PG Music Home Forums PG Music Product Forums Band-in-a-Box for Windows RealTracks Melody Not Editable?

Haven't found any documentation on this, yet, but I suspect that the way Realtracks works is that it's a series of audio clips and cannot be made to follow a custom melody. Is that correct? If not, how can I write a melody and have a RealTracks instrument follow it (or take a RealTracks generated melody and change it)?

Thanks.

Hi Chris,

Quote:

---

I suspect that the way Realtracks works is that it's a series of audio clips and cannot be made to follow a custom melody.

---

That's correct. What you describe is exactly the way Realtracks work. At this point in time, it's not possible to have Realtracks play a melody created by the user.

Regards,
Noel

While the Realtracks cannot be made to play a defined Melody, use of MIDI on the Melody and/or Soloist tracks can easily make that happen.

Use of a good quality MIDI synth, plus taking advantage of the fact that addition of Realtracks and Realdrums in the autoaccompaniment style greatly masks the use of the "MIDI" sound can work quite well.

Of course, choice of Instrument Patch may be as important as use of that good quality MIDI synth as well, it seems that certain instrument patches lend themselves to sounding more realistic than other attempts, for reasons of Attack, Decay, Sustain, Release found in the sample set. For example, emulating a real guitar or horn may be a bit more problematic using MIDI Patches, in some cases. MIDI sounds such as Pianos, Vibes, Organs, Marimba, Clavinet, etc. -- those sounds where there is the same attack on every note anyway, are often more convincing to my ears whereas a Horn or Guitar track may not be able to emulate the slurring, hammer-on and pulloff sounds of the guitar or horn.

When Realtracks and Realdrums were first introduced, many of us immediately noticed that situation mentioned, the addition of one or two MIDI tracks, when played back with Realtrack/Realdrums accompaniment really does serve to "mask" that "MIDI" sound.


--Mac

Sound vs edit-ability is a factor we all have to judge.

While musicians tend to spend a lot of time on sound, I'm a believer that the audience notices expression more than tone. Take the two highest rated saxophone players of the 20th century, Stan Getz and John Coltrane. Play recordings of both to a non-musician listener, and 95 out of 100 will say they are playing different instruments. Truth is they both played Selmer Mark VI saxophones.

And if tone was so important, why did singers like Dr. John, Blossom Dearie, Stevie Nicks, Rod Stewart, Bob Dylan, John Lennon and so many others play zillions of recordings? Less than stellar voices, but good expression.

Unless you have an el-cheapo synthesizer, the problem with MIDI is not the sounds, but how it's played. If you can find a recording of Manhattan Transfer's "Wacky Dust" give it a listen. The synthesizers are analog synths, the kind with no samples but only oscillators and filters with twisty knobs and patch cables. Yet you hear saxes, trumpets, clarinets, and trombones. The tone isn't exact. The reason you hear them is the way they are played.

And to quote Craig Anderton who quoted Alan Parsons, "Since then [1983] MIDI has become embedded in the DNA of virtually every pop music production." So if MIDI sounds bad, why don't you hear bad sounds on virtually every pop recording for the last 30 years? Because the musicians on those recordings know how to play MIDI.

It's really easy to enter notes in MIDI, and therefore there is a lot of bad MIDI music out there. But the difference between entering notes and playing MIDI is remarkable and requires a learning curve. It's easy to get a note out of a drum, but not everyone who can walk up to a drum set and hit the drums can make them sound good. Same for MIDI.

So how do you get MIDI to sound real?

The first step us to understand how to do something other than play notes. Playing a guitar or sax patch like a piano isn't going to fool anyone into thinking it's a piano. Besides for note on, note off and pitch bend control there are many continuous controller messages that can allow you to manipulate the sound after it has been attacked. Complete list: http://www.nortonmusic.com/midi_cc.html

Then you need to figure out how to use them to recreate the nuances of the instrument you are trying to emulate.

Let me explain...

