vintagevibe
 
I have brought facts to the table.

 
I read every one of your posts. Yes, it is a fact that other programs have notation. Yes, it's a fact that some people have switched to another DAW that suits their specific purposes better, which may or may not be notation. These are tangential to the direction this topic took, where a poster speculated that the notation advocates were making what appeared to be unfounded claims about the importance of notation.
 
So I presented numbers. You can draw your own conclusions about whether they support the contention that notation is of vital importance in the marketplace. You can interpret those numbers any way you choose, but they are numbers. They have no agenda. Your answer was to list programs that you feel have good notation. Sure, it's a fact that programs have notation, but no one has shown any statistics or research about how many people use the notation in programs they buy, how important it is to them, or for that matter, whether the inclusion of notation is a major positive factor in a program's sales or market share.
 
Remember that until Avid bought Sibelius, Pro Tools' notation capabilities were considered adequate at best, yet that didn't prevent it from totally dominating the market. Pro Tools' market dominance is eroding; you could say that upgrading the notation didn't do anything to reverse that, or you could say that it kept the core audience from switching so it in fact prevented faster erosion. Or you could say that the erosion happened around the same time they acquired Sibelius, so improving notation cost them sales. But there's no data to support any of those theories.The only thing we know for sure is that improving notation did not gain market share.
 
 
There's a difference between presenting facts, like "Cubase has notation," and facts that are germane to the question that was being asked.
 

I must stay that resorting to insults is unnecessary and unbecoming.  

I do not find an of the following insulting:
 
"Rhetorical questions are a device for those whose agenda is not getting answer but making a point."
 
That's the definition you'll find if you google "rhetorical question."
 
"Unfortunately your point is so unoriginal and repetitive it has lost any impact or relevance it might have had."
 
That is not an insult. It is an opinion, and one in which I don't think I'm alone. It's getting tiresome, especially since IIRC you said you don't use Sonar any more anyway except to open legacy projects. This forum is intended to be a platform for people who actually use Sonar.
 
"Nor have you brought any facts to the table. I have."
 
When you answer a question about numbers with numbers, then you'll have brought facts to the table in an equal spirit of quantifying what we're discussing.
 
"I feel I've been very patient, but I cannot reason someone out of a position they did not use reason to attain."
 
A reasonable person would draw a conclusion from looking at statistics that the inclusion of notation is simply not that important to the overall marketplace. Of course, that doesn't negate that it's extremely important to some people. I think everyone in this forum figured that out a long time ago. Repeating it over and over again doesn't write code. In fact it's counter-productive, because when a small group of people keep hammering on it even in a thread that has nothing to do with staff view (and this isn't the first time), it has the "look and feel" of a vocal minority. Count the number of unique users in the "No Notation Fixes" thread who consider the inclusion of notation extremely important, then count the number of registered users. The fact is in all the surveys of Sonar's users, notation is not that important. Of course that could be because they knew going in that Sonar's strong point wasn't notation, and it still isn't, but they don't care because that wasn't a factor in buying it in the first place.
 
Now, if notation was shown by statistics, not speculation or anecdotal evidence, to be immensely important to the market at large, then Cakewalk would need to take into account that adding robust notation might result in a considerable boost in sales. But the number of programs without notation whose market share dwarfs programs with notation (Pro Tools excepted, which still accounts for the #1 position in the marketplace) don't seem to support that theory.
 
Don't shoot the messenger. It's not my fault that notation isn't as important a feature in music software as some people think it is or would like it to be. That's all I'm saying, and I presented facts to back it up. If you want to take it personally that's your choice, not my intention. I'm sure my frustration in not having my points addressed in any meaningful way shows through, but that's quite different from being insulting.

Anderton

 
The fact is in all the surveys of Sonar's users, notation is not that important. Of course that could be because they knew going in that Sonar's strong point wasn't notation, and it still isn't, but they don't care because that wasn't a factor in buying it in the first place.
 
Now, if notation was shown by statistics, not speculation or anecdotal evidence, to be immensely important to the market at large, then Cakewalk would need to take into account that adding robust notation might result in a considerable boost in sales. But the number of programs without notation whose market share dwarfs programs with notation (Pro Tools excepted, which still accounts for the #1 position in the marketplace) don't seem to support that theory.
 

 
Late 80's - and just a midi sequencer - Cakewalk Pro 3.0 already had notation - that would count for something.
StudioOne was lacking so far, but bought Notion so I guess that stand for not being entirely unimportant.
Reaper 5, now rumoured to do something about it too.
All other daws I tried have it to some degree - Samplitude, Mixcraft, Cubase, ProTools.
 
So they all bother for no reason?
 
There is not single thing that makes a daw boost sales through the ceiling - and floor everything else.
The daw is the toolbox - and if there are tools missing you have to look at workarounds for that.
 
