cparmerlee
Max Output Level: -67 dBFS
- Total Posts : 1153
- Joined: 2013/06/25 22:14:42
- Status: offline
Re: No notation fixes!
2016/06/24 14:28:45
(permalink)
michael diemer
cparmerlee
If you are not aware, Steinberg has been developing an all new notation program to compete directly with Sibelius and Finale. The development is led by Daniel Spreadbury, formerly of Sibelius, and Steinberg hired most of the Sibelius staff when they were made redundant with the Avid takeover of Sibelius.
This is a fresh approach to the entire challenge of notational composition. However, if particular mote is the recent disclosure that the first version of the new product (called Dorico) will include substantial parts of Cubase embedded into and tightly integrated with the notation functions. It will be possible, for example, to do the composition in notation (notes rests, etc) and then fine tune the playback by adjusting the resulting MIDI -- all from within the single platform.
If it is important to have good notation alongside a good DAW capability, this could to be the best solution available for awhile. V1 ships by the end of the year and will be lacking some features, such as support for chords.
It is already possible to do this in Sonar and Reaper. I do most of my work in staff/notation view, and then try to make it sound good by using Sonar/Reaper's DAW feature.
If I can get Reaper for 60.00, and Dorico costs 5 or 6 times as much...I bought Reaper.
Well, this is only a topic because some people find SONAR's notation view inadequate. I would suggest that the notation functions in Dorico will be about 1000 times more capable than notation in SONAR. If SONAR's notation capabilities today meet your needs, then there is no issue. Personally I need a full function notation platform. I don't expect ever to see that on SONAR or Reaper. But I do expect to see exactly that on Dorico. And while the embedded Cubase subset is probably not what one would consider a full-function DAW (I don't think the first version includes audio or video tracks, for example), it seems to be the only platform that is on a path of putting these two environments together such that both sides (notation and DAW) represent more-or-less world class function.
DAW: SONAR Platinum Audio I/F: Focusrite Scarlett 18i20 gen2
OS: Windows 10 64-bit CPU: Haswell 4790 4.0 GHz, 4 core, 8 thread Memory: 16 GB Video: GTX-760Ti
Storage: Sandisk SSD 500GB for active projects. ReadyNAS 20 TB for long-term storagesonocrafters.com
|
michael diemer
Max Output Level: -68 dBFS
- Total Posts : 1128
- Joined: 2013/05/24 18:54:50
- Location: Maine, USA
- Status: offline
Re: No notation fixes!
2016/06/24 16:34:37
(permalink)
Ah, but I use Notion for "real" notation. I work up my pieces in Sonar/Reaper, using the staff/notation feature, along with event list, console view, etc. I make it sound as good as I can (which may not be saying a lot); then export to Notion to produce an actual score. I was lucky to get Notion just before they raised the price. It was a steal at 100.00.
So why switch to Reaper, when Sonar's notation was adequate for my needs? Well, there's no guarantee they will even keep staff view. but mainly it was because I just could never make the leap from 8.5 to New Sonar. Can't stomach the GUI. Reaper's is more like 8.5. And of course, 8.5 is getting older by the day. I needed something similar that was up to date, and Reaper was the obvious choice for me. My workflow now in Reaper is about as fast as it was in Sonar. And I'm not paying for a bunch of stuff I don't use.
michael diemer Intel Quad Core i7-3770 Ivy Bridge 32 GB ram 1TB Western Digital Black X2 Microsoft Windows 7 Pro 64 UR22 interface Bandlab Cakewalk/Sonar 8.5 Studio GPO-EWQLSO Gold-Vienna SP ED-Cinematic Strings 2
|
cparmerlee
Max Output Level: -67 dBFS
- Total Posts : 1153
- Joined: 2013/06/25 22:14:42
- Status: offline
Re: No notation fixes!
2016/06/24 20:28:28
(permalink)
michael diemer
I use Notion for "real" notation. I work up my pieces in Sonar/Reaper, using the staff/notation feature, along with event list, console view, etc. I make it sound as good as I can (which may not be saying a lot); then export to Notion to produce an actual score.
That's a really inefficient work flow, imho, but maybe the best that anybody can do with today's technology. That is why I pointed out that with Dorico, the notation and DAW will all be together -- one program, one user interface. You can work on notation and MIDI editing simultaneously if desired. In theory you should be able to compose in either or both modes and move back and forth as needed. There would be no concept of exporting or importing as it is all one score with both notation and DAW information in it. That's what you can do with SONAR notation, but the notation capabilities just aren't good enough for most projects I would ever work on.
