Yahoo Tuning Groups Ultimate Backup tuning MIDI scoring: how I do it

This is sort of shameless self-promotion, but there's a question in all this somewhere.

Yes, I know I'm using dinosaur technology, but I do compose in MIDI. That means I only get 15 instrument channels and one for percussion. It's actually an intentional self-handicap; after all, constraints make for stronger artistic expression. (Of course I could, and have, sequenced music in two MIDI files and recorded one over the other, in case I wanted more instruments or two different drum sets.)

Because of current amplification technology--the ï¿½berhuge late Romantic-early 20th century symphony orchestra is no longer really needed, I score things for a smaller orchestra, almost chamber size. I also have a less-is-more approach to writing. Since I do use quarter tones, third tones and whatnot, and it's not easy to find musicians trained to play and hear microtones, I like to keep things simple.

I also compose with Noteworthy Composer, a poor-man's Sibelius or Finale. It's always worked for me, but if I ever can afford it, I would like to try one of the more expensive programs.

Anyway, this is how I assign the sixteen channels for MIDI mockups of symphonic works, microtonal or not (again, I'm not so much a microtonal composer as I am a composer who uses microtones, and usually, but not always, 72-edo).

1. Flute and/or piccolo
2. Oboe and/or English horn
3. Clarinet
4. Bassoon
5. Horn I
6. Horn II or tuba
7. Trumpet (I often use Brass-61 for channels 7 and 8)
8. Trombone
9. Harp, piano, organ, celesta, glockenspiel, etc.
10. Timpani and other orchestral percussion (drum kit 48 or 49)
11. Violins I
12. Violins II
13. Violas I
14. Violas II
15. Cellos I
16. Cellos II and/or basses

I'll also swap out channels if I need both flute and piccolo, oboe and English horn, and so on, but I might have to drop a horn or string part. (I don't need six channels for strings all that much, actually.)

I also do microtones with pitch bends, old school. That does cause problems with sound decay/release, of course. If I'm writing complex microtonal parts in strings, for instance, I'll have channels 11-16 all set as a generic string ensemble (48 or 49) and have each channel fixed 16.67 cents apart, like I did with "The Waterloo Rag". My Roland synth does handle generic scale tuning messages which I can send with Scala, but of course, that's only limited to the twelve-note octave.

I still need to learn Csound or something when I have time, but I really don't. I feel like I'm getting too old to learn whole new languages. Anyway, how do *you* all handle tuning large orchestral scores?

~D.
http://ludwigvan-tx.livejournal.com
http://www.last.fm/music/Danny+Wier/

🔗Torsten Anders <torsten.anders@...>

Dear Danny,

Even if using MIDI, you can have more than 16 channels. There are
multiple ways to go beyond that limitation, e.g.,

- have multiple ports, each again with 16 channels
- have multiple tracks in a MIDI sequences, again each with 16
channels
- split your rendering in multiple stages and mix the recorded
sounds afterwards
...

Then again, there are ways to have multiple sounds/articulations/
instruments per channel, e.g., by using program change messages.

There are some books on creating orchestral music with MIDI setups,
e.g.,

Paul Gilreath. The Guide to MIDI Orchestration

Best
Torsten

On Aug 25, 2009, at 1:43 PM, Danny Wier wrote:

> This is sort of shameless self-promotion, but there's a question in
> all
> this somewhere.
>
> Yes, I know I'm using dinosaur technology, but I do compose in MIDI.
> That means I only get 15 instrument channels and one for percussion.
> It's actually an intentional self-handicap; after all, constraints
> make
> for stronger artistic expression. (Of course I could, and have,
> sequenced music in two MIDI files and recorded one over the other, in
> case I wanted more instruments or two different drum sets.)
>
> Because of current amplification technology--the überhuge late
> Romantic-early 20th century symphony orchestra is no longer really
> needed, I score things for a smaller orchestra, almost chamber size. I
> also have a less-is-more approach to writing. Since I do use quarter
> tones, third tones and whatnot, and it's not easy to find musicians
> trained to play and hear microtones, I like to keep things simple.
>
> I also compose with Noteworthy Composer, a poor-man's Sibelius or
> Finale. It's always worked for me, but if I ever can afford it, I
> would
> like to try one of the more expensive programs.
>
> Anyway, this is how I assign the sixteen channels for MIDI mockups of
> symphonic works, microtonal or not (again, I'm not so much a> microtonal
> composer as I am a composer who uses microtones, and usually, but not
> always, 72-edo).
>
> 1. Flute and/or piccolo
> 2. Oboe and/or English horn
> 3. Clarinet
> 4. Bassoon
> 5. Horn I
> 6. Horn II or tuba
> 7. Trumpet (I often use Brass-61 for channels 7 and 8)
> 8. Trombone
> 9. Harp, piano, organ, celesta, glockenspiel, etc.
> 10. Timpani and other orchestral percussion (drum kit 48 or 49)
> 11. Violins I
> 12. Violins II
> 13. Violas I
> 14. Violas II
> 15. Cellos I
> 16. Cellos II and/or basses
>
> I'll also swap out channels if I need both flute and piccolo, oboe and
> English horn, and so on, but I might have to drop a horn or string
> part.
> (I don't need six channels for strings all that much, actually.)
>
> I also do microtones with pitch bends, old school. That does cause
> problems with sound decay/release, of course. If I'm writing complex
> microtonal parts in strings, for instance, I'll have channels 11-16
> all
> set as a generic string ensemble (48 or 49) and have each channel
> fixed
> 16.67 cents apart, like I did with "The Waterloo Rag". My Roland synth
> does handle generic scale tuning messages which I can send with Scala,
> but of course, that's only limited to the twelve-note octave.
>
> I still need to learn Csound or something when I have time, but I
> really
> don't. I feel like I'm getting too old to learn whole new languages.
> Anyway, how do *you* all handle tuning large orchestral scores?
>
> ~D.
> http://ludwigvan-tx.livejournal.com
> http://www.last.fm/music/Danny+Wier/
>

