• Register
  • Help
Results 1 to 6 of 6

Topic: Mod Wheel vs. GM Standards

Share/Bookmark
  1. #1

    Mod Wheel vs. GM Standards

    I have read the hype about the mod wheel in the documentation and in these forums. However, the practical problem for me is that I have a large library of big band arrangements where I have used CC#1 and CC#11 the way the General MIDI standard defines them on practically every instrument.

    Like another poster said, I have been beating my head against the wall for several days now with JABB and have nothing to show for it. Is there any way to turn off this Mod Wheel stuff and use CC#1 and CC#11 in a more standard fashion?

  2. #2

    Re: Mod Wheel vs. GM Standards

    Try this:

    http://www.bome.com/midi/translator/


    With it, you can alter the cc# signals en route.

    Might work for you, who knows?

    Dennis

  3. #3

    Re: Mod Wheel vs. GM Standards

    There is at least one other option, as well: Most sequencing programs allow the user to "transform" existing MIDI data in your tracks. In this case you would change all cc1 data to aftertouch (vibrato) and all cc11 data to cc1 (expressive volume.)

    Neither JABB nor GPO are specifically designed to work with existing GM files. Both libraries are intended as compositional tools, not GM playback sound sources. However, it is possible to modify GM data to become more compatible with the libraries. Even so, it is unlikely that just converting existing data (without further editing) will give acceptable results. Best results will be achieved by adding (and editing) expressive data while listening to each part.

    Tom

  4. #4

    Re: Mod Wheel vs. GM Standards

    Quote Originally Posted by danika
    I have read the hype about the mod wheel
    So you have stepped and stepped on your expression pedal and still no effect? Arghh, too bad.
    All your strings belong to me!
    www.strings-on-demand.com

  5. #5

    Re: Mod Wheel vs. GM Standards

    Hello, Danika

    You've hit on the number one issue that new Garritan users face when wanting to work from their existing project files. I mainly want to say, I sympathize.

    But I also want to encourage you to take a deep breath, and heed Tom Hopkins when he says:

    "...Even so, it is unlikely that just converting existing data (without further editing) will give acceptable results. Best results will be achieved by adding (and editing) expressive data while listening to each part..."

    My motivation for getting GPO last year was to record the score for my stage musical more satisfactorily than I already had done using hardware synths.

    I tried the MIDI translator which has been posted on your thread, but didn't like the results. Then I tried to simply transform controllers on my own, as Mr. H. described--again the results weren't to my liking.

    I dug in to do the work of re-doing my MIDI files, recording cc1 data, applying cc64 for legato, and adding the other Garritan touches with cc22 etc. I was working with material of over two hours duration--!--so the process took a good deal of time. I spent over a year on it.

    But I am very happy I made the commitment to making my music sound as good as possible with GPO and its MIDI tools. The effort was well worth it.

    One thing I discovered was that in my original files, my use of cc11 and cc7 was under-developed--that's the main reason the automatic translation approach didn't work. I ended up using Much more volume dynamics than I originally had, and of course after the careful addition of Garritan legato info in the Piano Roll View of my Sonar program, I now had legato which was much more musically pleasing than I could have had with my hardware synths no matter How much editing I would have done.

    Before grasping how GPO worked, I was hoping it was going to be a matter of just running my MIDI files through the library and instantly having great music--I reiterate, I'm very glad I took the time to learn the program and then put in the requisite time to let GPO perform the way it was intended.

    Best of luck.

    rbowser

  6. #6

    Re: Mod Wheel vs. GM Standards

    It may be worth trying to record the cc data with realtime audio feedback. For me this can be much faster and more rewarding than drawing lines with the mouse. For a test both is interesting but realtime is more musical and gives a better workflow. I usually play in a part with rough modwheel modulation, then delete the modwheel data and rehearse the modwheeling a few times before recording it again.

    Actually for the second recording I use a tablet controller with tablet2midi but the point is the 'playing' situation with realtime feedback. Drawing lines then is great for corrections.

    Hannes
    All your strings belong to me!
    www.strings-on-demand.com

Go Back to forum

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •