Well, the purpose of non-destructive software is to allow you to make edits while maintaining the underlying content. It’s the core foundations of Cubase.
If you’re not sure on the differences then Adobe have a good article on it here. I can assure you, it’s very deliberate and not at all a habit that anyone has become stuck in.
The commands work on what?
Non-destructive editing needs an additional layer of abstraction. Otherwise, it wouldn’t be non-destructive. Parts are just one possible way of working. You can edit audio without audio parts.
I’m talking about the nature of the parts no destructiveness
I guess it’s the same reason that when you double click on a word it gets selected, in word processing programs.
Or the reason there are bars and meters at all in music. Or intervals.
The parts exist because of the concept of non-destructive editing though, you can’t separate that fact. And if you think that Cubase is bad, look what the Studio One folks are doing :
At least we’re doing proper work with those blocks. 
I still have XG Works from the 1990s. It doesn’t have the cubes. Plain and simple linear tracks. Only two types. MIDI and Audio.
It still works on Windows 11. I think it’s abandonware these days so not so hard to find for free, or on Ebay in properly registered ready to use kits for around $20 or so bucks USD.
You can get old but pretty nifty sounding S-YXG softsynths to go with it for free too (Sounds like the Yamaha MU devices from the 90s).
Maybe it’s more like what you’re looking for?
Pattern based sequencers probably still exist. I haven’t touched one since I used Creator/Notator on an Atari in the early 1990s. Try a web search for ‘pattern based MIDI sequencer’. You might find something.
KSC Omega running in an ST Emulator like Steem might be something you’d like? Web searches will turn that stuff up for free I think. The base KCS engine is ‘chunky and pattern based’, and you can run Tiger Cub on top of that for more ‘linear minded’ piano roll editing type needs. It won’t track audio though, but you could hash out a mix as WAV/AIF first, and then bring in your audio tracks into something free and simple like the free Audacity audio tracker.
Quite a few ready to play ‘workstation keyboards’ have pattern based sequencers built right in, with basic but solid audio tracking capabilities on the side. You don’t need a computer at all. Turn the thing on and sequence your heart out.
Bidule has some wonderfully weird approaches to sequencing through a unique ‘object oriented’ interface. It’s got some pretty cool random event generators too.
You can still get all hardware portastudios for audio tracking as well. They make nice small mixing consoles in their own right. Newer ones can also serve as robust PC/Mac audio interface with nice preamps and analogue mixing up front. Can find used ones for a song and a dance. Some can sequence MIDI too, but in my experience most of them are more about being able to take in several audio inputs on multiple audio tracks in one go…while giving you a decent set of editing features and built in digital effects to work with. They can usually be synced with any DAW that can lock up with MTC.
You might like Cakewalk too. You can get free versions of that too. I think it has some design concepts kind of like ‘parts’ in Cubase though. So maybe not.
It is what it is. Cubase Pro is powerful stuff with endless workflow options and abilities. Artist is powerful but has limits on stuff like track count. LE/SE is basic, but yeah, it still uses ‘parts/cubes’.
PG Music still offers Power Tracks Pro. It’s lean, inexpensive, and doesn’t have much in the way of grouping/sub-grouping different types of data. For just a few bucks more you can get Band in a Box/Real Band to go with it, that’s pretty freaking cool software (even if the UI and all is a bit dated and old looking). Type in chords and song structure, pick styles (mix and match them), and you have an instant band. BIAB is tons of fun if you like something to practice/jam with, or wish to throw together complete cookie cutter songs/arrangements in a matter of minutes.
Other stuff is out there that doesn’t have a linear ‘parts/groups/elements/etc’ kind of workflow if it’s that much of a problem.
I think you’ll find that the ‘different’ stuff will either be very old, something kind of specialized and ‘simple’, or something unique and ‘really different’ like Band in a Box/Real Band.
I like Cubase a lot since the Atari days but choosing events and not parts it is still non destructive Correct?..
