I want to begin this post by saying that I am aware that programming is much more complicated than the typical end-user appreciates, and that I have had nothing but positive experiences dealing with PG Music sales staff, support staff, etc. They are a great company and put out a good product and support it wel. That said, I do not understand why a program as good as BIAB still has a basic user interface that looks like a 1980s era piece of software.

The basic element of the program - the chord sheet - while functional and intuitive in many ways, is well below what I think we should get when paying top dollar for a computer program.

If the program is playing music, then the basic interface should look like a piece of music, not an abstract "hyperpad" or spreadsheet.

Meaning, something that looks like a lead sheet in the Real Book. A stave with an actual key signature, time signature, and melody. Chord symbols above the stave, etc.

And, most importantly: functional, usable elements of sheet music like first and second endings, repeat signs, codas, possibly even dynamic markings, etc. As the program exists, a typical new user or infrequent user is constantly hamstrung trying to "translate" from what is a relatively universally understood, simple system of symbols (sheet music), into "BIAB" equivalents.

An analogy would be old word processing programs, which were not "what you see is what you get," and you had to input your text in the "Word Perfect" translation, and hope that when you hit the print button, the end document looked the way you wanted. The change to WYSIWYG formats in word processors was monumental. BIAB is like a 1980's word processor.

Perhaps it would be a herculean task to change the format this way. Maybe it would make the program much larger, in terms of code, etc. Maybe it wouldn't be worth it.

But in my opinion, as the program exists right now, it is a powerful but somewhat disappointing program.

What about the player who does not want that? I want to use the lyrics window with chord scrolling . Should they code to satisfy me? What about the guy that doesn't want, or need to see a music sheet, but uses the program to build chord based backing tracks (one of the primary uses) should he be forced to read it as a sheet music?

I understand your need, but it is not everyones need. So why not keep it as it is and slowly improve all the features as it goes.

86, you do know about the Lead Sheet Window, and Fake Sheet Mode, right?

Matt - I am aware of it, but as far as I know, for the mac version anyway, there is no such thing as 1st/2nd endings, repeats, codas, etc.

I guess, Rob, I'm saying that I think because it would make the program better, without sacrificing anything. No, you don't code to every individual's personal preference, but you do try to make the best product out there.

I think the most intuitive way to make a music program is to make the interface look like a piece of music. Just like the most intuitive way to make a word processor is to make the interface look like a sheet of paper.

But people please correct me if I'm wrong....as far as I know, there is no such thing as a simple, clickable "repeat" or "1st ending" item in the mac version.

OK, good to know we are talking about the Mac version. I am not familiar with that.

I see where you are coming from 86 but notation has limits. It simply cant reflect some of the things that go on in live music accurately. I learnt the classical route and used to think that notation and playing in such a way to accurately reflect the written notes was in some way a holy grail. I now realise that modern western notation is in fact a hotch potch of compromises that is incapable of reflecting accurately AND simply, some of the necessary things we do when we play in a certain style.
For example, I once tried to notate a sax solo where the player started each note a little early for effect, if I wrote this strictly then I ended up with a mess of hemidemisemiquavers for what was essentially a solo in simple eigths. Another example, when playing a acoustic guitar solo the sustain of the notes is often as much a function of how the fingers move and how many open strings there are. If you tried to notate this exactly then you would have to note what maybe essentially easy phrases with various different rests intertwined.
Notation also fails to signify some essential things. Often a player will put a heavier accent on the first and third beats of 4/4 but this is not written. The velocity and attack of different notes is usually left to the performeer though some indications are occasionally given. Often a player will sustain a note whilst a second and even a third and fourth note are played (subconsciously). If all of these notes (ie. on a guitar) were written as played then again one would get a very cluttered score which would be unreadable and unecessaraliy pedantic. For these reasons I dont see that notation can reflect a live perfomance, especially something like a blues harmonic solo or a rock guitar riff with lots of feedback. Try playing some simple solo (with feel) into a sequencer a (which supports scoring) and take a look at the result - a labrynth of clutter and confusion.
As for refecting dynamics, in the real world a crescendo for example is not just a increase in the amplitude of a sound, but as the instrument(s) is stressed a totally different wave form casn be found, the attack can change, vibrato and much more

In the round I am saying that there is much more to this than meets the eye. Cubase has two concepts which help. They have 'display quantise' which distinguishes between two notations the 'real' notation of what is played, (which is often impossible to read) and the tweaked 'display' which is a simplification which does NOT strictly represent what you hear. It laos has expression maps which allow the selection of (e.g. different staccato samples, for the SAME notation symbol. This is important because even though the same symbol is used on the page a player will use a range of different staccato sounds for different contexts. In fact I vbelive that in a whole lifetime of playing the sax I have never actually made the same sound twice - in oscilloscope terms.

I agree weith you that the interfac e is outdated though.

Just IMO.... its complex!

ZeroZero - thanks for the thoughtful reply. I'd never thought of any of what you wrote, so obviously a strictly notation-based system would be inadequate.

But for those things which are used in standard notation and are easily conceptualized - like first and second endings, codas, etc. - I cannot believe this program is in its 10th version and these simple devices have not been created! Can we at least make these?

Again, thanks.

What you want in features i agree, the Mac version needs to catch up to the Win version for sure.

Hello,
This post is about 'odd' time signature (ie: 5/4, 5/8 etc...)
I’ve been using BiaB since years to my overall satisfaction but:
I understand that BiaB is not a score editor however:
Currently both in playing and in printing scores with such time signature (ie ‘take five’) is not quite satisfactory though it’s somehow working.
As an example 5/4 is shown as a combination of ¾ and 2/4 bars where ‘usual’ score should show up to 5 quarter notes (or more) within a single bar. This is not very handy when entering notes with a mouse.
I recently tried to enter a song in 5/8 but found it quite impossible to enter eighth’s notes and came to use 5/4 instead, and by the way the song 'sounds' OK.
So I’m wondering if there could be any plan to offer a better support for ‘odd’ time signature such as 5/4, 5/8 etc... so the score appears identical to those of 'real books' and other score publications.
Thank you

Along the same lines, I would really like to see BIAB able to import Music XML files.