michael diemer

cparmerlee
If you are not aware, Steinberg has been developing an all new notation program to compete directly with Sibelius and Finale.  The development is led by Daniel Spreadbury, formerly of Sibelius, and Steinberg hired most of the Sibelius staff when they were made redundant with the Avid takeover of Sibelius.
 
This is a fresh approach to the entire challenge of notational composition.  However, if particular mote is the recent disclosure that the first version of the new product (called Dorico) will include substantial parts of Cubase embedded into and tightly integrated with the notation functions.  It will be possible, for example, to do the composition in notation (notes rests, etc) and then fine tune the playback by adjusting the resulting MIDI -- all from within the single platform.
 
If it is important to have good notation alongside a good DAW capability, this could to be the best solution available for awhile.  V1 ships by the end of the year and will be lacking some features, such as support for chords.

It is already possible to do this in Sonar and Reaper. I do most of my work in staff/notation view, and then try to make it sound good by using Sonar/Reaper's DAW feature.
 
If I can get Reaper for 60.00, and Dorico costs 5 or 6 times as much...I bought Reaper.

Well, this is only a topic because some people find SONAR's notation view inadequate.  I would suggest that the notation functions in Dorico will be about 1000 times more capable than notation in SONAR.  If SONAR's notation capabilities today meet your needs, then there is no issue.  Personally I need a full function notation platform.  I don't expect ever to see that on SONAR or Reaper.  But I do expect to see exactly that on Dorico.  And while the embedded Cubase subset is probably not what one would consider a full-function DAW (I don't think the first version includes audio or video tracks, for example), it seems to be the only platform that is on a path of putting these two environments together such that both sides (notation and DAW) represent more-or-less world class function.

Ah, but I use Notion for "real" notation. I work up my pieces in Sonar/Reaper, using the staff/notation feature, along with event list, console view, etc. I make it sound as good as I can (which may not be saying a lot); then export to Notion to produce an actual score. I was lucky to get Notion just before they raised the price. It was a steal at 100.00. 
 
So why switch to Reaper, when Sonar's notation was adequate for my needs? Well, there's no guarantee they will even keep staff view. but mainly it was because I just could never make the leap from 8.5 to New Sonar. Can't stomach the GUI. Reaper's is more like 8.5. And of course, 8.5 is getting older by the day. I needed something similar that was up to date, and Reaper was the obvious choice for me. My workflow now in Reaper is about as fast as it was in Sonar. And I'm not paying for a bunch of stuff I don't use.

michael diemer
I use Notion for "real" notation. I work up my pieces in Sonar/Reaper, using the staff/notation feature, along with event list, console view, etc. I make it sound as good as I can (which may not be saying a lot); then export to Notion to produce an actual score.

That's a really inefficient work flow, imho, but maybe the best that anybody can do with today's technology.  That is why I pointed out that with Dorico, the notation and DAW will all be together -- one program, one user interface.  You can work on notation and MIDI editing simultaneously if desired.  In theory you should be able to compose in either or both modes and move back and forth as needed.  There would be no concept of exporting or importing as it is all one score with both notation and DAW information in it.
 
That's what you can do with SONAR notation, but the notation capabilities just aren't good enough for most projects I would ever work on.

From what I've heard, combining a DAW and notation is very difficult. If Steinberg pulls it off, they will indeed have the Holy Grail of computer music. We'll just have to wait and see. I also continue to wonder why Studio One has not integrated Notion yet. Same company, but the besy they've come up with is to use rewire.

michael diemer
From what I've heard, combining a DAW and notation is very difficult. If Steinberg pulls it off, they will indeed have the Holy Grail of computer music. We'll just have to wait and see. I also continue to wonder why Studio One has not integrated Notion yet. Same company, but the best they've come up with is to use rewire.

I absolutely agree with every word of that.
 
Fortunately we really don't have to wait very long now, as Dorico is being demonstrated and is announced as being on sale by the end of this year.  Maybe it is too good to be true, but so far the story seems to hang together.