DAW: SONAR Platinum Audio I/F: Focusrite Scarlett 18i20 gen2
OS: Windows 10 64-bit CPU: Haswell 4790 4.0 GHz, 4 core, 8 thread Memory: 16 GB Video: GTX-760Ti
Storage: Sandisk SSD 500GB for active projects. ReadyNAS 20 TB for long-term storagesonocrafters.com
|
michael diemer
Max Output Level: -68 dBFS
- Total Posts : 1128
- Joined: 2013/05/24 18:54:50
- Location: Maine, USA
- Status: offline
Re: No notation fixes!
2016/06/25 01:14:31
(permalink)
From what I've heard, combining a DAW and notation is very difficult. If Steinberg pulls it off, they will indeed have the Holy Grail of computer music. We'll just have to wait and see. I also continue to wonder why Studio One has not integrated Notion yet. Same company, but the besy they've come up with is to use rewire.
michael diemer Intel Quad Core i7-3770 Ivy Bridge 32 GB ram 1TB Western Digital Black X2 Microsoft Windows 7 Pro 64 UR22 interface Bandlab Cakewalk/Sonar 8.5 Studio GPO-EWQLSO Gold-Vienna SP ED-Cinematic Strings 2
|
cparmerlee
Max Output Level: -67 dBFS
- Total Posts : 1153
- Joined: 2013/06/25 22:14:42
- Status: offline
Re: No notation fixes!
2016/06/25 12:18:13
(permalink)
michael diemer
From what I've heard, combining a DAW and notation is very difficult. If Steinberg pulls it off, they will indeed have the Holy Grail of computer music. We'll just have to wait and see. I also continue to wonder why Studio One has not integrated Notion yet. Same company, but the best they've come up with is to use rewire.
I absolutely agree with every word of that. Fortunately we really don't have to wait very long now, as Dorico is being demonstrated and is announced as being on sale by the end of this year. Maybe it is too good to be true, but so far the story seems to hang together.
DAW: SONAR Platinum Audio I/F: Focusrite Scarlett 18i20 gen2
OS: Windows 10 64-bit CPU: Haswell 4790 4.0 GHz, 4 core, 8 thread Memory: 16 GB Video: GTX-760Ti
Storage: Sandisk SSD 500GB for active projects. ReadyNAS 20 TB for long-term storagesonocrafters.com
|
jsg
Max Output Level: -69 dBFS
- Total Posts : 1079
- Joined: 2003/11/20 04:54:18
- Location: San Francisco, California
- Status: offline
Re: No notation fixes!
2016/06/25 14:11:46
(permalink)
☄ Helpfulby dcumpian 2016/06/27 08:46:31
Quote: "Well, this is only a topic because some people find SONAR's notation view inadequate. I would suggest that the notation functions in Dorico will be about 1000 times more capable than notation in SONAR. If SONAR's notation capabilities today meet your needs, then there is no issue. Personally I need a full function notation platform. I don't expect ever to see that on SONAR or Reaper. But I do expect to see exactly that on Dorico. And while the embedded Cubase subset is probably not what one would consider a full-function DAW (I don't think the first version includes audio or video tracks, for example), it seems to be the only platform that is on a path of putting these two environments together such that both sides (notation and DAW) represent more-or-less world class function." End Quote It is inadequate if you expect it to be a full-fledged publish-quality notation program. I've never understood why people don't realize that composing and creating a final score are two different functions. Sonar's notation editor is a MIDI input and editing tool, and it works great for what it is. It allows literate musicians to take advantage of notation while composing and sequencing music. Finale, Sibelius, Score, and now Dorico are notation programs designed to create publish-quality scores, akin to sending a finished pencil manuscript to an engraver. These are graphics programs that can be used for composition, but not for music production. I've produced many pieces, albums and 9 symphonies using Sonar's notation editor. When I finish a piece I export it to Sibelius and create a finished score. It's a very effective process, partly because I know the difference between MIDI editing and sequencing and score-creation. Jerry http://www.jerrygerber.com/symph9mvt4.htm(this is an electronic piece, there are no dynamic, phrase and other types of playing style instructions in the score because there are no players. Don't get alarmed) ;>)
post edited by jsg - 2016/06/27 13:21:30
|
sharke
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
- Total Posts : 13933
- Joined: 2012/08/03 00:13:00
- Location: NYC
- Status: offline
Re: No notation fixes!
