Thank you for your videos. Your explanations are clear and concise. So grateful that you put out these video.Hope I will be able to do more than just notation.
Hi Robert, I want to congratulate you for the excellent content you are publishing. I would like to tell you about my experience. I am also a musician and work with NP4. Over the years I have realized that Note Performer destroys much more expensive libraries such as Spitfire, EW or even Vienna in terms of the quality of their articulations. My bet is that the future of computer orchestras lies in implementing realism directly from the score editor itself and not from the DAW, since programming conventional libraries consumes hours and hours for a very mediocre final result. The downside is that NP4 is not so much based on samples, but on synthesis, and can lose in timbral richness. My idea to mitigate this disadvantage would be to create templates in the DAW that work in depth the EQ of NP4 harmonics to resemble their real counterparts and even trying to mimic miking and reverb techniques adapted to achieve a studio sound. About this brief exercise you show us, it would be very interesting to first analyze a real reproduction of the solo by a pro flutist with some software that allows to mark the changes of the agogic, like Sonic Visualiser, and then try to imitate it with the score editor. I would also use the inspector instead of setting those unorthodox time signature changes, as it gives more individual control of each event. Anyway, excellent channel and I look forward to watching more of your work.
Absolutely correct, and I do the same in the DAW from time to time. This is intended for those who are more at home with musical notation than with a 'piano roll' MIDI editor!
Hello! Your lessons are great! I would like to say that if you select accel. and rit. and go to the Inspector, then there you can specify the required numerical tempo value in BPM or percentage and thereby make your life much easier! Are you using the Graphical MIDI Tools plugin?
Very useful thanks. Another great realistic endeavor would be if Sibelius 'falls' actually fell!. Is it me or should I use a different playback software than Sibelius? I don't think it's really cut out for anything other than notation. Cheers.
It definitely supports Kontakt and some other plugins. However, to get the full benefit of such plugins, I would prefer to export the tracks from Sibelius and do the mixing and application of fx in a DAW. This might help - ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-Xu51k-iHyfU.html
@Robert Lennon, Musician & Educator there is the answer: you achieve realistic playback somewhere else, because Sibelius ist not enough. And even in daw ist hard.
I'd agree to a certain extent. The DAW is best for getting overall realism in terms of instrumental sound, balance, reverberation, depth and so on, but the fine gradations of tempo and dynamic that I show in the video, that mimic a real player, can be done effectively in Sibelius - especially by a musician who feels more at home using music notation.
Yes, of course. I just wanted to present an alternative. In fact this method is more useful for phrasing which I'll deal with in a future video. Do bear in mind that no one gets to see the crazy time signatures! Thanks for the question.
