out the work, if desired; but, obviously, its much easier to play directly into the sequencing program (i.e. just like keying in the notes into Finale but cutting out the middle man).

If you want both a great mock-up and playable parts, then you essentially have to write the music twice. Once for the mock-up and once for the musicians. (I imagine that it would go something like .... create the score in notation, export the MIDI, tweak forever in sequencer, etc).

And, if you don't care so much about the mock-up quality, then rendering the playback in Sibelius works fine (which is what I have been doing up until now since I can load in EWQL, GPO, TapSpace, Colosus, etc. directly).

Isn't there a way to write the music you want and then have a sequencer play it acurately with all the nuances that you have written in the music. Because I know that Sibelius 5 write MIDI messages for live dynamic changes, tempo, instrument, attacks, release messages, etc. I assume that those would export to the sequencer fine as well. I guess maybe my question is: How does importing your music via MIDI help you get a more professional rendering when the notation software should be playing everything that the sequencer has to go off of?

Hey Bryan,

Let's see if I can shed some more light on these questions. You're right that the main issue is who is performing the piece — if you don't need a score for any particular reason, then it's usually best not to bother with one...it'll save you a step in your composing process. You're also correct about the dual-score thing, but that's ONLY if you want to generate your mock-up from within your notation software or from a MIDI exported from same. But if you have a formal score and can play all the parts in live to your sequencer, then there's really no need for that second mock-up score.

Your last question is where it gets a bit nebulous. The fact of the matter is that you CAN get a fine mock-up out of notation software, but more often than not it requires that you write for your samples. By that, I mean that you write with the samples in mind instead of the instrumentalist, because you get a feel for how each notation software interprets and creates MIDI data and how your sample libraries respond — sometimes they respond perfectly and you get the same sound as a real player would produce, and sometimes they take a "mp" dynamic and play it as a "FFF" (for example) just to screw with you, and then you've got to find a way to convince your sound library to behave using only the very limited vocabulary of your notation software.

And that leads into an analogy that I can use to illustrate this well. Consider, if you will, that there are two languages to computer music production: there is "Human" and "MIDI". As a general rule, notation software speaks Human very fluently and is passable in MIDI, sometimes quite decently so. Sequencing software speaks Human like an autistic kid, but it speaks MIDI like a pro. The difference is in vocabulary, according to my analogy here. Notation software is designed to give you more extensive control over the elements of notation, score presentation, and so on. Sequencing software is designed to give you ultimate control over the MIDI data.

Right on Marius, we know you're a writer, so what the hell's the point? Weeeell, the point I'm trying to strain out here is that, as of this moment, there's really no way to just go into your notation software, write a perfect, ready-for-the-orchestra score and have a sample library that can understand and reproduce everything just the way you intended. Each of the types of software does its own thing, and while you CAN use one to do the other's job, the result is often not as good and the whole enterprise is a bit like using a shoehorn as a bottle opener — counterproductive in the long run.

So, returning to one of your points, if you have real players: notation software is your friend; if, however, you haven't managed to save up for that orchestra in your basement yet, then Sequencing software is your friend instead.

As a marginal note, I'm in the midst of reviewing a sound library called XSample Chamber Ensemble which is claiming to be seamlessly integratable with Finale and Sibelius' playback such that what you write actually DOES get played back accurately. So far, it's certainly doing a better job than some other libraries, but not remarkably so — and in any case, the library is intended for chamber ensembles, not really useful for big orchestra mock-ups or anything that doesn't use classical instruments. Actually, it also lacks a brass section. :P

Anyway, hopefully that helps you a bit further! :happy:

Beyond just the samplers, sequencers also give you much more detailed control over mixing and effects as well.

thanks marius. that was very useful and well written. andy, can you eelaborate a bit further on that thought? even in sibelius, you can adjust volume levels, pan levels, and add many effects such as reverb, chorus, whatever on individual tracks (ie per instrument or whatever). how does a sequencer expand upon that? other than just letting you do it through a different software dialogue?