2016/06/25 15:22:20
(permalink)
Base 57 However, I used Sibelius for a couple of years and while it made for a prettier page it was a tedious creativity sapping pita to work with.
I found exactly the same with Finale. I read an extensive book on it and also watched the video course on Lynda.com and throughout the whole learning process I lost count of the number of times I thought "you do this HOW? Wow that's bad design." It's just not intuitive and in my opinion, terribly thought out. In the end I decided that a score editor is not necessarily the best way to input music into a computer. Recently I've started arranging some old medieval and Renaissance tunes for synths, from the sheet music, and I can't believe how much easier it is to set out the notes in the PRV than it is in Finale. And for composition, I actually really appreciate the style of visual feedback that the PRV gives you. It just makes sense to me. So for the time being, I've stopped hoping for notation view changes.
JamesWindows 10, Sonar SPlat (64-bit), Intel i7-4930K, 32GB RAM, RME Babyface, AKAI MPK Mini, Roland A-800 Pro, Focusrite VRM Box, Komplete 10 Ultimate, 2012 American Telecaster!
|
michael diemer
Max Output Level: -68 dBFS
- Total Posts : 1128
- Joined: 2013/05/24 18:54:50
- Location: Maine, USA
- Status: offline
Re: No notation fixes!
2016/06/25 16:02:09
(permalink)
As Jerry said, up to now, composing and notation are two different things. they really always have been. 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. Before computers, pianos were the DAW of choice. Composers used them in the creative process. They had an inkwell and parchment nearby to capture their ideas. then it was pencil and paper. Always two different processes. That has continued to the present moment. Like Jerry, I compose in a DAW, because the superior sound gives me the feedback I need in the creative process. I have never used notation to compose, though many do. You can work either way. DAW and then notation, or notation and then DAW (if you want good sound). For some, a DAW is enough. For some, notation is enough. It's great that we have choices. Perhaps a day will come when one software will do it all. Perhaps Dorico will be that software. What I'm wondering is, does it come with Salsa?
michael diemer Intel Quad Core i7-3770 Ivy Bridge 32 GB ram 1TB Western Digital Black X2 Microsoft Windows 7 Pro 64 UR22 interface Bandlab Cakewalk/Sonar 8.5 Studio GPO-EWQLSO Gold-Vienna SP ED-Cinematic Strings 2
|
cparmerlee
Max Output Level: -67 dBFS
- Total Posts : 1153
- Joined: 2013/06/25 22:14:42
- Status: offline
Re: No notation fixes!
2016/06/25 16:14:40
(permalink)
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.
DAW: SONAR Platinum Audio I/F: Focusrite Scarlett 18i20 gen2
OS: Windows 10 64-bit CPU: Haswell 4790 4.0 GHz, 4 core, 8 thread Memory: 16 GB Video: GTX-760Ti
Storage: Sandisk SSD 500GB for active projects. ReadyNAS 20 TB for long-term storagesonocrafters.com
|
cparmerlee
Max Output Level: -67 dBFS
- Total Posts : 1153
- Joined: 2013/06/25 22:14:42
- Status: offline
Re: No notation fixes!
2016/06/25 16:19:04
(permalink)
jsg
When I finish I piece I export it to Sibelius and create a finished score. It's a very effective process, partly because I know the difference between MIDI editing and sequencing and score-creation.
No. It is an an extremely inefficient workflow. it is only an effective process because is the best you can do with today's technology. Am I to believe that in the process of composing those 9 symphonies, there was never a time that you wanted to go back and adjust the MIDI after you started working in Sibelius? Sousa claimed he never changed a note in Starts & Stripes after he first wrote it down, but there are a couple of notes I would have recommended he change. :) We do what the current technology makes it easy to do.
DAW: SONAR Platinum Audio I/F: Focusrite Scarlett 18i20 gen2
OS: Windows 10 64-bit CPU: Haswell 4790 4.0 GHz, 4 core, 8 thread Memory: 16 GB Video: GTX-760Ti
Storage: Sandisk SSD 500GB for active projects. ReadyNAS 20 TB for long-term storagesonocrafters.com
|
cparmerlee
Max Output Level: -67 dBFS
- Total Posts : 1153
- Joined: 2013/06/25 22:14:42
- Status: offline
Re: No notation fixes!
