Gusfmm


I'm not certain what kind of demographics you chose to survey, what kind of composers they may be. Although certainly, every person probably has a particular way and workflow to compose, in my experience and knowledge it is very common to find film and game composers compose at the computer, in one way or another. Lots use Cubase, DP, Nuendo, or Logic, amongst others.

I could be part of your surveyed population, as I don't compose on the DAW. Why? Simple- 'cause Sonar SV is totally non-conducive to doing so. I do relay mostly on a Notation program to initiate the process. Sometimes I start at the piano and move on to the electronic staff.

I'm 100% PC, so very rarely check anything Apple-related, but I just had a good laugh at this, please compare the two very similar advertisement strategies, specially the set of icons, and tell me what you think SONAR maybe missing:

http://cakewalk.com/SONAR-X2/

http://www.apple.com/logicpro/top-features/

I actually found it hilarious.  Call me crazy. To me, it is totally obvious. And I do agree with you in that the decision is probably 100% marketing-driven, thus SV will never be up to others. Sadly.

 
 
Yep,  I love Sonar, I'm a PC guy 'cause...I'm not sure why,  but those ads.  Sonar x2 is not trying to reach me at all,   but Logic definately has me in mind.

dubdisciple


Gus, I freely admit i have been talking to the snobbiest of the snobby composers and that my sample size is tiny. I just figured Sonar probably put a lot more care and detail than i did. funny you should post that link because the guys who said they did use Finale all were on Macs. It could be possible that the composer market is dominated by Macs. i have no idea.

D'oh!!! I wish I had not looked at that Logic 9 ad - leaves me wanting...
 
Another not totally scientific survey which could be done is to check out how many times this very thread has been viewed - over 5000 times.  I have a feeling there is some interest in the Staff View.
 
 
 

dubdisciple


Maybe it's just luck of the draw, but i have been asking working composers i encounter and i have not come across any that actually compose within their DAWs.  I'm not implying that no composer does so and i will readily say that my sample is under 20 composers and possibly just a statistical anomaly. It does make me wonder if Cakewalk observed a similar pattern but on a larger scale enough to dissuade them from putting a significant investment.  My guess, and i have no problem admitting this is a guess, is that the typical paying customer is either bedroom musician or studio owner, making the recording and mixing aspects of the program the most commercially viable for them with everything else thrown in to keep up with other DAW's.  IMO, the people who seem most satisfied with Sonar are not those who compose music professionally via their DAW.  I am using compose very loosely to include those who "compose" (for lack of better word) genres that do not depend on notation too.  i bring this up because I'm quite sure the sample based producer trying to be the next Deadmaus is just as likely to find fault with Sonar as the staff view complaint posse. 

I think it would be interesting to conduct a very broad study of the methodology of successful composers across multiple genres use for original creation of their respective forms.  obviously one would have to objectively measure the parameters of things like "successful" and i only use such a term to acknowledge that every guy who took a music theory course online is not necessarily a composer.  I'm sure Cakewalk has some criteria and i would be interested as to what those numbers say.  My guess is those numbers say that there are a lot more wannabe Kanye Wests, Lady Gagas, Justin Biebers, skrillex's , etc than there are wannabe John Williams in the world. That's not a defense of the policy but just a su****ion that their seeming indifference towards staff view is rooted in pragmatism.  I'm sure they would love to be all things to every type of musician, producer, artist or whatever one wants to call him/herself and the bloated pile of legacy plugins shows they would love to do so and in many ways they succeed in being a great all-around program.  The classic jack of all trades and master of none scenario and even that is not quite right since they do succeed very well in many areas or i would not use it.

I'm not saying to stop complaining.  the squeaky wheel gets the oil.  I'm just saying that odds are good that somebody at cakewalk has weighed options.  Too big of a company for them not to consider every demographic and make some hard decisions. If it was me wanting improvement to something so badly, i would approach them with hard data that would make them think making a major investment in improving staff view would accomplish more than pleasing the inevitable group of longtime clients who dislike an aspect of your product.  I believe they need to see something that will significantly increase business and not just slightly reduce churn. 

