PG Music Home Forums PG Music Wishlists Band-in-a-Box Wishlist why the young are not buying into BIAB- my opinion

Hope I don't get jumped on - its fine others disagree....

I find PG's development very worrying. As I have said in other posts its like a raft cobbled together, but supporting some fantastic innovations.

I really want PG to succeed.

So please, development team sit back, relax, take a look at the GUI in BIAB, then check out the products that are actually in use by the younger generation. Frankly they are slicker, more functional and more intuitive. I have just been assessing Cubase 8 for example, its no contest, funny, the update is cheaper than BIAB too. Cubase is a case in point, its a granddaddy of a program too but its super fit, looks so young and lean and is so powerful.

If I was 18 years olds and looking for a new program, would I really settle on a program with a distinct windows 95 look, no trial offer, no free version.
Would I use it for loops when I can get Fruity Loops? Its no environment for this sort of work - really, if we are to be honest.

Real Tracks are fantastic. BIAB's MIDI functionality is powerful but very very dated. To an 18 year old BIAB must look like some form of historical document.



It needs to be said


Z

Hi ZeroZero: I'm not trying to start a "war" but I have to disagree. The GUI has really been enhanced a lot esp. with 2015. And I'm really glad that they didn't overhaul it so much that you couldn't find the regular functions, and that would mean "starting" all over again.

And there is a new course from Groove3.com re: BIAB 2014. I was thinking while watching it that this will appeal to the younger generation. Just a coincidence to your thoughts.

Just my opinion.
Cheers.

Hi ZeroZero,

That was very well stated and I agree 100%. It is time for a complete re-write.

Sonar went through some huge growing pains when it went from 8.5 to X1 and at that time almost everyone complained about the workflow change. Now with X3 most all agree that it was for the best, in fact I find the X series much easier to use than the Sonar 2-8.5 work flow. I am sure that the same thing will happen with a compete re-write of BiaB.

The major GUI changes to BIAB occurred more last year, and it's a good work still in progress. I thoroughly love BIAB. I don't have a problem with MIDI implementation in BIAB; MIDI is itself a very dated standard in need of a rewrite. Music XML support would go a long way there, and BIAB is so close already.

I think Mario's comments about SONAR are instructive. SONAR 8.5 was at least a reasonably contemporary interface to start with. We managed to adapt to the X series and I finally have deleted 8.5 from my computer. I would be pleased to purchase an upgrade to BIAB if it had nothing new except these three things: fully 64-bit, a reworked user interface that adopted standard Windows functions throughout, and a redesigned menu system and dialog boxes. Of course, doing this would be a massive effort, but it would position BIAB better for the future.

I also agree. In my opinion, BIAB needs a serious GUI redesing, I would be really happy purchasing a BIAB upgrade if it had only a new, more functional user interface.

Soolan, its fine you disagree, but I also disagree with your disagree

I have been using Cubase for more than 20 years. Every now and again there is a radical rewrite, functions are dropped but power is enhanced. Frankly, what we call an 'enhanced' gui are things like allowing a banjo to be called a banjo or adding a basic mixer - a decade or so after they should have done this. The whole program is way behind, it still looks dated.
You can pay up to 669 dollars for BIAB whereas Cubase is 606 dollars for top product. The updates are more expensive than Cubases too.
I was very unimpressed by this update, with the exception of the real tracks. I don't think that most of the '50 new features' rank as new features, they are mostly the sort of thing other software companies build into a free update.

Again I say I wat PG to improve, that's why it needs a reality check

Z

What I like about this thread is, it is positive. Opinions are respected. Very good; we all want the best for PG Music.

Matt: Don't know about Sonar, so cant comment on their user's journey.

I especially agree that the menus need to be revisited. The selection of instruments, VST's, and routing of data is difficult to comprehend, unintuitive, and often there is a requirement to go to many different menus to configure this.

It seriously needs a routing diagram that clearly shows exactly what is going where.

From what I can see, the User Interface changes/enhancements this time around are indeed minimal. A year is a long time to wait for an update, and there are lots of expectations, with a possibly disappointing delivered result.

ZZ is exactly correct. Other products are definitely offering more appeal. We want this product to do the same, and not get left behind.

Trevor

Zero, SONAR is a great program, similar in function to Cubase. Mario covered the important point here, about their decision to do a complete user interface overhaul. It has certainly paid off for them, in my opinion.

[I have only one gripe: they took away the Save button.]

Maybe the usual market laws are at work here. I don't see anywhere some competing software providing similar features like BiaB. There are zillions of sequencers and DAWs out there, though.

I would just love to see the broken things fixed once and for all. As far as the cost for BIAB vs Cubase, i think the price difference is due to the RTS

Hi Martin Yes the market is ruling, if your the only supplier, then you can charge what you like - simple.

The real tracks are excellent no doubt - superb some of them, but maybe the price difference cant be explained by this....Cubase develops all the time at ten times the speed, they also give away numerous loops and samples, not to mention very decent free instruments and effects.

The very new update from C7.5 to C8 pro is a case in point, a real step change, and looking so slick

Z

Yeah Z i hear ya, but RTs are not simple loops samples, or VSTis, they are paid musician's recordings. I am sure they cost a pretty penny to make. Still that is where PG has chosen to place their development dollar/pound/peso/rupee!?!?

BiaB an't hope to catch up to Cubase, one of the oldest and most developed DAW packages on the market. Especially since BiaB is not a DAW per se it is a different cat. Cubase/Sonar/Protools are all fighting to be the recording studio DAW of choice. BiaB is not in that race, it is a tool to use for musicians to learn/develop/teach/and design song beds and such. They even include a basic DAW to keep that evolution going. But neither are slated to be full Studio DAW systems.

But i will say your point is very well stated, in that the younger crowd likes the traditional DAW environment better. It works like they think. I will say that when i have shown it to young friends they were blown away by it's capability, but it seemed not to be their way of working.

Zerozero:

It is your opinion and I wonder what source you are getting your demographics from.