VCA Groups is another such matter that do not target everybody. It been loud voices on Cockos forums for years and now in Reaper 5 it arrives, Cubase Pro 8 just got it, and Samplitude moved that also from Sequoia in ProX2. 
 
What makes you choose a particular daw is different whether being beginner, intermediate, expert or pro.
The complete daw must target pro level as well to be successful - this is a selling point for beginners.
But to target beginner you have entry level versions that are a bit cut down in certain areas - and very attractive pricetag, and have loads of instruments and plugins.
The professional does not care about shipped plugins so much - they are already covered in that area thanks to standards for plugins.
 
The point is that there is something for everybody - like the morning paper that some are acustomed to.
 
So probably from intermediate you begin to look at notation and at expert also VCA groups.
 
The daw is used by many from those just starting out doing music related tracks.
The total beginner does not buy or not due to notation - they probably go by instruments and effects included to get them started.
A songwriter in a band might give other members a notation printout with chords, melody and lyrics as support - a mapp folder for rehearsals and gigs. If guitarplayer you can enter through tabs and fretboard.
The more serious you become regarding music making - notation needs pop up.
And the tool for professionals - actually register songs for royalty purposes - certainly pay attention to notation.
 
Notation seem to be one thing that is an excellent idea to have incorporated into the workflow.
It's such an excellent boost of workflow - you have so many things in midi today anyway.
 
I'm not one of those that write music through notation - it's the other way around - record live and want to simplify the steps towards registering a song, prepare a hired vocalist etc. And I'm dead serious about what I do, even if not calling myself pro until the day I actually get an artist to take on one of my songs. And it's my main occupation until I'm six feet under - full working hours I do things related to this project, making my long time hobby to full time work.
 
So a sucessful business will target beginners, with strong arguments that also pro's use this tool - that is where it matters with features that you don't need right away, but in due time(maybe not even knowing it from start).
And at every level your needs are covered - you can buy in on more advanced version.
 
To go to a single feature and ask for majority vote on that to be implemented - would be a disaster.
That is what v1.0 of a product would go by - not an established product with decades on the market.
 
And I'm sure Cakewalk scan the Features & Ideas forum at times - to look for the tiny improvements people long for. None of them will make a majority vote - just hinting what worth spending dev time on.
 
The more hours you spend on daw each day - the more it matters with the tiny, tiny things in there. Things that you do dozens of times every hour matters the most, probably.
 

I installed all of the updates.  Back in the know...for now.  No glitches so far.  Thanks.

lfm
All other daws I tried have it to some degree - Samplitude, Mixcraft, Cubase, ProTools.
 
So they all bother for no reason?

 
Of course not, and I've already answered that question in this and other threads. As I said, it's extremely important to some people. And as I've also said before, it's important in the educational market, so a program like Mixcraft that's making a play for that market better have at least some form of notation. Ditto Pro Tools, which historically has been used extensively (nearly a monopoly) in schools.
 
Sonar was never huge in education, which has benefited greatly from Apple's largesse in seeding computers. Being Windows-only is a disadvantage in that market; Mixcraft is swimming upstream. I also think it's important to remember that Sonar does have notation and people do use it, regardless of some longstanding bugs. So Sonar IS one of the DAWs that has it "to some degree." Tab is useful, too.
 
Notation was a much bigger deal in the early days of sequencers because they were MIDI-based. As digital audio became more affordable, DAWs moved more and more in that direction. The DAWs I've alluded to with huge market share were created post-inexpensive digital audio, and therefore emphasize audio.
 
The market has changed but fortunately for those who like notation, there are programs with a legacy of including notation early on and continuing it. It doesn't require the same kind of maintenance as digital audio, which has seen multiple changes in formats, drivers, and workflow over the years. A new kind of tempo or key will not be invented next week, and I doubt there have been many changes to the code that's been in programs since the days when MIDI was king. I feel that if PreSonus had not been able to write a check to acquire Notion as a pre-existing solution, they would not have started notation from scratch for Studio One Pro (I believe Reaper is also promising a third-party add-on, not a reworking of the core program). Also factor Notion being for sale in the first place into the "importance of notation to the majority of users" equation. And, PreSonus acquired Notion in September 2013. If integration was so important and easy to do, you'd think it would have happened by now.
 
One notation advocate in this forum (sorry, I forget who) wanted to make a constructive comment that would actually help the Bakers, so he put together a list of the 5 bugs which, if fixed, would make people who use notation with Sonar a whole lot happier. I passed that along to the product manager with a recommendation to implement.
 
FWIW Dorchester had two staff view fixes. Cakewalk is smart enough these days not to make any promises because they don't know what the future will bring, and past regimes made some promises that didn't materialize. But to say they're ignoring the people who want notation is simply not true. The Bakers are totally aware of the sentiments of this minority of Sonar users. Where it fits in the to-do list is the question, not whether it's on the to-do list or not. For what I think are valid reasons, the bugs that affect the greatest number of users are slated to be tackled first, various other factors (e.g., feasibility) notwithstanding.

