Jump to content
Noel Borthwick

Nice article on Cakewalk and BandLab

Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, Starship Krupa said:

One thing I can say is that I've never met anyone in person who will admit to being one, so either they don't go out and interact with people IRL very much or they lie about doing it!

Yep! ^^^^

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The article is nice enough as far as being favorable in tone, but as far as grammar errors and content, it reads as if it were written by a high school sophomore, right down to the first 25% of it being lifted almost word-for-word from Wikipedia articles.

I know that because I've been going through the Wikipedia articles on Cakewalk, Cakewalk Inc. and SONAR the past couple of months and doing my best to clean up some big messes. They're still ugly, but you should have seen them before I got there. Out of order timelines, random facts stuck in willy-nilly, not to mention plain falsehoods.

The most tragic was that someone had trashed the page for the original Cakewalk sequencer by conflating it with Cakewalk by BandLab. The page was originally pretty good compared to the other pages associated with Cakewalk, like the clustercuss that was and is the page for SONAR, but someone had gone in and apparently without reading the page first had deleted large chunks and edited it to indicate that BandLab had bought it and was now developing it. It was as if they were not familiar with SONAR or had not bothered to search for the page on SONAR that already had the information.

CbB deserves its own Wikipedia entry, but I'm too busy to start one myself. The entry on SONAR is not a useful starting point. It's an example of how not to write a Wikipedia article about software, IMO.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Starship Krupa said:

The most tragic was that someone had trashed the page for the original Cakewalk sequencer by conflating it with Cakewalk by BandLab.

What a shame. There must be someone who was there and knows the early history. The original MIDI sequencer is part of music/tech history. As a guitar player I wasn't there at the beginning (MIDI 😈) but I hope the story can be reconstituted, and not lost.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, it wasn't all that. What you see there is pretty much how it was before the overexcited editors got to it. If you are a registered Wikipedia editor you can go back and see what the edits were and who did them, so I just sort of regressed it.

There's an issue with Wikipedia in that it likes references in the form of other publications, so there would ideally be an interview to refer to. I mean, anyone can theoretically write anything they wish, which has resulted in problems with articles on controversial topics such as biographies of politicians and other public figures, but outside citations are preferred.

Oddly enough, at one point at least it was  apparently considered taboo for someone to edit a page about themselves, so  I guess if Mike Nesmith goes into the studio to do some remastering of the First National Band records, he should have one of his fans add that to his Wikipedia page if he wants it on there.

On behalf of CbB, I have been going around to the different pages that list DAW's and substituting Cakewalk by BandLab for SONAR where appropriate, or adding it where it's been missing from the lists, and also updating things like file formats that it can handle (which was way out of date) and support for ARA2. Our favorite DAW is now looking more favorable in the comparison tables on Wikipedia.

Still, there's no main page for Cakewalk by BandLab. I'm looking forward to outlining the "free subscription" licensing model. 😊

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Starship Krupa said:

Oh, it wasn't all that.

I misunderstood. I thought you were saying the original (accurate) info had been deleted and was irretrievable. As a "registered Wikipedia editor" maybe some day you'll find a use for this interview that I stumbled on recently. A Computer Music article from the SONAR 1 era, and even then they were feeling inferior about the size of their user base compared to "the big German software program."  Note the byline. I thought I'd find a lot of contemporaneous stuff written about Cakewalk/Twelve Tone, but there's not much out there.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Registered Wikipedia editor." It's kind of like being a registered sax offender. 🤣

Hey, you or anyone else could add on to the article, I'm probably one of the least knowledgeable people on here to be doing it. You're a good writer, so I encourage you to take a swipe. I see a @Jim Roseberry byline, maybe he could do a spot of Wikipedia editing in the interest of historical accuracy.

While you're at it, put in a paragraph or two in the articles for Los Angeles talking about your role (I'm not worthy!). Seriously, X fans would be fascinated.

Not too long ago I added a link to "Gaslighting" in the See Also section of the entry on Steve Jobs' "Reality Distortion Field" in front of a friend of mine and he was astonished that I could change Wikipedia just like that. 😲 He's a vintage drum enthusiast, along with having other interests, and would make a good Wikipedia editor himself. I told him, just click on the word "edit," and boom, you're editing Wikipedia. You don't even have to register, but it has its benefits.

