Symphonic orchestra template improvement
Hi there,
According to Musescore 4x, new DAW features will be added soon. Here is a small suggestion for the next version.
Last week, I've created my first piece for Orchestra.
Unfortunately, I've wasted a lot of time trying to find correct settings for symphonic orchestra with default soundfont.
At the end, I've based my volume settings upon the following post on the VIENNA SYMPHONIC LIBRARY forum: https://www.vsl.co.at/community/posts/t54778-MIDI-Volume#post294237
Moreover, I've approximately set panning according to symphonic orchestra posters.
Anyway, I cannot be sure of my settings (check result here: https://youtu.be/DHZ4XJjBUjQ)
IMHO, there are enough professional orchestrators on this forum to be able to add correct parameters directly to the default template provided by Musescore.
This would be a effective time saver for a lot of inexperienced users (like me) and I think it is not a complicated improvement to do for orchestrators.
Hope this will help.
Kind regards,
Pascal
Comments
Even Sibelius doesn't load everything for a score automatically. Why? Panning is not universal. Some orchestras place their sections differently. You get to choose how you want to set up your virtual orchestra. Not sure how to do that? You did the right thing by looking it up yourself. I wouldn't call that a waste of time. This is how we learn things. I don't what the software to do everything for me. All those volume numbers on that site don't pertain to the MuseScore font anyway.
In reply to Even Sibelius doesn't load… by bobjp
Irrelevant answer.
I'm not a sound engineer, but a music composer.
I just need a well balanced framework to only focus on music.
In reply to Irrelevant answer. I'm not a… by pemusescore
So you won't use any other soundfont than the default? Because the volume setting completely is tied to that one choice for starters.
Perhaps the plugin re-panning approach as proposed in https://musescore.org/en/node/324879 would be of use to you. The plugin could trivially be adjusted to include setting volume as well.
In reply to So you won't use any other… by jeetee
Hi jeetee,
I use the default settings because soundfonts management in musescore is a real nightmare.
It's okay if you write pieces for single instrument, but regarding the full orchestra is another problem!
I know the v.4 will provide the ability to use VST and I'm really waiting for it.
The plugin option could be a great improvement. It could be interesting to think it as a template manager (e.g. instrumentation + panning + volumes, etc.) with the possibility to import/export settings in order to exchange templates with community.
Thx for this proposal.
In reply to Hi jeetee, I use the default… by pemusescore
Interesting. Irrelevant question. Do you want the software to write the music also?
Some orchestras put the 2nd violins on the right rather than on the left behind the 1st section.Piano far left? Horns in the center or to one side? Tuba on the left or right. What is the preset volume for a flute section? How big is the first violin section so that you can set the default volume. How many trombones? How big a percussion section? On and on.
Sorry but there can't be a universal template. You get to make it yourself. Which you can already do. In addition to figuring out how notation software works.
In reply to So you won't use any other… by jeetee
Hi jeetee,
I've opened the plugin to look at the code. I understand (and really appreciate) the idea to trying to fix missing features by using plugins. Feel free to PM me if you want to go further on this project.
Anyway, I'm convinced that template management should be a Musescore 4 feature of the mixer panel.
As this is a common feature of all DAWs, its integration into Musescore 4 will allow composers to use standard VST templates such as Spitfire and many others.
(e.g. https://www.spitfireaudiothepage.com/posts/discover-templates)
Kind regards.
In reply to Hi jeetee, I've opened the… by pemusescore
My preference would be to have great integration with DAWs (which seems to be the thing that no other notation editor does well). From what I can gather, this is why most working film composers are primarily working in the MIDI realm and the notation editor is a back-fix for the MIDI to get in shape for a studio session.
If you go down the route of adding too much mixing, it'll fall flat when you start to realize you want to record, adding effects, dry/wet mixing, grouping, routing, automated faders, etc.
Templates are very helpful and they should keep configuration data, whether that's score setttings or mixer settings, etc. But Musescore is missing mixer configuration in the templates.
I think some of this may be mitigated by creating custom instruments. I just started doing that and creating additional articulations that map to MIDI port/MIDI channel in a DAW that triggers the relevant sound in a plugin. I do see some MIDI info in the instrument config file, so maybe it is possible there?
You have to edit it manually in a text editor (ie notepad), it's "instruments.xml". I would just copy it and rename it something else so you don't mess with the original, and then load the new one in preferences under instruments.
edit: Doesn't look it's possible in instruments.xml unless it's undocumented:
https://musescore.org/en/handbook/developers-handbook/references/instru…
In reply to My preference would be to… by oscarcar
I know that we are a lot to think the same thing. (That is the origin of MS 4x development.)
To simplify, we got:
- music notation (MS 3x)
- music composition (MS 4x) (my personal needs)
- interactions with DAWS (MS 3x/4x)
Maybe we could have a specific forum to discuss these points and possible features to add to MS 4x?
It would be a good opportunity to collect composers wishes more effectively and focus on the important points first.
Since I was a Front End Software Architect, I know how development can be far from user needs.
Tantacrul makes a fantastic effort to identify such needs, but the MS dev team should have a strong overview of the community feedback to ensure relevance of the product backlog.
Anyway, just some thoughts...
In reply to I know that we are a lot to… by pemusescore
> "Maybe we could have a specific forum to discuss these points and possible features to add to MS 4x?"
That's what the "feature request" forum is for.