Like I said, the idea of a VSL DAW occured to me having observed how they had already developed most of the individual components.

The notation aspect was an after-thought (soon after mind you), and that came through the Notion SLE example, which did its job using relatively few computer resources. Realistic-as-possible playback during the composition/orchestration phase - a crutch I agree, ears should be enough - would save a lot of time not only because of fidelity, but also because a lot of the work that would be done during this first phase, would not need to be re-done/un-done during the MIDI/mixing phase. For me, interesting only if it is to be fully featured, maybe not with some of the publishing elements of Sibelius/Finale, but certainly armed with all the sophisticated composition tools and plug-ins. Many of us don't just write a railroad track of semi-quavers... XML should take care of most of the problems regarding collaboration, although I feel that should VSL take that road most porfessionals will follow suit, nullifying that problem for the most part.

Finally, when I posted that thread, foremost in my mind was integration. The more things under one hood, the better.

@Another User said:

foremost in my mind was integration. The more things under one hood, the better.

Notation editing with automatic integration and better integration for playback with VSL is what I think users want. Notion really succeeded here in many ways but it still wasn't integrated enough. Notion4 or 5 probably would have been... but that won't happen now. Being that they've abandoned development, I guess I was wrong about something you said.

You've mentioned VSL buying another notation program and I've typically dismissed it because I had Sibelius stuck in my mind and I figure AVID isn't selling it anytime soon. Also that it would be a lot of money for VSL to spend. But now that I'm looking at this again... with Notion leaving this platform... maybe it's not such an unlikely idea. Like you've said, VSL has most of the DAW built... simply add sequencing, a piano roll, and hopefully a full notation editor (I agree, fully featured at bare minimum with the compositional features)... plus Notion really is a piano-roll / notation / midi automation -hybrid anyway- which is why it served this crowd.

Although I still feel that VSL buying Notion is a bit of a dream that won't happen... I'd at least suggest to VSL that I'd buy such a thing without hesitation.

-Sean

@DG said:

As to whether or not VSL should develop their own notation program for use with their samples, all I can say is that I wouldn't use it, as it would be unlikely to as feature rich as Sibelius, using it would make my work incompatible with other composers/orchestrators who don't use VSL, and I have other things in my template than VSL.

With my previous comment, I forgot to mention that I had your statement in mind. If VSL either implemented something like Notion or actually bought Notion... then it could easily serve non-VSL libraries... as well as full integration with VSL... Notion's already built the platform for it too.

Plus, some of the extra features we mentioned earlier in this thread and in the 'Sibelius 7' thread could also be easily added at that point. I'm sure a lot more VSL-complimenting and/or time-saving features could be added if such a thing were to happen. hmm... [^o)]

-Sean

@Errikos said:

Like I said, the idea of a VSL DAW occured to me having observed how they had already developed most of the individual components.

It may be that notation-reliant people are not familiar enough with a real DAW to know any better. I require things of Cubase I would honestly imagine required serious coding time and design, the intricacies of its tempo track editor alone is no small matter. There are differences between SX3 and C4 in this one aspect that were not trivial.

I don't believe that channel strips from soft instrument plugins in a mixer paradigm is 'most of the components of' any DAW I would remotely be interested in. I don't think I'm any outlier in what I require. The people that use only VSL are the outlier for the DAW world. What demand there is for combining a more-useful-than-notation sequencer paradigm with a notation program is very likely reflected in Notion's sales. 

I wouldn't guess there is any market for VSL to justify any outlay towards R&D, let alone support for such an idea. I haven't noticed anyone from VSL showing any interest in this. I wouldn't get my hopes up here.

Civilization 3, you made two points I'll address:

1) The demand for notation/sequencing hybrid is reflected in Notion sales.

I disagree. If there was a DAW that kept notation and performance separate, similar to Notion in having a score in one hand, and a fine-tuned performance in another- and the notation was similar to what we are asking in it's integration with a sample library (more than Notion SLE, but how we've described)... then I think there would be more interest. Notion is a hybrid... but I didn't buy it and I'm all for the idea. I just don't think they did enough integration and enough work on making their hybrid style system into what people really want from the idea. I know other users online and in person that didn't go with Notion for that exact reason.

