PG Music Home Forums PG Music Wishlists Band-in-a-Box Wishlist Time for a fundamental rethink?

Greetings,

I have been using Band In A Box and Real Band for quite a while. The first upgrade I bought was Band In A Box 12 (if my memory serves me right). Please, lets keep focus, I buy the product for what it can do, not how pretty the interface looks. Before Real Band I used both Sonar and Band In A Box. Sonar provided the Mixer Band In A Box did not have. Sonar had what looked like a cool feature in their Grove Clips. But they couldn't come close to what I could do with Band In A Box and Real Band.

I disagree with anyone suggesting it would be best to re-write the products from the ground up. Music Production software like Band In A Box or Garage Band is definitely a limited sized market. This is not like Microsoft office that will see an installed base of anything in the line of 8 to 10 digits in their license count. Can you imagine going to a venture capital funding organization and tell them "I want to get enough money together to produce a product that can go toe to toe with PG Music's Band In A Box / Real Band combination"? As long as Band In A Box is "Best Of Breed" in the marketplace, the interface is likely to lose less market share to competitors than the superior functionality of the product will take from the competitors.

Since the marketplace for this type of software is limited, the amount of money available for developing new code is limited. I wouldn't mind a long term goal of modernizing the user interface, but certainly not at the expense of improvements to the technology of creating arrangements and making them sound like I have my own band of live musicians backing me when I perform. Diverting investment from improving the capability of the product to 'nicing up' the user interface would allow the competitors to "catch up" a little instead of forcing them to scramble to keep up.

The user interface doesn't do anything for me when I'm on the stage with a microphone in my hand. That is why I continue buying the upgrades to Band In A Box and Real Band. And, by the way, for the functionality I get in the products Band In A Box, Real Band, and the Real Tracks and style sets, I am very satisfied with them and consider them a true bargain.

Right on, Ryszard.

In another post requesting some chord structures to Yamaha Hardware would be an enhancement...When I think about improving the GUI, my defib goes off!

I really dug the "competitor-edge" that Apple's App for groovy "trio" backup gave to singers like me, with their offering up the iRealBook...which gave you everything including a wide variety of jazz standards along with the ability to quickly change
keys into your do-able "range"!

Unfortuately, and even tho they didn't offer the lyrics too, they've run into copywrite pressure and, except for the original purchasers, the new version of iRealBook, except if you're lucky enuff to have the initial one which still swings with chord charts and all...

To me, altho I have many internet fake books, which include original jazz star MP3's...
this under $20 dollar-RealBook-Compendium, was a real competitor for either a quick practice session of tunes that are "called out", as well as a nifty packaged software
band-backup-program that, if you had a good library of lyrics on hand...or in your memory...presented you with one "tiger" of delite for IPAD/IPOD/IPHONE users.

Not to forget that the BIAB software offered in the Apple Store, is a great move forward!

The real base of the arguement here is should PG rewrite BiaB to include all the things that folks complain about. The biggest part of the complaint comes from Mr. Zero Zero, who I will say seems like a real decent chap, that like the rest of us want PG to be successful, and want the best software he can get for his investment. I respect him for that.

But i completely disagree about a ground up rewrite, i think that is too aggressive, and also invasive. There are far to many folks here that like Biab as it is. Sure i would love , as I am sure most would to see a new more modern face on it someday with some updated menus and button function.

Zero/Zero keeps clamoring for a rewrite, adding mixers, multiports, full VSTi function like a synth rack, full on recording like a typical DAW, so he can do 99% of what he wants right there in Biab, and maybe polish it a tad in cubase. He has ask for BiaB to be morphed into something far more. He has a right to ask! I have a right to resist. We are both paying users.

My reason for resistance is simple. What he wants is already there. In RB, but he has issues with that since he has not been able to get RB to work properly. I suggest getting on line or phone with PG and sorting out the problems, rather than keep asking them to abandon the path chosen. I want refinement and progress with the current models, not total change, since i feel that would set things back for years.