The first thing you need to completely understand is that BIAB is NOT a DAW. Making comparisons to Cubase, Sonar, Protools, Studio one or any other multitrack Digital RECORDING software is an innane comparison. Different purposes, different software.

The real magic is that BIAB integrates seamlessly with your DAW of choice ... as an instrument not a recording tool. That's pretty awesome and, to be frank, the only one of it's kind!

So go ahead and use you favorite DAW to record, but MAKE music with BIAB.

Finally, this topic is for posting specfic ideas that will improve the BIAB experience. If you wish to vent your diappointment and misunderstanding of what you purchased, please take your opinion to the " Off topic" forum.

I agree with all of that, but sometimes I feel like Jack

You really don't need to have much data to understand that software with a Windows 95/3.1 era interface will be a tough sell to the younger generation! And this is not just a "those dang kids today" moment. The newer software GUIs are just better! MUCH better! Both in their look & feel and in their functionality. Those of us who LOVE what BIAB can do for us still admit that!


Nope. When discussing music software tools it is absolutely appropriate to compare to other state-of-the-art music software tools. Great GUI is great GUI regardless of the program you are using!


Well, "seamless" has a definition! When I open Kontakt inside Reaper...now that is seamless. But, as great as BIAB is (and IT IS GREAT), creating tracks and exporting them to MIDI or WAV files and then importing those into my DAW is anything but seamless! Yeah, it works but it ain't that slick in this day and age!


I certainly agree with you here. But, the conversation was not "we CAN'T make music with these tools" rather it was "how can BIAB be improved?"


Quite the contrary, this is the perfect forum for this conversation. The GUI needs improvement so the wishlist is the best place to talk about this!

I do not mean to sound all negative as I LOVE, LOVE, LOVE this product!!! But if we can encourage PG to improve the GUI it is a win for all of us, especially PG as their market would grow overnight!

John, John and John you all nailed it again, thank you.
Sometimes I just want to give up like Jack, I think I'm too outspoken, maybe I should not say anything for fear of offending.
Then you get others that come along and SEE the same things, it gives you hope to keep going

I'm with John John, I think it's valid to make a comparison to other music applications, obviously their different, but you can compare.
One of my points is that Cubase is obviously more powerful has more development and is cheaper. Its not just features bolted on to its original MIDI sequencer architecture.
Cubase has been around for a long while yes, but so has BIAB. Cubase periodically has a ground up redesign, BIAB patches bits on.
Biab still crashes more than any other application I own, I keep away from large parts of the program (like notation) because they don't seem to work here. RB is so bad I don't even go near it. Yes, it can do one thing I really need and do this excellently.

As I said in another thread, its thirteen years since Windows became 64 bit. What is trumpeted by PG is an update that makes us pay for a compromise application Jbridge, made by another company. I have spent a lot of time avoiding Jbridge in Cubase and now use it for only one task, its not a professional solution.
Taking aside the real tracks and loops, I don't see major development in BIAB 2015. There are some things like speedier loading of song lists, that are very welcome, and even labelling of instruments accurately. But for me the gui has hardly changed, these IMO are minor tweaks like adding a short cut to the tutorial videos or adding an algorithm to check for updates, or adding a feature to email a song (why? why not simply attach it?). Many of the "fifty new features" are overstated (IMO!).

That's not to say there is not a lot to like about PG (and you guys that disagree).

Z

BiaB has by far the worst user interface of all my programs on the Mac! I once showed it a friend of mine, he broke out in laughter! I 'm wondering if I actually still want to install BiaB on my new iMac retina.

But worst of all is that you can not import text files. Otherwise, you could just create or modify a song outside BiaB and then let BiaB create the audio files. A user interface isn't even needed for this workflow!

All:

Okay, all well said and points well taken. What I'm hearing is that, for the most part, and technical issues aside (things that don't work should be addressed to Technical Support, imo), you all love what BIAB does, you just don't like the way it looks and feels and sometimes HOW it does something.

So, getting back to the point of this forum: What, exactly, do you want PGMusic to change? The colors? The lay out of the ChordSheet or the entire screen? the menu structure? how chords are entered? the fonts? the big (and yes, ugly) keyboard on the main screen (although you can hide that)? order and grouping menu items? all of the above?

Merely complaining that the GUI is ugly and not modern looking or you have to click 7 different nested menus to find what you want is not productive. Exactly HOW is it not modern looking? Where would you put that menu item your looking for? How would you change chord entry?

You know what you don't like and you probably have well thought out suggestions on what you do want it to look like and how to make it better, more intuitive and which features you want added or moved. Articulate those suggestions here and give the developers something to work with.

Make specific suggestions ... the feed back that will garnered here, in this forum, will create the gauge PGMusic can use to prioritize and manage change.

...you must be new here . Welcome to the forum .

jazzmandan:

Thanks.

("..you must be new here." - I'm assuming you meant that positively.)

New to the forums, yes, but an old, old BIAB user. I actually have BIAB versions in my dusty old studio closet that came on 5-1/2" floppy disks!! Heck, I started using DAW's and other music software when Cakewalk (now 'SONAR' for you young bucks) was merely a SHAREWARE midi sequencing program running in MS-DOS !!

I've used BIAB do to everything from sketching ideas, to guitar and keyboard practice, to live performance and final song production. The program really is unique on the market. The only thing that came close is "Jammer Pro-6". And if anyone thinks this GUI is archaic, check out Jammer ... although that program has it's strengths too. (and to be fair, the Jammer folks fell on hard times several years ago and haven't really updated the program or been able to keep up with BIAB.)

Anyway, thanks. Glad to be here. I'll try to keep MHO in check...

I think the GUI refinements made in 2014 & 2015 indicate PG Music recognizes the interface needs to change and has started the process. However instead of a "complete overhaul" the interface is changing in steps. Both overhaul and steps are moves in the right direction just one is much more drastic than the other. Enhancements like use of acidized loops and UserTracks are major steps forward to widen the appeal of BiaB & RealBand.