Cactus Music
Speaking as a regular, I have lost interest in this part of the forum. 
I like helping new people start out and for some reason that has faded here. 

I'm with Cactus....here and the Studio Forum...

They have, quite frankly, become "ghost towns"....these halls used to 
be constantly abuzz with info, deals, tips, bugs, etc...and always packed.

NOW, it's far from that...it's the "privelaged few"...while there is the "occasional" relative thread,
the thought that "posting your viewpoints" will only get it moved/edited/deleted
has driven off a lot of those who used to frequent these halls.  Maybe that was 
the intent...to create less work for everyone...don't know.

And the bots block out so much that many people just "gave up" and left...and I can't
say that I blame them...

It's definitely NOT the same...that much is for sure...

Anderton
The market has changed but fortunately for those who like notation, there are programs with a legacy of including notation early on and continuing it. It doesn't require the same kind of maintenance as digital audio, which has seen multiple changes in formats, drivers, and workflow over the years. 

Not a completely accurate picture.  Avid didn't buy Sibelius in the old days when digital audio was new.  Presonus invested significantly to acquire Notion very recently.  Cubase had a major upgrade on the Score view functioning last year.   Reaper is working on a notation solution currently.  All these companies are investing in notation now or recently.  Notation is not just a legacy feature.

Anderton
Of course not, and I've already answered that question in this and other threads. As I said, it's extremely important to some people. And as I've also said before, it's important in the educational market, so a program like Mixcraft that's making a play for that market better have at least some form of notation. Ditto Pro Tools, which historically has been used extensively (nearly a monopoly) in schools.

 
Craig, if you want to put this into the notation thread, I understand - there is no reason for those who don't care about notation based MIDI editing to be subjected to this stuff.  I hope we can continue to have rational, constructive discussions about this.  It is not my intent to be an irritant.  
 
Anyway...
 
Mixcraft had better have notation - it is billing itself as GarageBand for Windows. To be honest, the notation in Mixcraft is miles behind that of GB, and also doesn't handle triplets correctly yet, however, they felt it was important to include.
 
So why is decent notation editing / simple printing a part of GB?  Is it the audience?  Is it because they had the Logic based code laying around?
 
Why did Pro Tools improve it's MIDI notation editor? They could have just left Sibelius as a separate product.
 
Why does Cubase have increasing notation functionality as you move up their various editions? They must know that users are willing to pay for functionality.
 
I think notation is seen as having some value to prospective customers.
 

Anderton
Sonar was never huge in education, which has benefited greatly from Apple's largesse in seeding computers. Being Windows-only is a disadvantage in that market; Mixcraft is swimming upstream. I also think it's important to remember that Sonar does have notation and people do use it, regardless of some longstanding bugs. So Sonar IS one of the DAWs that has it "to some degree." Tab is useful, too.

 
You are correct. Many treat the situation as if Sonar had nothing. The frustration comes in when there is some low hanging fruit, which if addressed, would satisfy many users. IMO, the focus at hand is notation based MIDI creation/editing, not publishing quality score printing.  
 

Anderton
Notation was a much bigger deal in the early days of sequencers because they were MIDI-based. As digital audio became more affordable, DAWs moved more and more in that direction. The DAWs I've alluded to with huge market share were created post-inexpensive digital audio, and therefore emphasize audio.

 
With technology like Melodyne Editor, it is now possible to go from audio to MIDI to notation. We would have laughed at someone who 20 years ago who couldn't understand why they couldn't convert an audio recording to printed notation.  Not so far fetched today.  Not so much laughing - more like amazement.
 

Anderton
The market has changed but fortunately for those who like notation, there are programs with a legacy of including notation early on and continuing it. It doesn't require the same kind of maintenance as digital audio, which has seen multiple changes in formats, drivers, and workflow over the years. A new kind of tempo or key will not be invented next week, and I doubt there have been many changes to the code that's been in programs since the days when MIDI was king.

 
Sonar has legacy notation code, and one would believe that "It doesn't require the same kind of maintenance as digital audio". So what gives?
 

Anderton
I feel that if PreSonus had not been able to write a check to acquire Notion as a pre-existing solution, they would not have started notation from scratch for Studio One Pro (I believe Reaper is also promising a third-party add-on, not a reworking of the core program). Also factor Notion being for sale in the first place into the "importance of notation to the majority of users" equation. And, PreSonus acquired Notion in September 2013. If integration was so important and easy to do, you'd think it would have happened by now.

 
Some have suggested that Cakewalk write a check to acquire a pre-existing solution.  I would never assume that it is a small effort to implant one program's functionality into another.  I would prefer that Cakewalk write a much smaller check, and have someone plow through the existing SV code.
 