2016/06/25 16:21:50
(permalink)
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.
post edited by cparmerlee - 2016/06/25 16:43:56
DAW: SONAR Platinum Audio I/F: Focusrite Scarlett 18i20 gen2
OS: Windows 10 64-bit CPU: Haswell 4790 4.0 GHz, 4 core, 8 thread Memory: 16 GB Video: GTX-760Ti
Storage: Sandisk SSD 500GB for active projects. ReadyNAS 20 TB for long-term storagesonocrafters.com
|
michael diemer
Max Output Level: -68 dBFS
- Total Posts : 1128
- Joined: 2013/05/24 18:54:50
- Location: Maine, USA
- Status: offline
Re: No notation fixes!
2016/06/25 20:35:08
(permalink)
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 Intel Quad Core i7-3770 Ivy Bridge 32 GB ram 1TB Western Digital Black X2 Microsoft Windows 7 Pro 64 UR22 interface Bandlab Cakewalk/Sonar 8.5 Studio GPO-EWQLSO Gold-Vienna SP ED-Cinematic Strings 2
|
cparmerlee
Max Output Level: -67 dBFS
- Total Posts : 1153
- Joined: 2013/06/25 22:14:42
- Status: offline
Re: No notation fixes!
2016/06/25 21:48:23
(permalink)
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.
DAW: SONAR Platinum Audio I/F: Focusrite Scarlett 18i20 gen2
OS: Windows 10 64-bit CPU: Haswell 4790 4.0 GHz, 4 core, 8 thread Memory: 16 GB Video: GTX-760Ti
Storage: Sandisk SSD 500GB for active projects. ReadyNAS 20 TB for long-term storagesonocrafters.com
|
Anderton
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
- Total Posts : 14070
- Joined: 2003/11/06 14:02:03
- Status: offline
Re: No notation fixes!
2016/06/25 22:21:53
(permalink)
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.
|
jsg
Max Output Level: -69 dBFS
- Total Posts : 1079
- Joined: 2003/11/20 04:54:18
- Location: San Francisco, California
- Status: offline
Re: No notation fixes!
2016/06/25 23:09:21
(permalink)
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
post edited by jsg - 2016/06/25 23:32:44
|
cparmerlee
Max Output Level: -67 dBFS
- Total Posts : 1153
- Joined: 2013/06/25 22:14:42
- Status: offline
Re: No notation fixes!
2016/06/25 23:28:58
(permalink)
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.
DAW: SONAR Platinum Audio I/F: Focusrite Scarlett 18i20 gen2
OS: Windows 10 64-bit CPU: Haswell 4790 4.0 GHz, 4 core, 8 thread Memory: 16 GB Video: GTX-760Ti
Storage: Sandisk SSD 500GB for active projects. ReadyNAS 20 TB for long-term storagesonocrafters.com
|
jsg
Max Output Level: -69 dBFS
- Total Posts : 1079
- Joined: 2003/11/20 04:54:18
- Location: San Francisco, California
- Status: offline
Re: No notation fixes!
2016/06/26 00:31:39
(permalink)
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
|
cparmerlee
Max Output Level: -67 dBFS
- Total Posts : 1153
- Joined: 2013/06/25 22:14:42
- Status: offline
Re: No notation fixes!
2016/06/26 01:19:05
(permalink)
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.
DAW: SONAR Platinum Audio I/F: Focusrite Scarlett 18i20 gen2
OS: Windows 10 64-bit CPU: Haswell 4790 4.0 GHz, 4 core, 8 thread Memory: 16 GB Video: GTX-760Ti
Storage: Sandisk SSD 500GB for active projects. ReadyNAS 20 TB for long-term storagesonocrafters.com
|
pbognar
Max Output Level: -76 dBFS
- Total Posts : 720
- Joined: 2005/10/03 16:22:03
- Status: offline
Re: No notation fixes!
2016/06/26 02:13:15
(permalink)
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.
|
trtzbass
Max Output Level: -88 dBFS
- Total Posts : 150
- Joined: 2014/01/01 13:30:07
- Location: London
- Status: offline
Re: No notation fixes!
2016/06/26 15:40:08
(permalink)
...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 
Jordan Brown - he tried to play bass www.jordanbrown.co.uk twitter.com/trtzbass trgmachine.bandcamp.com
|
ChristoperS
Max Output Level: -90 dBFS
- Total Posts : 20
- Joined: 2015/11/11 00:21:31
- Location: Minneapolis, MN
- Status: offline
Re: No notation fixes!
