cparmerlee

jsg
I put all of my efforts into creating a finished product, the recording, not as a "mockup" (I hate that term it sounds so dismissive) but as an end in itself.  This might explain the difference in approach.

What you call a mock-up, I would refer to as a reasonably life-like rendering of the publishable sheet music, which can serve the purpose of a live recording session at a far lower cost.  And said realism can also assist the arranger in identifying any defects in the product BEFORE publication and/or before paid musicians see it in the first rehearsal.
 
If one isn't engaged in that kind of work, then one probably will find my point of view foreign.  I get that.  But I can assure you that a great many people work exactly as I have described.  This is a big enough market that some vendors will address "the bridge" eventually.  May or may not be Cakewalk.  I like Cakewalk, and have invested a lot of time in learning SONAR, so I selfishly want to see Cakewalk be a leader in this convergence, but it seems that is not in the cards.
 
This does affect my spending on DAW-related things.  Going forward, I will be very careful to spend money only on technologies (effects, instruments and other tools) that I can take with me to another DAW sometime in the future when this convergence path becomes a bit more clear.

Now I understand what you're saying.  I've been working in a DAW for so long that I've gotten used to the fact that the convergence, the bridge you're speaking of, isn't happening.  But there are new people writing music software, the competition is getting more intense, not less.  So, it could be Reaper, or Presonus, or quite likely, Pro Tools, now that Avid owns Sibelius.  I hope it is not Pro Tools due to their incompatibility with VSTs and I wish it were going to be Sonar.  I'm rooting for Cakewalk, as usual.  Sonar was the first 64-bit DAW.  Sonar has had many firsts, they've been on the cutting edge of DAW development since their DOS beginnings. 
 
As I've pointed out, before computers, a composer would create a score, often in pencil, to vellum, to plates, to publishing.  The process of composition, orchestration, arranging and score preparation was separate from the act of creating plates, publishing, distribution, marketing and sales.  I know things are changing rapidly and, some of the change is positive, as usual.   What's my point?   The Internet has turned us all into publishers.  No doubt.  So, essentially, what a convergence of a DAW with final-quality notation capability will do is turn us all into publishers.  Which is happening anyway, so let the race begin.  Given the way I like to work, I don't need, or particularly want to be thinking about finalizing the score while I am composing, orchestrating and sequencing, instead I just want to be listening deeply to what I am doing.  The score preparation and finalization can come later.
 
Obviously, dynamics are one example of where composers feel frustrated.  We just can't put an ff or an mp in the score and have MIDI read and understand it and make the corresponding velocity adjustments (well, Cubase users can) but that's not reason enough for me to switch as I've never found that to be an issue because I learned early on that the event list was the key to all the midi detail.  That's where the action is happening in terms of controllers, patches, velocities, exact location relative to the beat and other parameters.   I suppose having those dynamics in the score would be OK, but the reality is those marks won't mean much unless the piece is going to a) either be performed, or b) it is meant to be a "self-realized" piece, the MIDI interpretation is an end in itself. It can't be both because of the relative nature of dynamics and the complex interaction between velocities, timbres, sample-sets, controllers 7 and 11, mixing output settings, etc, etc. 
 
JG
www.jerrygerber.com
 
 
 
 
 
 

jsg
So, it could be Reaper, or Presonus, or quite likely, Pro Tools, now that Avid owns Sibelius.  I hope it is not Pro Tools due to their incompatibility with VSTs and I wish it were going to be Sonar.  I'm rooting for Cakewalk, as usual.  Sonar was the first 64-bit DAW.  Sonar has had many firsts, they've been on the cutting edge of DAW development since their DOS beginnings. 

Following on Craig A's question about market size, any point solution (Sibelius to ProTools, Notion to StudioOne, ot the Spreadbury project to Cubase) would necessarily limit the market size because each DAW has its fans as each notation product has its fans.  It the end result were overwhelmingly fantastic, then some users would convert, but not very many, I believe.
 
That's why I tend to think of integrations that are product-neutral.  We have MIDI and MusicXML that are mostly common to all products (with some variations).  That is enough for a coarse level of integration that might appeal to many people.  To me, the notion of two-way iteration is vital.  I want to fine-tune the MIDI in the DAW and add effects, but if I make changes in the notation program, I want that to be recognized without having to re-import everything and repeat all of my previous tweaks.  And likewise if I change notes in the DAW, it would be nice for them to be reflected in the notation score, even if the layout isn't immediately perfect.
 
