[rant] In regards to certain individuals expressing a degree of snobbery towards those who don't use the Staff View, they are merely exposing their own inadequacies.  In many ways, the Piano Roll is a superior method of inputing music, and their inability to adapt to that format should be at least as much cause for ridicule.  A well-rounded modern composer can (and often does) use both, especially if he or she expects any kind of realism out of the final product. 
 
What matters, in the end, is the music.  I read and write music, but I've also been using the piano roll format for...well, I'm loathe to admit how many years (remember Sequencer Plus?).  Both piano roll and staff view are tools with advantages and disadvantages, but NEITHER ONE HAS ANYTHING TO DO WITH YOUR SKILL AS A COMPOSER. 

We don't judge the quality of a composer by the paper the score is written on.  Some of the greatest melodies ever conceived have been written on paper napkins, hummed into cheap tape recorders, or scratched out in tab in the columns of newspapers.  Notes are notes.  It's sheer rubbish to judge a person's musical skill on whether or not they choose to input notes into a staff or a piano roll. [/rant]

BTW now that I am talking to you directly I want you to know that I find your posts to be excellent. I am very glad you are here.

 
Thank you John, and likewise!  :)

John,  i like that you seem to be  a poster who can disagree in a civil manner.  You never seem hellbent on being right. Users like you and gus do help others see the flip side of this instead of it smply being a SV user vs non SV user kvetch fest.  For my part, i will try to look at the crux of the issue instead of the condescending remarks.

HeatherHaze


[rant] In regards to certain individuals expressing a degree of snobbery towards those who don't use the Staff View, they are merely exposing their own inadequacies.  In many ways, the Piano Roll is a superior method of inputing music, and their inability to adapt to that format should be at least as much cause for ridicule.  A well-rounded modern composer can (and often does) use both, especially if he or she expects any kind of realism out of the final product. 
 
What matters, in the end, is the music.  I read and write music, but I've also been using the piano roll format for...well, I'm loathe to admit how many years (remember Sequencer Plus?).  Both piano roll and staff view are tools with advantages and disadvantages, but NEITHER ONE HAS ANYTHING TO DO WITH YOUR SKILL AS A COMPOSER. 

We don't judge the quality of a composer by the paper the score is written on.  Some of the greatest melodies ever conceived have been written on paper napkins, hummed into cheap tape recorders, or scratched out in tab in the columns of newspapers.  Notes are notes.  It's sheer rubbish to judge a person's musical skill on whether or not they choose to input notes into a staff or a piano roll. [/rant]

The applause is deafening! Well said Heather!!!

Though I can read and write music I'm not what you would call 'fluent'. None the less I was kind of excited at the prospect of the SV when I was originally starting to work in Sonar. For me it was cumbersome to the point where it put me off of it for good. I went straight for the PRV.

Personally I would love to see Cakewalk revisit that portion of Sonar. I also used to find the overall UI of Cakewalk not particularly 'coherent'. But with the rewrite in X1 for me the workflow and the logic is much better. YMMV of course.

I recognize that software development is a constant battle of weighing resource allocation to the tasks at hand but my vote would be for a rethinking of SV.

Regards,

Just for the record I was certainly not judging anyone or complaining about the current SV. I think any way of creating music is a good way to create music. The important part is that you are creating music. As far as the SV it's workable for my purposes. I could see why people want it to be a little better though. Cheers.

Edited: Double Post... server was acting weird.

meh, I went out and  bought PT9 MP a week ago for $99.  I thought for that price I would check out its workflow and take its staff editor for a test drive.

I own a Fast Track Ultra, so what the heck.

Of course having done this will surely result in an improved staff view in X2. 

You're welcome.  

pbognar


meh, I went out and  bought PT9 MP a week ago for $99.  I thought for that price I would check out its workflow and take its staff editor for a test drive.

I own a Fast Track Ultra, so what the heck.

Of course having done this will surely result in an improved staff view in X2. 

You're welcome.  

HA!!! I re-read this 8 month-old thread when it came back in the result of a search of the forum.

Update:

Apparently my purchase of PT9 MP did absolutely nothing for Sonar's Staff View.

I still have not opened or installed PT9 MP - I didn't realize it was somewhat of a closed system in terms of exporting projects / audio (This is not the case with the full featured PT9 / PT10).

I'm was also put off by the Avid and what looks like a migration off of RTAS to AAX format plugins, and Avid are also limiting who can provide VST wrappers.

Cubase's notation editor, while quite functional, is trying to straddle between being a MIDI editor and a notation publisher.  There are a gob of options, and from what I can tell, they put you into a page formatted editor, where the score for a single instruments wraps to the next line instead of having a single staff which scrolls to the right - although I'm probably wrong, otherwise how would you do a score with multiple systems.

My wish is for just some minor tweaks with SV: tuplet flexibility, easier input and a more tidy interpretation of what is displayed.  Oh, and a separate snap to grid, and bring back the icon buttons which existed in SV 8.5.  

backwoods


The "Staff" views on all DAWs are only suitable for "semi pro" "hobbyist". If you are dead serious you will fork out for Sibeliuis or Finale. 

That is totally untrue. Cubase and Logic have supported a great notation ability that is meant for composers. Those notation programs you list are for printing to a standard used by music publishers to provide manuscripts. They can not in any way be a substitute for a full DAW controlling multiple sound modules.  Many composers use hardware samplers and sound modules in racks that require a proper DAW. Often they require video as well. To suggest that the market is only for hobbyists shows a lack of knowledge about who uses DAWs and how they use them.

Pro Tools is used for recording and editing and didn't traditionally support much MIDI. Cubase and Logic were aimed at those that wanted to compose. Sonar is in that same category but with a very basic notation ability. All that the people that are after much better notation ability in Sonar; just want what is standard in Cubase and Logic. That can't be that hard to understand can it?

For those that don't want notation in their DAW or have no understanding about it it would be very helpful to be quiet about it until one has some clue.