Daniel Spreadbury, formerly of Sibelius, now heading Steinberg's development of a new notation product, has written a very interesting series of blog articles.  The latest is here:
http://blog.steinberg.net/2015/03/development-diary-part-10/#more-928
 
The point I want to emphasize is that notation needs can range from minimal (lead sheets, or simple arrangements for a band rehearsal) to extremely elaborate published scores.  Spreadbury's diaries emphasize just how extreme the engraving requirements can be.  It is not plausible that Cakewalk will ever have internal notation capabilities anywhere close to the level of sophistication that Spreadbury describes.  It is doubtful that StudioOne / Notion will ever be in that ballpark either.  And it is doubtful that Sibelius, while owned by Avid, will ever integrate with ProTools to the degree that is expected of the Spreadbury project vis-a-vis Cubase.
 
Clearly the major DAW players see some intersection between DAW and advanced notation.  It seems very clear to me that Cakewalk's best strategy is to embrace interoperability  with the best notation products rather than to try to develop such a capability internally.

cparmerlee
Daniel Spreadbury, formerly of Sibelius, now heading Steinberg's development of a new notation product, has written a very interesting series of blog articles.  The latest is here:
http://blog.steinberg.net/2015/03/development-diary-part-10/#more-928
 
The point I want to emphasize is that notation needs can range from minimal (lead sheets, or simple arrangements for a band rehearsal) to extremely elaborate published scores.  Spreadbury's diaries emphasize just how extreme the engraving requirements can be.  It is not plausible that Cakewalk will ever have internal notation capabilities anywhere close to the level of sophistication that Spreadbury describes.  It is doubtful that StudioOne / Notion will ever be in that ballpark either.  And it is doubtful that Sibelius, while owned by Avid, will ever integrate with ProTools to the degree that is expected of the Spreadbury project vis-a-vis Cubase.
 
Clearly the major DAW players see some intersection between DAW and advanced notation.  It seems very clear to me that Cakewalk's best strategy is to embrace interoperability  with the best notation products rather than to try to develop such a capability internally.

This has been discussed over and over again for years. If you think anyone wants or needs Sibelius level notation in a DAW you don't understand the issue.  DAWs need usable notation.  That has nothing to do with stand alone notation programs.  They serve a different need.

Love Spreadbury's blog - always insightful.

vintagevibe
If you think anyone wants or needs Sibelius level notation in a DAW you don't understand the issue.  DAWs need usable notation.  That has nothing to do with stand alone notation programs.  They serve a different need.

I think you may be the one who does not understand.  All of Cakewalk's major competitors have made an investment in high-end notation.  There is a reason for that.
 
Many people may be perfectly happy using their DAWs for laying down tracks of their own creations.  That's terrific.  All DAWs are pretty good at that.  But increasingly, professional musicians, composers, and educators are integrating the DAW with the performance, either as live use of the DAW or through publication of the music created in the DAW.  Many universities have formal curricula on "Music Technology".  Some universities even offer majors in that field, and it includes synthesis, recording, and notation.
 
There is a convergence ahead, not unlike when recording hardware merged with sequencing software to become what we now know as the DAW.  It is a question whether Cakewalk will be a player or not.  I would suggest the companies that excel in this convergence will attract the professional musicians and producers and the other products will find themselves more in the garage band tier.  Nothing wrong with that, but it seems to me the Platinum is well above "garage band" level today and Cakewalk ought to be thinking about a strategy that will allow them to thrive as this next convergence takes place.
 
In simple terms, the convergence is composers who orchestrate in the notation world will seamlessly render their music using the most powerful DAW technology.  And people who compose interactively within the DAW will have a seamless pathway to publish their work as a high-quality manuscript.  That convergence opens the door to a whole new market of customers.

cparmerlee

swamptooth
Well i do it inside sonar as well, mostly for building textures and chord structures. If I need easy access to articulations I rewire Sibelius.

How does that work?  You can't edit the MIDI in SONAR at that point, right?  When you say you access articulations, are you saying you go into Sibelius and change the articulations there?

Not exactly... I mean basically i fill out ideas in sonar using notation (sometimes i think in notation sometimes not) and vsts. If i need switching articulations using vsl for instance it's easier to rewire in sibelius so i can just assign the articulation to the note or passage - things like trill or legato or pizzicato are easier to manage using that method instead of keyswitches. It's all about flexibility.

cparmerlee
I think you may be the one who does not understand.  All of Cakewalk's major competitors have made an investment in high-end notation.  There is a reason for that.
 
