musicroom


I hope all who want and need better notation tools in Sonar, gets them... I'm not one of them, but I see the point. 

John

John T


The other element here, of course, is that using a staff view as data entry for a sequencer is a very non-trivial problem, given that sequencing is a very literal business, and notation is a very interpretative one. You could still do better than the current view, of course, but I can also see why it's something that sequencer makers have largely abandoned.

Where did you get this information? That other DAWs have abandon scoring? Cubase has improved its scoring in version 6.5 DP has always had great scoring. Logic too. Now even PT has great scoring. How do you come to the conclusion that scoring is being abandoned?

The only DAW that supports scoring and has never had any improvements to it is Sonar.

Also for one I am really tired of those trying to make this a non issue. It is huge for a DAW with Sonar's ability to neglect a vital part that many would like to use. Of all the DAWs that support scoring Sonar has the least support.

Scoring has been a major aspect of MIDI since computers had graphics. Now the audio crowd seems to think scoring is an after thought. For many its where the ideas come from.

CW had a survey that asked about scoring in Sonar X1 I hope that those that want better scoring participated.

jsg

djwayne


I'll bet if you took a poll of Sonar X1 users on how many people actually read music, you'd be surprised. Take another poll to see how many would pay an extra $200 for a music scoring program inside of Sonar ....I'll bet there's not that many. Sonar addresses the needs of people who want to make recordings, audio and midi very nicely. That's what we're paying for and the bang for the buck of what you do get with Sonar is pretty darn good if not great. I'd rather Cakewalk use their developement resources to continue on refining sequencing than scoring. If I wanted a professional grade scoring program, I would get a seperate professional grade scoring program.

You are confusing two different types of music software, DAWs and notation software.  I don't want to see improvements in the notation editor because I need a publish-quality score, that is what Sibelius is for, it is not a DAW.  DAWs began as MIDI sequencers, only after a few years was audio recording even added.  I am arguing that the notation editor can be improved for its purpose as a sequencing and midi editing tool, for example, I have a CAL routine that creates melodic contrary motion.  That could be made more powerful by creating the choice of diatonic or chromatic contrary motion.  This has nothing to do with notation as a finished score. 
 
JG
www.jerrygerber.com

jsg

djwayne


I'll bet if you took a poll of Sonar X1 users on how many people actually read music, you'd be surprised. Take another poll to see how many would pay an extra $200 for a music scoring program inside of Sonar ....I'll bet there's not that many. Sonar addresses the needs of people who want to make recordings, audio and midi very nicely. That's what we're paying for and the bang for the buck of what you do get with Sonar is pretty darn good if not great. I'd rather Cakewalk use their developement resources to continue on refining sequencing than scoring. If I wanted a professional grade scoring program, I would get a seperate professional grade scoring program.

You are confusing two different types of music software, DAWs and notation software.  I don't want to see improvements in the notation editor because I need a publish-quality score, that is what Sibelius is for, it is not a DAW.  DAWs began as MIDI sequencers, only after a few years was audio recording even added.  I am arguing that the notation editor can be improved for its purpose as a sequencing and midi editing tool, for example, I have a CAL routine that creates melodic contrary motion.  That could be made more powerful by creating the choice of diatonic or chromatic contrary motion.  This has nothing to do with notation as a finished score. 
 
JG
www.jerrygerber.com

cliffr

jsg

djwayne


I'll bet if you took a poll of Sonar X1 users on how many people actually read music, you'd be surprised. Take another poll to see how many would pay an extra $200 for a music scoring program inside of Sonar ....I'll bet there's not that many. Sonar addresses the needs of people who want to make recordings, audio and midi very nicely. That's what we're paying for and the bang for the buck of what you do get with Sonar is pretty darn good if not great. I'd rather Cakewalk use their developement resources to continue on refining sequencing than scoring. If I wanted a professional grade scoring program, I would get a seperate professional grade scoring program.

You are confusing two different types of music software, DAWs and notation software.  I don't want to see improvements in the notation editor because I need a publish-quality score, that is what Sibelius is for, it is not a DAW.  DAWs began as MIDI sequencers, only after a few years was audio recording even added.  I am arguing that the notation editor can be improved for its purpose as a sequencing and midi editing tool, for example, I have a CAL routine that creates melodic contrary motion.  That could be made more powerful by creating the choice of diatonic or chromatic contrary motion.  This has nothing to do with notation as a finished score. 
 
JG
www.jerrygerber.com

Hmm,
 
this is interesting - I didn't think djwayne was confusing two different types of software at all.
I thought he was just pointing out some reasoned thinking around their practical place/use as they are today, in the markets they are in today.
And I would agree that the bang for buck is incredible, for what it does well and is marketed as - which is a DAW (Digital Audio Workstation).
 
I don't see where in 'DAW', there's any hint of staff notation or input by staff view being a feature, or main component.
 
I'm not disagreeing that it would be nice to have, but it's certainly not a 'featured item or function'.
If it was, then you'd certainly have something to grumble about, and I'd also think you'd be coughing up a good chunk of extra cash to purchase it too.
 
 
I use sibelius for notation - it IS a notation program.
 
I'm curious about a couple of your comments.
 
 - one further above where you say you wouldn't want to use sibelius for composing.
I'm curious as to why ?  especially considering you want to use the staff view for inputting MIDI ... as I would guess for composing ?.
 
I really do struggle to understand why this is such a big issue for you.
 
For example;
I'm not understanding your comment above about the "CAL routine that created contrary melodic motion".
A CAL routine works on "Events" - not on Staff View Notation - so what does having a CAL routine have to do with the Staff View ?.
Am I missing something here ?.
 
And then regards not wanting to use sibelius for composing ?.
If you like inputting VIA a musical staff/stave, why wouldn't you want to use a program that is designed specifically to do this, and does so with the accuracy you seem to be desiring here ?.
 
I'm struggling to understand why there seem to be so many obstacles for you, when from your posts it also seems you already have all the tools you need to accomplish your goal.  But at the same time you seem to say it's not workable, Sonar should do the lot in the box for you or it's not good enough.
 
 
I can compose is whatever application or view I like - so if I feel like composing at the staff/stave, I'll do that on my program which excels at it ... Sibelius.
 
I can compose in the piano roll view too, which I will do inside Sonar of course.
 
I can compose using instruments too, for which things might vary somewhat - keyboards and capturing MIDI, stringed instruments and recording audio, transliterating into MIDI or notation as I please ... etc, etc.
 
 
Maybe I'm missing something, but at the end of the day I don't see notation and the staff view as a major part or feature of what a DAW is.
Integration with notation packages that already do this well, I see as a welcome (if not necessary) feature.
And I think to include major advances in the notation and the staff view would necessitate a considerable price increase, which would not suit much of the user base, and therefore would have to be a bad move.
 
 
That's the way I see things anyway - and I don't have a problem using sibelius to compose if I really want to do that att the staff, I think it's easy.
 
 
Cheers - Cliff

Feature requests are weighed alongside priorities, customer demand and implementation cost.