2016/06/26 21:03:29
(permalink)
The more things change....
I remember this was an issue in 2006 when I first bought Sonar, now ten years later...lol - I wonder if Sonar Platinum is at a point where they are satisfied enough with it to work on notation.
From what I have seen on this forum all the people (myself included) that have left have convinced Cakewalk to finally work on their core product.
|
mettelus
Max Output Level: -22 dBFS
- Total Posts : 5321
- Joined: 2005/08/05 03:19:25
- Location: Maryland, USA
- Status: offline
Re: No notation fixes!
2016/06/27 01:52:05
(permalink)
Now with upgrades for life, the question is more will SV get the overhaul while you are still alive (enough) to use it?
ASUS ROG Maximus X Hero (Wi-Fi AC), i7-8700k, 16GB RAM, GTX-1070Ti, Win 10 Pro, Saffire PRO 24 DSP, A-300 PRO, plus numerous gadgets and gizmos that make or manipulate sound in some way.
|
jfcomposer
Max Output Level: -90 dBFS
- Total Posts : 29
- Joined: 2015/01/27 15:55:04
- Location: Nashville
- Status: offline
Re: No notation fixes!
2016/06/27 11:05:22
(permalink)
ChristoperS
I wonder if Sonar Platinum is at a point where they are satisfied enough with it to work on notation.
I don't think this point exists. Maybe I'm being cynical, but my opinion is that if Sonar ever reaches a "fully baked" state on the audio/DAW side, they'll call it done and shift to creating new products or plugins. If the SV hasn't had enough users to justify being fixed or overhauled up to this point, then it probably still won't when "done" is declared and Cake's best move financially would be to develop something else. I know that the bakers are looking into ways to improve the staff view, but from what I understand they're mostly focused on 3rd party integration. This tells me that the current staff view, with its 15+ year old code, would be more work to fix or even rewrite than the money it would bring in. I do happen to be of the opinion that "if you build it, they will come" and Sonar could be unstoppable with a stronger staff view plus its amazing DAW features. So far, though, it's a safer bet for the bakers to work on other things, evidently. I hope I'm wrong and Sonar will eventually reach a more or less finished state on the DAW side and they'll dedicate a few months of dev time to overhaul SV. It kills me though because Sonar is SO GOOD in so many ways, and for me the SV is the only thing keeping it from being perfect. Maybe I should experiment more, but I haven't used a single new feature they've implemented in the past year. My workflow and feature set is pretty set at this point.
|
jsg
Max Output Level: -69 dBFS
- Total Posts : 1079
- Joined: 2003/11/20 04:54:18
- Location: San Francisco, California
- Status: offline
Re: No notation fixes!
2016/06/27 13:06:49
(permalink)
cparmerlee
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.
There's no "wall of separation", it's more like a fluid process of moving from composition, sequencing and orchestration to production and mastering and then to final score preparation.
|
jsg
Max Output Level: -69 dBFS
- Total Posts : 1079
- Joined: 2003/11/20 04:54:18
- Location: San Francisco, California
- Status: offline
Re: No notation fixes!
2016/06/27 13:17:22
(permalink)
cparmerlee
jsg
When I finish I piece I export it to Sibelius and create a finished score. It's a very effective process, partly because I know the difference between MIDI editing and sequencing and score-creation.
No. It is an an extremely inefficient workflow. it is only an effective process because is the best you can do with today's technology.
Am I to believe that in the process of composing those 9 symphonies, there was never a time that you wanted to go back and adjust the MIDI after you started working in Sibelius? Sousa claimed he never changed a note in Starts & Stripes after he first wrote it down, but there are a couple of notes I would have recommended he change. :) We do what the current technology makes it easy to do.
You know nothing about my workflow, so to call it inefficient is presumptuous. How many large-scale works have you produced with Sonar? How many finished albums have you released? You keep arguing over nothing, you're writing a lot about "vaporware"; discussing a piece of software called Dorico that hasn't even been released yet. That's a sign you've got too much time on your hands. Secondly, I never said that I finish a score and everything is all done. Nothing is completely finished until the CDs are replicated, up until that time anything can be changed at any time. You keep twisting my words into something I didn't say or mean.
post edited by jsg - 2016/06/27 13:50:23
|
jsg
Max Output Level: -69 dBFS
- Total Posts : 1079
- Joined: 2003/11/20 04:54:18
- Location: San Francisco, California
- Status: offline
Re: No notation fixes!
