Nothing about Cakewalk?

Cakewalk is more complex the Finale and Sibelius togather......I see you haven't got any assistance for it.

If ever you need a guy to answer cakewalk questions, just let me know....I know that program so well I could draw a map of it.

See ya

I use CakeWalk Pro Audio 9 myself. Adobe Audition is MUCH better though.

As for Finale and Sibelius, they're completetely different. Cakewalk is a sequencer whereas the others are specifically made as notation programs for making professional and accurate sheet music, not MIDI editing.

I am assuming that the reason Cakewalk is not mentioned here is because it is not a professional notation program. That would be Finale and Sibelius. Cakewalk on the other hand is much like all the other multi track editors out there.

How does it work, then, if its not a notation software?

it has a notation Feature it is not a notation program. that was my point.

well, what I mean is:

what does it have that Finale doesn't?

it is basicly a multi track editor program. Like Cubase, Logic pro and pro tools.

You can record, edit and aply effects to audio. You can also record midi and use native instruments if program supports. In adittion these programs have a notation feature where you can edit score but they are not designed for professional manuscript production.

Something like this..

Well in that case let me ask you this: does Finale have graphic editing of midi efects such as pitch wheel...velocity.....ch aftertch...and all type of controllers?

Not to mention all types of views possible at the same MIDI data in the file, such as Events list, Piano Roll View and other....

And then there is the important feature whoch allows you to record audio data along with MIDI data, real time, simultanious record/play ...and basic audio efects and editing, linking you to Sound Forge on you computer through DirectX.

I don't say Finale hasn't got it's own particular features, but in my way of seeing things, Finale is too automated and notation based, sometimes you can't create the effects you need, as you imagine them...

How's this for a difference?

I use Cakewalk myself and think it's a decent program however -

I do hate what it does with some notation though. For instance, I might modulate to the key of Fminor - but I'm not finding an Ab - only G#'s!

Some of the music I've written that is unfinished, I'll go back and look at it, only to find that the accidentals are all wrong (as above) - this makes it difficult sometimes to analyse what I've done.

Perhaps you know how to remedy this without manually editing each note?

Finale is too automated and notation based, sometimes you can't create the effects you need, as you imagine them...

Don't forget that finale is designed for notation only. It was never about effects and such. The main task of finale is to create a professional looking manuscripts. And which it does perfectly.

Now stop comparing finale with cakewalk its not on the same group.

comparing cakewalk and finale is like comparing an audio recording console to a word processor.

sometimes you can't create the effects you need, as you imagine them...

I know more than anyone else.

sometimes you can't create the effects you need, as you imagine them...

I know more than anyone else.

so far, I've heard very few examples created in sequencers that contained material that could not be replicated from within Finale by a properly notated score. Finale's playback features rely heavily on exact notation, and have evolved tremendously in the last few versions.

P.S. I said "very few" not "none".

comparing cakewalk and finale is like comparing an audio recording console to a word processor.

you know, i agree with you. but with the way people use notation on here. i think you can compare it. people aren't using notation on here for the score. (only a handful few) they're using it to write music. like already said, notation isn't used for the music, it's for the score. but if people are going to use notation as their way of composing, then i can't see what's wrong with comparing sequencer's to notation.

i mean, you can just as well compare notation to sequencers and say how sequencers suck with score output if people are using it to print scores.

I use CakeWalk Pro Audio 9 myself. Adobe Audition is MUCH better though.

As for Finale and Sibelius, they're completetely different. Cakewalk is a sequencer whereas the others are specifically made as notation programs for making professional and accurate sheet music, not MIDI editing.

Marius, I'm not familiar with Adobe Audition, but I thought Adobe Audition is for multitrack audio editing and mixing. You can't input midi with that can you?

so far, I've heard very few examples created in sequencers that contained material that could not be replicated from within Finale by a properly notated score. Finale's playback features rely heavily on exact notation, and have evolved tremendously in the last few versions.