I strongly believe true 64 bit editions of RealBand and Band-in-a-Box are being developed and those editions will be new from the ground up. I also believe the number of devices using 32 bit operating systems are declining but will continue to exist for the next decade. So there will continue to be a need to serve the 32 and 64 bit customer bases for the near future. I believe PG Music is maintaining the 32 bit editions while much of their attention and resources are directed to developing 64 bit programs. Starting over new is a huge task but offers the opportunity to intergrate all existing features and plan ways to merge future enhancements.

That's why my hope is PG Music concentrates on bug fixes and stabilizing the current RealBand and BiaB programs. I am well satisfied with the feature set of these programs. I can, and do, make do with the current GUI.

Another issue is documentation is not available for download from the site. A customer has no way to look through the product manuals prior to purchase. I can not think of any other musical product, hardware or software based, that does not have manuals available online.

Should a customer get a product manual the customer would find a manual that is either out-of-date or in disarray. Neither RealBand's or Band-in-a-Box's documentation offer comprehensive feature descriptions or how-to-use explanations. Both are gross in size (number of pages) and difficult to use.

As with all comments posted on this thread, I am a diehard fan of PG Music products. These opinions are just that, my opinions.

Hi JimFogle

Well said and you are right-on with your observations.

As far as documentation goes, on a MAC, if you click on the "View Band_In_A_Box full Manual" in the HELP menu, MAC opens it with the PREVIEW App. In the Preview App file menu you have the option to "EXPORT TO PDF..."

Works great ... printing out all 364 pages, will, however probably run your printer out of ink or toner!! ;0

You are correct also that the documentation in that manual is not as detailed as it could ... or should ... be. Some functions just require Step-by-step instructions.

I've been using BIAB since the "floppy days" as well. The interface has never bothered me. The functions of the program are what matter to me. I use BIAB for solo gigs and all I need to know is where to pick one of my charts and what button to play it. Obviously, my use of BIAB is limited but it suits me perfectly. What looks outdated to some of you is "modern retro" to me. Later, Ray

Yes, you assume correctly. And regarding your "MHO", don't hold back, just weigh in when ever. This is a friendly place.

I love it! It's not a problem; for those of us whose age is what it is, this is a feature!

I do hope your right Jim, this could be the reason why the update lacks lustre (IMO) the work is going into 64 bit rewrite. I hoped this one would be 64 bit too.

Good idea about having the manual on line for new customers to look at. I often think that a demo version would also be useful, at the moment you tell a friend and she/he has to rush straight to a cheque book. A thirty day trial would be good for many.

Another fan here, despite all...

Z

I agree, but do any of these other programs have the functionality BIAB has? I don't think so. We would all love for PG Music to catch up to the rest of the world but frankly, I don't believe that will happen anytime soon.

However, BIAB does what I need it to do, and what it was designed to do, and that is to create automatic accompaniment by inputting a set of chord changes. In a very small amount of time, I can input a tune and have a band play behind me and have the ability to change the style, tempo, or key and play it however long I want to.

A newer interface wouldn't change this, just make it nicer to look at and more appealing to the ipad generation. XML export ability would sure be nice though. It has been on the wish list for several years.

Z, you are right about that stuff. I love PG, and all their stuff. I do wish it was all i needed. I would love to put all my money in one basket. I currently upgrade BiaB and Studio one each year. The later because i still need some features that RB does not excel at or have. I differ from your opinion in that i don't care about GUI nearly as much as features. I can say i see your point that a less cluttered GUI and more modern Windows environment would make things easier at times.

I see on many forums that GUI is the rage, at reaper everyone wants to skin the system. In the end it looks cool, but is just that looks, not function. Both Studio one, and Reaper are big on custom setups, that is nice, but i worry if major GUI, and function changes would make it even more unstable. Look at what has gone on over at sonar.

I would love to see the system be stabilized, and the long term broken features fixed, and then once it is a well "Solidrock" then rework the looks and add cool feature sets.

I also agree that Jbridge is not the answer, if you are going to go 64 bit go 64 bit. have a 32 bit program that can access a 64 VSTi on a 64 bit computer seems kind of weak to me. But maybe this is step one. We all know the programs have some old vintage code, and as function rich and deep as BiaB is, and by extension RB. These things are not going to change over night. Until then i will upgrade two systems, and go as far with one as i can, then jump ship.

You guys bring up some interesting and thought provoking ideas and dialog. it is fun and interesting to read. Keep it up. SR, don't get frustrated, i think your observations are valuable.

As a relative newbie to BIAB since 2013 and upgraded to 2014 and now 2015 here's my take.

As a rhythm guitarist and singer who cannot play anything else apart from some percussion, I find BIAB has given me the ability to make music with other musicians, albeit virtual ones. So BIAB stands alone. I cannot play keyboard so MIDI is no good for me either. I wish I could play more instruments and record each one but there you go, we all have limitations.

The GUI has got better so I'm all for an improved GUI and to make the program easier to learn with more video tutorials please. The easier the programs gets the more people will be drawn to it. Also like to see more Realtracks of different styles. In my opinion there's too many that sound the same. We need good quality Realtracks for different genres.

Now Realband to me is a complete headache. It looks like a DAW but isn't and universal functions don't seems to work in RealBand. So what seems intuitive to do does something else or does nothing.

All said and done, it's a great product that needs better design to make using it easier. But I am a fan!

Hi all,

I agree that BIAB is great for some things. But when I try to get my students to check it out, to actually use it, most of them laugh. They don't take it seriously, because it still looks like it was written in 1995, and I just bought 2015 (Im not very impressed actually, thinking about returning it, some of the RTs are OK, many of them are lame, and the whole "Loops" concept is not at all important for me)

Here is what BIAB needs in my humble opinion, keep in mind I've been using it as a teaching and gigging tool since the Atari days!