There is already a technology that works in a similar fashion: Rewire.  But Rewire is not the answer in this case because Rewire can only send the wave streams from notation program to DAW.  It seems to me that a "MIDI Rewire" might be something that could be adopted by multiple products and form the basis for a more powerful integration.
 
I will admit that a lot of this is pie-in-the-sky.  But EVERYTHING in the DAW world was once pie-in-the-sky, yet  the technology works routinely today in amazing ways none of us would have thought possible 10 years ago.
 

The good news is there is already MIDI virtual cabling, so it's really up to companies to come up with the applications. However the bad news is I think (I'm not a coder!) that coming up with a universal notation "companion" program would be a pretty daunting task, and most companies would rather create, for example, iOS apps or virtual instruments with a wider potential market. If there was some open source project it might happen assuming enough motivated programmers, or maybe an IRCAM-like institution could get some kind of government grant...but these days, it might be hard to convince taxpayers it's worth doing.
 
The reality is this. The entire US music software business (recording, virtual instruments, editing, mastering, libraries, etc.) averages around $2 million a month although there is a big spike around the Christmas holidays. Hardware accounts for additional income that keeps companies like Avid, MOTU, Ableton, and PreSonus afloat, but this income doesn't relate to notation programs.
 
Of those software sales, all notation software falls into the "other" category, which includes educational software, gigging software, etc. and accounts for about 2.5% of that $2MM. So I doubt that all notation and scoring software together accounts for much more than 1% of the music software business, if that. This is why when notation enthusiasts talk about a big potential market, sales figures show otherwise. If some mind-boggling notation program came along, put all the other ones out of business, grabbed all the existing market share, and then doubled it, I doubt it would represent more than about 2% of the business.
 
I don't guarantee 100% accuracy with these figures, but I've been an industry analyst for some time and they're probably pretty close. I think your best bet is open source (although who would manage it?), someone so rich they can afford to pour money into it and not care (like the guy behind Cockos/Reaper), or a government grant. 
 

I'm staggered how small the U.S. market really is. You said $2million didn't you? Not a typo. Wow!

mudgel
I'm staggered how small the U.S. market really is. You said $2 million didn't you? Not a typo. Wow!

Average per month, not per year, but with a decent-sized spike around the holidays.
 
However there are months when maybe a couple dozen copies of a software package (which most people on this forum probably would think is popular) are sold. It really is a tiny industry. As I pointed out in another thread, a single Whole Foods store makes about $34MM a year - only a few DAW companies in this industry come even close to $20MM a year. However the Pro Tools division of Avid does substantially better than that because so much of its income is derived from hardware.
 
So if someone asks if you want to invest money in a notation program or in Whole Foods...my advice is go with Whole Foods. 

cparmerlee

jsg
So, it could be Reaper, or Presonus, or quite likely, Pro Tools, now that Avid owns Sibelius.  I hope it is not Pro Tools due to their incompatibility with VSTs and I wish it were going to be Sonar.  I'm rooting for Cakewalk, as usual.  Sonar was the first 64-bit DAW.  Sonar has had many firsts, they've been on the cutting edge of DAW development since their DOS beginnings. 

Following on Craig A's question about market size, any point solution (Sibelius to ProTools, Notion to StudioOne, ot the Spreadbury project to Cubase) would necessarily limit the market size because each DAW has its fans as each notation product has its fans.  It the end result were overwhelmingly fantastic, then some users would convert, but not very many, I believe.
 
That's why I tend to think of integrations that are product-neutral.  We have MIDI and MusicXML that are mostly common to all products (with some variations).  That is enough for a coarse level of integration that might appeal to many people.  To me, the notion of two-way iteration is vital.  I want to fine-tune the MIDI in the DAW and add effects, but if I make changes in the notation program, I want that to be recognized without having to re-import everything and repeat all of my previous tweaks.  And likewise if I change notes in the DAW, it would be nice for them to be reflected in the notation score, even if the layout isn't immediately perfect.
 
There is already a technology that works in a similar fashion: Rewire.  But Rewire is not the answer in this case because Rewire can only send the wave streams from notation program to DAW.  It seems to me that a "MIDI Rewire" might be something that could be adopted by multiple products and form the basis for a more powerful integration.
 
I will admit that a lot of this is pie-in-the-sky.  But EVERYTHING in the DAW world was once pie-in-the-sky, yet  the technology works routinely today in amazing ways none of us would have thought possible 10 years ago.
 

I make the score after the MIDI tracks are rendered into a two-track audio wave (I usually don't need stems because the mixing, track EQ, compression, balancing, etc. is done in either MIDI, the console, in VSL Ensemble or in soft synths) but before working on the master recording.  I don't have much of that back and forth between the Sonar and Sibelius.  Some, but not much.   