--
Torsten Anders
Interdisciplinary Centre for Computer Music Research
University of Plymouth
Office: +44-1752-586219
Private: +44-1752-558917
http://strasheela.sourceforge.net
http://www.torsten-anders.de

🔗Daniel Forro <dan.for@...>

Very interesting message!

There's nothing wrong with MIDI and working with it, I've been
working the same way since 1985. I don't use virtual synthesizers or
samplers. Partly because I don't need them (I have enough hardware),
partly because my best computer was born in 2002 and it would be rather impolite to ask more output from him :-)

On 25 Aug 2009, at 9:43 PM, Danny Wier wrote:

>
> This is sort of shameless self-promotion, but there's a question in
> all
> this somewhere.
>
> Yes, I know I'm using dinosaur technology, but I do compose in MIDI.
>

What do you mean? MIDI is a communication protocol for remote
controlling MIDI devices, how can you compose in it?
I compose usually in the head and at the table, and record the score
track by track in real time into the software MIDI sequencer, later
adding lot of controllers which couldn't be recorded directly
together with music. Another working method is totally free or
partially controlled improvisation, again in real time, track by
track with prepared sounds on different MIDI channels. Or something
in between.
> That means I only get 15 instrument channels and one for percussion.
>

MIDI world is not so much limited and restricted, everything depends
on hardware (or nowadays also software synthesizers or samplers).
What you write is valid for 1 MIDI output port, but your computer can
control more independent MIDI output ports, every with 16 channels. I
have now in my studio access to 864 MIDI channels, and my recent gear
can play simultaneously about 360 of them. Rest must wait for future
acquisitions :-)
Nothing to say about a possibility to control virtual instruments
directly from sequencer.

> It's actually an intentional self-handicap; after all, constraints
> make
> for stronger artistic expression.
>

Nothing than agreement. Intentional limitation can stimulate
creativity. I have a chapter in my books on MIDI how to work
creatively even with GM standard only. I have used my knowledge few
years ago when programming music for mobile phones...

> (Of course I could, and have,
> sequenced music in two MIDI files and recorded one over the other, in
> case I wanted more instruments or two different drum sets.)
>

Why so complex way? I suppose you can record 32 tracks simultaneouslyin your sequencer, then synchronize it with external audiorecording
(or computer) and record two stereo layers, first time MIDI 1-16
channels (17-32 muted), second time channels 17-32 (1-16 muted).
If you need more drum sets simultaneously, in many tone generators
it's possible to select drum set on any channel, not only on default 10.
> Because of current amplification technology--the überhuge late
> Romantic-early 20th century symphony orchestra is no longer really
> needed,
>

I agree, that museum setup died 100 years ago and is good only for
historical music (until Mahler/Strauss or so). What we need for
contemporary music is better balanced instrumental group (maybe even
with the help of amplification for some instruments), with additional
instruments, like early music, plucked, ethnic, of course drums and
percussions, AND synthesizers and samplers as organic part (for
emulation of rare instruments and new electronic sounds).

> I score things for a smaller orchestra, almost chamber size. I
> also have a less-is-more approach to writing.
>

The only chance how to have something performed (once in ten
years :-) ).

> Since I do use quarter
> tones, third tones and whatnot, and it's not easy to find musicians
> trained to play and hear microtones, I like to keep things simple.
>
> I also compose with Noteworthy Composer, a poor-man's Sibelius or
> Finale. It's always worked for me, but if I ever can afford it, I
> would
> like to try one of the more expensive programs.
>
>
Again I don't understand your points here. Sibelius is very good
notation software, I wouldn't call it cheap, it's not so cheap.
Features are satisfying, and output can be quite professional. Or do
you know some better notator?
And how do you compose with it? It's not algorithmic composition
software (but there are some preprogrammed motifs or something like
this, which I never used, why?). I use it only for making my scores.
Of course there's a lot of limitations concerning contemporary music,
very often I fight with it to get what I need, unfortunately with no
success (even such trivial things like polytempo, polymetrics are
impossible)... But I stopped from financial reasons at Version 3, nowthere's 6, at least I must find some time, visit their site and check
what they added.

