I’m working on a new orchestral template, combining a bunch of different libraries. I just want an overall starting point for new projects and/or sketches that minimizes any kind of “busy work”, so I can jump in and get ideas down with little or no configuration hassles. (Yes, I am DAW friendly and I have a Logic template, but I’d like to try going straight to Dorico, just to see how that affects my process.)
Mostly I’m wondering how people go about building these things? It seems to me that maybe starting from the Expression Map, saving an Endpoint, then building a Playback Template makes the most sense, but are there other, smarter ways to go about this?
Because you will probably want to tweak your template as you go, I would suggest that you either start with a single project that you can use to develop your expression and percussion maps, or start with one for each library or set of instruments you plan to use. The reason for this is that once you decide you want to make a tweak, which you inevitably will do, you can then go back to your template project, make the tweak there, and re-save the endpoint configuration(s), which will then allow you to re-apply your custom playback template to other projects to bring them up-to-date with your latest changes.
My own experience is that using Noteperformer 4.5 and Noteperformer Playback Engines (NPPE) makes the whole process very simple and sounds better than using my libraries (from Spitfire and EW) directly in Dorico.
I would check it out and see if your libraries, and the articulations you need, are currently supported by NPPE.
I run a mixed setup where the majority of things go through Noteperformer, and some extra articulations are done by loading the patches directly in Dorico, and using pre-canned expression maps developed by the Dorico team or other people.
Okay, I’ll give it another shot. I am generally a “fan” of NP, but I’ve been doing a lot of tweaking in the pitch dimension lately (microtones, glissandi, etc.), and I find the SWAM (winds + strings) and Sample Modeling (brass) instruments in particular pretty hard to beat for that stuff. But I’ll give NP 4.5 a shot. Thanks for the tip.
Thanks, Daniel. I do have a project I’ve started just for template building. It sounds like, broadly speaking, starting from Expression Maps is a decent approach, so I’ll keep poking away.
Hi, lately I’ve started building my own orchestral templates based on different scenarios, but it does address a combination of NP for most of the orchestra, but with different various VSTs for additional instruments I prefer from what I have with NP (pianos, harps, non-orchestral instruments, etc). In addition to you, I’ve also been using Sample Modeling Brass which is an incredible library (I’ve actually built an entire brass section template around that library alone).
I’ve also been developing a somewhat complex multi-voice string section, where I use additonal voices to route for divisi. And on the third upstem voice, I use “alternative” effect libraries for special techniques such as gliss, falls, various string effects (all with independent voice playback enabled). I’ve also done this for winds and brass effects, using libraries which I do not really need for “normal” music, but handy when I need a quick multiphonic or doit or something.
This way, when I start from this template, all the independent voices are pre-configured, so lets say when I’m writing a gliss, all I have to do is select my note and tap ‘V’ or right-click to select the corresponding voice to whichever library has gliss effects. If I change my mind, it’s easy to change back with a button. The other advantage here is I’ve taken the time to pre-mix all my additional libraries so they match NP as best as possible (vol/pan/reverb). None of these nuances would be available from playback templates themselves, so I’ve discovered having a writing template prepared for whatever creative ideas I may have has truly been worth the setup time.
I suppose the one downside is the project file-size even before any music has been added is not small - my current one starts at around 25 MB, I assume because all the added VSTs. But I have a decently fast computer so it’s not a big deal. In my opinion I would rather start with a large template, so everything is pre-configured, and then delete whatever I’m not using toward the end of my composition. (However, I have not yet written a long symphony, so we shall see if I ever do how that works out!)
I like this workflow because it enables me to access all my tools and libraries at the speed of ideas, without any additional setup time!
This sounds amazing… that’s the kind of thing I want to do, so I’m just going as quickly to the idea as possible, rather than messing around with tons of configuration (which tends to scare off the idea pretty quick!).
I’ve just got a new Mac and am tidying up my template.
So far, I’ve organised my VSTs by instrument family. At the moment I have: Drums and Keys, Unpitched Percussion, Pitched Percussion and World Percussion.
@dspreadbury on a related topic: In the Edit Instruments dialog, any instruments that are in the score are labeled “In score”. However, this doesn’t apply to instruments that are part of a kit e.g. Snare Drum. Only the kit is labelled. What do you think of the idea of having any instruments in a kit also labelled as “In score”?
This sounds like what I am trying to attempt. I’m rather new to Dorico and would like to create this kind of template. Not wanting to give you extra work or take up your time, is there a way you can describe this in a step by step way that can show a beginner how this is done? Or is there definitive tutorials that can show this method? I largely write full scale large orchestral works, chamber works, etc. I kind of understand what you are doing and describing but do not know all the ins-outs of how to go about achieving it. I will also be purchasing Noteperformer in the next few days and hope to use it effectively. Any help, insight, step-by-step, etc would be greatly appreciated. Thanks.
Honestly, if you go with NotePerformer then much of what I personally am talking about will be unnecessary as it handles the “template” part itself. In my case, I have a mish-mash of sample-based instruments and sample-modelled instruments (both Samplemodeling and SWAM), which are handled very differently. They’re closer to NotePerformer in some ways, but do still require some manual keyswitches, if you want to get into performance details. For myself, I’ve never quite been sold on NotePerformer, in terms of sound, but it is by far the simplest and most comprehensive way to go about things (oh, except perhaps using the provided Iconica Sketch library).
If I were in your position, I’d make the NotePerformer leap first and see how things feel. What’s great about it is that you don’t really need to create a template as it does a very good job of “reading” your instrumentation from the score. So you just use the Setup mode tools built into Dorico and you get a full, playable score when you’re done. It’s a very nice user experience, imho.
James,
Awesome… thanks for the info. When I install and run Noteperformer should I “disable” iconica sketch or other Dorico sounds? Sorry if this question seems silly however I’m still learning all of this stuff after mainly writing by hand for many years and occasionally using Sibelius early on years ago.
Janus,
With the “noob” that I am…"Actually you can take advantage ofNotePerformer’s Playback Engines (NPPE)to use Iconica Sketch inside NotePerformer" what’s the advantage of doing this? Do you get better expressions or articulations? Since my music most likely will never be performed, I’m just looking for a really good sounding orchestral approximation. Whereby I can close my eyes and pretend that an orchestra is actually playing my music. Any advice would be welcome!
NotePerformer interprets your music rather than just plays back the dots on the page (which is what a traditional VST would do). It will perform the music more musically and intelligently.
This “intelligence” can also be used to control third party sound libraries. In this case, you would be using NotePerformer’s engine but with Iconica’s instruments.
Noteperformer has its internal algorithms that give excellent playback with minimal effort. But it uses its own sounds. The NPPE approach allows you to take advantage of NotePerformer while using other sound libraries. Dorico did a deal with Wallander so their Playback Engine for Iconica Sketch is free.
This just provides you with a different option to try. If you like the sound of Iconica sketch, you will likely get better results (quicker) using it in conjunction with NP rather than using the Dorico templates.
You can easily compare the results of pure NP against NPPE (Iconica Sketch) to hear the differences.