2) That VSL can't justify supporting such features, because of a lack of interest.

How many in the digital music world want notation composing with good sound? Count everyone in the Sibelius, Finale, Notion, VSL, EW, crowds, and more... who have tried to get both sides working together. How good Sibelius sounds are is a big deal to Sibelius users. How VSL works with Sibelius is certainly important to a respectable number of the VSL user-base. Maybe not the majority... but maybe because it simply hasn't been implemented very well so far

Consider this... When you write for a cello, you don't hand a cellist a piano-roll style print out of the score. You give them notation, why? It's the standard and what we are all most familiar with. So why would a digital cello be any different? Because notation doesn't serve performance in the way that computers will process and play it back to you. A piano roll is much more specific but less readable to people. Notation is more general and readable, but to strict to instruct a computer for good playback.

So I have two points 1) Can playback improve for the notation world? Yes, of course! It badly needs it. 2) If you could easily get the right cello performance out of notation, would you need the piano roll anymore? No. You wouldn't. Different users use notation, piano rolls, midi controllers, etc. But notation has suffered the worst in playback ability because of the nature of computers and how they only do what you tell them to do on a very basic level, etc. Why should this be of interest to VSL? Because VSL is an orchestral library. VSL would probably rather Sibelius get playback working in a VSL-friendly way... but as it is still far behind... users who prefer notation suffer from it. How many orchestral composers want notation? How many users do sample libraries loose because of their complexity and more 'sequencer-daw attitude'?

In the end, only VSL can really decide if it's in their interest... as I've stated on here. But pointing out the benefits and additional feature ideas to help this conceptual editor is certainly more than dreaming, it has it's productive benefits... If VSL does it... great! If they don't, then we've at least established a conversation online where VSL may reference later, or others may reference or find ideas that may still serve this purpose (in one way or another). So in the end, there is still a point in making certain problems and desired features aware. The more people talk about what they want from a product, the better... whether VSL develops it, or even if another hobbiest finds a way to help VSL users through other means or ideas. It's definately worth talking about. And the more users that chime in with their support... perhaps it will get attention.

And this isn't strictly a notation thread. I've just been replying frequently with Errikos about notation. You mentioned the Tempo track in Cubase. I wouldn't think that it's the most code-heavy feature of Cubase. (maybe I'm wrong, lol) VE really does have a lot of DAW features already. It has plenty of non-traditional DAW features also, that primarily only serve VSL users. Are there sequencing and editor features (both notation and otherwise) that could improve for VSL users alone? You bet!

-Sean

Not to mention how many sequencers/DAWs are offered for free on the Internet or very cheaply. I don't pretend to understand the intricacies of the necessary programming, but it seems to me that VSL has already developed the more demanding and expensive aspects of a DAW, and don't forget, a VSL DAW doesn't have to include those features that are necessary in pop music; it will be a symphonist's sequencer, not a ProTools competitor.

@Errikos said:

VSL has already developed the more demanding and expensive aspects of a DAW, and don't forget, a VSL DAW doesn't have to include those features that are necessary in pop music; it will be a symphonist's sequencer, not a ProTools competitor.

Well said!

 I don't know if the notation software would be a viable option for VSL.   It takes years and a lot of efforts to perfect and provide feature-rich software like Sibelius.   It's hard to compete with Sibelius unless VSL can come up with something that is sufficiently better.   Looking around,  it looks like Avid/Sibelius is the only company right now that has the technologies for this type of integrations (Notation, DAW, sample libraries).  So far, Sibelius have concentrated more on the notation/engraving side.   However, with Sibelius 7 they start providing their own sample libraries which is a baby step (maybe to avoid royalty) but they can get sophisticated quickly if they need to.   The danger of Sibelius providing their own sample libraries is that the integration for other third-party libraries can become a second thought.

