Toddskins

RTA
 
The dictionary definition of music is 'Rhythmic Noise', so however you get to the end result is valid.
Whatever works for you. The rest is subjective.

 
That is not the definition, and I groan over what dictionary you chose to nab that falsity from.  It's apparent that even dictionary companies are being politicized.

The true definition is: Music - Melody or harmony; any succession of sounds so modulated as to please the ear, or any combination of simultaneous sounds in accordance of harmony. An aesthetic art form of sound produced in a continuum of time consisting of 1) Beat, 2) Rhythm, 3) Melody, and 4) Harmony.
 
Such a shame that people now think noise is music!  It's not.
 
You might say, in a figure of speech, that some type of news is music to your ears, but that is just a figure of speech.  Unfortunately, unschooled people actually believe the brainwashing they have received, and are not able to call things as they are.  

Yes, it is unfortunate when unschooled people think they know more than they do and open their mouths. All those falsities simply make one want to swoon. Fortunately a true, good constitutional will restore one's good humors.
 
Another suggestion for Bandlab - the ability to generate pink noise for audio calibration instead of having to import it from another program. I use Audacity to generate the pink noise for calibrating monitors with a decibel meter, but it would be nice if I could generate pink noise (or any other) inside Sonar itself. I haven't been able to find the option, if it is there (where, if it is?!?!?). This would reduce the probability of human error (or import settings overlooked in the preferences that change who knows what) while importing the pink noise from an outside program, weighting issues etc.
 

Kamikaze

abacab

Kamikaze
 
IMO this is what BandLab needs to do...
 
<snip>

Some very good points made here!  The focus on the core skillsets of Sonar is a must. 
 

Mixing, Arranging, Sequencing and recording

 
If it isn't something that Sonar can do as well, or better than the competition, cut it out.  Harsh, but necessary to avoid a jack of all trades mediocrity.  Sonar needs a strong identity to appeal to the future uninitiated DAW users, or else the competition will win.
 
As far as the Matrix is concerned.  Nice idea, but Live can do it better, so just let it go.
 
Same with chord tracks.  It's a nice idea, but Cubase can do it already.  It hasn't happened in Sonar yet, so just let the feature request go in peace.
 
Notation?  Get a dedicated notation program.  Studio One and Live are both successful without a notation view.
 
Trim the weeds, and focus on areas that are the strongest!

Making Sonar clearly better than the competition at "Mixing, Arranging, Sequencing and recording" is a very difficult and unlikely task. At best it can only be seen to be 'as good as'. So if it's 'as good as' why choose it. It's as good as Cubase, but cubase has Chord Tracks and hasn't been passed from company to company and was closed down at one point. Chord Tracks will most likely become the norm as ARA2 is adoptied but more DAWs and it's one of it's attributes. So Studio One will probably have one soon as they are a key Melodyne partner. When Extract tempo was created, so many Sonar users were saying 'we want it, Studio One has it'. Melodyne is now part of my tool box, and I'm choosing the DAWs that are capable of utilizing it to the full. 
 
Sonar needs to re-build a reputation and gain new customers, it has to be a clear option compared to the leaders. stripping it back will not do this.
 
Ableton users wanting to progress onto a fully fledged DAW have no reason to choose Sonar over the top 3 DAWs. Things like the 64 pad controllers are becoming more common and many will see that as a way into music. Sonar should be breaking new customer grounds.
 
This is a BandLab Product now, and easy Song Writing is the ethos of BandLap. Chord Tracks and Matrix view are tools for easy song writing. I don't know, but maybe BandLab already do use a chord track. BandLab are also interested in the Educational Market and Notation is valuable to this, and schools are a great way to introduce to a new customer base.
 
With all the sample libraries now, and the interest in gaming music and film scores. Orchestration is bigger than ever and growing. And Notation users wanting to move onto a fully fledge DAW will want this option in the DAW, otherwise 'Why pick Sonar'.
 
Making Sonar great at just Mixing, Arranging, Sequencing and recording, won't win new customers, and stripping it back will lose existing customers. It may suit you needs but I think it's a plan for failure. I can't see it being BandLabs vision.