P.S. I said "very few" not "none".

You may be right, but only to a certain extent. Sequencers are capable of fining the details. While Finale does have a playback that matches the notation, it has limits.

It's the "very few" that makes the comparable difference. It's for that reason I choose sequencers over notation.

Try reinstalling your program......my cakewalk never did such things as you explaind...

And also be sure that the channels don't mix....it could disturbe accidentals...

Try creaing accidental by holding right-click while adding a note...

How to remedy:

Spot the notes that are wrong....and right'click them and check the note (for example F 5).

Select the entire track (or the portion you want to mass change)

Go to menu EDIT and SELECT and BY FILTER...

Uncheck everyother feature except for NOTES

Don't modify anything but the two slots where you enter notes such as above.

Insert in both of them the same note that's bothering you (note that the two slots represent the range - ex: from D3 to G7)

Click OK ...the program will now select all the notes within the specified range (when you enter the same note in both slots, the program will select only the notes of the height that you specified).

Now go to EDIT and TRANSPOSE....

Enter the number of semitones (when the small feature below is unchecked) that you want the program to shift (up or down) the selected notes (in this case, the filter-selected notes).

Now you have correct all the notes of the type you entered in the slots of the filter selection.

Do the same with other notes.

you know, i agree with you. but with the way people use notation on here. i think you can compare it. people aren't using notation on here for the score. (only a handful few) they're using it to write music. like already said, notation isn't used for the music, it's for the score. but if people are going to use notation as their way of composing, then i can't see what's wrong with comparing sequencer's to notation.

if you care to, check out any recordings of my works in the major works forum.

tell me what you think and try to guess how much of the work was done in Finale and which parts and how much in a sequencer.

I'd be curious to know how much of it you can spot.

if you care to, check out any recordings of my works in the major works forum.

tell me what you think and try to guess how much of the work was done in Finale and which parts and how much in a sequencer.

I'd be curious to know how much of it you can spot.

I'll be honest with you. With the way it's sounding, I can't hear any sequencer at all. (At least in the two parts of the symphonies) Maybe you did, then in that case you're not using the sequencer to its full potential. It just still sounds too artificial. (the work is pretty good though)

And also. I don't see your point. First you're saying that sequencers and notation are two different things. Now you're trying to make a point about how close notation can get to a sequencer? Unless I'm mistaken, aren't you contradicting ourself? I'm in no way trying to flame anything here. I'm just a little lost with your reply.

Hey qccowboy

I just heard your symphony from the Major Works Section, I'm pretty sure it's all Finale. If you mean using the sequencer by simply importing the midi from Finale, then sure, you used sequencer. But for a sequencer, that's pretty bad in terms of sound production. I'm going to venture a guess that it's GPO from Finale...

Hey qccowboy

I just heard your symphony from the Major Works Section, I'm pretty sure it's all Finale. If you mean using the sequencer by simply importing the midi from Finale, then sure, you used sequencer. But for a sequencer, that's pretty bad in terms of sound production. I'm going to venture a guess that it's GPO from Finale...

you're funny "pretty bad in terms of sound production".

well, let's just say you're obviously considerably pickier than I am.

I'm curious to hear one of your recordings.

no, it's entirely Finale.

no sequencer at all.

the point is that Finale can render all the dynamics that any sequencer can render.

as long as the score is carefully notated.

the point is that Finale can render all the dynamics that any sequencer can render.

as long as the score is carefully notated.

That's also the point I'm not convinced about. And like what beefybeef said, you suggested that sequencers and notation software can't be compared. But now you claim that Finale can render all the dynames that any sequencer can render. As well as claiming that there are a few things that sequencer can do that Finale can't in a previous point, now you contradict yourself again. I know, I'm a stickler.

I'm not going to be the "die-hard" sequencer user ranting about how I bow to it everyday. It's true that Finale makes great notations... and as far as I can see, for the general musically-talented population, Finale is the better choice. But Finale is only better for acoustic instruments. And yes, I've heard music that is semi-realistic with just Finale and GPO. But again, there's that limit.

