Anderton
 
The reality is that the call for staff view improvements remains the province of a vocal minority, BUT the important takeaway is that Cakewalk is taking that vocal minority seriously and slowly but surely, is making fixes...just as Bill Jackson said would happen in that thread. The monthly release schedule is directly responsible for these improvements as they can be whittled away one at a time instead of blocking out the time needed to fix them all as a group.
 

Some of us may not post a lot, but we still support staff improvements.   I have the staff threads bookmarked and constantly check in on them.
 
IN any case, nice to see the "squeeky wheels" are getting heard!

Not sure how many people do this, but I use the Staff View to compose, then I add lyrics, and then i use the lyric view to teach singers to song or to use as a teleprompter during a session.  I know we are talking Staff View, but i think these two are pretty related.

jsg

noynekker
 
 
And what's with the #'s and b's . .  today I'm editing in the key of A major, and  I can't add C# . . I'm stuck with Db ?
 

That doesn't sound right.  If you choose A major as the key (3 sharps) Sonar knows and when you insert a C it will be C-sharp automatically.  If you want it to be d-flat, , or c-natural, click on note properties and change it, or, go to interpolate if you want to change all c#s to D-flats.  Same if you don't specify a key signature, it might be C major but it could be 12-tone, chromatic, modal or some other keynote that has the tonal gravity.  In that case though it's the same, You can change any note into its enharmonic equivalent through properties or interpolate.
 
You can also change a note, such as a-natural to b-flat by clicking on both mouse buttons while dragging the note, using either the draw or select tool.
 
JG
 
 

Hi Jerry . . . I have A major selected as the key . . . if I draw in C, yes it knows to put in C#, but the Event List and the Event Inspector don't talk to the Staff View, because they display it as Db.
 
Also, god forbid I want to venture outside the realm of accepted tonality . . . if I draw in F natural, it puts in E# . . . and if I try to right click note properties to change it to F . . . it simply will not do it.
Try to use the selection filter to find all the E#'s in order to replace them with F naturals, it cannot find E#.
 
And you guessed it, all the E#'s are displayed as proper F's in the Event List and Event Inspector.
Is this by design, or does it simply confirm that Staff View needs some updating, perhaps left behind a little ?
 
If I put this in the feature request forum, it may be the loneliest thread, tumbleweeds blowing in the wind . . .
wait a minute, I feel a song coming on . . . yeah, it's in the key of E# minor.
 
 

jsg
You appear to be confusing the role of notation in a DAW with the role of notation in a dedicated notation program.  What you're talking about is publish-quality scores vs. a good midi editor. 

With no offense intended, sez who?  That is one opinion about one way to use the technology.  I do not accept that as the "right" or "proper" or even "expected" use of the technology.  There is nothing wrong with composing in a DAW, and if the parts that come out of that are good enough for your purposes, that's OK with me.  They aren't good enough for my purposes, and my work flow starts from notation.  I will not accept the subtle implication that I am doing it backwards.
 

jsg
Most professional music publishers use Sibelius or SCORE, not Finale. 

 
Please provide a citation that supports that point.  As of 10 years ago, most publishing houses accepted submissions only in Finale.  In the last decade, they have become more open to Sibelius.  But I haven't had a single client ask me for a product in Sibelius, Finale is frequently expected.  Either way, that doesn't change anything.  We have all the same issues with Sibelius.  Go back to my original post and replace every instance of "Finale" with "Sibelius" and it is exactly the same story.

Bristol_Jonesey

cparmerlee

Bristol_Jonesey
Why exactly are you using Finale?

Because I am being paid for publication-quality scores.  What comes out of Sonar is the most primitive stuff that wouldn't be acceptable to any client or publisher.  Have you ever used a real notation program?

So, my point being, why not do all the hard stuff - composing, arranging, editing etc in Sonar. Then, when you've finished - dump it out into Finale for publication.
 
To my mind it's a very viable workaround/solution.

Because I compose in notation.  I can do that 10 times faster than hacking away at a MIDI keyboard until it sounds right, then going back in and trying to make the score usable.  Universities still teach orchestration using music notation.
 
Let me give you an example of a project. A client found a score at the Smithsonian and decided they wanted to present that piece, It was in the composer's original hand.  But they wanted to add some new sections to the piece, and they wanted to expand the orchestration for a full symphony orchestra including Celeste, pedal harp, thicker woodwinds, and various percussion that was never in the original.
 
The obvious way to start was to recreate the composer's original score, then carefully add the new elements, making sure to keep the essence of the piece.  I guess a person could do this inside a DAW, but why would anybody do that?  That would be insane.  It would be extraordinarily tedious to make sure I hadn't inadvertently altered any of the original score.

cparmerlee

Bristol_Jonesey

cparmerlee

Bristol_Jonesey
Why exactly are you using Finale?