1. Complete rewrite of the Program in 64 bit, and GUI. Please take a look at Digital Performer, or Logic.
2. The midi section is SO outdated, I STILL can't use a decent midi sound set to record midi with in BIAB, We should be able to use Kontakt without issues, including ASIO issues that I STILL have.
3. Notation>Its nice to see the notes, but the notation is still clunky and inaccurate. Why can't we have real Notation features, like Finale or Sibelius? Why is it so hard to edit notes? Why can't we save different sets of Notation (ex>Bass clef only, Treble only, etc) and save it for EACH song so that it works with the Jukebox, you dont need to go into the Leadsheet view and waste time.
4. Intros and Endings? I think you all know this is a huge weakness of BIAB, its time to address this. I don't want 2 bars of Bass hanging over, etc.
5. Its time to start putting packages together that address the tastes of each buyer. Why pay big $$ for RTs/RDs that you never will use, and take up HD space? Have 1 Package for Jazz Users, another for Country, another for Pop, etc. It brings the cost down, and makes it possible to pay for what you would use on the gig. How many of you are going to use "Loops"? Why should I pay for that? If I wanted Abelton Live, I'd get it.
6. RTs>Is it just me, or do most RTs and Soloists sound like they took a Qualude? There just isn't any "Life" in them! As a Trumpet player, the Horn RTs are a BIG let down. The problem is that the way RTs are recorded is very restrictive, there needs to be a better process in terms of the rules used.

OK, I have my Helmet and Flack Jacket ready, fire away....hahaha
Really, I do like the program and I use it a lot everyday, I just think it could be SO much better......
Edward

+1 on that, Paul!
I could have written it!
I too am a guitarist with no other musical skills, no keyboard, no musical education.
So I use BB to give me exactly what it says on the tin - my own Band In A Box by a few QWERTY keystrokes.
I love the RTs which would be even better if PG realised that there is music over the other side of the Atlantic and gave us more appropriate Styles. Less Jazz - please!!
RB - I agree 100%. I have tried and tried but in the end I have to export my BB wavs to an 11 year old DAW (Cakewalk Guitar Pro2) to work on the Mix. Some folks' minds might click straight on its Modus Op but for me its just too hard.
Ian

Maybe because we are both Brits? LOL

I have the same going on here, I also have a sound engineer set up my system every now and again, he (not I) regards BIAB as some kind of junk toy (though he was impressed when he heard it and that goes for a lot), when I ask him to look at the issues I am having with it, its like as we say in the UK 'flogging a dead horse' he just is not interested.

If PG wished test this it could bring BIAB to a freshman class of musical students, (set up to make sure PG dont influence by their presence - i.e. blind) sit back and observe there real opinions.



Same here, just had to increase the latency on my sound card to 256, Cubase was running at 64. I have to go in and out of these settings for BIAB. Can we loose the MME thing please?



I never use it, except perhaps a quick glance at a melody - the pages break up into large rectangles. Becoming a serious Notation writing application is a challenge, I accept. Not a priority here, a notation display system that functioned well would be good a good first base though. Not sure how far one can go with this whilst a song is a mixture of real tracks and MIDI, unless there was some form of melodyne like component - a big challenge really. The Lead sheet view is very useful though.



I have always wondered why the Audiophile version costs so much and why its not given free to everyone as an option. Larger wav files don't cost extra.

When it comes to marketing I wonder why there is no trial version to draw in the punters after all just looking at the interface can put some off. Maybe something that could only edit the chords and was supplied with ten representative real tracks.That sort of thing really. It's experiencing the power of real tracks that really sells the product IMO.

A proper VST BIAB instrument would also be very useful - something like PLAY.


Personally, I don't see why BIAB should not have more sequencing features, I never bought the idea of two programs (IMO). RB is never going to be big time. Frankly I never use it, it crashes here, (though I recognise some swear by it). If I wanted to export a track from BIAB it would be to a better sequencer, not RB. With 64 bit could we rejoin these siamese twins into one organism. I acknowledge this is not a unanimous opinion. Honestly I can't say too much about RB because I have never got it to function.

It would be really good to rethink the style and song pickers (why two?) . I have never really understood the rationale behind listing the "Category" section the way it is, it seems cluttered and unnecessary. Say for example I am in the search for Latin I am never really confident that I have found everything, are there other things hidden away in the bonus tracks, or the MIDI supertracks. I realise that the fiter box is actually quite powerful, but its not explicit about how its used, one has to learn a skill to use it, life is too short for this. There are better layouts in other musical software.

The more I consider the issues, the more I think its a total redesign, not just debugging and enahcement, I think in its present form BIAB has basically gone has far as it can go. IMO

Interesting dialogue...

Z

Z

This discussion comes up every so often; usually after a new BIAB release. It's good to see it conducted so decently. Ten years back the dialogue was anything but civilised but it did jolt PG into a change of direction that persists to this day.

Namely that midi was dead in the water and Real Tracks/Drums were the way to go.

Notwithstanding the improvements that ushered in, the down side was that very little of the original core midi capability in the stylemaker has been improved upon since then.

Midi styles still work off two or one or two bar patterns which more than anything limit the flow and realism of the randomised choices heard in playback. This is mitigated to some degree by pattern bar masks and the possibility of pattern chains and dedicated riffs for chords. Yet the chord masks are too generalised and could be doing with a lot of tweaking.

Styles with more varied sub-sections were eventually brought in but the feeling remains that BIAB has too many styles that lack varied dynamic levels and degrees of intensity. This only undercuts the undoubted sonic improvements that Real Tracks represent. Even then you have to wonder what the difference is between a really good midi sound set, patterns imported from a third party like XLN drums for example and real tracks. It may be that in the rush for all things 'Real' BIAB ditched midi just as it was beginning to fight back.


Speaking as a young person,a program that emphasises song structure at the expense of loop based modernisms and the various sonic manipulations of the DJ scene isn't the issue for me.
It's more that within it's chosen field, BIAB never really aspired to be a fully featured arranging platform to render a final performance that could stand comparison with the real-life thing.