When a comedian impressionist does his/her impression of a famous person (the president or some well know celebrity) you hear the person he/she is doing, and not the comedian. Now the impressionist doesn't have the same voice as the person he/she is doing, and sometimes a voice very far from the subject. So why does it sound like the famous person and not the comedian?

The answer is that the comedian captured the speech nuances of the famous person.

When you use MIDI to emulate another instrument, the trick is to recreate the nuances of that instrument. That's why playing a sax or guitar part with piano-like expression won't fool anybody. That's also why those twisty-knob, non-sampled analog synths in "Wacky Dust" can sound like the Glenn Miller Orchestra

A few pointers to get you started. Saxophones often scoop up to notes from flat to on pitch and because it's easier, vibrato tends to be more on the flat side of "zero pitch" than sharp. On the other hand, guitar vibrato is more often than not from pitch to sharp and back again because it's easier to bend the strings that way than to wiggle the whammy bar if the guitarist has one. Flutes tend to use more of a tremolo effect, changing volume for vibrato instead of pitch (although we still call it vibrato). Trombonists tend to tongue notes a lot, avoiding slurs unless they want the portamento effect of using the slide to glide. Most instruments have a variety of different articulations and most wind instruments are fond of changing the volume after the note has been initiated.

Trying to capture the nuances of different instruments will change your music forever. You will listen to other instruments differently, analyzing how they get their personal expression (which is governed by the physical qualities and limitations of the instrument) and your playing will become more expressive. I use the tricks I learned emulating other instruments to even get better expression out of non-emulative patches. And of course, sometimes I break the rules and use some of the expressive nuances of one instrument on another.

So there is nothing wrong with MIDI. While I do use Real Tracks, I tend to use MIDI more often, because I can't get the RTs to play what I want them to play. On the other hand, I can edit MIDI to my heart's content, and knowing that the audience cares more about expression than tone, if I work hard enough at my skills and use enough artistic judgement, I can win more non-musician ears with MIDI than I can with pre-recorded loops.

Of course YMMV

Insights and incites by Notes

Quite a few Hollywood movie underscores have MIDI all over 'em too.


--Mac

I don't go to the theaters -- the volume is usually at ear-damaging levels and I protect my ears. Instead I watch rented movies at home.

I usually watch the bonus tracks on the DVDs, especially if they concern how the music was made. I've seen a few major studio blockbusters that were done completely with MIDI - no other instruments at all.

I also go to symphony concerts. I've seen international touring orchestras from Europe, Asia, and the Americas bring MIDI controlled keyboards to play parts of instruments that are not easy to transport (organ, celeste, bells, etc.). Though I must admit, the first time I saw violins, violas, cellos, double-basses, as well as the winds and percussion sections up there with a Korg, it took me by surprise.

Now if MIDI sounds good enough for virtually every pop tune for the past 30 years, if MIDI sounds good enough for major movie soundtracks, and if MIDI sounds good enough for the world's most famous symphony orchestras, who in their right mind can say that MIDI doesn't sound good????????? (of course I mean synths controlled by MIDI because for the newbies around here, MIDI has no sound at all)

That's like saying the electric guitar doesn't sound good because it doesn't sound like a nylon string acoustic. Or the Rhodes doesn't sound good because it doesn't sound like a Steinway.

It's all in the brains and hands of the player. MIDI is a tool used to play synthesizers. Synths can be cheesy or sound wonderful. But any mediocre to great synth can make great music if you know how to use the MIDI that controls it.

If MIDI is good enough for L.A., Nashville, and Hollywood -- if it's good enough for virtually everything you've heard on the radio for that past 30 years -- if it's good enough for a world-famous symphony orchestra, it should be good enough for you, if you will just take the time to learn how to use it. It's not that difficult, and if you take the time, you will probably be a better musician on your main instrument as well.