I can answer for Andy, I think. He's referring to the fact that a sequencer lets you do all the effects that you mentioned, plus many many more (hi/lo-pass filters, compression, etc etc) and you can also choose to overlap multiple effects, tweak the specific properties of each on a minute level, as well as choose whether the effect is applied to the track before or after it hits the rest of the mix. Again, sequencers are designed to give you ultimate control over all the technical aspects of your music creation — you really can't compare the processing and post-processing capabilities of a sequencer to a notation software.

Well, ok. Now that my deepest fears have been confirmed [bTW remind me to talk to you about a business venture I have in mind... something along the lines of a perfect notation /sequencer union :) ] ....

So I guess I need to delve more fully into the sequencing side of things. Now, I need technical help. I have a PC that I built purely for composing (mostly :p).

RELEVANT SPECS:

- Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600 2.4 GHz CPU

- Sound Blaster XFi Pro Sound Card (ie ASIO)

- 2 hard drives : both Western Digital, one small and slower for OS stuff, one fast and huge for accessing sample libraries, music files, etc

- CD / DVD drives

- External Hard drive for back-up

I have the following software ....

Sibelius 5

TapSpace

GPO

Garritan Marching / Concert Band

Windows XP x 64

Reaper

I have the following hardware...

M-Audio Prokeys 88 stage piano

M-Audio Oxygen 8v.2 MIDI controller

ZOOM multitrack digtial recorder

Is there anything else I need to make this work? Has anyone had good success with Reaper or is it just better to go with another sequencer? What works well with a PC?

What other software/hardware do I need? Which samples are best? How can I optimize the PC for sequencing (no "switch the MAC" jokes please)...

Well actually you've neglected to mention what is easily the most important computer spec when working with sample libraries: RAM. Otherwise your rig sounds pretty decent for most kinds of mock-up making, so the question then becomes: what kind of music are you looking to write?

In terms of hardware, it sounds like you're pretty much good to go (unless you have only 1GB or so, in which case you'll want to at least double it to save yourself the hassle of having to render things in pieces). Software-wise, you can stick to Reaper and probably encounter no significant issues; however, considering it's a fairly new piece of software and it doesn't have the years of development experience behind it that its non-open-source competitors have, you may want to consider taking a look at Sonar or Cubase or Nuendo or whatever. The thing with sequencers is, at the level that we're talking about here they're pretty much interchangeable in terms of features. Yes, some are known to do certain things better than others, but usually those differences are only significant when you're doing more advanced work with them — they are all amply capable of doing what you need them to do, so it comes down to trying each one out and seeing which interface you find the most intuitive and which fits your budget most comfortably. I myself have used Reaper only superficially, so I can't really tell you how it compares to the other packages in practise, though in theory it should do the job just fine if you like the interface. I've used Cubase and Sonar and liked them both; the second more than the first.

In terms of sample libraries, we need to return to my previous question of what kind of music you're looking to write. If it's film/game music with orchestra, then you can't go wrong with something like EWQL Symphonic Orchestra — it's designed to give you that wonderful "Hollywood" sound without too much tweaking, and it's also flexible enough to be used in most other musical settings too. Plus, the library sounds very nice, has a diverse collection of articulations for each instrument, and is not as expensive as the top-of-the-line stuff. Speaking of expenses, sample libraries are horrible horrible things because they're extremely expensive and they're VERY tempting. Once you buy one, and you see another...it's like crack. :P

But anyway, if you're not into that kind of music and you want to do other things, then take a look at libraries like Colossus (Goliath now), or Ministry of Rock, or some such. I know I sound like I'm just advertising for East West here, but the fact is that they have an extremely impressive collection of high-quality sample libraries that will fit most of your needs. Chances are good that whatever kind of music you're looking to write, you'll find the sounds you need at Sounds Online.