> Anyway, this is how I assign the sixteen channels for MIDI mockups of
> symphonic works, microtonal or not (again, I'm not so much a
> microtonal
> composer as I am a composer who uses microtones, and usually, but not
> always, 72-edo).
>

> 1. Flute and/or piccolo
>
> 2. Oboe and/or English horn
>
> 3. Clarinet
>
Bassclarinet?
> 4. Bassoon
> 5. Horn I
>
> 6. Horn II or tuba
> 7. Trumpet (I often use Brass-61 for channels 7 and 8)
> 8. Trombone
> 9. Harp, piano, organ, celesta, glockenspiel, etc.
> 10. Timpani and other orchestral percussion (drum kit 48 or 49)
>
Timpani are in GM/GS/XG/GM2 as melodic sound, not drum set. How you
can use it on the channel which is reserved to drum sets? Or are you
satisfied with few timpani in orchestral drum set?
In my XG instruments orchestral set is only PC 49 on drum channel
(Bank Select = CC 00/32 must be 127/0). Timpani are PC 48 on melodic
channel (for basic sound Bank Select is 0/0, for roll+hit 0/43).
Don't you mix here the both numbers?

> 11. Violins I
> 12. Violins II
> 13. Violas I
> 14. Violas II
> 15. Cellos I
> 16. Cellos II and/or basses
>

How do you combine cellos and basses on one channel? Just by octave
doubling of cello sound?
>
> I'll also swap out channels if I need both flute and piccolo, oboe and
> English horn, and so on, but I might have to drop a horn or string
> part.
> (I don't need six channels for strings all that much, actually.)
>

What about stereo panning? This is important for resulting stereo
sound. And concerning reverb and other audioprocessing?

And how do you work with dynamics? Do you use CC 10 for absolutechannel volume in the setup in the beginning of the composition, and
CC 11 for relative expression during the composition?

Vibrato? Tremolo? Pizzicato strings? Muted brass or strings? Do you
use also filter cutoff and resonance CC's? Attack/release CC's? NRPN
controllers?

>
> I also do microtones with pitch bends, old school.
>

With which range?

> That does cause
> problems with sound decay/release, of course.
>

Plus limited polyphony - you can play let's say two flutes on one
MIDI channel, or four horns.

> If I'm writing complex
> microtonal parts in strings, for instance, I'll have channels 11-16
> all
> set as a generic string ensemble (48 or 49) and have each channel
> fixed
> 16.67 cents apart, like I did with "The Waterloo Rag".
>

I have used the same trick with my "Ecmelic music 1" in 72 EDO.

> My Roland synth
>

Which one exactly?

> does handle generic scale tuning messages which I can send with Scala,
> but of course, that's only limited to the twelve-note octave.
>
> I still need to learn Csound or something when I have time, but I
> really
> don't. I feel like I'm getting too old to learn whole new languages.
>

Same with me, it would be a loss of time. Results (at least what I've
heard) are not so convincing to me. Besides - call me old fashioned -
I doubt such kind of programming has something to do with making
music. Live real music is not a series of isolated events, it's a
language with words, sentences, articles, meaning, words between the
lines... It must speak, it must breathe... Here in Japan I have heard
a lot of "musicians" playing only notes, not music... There IS
definitely some difference.

Maybe better to learn MAX/MSP, and buy more hardware or software
synthesizers...
> Anyway, how do *you* all handle tuning large orchestral scores?
>

I didn't need it until now. When I will need it, I will just retune
my hardware synthesizers (every asks different approach) and use
them. Same way like working with three instruments, just more
instruments.

When I have simulated orchestra + pipe organ + 3 drum soloists for my
"Double concerto for organ and drums" in 2005, I used these maximal
number of MIDI channels:
12 for woodwinds
10 for brass
47 for drums and percussions (4 players in orchestra + 3 soloists
used 116 different instruments)
10 for pipe organ
20 for strings

That's 99 MIDI channels. I don't think I will ever need more for
orchestral work.

Daniel Forró

>
> ~D.
> http://ludwigvan-tx.livejournal.com
> http://www.last.fm/music/Danny+Wier/
>

🔗Daniel Forro <dan.for@...>

🔗akjmicro <aaron@...>

Daniel,

Good reply..just one thing I wanted to mention about CSound--it has great flexibility and generality, and as such is comes with many advantages for microtonality. AND, it is MIDI capable, so its use of any arbitrary MIDI message can be determined by the instrument designer. IOW, we don't have to wait, frustrated by hardware and software designers who don't care at all about tuning and microtonality: we can roll our own instruments. Let's say for example, we want to design a live real time adaptive tuning instrument, one that would allow us to choose between tuning table on the fly using for instance a breath controller or sostenuto pedal MIDI message--done, no problem. You can see the advantages, no? Nothing needs to be hard wired!

