bmdaustin
Max Output Level: -68 dBFS
- Total Posts : 1114
- Joined: 2004/01/11 21:56:51
- Status: offline
RE: Cakewalk: Are you listening to our notation requests?
2009/05/28 00:36:59
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: Alex Westner [Cakewalk]
The good news is that we, in Cakewalk Product Development, know what we need to do, and we have ideas and designs on just how to git 'er done. The bad news is that it's still a ton of work that I haven't been able to schedule into a product cycle.
Given that scenario, is it at all possible or likely that you would consider or create some form of direct integration with Sibelius or Finale rather than reinventing the wheel? I'm not a programmer so I don't know the complexity of what I'm asking, but it has been a common topic of late across several threads.
|
Marah
Max Output Level: -71 dBFS
- Total Posts : 975
- Joined: 2009/02/04 21:56:41
- Status: offline
RE: Cakewalk: Are you listening to our notation requests?
2009/05/28 00:40:13
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: vmw
Also don't forget, now that cake have dropped Project5 there are a number of items in it that will no doubt appear in an upcoming Sonar.
Totally. I expect to see P5 elements added to the Sonar package -- though my guess is they won't be especially *integrated* anymore than, say, V-Vocal is integrated (which works more or less ok.) Dropping Project5 was (probably among other things) a way of extending the Sonar line/codebase with P5 components without directly competing with P5 or leaving questions about P5's future unanswered. The future of P5 may well be Sonar 9 or 10... until eventually (as I've been speculating, and do more of below) they release a new, post-Sonar product altogether. Alex's post above was very interesting. (Thank you!) I appreciated his frankness. Though when you come down to it, it was more a confirmation of the more or less obvious than a revelation of something new. Looking at different parts of Sonar can be like looking at a geological cross section of an area that's been a built up through accretion and layering. And Staff View would be one of the older layers in the thing. The point where it was practical to update SV was probably passed long ago. (Possibly even pre the Sonar name change...? I have a copy of "Cakewalk Professional 3.01" from 1994 which doesn't seem to have any notation. So it's newer than that. But IIRC, the notation in Sonar 2XL... which is where I got on the CW train... was more or less the same as it is now.) So now on the one hand, CW is aware of the notation feature set's shortcomings, and on the other hand, they have not so far scheduled SV updates into the Sonar product cycle. Yet there's no reason to doubt that they'd like to update that part of the program... and other parts that are showing their age.. and offer their users a more modern and feature-complete platform. You have to wonder which other features in need of updating (e.g., envelope creation/management) or "missing" features (e.g., digital-era 'varispeed') would be difficult or impractical to incorporate into Sonar's current codebase AND product cycle. So what does this mean? If we assume that CW is going to remain (at least in significant part) a software company (as opposed to more exclusively pursuing an integrated VS-type approach) then everything -- including the competitive environment -- continues to point to a new "post-Cakewalk/Pro Audio/Sonar" codebase and platform, even if they retain the Sonar name and look. I figure that's where Roland comes to the rescue. How exciting!
post edited by Marah - 2009/05/28 00:58:04
|
vicsant
Max Output Level: -63 dBFS
- Total Posts : 1378
- Joined: 2003/11/06 20:44:33
- Status: offline
RE: Cakewalk: Are you listening to our notation requests?
2009/05/28 01:09:45
(permalink)
It's just not worth it to Cakewalk from a business point of view. S'not gonna happen. If PT and Cubase thought it worthwhile to upgrade their notation features, then must know something they Bakers don't  I hate to say it, but it looks like Sonar will always be left behind by PT and Cubase.
|
vicsant
Max Output Level: -63 dBFS
- Total Posts : 1378
- Joined: 2003/11/06 20:44:33
- Status: offline
RE: Cakewalk: Are you listening to our notation requests?
