michael diemer
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.

That is quite a generalization.  I know plenty of people who do their composition in notation with MIDI rendering being a secondary process.  Indeed, many of the great composers went straight from the brain to the manuscript paper.  it is a real mistake to presume that everyone must work exactly the same way.
 

michael diemer
You can work either way. DAW and then notation, or notation and then DAW (if you want good sound).
 

 
How about both?  Why must I fit into one of your two pigeon holes?  Do you think I would be violating some law of the universe if I worked on a piece BOTH in notation and aurally (in the MIDI) at the same time?
 
That is EXACTLY how I would like to work -- iteratively -- until I am happy with BOTH the notation and the resulting playback.  I see no reason why I should have to finish one before starting the other.  It is simply a case of the technology not being advanced enough to do that -- yet.
 

cp, you make some good arguments. Yes, technology keeps improving, and it would be foolish to state categorically that it has reached its limit in any field. I would be very interested in software that allowed me to keep up with both the creative act and the tedious process of putting it into a form that other musicians can understand. (Actually, now that I consider it, the process of making it sound good can also be quite tedious). and you're right, there have been composers who did it all in their heads. Mozart is even said to have been able to compose a new piece in his head, while he was writing down the old one. Who knows if this true, but with Mozart, I wouldn't doubt it. Still, I agree with Jerry that notation is simply a language. A necessary evil, if we want our music to be performed. The wonder of DAWs is that it allows us to give our music to the world, even if we never have the luxury of having it performed live. And it can live on after we are gone. (Although, eventually everything goes into a black hole, so best not to get too attached to anything). 
 
I am all for making the process of notation as easy as possible. The ultimate would be that it just happens automatically, exactly as we have written it. All the fermatas, dots, hairpins etc perfectly in place. Then we could forget about notation, and get on with creating music. Is this possible? I think it probably is. Until then, we have to make do with what we have, and that means developing a workflow that makes sense for us. you keep saying that x is a terrible workflow. Keep in mind that this is your opinion. If someone has a different workflow that works better, for them, it is not a bad workflow. it is just different from yours. And nobody is trying pigeonhole anybody. I think we are all aware that there are many ways of doing things in this funny business of computer music. I have seen that said many times on this and other forums. Some people like to say that certain ways of doing things are wrong. But the result is all that matters. And ultimately, the artist is the judge. If I am happy with how my music sounds, I'm not going to lose sleep because someone tells me I didn't do it the "right" way. 

 
BTW, you have the honor of having the 1,000th post in this venerable thread. Have yourself a cold one.

michael diemer
The ultimate would be that it just happens automatically, exactly as we have written it. All the fermatas, dots, hairpins etc perfectly in place. Then we could forget about notation, and get on with creating music. Is this possible?

It may sound like I am here promoting Dorico.  I am not.  I have not seen it.  I am interested in giving it a good look.  I just mention it a lot because it seems to be the best opportunity for some fundamental steps forward.
 
Both Finale and Sibelius have added features over the years with the intention of allowing "good looking" parts to emerge more-or-less automatically.  But this has been disappointing at best.  I find that after finishing a score for a big band chart, for example, I must still work about 15 minutes on each part to clean up the collisions that aren't handled automatically by Finale.
 
This is a major area of concentration by Dorico.  To hear the story, Dorico uses a large collection of rules that should result good layouts with practically no editing.  We shall see.  In theory, we ought to be able to enter MIDI notes and have this pass through to notation with a "best practices" look happening automatically.
 
I don't think any of this really will affect SONAR's market much.  Cakewalk is simply not concentrating on notation and they are putting lots of effort into other DAW stuff.  If Dorico ends up being as good as promised (maybe by the third release), then people who need both DAW and strong notation will probably head that direction.  But even if I do that, I'll probably keep using SONAR for many other things.

I'm always on the lookout for possible options to improve SONAR's notation abilities. Most don't pan out. Some look promising. If I ever see a solution that looks really promising, you can rest assured I'll pass it along to the Bakers for consideration.

cparmerlee

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.

Actually, they are, that is if you look at it from an objective and historic perspective.  Sure, a musician can combine the two activities to some degree, in fact we all do.  But the reality is that the score is a graphic representation of sound and music.  The act of composition involves notation, of course, but the finalization of the score, meaning bringing the score up to publish-quality standards of SMN, error-checking, and, if the piece is designed to be performed, including all dynamics, tempi, articulation marks, etc., is more in the realm of graphics than composition, performance or music production.
 
If a program came out tomorrow that had the DAW capabilities of Sonar and the notation capabilities of Sibelius, I'd still be working the way I do and the score would be finalized after composition, orchestration and sequencing are complete.  It matters not at all to me if others work in a different way, but the fact is that genuine score-preparation is a graphic art more than a musical art.  Many master composers had terrible handwriting, and many great songwriters don't even write their music down as their publishers hire others to create the sheet music.
 
Of course you're free to articulate this any way you want, but to most musicians, the finalized, publish-ready score is done after composition and orchestration are complete, although of course there are rushed situations in which changes have to be made quickly to the score.
 
JG
http://www.jerrygerber.com
 

jsg
Of course you're free to articulate this any way you want, but to most musicians, the finalized, publish-ready score is done after composition and orchestration are complete, although of course there are rushed situations in which changes have to be made quickly to the score.

