Scenario 1: total elapsed time 21 minutes.

Scenario 2: 3 years, 5 months, 2 days and counting.

Hi My tuppence worth. Sonar lets you very quickly arrange/re-arrange a song. Convert an idea into a smart loop, repeat it, try it this way or that. Take lanes when you are trying out ideas, great feature. Matrix is fun for arranging. Plus, you can produce a pretty damned good demo using the mastering features too. Quick upload to Soundcloud - I use to save basics which I can listen to on the move. Easy to use and a great forum! SJD

In your opinion, what are Sonar's strengths for the songwriter?

First, I chose Sonar before it was Sonar with the express purpose of writing my own songs back in 1996.  At that time, I used it for sequencing a bunch of Korgs and Yamahas as the first step, then I used the new audio features to record guitars, drums, bass and vocals.  At that time, I was more into keys as the primary source for my material.  I would noodle around with an idea on one track, then play with it a bit, then start another track and build it out further. Once I had the basics down, it was add and go.  Perfect for my own personal consumption.

Fast forward to today and I am still following the same process, but I start with guitars first. Noodle around, record the idea, flesh it out, add and go. The difference today is - I can end up with a song I can proudly hand out to bandmates, other musicians and friends.  The difference wasn't so much in the change in instruments, it was more the in depth learning I recieved on this forum from these fine members - and the classy audio tools that I could apply the knowledge I learned here, on.  Sonar grew as I grew - when a new technique became all the rage, Sonar could either handle it, or added it in a version or so. 

Thats three things that come to mind.  Your milage will certainly vary. 

Best regards,

L

Personally, I don't like loops unless I create them myself. Nobody know what I want so why ask? You got to hand it to the guys that can put loops together and come up with something. For them, and us writers, music is a collage of tonality.

Beware: long post ahead...

I could be wrong, but perhaps some people are irriated by people assembling commercially available loops and calling themselves songwriters.  I would tend to agree with that, however, in that situation, isn't it painfully obvious to the listener?  It usually doesn't sound like a good song, unless maybe you are into EDM.  I hear people play back a little musical motif which they generated using their iPhone, and say they wrote that.  I've got news for them, they won't be able to retire on that.

How about this: if someone uses a very small bit of a commercially available loop, which no one would recognize as being a loop, and then assembles the loop material into a song which blows you away, does it mean that they are not a legit song writing?

What about people who use BIAB - they enter the chords, and BIAB poops out an arrangement.  If it sounds great, and you like the song, then what?

Audio / MIDI loops, BIAB, samples can all be sources of inspiration or place holders until the song is completed.

If John Lennon relied on loops or BIAB to help him write "A Day In The Life", why would I care?

Doesn't the songwriter, assembler, or whatever you want to call them get any credit for determining what sounds good?

Even a songwriter, whose brain, muse or whatever is generating chords, melodies, and rhythms has to pick and choose what sounds good and what doesn't.

It all comes down to what the completed song sounds like and how it is embraced by the listener.

We must also differentiate between sounds, production and the very kernel of the song.  Depending on the genre, a great song could be performed on a guitar, piano, voice, or a combination of these.  Most of the great songs stand up to this naked test.  Of course, genre comes into play.  I like progressive, electric jazz and funk.  Others are into EDM and all the variations of Urban music.  I guess maybe the naked test doesn't always apply.

About 25 years ago, I was in a music store, and a dude was playing with a Yamaha 4 operater FM synth with a built-in drum machine.  He created something so incredible, I really had to re-examine my constant need for the best sounds and software to come up with tunes.

But don't get me wrong, if it weren't for the technology we have, it would certainly be much more difficult for me to come up with tunes.  I don't play keys, drums, sax, etc.  The sound of these instruments and how they are approached so differently than guitar really makes a difference to me.

Some people can write a hit on a tape recorder, some use Garage Band and loops, and others use the creative features and tools of the wonderful technology available to us to give us a nudge - it's all fair game.

Some people need a rhythm to get them going.  Some need chord changes, melody, or a lyric or title.  Some people dig synth sounds - case in point - Joe Zawinul - RIP, said he was often inspired by a synth patch.

Different strokes.  Different folks need different levels of technology to compose music.

Scenario 1: total elapsed time 21 minutes.
Scenario 2: 3 years, 5 months, 2 days and counting.

 
That's all?   
 
Huh, now I wonder how many of the delivered loops might work for a blues shuffle...
 

@ pbognar
 

“ could be wrong, but perhaps some people are irriated by people assembling commercially available loops and calling themselves songwriters.”

 
This is rampant but of course not everywhere.
  

“How about this: if someone uses a very small bit of a commercially available loop, which no one would recognize as being a loop, and then assembles the loop material into a song which blows you away, does it mean that they are not a legit song writing?”

  

“What about people who use BIAB - they enter the chords, and BIAB poops out an arrangement.  If it sounds great, and you like the song, then what?”

 
If BIAB creates the chords and the arrangement and the “writer” creates the melody it is a collaboration but since it is not required to give credit to BIAB the “artist” will take all the credit as song writer when he/she clearly is not the only “writer”. It’s an accepted form of plagiarism.
 

