BWV 1041, migrated from MS3 to Reaper.

• Oct 29, 2020 - 10:32

Just spent some days, 'migrate' all the 3 movements of
BWV 1041 from MS3 to Reaper DAW.


All 3 Movements in a single MP3.

Total Length 13:36
00:00 - 03:37 1 Movement
03:40 - 09:50 2 Movement
09:53 - 13:35 3 Movement

BWV 1041, MS3 mscz Files that compressed.

Please leave any comments here, thanks.

P.S. the whole process use AirPods Pro as 'Monitor'


Since, presumably, the quality of the interpretation and performance are at issue here (thank you for providing the .mscz's), I feel it is appropriate to comment on those aspects. If there really is a piano in there (which should be harpsichord, anyway), I can’t hear either.

Referring only to the first movement, the phrasing decisions seem out of touch with Baroque performance practice. Taking mm 100-101 as an example, you shorten the note AFTER a tied group; the break belongs BEFORE that note (i.e., shortening the last of the slurred phrase), not before it (the next note is part of the downward scale in that phrase). You do this a lot. At very least, the MuseScore default staccato of 50% seems wildly inappropriate in Bach, almost always (I have found 75% right for Bach-marked staccati, e.g., ). But the additional staccati you have introduced for phrasing, sound even worse — please check out the phrasing plugin — a cutback to 85 or 90% will sound much better - what you have sounds like people stereotyping Baroque music, esp the staccato bass notes where Bach indicates no such thing (and 90% would be just great - not legato, but not staccato). What is the additional slur in the solo of 170 etc which defeats Bach’s innate phrasing? Try singing the solo there, and see where you breathe. See my “meticulously phrased renditions” set ( ) for examples of reasonably-phrased Bach.

Finally, I don’t understand the places where violino solo is colla parte with vn1 (e.g. 167) and you have staccato marks in one and not the other.

Leaving these interpretive issues aside, the sound is gorgeous. With such gorgeous sound available, I think there is even a greater responsibility to get the performance details right.

No question: the music you've created in Reaper is impressive. I basically do the same thing: create the core information (score) in Musescore, but rely on Reaper's superior sound reproduction ability to create the actual interpretation, my latest endeavour notwithstanding. I'm curious to see how many other artists have this workflow, particularly to Reaper, as it is a DAW unique in its flexibility, customisability and most definitely price,

In reply to by [DELETED] 1831606

Actually, many find this is one of reaper's biggest downsides: no included soundfonts. There's included plugins, but no libraries as such. To offset that shortcoming is the price: a mere $60. So, you then buy libraries that suit your taste and budget. For example, for someone wanting to create music for films and doesn't need to have granular control over what each instrument does, you've got Spitfire's Discover:

which is free. Most composers - particularly one as accomplished as yourself - would want a library where you have more control over articulations. Articulation management also becomes a consideration: Reaper has a number of solutions, mostly no-cost, for this task.

Not sure if this is a case of you asking what time it was and I shared with you how to build a clock, but anyway... :)

In reply to by [DELETED] 1831606

Now that you mention it: I remember you were working on this some time ago, but failed to follow it, unfortunately... your progress was detailed in some very interesting mscz you posted on your page. I have downloaded and will install your plugin... thank you for creating and sharing it, Bernard!

Do you still have an unanswered question? Please log in first to post your question.