I'm just wanting to point out that you shouldn't be unimpressed with CSound...it's all what you choose to do with it. If you haven't been moved by particular things you've heard done in CSound, there might be multiple reasons for that, most of which in all liklihood have nothing to do with Csound itself!

Best,
Aaron.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Daniel Forro <dan.for@...> wrote:
>
> Very interesting message!
>
> There's nothing wrong with MIDI and working with it, I've been
> working the same way since 1985. I don't use virtual synthesizers or
> samplers. Partly because I don't need them (I have enough hardware),
> partly because my best computer was born in 2002 and it would be
> rather impolite to ask more output from him :-)
>
> On 25 Aug 2009, at 9:43 PM, Danny Wier wrote:
>
> >
> > This is sort of shameless self-promotion, but there's a question in
> > all
> > this somewhere.
> >
> > Yes, I know I'm using dinosaur technology, but I do compose in MIDI.
> >
>
> What do you mean? MIDI is a communication protocol for remote
> controlling MIDI devices, how can you compose in it?
> I compose usually in the head and at the table, and record the score
> track by track in real time into the software MIDI sequencer, later
> adding lot of controllers which couldn't be recorded directly
> together with music. Another working method is totally free or
> partially controlled improvisation, again in real time, track by
> track with prepared sounds on different MIDI channels. Or something
> in between.
> > That means I only get 15 instrument channels and one for percussion.
> >
>
> MIDI world is not so much limited and restricted, everything depends
> on hardware (or nowadays also software synthesizers or samplers).
> What you write is valid for 1 MIDI output port, but your computer can
> control more independent MIDI output ports, every with 16 channels. I
> have now in my studio access to 864 MIDI channels, and my recent gear
> can play simultaneously about 360 of them. Rest must wait for future
> acquisitions :-)
> Nothing to say about a possibility to control virtual instruments
> directly from sequencer.
>
> > It's actually an intentional self-handicap; after all, constraints
> > make
> > for stronger artistic expression.
> >
>
> Nothing than agreement. Intentional limitation can stimulate
> creativity. I have a chapter in my books on MIDI how to work
> creatively even with GM standard only. I have used my knowledge few
> years ago when programming music for mobile phones...
>
> > (Of course I could, and have,
> > sequenced music in two MIDI files and recorded one over the other, in
> > case I wanted more instruments or two different drum sets.)
> >
>
> Why so complex way? I suppose you can record 32 tracks simultaneously
> in your sequencer, then synchronize it with external audiorecording
> (or computer) and record two stereo layers, first time MIDI 1-16
> channels (17-32 muted), second time channels 17-32 (1-16 muted).
> If you need more drum sets simultaneously, in many tone generators
> it's possible to select drum set on any channel, not only on default 10.
> > Because of current amplification technology--the überhuge late
> > Romantic-early 20th century symphony orchestra is no longer really
> > needed,
> >
>
> I agree, that museum setup died 100 years ago and is good only for
> historical music (until Mahler/Strauss or so). What we need for
> contemporary music is better balanced instrumental group (maybe even
> with the help of amplification for some instruments), with additional
> instruments, like early music, plucked, ethnic, of course drums and
> percussions, AND synthesizers and samplers as organic part (for
> emulation of rare instruments and new electronic sounds).
>
> > I score things for a smaller orchestra, almost chamber size. I
> > also have a less-is-more approach to writing.
> >
>
> The only chance how to have something performed (once in ten
> years :-) ).
>
> > Since I do use quarter
> > tones, third tones and whatnot, and it's not easy to find musicians
> > trained to play and hear microtones, I like to keep things simple.
> >
> > I also compose with Noteworthy Composer, a poor-man's Sibelius or
> > Finale. It's always worked for me, but if I ever can afford it, I
> > would
> > like to try one of the more expensive programs.
> >
> >
> Again I don't understand your points here. Sibelius is very good
> notation software, I wouldn't call it cheap, it's not so cheap.
> Features are satisfying, and output can be quite professional. Or do
> you know some better notator?
> And how do you compose with it? It's not algorithmic composition
> software (but there are some preprogrammed motifs or something like
> this, which I never used, why?). I use it only for making my scores.