I was only trying to present some arguments for avoiding the 'jack of all trades' position that you presented:
 

Kamikaze
 
Sonar should not be a Jack of all trades, master of none. But it should be a Master of some and Jack and of a few. A master of Mixing, Arranging, Sequencing and recording. Which I think it's  close to, only hindered by stability issues.

By your circular logic, you will end up right back where you started from if you were to include everything you just mentioned..  The only other option instead may be to abandon 'Mixing, Arranging, Sequencing and recording' as its primary mission. That will surely upset the old timers (like me).  But I fail to see how 'doing it all' can be a successful business model.  There must be difficult choices ahead.
 
None of these suggestions 'suits my needs', whatever that is supposed to mean.  I already use several tools, and am not invested in one size fits all solutions.  Merely looking at this as a way for Sonar to survive market forces and avoid the potential for failure again if it doesn't seize the attention of the next generation.  It will have to change to be successful, no matter how good, bad, or ugly that becomes...

abacab

Kamikaze
 
IMO this is what BandLab needs to do...
 
<snip>

Some very good points made here!  The focus on the core skillsets of Sonar is a must. 
 

Mixing, Arranging, Sequencing and recording

 
If it isn't something that Sonar can do as well, or better than the competition, cut it out.  Harsh, but necessary to avoid a jack of all trades mediocrity.  Sonar needs a strong identity to appeal to the future uninitiated DAW users, or else the competition will win.
 

There is nothing wrong with being a Jack of all trades, with the current contemporary environment maybe this is an advantage for this DAWs. You don't need to be the master in all, good enough and working as intended will do for me. 
 
I think it is a bad idea to start chopping things out, then you start loosing backwards compatibility for legacy projects ... as well as some of the current user base. For me as a fairly recent user, the DAW seems to have a well thought out design overall ... however, it struck me that the menu system where initially difficult to comprehend; as a newbie ... I also struggled with mastering something as simple as track routing and the mixer. I initially spent about one hour getting sound out of the system ... I don't recall exactly what it was ... but remember it was something unbelievable trivial. 
 
I would put down a focus group of people unfamiliar with the DAW and see what obstacles they could identify, and then streamline the userinterface based on that assessment. To me it seem like the current one heavily presumes prior knowledge and familiarity with earlier versions. Something I for different reasons don't have. 
 
I also think more time an resources need to be spent making what IS more robust and efficient. XP compatibility would be a nice dream, to me that is a seal of quality ... one which seem to quickly be removed in the name of efficiency to get out of trouble with the code. Then again, maybe it is just my imagination. 

ch.huey

Earwax

ch.huey
Thank you but I'm not a lover of long posts myself, I mostly find them a pain in the rear.

You’re joking, right? You have 4 posts. They’re ALL long!!

 
I can promise you this will be short.

ch.huey
- I DON'T FEEL SCREWED THAT I LIKELY WON'T HAVE LIFETIME UGPRADES/ROLLING UPDATES ANYMORE THAT I PAID $399 FOR. ... Again I blame Gibson for what seems like a crass attempt to milk... I'll stop there but you get my point. Glad Sonar is away from Gibson, even if it won't be the same program as I bought into.

Can we PLEASE, once and for all, dispel the myth that Gibson came up with the “Lifetime Updates” idea? They didn’t. Cakewalk came up with the Lifetime Updates, not Gibson. Don’t believe it? Ask Noel Borthwick or Craig Anderton.

 
Yes, except that I never said Gibson came up with the idea of lifetime updates. I blame Gibson for being such a poorly run company that Cakewalk, a company that has been around for decades and I had faith in to buy lifetime upgrades, shut down due to Gibson being a poorly run company. If you disagree with that, please drink some chamomile tea and have a good cry. Perhaps find a kitten and pet it. Or if whatever severe crisis you seem to be having is more existential in nature, find a priest, and pet him.
 