  Quote:  "Well, this is only a topic because some people find SONAR's notation view inadequate.  I would suggest that the notation functions in Dorico will be about 1000 times more capable than notation in SONAR.  If SONAR's notation capabilities today meet your needs, then there is no issue.  Personally I need a full function notation platform.  I don't expect ever to see that on SONAR or Reaper.  But I do expect to see exactly that on Dorico.  And while the embedded Cubase subset is probably not what one would consider a full-function DAW (I don't think the first version includes audio or video tracks, for example), it seems to be the only platform that is on a path of putting these two environments together such that both sides (notation and DAW) represent more-or-less world class function."  End Quote



It is inadequate if you expect it to be a full-fledged publish-quality notation program.  I've never understood why people don't realize that composing and creating a final score are two different functions.  Sonar's notation editor is a MIDI input and editing tool, and it works great for what it is.  It allows literate musicians to take advantage of notation while composing and sequencing music. Finale, Sibelius, Score, and now Dorico are notation programs designed to create publish-quality scores, akin to sending a finished pencil manuscript to an engraver.  These are graphics programs that can be used for composition, but not for music production.  I've produced many pieces, albums and 9 symphonies using Sonar's notation editor.  When I finish a piece I export it to Sibelius and create a finished score.  It's a very effective process, partly because I know the difference between MIDI editing and sequencing and score-creation.   
 
Jerry
http://www.jerrygerber.com/symph9mvt4.htm
(this is an electronic piece, there are no dynamic, phrase and other types of playing style instructions in the score because there are no players. Don't get alarmed)  ;>)
 

Base 57  However, I used Sibelius for a couple of years and while it made for a prettier page it was a tedious creativity sapping pita to work with.

I found exactly the same with Finale. I read an extensive book on it and also watched the video course on Lynda.com and throughout the whole learning process I lost count of the number of times I thought "you do this HOW? Wow that's bad design." It's just not intuitive and in my opinion, terribly thought out.

In the end I decided that a score editor is not necessarily the best way to input music into a computer. Recently I've started arranging some old medieval and Renaissance tunes for synths, from the sheet music, and I can't believe how much easier it is to set out the notes in the PRV than it is in Finale. And for composition, I actually really appreciate the style of visual feedback that the PRV gives you. It just makes sense to me. So for the time being, I've stopped hoping for notation view changes.

As Jerry said, up to now, composing and notation are two different things. they really always have been. Composing is the creative process. notation is the tedious process of getting it down on paper, or the modern equivalent. but it's always been like this. Before computers, pianos were the DAW of choice. Composers used them in the creative process. They had an inkwell and parchment nearby to capture their ideas. then it was pencil and paper. Always two different processes. That has continued to the present moment. Like Jerry, I compose in a DAW, because the superior sound gives me the feedback I need in the creative process. I have never used notation to compose, though many do. You can work either way. DAW and then notation, or notation and then DAW (if you want good sound). For some, a DAW is enough. For some, notation is enough. It's great that we have choices. Perhaps a day will come when one software will do it all. Perhaps Dorico will be that software. What I'm wondering is, does it come with Salsa?

jsg
I've never understood why people don't realize that composing and creating a final score are two different functions.

Because they aren't.
 
There was a time when MIDI sequencing was thought to be completely independent of audio recording, and then we got DAWs that pulled the two together.  And then people thought that music composition and production for movies was a separate thing, but eventually that was brought into both the DAW and notation programs. 
 
Bringing notation and DAW functions together is the natural progression of things.  If you don't have a need for those functions, nobody will make you use them, and you might save a few bucks by buying the old-style programs that don't have all of this together in an integrated workflow.
 
Many universities off coursework in music technology that involves the integration of all these aspects from a pedagogical standpoint.  The products aren't there yet to support that with a seamless workflow, but it seems pretty obvious to me that is a natural progression from where things have been.
 
That doesn't mean that every musician will choose to be on the leading edge.  I know people who still use Word Perfect and are happy with that.

jsg
When I finish I piece I export it to Sibelius and create a finished score.  It's a very effective process, partly because I know the difference between MIDI editing and sequencing and score-creation.  

No.  It is an an extremely inefficient workflow.  it is only an effective process because is the best you can do with today's technology. 
 
Am I to believe that in the process of composing those 9 symphonies, there was never a time that you wanted to go back and adjust the MIDI after you started working in Sibelius?  Sousa claimed he never changed a note in Starts & Stripes after he first wrote it down, but there are a couple of notes I would have recommended he change.  :)  We do what the current technology makes it easy to do.