2009/05/28 01:17:40
(permalink)
What I need is USABLE NOTATION-BASED EDITING TOOLS. Yeah!!!! I can only surmise that the people who don't need USABLE NOTATION-BASED EDITING TOOLS probably can't read and write music in the first place. So why should they care? I read and write music and because of Sonar's weak notation features, I have to do most edits in PRV. Wish I could do the same things in SV. That's all we're asking for, really. I use Finale for more sophisticated score printing requirements. For the nth time.... we are not asking for Finale features in Sonar. That's what Finale is there for.
|
vicsant
Max Output Level: -63 dBFS
- Total Posts : 1378
- Joined: 2003/11/06 20:44:33
- Status: offline
RE: Cakewalk: Are you listening to our notation requests?
2009/05/28 01:24:57
(permalink)
As others have postulated, that part of our codebase is among the most difficult for us to update / improve upon. This is the #1 (and only) reason why it's been challenging for us to make the changes we need to make, no matter how big or small. The good news is that we, in Cakewalk Product Development, know what we need to do, and we have ideas and designs on just how to git 'er done. The bad news is that it's still a ton of work that I haven't been able to schedule into a product cycle. Thanks Alex. How about a tieup between Sonar and Finale?
|
Marah
Max Output Level: -71 dBFS
- Total Posts : 975
- Joined: 2009/02/04 21:56:41
- Status: offline
RE: Cakewalk: Are you listening to our notation requests?
2009/05/28 01:25:04
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: vicsant
It's just not worth it to Cakewalk from a business point of view. S'not gonna happen.
If PT and Cubase thought it worthwhile to upgrade their notation features, then must know something they Bakers don't
Doesn't PT's parent co also own Sibelius? And isn't Steinberg wholly owned by Yamaha, and have a longer product cycle? I hate to say it, but it looks like Sonar will always be left behind by PT and Cubase. Cakewalk/Sonar would seem to serve a somewhat different market/user base than either PT or Steinberg/Cubase. So at least from certain points of view, direct comparisons can't be made. I also think Cakewalk is in transition, and that on the other side of this transition things will likely appear quite different. (Of course I'm just making all this up as I type. It makes sense to me, as I see things, but what do I know?)
post edited by Marah - 2009/05/28 01:36:12
|
Waldemar Brisk
Max Output Level: -87 dBFS
- Total Posts : 198
- Joined: 2004/03/11 12:53:50
- Location: Finland
- Status: offline
RE: Cakewalk: Are you listening to our notation requests?
2009/05/28 06:28:16
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: vintagevibe
First, thanks for replying. We've been feeling very much left out in the cold. Second, is it fair to say that your last sentence means that it is low priority?
Well, surely issues of high priority will be scheduled into a product cycle ASAP, so I'm afraid you're right in your sinister assumption. Thank you Alex, it was kind and fair of you to give us this information. But if the staff view improvement still is waiting for the right moment to be included in a product cycle, it can't possibly be implemented in the next update, if it comes in September-October, as usual. The next stop - following the schedule - would be the autumn 2010. Sad. One and a half year is too long a time for me to wait. Kind regards, wb
Miracles done while you wait; the impossible takes slightly longer.
|
Susan G
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
- Total Posts : 12016
- Joined: 2003/11/05 22:49:26
- Location: Putnam County, NY
- Status: offline
RE: Cakewalk: Are you listening to our notation requests?
2009/05/28 07:18:58
(permalink)
Hi Alex- ORIGINAL: Alex Westner [Cakewalk]
Unfortunately, I don't have anything else to add.
We're listening, we understand the requests, we understand the shortcomings of our current notation feature set.
I'll give it to you straight, as you guys are loyal customers and we appreciate that very much!
As others have postulated, that part of our codebase is among the most difficult for us to update / improve upon. This is the #1 (and only) reason why it's been challenging for us to make the changes we need to make, no matter how big or small.
The good news is that we, in Cakewalk Product Development, know what we need to do, and we have ideas and designs on just how to git 'er done. The bad news is that it's still a ton of work that I haven't been able to schedule into a product cycle.
