I'm not trying to sound like a know-it-all (I've been exposed to some of those lately and hate it) so don't get mad at me.   But what I noticed on this is there is no rhythmic definition.  It's a very energetic piece and needs to have strong crisp attacks in the ostinato and those octave jump figures followed by the dotted notes.  Also accents on the first notes of the repeated figures.  The brass figures get lost near the end.  Also the tempo seems slow.  I've listened to the von Karajan performance of this to the point of wearing smooth an LP record, and it is almost maniacal in the intensity and energy.   You have to get that into this performance.     

Though it sounds good in a lot of ways and Bruckner is not easy to do I know.  I don't think it would be too hard to get this more rhythmic -  one easy way to get more definition (that I first heard of from Herb) is to use the dynamic samples instead of sustains even though the line might seem to use sustain.  So sforzando and medium dynamic articulations combined with more staccato or portato would add a lot of definition.

  

I am speaking from using the extended VI versions of the libraries so I don't know if you have the same set of samples.  I like the various levels of dynamics found with "Light, Medium and Strong" cresc and dim because they give you a lot of options.  For example, the attack on a light dim. sample in a lower velocity may be very crisp and clear but not real heavy.  Like a mezzo forte going down to piano.  I sometimes have alternated those with the sforzando in order to use a clear, strong but not too loud attack.  

Anyway it's a very ambitious job to do Bruckner and it is very cool you are doing it.  

Now you've got me thinking about it as well as whistling parts from it.  I love that symphony and remember playing horn on it at a concert once.  All the brass players loved playing it - so many great parts in Bruckner.  The Adagio is so beautiful. Composed after Wagner died as a tribute.  

I have commented on the track in another thread, so I will not repeat myself here. But I do admire your work ethic. 

And William, great advice and tips. I learned something new reading your two posts above.

Paul McGraw

I'm adapting this piece to the Full library. The immediate transfer doesn't work, since more nuances also means different attacks and dynamics.

The original score I did with SySE has dynamics mostly driven by note velocity. With the Full library version, I’m trying to move all to Modulation and Expression controlled. Even with short notes, I find this gives each note a direction, a better connection with the following note. Maybe I’m just overthinking?

I would use Modulation and Expression together. Modulation will select the dynamic layer, Expression adjust loudness. This will help have, like at the beginning of the Scherzo, aggressive attacks even in pp. Is this the correct strategy?

Paolo

Ah ah, William, too many great symphonists to cite! While Bruckner may not be my main interest, he was at the same time the representative of the anti-Brahms faction in Vienna, and the teacher of Mahler and Strauss. And he was a simple, tormented man. There is a lot to learn from his music. Maybe not always nuanced, but always full of a powerful tension.

I usually use Modulation to control dynamics, with Expression used to refine the extremes. For example, with a standard setting of Expression=110, I have headroom to increase the volume with strong crescendos. Or a lot of values to fade to nothing, or change amplitude without changing the timbre.

In the case of the Scherzo, the measures in pianissimo are still full of energy. Lowering the amplitude with the Modulation would also remove some power and aggressivity from the strings. On the contrary, keep Modulation quite high, and lowering Expression, seems to give enough kick, while keeping the volume low.

I don't know if this is the lecit way to use these controllers, but at first sight it seems to work.

Paolo

William, all very intersting! As a piano player, dynamics are always virtual for me. We invented embellishments to fake long and evolving notes!

I still have the feeling that short notes (longer than spiccato) still contain some "direction". But I should trust a wind player much more than my impressions!

So, I'll switch to what I'm used to do. Modulation for dynamics on long notes, Expression for nuance, Velocity for dynamics on short notes.

My presets are always set to have short notes controlled by the global settings of the preset. I've never been convinced to force them to Velocity on a cell base. Anyway, the on/off switch for Vel X-Fade is a good compromise between speed and flexibility.

Paolo

Poor Bruckner, that humble man! Even the choir kids are making fun of him!

Cheers!
Paolo

I'm particularly interested in this thread because I regard Bruckner as the God of symphonists (and the idea that he was a simpleton is increasingly coming under question in more modern research). Mahler comes close in no. 10 and obviously Beethoven in especially 3 and 6 but taken as a series, nothing can for me match Bruckner's consistency and depth of inspiration, He is also the main influence on my own modest symphonic output. For full orchestra, I only have the VSL special edition and it's precisely on dynamics and clarity that I have considerable difficulty when compoing through notation software -- Sibelius but with a recent switch to Dorico.

I have never been able to get what you have achieved here, Paolo,  but I imagine there is a good deal of DAW tweaking? There are a few things which are unbalanced or sound a little artificial but in general I'm certainly impressed. The difference between the full version and the SE is actually less than I'd been expecting even though it's audibly there.

I can find purely in notation that using the sforzato articulation, there is a bit more attack to the sound but like many others (not you), I still find it a bit flabby and lacking in transparency. This https://app.box.com/s/sj...omxxs772y4kfwb4wq02f4ns7 is a fairly short example from my most recent symphony. It would almost certainly be worse using any other sample library from my experience. Grosser Saal accoustic used.

I have to say, and this will probably be contentious, that for orchestral works where rhythmic drive and clarity and more important than purely accuracy and distictiveness of sound, that I prefer using NotePerformer which uses only a modest sample base to drive its modelling algorithms. This is not because NP is objectively better -- it isn't and they're not really comparable anyway -- but becuase it requires far less work and knowledge. Here   https://app.box.com/s/8k...nrxxe7xcbzmsgbjl2x  is another scherzo example from my 8th symphony which (unlike 12 which has a different remit taken as a whole) got its initial impetus from Bruckner 7 so I request indulgence in posting it here as there is a clear connection.

I'm interested in a) are there other things I can do purely at a notation level with inscore CC's allowed to boost the impact and clarity, so to speak of music like this using VSL SE? Is it really necessary to tweak every note in the string ostinati for instance? b) do others feel as I do that the NP rendering is somehow more alive? You might say apples and oranges but I no longer have the VSL version of no. 8 for direct comparison.

David

Paolo that sounds way better!  It has that dramatic quality Bruckner created.  One little thing I noticed was you can make at least some of those accented notes shorter.  Often that is a way to accent a note, because the attack is more exposed.  So, like a written quarter note actually being played a dotted 8th or even just an 8th.  Players will often cheat the actual written note values esp;ecially on rhythmic passages.    

Anyway - now you have to do the whole symphony!  Have fun  - I'll see you in a year.    

Strange -- looks like something went wrong with the original hyperlink. Pls. paste in this -- tests OK to me

https://app.box.com/s/8kosap44lcjqgdnrxxe7xcbzmsgbjl2x