You may be right concerning Cakewalk's business strategy because in comparision with the number of musicians, the number of classically-trained composers and orchestrators is considerably smaller.  Something like 5% of students who graduate a college or conservatory in composition are still composing music 5 years later, which shows how difficult a path it is in life, not just economically, but having the inner vision, technique, confidence and imagination to make it a life-long career or avocation.  That being said, I am a classically-trained composer and have been writing music for over 40 years.  I've scored for film, TV, animation, games, dance, concerts, CDs--lots of projects--for the past 15 years I've focused solely on CD production of my own music.  I started composing with paper and pencil and did that for many years.  But now, and for the past 20 years or so. I compose directly in Sonar's staff view--and I write complex orchestrations and complex contrapuntal music.  The staff view is definitely far from ideal, there are many things Cakewalk can do to improve it, but I am nearly 100% certain they won't.   I've never thought of the staff view as a notation program, for that I use Sibelius.  It is, however, a powerful MIDI input tool, and, though I have my gripes with its imperfections, I cannot think of a better way to organize my ideas and hear them at the same time.   There's just no way to get the depth of thought, level of detail and subtlty and complexity that one can when working with notation.  Obviously, not everyone is interested in the type of music that notation is so useful for, which is why engineers and untrained musicians love DAWs for other reasons.   I've written 7 symphonies (well, 7 and 1/2 because I'm working on another one now) as well as many short works, songs, concerti, etc.--all in the staff view.   You can hear my work if you're interested at my website below.    Cakewalk isn't probably very interested in making a major contribution to the composition of serious electronic music, they're a business and their bottom line is profit and sales.  I will switch DAWS in a second if I could find one that does everything as well as Sonar AND has a better staff view.  But that may never happen.   I am still running the 64-bit version of Sonar 7.0.2 on a Win 7-64 bit machine and compared to X1, it is faster, less buggy, more reliable, has better customization and color options and the staff view doesn't have the new bugs that X1 introduced.   I highly recommend Sonar 7 for anyone who needs the staff view and wants to work in Sonar. 
 
Jerry Gerber
www.jerrygerber.com

jsg


.... It is, however, a powerful MIDI input tool, and, though I have my gripes with its imperfections, I cannot think of a better way to organize my ideas and hear them at the same time.   There's just no way to get the depth of thought, level of detail and subtlty and complexity that one can when working with notation.  .....
 
Jerry Gerber
www.jerrygerber.com

I certainly get a far better experience trying to compose directly on my Notation software than using SONAR's SV. I get to write a far better score draft from the get go and actually get to listen to a much better preliminary product directly on the Notation software than on SV, courtesy of how the written expression marks are interpreted by "Human Playback"... One of the key missing links in the process though, at a later stage, is being able to write/adjust easily and efficiently tempo changes, velocity changes, volume changes, and proceed from that "writing" phase to the actual production (mixing). So creating a better and more realistic mock-up. There, Notation software is nearly uselees, thus you need to work on a DAW.
 
Overall, the process of writing on the one place, and transfering the piece to SONAR for the rest is highly inefficient, time consuming, disruptive and uninspiring, from a creatinve stand-point. I think this is where there are clear distintions in approach and target audiences between SONAR and others in the marketplace. Just check my previous post reference, it becomes instantly obvious.

jsg

Gusfmm

jsg


.... It is, however, a powerful MIDI input tool, and, though I have my gripes with its imperfections, I cannot think of a better way to organize my ideas and hear them at the same time.   There's just no way to get the depth of thought, level of detail and subtlty and complexity that one can when working with notation.  .....
 