Good to hear from you on this, thanks! I think I was among the first to suggest that this would open up a can o' worms, and if memory serves, the SV survey followed some time after that. I have no idea, of course, what people said or even how many responded, but you know that those of us who want SV improvements are pretty passionate about it. I remember when Input Quantize was the "must have" feature a few years back. I'm sure it's important to many, but I couldn't care less about it and have never used it, but never objected to it -- my point being that SV is different in that some Users specifically argue against it, assuming it would add "bloat" and that they don't need it anyway. Some of us do "need" decent notation -- nothing fancy, just serviceable. I posted a while ago about how to sync Finale and SONAR together, and it works pretty darn well, but it's still no substitute for integrated notation in SONAR. I think some of us would be happy with just incremental improvements (do I hear triplet handling) while we wait patiently for more. Thanks again- -Susan P.S. Oh, and yes, a Finale/SONAR team-up would be fantastic!
post edited by Susan G - 2009/05/28 07:32:50
2.30 gigahertz Intel Core i7-3610QM; 16 GB RAMWindows 10 x64; NI Komplete Audio 6.SONAR Platinum (Lexington) x64
|
John
Forum Host
- Total Posts : 30467
- Joined: 2003/11/06 11:53:17
- Status: offline
RE: Cakewalk: Are you listening to our notation requests?
2009/05/28 07:27:30
(permalink)
Good to hear from you on this, thanks! I think I was among the first to suggest that this would open up a can o' worms, and if memory serves, the SV survey followed some time after that. I have no idea, of course, what people said or even how many responded, but you know that those of us who want SV improvements are pretty passionate about it.
I remember when Input Quantize was the "must have" feature a few years back. I'm sure it's important to many, but I couldn't care less about it and have never used it, but never objected to it -- my point being that SV is different in that some Users specifically argue against it, assuming it would add "bloat" and that they don't need it anyway.
Some of us do "need" decent notation -- nothing fancy, just serviceable. I posted a while ago about how to sync Finale and SONAR together, and it works pretty darn well, but it's still no substitute for integrated notation in SONAR. I think some of us would be happy with just incremental improvements (do I hear triplet handling) while we wait patiently for more.
Thanks again-
-Susan I second everything in the above post. Nicely said Susan.
|
Beagle
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
- Total Posts : 50621
- Joined: 2006/03/29 11:03:12
- Location: Fort Worth, TX
- Status: offline
RE: Cakewalk: Are you listening to our notation requests?
2009/05/28 08:31:08
(permalink)
+1 to Susan. I agree completely.
|
Jimbo 88
Max Output Level: -57 dBFS
- Total Posts : 1828
- Joined: 2007/03/19 12:27:17
- Location: Elmhurst, Illinois USA
- Status: offline
RE: Cakewalk: Are you listening to our notation requests?
2009/05/28 08:50:10
(permalink)
Alex,
THANKS so much for posts! That is not the greatest news, but the honesty will keep me loyal.
|
Beagle
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
- Total Posts : 50621
- Joined: 2006/03/29 11:03:12
- Location: Fort Worth, TX
- Status: offline
RE: Cakewalk: Are you listening to our notation requests?
2009/05/28 09:43:25
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: Alex Westner [Cakewalk]
ORIGINAL: bmdaustin
ORIGINAL: Alex Westner [Cakewalk]
The good news is that we, in Cakewalk Product Development, know what we need to do, and we have ideas and designs on just how to git 'er done. The bad news is that it's still a ton of work that I haven't been able to schedule into a product cycle.
Given that scenario, is it at all possible or likely that you would consider or create some form of direct integration with Sibelius or Finale rather than reinventing the wheel? I'm not a programmer so I don't know the complexity of what I'm asking, but it has been a common topic of late across several threads.
Yup, this is something we've considered many times.
Personally, I think a direct integration with Finale would be awesome and would eliminate any of MY needs for a better implementation of the staff view!
|
vintagevibe
Max Output Level: -51 dBFS
- Total Posts : 2446
- Joined: 2003/12/15 21:45:06
- Location: Atlanta, Ga
- Status: offline
RE: Cakewalk: Are you listening to our notation requests?
