Jimbo 88
Can't believe this thread is still alive.
 
Let's tweak Staff View and see how the market responds.  Betcha it will be positive.  It will lead to increased sales and long term stability.
 
Technology is going to change and change drastically...notation will not and be the bridge to more advances.
 
The Bakers would do well to bring Staff View up to speed.  Not a world class, printable score like Finale or Sibelius, but as a midi editor.

It would also be my preference for them to fix a couple things in the SV, but imho, it will not happen.
 
My personal speculation is that the SV code works as is, but is not documented, understood, or is just unmaintainable.  Otherwise, over the course of the last 15 years, they could have even brought in a contract programmer, familiar with notation concepts, to address 2 or 3 outstanding issues.
 
I suspect the most likely focus of notation related development will be interoperability (hopefully bidirectional) with dedicated notation programs.

I am the OP and I am astounded that if so many people aren't really interested in having a notation part of Sonar, why is this thread still being discussed? I am comforted to know that I am not alone in my quest to get a truly integrated at least semi-pro notation editor in Sonar.

Sid, you're by NO means alone.

cparmerlee

Jimbo 88
Technology is going to change and change drastically...notation will not and be the bridge to more advances.

I agree with you about the need to get the current internal notation functions up to speed, addressing the various bugs.  That cannot be a bad thing.
 
If you are suggesting notation is not changing, actually it is.  Certainly notation has a slower pace of change than the DAW technology -- no doubt about that.  But notation is always evolving, just like language.  And much of that evolution is driven by avant garde composition in the universities, and to a lesser degree by movie scoring.  This is EXACTLY the same people who will value a more seamless connection between the advanced notation platforms and the DAWs.
 
 
 
To some degree, we're preaching to the choir.  Several pages ago Noel acknowledged that Cakewalk is taking a serious look at how to proceed here.  I do think they have had their priorities right since coming under Gibson.  They really needed to stabilize the main DAW platform and they have accomplished that most impressively.  That means they are in a better position today to think about some other priorities with more far-reaching consequences.
 
The Gibson move has been very successful -- a new golden age for Sonar.  But I do wonder if that creates a situation where the thinking is dominated by "guitar bands", so to speak.  I don't mean that in any negative sense.  I love a good guitar band as much as the next person.  In fact I am just finishing a big band chart of Hoagy Carmichael's "I Get Along Without You Very Well" that is all about the distorted lead guitar, in "rock anthem" style. (Hoagy is turning in his grave.)  But what guitar bands need of the DAW isn't exactly the same as what others might need.
 

While it's true that notation changes are certainly slower than DAW technology evolution, some of the changes have been quite useless or pedantic.  For example, the difference between ffff and fffff--you'd see this is some scores from the 60s and 70s.   The problem is that dynamic marks are the least objective of all notation symbols, dynamics are relative to the number of players, the size of the room, the absorption and reflective characteristics of the room, etc.  I am of course not implying that there is not a difference between f and fff, but composers sometimes make distinctions that have no real practical value.   Some of the new symbols introduced into notated music make it into the mainstream and some do not. When composing for virtual instruments, I dispense with dynamics in the score altogether, they are programmed into the MIDI sequence and though dynamics are a very important part of my music, I don't bother to write them out when writing for virtual instruments, there's just no need.
 
But your point is still true, notation does evolve, albeit slowly.  The fact that notation has been around for 1000 years should bring a certain respect for the achievement that no serious DAW programmer can ignore.    I am hoping (with a touch of skepticism based on past CW pronouncements) that the new Gibson partnership will allow for the hiring of programmers who really understand how to program music notation for a DAW.  Sonar could actually be the most successful DAW on the market if it were not for the notation deficiencies.   Again, I've said this before, the notation aspect of a DAW does not have to be for full-fledged publishing, creating parts, etc.  It just has to be a solid MIDI editor.  Come on Cakewalk!!!  Rise to the occasion and just do it!!!!!
 
JG
www.jerrygerber.com/

Maybe we could start a "crowd-funding" project specifically to pay Gibson/Cakewalk to fix notation in Sonar?

I'm an onionskin+drafting pen (along with fountain pen) educated writer who has found that Sonar's notation is completely unusable. I can't do anything with it whatsoever.
 
I've used Melody Assistant and Harmony Assistant made by two brothers from France
 
http://myriadonline.com
 
because they work great and didn't cost much when I needed a software notation program to print multiple scores for classical commissions.
 
I can import midi and Music XML from Myriad into Sonar but nothing more.
 
I'd bet if Cakewalk asked the guys from Myriad what it would take to incorporate all of the minutia they've programmed into their software it would be too costly.
 
I just consider the two platforms independent with minimal crossover and deal with it. Or maybe Cake should give Didier and Olivier a call?
 

duplicate
 
I do use Sonar for everything else. Best plugin package available for us noobs and recording returners.
 
 

vintagevibe
Cakewalk been saying exactly the same thing for at least 15 years.  "Just wait until the platform stabilizes".  Noel said exactly the same thing when Roland bought them.

From where I sit, Cakewalk has been in (or near) crisis most of the past decade.  The X series was really quite ambitious, and it wasn't until about X3d that the platform was clean enough to deliver on the "X" vision.  With Gibson they are in a much better home.  And the product is no longer in crisis.  It is a great product that is second to no other product in its category (ProTools might be considered a different category because of the hardware tie-ins.)
 
So I am willing to give Cake the benefit of the doubt with regard to their past statements.  Until now, the product and business have just not been stable enough to justify making notation a high priority.  Survival was the priority.
 
Having said that, they really do need to move forward now.

Well, I do almost everything in Staff view and it is one of the things that distinguishes Sonar from some others, although I understand Cubase has a better notation function.
 
My biggest complaint, as expressed before, is enharmonics.  If Sonar puts an Fb instead of an E, I understand—it can't read my mind; HOWEVER, it is frustrating that I can't use Find/Change to change all the Fb occurrences to E natural: I have to do them one by one by right-clicking the notes.  GRRRR.
 
PS Many people have said you can use Find/Change to fix this.  I have tried 100 times and it doesn't work.
 
 

dubdisciple
The assumption that those who don't  regulalry use the staff view cannot read or write music is pure snobby stereotyping. I have been reading music since 3rd grade and I know plenty of people with degrees in music who simply do not use it in their DAW. It's those kind of comments that have always lessened my sympathy for those complaining  about staff view.

Hmm, Thanks for pointing that out Dub.
 I posted above about not using staff view, but hoping for others it gets updated, etc, etc.
 
Although, Yes I can read music, about 20+ years worth-just don't use staff view.