I love what RB is becoming, it is very close to being a major DAW tool. VSTi needs refining, ASIO needs to be made a tad better, and it needs full automation envelope capabilities and it will be right there with other DAWs. BiaB on the other hand is what it is, and does not need major change, it need gentle updating. I agree that a bit more comprehensive mixer, rather than just volume control in the tool bar would be nice. As far as VSTi rack, hhmmmm interesting idea. Right now you need a GM synth or route out to a hardware synth. You can use any VSTi like sampletank, or Kontact, and then hand pick the patches. This makes it hard if you use a large variey of sounds, but if you use like a jazz combo it is easy. Maybe a small three slot synth rack would solve some of the issue, and be easy to implement, thus making the program more powerful for ZZ, and other with his needs.

I am just afraid of constant pressure on a software company like PG in this economy where they cave in and try some radical changes, and the large majority have to suffer thru huge growing pains, much like the sonar issues of late.


Zero, i appolgize if anything i said or have said are in anyway not cool to you. I don't mean to put words in your mouth, but over the past few months this is what it seems you want. I think what we have is fine with small refinements and future growth. I would love to see you get RB up and running properly, and will help anyway I can.


Best Regards Rob.

I don't mind any changes to BIAB as long as those of us who want to can keep it in "the dark ages". BIAB functions perfectly for my purposes. Later, Ray

The big question is whether or not BIAB data flow will "fly" as far as Apple's new entre into the world of music apps (and other similar orientation) that will possibly make it into its "CLOUD" and "LION" products...and become the new rage of creatively-bent individuals (like us)???

And the question for PG would be...if BIAB is involved in any type of CLOUD activity,
would they consider a GUI change if concerned that their data product looks "too gooey"??

Just for the record I do not expect BIAB to be a 'full fledged DAW' none of PGs programs have the power of Cubase or protools. What I want to do most is to load a VST instrument such as my piano or my organ and paly it in BIAB and record it along with BAIB tracks. Is this really too much to ask? What is BIAB if it is not an accompaniment program.
Many musicians possess a decent piano synth like Ivory, TruePainos and there is absolutely no way that a good pianist is gonig to settle for a gm or multisynth substitute. You cant load a decent piano into BAIB and play along and record - this is fundamental.
The idea that BIAB could be a 'full fledged DAW' can only be imagined by someone that does not really know rthe capabilities of Cubase or Protools etc... I find the idea of using BIAB as my DAW quite laughable. Its a very good accompaniment software - wordl claass in fact with Real Tracks, and its a very good learning tool but its definitely not a fully fledged sequencer.

Mixers are bog standard across all sort of products not just DAWS.

Also for the record I have been in contact with PG several times and they did not get my system working. I recieved a lot of good help from the forum but alas no result with RB. Even if I did get RB to work I would stil believe that both programs should be merged. I use Cubase for my sequencing and it is far more powerful and professional that anything PG has made in this area (sequencing).

I understand what you want, and no it is not to much to ask. It still baffles me that you can't see that the answer is already there, Biab has been merged, not with RB, but with Powertracks, the child of that merge IS RB. What you want it there, you just have to figure out why it does not work, and i bet you would love it.

No it is not as deeply feature rich as Cubase or Protools, they are abundantly more expensive than either PT $50 more or less, and or RB an add on to BiaB. But do not sell them short, both will do a lot of work for you. Both do midi very well, both do audio very well, both are easy to use and have a lot of very useable features. The mixer section is simple but has a lot of features. The VSTi rack will allow you to open a BiaB file, both with RTs and midi tracks, and add any kind of Synth you want. I use sampletank, and a couple others every day. I have added pianos, organs, guitar synths, you name it.

Zee, have you ever used Powertracks? and if so did it work? If not that might give a clue as to why RB does not work. Exactly what does not work on it? Be specific.

There is something simple missing here, PT and RB are not difficult to get running. I had far less trouble getting then configured than even the baby sonar product MC5. I have used Cubase, Sonar, Cakewalk MC 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, Reaper, Multitrackstudio, N-tracks, Tracktion, Reaper, Logic, Vegas, Acid Pro, and a couple more over the years. PT and RB have always loaded up and ran with ease.