I would suspect that the thrust of Sibelius' marketing has been to provide one stop shopping to education. I would not expect, even with their integration with Pro Tools, that aim has changed. So I would not expect to get a product from Avid that would be integrated enough to suit professional composers but rather it will provide a "good enough" package for educational institutions. After all they will follow the money, just as Notion has with the iPad development. Remember these are the folks who want $25 for a customer service call.

@Errikos said:

VSL has already developed the more demanding and expensive aspects of a DAW, and don't forget, a VSL DAW doesn't have to include those features that are necessary in pop music; it will be a symphonist's sequencer, not a ProTools competitor.

Well said!

In his thread there are those who think that a VSL DAW and/or notation editor would be useful, and others that don't. Put it this way:

My VSL-DAW argument:

Could a VSL-DAW include features that would serve VSL users in ways that currently aren't possible with 3rd party DAW's? Is it possible certain feature concepts are only achievable through VSL, or at least best achievable through VSL? I believe the answer to that is an obvious, all-around yes. If there are features out there to be had, then that should always be a goal. Whether the goal is met or not is simply the $$$ - If enough people show interest to VSL, then there you have it.

My Notation argument:

If VSL users could have features that would serve us better, then it's definately a goal. Then it's up to VSL to determine whether it's an option or not. If VSL did in fact build a DAW (whether into VE or not), then the next question is 'what features are essential to making it a VSL-tailored DAW?' - The examples mentioned earlier are all relevant to that question, but once I again I think notation is as well. Does notation benefit the DAW world? If it didn't, other general purpose DAW's wouldn't have it; therefore the answer is yes. Would you expect an orchestral-focued DAW to have a notation editor? I certainly would, without any doubt.

The point? If you're going to make a VSL daw, notation would practically be required. Think I'm wrong? There are certainly plenty of VSL users who's start pestering VSL until they did it. lol. Whether it needs to be as flexible as Sibelius or just above other DAW offerings is entirely up to VSL (assuming they made a DAW)... but if they did make a DAW, I think notation would happen in the long run, if not from the start. If they did, I'd want some of the features I mentioned earlier.

-Sean

@civilization 3 said:

I don't write pop music. I require demanding aspects of a DAW such as the ability to do things with the tempo, the timeline (such as to get the performance together and then conform or warp a grid to fit that rather than the other way around such as a notation bound person would have it, which is a cart to pull the horse), which VSL, having never made a sequencer at all has surely not developed. Given that it wasn't until Cubase 4 that the tempo track as it is today was developed at all, I do not have any notion that it is the cheaper part of the package to develop and it isn't a negligible consideration. I do not know what is a 'symphonist's sequencer'. I think it is made of straw same as your pop musician and her needs. It seems like a very insular notion out of an insular and to be frank ignorant world view.

My wanting a VSL-tailored DAW does not equate to an "insular and ignorant world view" [:'(] If all software was developed with guitarists in mind, how would a pianist fare using such software? Look, I mean this in the friendliest way you can take it; but if someone ignores the needs of other users, simply because they don't have the same need- that practically defines ignorance.

Onto productive discussion- A tempo editor is hardly a programming masterpeice. I know college students who aren't even the best programmers who could easily mimic the Cubase temp editor. I'm not discounting the work it would take, programming, support, testing, etc. but that's not a demanding aspect of a DAW, imo anyway.

How would a timeline-warping feature benefit an orchestral-oriented DAW? I'm not saying it couldn't, I just don't see how it would. Ultimately, if VSL made this DAW a reality, it certainly wouldn't negate the use of other DAW's for some people. I still own a copy of Cubase and have all it's great features. I'd just prefer to be using a VSL-tailored DAW, which imo is not an unreasonable request. Unlikely? Maybe, ask VSL. Unreasonable? Absolutely not. [8-|]

-Sean

BTW,  I don't think you can reasonably infer that VSL has built the lion's share of a Notation DAW. What they have built is a midi extention cord with VST plugs and sockets, a midi driven rompler and, of course, great sample libraries. There is not even a hint of sequencer engine or Notation-to-midi-event translation or graphics-to-print interface in VSL's portfolio.

