SToons

jsg

John


That was my conclusion some time ago. In a way it was getting funny that both were arguing the same thing but didn't see it.

John,  we really are not arguing the same thing.   Gus's argument is that MIDI is not a serious medium for composers, it is a substitute medium for acoustic performances and/or recordings of acoustic instruments.  He calls this, as many do, a "mock-up".  My argument is the opposite, I argue that the virtual orchestra (or whatever we want to call it) is an artistic medium in its own right, it is not a substitute for something else.
 

I must disagree. I use a virtual orchestra as a neccessity and despite the fact I have composed professionally I do not have the clout, money, opportunity nor likely the composing chops to warrant the use of a real orchestra. So therefore, the virtual orchestra is not an artistic medium for me, it is a substitution. If I say that's what it is, then that's what it is. It's not your business to define what a virtual orchestra is to me or anyone else. Does that sound reasonable?
 
Now if you want to phrase it in a manner such as "I argue that the virtual orchestra (or whatever we want to call it) CAN BE an artistic medium in its own right, and not a substitute for something else" or " In my compositions the virtual orchestra (or whatever we want to call it) is an artistic medium in its own right, it is not a substitute for something else" that might be a little more palatable.
 
I do not believe Gus has stated that MIDI is not a serious medium for composers, he has rightfully acknowledged that an orchestra and a virtual orchestra are two different things. To suggest he, I or any other composer cares less about their "mock-ups" is quite reasonable but you seem to suggest this is a problem or failing on our parts and that is absurd. Many of my compositions are time-limited, for example if I have to do an orchestral piece for a game company which is due yesterday. If you choose to spend hours, days, weeks, months or years tweaking orchestral pieces as an expression of art that's wonderful and I'm sure you will be successful in your goal but surely you can't expect others to neccessarily share the same goal.
 
As I said, I believe you two share very similiar opinions, the main difference of note is that you seem to feel you need some affirmation that composing without using the performances of an actual orchestra is a valid artform and I don't believe anyone has contradicted that. 
 
Two simple questions: is it a goal of yours that listeners would believe they are hearing an orchestra perform when they hear one of your MIDI compositions? Are you comfortable with someone saying "I really like the composition, it's beautiful, and it kinda, sorta, almost sounds like it was performed by a real orchestra."?
 
As for the topic, I agree with your take on Sonar and their priorities. I've been reading the X1 forum for some time as I soon need to upgrade both computer and DAW (still using 8.5.3) and knowing I would have to almost completely change my workflow as X1 is so different it seems that, unfortunately, now after 15 years I have to "start again" and if that's the case I'm not sure Sonar is the best option for me. The way it stands things aren't looking promising. Logic is looking really good at the moment.

It is reasonable if you define it that way for yourself.  For me, it is my medium of choice, it is not a substitute for an orchestra, I actually prefer to work in the electronic medium, probably due to the confluence of my technical skills, musical talent and personal temperament.  Others can define it for themselves any way they choose to, but for me it is the medium of choice.  If I wanted to hear my works played by acoustic players, those options are available to me.  How many composers here actually have access to top players, sufficient rehearsal time and the capacity to get a top-notch recording of their performances?   Getting a 40 minute work performed that is not a soundtrack is not easy.  But that's not the real reason I don't pursue it.  The real reason is I love the medium I work in.    When listeners hear my pieces, I hope they find meaning in it, because I know I put meaning into it.  I am not trying to "fool" the listener anymore than when watching a film you are not really watching what you think you are, you are actually seeing countless individual frames each one frozen in time moving at such a rate that your brain is tricked into seeing what appears to be a "moving" image.  My concern is the quality of composition, orchestration, authenticity, originality and quality of interpretation (production).  I am not responsible for the reaction of the listener, it is my hope they enjoy it as much as I enjoyed making it.
 
JG
www.jerrygerber.com

First- The fact that I call an electronic MIDI orchestration a "mock-up" has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with considering MIDI not a serious tool for composers. There is absolutely no contradiction here, other than whatever you want to fabricate to create such an argumentation. If I thought MIDI were not a serious tool for composers, I'd not be using a computer to compose with Finale and SONAR. As basic as putting 1+1 together.

Second- Part of my argument throughout, that seems to have rubbed you the wrong way, is that I firmly maintain that a MIDI mock-up cannot be, at least as of this date, compared in realism and ultimate quality of a final product to a real performance. And I explained in some detail why, no matter how much effort you would like to claim you put into mocking-up a piece, it will never sound as good as an actual quality real live performance. Some of the notions I mentioned are fairly simple to grasp, and understand why they are what they are. They are the reason why I don't fool myself pretending a MIDI mock-up is anything that it can not be, again, at least as of this date. And they are the reason why comparing a real (quality) symphonic orchestra performance to any computer-based MIDI mock-up is totally blasphemous.