Here is an offer, I do not know where you are located, but if it is possible i will make time to personally help you, i can log into teamviewer and shawdow your screen and check the setup, and look for issues. If we can get it working together that would be a good thing. You would have total control all the time, and the ability from your end to disconnect me at any time. Let me know if this is interesting to you and we can try then to lock down a time that works for both. then all i have to do is give you the link to Teamviewer QS and we can give it a try.

Thanks for your offer, I may well take the offer up, partners birdthay today and I do'nt want her to feel ignored

Lets be very clear what want to do. I want to be able to play TruePianos (Which is VST and or standalone -see demo) with a BIAB song and record it - simple. I can already do this by exporting the track to Cubase and then recording the piano there, but that turns the whole session into a recording session. Instead I would like to record the piano during quick and dirty practice sessions - MIDI and Audio too.

I am not interested in learning Powertracks I already have a better sequencer.

Here is my kit:

Win 7, Core i7 920, 64 bit, PC, 12 gig of Ram. Focusrite Liquid 56 Firewire running their Saffire 2.2 Driver.

Its a long time since I tried RB (for my memory) but I recall trying all the settings for sample rates and all the settings in RB with no luck.
At present i am getting sound from the demo songs but cant load any plugins they appear breifly in the VST DXI windowe and then vanish. I have Audio set for 16 bit 44.1.

Okay let me know if you want to take a shot at it.

My question about Powertracks was not to suggest swithcing over to it, but that if Powertracks had at some point worked for you, that would be a great starting point for Rb setup, since Rb is built on the powertracks chassis then melded with Biab.

Yes understood Rob

BIAB is the best that is out there for what it does. The chord structure orientation is the only way to go.

However, I have, for years been wanting more from BIAB in several ways. The frustrating part is it would seem to me to be simple to add some great features to BIAB.

First, higher resolution on drum parts. Of course, they have gone the realdrums route, but MIDI is still very useful to me still, so the higher resolution on drums would be helpful in creating better drum parts.

Second, and this is my BIG wish, why not have, say, 4 more instruments? They have addressed this issue somewhat with multistyles, and being able to change styles about any way that you want to. But if you had 4 more instruments you could really build advanced styles in a direct and simple manner. To make this work as desired you would need to add to the chorus structure. I would like a verse/chorus structure where you could specify in the stylemaker that this instrument came in on the 2nd verse, the 3rd verse, or the 2nd chorus, etc..

To be fair, the BIAB people are moving somewhat in my direction, just taking a more complicated approach, in my opinion.

Eric

I think all programs should use the same terms to to do the same thing . They don't ! Every one is so different it's like learning a new language , but if you started changing that language even slowly you would lose current user's understanding of it . So if you're going to change this one's GUI should all software be changed to certain standards just to meet your needs ? If you want to be multi-lingual do other country's languages need to conform to you ? Some things don't need change as much as people need more time to adapt to them . I think PG only needs to change the number of real tracks that are available and stop with the 50 new features till RT's catch up with the midi styles. Ok don't stop new the features ,but small numbers of RT's reminds me of when I bought Biab 2004 pro then wanted the mega pack a week later . I just can't get enough!

I have been watching this thread for a bit now and eventually had to also chip in.

I have also done a fair bit of software development in my time and have found that when you have a piece of software that does a very specialized job that the thing takes on a life of its own and the lay-out develops to actually performs the task that you set out to do.

If you start focusing on getting it sexy then very soon you lose focus on the real requirement and spending time on cosmetics ....

I was (and stil am) personally AMAZED every time I fire it up and get this band playing with me, doing what I want them to do and that for a price I still cannot really believe.

For my 10 cents worth I see no point in changing it. Spend the money on adding more styles, maybe add some more MIDI styles for a change as well, that will impresses me.

I am happy with the improvements in performance, the reduction in the size of files, thats what counts for me! Who remembers how long it took to generate those first 3 real tracks? (I actually woke up the wife to show her what they've added this time)

I think maybe some user's are taking what we have for granted and does not really appreciate what we have here. THAT IS ONLY MY OPINION.

+1 Trash!!