Here's a search where you can listen to some of my stuff. Some of them may be outdated.

My Posts

Or you can check some at

http://www.soundclick.com/paulchen

That's also the point I'm not convinced about. And like what beefybeef said, you suggested that sequencers and notation software can't be compared. But now you claim that Finale can render all the dynames that any sequencer can render. As well as claiming that there are a few things that sequencer can do that Finale can't in a previous point, now you contradict yourself again. I know, I'm a stickler.

you're right, I let myself get caught up in two different discussions on two different forums, and got the points confused.

I think Finale is becoming a very viable alternative to exporting MIDI from a notation programme to a sequencer for playback.

I don't feel the need to get a more realistic demo than the one I get right now from Finale. My "final product" is not that recording. It serves as a demo, and nothing more. So I guess that to me, a convincing demo from my notation programme is all I need. And that is exactly what I'm getting from Finale: professional notation, and a more than servicable demo recording.

If your final product is the recording you wil be rendering from your computer, then yes, a sequencer will give a better result, since it can affect changes to various MIDI controllers in an easier way than from within a notation programme.

I'd like to point out that Finale's MIDI tool is surprisingly flexible and powerful at this time. If your notation does not need to be perfect, and you want to take the time, Finale is surprisingly capable, in the right hands, of rendering a realistic demo. Of course the important thing is "if you have the time"... since it's more tedious than from within a sequencer.

As a teacher, however, I can't say I'm terribly fond of students who work from sequencers. I find that it often gets in the way of learning the actual craft of composition. But that's just my opinion.

I don't feel the need to get a more realistic demo than the one I get right now from Finale. My "final product" is not that recording. It serves as a demo, and nothing more. So I guess that to me, a convincing demo from my notation programme is all I need. And that is exactly what I'm getting from Finale: professional notation, and a more than servicable demo recording.

If your final product is the recording you wil be rendering from your computer, then yes, a sequencer will give a better result, since it can affect changes to various MIDI controllers in an easier way than from within a notation programme.

And this is the key point at which the sequencer and notation software advocates have their split. I for one compose solely for live performance; any MIDI file that I produce is a crude demo only. I simply do not see the point of composing for the computer, because no sequencer, no matter how expertly used and no matter where the samples come from, can equal real instruments.

And this is the key point at which the sequencer and notation software advocates have their split. I for one compose solely for live performance; any MIDI file that I produce is a crude demo only. I simply do not see the point of composing for the computer, because no sequencer, no matter how expertly used and no matter where the samples come from, can equal real instruments.

I agree with you, under normal circumstances.

however, I'd like to bring out a sad point:

More and more, performing groups are requiring "good" demos of works being presented to them.

As a matter of fact, I've been told unequivocally by a number of performers/conductors in the field that "bad demos get tossed right away".

The score has to be perfect... and the recording can't have those annoying MIDI sounds from your PC's soundcard. So creating a decent sounding demo is worth the extra money, time and effort.

Of course, personally, I draw the line at needing to export a MIDI file to another programme, then spending hours and hours tweaking the playback so that it sounds absolutely perfectly real (which it never will).

however, I'd like to bring out a sad point:

More and more, performing groups are requiring "good" demos of works being presented to them.

As a matter of fact, I've been told unequivocally by a number of performers/conductors in the field that "bad demos get tossed right away".

That's true. Tossing bad demos away isn't right. But I don't think there's anything wrong with asking for good demos. See. A score can be interpreted differently by different players. I mean, how loud is mf or mp? How slow do you want with that retardando? The performers simply wants to play your work exactly the way you want it to be played when they ask for good recordings. Of course, you can probably stand by the performers during practice and guide them through as an alternative. But I'm just saying I think asking for good demos is in best interest for the composer, not so much because the performers want to hear something nice.

That's just my take. You're the teacher. I don't know. Maybe that's not how it works.