2016/06/27 13:31:47
(permalink)
cparmerlee
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.
The technology does not "force" me to work the way I do. I could just as easily compose in Sibelius, export the .mid file and sequence in Sonar. Or, I could write out the score in pencil, scan it in Sibelius, turn it into a .mid file and then work in Sonar. I finished a job last week for another composer who works the opposite from the way I do, he writes in Sibelius and then hires me to produce it in Sonar. The only lack of flexibility I am sensing is the one that seems to be how your mind is perceiving things. I use Sonar's notation for composing because it works well enough. There's another factor you probably haven't considered: my works are not "MIDI mockups". They are conceived and produced as electronic works, not works that are intended to be played by ensembles or orchestras. For me, sequencing all of the detail in regards to how the piece sounds is the most important thing. I don't put phrasing and dynamic markings in my scores because there are no players. That information is contained in abundance in the MIDI sequence. If I publish a piece for acoustic musicians then I do add the playing instructions. Yes, using one's eyes and ears for composition is important, that's why I notate my works. But in the end, how music sounds is infinitely more important than how it looks on the page, that is if you're not depending upon musicians to interpret that score. Aaron Copland once wrote about the fetishization of the score, he called it "paper music", music that looks really impressive on the page, but sounds like crap when realized. JG www.jerrygerber.com
post edited by jsg - 2016/06/27 14:35:01
|
jsg
Max Output Level: -69 dBFS
- Total Posts : 1079
- Joined: 2003/11/20 04:54:18
- Location: San Francisco, California
- Status: offline
Re: No notation fixes!
2016/06/27 13:50:49
(permalink)
pbognar
If the idiosyncrasies / limitations of the SV (for me, handling of triplet ties and rests) is a deal breaker,
That bugs me too, but it doesn't stop me from writing tied or dotted triplets because I know: 1. They will sound correct when played back in Sonar 2. When I export a .mid file from Sonar to Sibelius, the rhythms will be correctly notated in the score. I have no idea why they can't fix that long-standing issue, but I can tell you from direct experience that none of the DAWS are much better when it comes to notation. Cubase's notation is more comprehensive but very clunky to use and I don't like the interface at all. Digital Performer's notation is good, but I have noticed issues where either tied or dotted triplets (forgot which) don't look right either in some situations. Also, DP's designed the notation editor to simulate an 8.5x11 piece of manuscript paper. This is fine for piano music and short pieces with few instruments, but Sonar's infinitely scrolling staff view is far better for orchestrating large pieces with lots of instruments and hundreds of measures as you don't have to keep going back and forth between pages, it's much easier to navigate. Sonar's staff view uses screen real estate much more efficiently than DP. This is why I went back to Sonar after trying DP for several months. Working with this technology does take a kind of flexibility and a willingness to work with software that is not perfect. But what's new with that? No human being is perfect and mature artists know that perfection is not possible to achieve in their work. I'm a practical musician and I focus on what I have now and can do now rather than always be hoping for software that will make music creation so easy that I won't have to get out of bed. Eech! Who wants that? Jerry JG
|
cparmerlee
Max Output Level: -67 dBFS
- Total Posts : 1153
- Joined: 2013/06/25 22:14:42
- Status: offline
Re: No notation fixes!
2016/06/27 14:33:18
(permalink)
jsg
The technology does not "force" me to work the way I do. I could just as easily compose in Sibelius, export the .mid file and sequence in Sonar. Or, I could write out the score in pencil, scan it in Sibelius, turn it into a .mid file and then work in Sonar.
The technology does not allow one to work iteratively without a lot of wasted effort. It is clear that you prefer to compartmentalize the steps so you don't consider this a limitation. That's fine. I have no criticism of that approach at all. But I would rather work iteratively, so I do consider it a limitation.
DAW: SONAR Platinum Audio I/F: Focusrite Scarlett 18i20 gen2
OS: Windows 10 64-bit CPU: Haswell 4790 4.0 GHz, 4 core, 8 thread Memory: 16 GB Video: GTX-760Ti
Storage: Sandisk SSD 500GB for active projects. ReadyNAS 20 TB for long-term storagesonocrafters.com
|
michael diemer
Max Output Level: -68 dBFS
- Total Posts : 1128
- Joined: 2013/05/24 18:54:50
- Location: Maine, USA
- Status: offline
Re: No notation fixes!