Good answer!

Quote:

---

maybe add some more MIDI styles for a change as well

---

MAYBE? No maybe about it - add some more midi styles

What a great thread!!! I just spent the time to read it from head to toe. My dime.

A lot of what is being discussed here is not FUNCTIONALITY as much as EDUCATION. Allow me to be the guinea pig for my own example.

I was at a friend's house earlier this year. He had just purchased the newest version of BIAB. At that point he did a fast demo. I accepted his offer to bring the old one home and play with it. I used it for 3 days and then ordered it. That was maybe 3 months ago.

(Education and guinea pig references start here.)

To this day, June 24th, I have NEVER clicked the Real Band icon. Never. I just didn't/don't really know what it even is, and I have a lot of writing work to do and not time to play. As I read this thread I have a better idea what Real Band is, and will play with it some tonight, but when I load a song already written in BIAB, am I essentially loading it into a DIFFERENT program or BIAB on steroids? Is it going to change the assigned instruments? Erase the solos? And where would I go to read about this? Do I take a week of vacation to try and sift through EVERY ITEM in the help files until I guess correctly on what my issue is called in the helps? That's like trying to pick a style. Yesterday, just so I knew, I kept track. I looked at (get ready for it) 87 styles before I found one I liked. (What is a style called "cnty_tim" supposed to mean? Is that a shuffle, a stomp, a ballad, a hoedown.....? What is "standard"? And who the hell is "Tim"?) Can those styles not be arranged by "Ballad" - "Shuffle" - "Stomp" - etc? Brent Mason's name in a style may be a good thing for "measuring in the shower" value (Look everybody! We got Brent Mason to do samples!) but it doesn't describe the groove in any way. I was looking for a groove kind of like Terri Clark's tune "Now That I Found You". Some of the styles have "example songs" listed that are not even CLOSE to what the groove of the style is.

When I bought this program, I bought it because it was going to be a fast, easy, quick and dirty back up band to do demos to send to players who will be playing on my CD. I didn't know that I would have to spend 80-100 hours reading help files when I wanted to learn something that I would expect would be clearly defined if not absolutely intuitive. I bought it so I could STOP using Sonar, STOP programming drum machines, STOP playing in take after take to fix my clams, STOP playing with MIDI routing so the right tracks played on the right keyboard (of the 5 I use).

I would like to see the styles offered with JUST a drum groove, but in addition to what they are now. I would like to be able to pick a groove, pick the bass sound, pick the piano, pick the organ, pick the guitar.... from a SIMPLE LIST of instruments, and where the guitar parts play under the guitar tab and the piano plays under the piano tab. In fact I would like to see empty instrument "tabs" so I can designate that maybe tab 1 will be chunking rhythm, tab 2 will be pedal steel, tab 3 will be piano... etc.. rather than a style assigning parts that are close to impossible to change. So with all of that, does what I just said I would like to see constitute my wanting a "DAW"? (Which, just FYI, I consider as "oh please - call it what it is" as calling a used car a "previously owned automobile" or a second mortgage as a "home equity loan". A "DAW" is a multi track sequencer. Let's not play acronym bingo. I mean, VSTi? I have called that "soft synth" for years. Must I change to "Virtual Studio Technology instruments" now?)

The requests about changing the icons I understand again because of the learning curve. There is a huge asterisk on my toolbar. Only recently and by complete accident did I discover that the huge asterisk is supposed to be a big snowflake that indicates the option to FREEZE a track. (How about people in Florida who have never seen snow? Do they know that is supposed to be a big snowflake indicating "that cold white stuff that falls from the sky and freezes stuff"? I toured a lot in Canada so I KNOW you folks up north know about the big snowflake.... LOL!) Would it not be at least AS effective to print the letters F-R-E-E-Z-E instead of a picture of a snowflake? There are so many icons that have nothing cognitive about them that I have had to sit there and hover the mouse over them until to caption bubble opened. And THEN I had to try, at my age, and remember what they all meant because 3 seconds after the caption bubble closed it was erased from my brain's memory bank.

This really is more about education. I really think that is at the bottom of this whole debate.