You are aware I am indeed a man, but not made of straw, yes? So you can go find an immobile human shaped form to argue with that has the holes exactly where you want to poke it with your pitchfork elsewhere, as I have no desire to be prodded by you.
 

ch.huey

I talked to a friend a while back, and she told me ... (blah blah removed, sigh)

I find this incredibly hard to believe. How did he think the loops he was using were made?? Is he blessed with magical thinking? Did you actually have a conversation with him about his thoughts on musical creation, or with his mom? What program could he possibly have used that would magically close his mind to the reality of, oh I don’t know…, who made the loops he was using, and how they were made? He’s never heard of a recording studio?
 
 
I’m not picking on you. I just found your posts……………interesting
 
I find the future possibilities of the flagship BLDAW to be utterly fascinating. I can’t wait to see what the BandLab team cooks up.

I certainly don't find you as interesting as you seem to find yourself.
 
Thank you for your suggestions, though, to Bandlab on what they can do to make your experience of the program better, instead of nitpicking on minutiae that no one cares about from a post several pages ago.
 
Since that was my bigger point about why arguing over loops doesn't matter and it's far more important to suggest positive improvements instead of being someone who sits there nit picking pointless issues like an armchair philosopher. Also why I'm not going to argue about loops with you.
 
That short enough for you? I apologize if it is too brief, as I'm enjoying all the other people who are actually posting constructive comments about what they would like Bandlab to know to devote more time to this response. My sincerest apologies.

Not short enough.
 
Hysterically funny though. I’m sure you are a man, just not a very good marksman – the arrows all missed. I have no idea why my post drew such ire – a fascinating indulgence in self-absorption perhaps?  It’s of no real consequence. It’s just a bit odd that a grownup would respond with such venomous petulance to a casual observation that was in no way attacking or insulting.
Grow up.

earwax
Not short enough.
 
Hysterically funny though. I’m sure you are a man, just not a very good marksman – the arrows all missed. I have no idea why my post drew such ire – a fascinating indulgence in self-absorption perhaps?  It’s of no real consequence. It’s just a bit odd that a grownup would respond with such venomous petulance to a casual observation that was in no way attacking or insulting.
Grow up.

You have not drawn ire. You chose to open your mouth regarding something I said that was already addressed and put to bed, repeatedly, and I responded that you should be more focused on contributing toward suggestions on future development. You are creating unnecessary posts that could occlude the real, important ones that people are making regarding actual concerns about actual suggestions regarding the future of software. That was me being polite before, and attempting a modicum of humor to try to not become adversarial.
 
This is the not polite version as I find I have little tolerance for you:
Put up and contribute, or shut up. Your posts draws a response and this is the last one you will get from me, but it is making the company who does not have infinite time have to wade through a very large number of posts lacking substance like yours. So contribute, or remain silent. I'm not your nanny so this is the last time I will say it. I genuinely hope you put up because I want the best program they can make and despite finding you obnoxious, you may have some good ideas. I welcome good ideas from anyone.
 
Then everyone else can decide who is interested in fascinating indulges of self-absorption if you post again displaying your self-congratulating behavior, or your genuine suggestions for a better program presented in a straight-forward manner. Either way, I don't have time for this, and I doubt Bandlab does either.

 

michael diemer
I wasn't disparaging loops. I just thought it was a rather humorous statement that they represented a higher level of abstraction. 
 
Of course, it makes a difference if the loops are your own creation, or you just downloaded them from some repository.

I glad you found it humorous, but I think we have a different understanding of the concepts of abstraction. 
When your working with loops vs creating them, you are working less detailed ... and from that perspective more abstract. At a higher level of abstraction in my book. It's not a value statement.
 

iRelevant

michael diemer
I wasn't disparaging loops. I just thought it was a rather humorous statement that they represented a higher level of abstraction. 
 
Of course, it makes a difference if the loops are your own creation, or you just downloaded them from some repository.

I glad you found it humorous, but I think we have a different understanding of the concepts of abstraction. 
When your working with loops vs creating them, you are working less detailed ... and from that perspective more abstract. At a higher level of abstraction in my book. It's not a value statement.
 

That is also how I would use the term "abstraction."
 
You can create your own lines (and loops if you like).  This is the most detailed level (and of course you can manually tweak many aspects of the MIDI, so that is even more detailed, I guess.
 