Instead it still went for the initial approach that basically said 'let us do all the work for you with 'our' take on a particular style'.
That leaves a lot of end user definition out of the equation and severely frustrates any attempt to impose a more personalised rendition of a style or song that a more modular and elemental approach to style creation and hybridisation would have given.

Beyond technicalities the problems as far as the youth market lie deeper. In the modern music scene, the notion of 'style' and 'genre' as purist concepts have become so meaningless in the last 25 years. The culture of inventive stylistic cross-breeding that young musicians aspire to happens at a very organic and molecular level that goes way beyond the capabilities of BIAB style hybrids. In any event even if a batch of new styles or loops were available, the culture of making something fresh rather than recreating the past would likely tell against any significant uptake by creative musicians looking for their own personal style rather than a platform like BIAB that can only frustrate the aims of serious musical experimentation.


Alan

Alan S.

Some very asute observations and conclusions.

I think this is a bit too strongly put. MIDI is very much alive and well. Its easy enough to input a live performance into MIDI and for certain instruments that is pretty close. These are the instruments like piano, where once a note is struck there is little change. For instruments such as woodwind and brass, it more about what happens throughout the note, not just the attack and decay. Most early software emulation divided notes into attack, sustain, decay portions. But its not enough.
Take strings, there are over 50 different types of bowing, all of which can vary. I have often chosen staccato onl to realise that there are at least short medium and long staccatos but my package only has one type.

VSTs are getting beter at all this, also with technologies like expression maps, its now possible to emulate much more closely and to do his on one track instead of many.

I hope, and expect the next generation of VSTs to attempt to emulate each different instrument group in its own idiosyncratic manner, and to provide a GUI for each instrument, which is intuitive to those that play the real thing. I have not seen this yet, least not from the big houses, but its technically possible.

I think MIDI may still get better


Z

It may well be that the design concept of BIAB is also the limitations to the experimental music that has evolved since the beginnings of BIAB.
The only way to progress may be to explore new ways that music can be put together. User Tracks are could be the beginning but the 32 bit limit holds it back.
What if(Real band excluded for this) more control were added to UT development where layering of sounds merged into more than just an instrument. Maybe garbage more of the time but maybe not some of the time.
Most of BIAB rt's is cut and paste of well manicured sounds, but the transition from one chord to the other demands it otherwise nothing works well.
So the algorithm that creates the RT's may need to be opened up to allow for more accidental possibilities.
Studio musicians are wonderfully skilled but there is no independence in the sound they produce, never expect it because it will never happen.Therefore the styles that BIAB create are like studio players, a generalization, not a unique performance.
I love BIAB, it has allowed us to create backing track that are better that commercial tracks, but if BIAB wants to bring in a younger,more non conformist musician to create today's evolving music, the tools have to allow for more user directed controls over the basic mechanics of the software.
It's also apparent that many who make music simply reprocess music that's out there and can't create new work on their own, this is proven by the explosion of DAW's and these features for recombining sound.
I don't mind the GUI but it will have to update as time goes by. No one else has come close to providing what BIAB does but is that because the market is so small that it's not worth the investment?
What if Peter implemented a feature, I'll call user chords. This would allow a user to create a series of notes like a "soloist in rt's" but in midi and tied to the key signature in such a way as to fit into the score.
Now I know this is a long babel and others have expressed their opinions,suggestions,et al. so take it as it's meant, with best of Seasons Greetings
Wyndham

Z

Please don't misunderstand me. I also think midi has got better and can get better still. I'm merely characterising the position adopted by BIAB at the time.

A crossing in the road was reached due to what was an almost unanimous call for greater realism. Rather than improve the core midi capabilities it chose to concentrate on Real Drums/Tracks and other add-ons at the cost of user-definition and style editing.
Of course this is no problem for a skilled pianist or drummer capable of coming up with custom parts of their own. For someone like me, skills in these areas are somewhat rudimentary, this takes away from the appeal and usefulness of the program.

As i said in my post, there are things that BIAB could have implemented to improve the playback engine and the realism of the midi styles comping parts. Longer patterns; dedicated pattern chains, greater user definition of parameters relating to chord voicing, more variation and a greater contrast in dynamic level of style sub sections. With the exception of the belated and somewhat half-hearted adoption of the latter suggestion none of these routes were taken.

Jammer Pro its closest competitor may lack the style database and other add ons due to lack of investment/business but in some ways its handling of the above midi parameters is far more flexible than BIAB. Perhaps one day PG music will take a closer look at its one time competitor and see the value in a route it chose not to go down.

Alan

Very interesting discussion. The problem is that the style over substance issue comes up. People sometimes judge the value of something by how it looks rather than what it can do. For my purposes I mainly use BIAB to generate real tracks which I then manipulate in a DAW. The 32 bit aspect does not bother me as I only use the program for generating something that I manipulate elsewhere. However I do accept that it needs to be 64 bit as this is how everything is developing just that a 64 bit edition would not actually add anything functionally for the way I use it. Comparing it to Cubase is a bit odd as it the programs are so different. Cubase is also a Steinberg product and Steinberg is owned by Yamaha which is a very large company with deep pockets and huge resources. Many users think that Cubase updates are actually pretty expensive. They also charge for their .5 updates. Reaper is my DAW of choice mainly because I find it to be fantastically stable and very fast to use. I bought a Reaper licence several years ago and the updates (which have been numerous) have been free of charge. when they do eventually release a manor new version then the updated license price is pretty fair. I think the large DAW companies must be quite worried about just how good Reaper is.

I guess BIAB will ultimately need to smarten the interface but trying to woo the young user is possibly a risky enterprise. You also don't want to alienate longstanding users.

For ny personal perspective I would like more flexibility of how BIAB can produce the chords and effects you might want. Quite often you have to use workarounds. Shots, holds, syncopations are all great but often you cannot quite get the effect you seek. Only four chords in a bar is definitely an issue. For me personalky attending to these structural arranging/performance output aspects are far more important than becoming slick in appearance or 64 bit.