Re: Reaper, my understanding is that functionality is going to be native code. To be honest with you, Reaper was so audio-centric, I thought a MIDI notation editor would be the LAST thing they would add. And yet, it appears they find there is value in it.
 

Anderton
One notation advocate in this forum (sorry, I forget who) wanted to make a constructive comment that would actually help the Bakers, so he put together a list of the 5 bugs which, if fixed, would make people who use notation with Sonar a whole lot happier. I passed that along to the product manager with a recommendation to implement.

 
Low hanging fruit.
 
We have been told that Cakewalk discuss the notation situation, about once a year.  I don't buy the idea that Cakewalk have been ignoring the SV limitations for all these years.  I'm going to go out on a limb, and say that the existing SV code cannot be maintained for some technical or legal reason, hence the only way there would be any (even incremental fixes / improvements) would be through a complete re-write, or the acquisition of another product.
 
It seems so obvious. We've seen improvements many improvements in the PRV. They are both MIDI editors.
 
Perhaps Cakewalk do not feel the need to communicate this to customers, because it IS that obvious, and it would only tend to put Sonar in a negative light.
 
These are the opinions of one person, based on observation and experience.  I reserve (and welcome) the right to be wrong.  

vintagevibe

dubdisciple
There is a certain irony that a thread pointing out a shift in the forums managed to shift it back to beating the same dead horses. It is also sad that some people cannot distinguish the difference between "ignoring" and simply choosing not to act. When it comes to subjects like staff view, it is easy to make unproven broad statements like claims Cakewalk has lost "lots" of customers over a chosen pet issue, or the ever-popular claims of increased sells if cakewalk upgrades/adds/fixes a feature. These statements are as valid as me claiming cakewalks sales would triple if they included a coupon for a happy ending at a sketchy massage parlor. Unprovable on the best of days without some measurable numbers instead of rhetoric.

There are lots of things I would love improved, but I realize that Cakewalk is going to analyze input from customer base and potential customers and make the decision they feel will benefit them the most. Evidently, upon weighing all options, there are still items they feel will not affect their bottomline enough to make those changes.

Ok so Cake chooses to ignore staff view.  Is that better?  Your welcome.  

You don't have to act like a smarmy d-bag just because everyone isn't hopping on your crusade. I don't need you to reword anything because it is clear you are going to take an irrational approach that leads to a different variation of the same rhetoric. Saying Cakewalk is ignoring staff view implies knowledge of intent. I have had plent of clients ask me for things that were not in the best interests of my business, so I passed. I was not ignoring them. The fact that cakewalk staff has indulged in countless threads like this, enduring insults and baseless insinuations, proves they are not ignoring you. You just can't seem to understand that they can hear you perfectly clear and sinultaneously remain unconvinced to act.

I don't think we got any feedback from the cakewalk survey a few months ago? It's up to them whether they want to make the info public or not, but I'm speculating the feedback is with Sonar to concentrate on improving existing functionality, rather than bolt on tons of new half baked features, that speculatation is based on a forum thread at the time of the survey and what cakewalk have been doing over the last few months.
 
As far as the forums becoming boring... Well if that's the case it's all our fault. I'd rather have boring and helpful rather than lively and disfunctional to be honest.

cclarry

Cactus Music
Speaking as a regular, I have lost interest in this part of the forum. 
I like helping new people start out and for some reason that has faded here. 

I'm with Cactus....here and the Studio Forum...

They have, quite frankly, become "ghost towns"....these halls used to 
be constantly abuzz with info, deals, tips, bugs, etc...and always packed.

NOW, it's far from that...it's the "privelaged few"...while there is the "occasional" relative thread,
the thought that "posting your viewpoints" will only get it moved/edited/deleted
has driven off a lot of those who used to frequent these halls.  Maybe that was 
the intent...to create less work for everyone...don't know.

And the bots block out so much that many people just "gave up" and left...and I can't
say that I blame them...

It's definitely NOT the same...that much is for sure...

No host has deleted any post due to it being a contrary point of view. I can say that the only posts I have ever deleted are accidental duplicate posts. As a group hosts have a deep distaste for deleting modifying or otherwise  changing anyone's post. We believe very strongly that what another writes is their property. I know I have never done that. I also know that the other hosts are very reluctant to do any such thing. As to moving threads posted in the wrong forum, there is nothing new about that. CW has been doing that for years. Now the hosts free up CW by doing that chore for them. If members have left it can't be because there are hosts. First they are still members and all they have to do is log in at any time. They can read these forums anytime without logging in. If their interest is the software CW produces having hosts has no impact on anyones ability to see and read the latest news on these forums and comment on it. If there are other reasons for them to be here, well, it would seem to me to be a simple case by case decision on their part and completely up to them.