Hi everyone, I’m a new user to PG Music and I’m very excited about it, but there’s so much to learn! I’m struggling to decide if I should use BiaB or RB and I’m hoping someone can give me some help in that respect.
I use Cubase as my DAW and I write songs for my own pleasure only, not for commercial gain or anything like that. I’m a reasonable rhythm guitarist but that’s about it. I can write a song using my guitar but always struggle with the accompaniment, which is where I’m hoping PG Music comes in!
So if I can write my own chords and melody, what does BiaB give me that RB doesn’t? The only thing I think I’ve found so far is the melodist but I don’t think I need that. RB seems much more flexible and I envisage getting some chords down and generating some RealTracks and MIDI and then moving it all into Cubase.
Is this the right approach or am I missing something spectacular that BiaB can do that RB can’t?
I’ve posted this in the BiaB forum as it seems to be the most popular one, which again is telling me I’m missing something! I’m interested to hear what all you other people do regarding your workflow and the two programs.
The answer, at least MY answer, is, "BOTH".
I like the flexibility that BiaB provides when first building a song, but at some point the thing may get transferred over to RB for adding audio tracks (BB only has the one audio track), effects, that sort of thing.
Look, it takes a bit of time to learn how to use the programs, the only good thing I can tell you about that is to get started. For one thing, simply loading and playing the PGMusic provided Demo Songs, watching what happens as they play back, hearing what happens when you see certain Bar Settings in a song, that sort of thing, can really help you to get an idea of the way things are done.
--Mac
I will respectfully disagree with Mac IF you are really proficient with Cubase. Why learn a new DAW if you are happy with the one you have? However if you are not proficient or happy with Cubase then dump it and learn RB.
I start the majority of my songs BiaB then using the DAW Plugin mode transfer everything (midi, midi converted to wavs and RealTracks) to Sonar and finish my songs there. You would do the same except to change Sonar to Cubase.
I hope this helps.
Hi Pete
Welcome to the forum
I always like to direct new users in your situation to:
http://www.pgmusic.com/videos.user.htmand then to watch the video set there titled:
Song From Start to Finish - BIAB, RealBand, & Reaper
Author: Dan (aka Shockwave199)
It's a good example of using BIAB to rough out a song, then Real Band to add Realtracks to "flesh it out" and then transfer it to Reaper (or in your case Cubase) for final tweaking.
Have fun learning both BIAB and Realband and realize that the people in this forum are a wealth of knowledge and eager to help newbies with any questions or problems you may encounter.
Have a good one,
Carkins
Thanks for this guys, it’s a great help.
I’ll check out the demo songs, that’s a great idea. I’m not thinking of using RB instead of Cubase, more as well as Cubase. An interim step I think as it can certainly do things that Cubase can’t, like generating RealTracks, MultiRiffs, etc.
Mario, I wonder why you go straight from BiaB to Sonar? What do you do in BiaB that you can’t do in RB? Have you thought (for example) of going to RB and generating an additional track for just a few bars?
Thanks for the video link, I’ll check it out this evening.
I’m still interested to know what BiaB can do that RB can’t (other than melodist and soloist) and why most people seem to prefer BiaB.
Quote:
Mario, I wonder why you go straight from BiaB to Sonar? What do you do in BiaB that you can’t do in RB? Have you thought (for example) of going to RB and generating an additional track for just a few bars?
Hi Pete, I have been using BiaB for a few years now but I’ve been using Cakewalk’s DAWS for a very long time. Thus I can work in Sonar a lot faster than I can in RB. This is not a knock against RB, it seems to be a very good DAW however I know already know Sonar. The one thing that RB can do that Sonar can’t is to generate backing tracks but that is what I use BiaB for plus Sonar can do a couple of things that RB can’t. So I use Sonar because I am very familiar with it.
Like I said I have used Biab for a number of years now. I generate backing tracks in BiaB but most of the time I modify, sometimes very heavily, the results BiaB gives me. I do all that work is Sonar for reasons already stated. I use BiaB as a sketch board using mostly midi but RealTracks at times and Sonar to polish and finish things off. That includes adding a few bars, additional tracks, deleting a few bars and/or tracks, blending two or three different BiaB styles, etc.