Anyway enough rambling it is still an amazing program

Just a follow up comment to anyone who thinks a new GUI is strictly cosmetic and therefore not as high a priority as other things. That is just plain wrong! A well-designed GUI is easier to use. Frustration is reduced substantially so you can concentrate on the creative endeavor instead of getting the software to work properly. Productivity is significantly enhanced when using a modern GUI because you can finish tasks and move through your workflow with fewer crashes and strange non-intuitive work-arounds. So, yes Virginia, a great GUI is critically important!

+10000. This has been said maaaaany times in this forum.

Totally agree, but its also no good to base a wonderful interface on a flakey core architecture. But concerning the GUI perhaps you care to comment on my post 'reimagining the gui'.

Z

BTW - RobH - good to hear your valuable perspective

thank you all

Title of the thread.

"why are the young not buying biab"

Why should they buy it, first impressions are important, and though I am of a certain age in fifties and love the program myself, I can't see many 18-25 year olds coming to love biab, quite simply its old mans software as far as they are concerned, some of the midi styles are enough to send you to sleep, and though I am not complaining I simply can not see many young ones taking to biab. If they did, we would see lots of them on the forum truth is we don't.

Someone said why is the audiophile edition so expensive, my answer is because PGmusic has set that price for people who they know can afford it, older people who are generally fairly well off and want to dabble in music.

On the other hand we shouldn't be really hard on PGmusic either. I am sure having a niche product they do have limited resources both financial and otherwise. It does take a lot of money to run a company.

How would we feel if some day we woke up to see that PGmusic was bought out by another company? Wouldn't be too much talk then about 64 bit or otherwise, probably all that would concern us would be "how am I going to keep biab activated"

I myself complain a lot about bugs and features on here, but at the same time its nice to be able to stand back and appreciate what we have at the moment.

Musiclover

So far everybody in this thread is talking about an idea with hints to other software. But most everything I have read here is wishful thinking in the sense of "if it was better". Please don't think that I see the GUIs of BIAB and RealBand as the absolute optimum. I already have said that I wish that those two and all other PGMusic programs should have the same look and feel. I don't think that the Adobe suite has the best of all GUIs available, but the GUIs are very similar; they have the same look and feel despite their totally different functionalities. What I read is: "It should be better." That is o.k. but not quantizeable.

So I read this interesting thread with one thought in mind: "Where's the beef?"

What would you think a great GUI for BIAB should look like?
Could you provide a sample GUI?

Maybe others of the great minds in this forum then have constructive ideas to hint PGMusic to develop the greater than Great GUI.

Guido

Well, first of all, users of a GUI may not be knowledgeable enough to provide the direction for fixing it nor should they be expected to, even though their opinion that it needs updating may be perfectly valid!

Great GUI design requires,

- a team with experience in creating modern GUI
- in-depth study of GUI standards
- detailed analysis of current GUI trends
- a critical look at the shortcomings of your current GUI
- thorough review of similar (and even dissimilar) products in the marketplace
- extensive testing with user groups
- and probably more I have not thought of!

This is NOT a trivial task nor one that could come about as one of the "50 New Features in 201X"!!

PG has the problem/opportunity of having a seriously outdated GUI. To redesign it properly would likely require a comprehensive re-write from the ground up. And given the age of the code base I seriously doubt that there is any separation of code and data within the underlying structure (yes, I know data like RealTracks are external but I am referring to how it is wired up under the hood.) So it is doubtful they could retain much of their existing code except for low-level stuff like RT handling.

So, that is some of the "beef"! And here is a good starting point for locating the rest of the burger!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_interface_guidelines

http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa511258.aspx
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/desktop/dn688966.aspx
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/desktop/ff657751%28v=vs.85%29.aspx

https://developer.apple.com/library/mac/documentation/UserExperience/Conceptual/OSXHIGuidelines/index.html

http://www.nngroup.com/

http://www.jiscdigitalmedia.ac.uk/guide/graphical-user-interface-design-developing-usable-and-accessible-collection

"The Windows Interface. An Application Design Guide" (1987, ISBN 1-55615-439-9)

"Human Interface Guidelines: The Apple Desktop Interface" (1987, ISBN 0-201-17753-6)

But, with that all said, I do not know whether this sort of major effort would be worth it to PG. I have no idea if their business plan includes targeting the younger demographic. Perhaps they are happy with the market they already serve and do not see any need to plan for growth of the product 5-10 years down the road.

If a viable competitor were to appear their choice would be made for them but until (and unless) that happens they may in fact be content to keep patching the same software each year. And, as I and others have said before, in spite of the dated GUI, this software does such amazing things that I am a customer for life!

------

Oh, one last thing...if Dr. G were to call me up and say JohnJohnJohn, what should we do? I would probably say,

- ignore 64-bit
- ignore calls for a new GUI
- work on a new product that is a RealTracks VSTi
- keep the current BIAB for the existing and some number of new customers...patch it up a little every year...keep adding new RealTracks
- but market the heck out of that new RealTracks VSTi product as the ultimate plug for every DAW on the planet
- become a direct kompetitor to Kontakt and other big-name virtual instruments
- over time BIAB becomes a legacy product and the new VSTi RealTracker becomes the flagship

I'll be waiting for your call Dr. G!

RealTracks VSTi would be just another sample slingshot like many others on the market. What is music after all - it's not just 'notes' or sounds. Samplers won't be able to create musical phrases, let alone statements. RealTracks and samplers are just concepts too different to be comparable.

Baloney! I am NOT talking about turning RealTracks into samples. Rather, I am talking about a comprehensive plug that, when opened in a DAW, gives me the same song creating tools as BIAB. It would allow me to set up chords and tempo and key and rests and holds and most everything BIAB does now, but it would do it on the timeline of my DAW, including regen of bar by bar if I want! And before someone says "that is not possible" I use a MIDI composing tool that indeed does just that sort of functional interface to my DAW! And if anyone here has used Kontakt from NI you know there are lots of virtual instrument kits that include a whole lot more than just samples!

RealTracks VST would be a killer product!