> Of course there's a lot of limitations concerning contemporary music,
> very often I fight with it to get what I need, unfortunately with no
> success (even such trivial things like polytempo, polymetrics are
> impossible)... But I stopped from financial reasons at Version 3, now
> there's 6, at least I must find some time, visit their site and check
> what they added.
>
> > Anyway, this is how I assign the sixteen channels for MIDI mockups of
> > symphonic works, microtonal or not (again, I'm not so much a
> > microtonal
> > composer as I am a composer who uses microtones, and usually, but not
> > always, 72-edo).
> >
>
> > 1. Flute and/or piccolo
> >
> > 2. Oboe and/or English horn
> >
> > 3. Clarinet
> >
> Bassclarinet?
> > 4. Bassoon
> > 5. Horn I
> >
> > 6. Horn II or tuba
> > 7. Trumpet (I often use Brass-61 for channels 7 and 8)
> > 8. Trombone
> > 9. Harp, piano, organ, celesta, glockenspiel, etc.
> > 10. Timpani and other orchestral percussion (drum kit 48 or 49)
> >
> Timpani are in GM/GS/XG/GM2 as melodic sound, not drum set. How you
> can use it on the channel which is reserved to drum sets? Or are you
> satisfied with few timpani in orchestral drum set?
> In my XG instruments orchestral set is only PC 49 on drum channel
> (Bank Select = CC 00/32 must be 127/0). Timpani are PC 48 on melodic
> channel (for basic sound Bank Select is 0/0, for roll+hit 0/43).
> Don't you mix here the both numbers?
>
> > 11. Violins I
> > 12. Violins II
> > 13. Violas I
> > 14. Violas II
> > 15. Cellos I
> > 16. Cellos II and/or basses
> >
>
> How do you combine cellos and basses on one channel? Just by octave
> doubling of cello sound?
> >
> > I'll also swap out channels if I need both flute and piccolo, oboe and
> > English horn, and so on, but I might have to drop a horn or string
> > part.
> > (I don't need six channels for strings all that much, actually.)
> >
>
> What about stereo panning? This is important for resulting stereo
> sound. And concerning reverb and other audioprocessing?
>
> And how do you work with dynamics? Do you use CC 10 for absolute
> channel volume in the setup in the beginning of the composition, and
> CC 11 for relative expression during the composition?
>
> Vibrato? Tremolo? Pizzicato strings? Muted brass or strings? Do you
> use also filter cutoff and resonance CC's? Attack/release CC's? NRPN
> controllers?
>
> >
> > I also do microtones with pitch bends, old school.
> >
>
> With which range?
>
> > That does cause
> > problems with sound decay/release, of course.
> >
>
> Plus limited polyphony - you can play let's say two flutes on one
> MIDI channel, or four horns.
>
> > If I'm writing complex
> > microtonal parts in strings, for instance, I'll have channels 11-16
> > all
> > set as a generic string ensemble (48 or 49) and have each channel
> > fixed
> > 16.67 cents apart, like I did with "The Waterloo Rag".
> >
>
> I have used the same trick with my "Ecmelic music 1" in 72 EDO.
>
> > My Roland synth
> >
>
> Which one exactly?
>
> > does handle generic scale tuning messages which I can send with Scala,
> > but of course, that's only limited to the twelve-note octave.
> >
> > I still need to learn Csound or something when I have time, but I
> > really
> > don't. I feel like I'm getting too old to learn whole new languages.
> >
>
> Same with me, it would be a loss of time. Results (at least what I've
> heard) are not so convincing to me. Besides - call me old fashioned -
> I doubt such kind of programming has something to do with making
> music. Live real music is not a series of isolated events, it's a
> language with words, sentences, articles, meaning, words between the
> lines... It must speak, it must breathe... Here in Japan I have heard
> a lot of "musicians" playing only notes, not music... There IS
> definitely some difference.
>
> Maybe better to learn MAX/MSP, and buy more hardware or software
> synthesizers...
> > Anyway, how do *you* all handle tuning large orchestral scores?
> >
>
> I didn't need it until now. When I will need it, I will just retune
> my hardware synthesizers (every asks different approach) and use
> them. Same way like working with three instruments, just more
> instruments.
>
> When I have simulated orchestra + pipe organ + 3 drum soloists for my
> "Double concerto for organ and drums" in 2005, I used these maximal
> number of MIDI channels:
> 12 for woodwinds
> 10 for brass
> 47 for drums and percussions (4 players in orchestra + 3 soloists
> used 116 different instruments)
> 10 for pipe organ
> 20 for strings
>
> That's 99 MIDI channels. I don't think I will ever need more for
> orchestral work.
>
> Daniel Forró
>
>
> >
> > ~D.
> > http://ludwigvan-tx.livejournal.com
> > http://www.last.fm/music/Danny+Wier/
> >
>