Jerry Gerber
www.jerrygerber.com

I certainly get a far better experience trying to compose directly on my Notation software than using SONAR's SV. I get to write a far better score draft from the get go and actually get to listen to a much better preliminary product directly on the Notation software than on SV, courtesy of how the written expression marks are interpreted by "Human Playback"... One of the key missing links in the process though, at a later stage, is being able to write/adjust easily and efficiently tempo changes, velocity changes, volume changes, and proceed from that "writing" phase to the actual production (mixing). So creating a better and more realistic mock-up. There, Notation software is nearly uselees, thus you need to work on a DAW.
 
Overall, the process of writing on the one place, and transfering the piece to SONAR for the rest is highly inefficient, time consuming, disruptive and uninspiring, from a creatinve stand-point. I think this is where there are clear distintions in approach and target audiences between SONAR and others in the marketplace. Just check my previous post reference, it becomes instantly obvious.

The difference you describe is because you use MIDI as a "mock-up" and therefore are not producing a finished product as I am.  Sibelius does do better notation, of course, that is obvious.  But if a musician is interested in getting more from MIDI than the "mock-up" crowd either believes is possible or simply lacks the techniques to make that happen, working in a DAW has numerous advantages:
 
1.  By using a high-end library such as VSL, you'll have vastly more and better samples to hear your work.
2.  If you have the technique, you can get MIDI to sound expressive, intentional, musical and soulful by working with ADSR, gate times, velocity, note lengths, expression, sample-set articulations and other sequencing techniques.  In a notation program, a quarter note is a quarter note, plus or minus a staccato marking or a tenuto.  But in a DAW, you have far finer control over note length, which is very helpful in phrase shaping (getting a phrase to work as artistic and musical interpretation).  Those who only view MIDI as a mock-up for another medium don't quite get this point. 
3.  A DAW has great audio tools to further enhance the final recording, in particular the volume envelopes add a layer of what I call macrodynamics to get a more detailed mix.  In fact, one can use volume envelopes instead of using a compressor and get much more accurate results without messing with the relationship between the inner and outer voices. 
 
For those who are committed to MIDI as a medium as I am, working in a DAW's notation is definitely the way to go.  For those who are still writing for acoustic instruments, composing in Sibelius is probably better.  When I think of those who think of MIDI as a "mock-up", I think of a photographer in the 19th century composing a shot of the Grand Canyon, and some traditionalist walks up to him and asks "Why aren't you painting it?".   Photography is no more a mockup for painting any more than film is a mockup for live plays.  Those who view MIDI in this light simply won't discover the artistic potential of the medium because they view it as a substitute for another medium, and for some, perhaps that is what it represents.   Our attitudes about our creation tools impact what results we get as do the tools themselves also have an influence how our ideas actually sound.  
 
 
 

With all due respect I think you're missing the point. What about those of us who do BOTH? What about those who have to deal with both - professional looking scores to give to professional musicians who require accurate notation to do a job, and MIDI tweakability so as to be able to produce professional level renderings? I don't think Gus cares less about his MIDI rendering than you do just because he prefers to compose in Sibelius or else he simply wouldn't bother with Sonat at all. It wouldn't be very efficient to have to score in Sonar, either, and then have export a MIDI to Sibelius and to then to tweak the notation to produce a better score. It can be done but this adds to critical time and makes for extra steps.
 
I understand you have found what works for you but don't negate the needs of professionals in different working situations who may have different requirements.

SToons

Jimbo 88


Hey Jerry,  great post.

Wouldn't it be cool if X2 had staff view like Sonar 7 (plus a few extras!)??.

Man, that would make my life soooo much better.   

Out of curiosity, how do you find the Staff View in Sonar X1 differs from Sonar 7?

Sonar 7 has the note value selections more accesible, right on the toolbar, always visible, the track pane on the staff view is linked to the active MIDI track, so you can hear a particular instrument by clicking on it without having to leave the staff view, X1 doesn't have that, either by error or design.   Sonar 7 also does not have the bug where you select a note length and you get the wrong note as in X1.  This seems to happen when you go from inputting triplets to non-triplets or visa versa.  
 
