Expression = which dynamic (score) marking?

[onelight24]

Hello all, I'm wondering if there is a steadfast formula for producing the desired dynamic marking production wise. This is what I mean: it was suggested by a friend that to have the best possible effect, technically speaking, with regards to dynamics, one must play with both the velocity of a note, as well as the expression (CC 11) component of the performance ( I am grateful he mentioned this to me, as working with these pro sound libraries is very, very new to me! ).
So, what I mean is this:

(a) is there such a thing as : velocity= x, + CC11 = y, overall effect is pp (pianissimo).. & so on for 'p' (piano), 'mf', 'f' etc., etc.;

(b) or is it simply an effort of tireless trail & error, until you get it right for any sort of expression intended?

Any & all thoughts regarding this would be greatly appreciated!

Thanks for your time!

Cheers,
Vincent!

[bigbluebarry]

Great question Vincent! I had a similar question along those lines. I only recently learned about the expression control (thank you Mazz!) a few weeks ago. My question would be this... When dealing with EQ, there are certain patterns that you use for certain situations (roll off highs, lows, etc...)... Are there any patterns (graphs, curves, etc...) that you use repeatedly when it comes to expression?

- Big Blue

[mazz]

The answer is, uh, yes kind of. In music, one man's piano is another man's mezzo forte, there's no empirical decibel level standard that says "70 dba = piano". The best way to do it is to determine ahead of time what your loudest fortissimo level will be and then don't exceed that. Then it's up to you to determine the actual values of the dynamic levels. I recently helped my composition teacher realize in samples a 16 minute orchestral score that was meticulously notated for dynamics and we did just that. We found the loudest part of the score and basically scored that first and then worked our way up to that level keeping the other dynamics at the relative levels that he wanted to hear.

The velocity will give you the initial timbre and volume of the note. The volume, however, is also determined by two things: The "window" you've set with CC7 (master volume) and the "variable window" you are using by using CC11 (expression). So you are basically turning up or down a note of fairly consistent timbre which is initially set by the velocity. This is the way any non-DXF patches in EW are programmed. The DXF patches actually use the mod wheel and crossfade between brighter and brighter samples as you push the wheel forward. In fact, some of the patches won't make a sound until you move the mod wheel from it's bottom position. A combination of these articulations is good to use, for instance, when you have a series of short or legato notes and then you need a crescendo on a held note. You use the keyswitch articulation and velocity and CC11 to shape the phrase and then you switch to the DXF articulation for the crescendo.

So there's two issues you're dealing with:

1. Learning the articulations and then learning how to use them to get the results you want.

2. Determining for yourself what the different dynamic levels are.

You can certainly do it in a trial and error fashion, but I suggest trying to sequence short segments of some classical orchestral scores and compare them to recordings of orchestras playing the same music. You'll have to dig into your articulations and probably use several in one passage just to get the right sound. You'll learn so much more doing this than trying to learn the articulations by trial and error while composing. Unless you write out all of your music, including dynamics, ahead of time and know what it sounds like in your head, it'll be constant trial and error until you finally have made it through all the articulations.

It's a huge subject and one that's covered pretty darn well here: http://www.sweetwater.com/store/detail/MidiOrchBook

and here: http://www.amazon.com/Acoustic-MIDI-Orc ... pd_sim_b_1

Both are excellent investments and will save you a lot of trial and error.

HTH,

Mazz

[mazz]

Great question Vincent! I had a similar question along those lines. I only recently learned about the expression control (thank you Mazz!) a few weeks ago. My question would be this... When dealing with EQ, there are certain patterns that you use for certain situations (roll off highs, lows, etc...)... Are there any patterns (graphs, curves, etc...) that you use repeatedly when it comes to expression?

- Big Blue

Barry,

Find someone that can show you the basics of dynamic markings on an orchestral score. You don't need to know how to read the notes to follow dynamic markings if you have someone pointing out where you are in the score. You can listen to the score and see the little hairpin crescendo and de-crescendo markings as they go by and you'll hear the different shapes of the dynamic changes, which would be dependent on the composer's wishes, the tempo, the relative dynamics of where you've been and where you're going, etc.

You can also go into your DAW and draw those curves in.

The main thing is to really think about your piece before you start writing it and somehow work out the dynamic "map" of the piece. This will make the piece more focused and also make it easier to get the dynamic curves and shapes the way you want them.

HTH,

Mazz

[onelight24]

The answer is, uh, yes kind of. In music, one man's piano is another man's mezzo forte, there's no empirical decibel level standard that says "70 dba = piano".

Yes, really that is what I was asking wether there were set formulas! Having said that, you've once again, given an immense amount of material to cover, if one is to effectively use the sample libraries properly. I agree that expression is ultimately subjective, yet I still believe & hope that one day someone out there creates, & writes a software program that would give templates of expression. I realize that one can create their own, yet it does not hurt to ask & wonder!

