I don't really use the staff view much, other than to print scores for my fellow band-mates that might ask to work that way with me. But I do think it should be a core part of the software and beefed up for those that need it more.

In the meantime, maybe this might end up being an approach worth investigating

http://www.finalemusic.co...ing-rewire-new-finale/

Finale is an exceptionally powerful staff tool, and with rewire support might work for some

Anderton

Kamikaze
Been here done this, it's a waste of time. You'll deride my comments as 'snarky' or 'gratuitous', it's not called for.

 
It may not be called for, but I'm content to let others judge whether it's accurate or not.
 
I'm actively pursuing a solution. That's my contribution. Your contribution to this thread has been to insult Cakewalk.

Rock on Anderton. We are lucky to have you around. I am an independent thinker, happy to express my considered views, and your take on most things is impossible to contradict.

Evening Garry

Not got much to add to the debate but I purchased Notion 3 and have upgraded to the latest version for the staff editing. I have also bought Wavelab for mastering. For all other recording stuff I use Sonar. You need to have the right tool for the job. It's unlikely one app can do it all.
I would love to be able to properly rewire Notion though!

ARA architecture could be opened up and made to support midi, then a third party solution could add notation to any ARA-enabled DAW.
 
I use musescore without major complaints, and occasionally transfer midi files back and forth with Sonar.  What advantage is offered by having comprehensive notation native to Sonar?  Is it just so that you can use VST instruments for playback?  Generally when I'm thinking in terms of notation, my process is abstract enough that it doesn't really matter what the instruments sound like - in the same manner as, I would guess, a composer in the 19th century might be sitting at a piano, conceiving of music for orchestra.  (I'm a guitarist, so I tend to compose with guitar in hand when I want less abstraction without the option overload of a full DAW.)
 
My sense is that Cakewalk might gain traction by not just developing notation, but taking it further by offering multiple visualizations, either through the "edit filter" or ARA or something like the Step Sequencer.

jsg
I have said this before and will keep saying it:  Music notation has been around, and evolving for over 1000 years and there are many reasons for that.   Bringing another sense, the eye, to music composition, brings more brain power to the creative process.  the greatest masterworks of classical music could not, and would not, have been written without it. 
 
The advantages of notation are numerous.  Unlike the piano-roll view, which has been around for a few decades, notation is precise, and an ingenious method of controlling and enhancing voice-leading and counterpoint.   Orchestration could not be done without it, at least not to the degree possible that notation affords us.  At present, there are only five DAWS that have a notation editor:  Sonar, Cubase, Digital Performer, Logic and Pro Tools.   Somebody told me the other day that Reaper is getting in on the game, but I am not sure.  I hope so.  
 
There are many features in Sonar I don't use, for example the PRV, many plugins that ship with Sonar, the drum editor view and others.  But I don't lobby Cakewalk not to include those aspects of the program, I just don't use them.  When I see users advocating to drop the notation editor, I think to myself, pity these poor musicians, if they knew how notation could make their music far more detailed, textured and nuanced, they might feel differently.  I am not saying that people should use the notation editor, that's for them to decide, I am saying they should stop lobbying CW to get rid of it. 
 
All professional composers, arrangers and orchestrators read and write music.  It's a given.  Sure, people can write great tunes and wonderful songs without notation and many people have.  And for improvisation, nobody needs notation, particularly for solo or free improvisation.  But try writing a concerto, a symphony, even an extended work for solo piano, or try composing a film score for a group of 10 musicians and you'll immediately see why notation is so valued and has been for centuries.   Turning on the sequencer and improvising tracks onto the hard drive will simply not yield the same degree of depth and precision, not to mention the time wasted trying to communicate to other musicians what you want them to play and how you want them to play it.
 
I hope Cakewalk gets the drift of this post and realizes that a professional DAW is for professional musicians.  The staff view is indispensable for serious (and not-so-serious) composition.  
 
Jerry
www.jerrygerber.com
 
 
 
 

With all due respect, you offer some thoughts worth consideration, but I fear there are at least several ideas that are, if you will, simply incapable of being proven (though, to be fair, would have to be understood as incapable of being disproved as well.)
 
First, I'm not at all sure anyone is suggesting that Cakewalk strip out of Sonar the music printing features that are already in place. Since, I can't recall anyone arguing for this here, I'll just let you consider where/when you believe you saw it. I have seen what I believe is an argument against further development from many. I do not think you have to ask people to stop "lobbying" to have Cakewalk remove these features; as far as I can see, no one has been doing that.
 
I'm not sure where your comments on improvisation are coming from, so I'll just mention that I'm a bit mystified at how that fits in here. If it has something to do with what I wrote, I'll simply apologize that I wasn't clearer: I do read music very well, but do not prefer working from brain to paper (or notation) to recording. It is more direct for me to eliminate "the middle man", if you will. I do sometimes refer back to staff view to see how the music looks. It's not a case of "either/or." At the same time, I'm not sure that it can be said that "all" professional composers read music. I vaguely remember Danny Elfman having to explain how he wrote the symphonic score to the first Tim Burton Batman movie without formal musical training (and getting quite a bit of grief from a music composition professor in the pages of Keyboard magazine). I personally know an individual who has issues with notation who has done work for CBS and NBC. I'll not mention his name here, as I'm not sure that he would appreciate having his name broadcast in such a way.
 