JG
www.jerrygerber.com
 

It sounds to me that a major difference between your view of making music on a computer and mine is that as fine of a finished product as I always strive for writing, then producing, I never consider that such finished electronic product as the culprit of the musical interpretation of my created music. It will always be, well, a mock-up. There is no other term to describe it, I'm sorry if I disappoint you on this.

I totally avoid the prospective unfortunate and presumptious mistake of considering an electronic rendering of my music, or anybody's music for that matter, as anything beyond, well, a mock-up. I don't consider the computer, and have no reason as of today to believe this will change any time soon, a replacement for the symphonic orchestra and live players executing any given piece of music. As skillful as anyone may think they are crafting a MIDI mock-up, such piece cannot be compared to the beauty, imperfection (autheticity) and realism of a human performance. There are simply too many factors- samples, writing/notation, space virtualization, performance imperfections, nuances, details, interpretation.

Just in case and for the record, to address another insinuation above, I own and intensively use a VSL Cube Extended, as well as several other non-VSL top-tier orchestral and non-orchestral libraries, and been doing this for a good part of my life.

But back on-topic. Composing on Finale, to me, presents a few major advantages at this point:

a) It has far better staff management capabilities that enable me deal with the entire composition more dynamically, efficiently and in a less disruptive fashion. Have you ever tried to incorporate keyswitches while on SV? It is a complete mess dealing with ledger lines and multiple staffs (instruments) at the same time.

b) I can translate my mind into written music just as I was trained, I'm accostumed to, and as how I believe it makes more sense to compose, than dealing with non-musical language elements: e.g. creating tempo maps, drawing volume envelopes, using keyswitches, etc. that should otherwise mostly be handled by the traditional musical notated signs and expressions.

c) I deal with the composing and notating tasks basically simultaneously. For the bulk of it. This would not be possible, at least not nearly as efficient, if it were to be the inverse, composing on SV and exporting MIDI into Finale.

And I'll stop here for now, as it's getting too lenghty.

Gusfmm


It sounds to me that a major difference between your view of making music on a computer and mine is that as fine of a finished product as I always strive for writing, then producing, I never consider that such finished electronic product as the culprit of the musical interpretation of my created music. It will always be, well, a mock-up. There is no other term to describe it, I'm sorry if I disappoint you on this.

I totally avoid the prospective unfortunate and presumptious mistake of considering an electronic rendering of my music, or anybody's music for that matter, as anything beyond, well, a mock-up. I don't consider the computer, and have no reason as of today to believe this will change any time soon, a replacement for the symphonic orchestra and live players executing any given piece of music. As skillful as anyone may think they are crafting a MIDI mock-up, such piece cannot be compared to the beauty, imperfection (autheticity) and realism of a human performance. There are simply too many factors- samples, writing/notation, space virtualization, performance imperfections, nuances, details, interpretation.

Just in case and for the record, to address another insinuation above, I own and intensively use a VSL Cube Extended, as well as several other non-VSL top-tier orchestral and non-orchestral libraries, and been doing this for a good part of my life.

But back on-topic. Composing on Finale, to me, presents a few major advantages at this point:

a) It has far better staff management capabilities that enable me deal with the entire composition more dynamically, efficiently and in a less disruptive fashion. Have you ever tried to incorporate keyswitches while on SV? It is a complete mess dealing with ledger lines and multiple staffs (instruments) at the same time.

b) I can translate my mind into written music just as I was trained, I'm accostumed to, and as how I believe it makes more sense to compose, than dealing with non-musical language elements: e.g. creating tempo maps, drawing volume envelopes, using keyswitches, etc. that should otherwise mostly be handled by the traditional musical notated signs and expressions.

c) I deal with the composing and notating tasks basically simultaneously. For the bulk of it. This would not be possible, at least not nearly as efficient, if it were to be the inverse, composing on SV and exporting MIDI into Finale.