That's what I was thinking about for Reaper a Chord Track that will pitch & stretch a loop to it or some Extension that uses BIAB/RB to generate in Reaper.
But if PG could do that as a PGVST ! you could load it in any DAW track, set it to Chords Window maybe generated up a midi chord track like EZKeys or just PGVST opens as a Chord Chart/Window as BB/RB.
The next track down you load the PGVST set it this time for RealDrums Generation > Generate, it follows the Chord Chart tempo (locked to the Host tempo) and generates choosen RealDrums Track.
The next track down you load the VST set it this time for RealTracks .....
The next track down you load the VST set it this time for
Midi/SuperTracks....
The next track down you load the VST set it this time for
Loops.....
The next track down you load the VST set it this time for
UserTracks......

and by being able to highlight sections in the Chord window Generate or Re-Generate bits or MultiRiffs.

That was all thought in one moment, but if someone sat down. .

EZDrummer VST is 15meg Guitar Rig 5 VST is 78 meg (Realband is 10 meg & BBW2 is 12 meg)

Just an Artist impression.

This type of product would be a natural for PG since they already have the brain trust for RealTrack programming. They'd need to work on GUI for the interface but that would be a LOT less work than a complete new GUI for BIAB! And they'd need to do some RealTracks for modern music styles or integrate the loops even tighter. The new RealTrackVST would NOT eliminate the BIAB product nor distract from it dramatically!

And this would be a killer new product that every magazine, forum, etc. would be raving about! IMHO, this is the way to introduce the entire world to RealTracks!

Can you imagine how much fun it would be to demo this at NAMM? It would blow away every sample-based VST out there today!!! And all those young punks who do not think BIAB is kewl would crap their pants to get this VST!

Yes 10-4 for sure (from the pre texting IM, CB days), "RealTracks for modern music styles" that's what I have been thinking. I suggested to make a trial version of PowerTracks 2015 with UserTracks and Loops, for $49 and you get the Free UserTrack Library, I was going to start making some Rap, House & Dance UTs to add to the UserTrack Library for the younger ones that could be accessed with PT2015 if it will do Loops and UTs it would have an advantage over Acid & Reaper to get younger users to PG.

Hi JohnJohnJohn,

some of that I knew already others are new to me. Thank you for investing the time to this rather exhausting link collection. (I have been in software development for quite a few years and know that there are only good developers on the market. You can distinguish two groups: the ones seeking a job and the ones having a job.)

What I wanted to convey is: What is a good GUI depending on the product? BIAB was and is still intended also to be used on stage. So a good GUI for desktop use may and will deviate from a good GUI for use while playing on a stage.

It boils down to the question: "Boss, could you pay more?" and he says yes: "Of course, I'll give you a raise of one dollar per month." Not the answer one wants to hear, but it is more than before.

So if one says "make it better" then please give an example; may it be in writing or drawing or by other means of just saying: "You didn't do a good job."


Summary of the above see here: http://www.projectcartoon.com/cartoon/1278
or the same in a more extende version: http://www.projectcartoon.com/pdf.php?CartoonID=5698&PaperSize=A4



Guido

Many specific suggestions were made during the last years in the wishlist forum. For example here:
http://www.pgmusic.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=177671&an=

Thank you, I have been there, I remember now after visiting this thread through your link. There are some very good expressed requests included in pictures and words.

GHInch did you see my post on "reimagining the song panel" I went into quite a few specifics, regarding how to enhance it with hover over technology whilst keeping essentially the same.

There is quite a bit that could be done to make this screen educational. Via the use of hover over, hover off/disappear corners (think like folding over tiny corners of a page), one could show educational information about a chord or sequence of chords. For example offering chord substitutes, or providing information about chord voicings, what notes are in the 'mode scale' and what are not.

Other programmes (sequencers and biab is a sequencer in many senses) have incorporated melodyne-esque tech which allows the analysis of melodic audio files into MIDI - with editing options. I hope here, but often feel 'never' which is sad.

Thinking about songs, we don't have any live vocals in BIAB yet, Obviously there would be issues. Probably it would be better to work in four bars rather than single bars, maybe a whole song. I am thinking about Jazz standards perhaps. Just brainstorming. Would be great for learning how to accompany. I can see no reason why in certain circumstances, that is with particular (possibly solo, possibly vocal) files, that BIAB could not insist that the "Lego Brick" inserted is kept within a range of keys or number of bars. This way it would be possible to have real soloists and real vocals.

East West have a business model where the Player is free and universal, and the packages are paid for individually, its a common practice.

I want to say again that there are many things to admire in BIAB too.

More on the GUI: I like as little visual clutter as possible, plus context sensitive relevance. Ideally I should like to have dockable windows *(dual screen capable), for things like the MID and the MIxer and even the Notation.

I notice with the present GUI (2015) we have names of instruments, but my electric piano sound (HEPNO85.STY says piano not electric piano. At present the sax is called a guitar again (after I changed it to a guitar and then back).

It would be good to have tooltip/hover over info about the (correct) instrument names including in some cases the pitch and maybe even type of guitar/cab etc..

The 'sequencer' window thing I find very odd.

If you look through the drop down menus a lot of it is very antiquated. I am not saying the options should not be available, but Do we all need to have "Reset Roland GS" as the first item on the GM menu? Should there be an option called "Run Windows Control Panel?" As part of a general sort out, perhaps a lot of this info can be confined to a MIDI pop out type menu similar to the piano roll, but so as we could see both MIDI and Notation or chords as we choose.

There is much to like about the new mixer, its simplicity but when you are not using it, its simply taking vcisual space whereas it would be better to use this space for the current purpose - therefore it should be a pop up.

I notice that the only time the Mixer 'piano' window (which can actually be any instrument - better 'piano roll') that you can see the notes being played is when the song is in motion. It would be much more informative if you could see the voicing of the given chords when the song is stationary, so - you could hover over a particular chord and immediately see how its being voiced.

Right click customisable menus (with a 'show all' option) would be good too for saving real estate. Show hide for menu bars, on right click.

