THowever, modestly, I am very critical of the procedure he proposes, which seems extremely time-consuming to me. I would find it very interesting to discuss it since, as some may know, I am somewhat a detractor of sequencers in favor of the substitutive potential of notation programs, which I realize more and more are little known to most (I am thinking of MIDI messages, for example).
I am venturing in a little bit, I have made recent strides with my Sibelius, and I find fewer and fewer reasons to use a sequencer, if not for obvious audio editing issues (in the sense that, to obtain professional results, one must at least work on the audio tracks of each instrument or, at most, section) ... But nothing to do with Maestro Fruilio's complicated transfers from one system to another...
Well, I don't agree at all with the proposed workflow; it is a complicated method that requires more steps and starts from audio to derive the score. I do exactly the opposite: I start from the score, trying to create an audio output that is as realistic as possible by taking advantage of the fact that with MIDI parameters I can control attacks, note durations, velocities, and all the MIDI controllers that make a computerized performance sound realistic. Furthermore, in the score, it is possible to insert hidden indications that will be visible to the operator but will not be printed in the overall score, without the need to edit them one by one. In Finale, it is also possible to use mastering tools, such as Ozone or similar, so there is no even need to work separately for the audio of the stereo tracks.
What is truly useful, however, is the trick used by the Vienna programmers, which is that it is possible to load all articulations into a single track for the same instrument and switch them at the appropriate moment. With EW, this can be achieved with KS patches, but most of the time people resort to loading many articulations into just as many different tracks, which all converge into the same musical staff in Finale, resulting in perhaps ten MIDI channels just for the first violins; this is very cumbersome and quite complicated to manage, also because if you change a MIDI parameter, it will only apply to the currently selected MIDI channel, not to all the MIDI channels corresponding to all the articulations of the same instrument.
T
Tiger
Member
Reply 3 by Tiger
Posts
447
Non-provocative question, do you really find MIDI that interesting?
I do, I find it interesting... better a well-made MIDI than an orchestra that sounds bad. Then there is also a reason of practical and professional order: if you have to create a finished product, perhaps within a limited budget, you certainly cannot afford an orchestra, so MIDI can replace it quite decently, if you know how to use certain software. Furthermore, considering that these MIDIs are used everywhere—cinema, advertising, video games, radio, and so on—perhaps those who make music should not disregard them entirely, also because often you think you are listening to a real instrument, but you don't know it's a VST, because the work behind it consists precisely in making everything as realistic as possible, and for me this is an art no more or less than writing a good composition or a good arrangement: composers nowadays don't write with pen and paper and don't have orchestras at their disposal to practice; even if there were an orchestra, you have to arrive with the parts beautiful and ready, I have never seen anyone show up to a competition with a manuscript....
T
Tiger
Member
Reply 5 by Tiger
Posts
447
I fear I expressed myself poorly, I was referring to the MIDI Format compared to other technologies... not compared to a scenario with traditional instruments
If we are talking about musical data sequences, the only format capable of doing this seems to me to be MIDI. I don't recall there being any others... Or perhaps I didn't understand the question correctly...