The top of the line library, for reference, is the Vienna Symphonic Library. It's a monster. There are a whole slew of versions and individual packs and so on, but the full library itself is hundreds of GBs in size and a system hog. Keep in mind though that it's not meant to be run on a single computer. Most studios that make mock-ups using Vienna stuff tend to do so with multiple machines in a Master/Slaves setup. Vienna's libraries also require more processing to get a really good sound — the samples are recorded dry, for example, so you usually need to add a good reverb to them to get the sound you want.

The beauty of EWQL's libraries is just that — they sound great right out of the box, with minimal processing. Obviously, the more work you put into it, the better it'll sound, but the fact remains that if you don't have a lot of time to spend making a realistic mock-up of a piece, EWQL can get you there faster and produce a result that's usually convincing enough for most people, even if fellow users are likely to notice flaws. And, of course, EWQL libraries can be run on a single machine, which is the way you're intending to.

Also check out ProjectSAM's libraries, Kirk Hunter's, perhaps Bela D., just for reference's sake.

Optimizing your PC for sequencing usually just means keeping the damn thing clean. Don't do your email and IMing on it, don't do too much web browsing, don't install anything you don't need, uninstall anything that's already installed that you don't need, disable any unecessary visual effects of the OS (if you're in XP or Vista, basically make it look like Windows 2000)...oh, and make sure you defragment your drives every so often (lots of sample streaming can clutter things) and use that backup. Essentially, keep your composing computer just for that. You can do all your social and webby stuff on another machine, but keep the music one unclogged.

By the way, talk to me about a business venture you have in mind...;)

I am looking to write mostly media music and for marching band/ drum corps. I have 2 GB RAM and I am going to upgrade to 4 GB soon, and 8 eventually so I should be set there. I agree with your assesment of the sample libraries - its seems like East West offers the best value around especially in my price range...

Are there any books/articles/websites you would recommend that give a good, thorough overview of sequencing to I can use to get started... I know that the user manual would have some general guidance but Im sure youve seem some good stuff that would be useful.

Also, I just wanted to say thanks for taking the time out of your life to help me out. Its not everyone that would put up with so many questions. These topics have been swirling around in my head for the past couple of years really, and up until now, I'd never really been able to get good answers. So... thanks again!

To be honest with you, I've never been much good at learning things from books. Logic, which is the sequencer I use now, came with an astounding amount of literature that covers literally every aspect of using the software, so I know that solved my issues in that case, but I'm not sure if Sonar or the other Windows ones offer something like that.

As a general, all around good book to have though for computer music, I recommend Paul Gilreath's MIDI Orchestration. You can find the Amazon link HERE or just Google it to find it elsewhere. Make sure you grab the latest edition. It basically covers the ins and outs of composing and orchestrating for sample libraries and using sequencers in general terms, with examples from all major ones as well as some sample library discussion. It's a very good reference book and talks about things like mixing, and processing too.

Other than that though, I myself haven't used any books specifically about sequencing, so I can't really be of much use there; perhaps someone else has read some other titles they can recommend.

And no worries about the help — glad to be of service. :happy:

I personally use Cubase on a PC and I have never had any problems with it. In addition to the literature that comes with the program, there's also been loads of books written about Cubase which include many tips on using the program which might not have been readily obvious (I assume this is also the case for Logic and DP).

Good point on the Gilreath book Marius, it's definitely a must read for any aspiring sequencing composer.

Another point I'd add as well is that it never hurts to figure out your program yourself. Trial and error can sometimes be the best and most lasting way to learn the ins and outs of your program. Not to mention that you might come across some interesting technique that you might end up using later.

Marius,

I sat down and listered to 5 or 6 of your tracks tonight. They are all very good...

I downloaded a demo version of Sonar 7 to see what I could figure out. These sequencers must have a huge learning curve as it was one of the most frustrating experiences of my musical life thus far ...

Hey Bryan,

Thanks for listening, first off: I appreciate the kind words. :)

As for your sequencer woes, well...there's a reason you were dreading it! :P Sadly, they're all pretty intimidating at first glance, because there's simply so much you can do. Don't lose heart though — try Cubase too and see if it gives you better vibes than Sonar and then start playing around with it and reading whatever tutorials you can find...eventually you pick it up, but sequencers are a bit like learning a whole new musical instrument. It's not easy, but the effort you put into it can produce some pretty sparkling results. :)

Ok - ill give you that ... I understand that there will be an investment of time and effort - like any thing worth doing.

