Okay, this discussion is wandering off a bit here and there (not griping, just observing). But to address the original point:

Is Cakewalk going to let Project5 wither on the vine?

I think it’s important to keep in mind that the entire Cake family of products is inter-related. Indeed most people on this thread own a few different “competing” Cakewalk products. I believe (with of course nothing to back it up but my own speculation) that improvements on one front spills over into improvements on another. (Much like life or the earth) you must look at it as one organism; Project5 is but one microbe of a greater whole. Without it Sonar wouldn’t have made the leaps and bounds it has made in terms of MIDI/soft-synths/instruments that it has over the last few versions; Kenetic led to the GrooveMatrix (the real selling point for me with v2 was the ability to record the GrooveMatrix into tracks).

I’m waiting for Cake to augment ReWire with a less clumsy connection between the two products, we Project 5 users get a synth rack on steroids. Or will all the advanced MIDI and matrix and arp functions just be migrated into Sonar, and Project5 will get the 64bit mixing and other audio goodies? Project5 on Mac-Intel? What co-development deals does Cake have in store?

As a user, trying to integrate the software as a tool and/or toy, it’s easy to get rather myopic in our vision. So, even if Project 5 isn’t trying to out-sprint the likes of Live and Reason, it is still part of Cakewalk’s development arsenal. Perhaps it won’t be cost effective to keep boxing and shipping Project5, but nevertheless the code is part of the Cake dev kit. If NI’s soon-to-be-birthed KORE shows us anything it’s that once you have a fair degree of intellectual property in the form of software, it starts becoming modular to put together new software packages. Tell me that isn’t built on the Reaktor & Kontakt engine(s). I find it a little hard to believe Project 5 will go away completely.

And, even if it does, remember there are still 100s (1000s) of boxed copies out there. All that software blown out at Guitar Center and on the web might eventually find it’s way into the hands of some kid on a gaming computer who will then learn it and make great music, even if only to entertain himself. Just because we get all caught-up in the incessant upgrade game doesn’t mean that the old versions are not useful. Someone over at KvR started speculating on the thought of the up-and-coming generation of users who will really benefit from the tools we’re just beginning to understand.

That said, I wait to be surprised.

(http://forum.cakewalk.com/tm.asp?m=685775&mpage=3&key=&#687145)

I wrote this one hazy Saturday morning in response to a thread on KvRaudio.com
You can view the thread here. It’s an interesting discussion in which a lot independent developers weighed in. If you’re as geeky as I am, you’ll likely find it interesting. And of course, I am delightful.

Argg! So much to respond to…

Honestly, a good economic model/system has yet to develop to deal with the ideas of “intellectual property” and software development, so instead the old standby of product-manufacturing has been used and Devs are left charging whatever the market will bear.

…

In the end the software you own is worth what you’re willing to pay for it.

Is this a gross simplification? I found myself agreeing out loud. I know almost nothing about economic principles other than how they relate to me and those in my life, or whatever little my addled brain can make cohesive out of the bits and pieces I’ve picked up along the way. (This thread has been most informative and well spoken.) But, yes, as we watch old models of supply and demand fall apart, especially as they relate to intellectual property, there doesn’t seem to be a proper model in place that actually, you know, works.

[quote="JonHodgson"]
If you use it, pay for it. If you can’t justify paying for it then you don’t need it, so live without it.
[/quote]

It’s not that I don’t agree. If I want to ply the trade, even at my own expense, I pay for my tools. It’s surprising to me how many people don’t live as such. But there’s no real historical imperative for this, and it’s not really the nature of capitalism. People desire what they can’t afford. So in a world where pirating is at our finger tips we all become pirates. (I use the we in the universal sense.)

[quote="JonHodgson"]
If you encounter a commercial studio that uses warez, don’t tolerate it.[/quote]

I suppose I see your point; I wouldn’t give my money to a commercial studio that was built on warez. But I don’t see myself needing a commercial studio any time in the near future. So all the pirating I see is on strictly amateur level. And really, what am I suppose to do about it? Turn in friends, family and coworkers to the government? Not to get all libertarian (small “l” intentional), but why is someone else’s non-violent bad behavior ultimately my responsibility? I do right by the software I use, I don’t share what I have purchased, and there is software I lust after which I cannot afford. I find the pride which users boast about their stolen software disquieting. But other than rationally explaining why I think stealing software is something of a moral cesspool and I don’t really care if they can get me a copy of Groove Agent, I feel that there’s not a whole lot I can do. I believe morality can’t be taught, it can only be learned. (And is extremely relative, but that’s a a whole different digression.)

As Urs suggests, most if not all of the warez freeloaders, I mean downloaders, that I’ve encountered just hoard stuff because they can. They might dick around with something now and again, but they have no more use for it than they do SuperMaxStudio 3D Developer ™. I believe (and I could be wrong; I am about a lot of things), that a lot of the traffic after roughly the 5,000 hit point that these more accessible warez sites generate isn’t from people who would normally buy this stuff or will really use it. Yet there is no doubt that many, many users of software are using cracked/borrowed code and samples; many, many of them on a semi-pro or outright professional basis. All of these people are stealing, and it might all but decimate the independent developers, but the analogies to the hardware world do fall apart at some point.

[quote="JackDark"][quote="HanafiH"]What if the refresh cycle of audio software upgrades is faster than the developmental curve of musicians?[/quote]

I know what you’re going at with this comment, and at first I wanted to cry “Nay, filthy naysayer!”… but then I remembered the Video Game Crash of the early 80’s due to over saturation in a nascent market.