It's easier to make changes "stick" if you have a history of making changes that have been reviewed and have been allowed to stand in the past, so that the people who do the reviewing know that you're not prone to vandalism. My rep is solid, so my edits don't get flagged for immediate review. I clean up vandalism and fix other people's spelling and grammatical errors, so I'm a "good guy."

Edited by Starship Krupa

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/6/2019 at 12:56 AM, Bill Ruys said:

Are you sure about that?  I note that nearly all of the new features that users are going nuts about in the Studio One 4.5 update have been in Sonar for YEARS.  I had to chuckle as I watched the videos on youtube touting the wonderful new features.  And in case you think I'm biased, I own a fully paid-up license for Studio One 4.x

The DAW market is a lot bigger than Studio One, though, last I checked...

So yea, I'm extremely sure about that.

I don't use Studio One, as the paged workflow in software like it and DaVinci Resolve isn't really my cup of tea.  However, I may buy an AudioBox 96 interface; to use on the go with my Laptop, and test out the Artist version to give it a relatively lengthy trial, soon.

Edited by SomeGuy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Starship Krupa said:

Never could understand why a person would expend so much time cutting on something  they have no intention of using or don't like. Just go have fun doing whatever it is you like to do, unless it's DAW bashing lol.

Interesting take on it...  Considering I see a lot of bashing of other DAWs when they are mentioned... or, at least... passive-aggressiveness towards them.

Improvements require criticism, otherwise you don't expose the weaknesses in a solution.  It feels good for everyone to be "happy go lucky" about your choice platform, but that isn't really the way the major improvements happen.  They happen via bug reports, feature requests, and... yes... disgruntled users speaking up.  Even if it makes you uncomfortable - though the fact that it's [now] free does empower those who don't want to hear those criticisms... in blatantly obvious ways 😉  (Users are no longer entitled to anything, per se.)

Also, how do you know what someone uses, what they have used, or what they intend to use?  Maybe they want to use it, but it is lacking in areas that are important to them.  If they don't use Cakewalk by BandLab, I'd assume the WHY in that situation would be some pretty useful information to know...  Shrugging it off as "requests for stuff that can lead to feature bloat" seems a bit dismissive, IMHO.

I have not bashed anything in this thread.  Not even sure why you're using such harsh terms to describe dialog that you don't want to contend with on a web forum.

Edited by SomeGuy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please edit your post to remove or correct the false quote attribution.

Yes, improvements do require criticism, and I am glad that I experience this new forum as being much more welcoming of comments and viewpoints critical of the software than the old one was. If you look at any of the prominent threads centered around people with grievances, you'll see that "dissenting" voices were anything but silenced, rather the lead developer himself usually drops into the more contentious threads to see if he and the other developers can collect data that can help them fix any

1 hour ago, SomeGuy said:

Also, how do you know what someone uses, what they have used, or what they intend to use?  Maybe they want to use it, but it is lacking in areas that are important to them.  If they don't use Cakewalk by BandLab, I'd assume the WHY in that situation would be some pretty useful information to know.... 

 That's a very good question, and I'm sure you'll be delighted to know that there's a very good answer.

There's a section of this official forum for feature requests and other ideas called The Feedback Loop, and it currently has over 1,200 messages. I've posted in it, and so have others, and oftimes these feature requests come with attribution as to what other program has this feature. So you're right, and it's already happening.

It would be great if you'd take whatever constructive suggestions for Cakewalk you have to The Feedback Loop and post them there so that all may benefit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Starship Krupa said:

Please edit your post to remove or correct the false quote attribution.

Yes, improvements do require criticism, and I am glad that I experience this new forum as being much more welcoming of comments and viewpoints critical of the software than the old one was. If you look at any of the prominent threads centered around people with grievances, you'll see that "dissenting" voices were anything but silenced, rather the lead developer himself usually drops into the more contentious threads to see if he and the other developers can collect data that can help them fix any

 That's a very good question, and I'm sure you'll be delighted to know that there's a very good answer.

There's a section of this official forum for feature requests and other ideas called The Feedback Loop, and it currently has over 1,200 messages. I've posted in it, and so have others, and oftimes these feature requests come with attribution as to what other program has this feature. So you're right, and it's already happening.