2009/05/28 10:06:16
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: Beagle
ORIGINAL: Alex Westner [Cakewalk]
ORIGINAL: bmdaustin
ORIGINAL: Alex Westner [Cakewalk]
The good news is that we, in Cakewalk Product Development, know what we need to do, and we have ideas and designs on just how to git 'er done. The bad news is that it's still a ton of work that I haven't been able to schedule into a product cycle.
Given that scenario, is it at all possible or likely that you would consider or create some form of direct integration with Sibelius or Finale rather than reinventing the wheel? I'm not a programmer so I don't know the complexity of what I'm asking, but it has been a common topic of late across several threads.
Yup, this is something we've considered many times.
Personally, I think a direct integration with Finale would be awesome and would eliminate any of MY needs for a better implementation of the staff view!
Actually it's already there in Sibelius. Sibelius 6 now has Rewire. I'm having Problems with the demo and Sonar but it's an x.0 version. They even mention Sonar rewire compatibility in there promo. I still need notation inside Sonar but since I own Sibelius this looks interesting.
post edited by vintagevibe - 2009/05/28 10:17:33
|
vintagevibe
Max Output Level: -51 dBFS
- Total Posts : 2446
- Joined: 2003/12/15 21:45:06
- Location: Atlanta, Ga
- Status: offline
RE: Cakewalk: Are you listening to our notation requests?
2009/05/28 10:08:36
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: Jimbo 88
Alex,
THANKS so much for posts! That is not the greatest news, but the honesty will keep me loyal.
Well said.
|
John
Forum Host
- Total Posts : 30467
- Joined: 2003/11/06 11:53:17
- Status: offline
RE: Cakewalk: Are you listening to our notation requests?
2009/05/28 10:10:25
(permalink)
I have no clue about what is internal to CW and how you all structure your feature release dates. I don't even understand the right terms to use but something you said is very troublesome. " It's about lining up our own resources and time, and considering market conditions and customer requests." If you are thinking that its not going to have an impact because its not given a lot of user feedback or that we as users are not rushing to the ramparts to tear down the walls in protest its because we may use a feature because its needed at or for a specific project and not much after that. But notation is a different animal. You wont hear a whole lot about it from your user base because those that need it badly wont have Sonar to begin with. Notation is a very basic function of all the leading DAWs. They all have highly sophisticated notation abilities. Sonar is the only leading DAW that does not come anywhere close to what the others offer. You may not hear a strong demand or thank you for getting this area up to date but many who would choose Sonar but don't may be strongly influenced by its lack of strong notation. You will never hear them not choose Sonar. But they opt for a DAW that will help them do what they need done. Right now anyone comparing Sonar to Cubase or Logic and needs decent notation will have to pass Sonar by. You all really need to rethink what a DAW like Sonar is used for if you want to be in the same league as Cubase and Logic. Not everybody uses loops to make compositions. The film and church users would have to leave Sonar on the store shelf because it simply wont appeal to them. You will never know just how much this lack of basic MIDI notation in Sonar has undermined it in the eyes of those that really need it to do their work. If you do have this as a major feature I believe you will see a very strong upsurge in sales. It will come from all those groups that need audio, MIDI and notation in one integrated package. I also believe schools will look far more kindly on Sonar if it can be used in a classroom setting for more then just recording MIDI and audio. The full integration of these things will be a very compelling reason to go with Sonar. I don't want to discount the nature of your post or the honesty within it. It is refreshing to hear from CW on this matter and is very untypical of the DAW industry as a whole. A dialog with your user base can only be beneficial to all. It is a very smart thing to do.
post edited by John - 2009/05/28 10:23:07
|
Marah
Max Output Level: -71 dBFS
- Total Posts : 975
- Joined: 2009/02/04 21:56:41
- Status: offline
RE: Cakewalk: Are you listening to our notation requests?
2009/05/28 11:38:15
(permalink)
I'm curious. Are there statistics available anywhere on DAW usage... like how many use this DAW, that DAW, this feature, that feature? Like maybe through NAMM? Or even an informal thing that was somewhat reliable, or whose unreliability could be discounted enough for it to still be useful (if you see what I mean)?