🔗Daniel Forró <dan.for@...>

🔗akjmicro <aaron@...>

🔗clumma <carl@...>

🔗akjmicro <aaron@...>

🔗clumma <carl@...>

🔗touchedchuckk <BadMuthaHubbard@...>

IMO Csound is as good as it gets. It is actually a programming language (though you don't have to know how to program to use it), so it can interpret input in any way you like and give whatever output you want. It's also free and open-source, so there's no need to ever wait for someone who knows how to program to have the same idea as you!

-Chuckk

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "akjmicro" <aaron@...> wrote:
>
> Daniel,
>
> Good reply..just one thing I wanted to mention about CSound--it has great flexibility and generality, and as such is comes with many advantages for microtonality. AND, it is MIDI capable, so its use of any arbitrary MIDI message can be determined by the instrument designer. IOW, we don't have to wait, frustrated by hardware and software designers who don't care at all about tuning and microtonality: we can roll our own instruments. Let's say for example, we want to design a live real time adaptive tuning instrument, one that would allow us to choose between tuning table on the fly using for instance a breath controller or sostenuto pedal MIDI message--done, no problem. You can see the advantages, no? Nothing needs to be hard wired!
>
> I'm just wanting to point out that you shouldn't be unimpressed with CSound...it's all what you choose to do with it. If you haven't been moved by particular things you've heard done in CSound, there might be multiple reasons for that, most of which in all liklihood have nothing to do with Csound itself!
>
> Best,
> Aaron.
>
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Daniel Forro <dan.for@> wrote:
> >
> > Very interesting message!
> >
> > There's nothing wrong with MIDI and working with it, I've been
> > working the same way since 1985. I don't use virtual synthesizers or
> > samplers. Partly because I don't need them (I have enough hardware),
> > partly because my best computer was born in 2002 and it would be
> > rather impolite to ask more output from him :-)
> >
> > On 25 Aug 2009, at 9:43 PM, Danny Wier wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > This is sort of shameless self-promotion, but there's a question in
> > > all
> > > this somewhere.
> > >
> > > Yes, I know I'm using dinosaur technology, but I do compose in MIDI.
> > >
> >
> > What do you mean? MIDI is a communication protocol for remote
> > controlling MIDI devices, how can you compose in it?
> > I compose usually in the head and at the table, and record the score
> > track by track in real time into the software MIDI sequencer, later
> > adding lot of controllers which couldn't be recorded directly
> > together with music. Another working method is totally free or
> > partially controlled improvisation, again in real time, track by
> > track with prepared sounds on different MIDI channels. Or something
> > in between.
> > > That means I only get 15 instrument channels and one for percussion.
> > >
> >
> > MIDI world is not so much limited and restricted, everything depends
> > on hardware (or nowadays also software synthesizers or samplers).
> > What you write is valid for 1 MIDI output port, but your computer can
> > control more independent MIDI output ports, every with 16 channels. I
> > have now in my studio access to 864 MIDI channels, and my recent gear
> > can play simultaneously about 360 of them. Rest must wait for future
> > acquisitions :-)
> > Nothing to say about a possibility to control virtual instruments
> > directly from sequencer.
> >
> > > It's actually an intentional self-handicap; after all, constraints
> > > make
> > > for stronger artistic expression.
> > >
> >
> > Nothing than agreement. Intentional limitation can stimulate
> > creativity. I have a chapter in my books on MIDI how to work
> > creatively even with GM standard only. I have used my knowledge few
> > years ago when programming music for mobile phones...
> >
> > > (Of course I could, and have,
> > > sequenced music in two MIDI files and recorded one over the other, in
> > > case I wanted more instruments or two different drum sets.)
> > >
> >
> > Why so complex way? I suppose you can record 32 tracks simultaneously
> > in your sequencer, then synchronize it with external audiorecording
> > (or computer) and record two stereo layers, first time MIDI 1-16
> > channels (17-32 muted), second time channels 17-32 (1-16 muted).
> > If you need more drum sets simultaneously, in many tone generators
> > it's possible to select drum set on any channel, not only on default 10.
> > > Because of current amplification technology--the überhuge late
> > > Romantic-early 20th century symphony orchestra is no longer really
> > > needed,
> > >
> >
> > I agree, that museum setup died 100 years ago and is good only for
> > historical music (until Mahler/Strauss or so). What we need for
> > contemporary music is better balanced instrumental group (maybe even
> > with the help of amplification for some instruments), with additional
> > instruments, like early music, plucked, ethnic, of course drums and
> > percussions, AND synthesizers and samplers as organic part (for
> > emulation of rare instruments and new electronic sounds).
> >
> > > I score things for a smaller orchestra, almost chamber size. I
> > > also have a less-is-more approach to writing.
> > >
> >
> > The only chance how to have something performed (once in ten
> > years :-) ).
> >
> > > Since I do use quarter
> > > tones, third tones and whatnot, and it's not easy to find musicians
> > > trained to play and hear microtones, I like to keep things simple.
> > >
