Quote:

))) This is minimal editing, but it couldn't be done with RT

All kinds of editing is possible for RealTracks, including inserting song specific licks to replace the original ones.

There is a video tip here showing you how here.

<...>



And it says "RealTracks are audio, so that they aren't editable on a note-by-note basis. But you can use MIDI for this, by deleting the RealTracks section, and replacing it with the exact pattern or riff that you want (entered by you as MIDI notes on a MIDI Track)"

And that's my point. Different tools for different jobs. If I take a recorded guitar part from RTs and decide I want to change a few notes, I could use MIDI, but the tone wouldn't be the same. To match the tone I'd need an identical guitar, FX pedals, amp, mic, and recording studio equipment.

Peter, I'm not dissing the RTs. I think what you have done with them is simply amazing. I am disagreeing with the title of this thread "Unhappy with MIDI sounds" though.

RT's have pros and cons and so does MIDI. To me the great thing about MIDI is the ability to edit the MIDI parts to get them more to my liking and to my own personal artistic expression (which of course is subjective).

Saying that RTs sound good and MIDI sounds bad is like me saying Stan Getz has good tone and John Coltrane has bad tone. There are millions of sax players that would agree, and millions of others who would prefer 'Trane's tone. So I avoid the argument by saying I prefer Getz's tone over 'Trane's tone and everybody is happy.

I play live with backing tracks that I create myself. I'd rather play in a big band, but economics don't allow that anymore, the music market has changed since I started gigging. I make my own backing tracks, some times with the help of BiaB and some times from scratch. I could buy karaoke tracks, it would be easier but (a) it wouldn't be me and (2) it would sound like karaoke tracks.

One of the things I like about MIDI is that for a live performance, it sounds less like karaoke. There seems to be more separation or less blending of the instruments. Plus with the ability to edit any note of any track I can refine the MIDI output to sound just like I want it to sound. I can take a very good BiaB idea and put my own personal stamp on it.

Now I agree that not everybody uses BiaB in the same manner, and I doubt that many use all the features of BiaB. I know I don't. But I love the features that I use and wouldn't want to give them up for anything. The other features are for other musicians with different ways of working with music, different requirements, and different personal taste. And that's a good thing.

While I have no use for the Real Tracks, I think they are fantastic and it's a good thing they are in the program. I don't make notation charts with BiaB either, I have an old copy of Encore that gives me a more customizable output, but then, for those who only need the notation options BiaB offers, it's a great feature. I don't use the melodist or soloist, as I like to do those myself. These are all features that are for other musicians and I would not be correct in saying they are inferior or worthless.

So when someone says the excellent features in BiaB that I love are inferior or worthless, I feel it's time for a debate (not an argument).

I love MIDI and I love the MIDI features of BiaB. I do not think they are inferior to RTs, just different, and for the way I work with music, they are the better choice - but that is me and the way I work with music YMMV. In other words for me the MIDI functions are superior to the Real Tracks for others it will be different.

So I hope you continue to develop the core MIDI functions as you have done for decades as well as the other features of the program. Even those features that I don't use.

Bob "Notes" Norton smile Norton Music
https://www.nortonmusic.com

100% MIDI Super-Styles recorded by live, pro, studio musicians for a live groove
& Fake Disks for MIDI and/or RealTracks