I ask because... we each know how WE use these things... and which features are important to us... and we all have some notion of what things like "leading DAW" mean. But we're really more in the dark than the light on this. (Obviously by "we" I don't mean the developers.)
Thanks again to Alex for your candid comments! :)
|
John
Forum Host
- Total Posts : 30467
- Joined: 2003/11/06 11:53:17
- Status: offline
RE: Cakewalk: Are you listening to our notation requests?
2009/05/28 12:00:27
(permalink)
I'm curious. Are there statistics available anywhere on DAW usage... like how many use this DAW, that DAW, this feature, that feature? Like maybe through NAMM? Or even an informal thing that was somewhat reliable, or whose unreliability could be discounted enough for it to still be useful (if you see what I mean)?
I ask because... we each know how WE use these things... and which features are important to us... and we all have some notion of what things like "leading DAW" mean. But we're really more in the dark than the light on this. (Obviously by "we" I don't mean the developers.)
Does it really matter? I know that a few years ago the standing was Cubase Sonar and Logic in that order in number of users. Cubase had 2 million Sonar about a million and Logic when it was both PC and Mac a little over 100,000. I don't have figures on PT or the others. This was world wide and provided by Emagic on its news group when it was bought by Apple to justify why it was dropping PC support.I think at the time they were the only ones with the same feature set and could be compared directly. Those were the figures that Emagic had. None of this has anything to do with what I was trying to get across to CW. Not only that but any data on used features has to be flawed by the shear fact there can be no reliable way to gather such figures. The only way I believe is to look at markets. But first one has to define what any particular market may be. How it differs from another and so on. What feature set will appeal to that market.
|
InstrEd
Max Output Level: -65 dBFS
- Total Posts : 1276
- Joined: 2004/10/13 20:55:03
- Status: offline
RE: Cakewalk: Are you listening to our notation requests?
2009/05/28 12:22:16
(permalink)
Thanks Alex for coming on here and acknowledging us. I am disappointed that we won't have Staff view improvements for version 9 it looks like. How about prioritizing for a 9.3 release  That can't be to much to ask for. At least give us MusicXML support for import/export. Pretty please. Ed
|
vanceen
Max Output Level: -74 dBFS
- Total Posts : 814
- Joined: 2003/11/08 08:55:56
- Status: offline
RE: Cakewalk: Are you listening to our notation requests?
2009/05/28 12:26:31
(permalink)
I have to admit to changing my mind on this issue.
I use Finale for notation, and I will continue to do so even if SONAR notation is dramatically improved, because it is very unlikely that it will ever approach the flexibility of a full-feature music notation program. Nor should it.
On the other hand, I would love to be able to use the Staff view for entering parts, following up with the PRV for fine-tuning. For that to work, the Staff View needs to be better, but not better in a revolutionary way. I've gotten so used to working in the PRV that I didn't realize what I was missing until I read some of the comments in this thread!
SONAR Platinum Windows 10 ASUS X99E WE Core i7 5960X 32 GB Corsair DDR4 2133 C13 Fireface UFX USB driver 1.098 GeForce GTX 950
|
John
Forum Host
- Total Posts : 30467
- Joined: 2003/11/06 11:53:17
- Status: offline
RE: Cakewalk: Are you listening to our notation requests?
2009/05/28 12:57:55
(permalink)
On the other hand, I would love to be able to use the Staff view for entering parts, following up with the PRV for fine-tuning. For that to work, the Staff View needs to be better, but not better in a revolutionary way. I've gotten so used to working in the PRV that I didn't realize what I was missing until I read some of the comments in this thread!
This is a major problem. The other programs I mentioned all do much what Finale and the like can do. They only fall short in how extensive their printing is for professional manuscript printing at music printing shops. The notation is as good as any stand alone pro app for notation. This is what is missing from the debate. I don't want all that Finale has because it wont be useful but I do want what Cubase offers and now from I can tell PT too. Which is a darn shame that PT should go for high quality notation and Sonar is still in grade school. We don't need to compare Sonar to Finale but lets just compare it to its direct rivals. They shine in this area. The manual for Cubase SX 3's score editor is 322 pages by itself. We are up to Cubase 5 and they have added more stuff and abilities. The longer CW waits the harder they will find it to get users from those other programs. They are so well established as it is. Personally I find it odd that anyone would want to do notation in two separate programs simply because the main one is brain dead in that area. Lets revive the main one and not deal with the need to have two apps to do the same thing.
post edited by John - 2009/05/28 13:17:24
|
vanceen
Max Output Level: -74 dBFS
- Total Posts : 814
- Joined: 2003/11/08 08:55:56
- Status: offline
RE: Cakewalk: Are you listening to our notation requests?