> > > I also compose with Noteworthy Composer, a poor-man's Sibelius or
> > > Finale. It's always worked for me, but if I ever can afford it, I
> > > would
> > > like to try one of the more expensive programs.
> > >
> > >
> > Again I don't understand your points here. Sibelius is very good
> > notation software, I wouldn't call it cheap, it's not so cheap.
> > Features are satisfying, and output can be quite professional. Or do
> > you know some better notator?
> > And how do you compose with it? It's not algorithmic composition
> > software (but there are some preprogrammed motifs or something like
> > this, which I never used, why?). I use it only for making my scores.
> > Of course there's a lot of limitations concerning contemporary music,
> > very often I fight with it to get what I need, unfortunately with no
> > success (even such trivial things like polytempo, polymetrics are
> > impossible)... But I stopped from financial reasons at Version 3, now
> > there's 6, at least I must find some time, visit their site and check
> > what they added.
> >
> > > Anyway, this is how I assign the sixteen channels for MIDI mockups of
> > > symphonic works, microtonal or not (again, I'm not so much a
> > > microtonal
> > > composer as I am a composer who uses microtones, and usually, but not
> > > always, 72-edo).
> > >
> >
> > > 1. Flute and/or piccolo
> > >
> > > 2. Oboe and/or English horn
> > >
> > > 3. Clarinet
> > >
> > Bassclarinet?
> > > 4. Bassoon
> > > 5. Horn I
> > >
> > > 6. Horn II or tuba
> > > 7. Trumpet (I often use Brass-61 for channels 7 and 8)
> > > 8. Trombone
> > > 9. Harp, piano, organ, celesta, glockenspiel, etc.
> > > 10. Timpani and other orchestral percussion (drum kit 48 or 49)
> > >
> > Timpani are in GM/GS/XG/GM2 as melodic sound, not drum set. How you
> > can use it on the channel which is reserved to drum sets? Or are you
> > satisfied with few timpani in orchestral drum set?
> > In my XG instruments orchestral set is only PC 49 on drum channel
> > (Bank Select = CC 00/32 must be 127/0). Timpani are PC 48 on melodic
> > channel (for basic sound Bank Select is 0/0, for roll+hit 0/43).
> > Don't you mix here the both numbers?
> >
> > > 11. Violins I
> > > 12. Violins II
> > > 13. Violas I
> > > 14. Violas II
> > > 15. Cellos I
> > > 16. Cellos II and/or basses
> > >
> >
> > How do you combine cellos and basses on one channel? Just by octave
> > doubling of cello sound?
> > >
> > > I'll also swap out channels if I need both flute and piccolo, oboe and
> > > English horn, and so on, but I might have to drop a horn or string
> > > part.
> > > (I don't need six channels for strings all that much, actually.)
> > >
> >
> > What about stereo panning? This is important for resulting stereo
> > sound. And concerning reverb and other audioprocessing?
> >
> > And how do you work with dynamics? Do you use CC 10 for absolute
> > channel volume in the setup in the beginning of the composition, and
> > CC 11 for relative expression during the composition?
> >
> > Vibrato? Tremolo? Pizzicato strings? Muted brass or strings? Do you
> > use also filter cutoff and resonance CC's? Attack/release CC's? NRPN
> > controllers?
> >
> > >
> > > I also do microtones with pitch bends, old school.
> > >
> >
> > With which range?
> >
> > > That does cause
> > > problems with sound decay/release, of course.
> > >
> >
> > Plus limited polyphony - you can play let's say two flutes on one
> > MIDI channel, or four horns.
> >
> > > If I'm writing complex
> > > microtonal parts in strings, for instance, I'll have channels 11-16
> > > all
> > > set as a generic string ensemble (48 or 49) and have each channel
> > > fixed
> > > 16.67 cents apart, like I did with "The Waterloo Rag".
> > >
> >
> > I have used the same trick with my "Ecmelic music 1" in 72 EDO.
> >
> > > My Roland synth
> > >
> >
> > Which one exactly?
> >
> > > does handle generic scale tuning messages which I can send with Scala,
> > > but of course, that's only limited to the twelve-note octave.
> > >
> > > I still need to learn Csound or something when I have time, but I
> > > really
> > > don't. I feel like I'm getting too old to learn whole new languages.
> > >
> >
> > Same with me, it would be a loss of time. Results (at least what I've
> > heard) are not so convincing to me. Besides - call me old fashioned -
> > I doubt such kind of programming has something to do with making
> > music. Live real music is not a series of isolated events, it's a
> > language with words, sentences, articles, meaning, words between the
> > lines... It must speak, it must breathe... Here in Japan I have heard
> > a lot of "musicians" playing only notes, not music... There IS
> > definitely some difference.
> >
> > Maybe better to learn MAX/MSP, and buy more hardware or software
> > synthesizers...
> > > Anyway, how do *you* all handle tuning large orchestral scores?
> > >
> >
> > I didn't need it until now. When I will need it, I will just retune
> > my hardware synthesizers (every asks different approach) and use
> > them. Same way like working with three instruments, just more
> > instruments.
> >
> > When I have simulated orchestra + pipe organ + 3 drum soloists for my
> > "Double concerto for organ and drums" in 2005, I used these maximal
> > number of MIDI channels:
> > 12 for woodwinds
> > 10 for brass
> > 47 for drums and percussions (4 players in orchestra + 3 soloists
> > used 116 different instruments)
> > 10 for pipe organ
> > 20 for strings
> >
> > That's 99 MIDI channels. I don't think I will ever need more for
> > orchestral work.
> >
> > Daniel Forró
> >
> >
> > >
> > > ~D.
> > > http://ludwigvan-tx.livejournal.com
> > > http://www.last.fm/music/Danny+Wier/
> > >
> >
>

