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.

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.

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.
 
 
 

Gusfmm

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.

That is very funny.

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

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.   

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.

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. 
 
JG
www.jerrygerber.com
 
 
 
 
3. 

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.

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?