O.k much work ahead of me in understanding this technology!

As always, I appreciate your time & efforts!

Cheers,
Vincent!

[mazz]

Vincent,

A notation program like Sibelius uses controllers for dynamic changes and velocity for dynamic levels and may also use controllers for dynamic levels in conjunction with velocity. If you have access to a program like Sibelius or Finale, you could go "under the hood" and see what the developers of those programs consider to be the "right" velocity and controller levels for the different dynamics. I'm sure you'll see different numbers from program to program because it's really just a relative term, not an absolute term.

One more thing that muddies the waters is how the developers of the libraries implement their dynamics and changes. For velocity levels, sample libraries stack samples on a single key and then switch between them depending on the velocity. Some libraries may have 5 or more samples on one key and some may have 2 or 3. Then there's the question of which velocity value they chose to do their switching at and whether velocity also controls the filter somewhat to give more brightness the harder the note is played. I guarantee you there's no standardization there.

And then libraries will use the controllers and velocities in different ways. For instance, in LA Scoring Strings, there are legato patches that don't use velocity at all and just use the mod wheel (CC1) to control the timbre of the sound. There are other legato patches that use velocity from 0-5 for glissando, 5-10 for portamento and anything above those is all the same timbre and the mod wheel is used for brightness again. I don't have any other libraries that use that scheme.

Every library is like learning a new instrument, that's one of the big challenges of this game. The more you do it, the more you'll learn how to tame the beast, but you have to put in the time in the woodshed.

Mazz

[onelight24]

Every library is like learning a new instrument, that's one of the big challenges of this game. The more you do it, the more you'll learn how to tame the beast, but you have to put in the time in the woodshed.

Yes, I certainly have been doing a lot of that lately! More woodshedding is definitely needed! So perhaps its time for me to investigate Sibelius! Learning another instrument is exactly right because that's exactly how it feels like!

Thanks for your input, as always it is much appreciated!

Cheers,
Vincent!

[ernstinen]

When I did my first score of "Symphony No. 1" in 1995, I imported my Performer Midi file into MOTU's Mosaic. (Too bad they don't make it anymore!). My approach at that time was to look at scores by composers like Stravinsky, and kinda get the idea. Well, I "kinda" got the idea, but didn't realize back then that you have to write on the score exactly what you want. I was hip to dynamics (pp, ff etc.), but learned on subsequent scores that it's WAY more than that. Phrasing, articulations, bowing, tempo and mood changes, how many in a section you want playing at one time, the list goes on and on. It's extremely time consuming, because the musicians and conductor can't read your mind.

By 2005, I had it down. That's right, 10 years later! Since I do it "backwards" (record the Midi demo first), I spent months listening to my demo of a piece entitled "Elegy," and made sure that all the bases were covered. Fortunately, "Elegy" won a competition and was recorded by the Czech Philharmonic from my score. Except for the obvious emotional quality that a "real" orchestra gives a piece, most people would probably never know the difference between my Midi version and the Czech version. I've even fooled myself at times, making CDs of the piece thinking it's my studio version, and it really was the Czech Phil (who are awesome)! That's how carefully I had to listen to my Midi recording, to make sure every little detail was written on the score. Takes time, but it's really worth it in the long run!

My 2 cents,

Ern

[onelight24]

Hi Ern, thanks for taking the time to share your thoughts, as well as your story! I realize as I have had some of my music performed live both here in Toronto, as well as in Kiev Ukraine, that scoring for live players is very time consuming. Yet, it seems scoring for midi mock-ups of orchestral material, with all the nuances, is far more time consuming than I thought!

Thanks for your input!

Cheers,
Vincent!

[ernstinen]

Hi Ern, thanks for taking the time to share your thoughts, as well as your story! I realize as I have had some of my music performed live both here in Toronto, as well as in Kiev Ukraine, that scoring for live players is very time consuming. Yet, it seems scoring for midi mock-ups of orchestral material, with all the nuances, is far more time consuming than I thought!

Thanks for your input!

Cheers,
Vincent!

Congrats on the performances! That's very cool. I apologize if I misunderstood your original post (my eyesight is getting bad! ).

I've been doing orchestral mock-ups since 1993, starting with a Proteus 2 --- There's actually still some good sounds in there, like the oboe (I played oboe until I dropped it like a dead rat in college and switched to composition). And yes, it IS very time-consuming! But much more fun than doing scores, at least for me! I've got all the Gigastudio sounds on one 'puter, EW Gold on another, etc. etc. Not in Hans Zimmer territory (or for that matter, John Mazzei LOL!), but the SOUNDS and how you use the articulations etc. are getting better and better.

A couple years ago, our own Dave Walton came to my studio here in L.A., and now he's a millionaire! I just showed him that I do ALL velocities, note durations, really everything in Performer, (except for some of the "C" slider things in Gold, and a few other samples). THAT takes a LOT of work, but that's my method.

Good luck!

Ern