@dshertz said:

I would suspect that the thrust of Sibelius' marketing has been to provide one stop shopping to education. I would not expect, even with their integration with Pro Tools, that aim has changed. So I would not expect to get a product from Avid that would be integrated enough to suit professional composers but rather it will provide a "good enough" package for educational institutions. After all they will follow the money, just as Notion has with the iPad development. Remember these are the folks who want $25 for a customer service call.

I somewhat agree with you.   Sibelius would like the students to use its software as early as possible because most people will stay with the software unless they have a very compelling reason to switch.   Avid/Sibelius have the technogies but it doesn't mean they are going to do anything anytime soon.   Which notation software are you using now for composing?

@Errikos said:

VSL has already developed the more demanding and expensive aspects of a DAW, and don't forget, a VSL DAW doesn't have to include those features that are necessary in pop music; it will be a symphonist's sequencer, not a ProTools competitor.

Well said!

Hi there Gianna!

You have a strong straw-fetish, don't you? Everything other people think is made out of straw for you isn't it? It could never be the product of erudition and intelligent deliberation. Time and time again you have superciliously referred to my insularity and ignorance in so many things musical, that you've made me think I haven't even been born yet. You have been nothing but contemptuous of any standard or value I hold high, summarily dismissing Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, Wagner, and "all that scene..." - they all wrote puerile melodies, you've called Williams a fraud and Zimmer innovative, you have compared Bruckner's musicianship (unfavourably!) to that of a street-corner rhythm-soloist's - something I might have entertained if I believed you'd ever actually heard one bar of Bruckner's music - and worst of all, you thought that a composition would still be yours even if half the material had been imported and merely re-ordered and collated by you. On this occasion, my understanding of what a 'symphonist's sequencer' should be, is a straw construct of an insular and frankly ignorant man... I mean, what would a symphonist ever do with the tempo track?..... All the accelerandi and ritartandi happen magically, all by themselves..... Also, what would a symphonist do with the ability to warp the grid to fit? A symphonist never writes for anything other than for orchestra; he never writes for solo instruments or duets or trios..... A symphonist is strictly "notation bound"; he would never dream of possessing skill enough to play in a part and conform the grid to that part, would he now?..... And where did I say that these features were unecessary to a symphonist exactly?....

I also have been dismissive of other people's tastes and musical knowledge here (especially yours), sometimes in a rather powerful manner. The difference is, I remember making cogent arguments and offering a lot of examples of what I considered artful and worthy, for two reasons: a) To provide an opportunity for comparison, b) to create a basis for discussion. You insist on just brushing everything off with a wave of your regal hand, but never have you sought to educate, to elucidate, to even justify your dismissals. Either leave me to rot inside my Platonic cave (Plato to you must be another funny straw man with little or no understanding on anything at all, isn't he?), or enlighten me with your superior understanding. Show me what great music really is, I've been waiting for years now for those profound celestial melodies that will make me forget Mozart, Schubert, Tchaikovsky, and Puccini instantly, those rhythms that will shame me for ever having studied Beethoven, Scriabin, Stravinsky, Bartok, Prokofiev, Messiaen, etc. Please Mistress, don't leave me here, I'm ready to receive your Wisdom now...

@dshertz: How many sequencers are available free on the Internet or through the purchase of a magazine? It seems to me that more than the lion's share has already been developed here. Plus, why this insistense on Sibelius (or Finale for that matter)? There are other companies/individuals that might be interested in combining forces with VSL. Score for example - now dead - was considered a titan notator in my day - excreting on both Sibelius and Finale in their erstwhile respective versions. I mean there are many solutions; VSL may choose to reincarnate a program like that. Anyway, if there's a will, there are options.

@EP: I'm using Notion and discarded Sibelius 6.2 after a two day trial of Notion SLE.

However I found that when VSL midi tracks are exported from Notion, the midi file contained redundant keyswitch and and CC11 information and would not play properly in Cubase. I wrote code to strip this redundant info out. My test case is Hewig's Theme which went from 402K before stripping to 170K after stripping!  Now files play as well in Cubase as they did in Notion.

I export to Cubase to do the controller editing and final mixing. Composition has always been a two step process. If Notion would just tighten their act a bit, they could be the "VSL DAW".

