synkrotron

John

Why do you say CW will charge extra for something that is already included? 

Hi John,


At the moment we have a staff view that functions at a certain level. It falls short of the kind of detail that you would get out of a package such as Sibelius. Can you really see Cakewalk putting as much development time into their current staff view in order to bring it up to the standards that the Sibelius uses expect. Considering the amount that you have to pay for Sibelius, I really cannot, for the life of me, see Cakewalk taking their current staff view to the level of Sibelius without some kind of additional charge, and they would do that, in my mind, by making it an add-on module that you would have to pay for.

Can you understand what I am saying? Just using Sibelius as an example here, it is so much more expensive... It might even be that Avid have some kind of copyright on the scoring software they have developed. Who knows... there may even be some kind of agreement between Cakewalk/Roland and Avid that Sonar will never compete with Sibelius in terms of staff view functionality.

I'm not deliberately trying to cause more of a rumpus here... I am just trying to reason, in my own head, why things are like they are with our staff view, that's all.

cheers

andy

I do want a high quality Staff View I do not want or need a Sibelius type printing program in Sonar. Sibelius is for producing not just scores but for sending out to score publishers that require a great deal more than what a normal publisher needs. First off the size of a score manuscript is non standard. The contents of the score is not normal print and so on. Its not the same as what you can dash off on your home printer. No one on the forum has asked for or wants as far as I have noticed anything like Sibelius for Sonar. What we want is simple. A great display that translates fully to MIDI as Sonar sees it with easy and simple note entry that can handle
sophisticated scoring. 

You assume things that are not part of the equation. This is not your fault BTW it is often misunderstood and dedicated score editors are used as the gold standard by those that don't fully have an understanding of what can be done with for example Cubase.

stevec


This topic is like the never-ending story...  
 
I believe it's fair to say that what the SV folks want is something on par with other major DAWs such as Cubase, Logic or DP.   And something tells me that none of those are on par with standalone Sibelius (probably not Finale either).   But that's not what is being requested.  
 
Disclaimer: I've never used Cubase, Logic or DP.  But I've read these threads often enough to know that *they* are the common benchmark for comparison to SONAR's SV, not dedicated scoring software like Sibelius. 
 
 
 
 
PS: DJ...  no boycotts here either.  In fact, the idea of boycotting a software package just seems really weird to me, not to mention a futile exercise in the overall scheme of things.    Boycott schmoycott. 
 

I could write a long post in response. However its not needed due to the simple fact that Steve has written what I consider a post I can fully agree with in its entirety. 


Well done! 

Well done!

 
Thanks.        I don't chime in that often on this subject, only because I've been around long enough to know how it goes.  But I also understand that we have a few newer users on board who haven't had the pleasure.  Uh, I mean experience. 
 
 
 

I've given up.  Cakewalk doesn't care about notation.  It will always be inferior in Sonar.

 
I've seen that same sentiment quite a few times, but I really don't believe that CW (in general) doesn't "care" about notation, rather that their hands are tied in some fashion.  And based on previous Baker comments (years ago now) I understood it to be a technical hurdle more than anything.  I also recall (I think) seeing references to X1's Skylight as being a potential means of pushing ahead at some point.  But given those first comments, I'd imagine it's still a bigger investment than other areas of the product, even with Skylight.  Well, at least based the current list of X2 changes...  I guess we'll find out more over the next few months!
 

Yeah, something tells me the grass really is greener when it comes to notation and scoring to picture.  But whether the grass is a little brown and dried out in other areas of the yard, areas where tend to walk a lot, well...    
 
 

Cake just need to buy these guys scorecleaner.com Sound on Sound's review, while mentioning some stability issues to be fair, just blew me away. As far as I could see from the review, this product transcribes MIDI in a truly musical way without in any way claiming to be as complete as Sibelius. I'm just downloading the trial version now to check it out. Apparently it 'understands' swing and triplets etc. in a completely natural way. This is surely what Sonar needs......

I'm really surprised at what an awful place this forum has turned out to be... I am truly disappointed.

 
Like Beepster said, IMO this thread/topic is certainly not a good gauge of these forums.  It's just something that's been brought up many, many times, and it always end up with two separate "camps" that don't seem to understand each other very well.   More than any other feature set than I can think of, for whatever reason.    Stange how that works.
 
As for my comment, it wasn't intended for any one specific person.   Just look at the number of views this thread has had vs. the number of replies - it's a pretty big difference.   I just figured that a good number of people reading this thread may have never seen the classic notation threads of yore...  
 
 

synkrotron


To be honest guys, I've been one of the least vocal about this kind of stuff on this Sonar/Cakewalk forum, and I have spent most of my time trying to help others with their MIDI problems. I mentioned very early in this very topic what my position was regarding staff view, and the fact that I hadn't used it since early Cakewalk days, before it even had audio capabilities, simply because it was never as versatile as the piano role.

So, as I'm reading through the rest of the posts here, I felt that the guys wanting to see improvements in staff view had a point and I was changing my opinion. I then had a bit of a ramble, sort of talking to myself really, trying to figure, in my own mind, why Cakewalk is ignoring peoples requests to improve staff view.