If you think your compositions and electronic performances are the product you're comfortable producing and fulfill your stylistic expectations, that is your entire discretion. Attempts to dismiss and discredit other's opinions, specially when sound arguments are on the table, really take you not too far. 

Last, I definitely feel this whole argumentation has contributed very little to the real reason for this thread to exist, so most certainly will let it regain its due course, from my end, at this point.
 
 
 
 
 
edited for typo

This thread was useful to me because now I know of various alternate programs (some free, some ridiculously expensive and some in the middle) that I can use as a substitute for some of my needs. It'd be nice to see the SV update or have a paid add on but whatever. Cake will do what they do. I'll work around that.

As usual, no mention of staff view improvements. Cakewalk really is not listening to the many musicians who are clamoring for some bugfixes in the SV. Perhaps it's not listed and we will be pleasantly surprised...

On the X2 teaser page..we have this....

Flexible export options
NEW! Integrated SoundCloud
NEW! MusicXML export
Export Video
Cakewalk Publisher
Print Notation



If you look at the very bottom of the page mentioned you will notice the Official X2 Preview Page notification...and I found this comment...Print Notation under the Deliver Icon..hover the mouse over it....

I have to agree with JSG here... Cakewalk doesn't appear to be listening...

Funny how Cake personnel all appear in a number of threads except for SV one's. Version after version people send their feature requests.
People waste time and energy  arguing/discussing it here.

DAW 2.00 modern look with 1990s SV. 

I might be getting bitter here.. But I've showed patience, loyalty to cake products, courtesy when making requests.

Can someone from Cakewalk just confirm any improvements?? 

Elffin


I have to agree with JSG here... Cakewalk doesn't appear to be listening...

Funny how Cake personnel all appear in a number of threads except for SV one's. Version after version people send their feature requests.
People waste time and energy  arguing/discussing it here.

DAW 2.00 modern look with 1990s SV. 

I might be getting bitter here.. But I've showed patience, loyalty to cake products, courtesy when making requests.

Can someone from Cakewalk just confirm any improvements?? 

They won't chime in here.  They have nothing to say and will just get hammered.   Sadly Staff View is not on their agenda.

I agree, if there were to be even minor enhancements in the SV in X2 then someone from Cakewalk would have added their $0.02 to this thread by now. Even just to say "we've fixed the SV bugs that people have been complaining about." But they haven't even said that. 

Why is it that Seth is replying to so many messages but yet remains silent about notation?

sergiobklyn


Why is it that Seth is replying to so many messages but yet remains silent about notation?

Because he's been down this road many times before.  Notation will never be enhanced.  He has nothing more to say and doesn't want to even get involved.  I've been asking for notation updates for 15 years.   Even though almost every major competitor has far superior (actually usable) notation Cakewalk has decided it's not important.  I've given up asking.  

It should be quite obvious by now that the Bakers don't use notation, although I'm sure they can read and write in musical notation :(

mudgel


Music XML Export is a current SONAR Producer feature (perhaps part of Expanded) and Print Notation has been part of SONAR for as long as it has had a Staff View.

I too would like to see that at the very least, what has become broken in recent versions (more and more things with each subsequent version since SONAR 7 I think) be fixed - but I don't hold out any hope for that.

As to the notion that there is a huge demand for Staff view improvements; I think it is an exaggeration. The most I"ve ever counted in a thread was a total of 39 different contributors. that post went for scores of pages with lots of feeling and rhetoric but the numbers just aren't there.

I dare say that staff view inprovements are not on Cakewalk's radar let alone on the radar of the average SONAR user. that doesn't mean that a bunch of us don't wnat it - the numbers just aren't big enough. IMHO

The bakers have certainly gone out of their way to not comment on X2 SV fixes/improvements/changes.


Though, I have a hard time believing that SV functionality which has been incrementally broken with each new release since version 7 is not going to be addressed in X2.  If this is the case, it would send a clear message to SV users, and after all this time, I think users can finally determine their next course of action.

It may well be that there is a vocal minority of those who want, at the very least, to have original SV functionality back, but you cannot discount the fact that this thread has been viewed almost 8000 times.


   

It doesnt matter how many people who have made requests, viewed or posted.

If a business only responds to its core customers it will never grow.
Studio 1 / reaper have eaten into the 'cake' core share of the market..,
How many companies have gone under not responding to their customers needs and requirements??

Question is have cakewalk become ignorant to these requests?? How many customers request does if take to respond? 

Jimbo 88


I have to ask also,  why do people asking for staff view improvements get attacked and told to quit whining while  no one says anything to those asking for color customization???  

Some people who can't read music think we're snobs or elitist. 

Jimbo 88


I have to ask also,  why do people asking for staff view improvements get attacked and told to quit whining while  no one says anything to those asking for color customization???  

Maybe we should ask for colour customisation in SV eg I'd like to be able to make triplets show up as a different colour ;)