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
 

SToons

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.

 
Actually, I finish an entire movement or piece and export the file to Sibelius for editing.   So I do both too, a finished score (with all added slurs, dynamics, articulations and other playing instructions if a live player (or players) is involved).  I disagree that it is not  efficient, the MIDI (Sonar)-to-Sibelius translation requires a little editing, but I assume all translations require some more work.   With all due respect to you too, someone who is using MIDI to make mock ups of what is ultimately intended to be a live performance often gets frustrated often because MIDI as a medium requires a lot of craft and technique, things often don't sound good "out of the box", in a similar way that the first reading of a new orchestral (acoustic) score may sound odd and not quite together yet.   Most people don't want to invest the hours to mock something up so well that it really works as sound in its own domain, without comparision to a live ensemble, particularly in the commercial scoring world where deadlines are a hugh limitation on depth of thought and the ability to experiment.   I can't judge what others value or care about, but if you really think about it, the term "mock-up" implies temporariness, it implies unauthenticity and it implies the simple practicality of using one medium to show how something should sound in another medium.  I would hardly think one could be serious in *that aspect* of their craft because it implies that the computer is not a real musical instruments in its own right.   
 
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.

 
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.
 
 
 

 

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

jsg

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.  
JG
www.jerrygerber.com

Such assertion is conceptually flawed. Or maybe we're talking semantics here. I certainly know I get the best possible results out of my libraries, no question whatsoever about it. Let me repeat it again, there is no way as of this date to achieve a higher and better finished product than having my music interpreted live, by imperfect and sensitive human players in a real physical performance space.
 
We're talking about practicality and feasibility here as well, and the law of dimishing return. I do not find it necessary to spend months attempting to perfect a mock-up that will never, no matter what, achieve the same quality as a live performance of the same. Samples, any sample, will always be an imperfect static out-of-context sonic snapshot, recorded in a set, isolated context and space, mostly lacking proper expression. Programmed sampling playback techniques are not, as of today, ideal representations of the actual music in context, it being a VSL legato, or somebody else's loures. Space virtualization is as great of a problem as the sampling side, regardless of some valiant attempts made in the area. In the end, it is all inorganic and artifical space. Yes, just a mock up, and nothing else.
 
Since you mentioned the film industry, even the most differentiating and firm proponents of electronic composition, e.g. Mr. Zimmer, ultimately seek the "magic" (to use the term you employed) of a symphonic orchestra as the highest form to express the power of his Inception, or the darkness behind his Dark Knight. Your aestetic style may not seek that as the ultimate ideal. Me, again, I don't seek my electronic mock-ups to necessarily be the be-all and end-all. A matter of preferences I guess. Let's get back on-topic.
 
 
 
 
 
edited for typo

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...
 

Back to the real point:  Sonar should have notation tools as robust as Logic and Cubase.

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

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.