“Audio / MIDI loops, BIAB, samples can all be sources of inspiration or place holders until the song is completed.”

 
No problem with that.
 

“If John Lennon relied on loops or BIAB to help him write "A Day In The Life", why would I care?”

 
He didn’t and therefore is the sole author of "A Day In The Life”.
 

“Doesn't the songwriter, assembler, or whatever you want to call them get any credit for determining what sounds good?”

 
Production credit, not songwriting credit.
 

“It all comes down to what the completed song sounds like and how it is embraced by the listener.”

 
Whether or not the song is good or bad - if someone didn’t write it they shouldn’t take credit for it.
 

“Some people need a rhythm to get them going.  Some need chord changes, melody, or a lyric or title.  Some people dig synth sounds - case in point - Joe Zawinul - RIP, said he was often inspired by a synth patch.”

 
Zawinul never released a synth patch and called it a song.  You are confusing all technology with depending on loops as the basis for a song.  If all the chord changes and rhythm came from someone else’s loop and you just jam over it you are not a songwriter.  If you come up with a great melody over it you are a collaborative songwriter who is disingenuously claiming all the credit.  My original statement was “real songwriters don’t depend on loops” in response to the statement “loops are a songwriter’s best friend”.  That doesn’t mean they can’t use loops or can’t be inspired by loops but if they are your best friend it is likely that you are following the trend of allowing technology to create that which you take credit for creating.  People writing EDM stuff are often using tons of loops and sampling other’s songs and then slicing and dicing.  They may be very creative artists and come up with great stuff but that doesn’t necessarily make them “songwriters”.
 
 

I think it's fun to do the same song over and over in different ways again and again. Speed of putting together versions matters. I'm quick with Sonar.

The rate at which I can throw together different drums... change swing... add strings and a reverse crash... fun goofy fx...

It all adds up and it's fun. Sonar is a good time and it's kinda addictive.

vintagevibe


@ pbognar

“ could be wrong, but perhaps some people are irriated by people assembling commercially available loops and calling themselves songwriters.”

This is rampant but of course not everywhere.
 

“How about this: if someone uses a very small bit of a commercially available loop, which no one would recognize as being a loop, and then assembles the loop material into a song which blows you away, does it mean that they are not a legit song writing?”

 

“What about people who use BIAB - they enter the chords, and BIAB poops out an arrangement.  If it sounds great, and you like the song, then what?”

If BIAB creates the chords and the arrangement and the “writer” creates the melody it is a collaboration but since it is not required to give credit to BIAB the “artist” will take all the credit as song writer when he/she clearly is not the only “writer”. It’s an accepted form of plagiarism.

“Audio / MIDI loops, BIAB, samples can all be sources of inspiration or place holders until the song is completed.”

No problem with that.

“If John Lennon relied on loops or BIAB to help him write "A Day In The Life", why would I care?”

He didn’t and therefore is the sole author of "A Day In The Life”.

“Doesn't the songwriter, assembler, or whatever you want to call them get any credit for determining what sounds good?”

Production credit, not songwriting credit.

“It all comes down to what the completed song sounds like and how it is embraced by the listener.”

Whether or not the song is good or bad - if someone didn’t write it they shouldn’t take credit for it.

“Some people need a rhythm to get them going.  Some need chord changes, melody, or a lyric or title.  Some people dig synth sounds - case in point - Joe Zawinul - RIP, said he was often inspired by a synth patch.”

Zawinul never released a synth patch and called it a song.  You are confusing all technology with depending on loops as the basis for a song.  If all the chord changes and rhythm came from someone else’s loop and you just jam over it you are not a songwriter.  If you come up with a great melody over it you are a collaborative songwriter who is disingenuously claiming all the credit.  My original statement was “real songwriters don’t depend on loops” in response to the statement “loops are a songwriter’s best friend”.  That doesn’t mean they can’t use loops or can’t be inspired by loops but if they are your best friend it is likely that you are following the trend of allowing technology to create that which you take credit for creating.  People writing EDM stuff are often using tons of loops and sampling other’s songs and then slicing and dicing.  They may be very creative artists and come up with great stuff but that doesn’t necessarily make them “songwriters”.

I agree with pretty much everything you said here.
maybe somewhere in a parallel universe, we are not so different.  :)
I also understand that sometimes I can be arrogant and obnoxious and that might have been the reason for your first post directed towards me.
 
in the future I will try to be more understanding about your frustrations aimed towards Sonar. 
   
 
best wishes,
 
Charlie
 

chuckebaby

I agree with pretty much everything you said here.
maybe somewhere in a parallel universe, we are not so different.  :)
I also understand that sometimes I can be arrogant and obnoxious and that might have been the reason for your first post directed towards me.
 
in the future I will try to be more understanding about your frustrations aimed towards Sonar. 
   
 
best wishes,
 
Charlie
 

Thank you.  I appreciate that.  I think it has more to do with the internet/forum medium.  Inflections and tone are not displayed in text and frequently leads to misunderstanding on forums.  Also quick, blanket statements such as mine usually need more detail which is why I spent the time in my followup post.