Some of the once MIDI only option suych as 'play chord' should only be offered on a MIDI track or be able to play a wav. Otherwise its confusing when you hear nothing.

The idea of having esoteric meanings like green for real track and underline for something else, is OK -ish, but better to make it clear to the ininitiated.

Piano role window could be enhanced in many ways - see the major sequencers.

You asked for specifics..






Z

Using Ctrl+T isn't bad for having the chord area full screen, can still add realtracks and realdrums by right click on menu.

But as you say Zero would be good to be able to customise menu again as we had in biab 2013

Musiclover

ZeroZero,

yes I asked for specifics. I didn't ask for me. I asked for the poor developers at PGMusic. I always try to walk in the other's mocassins. In this case in the mocassins of the developer and in the mocassins of those who want a better GUI. I do understand both parties, I have been in the consultant business a long time.

The main reason that triggered me to ask was a rather boring thread to read:
"I want a better GUI."
"Yes, the GUI could really be improved."
"PGMusic needs to hire better personnel."
"I agree, they have a good program, but it doesn't appeal to those who rate a book by the cover."
...

There is a lot of beef in that burger now.
Have a super day.
Guido

Again with the fallacy that GUI is only cosmetic! It is about functionality and efficiency!

Guido understood, just thought I would post my specifics again.

I hope others will do also

Z

Simply put, the program is a mess. It's incredibly good at what it does and can do, unfortunately doing anything is usually a chore. It is the most non-intuitive, uninspiring difficult piece of software I have ever come across.

I'm not here to slag it off, I genuinly would love to see the clutter sorted out. I would love to do more with it but frankly can rarely be bothered. Any time I want to try out something new or experiment with something which I think is 'probably' possible, by the time I've trawled through countless videos and help files I'm generally none the wiser and my enthusiasm / inspiration has gone and been forgotten.
This is the only software I have ever used where I even have to resort to help files, the bulk of most other brands of software can usually be figured out quickly and easily with a little bit of playing around.

This IMO is this real problem with the software and I guess what most others are talking about with the GUI.

I don't care that it looks like an old 3.1 interface, I don't care that it's not shiney and animated, I just care about the unnecessary mess. This is nothing that needs a major rewrite, just a company that listens to it's customers and asks them for specifics that need addressing. Most of it could be implemented in a simple update.

There are menus all over the place, everything is vague and utterly non-descript. I need quicker, easier access to regularly used functions with a basic right click or toolbar button, not nested so deep in dialogue boxes and sub menus that I never remember how to get back to them.

There are way too many places to get to a function. The same menus pop up time and again in different parts of the program. It's all unnecessary. get rid of the clutter and start again.
2015 has actually gone backwards in this regard. For example, I click the soloist button only to be given a choice that I can get from many other areas. It's pointless. The whole point of a toolbar button is to take you immediately to another function, not further nesting. Everything I do, everything I click, I wonder what the hell is going on.

If PG want to listen then I'd give specifics, as I'm sure would most everyone else. Not asking for new functionality or features, just clean up the mess that has been accumalating since the first version. There are a lot of functions that could and should be improved / implemented much better but begin with a clean up.

That's my 2 cents worth

BIAB for me does exactly what it's supposed to do. It provides me with quality accompaniment when I play solo piano gigs. I've been using BIAB since the floppy disc days. The accompaniment has just gotten better and better. PG Music can change whatever they want about the GUI as long as the functions don't change. My 2 cents worth. Ray

BIAB has always been my favourite piece of music software. I've learnt A LOT as a musician during these last years with it, I've always recommended it to my fellow musicians, and I've always said that buying BIAB is one of the the best investments any musician can do in his musical life.

I've always been (and still am) a fan.

Having said that, I think that the "50 new features each year" growth model (adding more and more features without caring too much for internal consistence with old ones) has put BIAB in a complicated situation: the program is more and more complex each year (specially for beginners), really buggy (some of the bugs have been there for years), and the GUI has gone, IMO, just out of control.

So, as a customer, I have a kind of love-hate relationship with the software: I love how it works when I use the very basic functions (writing some chords, choosing a style and pressing play, for example), but I often get frustrated / demotivated when I'm trying to use more advanced functions, just to discover that they just don't work as they should (or don't work at all), or when I feel creative / musically inspired and can't do what I have in mind, simply because the feature I need is hidden in a labyrinth of buttons, menus and cryptic terminology.

IMHO, we really don't need 50 new features for 2016, but a serious revision of what we already have, and a complete redesign of the GUI from a fresh perspective.

In any case, I also really want PG Music to succeed

Cerio, I agree 100%

I would go further and say that the main reason for the "50 new features every year" is that PG has placed far too much importance on responding to users pet peeves and personal prejudices. It is a case of "too much democracy". It's all very well to listen to user's suggestions but it is just as important to use professional technical and commercial judgment. It is ironic that the users who keep on asking for more and more trivial tweeks could be the same users who complain that the GUI is too complicated.

Come on PG, there won't be a revolution if you tried ignoring most of the wishlist for a while

Tony

Sorry Tony, but I wouldn't characterise things in this way 'pet peeves' - one man's pet peeve is another's most important improvement.

"Come on PG, /....ignore most of the wish list "

Including your post? Or just everyone else?

I do see the need for a top class gui designer to be brought in to evaluate where we are and where we are going though...

Z

I think those of us who are happy with BIAB the way it is should chime in. Whether PG changes the GUI or not, I just want to be able to do what I do now as easily as I do now. Later, Ray

Two thoughts ...

Why do you believe the young are not using BiaB? I don't think census statistics of active forum participants would not accurately reflect the statistics of all BiaB users. For example, many educators use BiaB as a learning tool thus exposing students of all ages to BiaB.

The reasons I think the young are not using BiaB are: BiaB is not viable on their preferred platforms, smartphone & tablet. BiaB does not have enough content in current genres. Most of all, initial start up cost.

Totally where I was first introduced to it 20 years ago, college music theory class.