As far as the interaction between improvisation and composition is concerned, I doubt that they exist in as hard and fast distinction  as you seem to allude. There is a real question in my mind as to when the "germ" of improvisation becomes composition full-blown. I know sometimes I'll play something, edit it, add to it, edit some more, make changes, infinitum ad nauseum. I've written rock and jazz oriented and classical works this way. 
 
It is also a given that many of the greatest classical composers were also great improvisers; I wish we could ask them when they considered that their various works passed from improvisation into "serious" composition. Granted, they developed their ideas. But at just what stage of development did they consider their compositions to pass into the realm of the profound? Compounding the difficulty of determining this is the fact, generally admitted by musicologists, that "Art Music", properly speaking, was born after Richard Wagner (he being the last "popular" composer to write for the orchestra.)
 
If this sounds at all snarky, I do not intend this to be. I do have what seem to be some disagreements with some of what you wrote, but if your paradigm works for you, that's great.
   

outland144k

jsg
I have said this before and will keep saying it:  Music notation has been around, and evolving for over 1000 years and there are many reasons for that.   Bringing another sense, the eye, to music composition, brings more brain power to the creative process.  the greatest masterworks of classical music could not, and would not, have been written without it. 
 
The advantages of notation are numerous.  Unlike the piano-roll view, which has been around for a few decades, notation is precise, and an ingenious method of controlling and enhancing voice-leading and counterpoint.   Orchestration could not be done without it, at least not to the degree possible that notation affords us.  At present, there are only five DAWS that have a notation editor:  Sonar, Cubase, Digital Performer, Logic and Pro Tools.   Somebody told me the other day that Reaper is getting in on the game, but I am not sure.  I hope so.  
 
There are many features in Sonar I don't use, for example the PRV, many plugins that ship with Sonar, the drum editor view and others.  But I don't lobby Cakewalk not to include those aspects of the program, I just don't use them.  When I see users advocating to drop the notation editor, I think to myself, pity these poor musicians, if they knew how notation could make their music far more detailed, textured and nuanced, they might feel differently.  I am not saying that people should use the notation editor, that's for them to decide, I am saying they should stop lobbying CW to get rid of it. 
 
All professional composers, arrangers and orchestrators read and write music.  It's a given.  Sure, people can write great tunes and wonderful songs without notation and many people have.  And for improvisation, nobody needs notation, particularly for solo or free improvisation.  But try writing a concerto, a symphony, even an extended work for solo piano, or try composing a film score for a group of 10 musicians and you'll immediately see why notation is so valued and has been for centuries.   Turning on the sequencer and improvising tracks onto the hard drive will simply not yield the same degree of depth and precision, not to mention the time wasted trying to communicate to other musicians what you want them to play and how you want them to play it.
 
I hope Cakewalk gets the drift of this post and realizes that a professional DAW is for professional musicians.  The staff view is indispensable for serious (and not-so-serious) composition.  
 
Jerry
www.jerrygerber.com
 

With all due respect, you offer some thoughts worth consideration, but I fear there are at least several ideas that are, if you will, simply incapable of being proven (though, to be fair, would have to be understood as incapable of being disproved as well.)
 
First, I'm not at all sure anyone is suggesting that Cakewalk strip out of Sonar the music printing features that are already in place. Since, I can't recall anyone arguing for this here, I'll just let you consider where/when you believe you saw it. I have seen what I believe is an argument against further development from many. I do not think you have to ask people to stop "lobbying" to have Cakewalk remove these features; as far as I can see, no one has been doing that.
 
I'm not sure where your comments on improvisation are coming from, so I'll just mention that I'm a bit mystified at how that fits in here. If it has something to do with what I wrote, I'll simply apologize that I wasn't clearer: I do read music very well, but do not prefer working from brain to paper (or notation) to recording. It is more direct for me to eliminate "the middle man", if you will. I do sometimes refer back to staff view to see how the music looks. It's not a case of "either/or." At the same time, I'm not sure that it can be said that "all" professional composers read music. I vaguely remember Danny Elfman having to explain how he wrote the symphonic score to the first Tim Burton Batman movie without formal musical training (and getting quite a bit of grief from a music composition professor in the pages of Keyboard magazine). I personally know an individual who has issues with notation who has done work for CBS and NBC. I'll not mention his name here, as I'm not sure that he would appreciate having his name broadcast in such a way.
 
As far as the interaction between improvisation and composition is concerned, I doubt that they exist in as hard and fast distinction  as you seem to allude. There is a real question in my mind as to when the "germ" of improvisation becomes composition full-blown. I know sometimes I'll play something, edit it, add to it, edit some more, make changes, infinitum ad nauseum. I've written rock and jazz oriented and classical works this way. 
 