I would suggest that is because the state of the art in notation software today imposes a major final editing step, and many people decide to put off that tedium until after they had the composition where they want it.  But that is a function of the inadequacies of the available technology rather than the result of some natural work flow. 
 
If the notation program naturally led to a well organized score and parts without all that tedium, then there would be no reason to consider that a separate phase.  This is part of the Dorico proposition, although it remains to be seen if that can be realized.
 
Personally I find it easiest when working with Finale to evolve the score with "clean notation" as I am going on.  And I most certainly include all the expressions and articulations as I am composing.  The dynamics are just as important as the notes and I want to hear the most realistic playback as the composition takes shape.  So if Dorico allows me to easily do the MIDI level tweaks for playback, then I will probably do those as the score is evolving.  I want to use both my ears and eyes in the process.  I often revise my orchestration when the sound comes out different from what I expected.  It makes absolutely no sense to me to separate it if the technology doesn't require separation.
 
If others find it easier to work with the "walls of separation" such as you described, that's perfectly OK with me.  But I categorically reject the idea that there is anything inherent in the process of composition that requires it to be done that way.
 

cparmerlee
I would suggest that is because the state of the art in notation software today imposes a major final editing step, and many people decide to put off that tedium until after they had the composition where they want it.  But that is a function of the inadequacies of the available technology rather than the result of some natural work flow. 
 

Well, I am not sure how long you've been composing music, but when I began writing music many decades ago, I used pencil and paper.  And even then, notating music while composing was the first step.  If I were to create an ink score and parts for players, that would be done later, often much later, so it is not because it
 
"is a function of the inadequacies of the available technology rather than the result of some natural work flow."
 
Maybe you're not understanding what I'm writing, or maybe I am not writing it clearly enough.  There are two aspects to notation, the first is inseparably linked to composition and arranging; nothing has changed regarding that in terms of modern technology.   The second function, which is a graphics function, is related to final score preparation, publishing, rehearsals and performances.  
 
Many people want a DAW to include the 1st and 2nd functions of notation, and I have no problem if DAW companies want to do that.  But I also have no problem if they don't want to do that because of the above reasons.   If a musician cannot use Sonar's notation editor successfully, I would find fault with that musician's lack of knowledge or technique, or with their expectation that Sonar, Cubase, DP, Logic or Pro Tools should be able to create a finalized score.  They cannot, at least not yet and not at the level that Finale or Sibelius can. 
 
JG
www.jerrygerber.com
 
 
 
 

jsg
Well, I am not sure how long you've been composing music,

Over 50 years.
 

jsg
Maybe you're not understanding what I'm writing, or maybe I am not writing it clearly enough.  There are two aspects to notation, the first is inseparably linked to composition and arranging; nothing has changed regarding that in terms of modern technology.   The second function, which is a graphics function, is related to final score preparation, publishing, rehearsals and performances.  

 
I understand what you are saying.  It is simply not true as a generalization.  If that way of dividing up the task works for you, that's fine.  I don't approach it this way.  I compose and arrange iteratively with my final, fully notated score progressing all along the way, not as a separate mechanical process later.  Today's technology does force me to undertake some final edits on the parts, but that is because of the technology and has nothing to do with the "laws of music creation", so to speak.  With better notation software I would not have any final editing, as 95% of that deals with avoiding collisions. 
 
I use the playback in Finale iteratively to confirm the intent of the score.  In extreme cases, I use MIDI manipulation within Finale, but this is really horrendous, so I usually accept the limitations of Finale playback.  If I really need a good sounding playback, I will go through the hours of hard labor involved with transferring all of that into a SONAR project and tweaking from there.  Again, there is nothing in the laws of the universe that say that should be a separate step.  it is only a separate, disconnected step because the technology can't do any better today.  If Dorico is able to allow DAW-level playback editing while the score is evolving, then I will undoubtedly work that way.
 
I am not saying that everybody should work the way I am describing.  What I am saying is that the state of the technology FORCES us to work in the way YOU describe.  That very well may change with Dorico.  I hope it does.  I will be a lot more productive if the technology allows me to work on these various planes simultaneously.
 
On a related subject, I believe the next frontier after the integration of notation and DAW is to permit hand-written entry of music, which should be much faster for many people.  That can be done today in primitive form with the StaffPad application.  But that has neither full function notation nor robust playback.  It is, essentially, a proof of concept today.  It is too tedious and limited for me to use in its current form, but surely that can evolve in a few years.
 

Some thoughts:
 
You should buy the DAW which works for your workflow.  If that isn't Sonar, check out other DAW's.
 
If your primary method of MIDI composition is the SV, figure out how to make it work for you as it exists now, as Jerry Gerber has.
 
If the idiosyncrasies / limitations of the SV (for me, handling of triplet ties and rests) is a deal breaker, I would recommend checking other programs.  IMO, these can't be addressed in the current SV, otherwise they would already have been.
 
I personally believe that MIDI editing requires both PRV and an acceptable SV.  I am ok with exporting to a scoring program for printing.
 
I am in the process of weighing the other great features of Sonar against the triplet issues in the SV - it's just something which bugs the heck out of me and has not been addressed since the beginning of time.
 
I am reviewing the the $60 DAW and the Essential version of another to see if I could adapt to those.
 
This is just me.

...ok bakers, here's your line:
 
"Don't worry guys, it was meant to be a surprise but we are working on fixing the staff view right now. You'll love it"
 
ready when you are