This is the workflow that works best for me. Many other forum members use just BiaB and RB. Some work like me, BiaB to a DAW of their choice. Others use RB to another DAW or BiaB, RB, to another DAW. The path you take should be the one that works best for you. There are no “rules in stone” on this.
If you have any questions feel free to ask.
Same workflow as Mario's... BIAB - > Sonar. It's just what I'm used to. I don't have the patience to learn another DAW. LOL!!!
Cheers,
Mike
Quote:
I will respectfully disagree with Mac IF you are really proficient with Cubase. Why learn a new DAW if you are happy with the one you have? However if you are not proficient or happy with Cubase then dump it and learn RB.
I start the majority of my songs BiaB then using the DAW Plugin mode transfer everything (midi, midi converted to wavs and RealTracks) to Sonar and finish my songs there. You would do the same except to change Sonar to Cubase.
I hope this helps.
+1
plus I use high quality 64 bit VST Sample libraries Strings, Woodwinds, Brass, choirs, in Sonar (e.g. East West - oops I’m not supposed to advertise on this site !!).
BIAB provides the definite skeleton and with the sample libraries that I use I can do a lot more to enhance the base backing. But still a long way to go before I get to John Wilson's orchestral standard !!
I also use Cubase.
If for nothing else I find it invaluable to use RB as well as BIAB to start from for generating nultiple tracks of the realtracks that I want (as I can then edit the parts that I want in Cubase)
If you want to edit a particular realtrack that will last for duration of song, eg soloist realtrack then its very helpful to have multiple takes of the particular realtrack to choose from.
BIAB is very limited in this regard due to the limited number of tracks and so its RB to the rescue.
No big deal to do it in RB not that much to learn and then import the lot into your DAW of choice.
Musiclover
I don't see any problem with using another DAW here.
Was just answering the question about which one of the two pgmusic products to use and putting forth the idea that they are not an either/or situation, they are complementary. As is use of another DAW with BiaB.
One reason to learn RB, though, is the fact that it does have the BiaB autoaccompaniment generator built into it, making the addition of different or more varied accompaniment tracks a lot easier to pull off.
--Mac
Quote:
I’m still interested to know what BiaB can do that RB can’t (other than melodist and soloist) and why most people seem to prefer BiaB.
Biab has important edit features not present on realband, like transpose chords, search/replace chords, expand/reduce chord durations, and others.
I start my projects using biab to sketching the song's structure and its basic feel (I find biab much faster and intuitive than RB for this function). Then I transfer the tracks to Reaper, send the preliminary mix to the musicians, substitute the biab tracks with my own recordings, and finish the project on my DAW. If I want to use one or more original Biab tracks on the final arrangement, I find easier generating several takes on Biab and importing them on my DAW, than using realband.
I am in the BIAB to SONAR camp, because I also learned these two programs a long time ago. However, I believe RealBand has one other advantage that neither BIAB nor any other DAW can do, and that is to regenerate just part of a RealTrack. With BIAB, I can generate several alternative full tracks and edit them down in SONAR to a preferred final single track, but RealBand would make this task simpler.
Quote:
I am in the BIAB to SONAR camp, because I also learned these two programs a long time ago.
BIAB to REAPER. Old School, like Matt! 
Peter, Welcome! I have almost the same workflow as Mario.......but I use a lot of ReakTracks, that I adjust in BIAB.......especially Chord/Bass notes, to give runs where I need them. I'm happier with Sonar, as I started with it. RealBand is obviously great....there are many here who swear by it! But I need to spend as much time as possible in actually PLAYING my instruments..........so I limit the time I HAVE to spend on new (for me) technology!
Joe G.
Thanks to everyone for all your input. I think it proves that everyone is different and it's good to have so many options. Thanks also to carkins for the video link, it's well worth watching the series if you haven't already seen it!
I think I'm going to work in a similar way to the guy in the video (except for Cubase instead of Reaper as the final step).
I like the idea of getting the basics down in BiaB, getting the right key, etc. and then adding further enhancements in RB (adding more RealTracks, MultiRiffs, MIDI, etc.) before finishing off in Cubase.
All I need to do now is start writing a new song!