2016/06/27 17:31:39
(permalink)
cp, could you tell us what you mean by "iteratively?" I tried looking it up, but I can't quite grasp how you're using it here.
michael diemer Intel Quad Core i7-3770 Ivy Bridge 32 GB ram 1TB Western Digital Black X2 Microsoft Windows 7 Pro 64 UR22 interface Bandlab Cakewalk/Sonar 8.5 Studio GPO-EWQLSO Gold-Vienna SP ED-Cinematic Strings 2
|
cparmerlee
Max Output Level: -67 dBFS
- Total Posts : 1153
- Joined: 2013/06/25 22:14:42
- Status: offline
Re: No notation fixes!
2016/06/27 22:11:54
(permalink)
michael diemer
cp, could you tell us what you mean by "iteratively?" I tried looking it up, but I can't quite grasp how you're using it here.
Sure. Rather than approach a composing or arranging project as a bunch of disconnected phases, I EVOLVE the project on several fronts simultaneously -- as much as the technology will allow. As I orchestrate a section, if I have some doubts that the voicing will really achieve the effect I'm looking for, then I may depart from the notation and work on the playback a bit. By doing that, I may find I want to notate or orchestrate part of it differently. As I get sections that seem mostly sounding final, I might spend a bit more effort getting all the articulations and expressions entered at the score level so that the parts will take minimal effort later. This in turn may refine the playback -- but not for the entire piece at the same time. I evolve sections at a time. All of the above may happen within Finale, except that I may begin a draft in Band-in-a-box, depending on the nature of a project. To me, it is all about getting the right framework in place, and then adding meat on the bones as I go along. I don't write linearly. This is not that much different from "the old days" when we might show up at a rehearsal with a draft arrangement and leave the rehearsal with dozens of notes about things that need some additional work. It is the same process of iteration except now I can catch 95% of the issues before any musician plays it. There is only so far you can go in Finale or Sibelius before playback becomes a dead end. When that happens, I have to freeze the project and move everything over to SONAR for the next level of playback realism.. And likewise, if one is composing in SONAR, there is only so far you can go before the notation becomes a dead end. When that happens, you must freeze your MIDI-based composition and move all of that into a dedicated notation program to end up with a score worthy of publication. I am hopeful that Dorico will eliminate those dead ends such that a MIDI-based composer can go all the way to publishable score while still being able to work on the MIDI. And likewise, the notation-based writer can go all the way to the most advanced playback without ever having to freeze the notation. This has been something of a Holy Grail, but it actually appears to be on the Horizon with Dorico. And I believe that was mostly an accident. The Dorico people were all about the notation, but Steinberg was paying the bills. Steinberg insisted on the playback elements being a big subset of Cubase. Clearly this would not have happened if Dorico were under some other ownership. And even with all these advantages, in most cases, when I think I have the score just right, I find that when musicians finally play the music, there are almost always a few things that would hit the groove better if done differently. So there we go, back into the middle of the work flow with more iteration. If I have already taken a stem from Finale into SONAR, I will often make the final revisions twice (once in Finale and then the equivalent changes in SONAR) so that I have a representative final product. Seems like such a duplication of effort. I hope Dorico is successful as this will be an evolutionary stop as significant as combining MIDI sequencing with audio editing to launch the DAW generation. Other companies like Presonus and Avid are in a very good position to do something quite similar. I think in 5-8 years we may look back upon this and wonder why nobody did it before now. If that happens, where does that leave SONAR (Reaper, Logic and a dozen other DAWs?) Well, they will still have their place. Not every project involves notation, and many projects that involve notation are adequate with the capabilities already in SONAR, DP or whatever. I do expect, however, there there will be a small class of products that will be the obvious choices for people who need both strong notation and strong DAW capability. It is pretty clear that Cakewalk is not planning to make this kind of investment, and that's OK. There is a big market for what SONAR can do, especially if you add the Mac users to that market.
DAW: SONAR Platinum Audio I/F: Focusrite Scarlett 18i20 gen2
OS: Windows 10 64-bit CPU: Haswell 4790 4.0 GHz, 4 core, 8 thread Memory: 16 GB Video: GTX-760Ti
Storage: Sandisk SSD 500GB for active projects. ReadyNAS 20 TB for long-term storagesonocrafters.com
|