2009/05/28 13:43:12
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: John
[...Personally I find it odd that anyone would want to do notation in two separate programs simply because the main one is brain dead in that area. Lets revive the main one and not deal with the need to have two apps to do the same thing.
My answer to that is that I don't particularly want to use two separate programs. I just don't expect recording software to have comparable depth to dedicated notation software, just as I don't fault Finale's rudimentary recording capability for not being as good as SONAR's. I use Finale to produce hard copies of notation to be used in real-time performance or for archiving. I would use an improved Staff View as I said above - to enter (or compose) parts to be refined later to produce a good recording. I can't comment on what other programs offer, but I wouldn't really want to see SONAR offer more than required to do the latter.
SONAR Platinum Windows 10 ASUS X99E WE Core i7 5960X 32 GB Corsair DDR4 2133 C13 Fireface UFX USB driver 1.098 GeForce GTX 950
|
John
Forum Host
- Total Posts : 30467
- Joined: 2003/11/06 11:53:17
- Status: offline
RE: Cakewalk: Are you listening to our notation requests?
2009/05/28 13:58:35
(permalink)
My answer to that is that I don't particularly want to use two separate programs. I just don't expect recording software to have comparable depth to dedicated notation software, just as I don't fault Finale's rudimentary recording capability for not being as good as SONAR's. Thats my point they are every bit as good. but I wouldn't really want to see SONAR offer more than required to do the latter.
Why not if the others have it? If they can do it why should we be second rate? EMAGIC LOGIC PLATINUM 5.5 (MAC/WIN) Mar 1, 2003 12:00 PM, By Rob Shrock SETTLING THE SCORE Although I'm an avid Coda (now MakeMusic) Finale user, Logic's scoring capabilities impress me. I don't know that I would use Logic for commercially publishing an orchestral score (though some people do), but Logic's scoring tools are more than capable of fulfilling most performance and recording requirements. ( I once did a TV show with George Duke as musical director, and he prepared all of the band's charts exclusively in Logic.) The symbiotic integration of Logic's MIDI features with its notation capabilities will be a natural fit for many users. Logic 5.5 lets you use the Sonata, Jazz, and Swing fonts in addition to its native Emagic music font, though those are oddly the only choices. I'd prefer the option of using any available music font, but I can live with the choices provided.
post edited by John - 2009/05/28 14:18:40
|
Marah
Max Output Level: -71 dBFS
- Total Posts : 975
- Joined: 2009/02/04 21:56:41
- Status: offline
RE: Cakewalk: Are you listening to our notation requests?
2009/05/28 14:21:27
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: John
Does it really matter?
How could it not matter? None of this has anything to do with what I was trying to get across to CW. Not only that but any data on used features has to be flawed by the shear fact there can be no reliable way to gather such figures. The only way I believe is to look at markets. But first one has to define what any particular market may be. How it differs from another and so on. What feature set will appeal to that market. I dunno. Seems to me that it has a LOTS to do with what you were trying to get across, or at least issues you're dealing with. Seems pretty central, actually. But first one has to define what any particular market may be. Who and what do you imagine CW's market(s) to be?
|
John
Forum Host
- Total Posts : 30467
- Joined: 2003/11/06 11:53:17
- Status: offline
RE: Cakewalk: Are you listening to our notation requests?
2009/05/28 14:27:44
(permalink)
Who and what do you imagine CW's market(s) to be?