And I'll stop here for now, as it's getting too lenghty.

You don't disappointment me at all, I really don't care what you do.  I don't compare the results I get with a symphony orchestra, a comparison between a MIDI interpretation and a live performance is incomparable, the psychosocial and psychospritual energies between players is a magic all its own, and yet it is not the only magic in music composition and interpretation.  By viewing your electronic work as a mock-up this tells me that you simply won't get the best results with your libraries, no matter how good they are (I have the same VSL extended cube so I am fully aware of it in practice).  You can't, in the same way that a filmaker who thinks his film must have the same magic and same constraints as a live play will not master his medium or understand it very deeply.  Music can be interpreted in many different ways, the interaction between live players, as wonderful as it can be, is not the only means by which music can be interpreted and enjoyed. 
 
JG
www.jerrygerber.com

Great thread.    I really enjoy the back-and-forth discussions from people who do this type of thing for a living, even if they don't completely agree.   It's certainly food for thought...
 

Gusfmm


 
Perhaps to somewhat close the loop, a final comment. I think where I quite agree with you, and I'm glad this totally and nicely aligns with the nature of this thread, and this long-winded cry for Cakewalk to listen to, is that:
 
 

jsg


For those who are committed to MIDI as a medium as I am, working in a DAW's notation is definitely the way to go.

JG
www.jerrygerber.com

Just that SONAR, to me,  is far from being, and as of today, the best suitable and even proper tool for the composer who desires to use the written musical language in the arts of composing music.
 
 
 

 

I'd like to add one last point here.    Gusfmm is comparing a LIVE performance of an orchestra with a RECORDING of MIDI.   This is an absurd comparison as I mentioned a bit earlier because the energies of human beings listening to one another and playing in real time is a very specific form of musical energy that can hardly be duplicated in recordings.  When recordings were new, back in the 1920s and 1930s, many musicians thought, and still think, that the recorded medium itself is inferior to live performance.  So the argument is really ridiculous because a recording and a performance are two distinct modes of musical expression, neither one being superior to the other, but of course everyone will have their own preferences.   That being said, a comparision of a finely crafted MIDI orchestral work compared to a RECORDING of a live orchestra--now THAT is a fair comparison.  I've read remarks by composers who are 100% committed to the live performance of their work and even they say that computer based multi-timbral orchestrations are getting very, very close to the recording of a live orchestra in terms of their expressive power, artistic quality and interpretative artistry.   A composer came into my studio one evening, heard a piece I was working on, and said, "Wow!, your strings sound better than the players I worked with on my piece recently" (these were VSL cube chamber strings).   And his players were all local (San Francisco) professional and semi-professional players.   I totally understand why a composer would seek live performances, particularly if she has great players, sufficient rehearsal time and the promise of a first-rate recording.   But those resources are few and far between, and when most composers have access to those resources it is for commercial film music, which in itself makes so many artistic compromises with the worlds of commerce and entertainment that for many composers it is simply not how they want to approach their art.   It is easy to make the NY Philharmonic sound great.  Even if that orchestra plays a crappy piece of music by a 2nd rate composer, it will still not fail to impress some because of the quality of the players.  Of course the fact that around 85% of classical music played by large orchestras is by dead European composers doesn't much support the contemporary American composer in hearing their works played frequently.  With MIDI, if you don't have great instruments and great technique and if you don't really know what you are doing in terms of sequencing, mixing and orchestrating, MIDI simply won't sound very good.   In most ways it is more challenging to get the digital ensemble to sound great than it is to get a great ensemble of skilled players to sound great.    So all in all, I am extremely grateful for the opportunity to produce and interpret my music the way I see fit and I have't ever walked into my studio in the past 20 years or so without a deep sense of joy and excitement about my work in this relatively new medium.   Due to the unfortunate lack of vocabularly when discussing these things, we use terms such as "orchestra", "orchestral", "symphony", but in reality what I am doing in my studio is really the work of a single artist and if others want to talk about how much, or how little, my work sounds like a recording of a real orchestra, that of course is their choice, but certainly not what interests me about the medium.    I'm just grateful to be able to be creative and challenge myself to write and produce music that is meaningful to me.
 