It would be great if you'd take whatever constructive suggestions for Cakewalk you have to The Feedback Loop and post them there so that all may benefit.

My response was to a specific statement made in this thread.  The question was rhetorical.  The answer was clearly implied...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Starship Krupa said:

...I encourage you to take a swipe.

I wouldn't presume to edit anything. I can barely remember what I was doing 35 years ago, much less what Cakewalk was up to.

I also don't recall saying anything here about my involvement with X. Last time I saw Exene she was reciting poetry at a coffee house a mile from my home. She looked right through me, so who knows? Maybe I wasn't involved. So much for the band being thrilled. 😎

In any case I'm more comfortable encouraging you to do the hard work. Then I will make a few smart remarks. In this way I have wasted most of my life.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been using Cakewalk since the first release if Cakewalk tor Windows.

I was previously an alpha/beta participant with Texture by Roger Powell back in DOS days and the first releases of Windows, but by Windows 3 I needed a windows based sequencer. Cakewalk was and is the best!

I have had every release and update since then!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd like to add a comment on that site, but I'm not sure if what I would write is true anymore.  Can somebody let me know on the following?

1) Was not Sonar the first DAW to be able to be used on dual monitors, i.e. free to move components to the other monitor outside the main program window?

2) Do all DAWs now have dual monitor capability?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I used to keep altering a misleading Wiki page which left out a very key event in a certain Victorian's life, and someone kept altering it back to suppress the facts.  We played ping pong for a while then I gave up.  I'm sure the other party was a descendant of the Victorian person in the entry who wished to whitewash their legacy.  An example of how and why Wiki can be abused and be unreliable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, SomeGuy said:

The question was rhetorical.  The answer was clearly implied.

You were asking a question you knew the answer to and posting the answer to it at the same time. You're too darn sharp for me. I bet I didn't even get the answer right!

I do wish you'd take my name off that statement, 'cause it looks like I said something  negative about you personally and I do not wish to do that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Toddskins said:

1) Was not Sonar the first DAW to be able to be used on dual monitors, i.e. free to move components to the other monitor outside the main program window?

2) Do all DAWs now have dual monitor capability?

I believe you are correct. I can also say that when I saw the list of new features for SO4 I was like, CW has had all of that for years!

CW was the first to have lots of features that other DAWs are just now getting around to adding.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Grem said:

CW was the first to have lots of features that other DAWs are just now getting around to adding.

And with CbB working on stability foremost it keeps getting better and better. Keep up the good work Cakewalk Team!

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, InstrEd said:

And with CbB working on stability foremost it keeps getting better and better. Keep up the good work Cakewalk Team!

 Yep. They are already ahead of the pack as far as future features. Just get it rock solid and Bammm!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/8/2019 at 6:41 AM, SomeGuy said:

Interesting take on it...  Considering I see a lot of bashing of other DAWs when they are mentioned... or, at least... passive-aggressiveness towards them.

Improvements require criticism, otherwise you don't expose the weaknesses in a solution.  It feels good for everyone to be "happy go lucky" about your choice platform, but that isn't really the way the major improvements happen.  They happen via bug reports, feature requests, and... yes... disgruntled users speaking up.  Even if it makes you uncomfortable - though the fact that it's [now] free does empower those who don't want to hear those criticisms... in blatantly obvious ways 😉  (Users are no longer entitled to anything, per se.)

Also, how do you know what someone uses, what they have used, or what they intend to use?  Maybe they want to use it, but it is lacking in areas that are important to them.  If they don't use Cakewalk by BandLab, I'd assume the WHY in that situation would be some pretty useful information to know...  Shrugging it off as "requests for stuff that can lead to feature bloat" seems a bit dismissive, IMHO.

I have not bashed anything in this thread.  Not even sure why you're using such harsh terms to describe dialog that you don't want to contend with on a web forum.

Please edit your post to reflect the true author of the quote address. 

  On 6/7/2019 at 10:37 AM, Starship Krupa said:

Never could understand why a person would expend so much time cutting on something  they have no intention of using or don't like. Just go have fun doing whatever it is you like to do, unless it's DAW bashing lol.

Starship Krupa never said this. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...