🔗Danny Wier <dawiertx@...>

Daniel, sorry for procrastinating again--I appreciate your reply (you too, Torsten). And I can't get my e-mail program to work right with the quotes, so I'll have to answer them at the top.

First, what I do is write scores in Noteworthy and play them back with it using my Roland, then record from the Roland back to the computer using the line-in/microphone input with Audacity. The format is MIDI, using GM/GS and additional sounds; my keyboard also has sounds for bouzouki, nay, qanun, oud and Arabic/Turkish drums, which I use in a few compositions. I have to jury-rig a few things, like when I have to record more than 16 channels (the Roland only has that many) or more than two drum kits, I make two sound recordings with metronome clicks at the beginning and mix them together. Whatever works. (Noteworthy can actually handle 16 synths for a total of 256 channels, and I can use a soft synth with a single file that has more than 16 tracks, but I don't use softsynths right now.)

Second, I might need Finale and Sibelius in the future to make better scores (Noteworthy isn't that great for score setting), or write it in Lilypond, the hard way. Third, the Orchestral drum kit includes thirteen chromatic notes of timpani from F1 to F2, so unless I need notes outside that range or timpani chords outside of 12-et, then I can put timpani and percussion in channel 10, with a second timpani channel in channel 9 if necessary.

Fourth, I often use a generic string section sound so cellos and basses could be on the same channel... but I've recently decided to reorganize my string section. The new string section is as follows: violin I, violin II, viola, a "modern viola da gamba" (a small cello tuned an octave lower than violin), violoncello and contrabass. If I can ever afford pro-quality virtual instruments (and a computer with the CPU speed and memory to handle them), then I'd have violin, viola, cello etc. sections, and things would be better organized.

Anyway, thanks again, and I'll take your advice; I didn't quite answer all your questions. I think what I'm doing now will work just fine, but you never know...

~D.

----- Original Message ----- From: "Daniel Forro" <dan.for@...>
To: <tuning@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, 25 August, 2009 09:47
Subject: Re: [tuning] MIDI scoring: how I do it

Very interesting message!

On 25 Aug 2009, at 9:43 PM, Danny Wier wrote:

>
> This is sort of shameless self-promotion, but there's a question in
> all
> this somewhere.
>
> Yes, I know I'm using dinosaur technology, but I do compose in MIDI.
>

> It's actually an intentional self-handicap; after all, constraints
> make
> for stronger artistic expression.
>

> (Of course I could, and have,
> sequenced music in two MIDI files and recorded one over the other, in
> case I wanted more instruments or two different drum sets.)
>

Why so complex way? I suppose you can record 32 tracks simultaneously
in your sequencer, then synchronize it with external audiorecording
(or computer) and record two stereo layers, first time MIDI 1-16
channels (17-32 muted), second time channels 17-32 (1-16 muted).
If you need more drum sets simultaneously, in many tone generators
it's possible to select drum set on any channel, not only on default 10.
> Because of current amplification technology--the ï¿½berhuge late
> Romantic-early 20th century symphony orchestra is no longer really
> needed,
>

> I score things for a smaller orchestra, almost chamber size. I
> also have a less-is-more approach to writing.
>

The only chance how to have something performed (once in ten
years :-) ).

> Since I do use quarter
> tones, third tones and whatnot, and it's not easy to find musicians
> trained to play and hear microtones, I like to keep things simple.
>
> I also compose with Noteworthy Composer, a poor-man's Sibelius or
> Finale. It's always worked for me, but if I ever can afford it, I
> would
> like to try one of the more expensive programs.
>
>
Again I don't understand your points here. Sibelius is very good
notation software, I wouldn't call it cheap, it's not so cheap.
Features are satisfying, and output can be quite professional. Or do
you know some better notator?
And how do you compose with it? It's not algorithmic composition
software (but there are some preprogrammed motifs or something like
this, which I never used, why?). I use it only for making my scores.
Of course there's a lot of limitations concerning contemporary music,
very often I fight with it to get what I need, unfortunately with no
success (even such trivial things like polytempo, polymetrics are
impossible)... But I stopped from financial reasons at Version 3, now
there's 6, at least I must find some time, visit their site and check
what they added.

> 11. Violins I
> 12. Violins II
> 13. Violas I
> 14. Violas II
> 15. Cellos I
> 16. Cellos II and/or basses
>

What about stereo panning? This is important for resulting stereo
sound. And concerning reverb and other audioprocessing?

And how do you work with dynamics? Do you use CC 10 for absolute
channel volume in the setup in the beginning of the composition, and
CC 11 for relative expression during the composition?

Vibrato? Tremolo? Pizzicato strings? Muted brass or strings? Do you
use also filter cutoff and resonance CC's? Attack/release CC's? NRPN
controllers?

>
> I also do microtones with pitch bends, old school.
>

With which range?

> That does cause
> problems with sound decay/release, of course.
>

Plus limited polyphony - you can play let's say two flutes on one
MIDI channel, or four horns.

I have used the same trick with my "Ecmelic music 1" in 72 EDO.

> My Roland synth
>

Which one exactly?

Maybe better to learn MAX/MSP, and buy more hardware or software
synthesizers...