Insights and incites by Notes

I have limited experience with MIDI but the vast majority of MIDI music I have heard all sounds like the circus just pulled into town (no offense to circuses is intended)! So when I was checking out BIAB the main thing I was interested in was RealTracks.

For me, the benefit of BIAB with RealTracks is I can sit down and within minutes get a complete accompaniment that sounds fantastic. Maybe, as Bob said, it would be possible with MIDI if I purchased a great synth and then spent the time to learn to play MIDI but that kinda defeats the whole purpose for me. If I have to learn something in order to make a great guitar track I'd rather learn to play guitar than learn to play MIDI to sound like a guitar!

So, currently I'm resigned to taking what RealTracks gives me and doing some mix & match editing in my DAW to get close to what I want. Or playing the part myself if I get desperate!

What it *should* be telling you is that you can't expect to download some midiot's free MIDI file and expect that to sound like what the pro music world is doing.

Look at it this way, there are literally millions of flattop acoustic guitars in the world now, but only a limited number of players who can command ticket price to hear them play the things...


--Mac

That's the deal. MIDI gets a bad name because there are a zillion people who just enter notes. It's easier to enter notes in MIDI than to play 4 chords on a flat top guitar, or pick up a pair of drum sticks.

I hear a lot of "frammers" in this town that sound worse than circus music. You can put a "First Act" guitar in the hands of a good musician and it will sound better than a "Martin" in the hands of the majority of players. Jimmy Page sounded better on the el-cheapo Danelectro than I could sound with a Gibson Johnny A model. It's not the sound, but the player.

And with the big guys, it's not the expensive toys, but the skill. Learning to play a musical instrument takes practice and talent, and that includes MIDI instruments. Just like the guitar or the sax, if you learn how to use the tool, you can get great results. The "Wacky Dust" cut I mentioned used archaic 70s era synths. I know your entry-level Sound Canvas has better sounds. But they captured the nuances of the Glenn Miller Orchestra. Not with the tools, but with technique.

To me Real Tracks and MIDI are like the difference between a collage and oil painting. With a collage you are limited to the things that other people have done, clip them out with a pair of scissors and paste them to the board. Easy-peasy. But you won't create the "Mona Lisa", "Birth Of Venus", or "Silent Scream" with a pair of scissors. With a canvas, brush, and oil paints you can create anything you want are aren't limited to what you can snip out of a magazine.

With the RTs, you are limited to the snippets PG Provides (and some of them are indeed excellent) but with MIDI you can edit to your hearts content and create anything you want, from Rock and Roll to Rachmaninoff.

Not that there is anything wrong with either a collage or Real Tracks. It's a different thing. If you are totally happy with the RTs, use them, that's what they are there for.

If there is an appropriate RT for the song I'm doing, I'll use it, or perhaps only use one or two of the tracks and fill in the rest with MIDI. On other songs, the RTs are totally inappropriate and if I want to play the song, I'll need to do it in MIDI 100%.

Two different tools, for two different applications.

With the advice of some people on the forum, I gave Celemony Melodyne a 30 day trial. I found it worked well with one-note parts like bass lines, but balked with polyphony. Manipulating the controls either gave too few notes or a lot of "ghost notes" in most occasions where the chords where thick. I had fun playing with it, but getting the part ready for editing was more time consuming than it was worth. At the end of the 30 day trial period, I took it off the hard drive. Perhaps some day the technology will get better - it usually does.

So if it needs editing, I go to MIDI. If it's fine just as it is, I'll use either MIDI or a RT, depending on which is more appropriate.

Of course, YMMV

And I challenge anyone to recreate the chord progression demo on my fake disk #32 with Real Tracks and make it sound as close to the original. If you can, I'll give you the fake disk, free.

Insights and incites by Notes

"Its a poor carpenter that blames his tools."

I just listened to The MH version of Wacky Dust. It is cool, but HARDLY sounds like acoustic instruments at all. Listen to the Chick Webb band immediately after. I am not sure the MH producers were trying to simulate a real band, 'cause they could have just hired cats.