LOL I don't want to get into that right now. But it sure ain't the scoring for film market.
|
Marah
Max Output Level: -71 dBFS
- Total Posts : 975
- Joined: 2009/02/04 21:56:41
- Status: offline
RE: Cakewalk: Are you listening to our notation requests?
2009/05/28 14:29:19
(permalink)
|
marce
Max Output Level: -86 dBFS
- Total Posts : 237
- Joined: 2006/10/03 13:53:23
- Status: offline
RE: Cakewalk: Are you listening to our notation requests?
2009/05/28 14:59:13
(permalink)
A quote of the Cakewalk Pro Audio from 1995 (http://web.archive.org/web/19961031043506/cakewalk.com/html/proaudio.html ) "High-quality notation: Print your compositions as high quality sheet music with lyrics, guitar chord grids, expression text, and dynamic markings. " An interesting comment from... 1997, about why is important the Staff view: ( I suggest you to read the entire article, some complains from 12 years ago... http://www.bikexprt.com/cakewalk/stafview.htm )
"I get the impression that Cakewalk developers think of Staff View mostly as an output mode, to provide some of the functionality of a music publishing program. Staff view is useful for output, even though, as Cakewalk manuals admit, it does not compete with dedicated notation software.
But then, it doesn't have to. If you want to prepare a score for performers, there are several fine notation programs available. My complaint is not with Cakewalk Staff View's inability to display and respond to the entire kitchen drawerful of notational symbols. As long as you are preparing a performance on MIDI instruments rather than parts for musicians to read, the details of musical nuance can be handled much better in a sequencer than in a notation program. A sequencer stores, edits and controls nuance precisely, as MIDI data, rather than as symbols whose interpretation depends on the skill, rehearsal time and memory of performers.
The “meat and potatoes†of Staff View -- note pitch and timing -- are, on the other hand, extremely important in a sequencer. This is because a composer or arranger needs to use Staff View as a data entry and editing mode. No other view makes it possible to visualize the relationship among musical voices a tenth as well. In Staff View, the skeleton of a musical composition or arrangement can be assembled, and seen in its entirety. Even if Piano Roll View showed multiple tracks, Staff View would still be more compact, and would still show some things much more clearly than a piano roll can. "
post edited by marce - 2009/05/28 15:11:47
|
Waldemar Brisk
Max Output Level: -87 dBFS
- Total Posts : 198
- Joined: 2004/03/11 12:53:50
- Location: Finland
- Status: offline
RE: Cakewalk: Are you listening to our notation requests?
2009/05/28 15:00:03
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: vanceen
I just don't expect recording software to have comparable depth to dedicated notation software
Neither do I, but if Sonar were only a piece of "recording software", I would never have bought it. Kind regards, wb
Miracles done while you wait; the impossible takes slightly longer.
|
PaPi
Max Output Level: -70 dBFS
- Total Posts : 1032
- Joined: 2008/12/27 18:02:03
- Location: SoCal
- Status: offline
RE: Cakewalk: Are you listening to our notation requests?
2009/05/28 15:28:50
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: vintagevibe
Sibelius 6 now has Rewire.
Yeah, but it won't work with a 64-bit system... 
|
vintagevibe
Max Output Level: -51 dBFS
- Total Posts : 2446
- Joined: 2003/12/15 21:45:06
- Location: Atlanta, Ga
- Status: offline
RE: Cakewalk: Are you listening to our notation requests?
2009/05/28 16:11:38
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: PaPi
ORIGINAL: vintagevibe
Sibelius 6 now has Rewire.
Yeah, but it won't work with a 64-bit system...
Neither will most of the other apps on the market.
|
vintagevibe
Max Output Level: -51 dBFS
- Total Posts : 2446
- Joined: 2003/12/15 21:45:06
- Location: Atlanta, Ga
- Status: offline
RE: Cakewalk: Are you listening to our notation requests?
2009/05/28 16:14:09
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: John
Who and what do you imagine CW's market(s) to be?
LOL I don't want to get into that right now. But it sure ain't the scoring for film market.
Not true. The VS700 is always pictured with designed to interface with Roland Video Editing hardware. Cakewalk is aggressively marketing to the video market.
|