Anderton

mudgel
I'm staggered how small the U.S. market really is. You said $2 million didn't you? Not a typo. Wow!

Average per month, not per year, but with a decent-sized spike around the holidays.
 
However there are months when maybe a couple dozen copies of a software package (which most people on this forum probably would think is popular) are sold. It really is a tiny industry. As I pointed out in another thread, a single Whole Foods store makes about $34MM a year - only a few DAW companies in this industry come even close to $20MM a year. However the Pro Tools division of Avid does substantially better than that because so much of its income is derived from hardware.
 
So if someone asks if you want to invest money in a notation program or in Whole Foods...my advice is go with Whole Foods. 

I understand you meant monthly average. I guess I'm always used to everything in the U.S. being measured in billions that I haven't ever given the dollar value a thought.
I would speculate that most sales dollars account for upgrades not first time buyers with new purchasers being in the minority. With discounts being industry wide real margins must be very thin if you don't have a partner with deeper pockets, either through your own hardware sales or in the case of Cakewalk being owned by a larger company that can help offset some of the cost of sales.

I was thinking of asking to move this financial state discussion to another thread but I can see the eye opening perspective this kind of information can have to any of us who never give a thought to the real costs involved and how small our little niche of this industry is. Because when you talk music you generally talk of billions generally.

No wonder Greg H could no longer run a one man/small operation and keep up with companies like ProTools with the hardware profits to spread around. I imagine it must have been difficult as he firstly had a partner then finally an owner. Then people wonder why PT is number one. It's always been tied to hardware.

Here is an interesting interview with Benn Finn (Sibelius co founder) ....

http://www.sibeliusblog.c...-with-ben-finn-part-1/
http://www.sibeliusblog.c...-with-ben-finn-part-2/

Anderton
Of those software sales, all notation software falls into the "other" category, which includes educational software, gigging software, etc. and accounts for about 2.5% of that $2MM. So I doubt that all notation and scoring software together accounts for much more than 1% of the music software business, if that. This is why when notation enthusiasts talk about a big potential market, sales figures show otherwise.

This sounds like an EXCELLENT argument for why DAW companies should be looking to EXPAND their user base, rather then putting all their energy toward massaging the egos and/or ears of those who are already in the club.
 
I do understand there are limits to the available resources.  But I also see of all the amazing features that have been added to Platinum this year, I will probably only use 1 or 2 of them, ever.
 
And this is also why I look to something like a much smarter import of MIDI and MusicXML which could go a long way toward building a useful "bridge".  It wouldn't be as elegant as many of the features we have come to love about the DAWs, but could definitely make the DAW more appealing to people working in the realm of professional-quality  notation systems.
 
What I envision is a combination of operations:
 
Smart project setup, which would read a MUsicXML file and create a SONAR project template, creating a midi track and synth for each staff line found in the MusicXML. 
Smart Project Refresh, which would be the same as the above, but would insert MIDI tracks and synths for any staves added since the last refresh.
 
The above could optionally be smart enough to look at staff groupings and put each group to its own sub-mix bus.  For example in an orchestral score: woodwinds, brass, percussion, and strings.
 
Smart MIDI import, which would have several modes:
MIDI replace, either by track or for all tracks.   This would discard any MIDI information currently in the SONAR project for that instrument (or for all instruments referenced in the score), and bring in a fresh set of MIDI from the notation program.  Any tracks added within the DAW (not in the score) would remain untouched, but any MIDI tweaks to the previously imported MIDI would be lost.  Any effects chains or fader automation would be preserved.
MIDI refresh, which would be a much more granular operation.  In this case, the import routine would look for any changes in the MIDI coming from the notation program.  If any property of a note (pitch, length, etc) was different from the last import, then the old MIDI would be discarded and replaced with the new MIDI for that note.  But if there had been no changes to a note, then the SONAR MIDI would be untouched, preserving any tweaks that had previously been made on the DAW side.  If a note had originally been imported from the score and is no longer in the import file, then the note would be removed from the DAW.  But any notes added within the DAW would be untouched.  For this to be possible, the DAW would need to keep a shadow copy of the notation program's MIDI for each note in order to detect changes.
 
All of the above would be batch processes, as opposed to happening before our eyes in real time.  Obviously a real time two-way solution would be much more elegant, but that would require much more development on the notation side, which isn't likely any time soon.  As inelegant as the above framework is, this would be a huge time saver, and should work with just about ever major notation program right out of the box.