It could theoretically happen with VST, and music software in general. I agree it is already nearly overwhelming… if I hadn’t started at this (using it at least) five years ago, I would be completely at a loss as to where to even start today. I mean think from that vantage point, anybody, what it must be like to come to KVR for the first time and just look through the Instruments, Effects, Hosts, etc. archives… perhaps frightening to the point of numbness… to the point of “what’s the use” back to my piano and guitar…

That’s possible. And honestly, the over saturation will only get worse thanks to an increasing interest in highlevel development kits. Just look at how much stuff SynthEdit has spawned alone. And SynthMaker is next… yes, I can see indeed where you’re coming from with this point. And as a VST designer it’s kind of scary, but that is why I’m always looking for a unique angle.[/quote]

I think over-saturation of the actual paying market is definitely becoming a factor at this point; I’m certainly feeling it. I’m 6 years new to this whole area of electronic sound creation (old punk rocker I), but I’ve long since reached the point where I barely have the time to fully use what I’ve already invested in. Yet new software or versions thereof come out at a rate I’m rapidly losing the time, finances, and increasingly, the interest to keep up with. Since for me (and many of the users I’ve met) this is all investment and no return (monetarily), at some point I need to say, “Do I really need another uber-synth? I already have 12 at my disposal! And 50 more that are very, very usable.” (I’m referring to both commercial and freeware.)

I can only imagine it’s a bit of a nightmare for professional devs. (Cheers to you, Urs; I have even more respect for you!) I know I’ve gotten to the point where I can’t really justify the cost, no matter how much I want to support a project I think is useful, fun and/or worthwhile.

[quote="JackDark"][quote="HanafiH"]Going all software is like jumping on a conveyor belt that drives you forward towards another conveyor belt.[/quote]

That is true. But some people like the ride. And it doesn’t mean we don’t keep pieces from the past along the way. I still love PiWarp, and it’s from 1999, and that might as well be a thousand years ago in the world of software.

[quote="HanafiH"]No upgrades, no new toys.[/quote]

And I can see the merit of your thought here as well. But does not an artist yearn for new hues once they finish their “blue” period? I think relying on only a few certain instruments for too long is a form of solipsism… you paint yourself in a corner. IMHO.

And also factor in the fact that no hardware is free. Someone wanting to create electronic music but having zero cash will be extremely excited by the concept of freeware. I know I was. I don’t want this to turn into a hardware versus software debate, but lets keep them on equal terms in that measure (creativity factor). Now, as far as resale value goes, you definitely win on that one.

[quote="HanafiH"]in which musical style becomes a formula to be pursued to a vanishing point of theoretical perfection.[/quote]

That is one way to look at it. Another way to look at it is, if the genre becomes easily creatable, indeed, nearly automatically creatable, then the genre faces only one of two options; evolve beyond convention, or saturate and die… leaving the next genre that much more noticeable. That’s a good thing, IMHO.

And as far as “specialized” tools go, you can pound a nail in wood with a rock, but personally I’d rather have a nailgun.

[quote="HanafiH"]Why has all this wonderful stuff produced no significant genre of its own?[/quote]

It has… there’s tons of music which could only exist with the aid of software advancement. The first thing that comes to mind is Aphex Twin’s [i]Window Licker[/i], anything by Venetian Snares… Kid 606, hell, there’s tons of artists out there that use software, indeed VST as well, as the core of their sound. Music software has taken IDM (for example) to places it couldn’t of dreamed of going with conventional hardware. Is there a hardware version of an image synthesizer for example? A buffer corrupter? An 88 combfilter array unit? Etc. Software allows any concept to become a reality. :)[/quote]

This is a great exchange, sirs. I more or less agree with you both. But I find myself coming increasingly coming around to HanafiH’s POV: not in terms of hardware - my hardware “synth” is an Alesis QS6.1 that I’ve never even bothered to try programming - but just locking my setup off at it’s current state. Everything I have is more or less harmonious, and my processor (AMD Athalon XP Palomino, 1800+, 1.53 GHz) can’t really handle much more. And, again, where do I draw the line and truly utilize what I have?

I think it’s great that we have an embarrassment of riches - the chances of me coming in using distance of a hardware modular synth are slim to none, yet with software I have several options available that are affordable to varying degrees. Hell, I could more or less play with a fully loaded Moog Modular if I had the outlay, and that’s unlikely to happen in the real world. I’ve fully believe the reason I have been able to learn so much about making music with synthesizers in so short a time is that I had a staggering array of quality synths at my disposal. (Well, that and all the literature and web sites I’ve read.) (And I suppose the “making music” claim is open to debate.)

But, I’m really getting away from the point to the thread here.

Humble apologies.

Anyway… as someone who works with computers and can image the time and thought it takes to produce good products, I completely support the developers, even the “corporate” outfits like NI. (Say what you will about NI, at least they’ve still managed to avoid invasive copy protection.) The value to cost ratio hugely favors the consumer when it comes to a lot of audio software, especially with instruments. I’ve worked long enough and bought enough crap that I don’t think $200/$300 is too much money for something that is useful in some way, even if most of the time I can’t afford it; and I absolutely can see why if someone is making money from your time, creativity and investment you’d want to be compensated rather than ripped-off. But we’re entering a strange new world here. I really don’t think old models can be made to work for that much longer (relatively). Complain, berate, cajole, but at some point companies have to accept that these are just the conditions to doing business in this market, and then start to shape the market to their advantage. (In the same way I’m coming to believe that copyright and the laws thereof are hugely flawed and in we’re in danger of exposing ourselves to inadvertent violations… but, again, another thread.)

Cheers to all the companies on this thread, most of whom I’ve purchased products from. (I’m lucky - I love a good bargain, and through fairly judicious use of my money I’ve managed to get some great bargains and on the upgrade path of some great software.) But my virtual studio is stuffed to the rafters and I can’t really take much more. Cheers to you all, but I’m reaching the point where I can mostly support you in spirit.