It is also a given that many or the greatest classical composers were also great improvisers; I wish we could ask them when they considered that their various works passed from improvisation into "serious" composition. Granted, they developed their ideas. But at just what stage of development did they consider their compositions to pass into the realm of the profound? Compounding the difficulty of determining this is the fact, generally admitted by musicologists, that "Art Music", properly speaking, was born after Richard Wagner (he being the last "popular" composer to write for the orchestra.)
 
If this sounds at all snarky, I do not intend this to be. I do have what seem to be some disagreements with some of what you wrote, but if your paradigm works for you, that's great.
   

I think there are some things I wrote that you disagree with, which is fine, and some things either you don't understand or you misinterpreted what I said.
 
I said:  All professional composers, arrangers and orchestrators read and write music.  Perhaps I should be more clear: most do, some don't, and the relationship between notation, recording, composition and playing is a dynamic, fluid ever-changing relationship, more like a process. 
 
As far as the interaction between improvisation and composition is concerned, I doubt that they exist in as hard and fast distinction  as you seem to allude.
 
I am not alluding to that at all.  It's a very fluid relationship.  I'll sometimes spend a few hours improvising before beginning work on a piece, the ideas and sounds I come up with in improv definitely inform my compositions.  There is no hard and fast distinction, composition often is motivated by an idea that appears in improv.  I think of improv as physical/emotional/intuitive, with some intellectual content, I think of composition in the same way but with a bit more intellectual content because while the improviser is "in time", creating in the moment, the composer takes music "out of time", by notating or, for that matter even recording.  Then we can go over ideas, edit them, develop them, find the potential in them, this can be done in improv and in recording tracks to some degree, but in my opinion notation gives us tools to do that with more precision and depth.  But that's just my opinion, I don't care if others find different ways, in fact, I embrace diverse approaches to making music, which is what we're all doing one way or the other anyway.  I am pointing out the advantages that I believe enrich and deepen musical awareness as a result of notation.  In the end, it comes down to whether you like the sound.  If you don't like the sound, it matters little whether or not you used notation in the creative process.
 
Maybe some people are not actively lobbying CW about eliminating, or not developing any further, the staff view, but I have read posts in which the poster said essentially they didn't care if Sonar had a notation editor or not.  CW hears that. In the end CW is going to what is is sustainable, profitable and possible.  I personally find the notation editor invaluable and can't imagine enjoying using a DAW as much without one.
 
Jerry
www.jerrygerber.com

jsg
 
Maybe some people are not actively lobbying CW about eliminating, or not developing any further, the staff view, but I have read posts in which the poster said essentially they didn't care if Sonar had a notation editor or not.  CW hears that. In the end CW is going to what is is sustainable, profitable and possible.  I personally find the notation editor invaluable and can't imagine enjoying using a DAW as much without one.
 
Jerry
www.jerrygerber.com

Hi Jerry:
 
I very much appreciate your clarification; thanks so much for your thoughts. Your comments are very worthwhile for consideration.
 
The only real quibble that remains for me (and I think "quibble" is the right term) with anything that you wrote is encapsulated in the quotation above. There is (at least for this little grey fox) a world of difference between being satisfied with the current state of Staff View in Sonar and lobbying for its removal. I do see quite a bit of the former, but can't say that I've seen any of the latter in view here on the forum. As you seem to note, however, it's possible (probable?) that there's no lobbying going on regarding the non-development or, even less, the elimination of Staff View. While this thread has taken several forms over the years, this OP's tagline seems to invite the discussion of opinions on this issue. In all sincerity, I think this unfortunately has somewhat backfired a bit. Perhaps it's the fact that those of us who are satisfied with the current level of notation within Sonar are concerned that if we support a music printing feature that we don't feel needs addressing (either because we use another program dedicated to notation or have little use of the same), we will actually be helping to present a skewed representation of the desires of the user base to the bakers. This would, of course, probably be detrimental to the development of Sonar in the long run. And, as Craig and others have commented, the correct implementation of such a feature is likely to be quite an involved process. 
 
All this is offered very much in the spirit of "FWIW." Thanks very much for your comments and observations!

Just to toch on a point that always comes up on these threads...
 
It would be great if the staff view was just 27% <g> better. For example, something like vertical dotted lines on the staff at selectable time intervals, to make it easier to populate the measure with notes on the "grid". 
 
It doesn't have to be anything like as powerful and flexible as Sibelius or Finale. Those programs are for manuscript production, not for music production. 
 
I question whether it would take a really massive development to make Staff View into a really useful tool for MIDI music proction / composition. Of course, everything is easy if someone else has to do it...

Lovin' Cakewalk Sonar Pro - and would really like a highly robust staff view.  I arrange for a band with a lot of early-stage vocalists.  Need to provide pretty precise vocal arrangements, and it's damn clunky to do this.  So many other areas of music production where Sonar is best-in-class or nearly.  This is a glaring omission.