+- Scoring Central (http://scoringcentral.mattiaswestlund.net)
+-- Forum: General (http://scoringcentral.mattiaswestlund.net/forumdisplay.php?fid=13)
+--- Forum: General Discussion (http://scoringcentral.mattiaswestlund.net/forumdisplay.php?fid=14)
+--- Thread: playability vs staff position (/showthread.php?tid=355)
Pages:
1
2
playability vs staff position - Paul Battersby - 02-02-2018
I'm curious which is considered more important, that the full range of the notes of a particular orchestral instrument are playable within the range of a 61 key MIDI controller (which seems to be the most common size going from C2 to C7 ), or that the notes appear in the proper place on a musical staff?
There are both users of samples libraries and creators of sample libraries here so I'll be interested to see the perspective from both sides.
Piccolo, Flute, String Bass, Tuba (and others) have some notes outside the range of a 61 key MIDI controller. To play every note would requires that the MIDI notes be transposed if they are placed where they belong on a musical staff. They will not be fully playable "out of the box".
I suppose some of this comes down to how each person composes. By performing each part, not caring where in the piano roll the MIDI notes are placed, drawing notes on a piano roll where it might or might not matter within which octave you have to place the notes, or by drawing notes on a musical staff within a DAW or other notation software.
Unfortunately, I've only just realized that I've been inconsistent with this within my own library and I want to fix that inconsistency but I'm not sure in which direction to go. Of course it's always possible to use a plugin to place the MIDI notes wherever you want on the staff but I'm thinking it's best to cater to what is more useful to the majority and I imagine that to be playability within the span of a MIDI controller by default, is more important than where things appear on a musical staff or within the piano roll.
Your thoughts?
RE: playability vs staff position - bigcat1969 - 02-02-2018
I was just noticing I was inconsistent in my instruments as well. To me definitely playability though I think Sam may disagree?
RE: playability vs staff position - Samulis - 02-07-2018
Actual instrument in actual place. Anything else is confusing and will cause trouble when people try to use GM-style MIDI files or want to switch between libraries. The only excuse is when layering multiple instruments (e.g. celli with basses an octave down). At the best, you are making your mapping proprietary and significantly reducing compatibility with all other sample libraries on the market. At the worst, you can potentially mis-educate an inexperienced user into incorrect or even harmful assumptions- this happened to me at first when I used a soundfont stretched all the way across the keyboard (i.e. no range limits).
There's a reason every 61-key piano on the market as octave +/- buttons.
I keep a chart on my wall with typical ranges shown in both note names and MIDI. It's not exact (nothing can be, as each player or even instrument might have a different range), but it's quite helpful!
RE: playability vs staff position - bigcat1969 - 02-07-2018
Any chance you could take a pic of that chart and post it?
Also C4=60 or C4=72?
RE: playability vs staff position - Paul Battersby - 02-07-2018
After Sam's comments, I did a little research and found this if it helps:
MIDI Note Ranges of Orchestral Instruments
In the above linked table, C4 = 60
I also used this when mapping my Virtual Playing Orchestra:
Ranges of Orchestral Instruments
Just click the instrument class you want within the large graphic to see the note ranges.
RE: playability vs staff position - bigcat1969 - 02-07-2018
Thanks Paul! Good stuff.
I will note I'm very guilty of adding a couple notes to the top and bottom of instruments because I mess with midis. I like to listen to them with various instruments and it is annoying when the lowest note is one note too low for whatever instrument I chose.
RE: playability vs staff position - Samulis - 02-07-2018
C4 = 60 is called International Pitch Notation. It is the global standard and used in textbooks, papers, etc.
C3 = 60 doesn't really have a name, but I call it "Japanese Notation", because that is where it seems to have been common. It was used there in many samplers and synths for decades, and as a result of those synths and samplers being popular here, many DAWs and other software use C3 = 60 as well. For example, ARIA uses C4 typically, but Maize uses C3.
C5 = 60 appears in FL Studio. The idea is that the bottom note then in MIDI is C0, rather than C-1 or C-2. I don't know if this was the result of sheer incompetence or intelligent design, but it's one or the other.
The chart I use is called the "Spectrotone Chart". It's intended to be used for deciding which instruments to combine in orchestration, but I rarely use it for that purpose. Some of the suggestions of timbre and some of the ranges are a bit off (especially in brass), but the general point is there. You can buy a PDF of it online. I got mind printed and laminated as a poster at Staples for I think like $15 or something like that.
RE: playability vs staff position - bigcat1969 - 02-07-2018
Thanks Sam. Good stuff there. Awesome chart. Unfortunately the company is down for 'reconstruction' so you can't buy it. Bet someone sells it though.
Oddly there is much debate if life, the universe and everything is "the result of sheer incompetence or intelligent design". but that is another forum entirely.
RE: playability vs staff position - Paul Battersby - 02-08-2018
(02-07-2018, 08:21 AM)Samulis Wrote: Actual instrument in actual place ... The only excuse is when layering multiple instruments (e.g. celli with basses an octave down).
Sam, since a String Bass is notated an octave higher on a staff than it sounds, with your samples, when you play a C2 do you hear a C2 or a C1?
Same question for the Piccolo since it's notated an octave lower than it sounds. With your samples, when you play a C6, do you hear a C6 or a C7?
RE: playability vs staff position - Samulis - 02-10-2018
(02-08-2018, 12:27 AM)Paul Battersby Wrote:(02-07-2018, 08:21 AM)Samulis Wrote: Actual instrument in actual place ... The only excuse is when layering multiple instruments (e.g. celli with basses an octave down).
Sam, since a String Bass is notated an octave higher on a staff than it sounds, with your samples, when you play a C2 do you hear a C2 or a C1?
Same question for the Piccolo since it's notated an octave lower than it sounds. With your samples, when you play a C6, do you hear a C6 or a C7?
If those octave transpositions (don't forget glockenspiel either) are counted, then why not count all transpositions? It's a slippery slope.
All notation software that I know of sends the "concert"/"sounding" instructions to the playback device(s). Thus, there is no point to transposing sample libraries, as the only potential use case doesn't use them.
I would always recommend going off of the "sounding" pitch.
It's not a terrible idea to have an option to have the contrabasses up an octave and combined with cellos (it was a very common arrangement to just have the contrabasses play the cello line 8vb), I would still recommend keeping at least one version in the actual "sounding" range.