Because I am being paid for publication-quality scores.  What comes out of Sonar is the most primitive stuff that wouldn't be acceptable to any client or publisher.  Have you ever used a real notation program?

So, my point being, why not do all the hard stuff - composing, arranging, editing etc in Sonar. Then, when you've finished - dump it out into Finale for publication.
 
To my mind it's a very viable workaround/solution.

Because I compose in notation.  I can do that 10 times faster than hacking away at a MIDI keyboard until it sounds right, then going back in and trying to make the score usable.  Universities still teach orchestration using music notation.
 
Let me give you an example of a project. A client found a score at the Smithsonian and decided they wanted to present that piece, It was in the composer's original hand.  But they wanted to add some new sections to the piece, and they wanted to expand the orchestration for a full symphony orchestra including Celeste, pedal harp, thicker woodwinds, and various percussion that was never in the original.
 
The obvious way to start was to recreate the composer's original score, then carefully add the new elements, making sure to keep the essence of the piece.  I guess a person could do this inside a DAW, but why would anybody do that?  That would be insane.  It would be extraordinarily tedious to make sure I hadn't inadvertently altered any of the original score.

"Using a DAW isn't the same thing as "hacking away at a MIDI keyboard", interesting choice of words...as though playing a keyboard, MIDI or not is somehow not involved in serious composing.  Stravinsky detected and rebelled against this unhealthy idea that the mind can conceive what the hands cannot play, so therefore the superior way to compose is to despise the fingers and see them as no use in composition.  I think that's an immature attitude, because really, its through the body and arms, hands and fingers that we feel music, and without that holistic feeling of rhythm, meter, strong and weak beats, etc. I actually doubt music can rise above the mediocre, regardless of superior craft and/or training.  It's too unnatural, too disembodied with the stuff of life.  I call this the pseudo-academic bias.  That being said, one doesn't necessarily sit at a keyboard and play into the DAW.  That's one way to do it, and I think the best way, if, say, you're constructing a blues tune arrangement.  But one can, if one chooses to, sit at the DAW and simply compose.  Sequence and Compose.  just like sitting at the desk writing in a manuscript book, only with a mouse and sound.  And of course, you're arranging and orchestrating as you go in any style, order and concept you imagine. With a DAW you can hear the music played over a far wider choice of libraries than with a specialized notation program like you use.  It doesn't sound like you've learned the value of a DAW yet.  Maybe that's not your path, who am I to judge?
 
"Why would anybody do that?"  (referring to DAWs and arranging and composition)
I think I answered that.
 
JG

jsg
No professionals use a graphics program for recording, editing audio, sequencing MIDI or any other activity that involves making a recording. 

By "graphics program," I presume that is intended to be a perjorative meaning traditional European notation systems.
 
How do you think John Williams works?  Danny Elfman?  And the others who score for the big movies?  I don't know them personally.  I suppose it is possible that some of them try some ideas from time to time on a DAW, but they are scoring for the top studio musicians in the world.  These are big orchestras that have very high-cost sessions.  The composers (their assistants actually) must produce high quality scores.  I'd wager dollars to doughnuts that they work primarily within the realm of traditional notation unless they are specifically composing for a unique synthesizer sound.  A friend of mine is deep into the movie scoring program at USC (that's the program that produces most of the successful Hollywood writers) and I can assure you that he works heavily in notation.  He probably also uses DAWs, and would undoubtedly benefit from the kind of time-saving integrations I have described.
 
I think it is really a bit odd for you to insist that everyone must work the way you work.  I certainly don't insist that you work principally in notation.  If you can accomplish your goals entirely within the DAW, good for you.  I cannot.
 

cparmerlee

jsg
No professionals use a graphics program for recording, editing audio, sequencing MIDI or any other activity that involves making a recording. 

By "graphics program," I presume that is intended to be a perjorative meaning traditional European notation systems.
 
How do you think John Williams works?  Danny Elfman?  And the others who score for the big movies?  I don't know them personally.  I suppose it is possible that some of them try some ideas from time to time on a DAW, but they are scoring for the top studio musicians in the world.  These are big orchestras that have very high-cost sessions.  The composers (their assistants actually) must produce high quality scores.  I'd wager dollars to doughnuts that they work primarily within the realm of traditional notation unless they are specifically composing for a unique synthesizer sound.  A friend of mine is deep into the movie scoring program at USC (that's the program that produces most of the successful Hollywood writers) and I can assure you that he works heavily in notation.  He probably also uses DAWs, and would undoubtedly benefit from the kind of time-saving integrations I have described.
 
I think it is really a bit odd for you to insist that everyone must work the way you work.  I certainly don't insist that you work principally in notation.  If you can accomplish your goals entirely within the DAW, good for you.  I cannot.
 