I seriously wish that I had not bothered ever coming here now. And this is always the danger, isn't it? When you put something into writing here, on the WWW, it is always open to misinterpretation and be taken out of context.

Gusfmm, I am not the only one that has mentioned Sibelius in the topic, and I only mentioned it because someone had mentioned it before me, and so I picked up on that. And Cakewalk recommend this software on their site too. I was only using that one as an example, out of many, and yes, I am already aware of them, but what was the point of mentioning every single notation package available?

But I also understand that we have a few newer users on board who haven't had the pleasure.  Uh, I mean experience.

I'm not sure who that refers to... it certainly can't be me. I've been a member here since 2006, and I've been using Cakewalk since 1993.




I'm really surprised at what an awful place this forum has turned out to be... I am truly disappointed.

I didn't think you were opposed to SV improvements. Nor did I think you were being like another poster that I wont name.


I thought you had a reasonable approach but had some misunderstandings. I don't think you deserve a harsh post in response.


To me often when a poster makes an argument that is well thought out and is well within the TOS it offers one an opportunity to set the record straight. To make a counter argument. This is a valuable aspect to this forum. 


I think Synkrotron you are a fine member of this forum and I look forward to reading more of your posts. 


I also think that we are a little jaded by having to dredge this up from time to time. 


BTW I was not going to get involved because I have been on just about all of these threads. But the nameless poster started picking on posters here. That requires other members to "get involved".


The only reason I am posting this is I value your contributions. 

Me dummy has been cleaned off, and teddy is back in me pram.

 
Umm...    was that English?       Ha!  Just kidding.  I know it was actually British.   English is what we use on this side of the pond.   Now *there's* a discussion that can get heated!   
 
 
Good to see you're back in the water for another swim.  Don't let the other fish bother you too much, it's a public pool.
 

Sibelius 7 First would be a great program to integrate into Sonar 2. Why? Because i have it.

Exactly. Everyone get back to your DAWs and put this energy into some kick *** tunes. I myself am in the process of wrapping my head around BFD before I drag my butt to the hospital tomorrow.

synkrotron

John

Why do you say CW will charge extra for something that is already included? 

Hi John,


At the moment we have a staff view that functions at a certain level. It falls short of the kind of detail that you would get out of a package such as Sibelius. Can you really see Cakewalk putting as much development time into their current staff view in order to bring it up to the standards that the Sibelius uses expect. Considering the amount that you have to pay for Sibelius, I really cannot, for the life of me, see Cakewalk taking their current staff view to the level of Sibelius without some kind of additional charge, and they would do that, in my mind, by making it an add-on module that you would have to pay for.

Can you understand what I am saying? Just using Sibelius as an example here, it is so much more expensive... It might even be that Avid have some kind of copyright on the scoring software they have developed. Who knows... there may even be some kind of agreement between Cakewalk/Roland and Avid that Sonar will never compete with Sibelius in terms of staff view functionality.

I'm not deliberately trying to cause more of a rumpus here... I am just trying to reason, in my own head, why things are like they are with our staff view, that's all.

cheers

andy

Andy,
 
I don't know how many people misunderstand this, but apparently a lot of people.  You're comparing a notation program with a DAW, you're comparing the notation funtion of a DAW, which is for MIDI input and editing, with a notation program, which exists to create published-quality scores and song sheets.  Sonar's staff view leaves a lot to be desired, so much in fact that I am using Sonar 7.0.2 because it lacks the new bugs that the staff view in X1 has.  But the complaint that a notation editor in a DAW should do what Sibelius or Finale does is really a useless complaint.  Even Cubase, which has superior notation functions to Sonar, isn't capable of doing what Sibelius does, it too is not designed for that.  I wish the people who gripe about the staff view would first understand what it's about.  Besides this, if X2 doesn't resolves many of the very-long-standing issues with Sonar's staff view, my view is that Sonar will never fix it, my view is that they simply don't understand the importance of notation to the creation of detailed, complex music composition and orchestration and never will.   Cakewalk has been unwilling to repair the bugs in the staff view for at least 5 versions or so, inaction speaks louder than words--they're essentially telling the end-user is to forget about it.  By the way, Sonar 7 works well as a 64-bit program in a 64-bit OS environment so there is really no need to upgrade unless you just enjoy spending money or have a fetish for the newest version, even though it's common knowledge that in software the newest version is not always the best version.
 
Jerry Gerber
www.jerrygerber.com
 
 

He wasn't complaining. Synkrotron was NOT complaining. Neither was I. It was (mostly) a friendly and intelligent discussion on a relevant issue in regards to Sonar. Nothing more... nothing less. These discussions help the Cakesters know what the people want. It seems many of the functions and doodads within the current versions are based on requests that have been made on this forum. The more we keep the conversations going (and civil) the better the product will become. At least that is the impression I get from Cakewalk as a company. They do care and they do want to make things better for us wherever they can. That's part of the reason I am happy and proud to own their software. I know I'm a n00b but when people talk AND (this is the most important part, folks) LISTEN the human beast can accomplish great things. Heck, we just landed a freaking truck on Mars last night. That took a whole heck of a lot of cooperation and communication. Maybe we can call the next major Cakewalk version Cakewalk Curiosity. ;-)