Buggletts? Are those like Chiclets?

Only crunchy.
 

jsg
 
I've always been in the C) camp; fix the bugs.

 
+1. That would make a lot of people happy. I think the majority of the staff view fans probably feel the way you do, they want to be able to compose easily in staff view and are less concerned about...
 

...preparing a publish-ready score that conforms to the standards of music notation graphics...

 
+1
 

Look at the many handwritten scores of composers throughout the ages, they notated their ideas accurately and expressively, only when that score was published did the nuts-and-bolts of finalizing (from a graphics standpoint) the score for players take place.

 
+1
 

That's not composition, that's graphic design. 

 
+1000 
 
I also see an analogy to mastering. SONAR will take you up to the stage where you can do mastering, and you can indeed make a stereo mix sound better with SONAR's tools to the point where it has the "look and feel" of mastering. But if you need to do restoration, noise reduction, analysis, waveform surgery, and sophisticated album assembly, you need a program dedicated to those tasks.
 
I think most of the people using staff view in SONAR simply want it to be able to take them fluidly to the point where they can then think about the "last step" of graphic design. They basically want to be able to work more or less as easily as one can with audio, or piano roll view MIDI.

Anderton
 
I think most of the people using staff view in SONAR simply want it to be able to take them fluidly to the point where they can then think about the "last step" of graphic design. They basically want to be able to work more or less as easily as one can with audio, or piano roll view MIDI.

Exactly.  But merely fixing the bugs will get it to nowhere near that state.  (Jerry Gerber not notwithstanding;>)

Anderton
I think the majority of the staff view fans probably feel the way you do, they want to be able to compose easily in staff view and are less concerned about...

 
This is the kind of thinking that gets companies in trouble.  The current users are certainly important, and the bugs ought to be fixed, but when companies start to assume the current users are representative of the whole market, that can be a big mistake.  I mean, with such a poor solution for notation, you wouldn't really expect many people to be Sonar users if they valued notation more highly, would you?
 
With each passing month, I think you can expect more and more notation-oriented musicians to take up an active interest in DAWs, but they aren't going to choose Sonar very often if it is at the back of the pack in this area.
 
Maybe that base of potential customers isn't important to Cakewalk/Gibson.  IMHO, it should be.
 

Anderton

jsg
 
I've always been in the C) camp; fix the bugs.

 
+1. That would make a lot of people happy. I think the majority of the staff view fans probably feel the way you do, they want to be able to compose easily in staff view and are less concerned about...
 

...preparing a publish-ready score that conforms to the standards of music notation graphics...

 
+1
 

Look at the many handwritten scores of composers throughout the ages, they notated their ideas accurately and expressively, only when that score was published did the nuts-and-bolts of finalizing (from a graphics standpoint) the score for players take place.

 
+1
 

That's not composition, that's graphic design. 

 
+1000 
 
I also see an analogy to mastering. SONAR will take you up to the stage where you can do mastering, and you can indeed make a stereo mix sound better with SONAR's tools to the point where it has the "look and feel" of mastering. But if you need to do restoration, noise reduction, analysis, waveform surgery, and sophisticated album assembly, you need a program dedicated to those tasks.
 
I think most of the people using staff view in SONAR simply want it to be able to take them fluidly to the point where they can then think about the "last step" of graphic design. They basically want to be able to work more or less as easily as one can with audio, or piano roll view MIDI.

I think is is true, the majority of Sonar users, at least those who are vocal around these forums want the staff view to operate as a MIDI editor, without bugs, and do so as well as the event list and the PRV.  Craig's analogy with mastering is similar to my analogy with photographic software and I am sure in many fields one doesn't have just one piece of software to do everything that needs to be done.  
 
I really hope Gibson understands the value of a solid staff view and funds it appropriately and with the right programmer(s).  There are a lot of young musicians who are learning to read and write music using notation who probably would consider Sonar seriously because everything else Sonar does is excellent.
 
JG
www.jerrygerber.com
 
 
 
 

vintagevibe

Anderton
 
I think most of the people using staff view in SONAR simply want it to be able to take them fluidly to the point where they can then think about the "last step" of graphic design. They basically want to be able to work more or less as easily as one can with audio, or piano roll view MIDI.

Exactly.  But merely fixing the bugs will get it to nowhere near that state.  (Jerry Gerber not notwithstanding;>)

You like Cubase better for scoring.  So what?  What does that prove, that you're a serious musician and composers who use Sonar are not?   Why spend time bashing Sonar when you could be using Cubase?  What is your motive here, to rag on how much you like Cubase?  Just use it.  If you don't have any positive suggestions, specific suggestions as to how to improve the staff view as a MIDI input tool, then what good is your criticism doing?
 
JG

jsg
 
You like Cubase better for scoring.  So what?  What does that prove, that you're a serious musician and composers who use Sonar are not?   Why spend time bashing Sonar when you could be using Cubase?  What is your motive here, to rag on how much you like Cubase?  Just use it.  If you don't have any positive suggestions, specific suggestions as to how to improve the staff view as a MIDI input tool, then what good is your criticism doing?
 
JG

Why the attack?  What did I say about Cubase?  My point is positive - Cakewalks needs to improve notation.  You really need to calm down.

cparmerlee

Anderton
I think the majority of the staff view fans probably feel the way you do, they want to be able to compose easily in staff view and are less concerned about...

 
This is the kind of thinking that gets companies in trouble.  The current users are certainly important, and the bugs ought to be fixed, but when companies start to assume the current users are representative of the whole market, that can be a big mistake.

 
If you take a look at the whole market, then notation is not very important based on the sales of Ableton Live, FL Studio, Reaper, Bitwig Studio, Reason, Acid, and Studio One. Other than Pro Tools (which despite losing market share remains on top at least for now for a variety of reasons), Ableton Live, FL Studio, and Reaper outsell any non-SONAR program with a notation solution; Studio One Pro and Reason outsell most of them. Reaper is starting to implement the Lua plug-in for notation but based on reactions in the forums, it's not ready for prime time. 
 
Also consider the changing nature of the market. It's very difficult to get people to switch from an existing program they've used for years. I doubt very many users of programs with more developed notation would switch to SONAR unless it had notation editing that was so superior it could not be ignored. Also, many people choosing SONAR now grew up with piano roll editing and are comfortable with it. 
 
Again, the bottom line is this. Fixing bugs and making current users generally happy is doable. To devote resources to create something that goes way beyond that would prevent dedicating those resources to something like VocalSync or Mix Recall, which is useful to a wide variety of the user base. Also remember that notation has no relevance to people who do primarily audio recording, which is how many people use DAWs.
 
Of course it would be nice to have wonderful notation in SONAR, but you have to look at the cost/benefit analysis based not only on surveys of current users, but market trends in general. I would hope that getting the notation to the point where a professional like Jerry is happy with it would take care of the needs of most current users, as well as most who will adopt SONAR in the future.

vintagevibe

jsg
 
You like Cubase better for scoring.  So what?  What does that prove, that you're a serious musician and composers who use Sonar are not?   Why spend time bashing Sonar when you could be using Cubase?  What is your motive here, to rag on how much you like Cubase?  Just use it.  If you don't have any positive suggestions, specific suggestions as to how to improve the staff view as a MIDI input tool, then what good is your criticism doing?
 
JG

Why the attack?  What did I say about Cubase?  My point is positive - Cakewalks needs to improve notation.  You really need to calm down.

Sorry, please accept my apology.  I was in a bad mood, nothing to do with you, Sonar, Cubase or even notation...
JG