One last question maybe and then I'll let this thread die like it should have 3 days ago:

I want to take advantage of EW's 2 for 1 deal thats going on right now. I only haev the budget for about $600 (so that should get me 2 of the libraries with the deal). Which 2 would you suggest?

I am thinking Symphonic Orchestra and SD2 since Goliath seems to repeat the contents of both ...

Any thoughts? Have experience with one over the other? Symphonic Gold only has 16-bit sounds. Is it worthwhile to upgrade to platinum to get the 24 bit sounds?

Thanks

Well that's a good question. My suggestion is definitely put the orchestra in there because it's a wonderful thing — you can stick with Gold for almost anything you're likely to be doing. You won't really have any excuse to use 24-bit audio unless you plan on writing/mixing for DVD, in which case you can still get away with a lower audio fidelity, it's just not industry standard to do so. For most purposes, the difference will be imperceptible, especially if you don't have a high-quality set of monitors in your studio.

As for the other library, you COULD go with SD2, and it would likely be a great purchase, but I might recommend that you take a second look at Goliath. While it does contain some repeat orchestral samples and some useful percussion patches, where it really excels is in giving you a giant host of other instruments that you will inevitably find useful when writing for media. It's got guitars, and synths, and ambiences, and percussion, and world instruments....a little of everything, basically, and all sampled in EW's usual high quality. So don't knock Goliath off your horizon just yet. Look at it this way: with SD2, all you get is percussion. With Goliath, you get less percussion, but you make up for it with a far wider palette of sounds that you can produce with your studio.

Just something to think about, they're both extremely attractive products. Oh, and don't forget that you'll need the stupid iLok dongle to be able to use any of EW's new PLAY libraries. I think it's an extra $40 or so, just remember to add it in when you order or you won't be able to use the libraries. :P

Yeah, what a joke... If they want to charge an extra $40, why not just include it in the price. There are much easier and less intrusive ways to protect your software with keys / codes /etc. instead of having to carry around an extra USB drive everywhere you go...

Which package do you use for your percussion sounds ... just symphonic and goliath or do you use some other library?

Actually I don't even have the full Goliath — I just have its cute little brother Colossus. But I basically use that, StormDrum (the original), the percussion from EWQLSO, occasional help from Altered States, and some flavours from the Kontakt 3 library and the Logic Studio sounds. I also have some useful drum patches on my synth workstation and I'm working on getting my hands on TrueStrike and TrueStrike 2 from ProjectSAM. :)

ezDrummer is one I'm just starting to use as well, that's aimed more towards pop/rock music than marching band percussion though.

You seem to be in the same sort of boat I was a few months back! I got used to notation software like Sibelius and I can't stop using it now, for the most part. Personally I like to sketch everything out in Sibelius, then import the MIDI into Cubase 4 and play around with it in there. It's amazing just how much better a simple once over with a sequencer can make it sound, just tweaking a few velocities here and there or adjusting some note lengths or crescendos.

And defintiely get EWQL Gold as you're number one priority! It isn't perfection in a jar but it is damn good, and if you utilise it properly you can get some pretty stonking sound out of it.

Yeah - the sequencers seem like a tall challenge... But I'm going to tackle it.

As far as percussion goes... I think TapSpace Virtual Drumline is my best bet for marching percussion (I think Sibelius 5 even comes with some of the samples from this library) and then I'll just use the percussion sounds from EWQLSO and Goliath. Eventually I'd like to get SD2 just to round things out but I've definitely have got a good start already. I'm going to check out the book Marius suggested, buy the software, practice on the Sonar demo, and go from there.

Thanks for all that information, you answered questions I have from 2 years ago!

Marius,

I got Gilreath's book a couple of days ago.

Just wanted to say thanks for the recommendation - it is great.