Well i do use XG Works from time to time actually the XG Editor for my MU-128
But i don’t live in the stone age I’m a looong time Cubase user among other DAWs
Having events enclosed in parts will not provide anything special
You can also drag and modify without limitations without the part hassles
RAW Data laying on the track is more to the point what you see is what you hear.
How is it a hassle? It’s just a container that makes it easier to deal with whatever is in it. Kinda like ( ){ } in code or an equation.
It does make things way easier than messing with a range tool for everything. Makes it easier to group things for logic editors. Makes it easier tag/label stuff. Colorize things, and so much more.
Parts, especially Audio Parts are one of the most unique and stand-out features of cubase.
The most valuable feature for me has been the ability to spontaneously edit any group of audio data from different tracks on the arrangement, full screen right next to each other then go back to the arrange window with one click.
For example, you can highlight one Part from Track1, Shift/click another part on Track 20, (or multiple parts) Open the Part editor and you’re looking at those events, full screen directly next to each other. Then command W to close the editor and you’re back on the arrange page. If you have two monitors even better. Open the Part editor on a separate screen.
If all you’re doing is recording tracks and then mixing with mixer automation, then you probably don’t understand the potential of Parts. And probably don’t really need to. But if you do complex editing Parts are an amazing organizational tool.
Once you get used to all the potential Parts has to offer you’ll wonder how you ever worked without them. Unless, like i said you just record tracks and use mixer automation.
It is not necessary., it gets in the way. Now it is another thing if you want to group some events for manipulation or editing and that should have been optional .,
I do but in my opinion this editing behavior should be optional or when you need it and not always a de facto .,
Its the way the arrangement has worked since day 1. Either get used to it after 30 something years or move back to a 2" tape deck… The rest of the world doesn’t seem to mind it, I highly doubt Steinberg is going to change it just to appease you because you’re the only one who doesn’t ‘get it’.
Jeez just combine all the damn parts into one long container and work that way. Like everything else, there’s 100 ways to do something, just because Steinberg doesn’t give you the ‘My Way’ button doesn’t mean it cant be done. You need to put in some effort and figure it out on your own once in awhile.
Speak for yourself
Now why would I ever do that? I’ve happily been working with these “blocks” since about 1998 or so. The arranger is perfectly fine and preferred over anything else here…
These blocks parts can have events like midi notes or other midi data not visible hidden at their end points and you have to resize them to see them,
They can appear as if there is something in there but there is nothing,
still you see the part empty or not on the project window you get false impressions of your data
And what is the advantage of having data in containers ?
What is the container’s advantage ?.. i mean the outer layer ? more complexity?
People used to these can not understand ., Do other DAWs use Parts ? How do they get over? are they fool?
Of course there might be uses such as edit en mass but
You can do everything with the tools such as the range tool .
Your mixing up terms. This is not Logic.
I do like 50% of your (suggested) question in the title of this topic - why are MIDI parts mandatory and not optional.
Strangely enough I have been asking myself that same question just recently. My first encounter with Cubase was in 1991, so I am one of the old farts and I usually like things to stay the way they are.
Questions I asked myself: Why was the concept of parts used in Cubase 1.0 back in 1989? Why was it carried over to Nuendo and Cubase SX in 2001? What could be the drawback of having MIDI events directly on the track and not in a container (a MIDI part is just a container for MIDI events)? Would Steinberg keep this principle if they were to write a new DAW from scratch?
To be honest - I never came to a conclusion. I am still thinking about it.
As for the audio parts - they already are optional, so you might as well just delete any reference to audio. It already works the way you describe that you want it to work.
I think and this is my opinion to this is that it has to do with the name CUBASE
Based on Cubes (Parts)
It was a novelty back then But not anymore , i hear arguments on this forum
but not an answer i think if there was to change to the name hmmm (Nobody wants that).
OK lets talk only about midi now writing straight midi data on the tracks it would be easier
all these grouping and moving so called benefits of the parts can all be done with the tools
such as the range tool, Removing the Parts and a layer of unnecessary complexity is gone.
Simplification