I am a long-time hard-core user of Band-in-a-Box (BIAB). I started in the late 1980's when it was a PC-only DOS program with no graphics. I have upgraded nearly every year and have watched the program grow and mature. I have recently, in the past 4 or 5 years, used the real tracks to create Pro Tools backing tracks which I have taken into a professional studio and record with great efficiency - as many as 4 or 5 songs in an afternoon.

For perhaps the past 20 years, I have periodically sent in suggestions and requests which have never been answered. I am truly interested in the continued improvement of this wonderful program. But one thing has bugged me, nearly from the beginning, and I keep crying out for change for the better. It concerns the user interface. The program is much better than its user interface would lead serious musicians to believe, in my humble opinion.

I was taking a Pro Tools certification course and brought in one of my arrangements created with BIAB-Pro Tools and recorded in the studio. The professor really liked it - especially the pedal steel guitar part that I had used - BIAB real tracks. When he asked me about the arrangement, I told him that I had used BIAB to create it and then mixed and mastered it and added vocal in Pro Tools. His reaction was - Band in a Box - that is a toy program for amateurs - I never knew it could do that! Now those are not my words - they come from an expert who records, mixes and masters for the San Jose Opera Company and is a certified Pro Tools instructor at a local college.

Obviously he was misinformed and unimpressed by BIAB's utility and power. I would submit that one factor more than anything, contributes to this misinformation / misunderstanding. And that factor is the user interface.

Many will disagree with me, for sure, but to me the user interface of BIAB looks like some kind of video game - something for kids to play with. The garish array of icons and the colorful busy screen contributes to this perception. If you compare BIAB’s interface to Pro Tools which is the industry standard for professional recording, the difference is stark. When you open Pro Tools, the PT interface is clean, uncluttered and uses a minimum of colors yet allows the user to use colors to group tracks according to the user’s preference. It uses pull-down menus to group related activities to do everything – plus keystroke equivalents for every conceivable function. In addition, there are numerous discreet icon buttons which blend in with the basic color scheme. It has a professional look. (It has a very steep learning curve and is far more complex than BIAB. Nevertheless, it is taken seriously by most professionals).

My question is – what can be done with the user interface to make more professionals take BIAB seriously and still not alienate its large base of loyal users? My suggestion would be to offer users a choice of interfaces. Those who are comfortable with the current interface can continue with it. Those who would like a less cluttered, perhaps more refined look (which might win over their professors and other professional colleagues) could chose a different interface during installation or with a simple mouse click.

I will continue to be a loyal user of BIAB whatever happens, but I sure wish I could deal with a less cluttered and distracting user interface.

Many thanks to Peter Gannon for creating this very useful and fun program. It has helped me immensely in my songwriting.

I agree with you Bob, to a degree...

There has been a bit of work on the interface, in fact I would say that that it has been a focus of development. Its not been very impressive though, the implementation of a basic mixer, and about a decade too late the provision of actual names of instruments (wow). We now have immovable toolbars back a restrograde step.

There is a general lack of imagination in the development department and I would hope they can pay for some new experienced completely fresh designer eyes.

However, just addressing the GUI is not enough, they have been doing this for a while now, and under the hood there are countless anomolies that also need a rewrite

IMO

Z

I agree with your last statement completely - I was just limiting my comments to one thing at a time.

Band-in-a-Box started out as a simple DOS program with a handful of simple styles ("built-in"). It was not exactly a user-friendly program by today's standards. Then they ported it to Windows and started adding in not "built-in" styles.

Each year they have added 50+ "new features" in a real attempt to improve the program – unlike some other software that issue “upgrades” every year which consist of trivial, often cosmetic changes to the program, without correcting some of the bugs that should have been corrected years ago (I am specifically thinking of Finale). In contrast, Band in a Box has constantly added value to the program over the years.

But it seems to me that each year they seem to kluge on features without really integrating them into the program. Several new icons appear on screen which becomes more and more complex. They add an external metronome, another plug-in, now something called J-Bridge. We have the melody maker, the harmony maker, the style maker, the solo maker, the guitar neck window, the drum kit window, the piano roll window – all of these seem to be acting separately, probably because they were created at different times and added on separately, without really integrating them into a unified structure. Even after nearly 25 years of using this wonderful program, it still confuses me at times – I am sure I use less than 50% of its capabilities.

Where BIAB has really succeeded in improving the product is in the use of the Real Tracks which can be transposed and varied in tempo to afford realistic sounding accompaniments. It wasn’t until about 5 years ago when I started using Pro Tools that I really appreciated this feature (I used to be an all-MIDI guy). This feature has allowed me to prepare complete backing tracks and bring them into the studio and prepare demos of my songs rapidly. Sometimes I replace some of the Real Tracks with real musicians, sometimes not. But it gives me a workable arrangement that I can use to teach the musicians what the song sounds like, thereby saving hour of time. Most of them already have Pro Tools, so I can give them the arrangements in advance and they can learn it.

I have long been suggesting that they ought to bite the bullet and re-program Band-in-a-Box with an eye to integrating all these wonderful features into a logical coherent and user-friendly menu structure that allows easy access to all the features in an understandable way – the multicolored icons could stay for those who find them useful – perhaps in a floating window that could be closed for those who don’t want to see the icons. I am all in favor of artistic freedom, but BIAB acts like no other Windows program I know – to some degree Pro Tools is like that too. But a great deal of simplification of the menu system, using sub menus to group related functions would make the program more elegant in design. I’m not suggesting that BIAB buckle under to the tyranny of Microsoft Windows or the Apple OS, but the functions could be grouped in a more accessible way – but I am afraid that that would require a reprogramming effort from scratch.

Well put Bob,

I also think (usually flamed here), that there is no need for two programs. When in BIAB why not grant access to sequencer like features if they already exist?

The trick is to do this in a more coherent way, shielding the user from complexity where possible.

This needs a total rethink, its time for new eyes, people that specialise in the design of music interfaces looking at it all and rethinking...

Lateral thinking, as in "Beyond Yes and NO" by De Bono.

Hey Zero -

De Bono inspired me back in the early 1970's - I love his story about the man in the ambulance and the flock of sheep and how to get by them. It has been a source of inspiration in my work as a scientist in drug discovery. Totally off topic with respect to Band in a Box but I am glad that someone appreciates his work.

Yes I know this story, it's similar to the tale about the man that was being chased by a Polar Bear, he suddenly realised you don't need to outrun the Polar Bear, you just need to outrun your friend.

Z

Maybe that applies to antibodies too?

Time for rewriting the code for better UI and audio process

The UI has improved with recent version but it still looks old-fashioned (win 3.11 anayone?). And the horrible 8bit image of a drum set shown in drum window makes me think about my old Commodore 64 days.

But for some reason PG Music has added dumn-n-bass stuff, loops etc. Which "cool" digital artist will choose it if it looks like his grand daddies FM radio? They really should hire some younger guys to recreate the UI.