JG
www.jerrygerber.com

SToons

jsg

Gusfmm


 
Perhaps to somewhat close the loop, a final comment. I think where I quite agree with you, and I'm glad this totally and nicely aligns with the nature of this thread, and this long-winded cry for Cakewalk to listen to, is that:
 
 

jsg


For those who are committed to MIDI as a medium as I am, working in a DAW's notation is definitely the way to go.

JG
www.jerrygerber.com

Just that SONAR, to me,  is far from being, and as of today, the best suitable and even proper tool for the composer who desires to use the written musical language in the arts of composing music.
 
 
 

 

I'd like to add one last point here.    Gusfmm is comparing a LIVE performance of an orchestra with a RECORDING of MIDI.   This is an absurd comparison as I mentioned a bit earlier because the energies of human beings listening to one another and playing in real time is a very specific form of musical energy that can hardly be duplicated in recordings. 

I clearly did not read Gusfmm's post the way you have. Standard classical recordings also begin with a group of humans playing LIVE. Although Gusfmm states he feels the best way to hear a piece is interpreted live it does not suggest that this should be considered a "fair comparison" to a MIDI representation as it is already stated there can be no comparison, you appear to have fabricated that point. By suggesting Zimmer and his use of RECORDED orchestras in film he is clearly separating LIVE from RECORDED material, for example. By your own standards it would suggest a "fair" comparison would be setting your computer up in a symphony hall and comparing that to an actual orchestra as this is not a RECORDING of midi, it would be LIVE. You appear to be grasping at semantics that have no relation to notation. In all likelihood you two agree on far more than you disagree.
 
I am not speaking for Gusfmm, he is clearly capable. I am suggesting as a forum member that you appear to be trying to run a ghost horse in circles.

Yes...+1
 
  I am not really able to read thru so much material and truly comprehend all this stuff,  but it sure seems like you guys are arguing the same point.

In regards to MIDI composition and orchestral works, here's one of my favorites for anyone who is interested.  It was done using DP and features the old Garritan Strad solo violin.   I think it's somewhat rare to hear this type of emotion in a MIDI piece, but it can be done...
http://www.dankury.com/music/Meditation_from_Thais_arr.Dan_Kury.mp3
 
 

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 release a CD about every 2 years and for the most part I use digital instruments, i.e. sample libraries and synths, and occasionally live singers and instrumentalists, so I back up my assertions with a heavy investment of time, money and labor.   Why others think we're arguing the same thing might be a way to "make peace", but in fact we are coming from two very different agendas and beliefs about the use of sample libraries and the "virtual orchestra" (for lack of a better term).  It is not about who is right, or who is wrong, but the distinction between these viewpoints should, at least, be acknowledged and understood.
 
Back to the original topic of this thread, it is highly doubtful that Cakewalk will put any real energy into improving the staff view (at least mak it as sophisticated as Cubase's) in any significant way.   Even though this thread has already received over 6000 views, which tells me a lot of Sonar users ARE interested in the staff view issues, Cakewalk apparently has different priorities in regards to what a full-featured, professional DAW should be. 
 
JG
www.jerrygerber.com

jsg
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.  
 
JG
www.jerrygerber.com

I've never argumented such thing. You've either totally misconstrued or simply fabricated such assertion. To the point that I can't help but question the agenda behind some of these posts. Or maybe a revisit of previous posts will help you clarify.

Jsg,

It really doesn't matter why some one wants a better Staff View. It only matters that many do. 

Clearly Gus's reason is just as valid as any.

I also strongly believe in the usefulness of MIDI in creating compositions. What sort of composition is again unimportant.

What I see is two members after the same thing but for different reasons.
Nothing wrong with that.