Using a pre-fab loop is higher level or more abstract.  Instead of creating your own funk beat, you choose from 100 different funky drum patterns.  That is more abstract than creating your own loops.  And of course, you can always dive into the loop and customize it, but the pre-fab loop gets you going more quickly.
 
In my case, I often start by generating MIDI from Band-in-a-box.  In that case, you operate at the harmony and style level.  I can choose from among thousands of styles.  This is more abstract than loops because it creates a complete arrangement in minutes for starters.  And again, I can dive down whenever I want to.  Sometimes I end up replacing virtually all of the BIAB content in the final product.  Other times, a big percentage of the BIAB MIDI remains.  Either way, working at a more abstract level can get faster results (and for me, better results.)

abacab

Kamikaze
 
IMO this is what BandLab needs to do...
 
<snip>

Some very good points made here!  The focus on the core skillsets of Sonar is a must. 
 

Mixing, Arranging, Sequencing and recording

 
If it isn't something that Sonar can do as well, or better than the competition, cut it out.  Harsh, but necessary to avoid a jack of all trades mediocrity.  Sonar needs a strong identity to appeal to the future uninitiated DAW users, or else the competition will win.
 
As far as the Matrix is concerned.  Nice idea, but Live can do it better, so just let it go.
 
Same with chord tracks.  It's a nice idea, but Cubase can do it already.  It hasn't happened in Sonar yet, so just let the feature request go in peace.
 
Notation?  Get a dedicated notation program.  Studio One and Live are both successful without a notation view.
 
Trim the weeds, and focus on areas that are the strongest!

Love the ignorance here. So many former Cakewalkers found a similar program called Cubase.  You can google it for the truth.  A notation program is more for publishing.  For some complex stuff people who read the dots still need to view what they are writing.  Film composers rarely use Studio One or Live.
 
 Reaper was great without a staff view but they decided to add it.
 
  

Leadfoot
I believe Hendrix experimented with them as well.

When Van Halen last toured do you think they lugged around a synth just for Jump. It was a loop.

abacab
 
By your circular logic, you will end up right back where you started from if you were to include everything you just mentioned..  The only other option instead may be to abandon 'Mixing, Arranging, Sequencing and recording' as its primary mission. That will surely upset the old timers (like me).  But I fail to see how 'doing it all' can be a successful business model.  There must be difficult choices ahead.
 
None of these suggestions 'suits my needs', whatever that is supposed to mean.  I already use several tools, and am not invested in one size fits all solutions.  Merely looking at this as a way for Sonar to survive market forces and avoid the potential for failure again if it doesn't seize the attention of the next generation.  It will have to change to be successful, no matter how good, bad, or ugly that becomes...

It's only circular logic if you think that's why it failed the first time. I don't believe that was the reason it failed. 
 
I don't think that we need to abandon anything really. The development of 'Mixing, Arranging, Sequencing and recording' has kind of leveled off with features, it's just about improving workflow, ease of use and stability.
 
I don't much demand for changes in the sequencing and arranging, ripple editing was the last big change. recording options look good a flexible. And the mixer had Aux tracks. Some options with having tracks and busses in their old folder instead of busses all together in the console view, some more flexible FX routing for parallel and multiband processing . But really I don't see any major changes needed to be up their with the other DAws as it is.
 
But I don't striping it back as appealing to the next generation, just the opposite. Matrix view paprticualry could be something to draw to the next generatio.
 
Staff veiw can't have been a case of spreading themsleves too thinly, as they didn't do anything on it for 10 year and is a function that ore dates Sonar in the Cakewalk days. It's a great tool in arranging and sequencing so only makes thoese too areas more competitive, not less. And being they have agreed a plan with Overture's developer to fix it, it seems a no brainer to me to dothat and appeal to, those who can read (translate), those who want to arrange Orachestral music, the Education Sector and those that have been asking for it to be developed for the last ten years.
 
Sorry if the 'suits your needs' comment came of as snide, it wasn't my intention. I just meant if the stuff you saw as needing to be trimmed back was not stuff you used.