@Errikos: Your point was VSL has done the lions share of a DAW, my point is that they haven't. Most of the better Open Source sequencers and Notation translations are just that--open source and so are not available to be incorporated as a commercial product. I'm not trying to be a buzzkill here but forgive me if I apply occasional autocorrection to that buzz.

@Errikos said:

The difference is, I remember making cogent arguments and offering a lot of examples of what I considered artful and worthy, for two reasons: a) To provide an opportunity for comparison, b) to create a basis for discussion.

Errikos, I don't know how many times I've said almost that exact same thing to people on this subject. I only usually debate with people in person I know, but no matter what... because it's not the popular view, it's automatically dismissed without any intelligent disussion. Sadly I feel if I'm reading something from plato, I get a more intellectual discussion regarding music than half the people I've ever met. And like Plato I believe that Math, Music, and Philosophy go hand in hand and all merit study. And after reading The Republic, I wonder if he could have only heard Bach, how intellectually stimulating it would have been. Maybe that seems crazy, maybe I'm wrong... but I believe the study of music intellectually is more contrapuntal or more anything else, that most modern music simply abandons. If people like that, fine. I'm not complaining in the slightest. But if I think that something else offers more intellectual stimulation and therefor merits more study, then let me be.. that isn't ignorant, it's a peaceful and intellectual approach to wanting to learn something. Something that how many composers, as you listed, have had similar paradigms about (on some level anyway) for hundereds of years, if not longer.

(Okay, seriously... I just wrote that paragraph and didn't even see your Plato reference until now, lol. I love it!)

Back to being on topic... "If there's a will, there are options" - I have had a hard time simplifying that very point on here. Seriously, all hail master Errikos, the great wordsmith! lol - Now that you've enlightened me, I remember the best quote here... "Where there's a will, there's a way".

Maybe VSL's silence means something is coming? Maybe I'm dreaming, but I'll enjoy my dream while it lasts. Seriously though, I think people would be nuts if they didn't realize that if VSL doesn't address these issues, someone else will. And that has the potential of hurting VSL a little if it happens. In software, VSL is usually ahead of other similar market offerings; in order to serve VSL users as anything that assists users, saves time, or increases in ability is good. These requests only serve that same telos.

-Sean

Thanks Sean, interesting coincidence regarding Plato; he certainly did have his strong ideas regarding music - as expounded in The Republic, and wasn't shy about them either.

@dshertz: I don't know how much autocorrection you have applied to the general buzz since I don't think you got the point. My uneducated contention is based on logic, instinct, and whatever experience, but as I have never made any money from programming, I don't know the logistics and time needed for such projects. Be that as it may, I feel that VSL shouldn't have that much to invest, at least financially, in order to offer a DAW (perhaps excluding notational facilities). However, when I mentioned the open-source/cheap sequencers, by that I meant that perhaps a sequencer's development does not require untold billions of investment, especially if it is developed for a specific kind of use instead of trying for a more universal application. And VSL already has the sounds, the mixer, and the plug-ins for symphonic composition. If only they can secure a Nobel prizewinner to design Gianna's timeline and grid-warping intangibles, all that remains is the Arrange page and the work that's done there, the Piano-Roll, and the Automation lanes.

Two questions:

Does anyone know of a DAW (excluding pro tools) that has a decent notation editor? or instead...

Does anyone know of a notation editor with more midi capabilities/friendly features than Sibelius? I only of know of notion, which only supports 4 midi channels. I want notation, but in Sibelius I can't do any sort of automation. I like notion's automation abilities and it's sequencerstaff. GREAT features... and I'm not expecting other editors to have those... but I would like an alternative program with more midi channels. That or if anyone knows how I can use Sibelius in a way that would serve the same DAW-like purposes. it would help.

-Sean

@Errikos: Please go to LilyPond's web page and just look at the size of the development team (and notice how they are begging for additional help).

And all LilyPond does is to convert script into printable notation. What I am trying to suggest is the reality of the scope of the effort to develop a Notation/DAW hybrid.