Many people may be perfectly happy using their DAWs for laying down tracks of their own creations.  That's terrific.  All DAWs are pretty good at that.  But increasingly, professional musicians, composers, and educators are integrating the DAW with the performance, either as live use of the DAW or through publication of the music created in the DAW.  Many universities have formal curricula on "Music Technology".  Some universities even offer majors in that field, and it includes synthesis, recording, and notation.
 
There is a convergence ahead, not unlike when recording hardware merged with sequencing software to become what we now know as the DAW.  It is a question whether Cakewalk will be a player or not.  I would suggest the companies that excel in this convergence will attract the professional musicians and producers and the other products will find themselves more in the garage band tier.  Nothing wrong with that, but it seems to me the Platinum is well above "garage band" level today and Cakewalk ought to be thinking about a strategy that will allow them to thrive as this next convergence takes place.
 
In simple terms, the convergence is composers who orchestrate in the notation world will seamlessly render their music using the most powerful DAW technology.  And people who compose interactively within the DAW will have a seamless pathway to publish their work as a high-quality manuscript.  That convergence opens the door to a whole new market of customers.

Min the features and suggestions forum I suggested Cakewalk licensing or even buying a notation editor.  It seems that at this point Cakewalk can't fix their current notation, so a faster solution would be to get one that already works and just try to integrate it as tightly as possible.  If they did this they could just to the front of the pack when it comes to notation, which would give a lot of  people reason to switch to Sonar.

Chandler
Min the features and suggestions forum I suggested Cakewalk licensing or even buying a notation editor.  It seems that at this point Cakewalk can't fix their current notation, so a faster solution would be to get one that already works and just try to integrate it as tightly as possible.  If they did this they could just to the front of the pack when it comes to notation, which would give a lot of  people reason to switch to Sonar.

There is a huge amount of inertia within the notation camps because there is such a big learning curve, and a huge investment in time and tools to become really proficient at producing publisher-grade scores.  The ones who are most extreme are probably not the most likely candidates for being interested in the convergence with DAWs.  They are mostly heads-down folks, who only render for the purposes of catching errors.  I don't think these people matter much to the DAW strategy.
 
But there is another tier of notation users -- typically a younger generation who are very active with DAW technology.  Most of them are on Finale or Sibelius today.  They won't move easily.  I am in that camp.  I have nearly 20 years investment in Finale.  I might consider moving to another notation program if it is extremely robust, and also well integrated with a DAW that is equally robust.  Notion isn't even close -- I'd never move for that.  And I doubt that Avid will make Sibelius that attractive.  I have a Sibelius license but haven't touched the program for 8 years.
 
The only one that looks like it has the potential to make me move is the Steinberg one, but that is probably 2-3 years away.
 
I really wouldn't be interested in using a half-baked notation program with Sonar, but the strategy you suggest might be the best option for Cakewalk to offer at least basic notation that is reliable. 
 
I'd rather see them work on interoperability with the Open Source MuseScore product.  And maybe they could legally include MuseScore with the Cakewalk installer.

jsg
I suspect Cakewalk's user base consists of a small number of people who actually read and write music, so they've probably abandoned support for those who do use the staff view.  I wish I were wrong about this, but I don't think I am.  It's a difficult decision for me; Cubase and Digital Performer have better notation but they don't have a color coded event list, which is just as important to me, and there are other things that cause me to much prefer Sonar.  So I may be stuck with Sonar for the rest of my life, although I realize the staff view leaves a lot to be desired.  It's too bad Cakewalk doesn't have enough pride of craftsmanship to care enough to fix the long-standing issues with notation.  
 
Jerry
www.jerrygerber.com
 

I don't use the staff view but that's a very good post and a great Point at the end.
Hopefully they will for those that need it.

Chandler
[
Min the features and suggestions forum I suggested Cakewalk licensing or even buying a notation editor.  It seems that at this point Cakewalk can't fix their current notation, so a faster solution would be to get one that already works and just try to integrate it as tightly as possible.  If they did this they could just to the front of the pack when it comes to notation, which would give a lot of  people reason to switch to Sonar.

They bought one years ago, did nothing with it and then sold it.

Now that CW is supported by Gibson I expect some changes to occur for this issue as well as many other concerns we have about how Sonar does not do what other less best DAWs do.
 
Including my major pet peeve: importing and exporting track templates with data, audio and midi.
 
The education market is essentially not a Sonar market until these two issues are fixed. Makes me way sad.
 
(Reducing the number of menus and totally configurable toolbars would be a way close 3rd.)