"By "graphics program," I presume that is intended to be a perjorative meaning traditional European notation systems."
 
Wrong again.  There is no intention to be pejorative.  I have the deepest respect for the evolution of Western music notation and understand its power as a symbolic musical language.  Why would I be pejorative toward something I use and teach every day?   Makes absolutely no sense at all.
 
"I think it is really a bit odd for you to insist that everyone must work the way you work.  I certainly don't insist that you work principally in notation.  If you can accomplish your goals entirely within the DAW, good for you.  I cannot."    
 
Man, you are really out there. . I could care less about the way "everyone" works. That's not my concern.  You seem to have this oddball idea that those who work in a DAW don't use notation.  I advise you to drop the idea as it is a false idea.  I use Sibelius as well as Sonar and I work in notation every day, composing in Sonar's notation editor.  Do yourself a favor a learn at least a little about DAWS, please.
 
Since my role models are definitely not film composers, I don't pay attention to how John Williams or anyone else in Hollywood works.  If you feel you're expressing yourself clearly and honestly, we'd probably both be better off concluding this conversation as little of what you are saying makes any sense to me.  I detect you like to argue, but I have no idea what you are actually arguing about.  Your original post complained about the difficulty of making changes in Finale and then having to redo your work in Sonar.  People have made suggestions but you end up arguing with them.  Honestly, I have no idea what you should or should not do to speed up your workflow.  I hope you realize you're not the only professional musician around this forum because the tone of your posts suggests you think you are.
 
JG
http://www.jerrygerber.com
 
 
 
 

noynekker

jsg

noynekker
 
 
And what's with the #'s and b's . .  today I'm editing in the key of A major, and  I can't add C# . . I'm stuck with Db ?
 

That doesn't sound right.  If you choose A major as the key (3 sharps) Sonar knows and when you insert a C it will be C-sharp automatically.  If you want it to be d-flat, , or c-natural, click on note properties and change it, or, go to interpolate if you want to change all c#s to D-flats.  Same if you don't specify a key signature, it might be C major but it could be 12-tone, chromatic, modal or some other keynote that has the tonal gravity.  In that case though it's the same, You can change any note into its enharmonic equivalent through properties or interpolate.
 
You can also change a note, such as a-natural to b-flat by clicking on both mouse buttons while dragging the note, using either the draw or select tool.
 
JG
 
 

Hi Jerry . . . I have A major selected as the key . . . if I draw in C, yes it knows to put in C#, but the Event List and the Event Inspector don't talk to the Staff View, because they display it as Db.
 
Also, god forbid I want to venture outside the realm of accepted tonality . . . if I draw in F natural, it puts in E# . . . and if I try to right click note properties to change it to F . . . it simply will not do it.
Try to use the selection filter to find all the E#'s in order to replace them with F naturals, it cannot find E#.
 
And you guessed it, all the E#'s are displayed as proper F's in the Event List and Event Inspector.
Is this by design, or does it simply confirm that Staff View needs some updating, perhaps left behind a little ?
 
If I put this in the feature request forum, it may be the loneliest thread, tumbleweeds blowing in the wind . . .
wait a minute, I feel a song coming on . . . yeah, it's in the key of E# minor.
 
 

DP is the same way, the enharmonic equivalents don't correspond between the event list and staff view.  But what does it matter, I mean, why does it matter whether the proper enharmonic is in the event list?   I don't see how that is even an issue.  I wander outside of tonality all the time, using chords like Cmajor over Ab-minor (double chromatic mediant polychord) and create melodies that use all 12 tones.  When I export the MIDI data or XML to a notation program I make final decisions as to the enharmonic equivalents. 

A small note from one of the "silent" majority.
 
FWIW, I am quite comfortable composing/arranging in traditional notation style and appreciate having some level of notation included in Sonar. I use it for "MIDI editing" as well as working out "dynamic arrangements" when tracking live musicians with Sonar. Their training/musicianship is often much more excellent than their English/engineering skills and it helps to present parts in the traditional format. I also find it quite useful to document guitar voicings in arrangements.
 
I prefer core stability over competing with existing full fledged notation programs. But as the platform becomes more and more stable, it's features such as these that will reinforce the overall value of Sonar. 
 
I suppose "notation fixes" cannot be separated from "work flow" but I tend to support what I assume is the intent of the OP (and Sidroe), which is generate some visibility/support for a few improvements. I believe the potential exists for an "80% benefit for a 20% investment". This looks like as good a place as any to define the 20% improvements that will be appreciated by 80% of the user base. I can only hope this thread might capture the insights and suggestions based on the more experienced/traditional composers/arrangers in addition to those who only "hack" at it.
 
So ...
+1 for an original poster head count
+1 for the suggested improvements
+1 for the original intent of the thread