With all the current hype about ChatGPT and the various AI engines that are apparently capable of generating high quality images and music, I'm wondering what the future road-map looks like for BIAB.

I've been a massive fan of BIAB since the 5.25" floppy days, but are its days numbered, in its present form?

Sure, each annual release gets a few more aesthetic features and a stack of new styles and realtrack samples, but the basic premise of BIAB hasn't really changed in the 30-ish years that I've been using it - you type in some chord symbols and it produces a backing track for you in a style of your choosing. It sounds a million times better now than it did in the early 90's (thanks to realtracks), but other than the sound quality and bit of tinkering here and there, the product hasn't fundamentally changed much over the years. But as simple as the production process sounds, you still need to have a certain degree of musical aptitude in order to get the best results from BIAB, even if you can't play any instruments.

However, I think there will come a point in the near future when we can simply say to an AI application, "create me a backing track for Autumn Leaves in a hip-hop style with a dreamy orchestral introduction and a bagpipes solo in the middle", and products like BIAB become as redundant as the musicians that BIAB has replaced (sorry! that was a rather facetious remark, as I doubt very much that any professional music has ever been made redundant by BIAB, but you get my drift and I couldn't help but observe the irony of it).

At some point, BIAB users are going to tire of the same old Jeff Lorber and Brent Mason realtracks (not me, I love those guys!), and the unadventurous intro-chorus-chorus-chorus-end song structure, and will be enticed by the possibility of simply describing their musical vision to an AI engine.

I wonder how BIAB is going to adapt to keep up with the rapid advancements in AI, or if it intends not to, but just position itself as a niche product for a specific type of person (of, dare I say it, a certain age).......

dr_t,

There's a lot of meat on the bone of this topic currently so rather than type out a response I'm going to give this one a little thought first. I will say that if humanity is removed from art and music then we have nothing left but a glorified algorithm as a replacement for what used to be some of mankind's greatest accomplishments.

And may already have, I say as I raise my hand. I am not really interested in seeing how many notes Mason can squeeze into 8 bars with no consideration of taste and feel. His stuff is just notes. Better notes that I can play, but that's not the point. Rock and country rock guitar solo options are very limited. The Wish List is full of suggestions but they do not get acted upon.

What's funny to me is this. I follow Tom Bukovac's youtube channel. Many of them are shot at studio sessions in Nashville. You will often see Bryan Sutton, Paul Franklin and John Jarvis at those sessions. Now, I said that to say this. Obviously PG has some kind of connection to that A List inner circle in Nashville because those 3 names are represented in the Real Tracks artists. Bukovac is THE guitar player down there these days. Mason is WAY last year's news. Nobody will ever say (and I have asked) if they ever tried to contact him to lend his sound to the Real Tracks. They must pay those guys decent bucks for their work or they wouldn't do it. Dan Dugmore is another good guy to play pedal steel. Franklin is awesome, but options never hurt. I looked down the list of everybody who plays Real Track samples and some of them are decades old. Some may even be dead. Many I have never heard of and had to Google to see what they have ever done.

So before AI replaces everything, maybe not for the better, let's get some new blood in here, okay?

I think the AI is just hype at this point in time. I have a lyric writing AI app and it's kind of plain white vanilla.... it's not yet ready for prime time or even close in taking over for the creative human mind.

Regarding BB and real tracks.... same thing. It's not the tracks, but how you choose to work with them that makes the song. You and I could use the same exact style, tempo, key, and real tracks and those songs would sound totally different. It's in the human creative mind.

When Band-in-a-Box first began it was strictly a MIDI production that played midi patterns. Over time Band-in-a-Box added user recorded audio, audio loops, Artist Performance Tracks, RealTracks and midiSuperTracks to enhance playback sound. PG Music licenses and frequently updates pitch and tempo technology to enhance playback performance. These steps encourage me to believe PG Music will continue to update Band-in-a-Box to keep it relevant.

I don't know.

I'm a musician, and I like to play with music. I like to create things, and BiaB is one tool that helps me do that.

I don't want to say to some AI app, "Write a song in the dorian mode with a sax solo as the highlight."

Hundreds of CDs in my collection already do that or in another mode, and as much as I love listening to other people make music, I like to make my own.

It's one of the reasons why I don't use the Real Track solo and melody tracks. I want to play them myself.

I can put some chords into BiaB, run the app, pick up my sax, wind synth, or guitar and play along with it. Since I put the chords in myself, I know what they are, and have a few ideas on how to improvise a solo over the changes.

When I bought BiaB, back in the DOS days, that is exactly what I bought it for. I could improvise solos over songs my band was learning, try out daring things which have low odds of working but if they do, they would be cool, and I wouldn't be taking up the band's time while I experiment.

Eventually, BiaB released the StyleMaker to allow end users to make their own styles. Since I also play bass, drums, and some keys, I tried my hand at it, gave some away, and friends told me they liked them better than PGs. (Aren't friends great). I took out an ad in Electronics Musician magazine, and +30 years later, I'm still making them and selling them.

Making the styles is also a creative process, that I certainly wouldn't want to turn over to some AI bot. Why? It's time-consuming, I get lost in the zone so I don't notice the time passing, and when I'm done with a style and I'm proud of it, I'll offer it for sale. If I don't like it, I'll either make it work until I'm happy, or consider it a learning experience. It's important to know what not to do.

I think AI music would eventually have its place, but for me the fun of music is playing it myself.

I suspect there are a lot of other musicians who want to play, and wouldn't want the AI playing it for them.

Notes ♫

Yes, one may be able to request A.I. to do many musical & music related things but not everyone will want to.
BIAB can supply a lot but I still, for the most part, record bass & guitars because I can, becasue I like to & becasue, rather like A.I., BIAB can be, at times, a little too generic sounding.
Quite a lot of BIAB users play their instruments and sing their songs because that's what they like to do.
Using A.I. makes a lot of sense as an enabling tool for those who can't do certain things and for those making demos, jingles etc that fit the genre specifics that the A.I. can access.
A.I. would remove, for the most part, the hobby aspects that song writing & recording using BIAB encourages.

Even if BIAB development stops today, in it's present form, I know it will entertain me for years to come. Let me put it this way...
When references are made to AI, it is like comparing a mass produced "artwork" from Walmart to a local art gallery. Sadly, as history shows, masses will prefer buying a $29.99 "wall art" from Walmart, instead of getting a $80 limited etching, supporting local artist. But even with all Amazawalmarts combined, there will always be interest and demand for "handmade" arts & music.

Sure, program needs "this & that" no argument there...
But the library, even in existing form is phenomenal. Not some chopped cuts from a 1 minute gigs that some developers call "libraries". But a true music library with thousands of hours of performances by talented humans that will play with and for you!

Of course if you got time and money to waste you can just hire anybody and do anything, but for hobbyists, backing tracks, non-gig artists, "on demand" tunes, pro-sounding sketches that can later be embellished with live musicians, substituting a drunk guitarist, bassist who is on a vacation, pianist who is waiting for a tuner, if you have no time for basement practices, need a solo part for the instrument you are unfamiliar with, I can go on...BIAB will come to the rescue. Pre-requisite is to like the genres heavily represented in BIAB: Pop/Rock/Blues/Country/Jazz/Folk

dr_t, I agree with many of the above sentiments. Just because AI can do something doesn't mean that I want it to do it for me. I think what this comes down to is are you a creative or not? There's no right or wrong answer, it just a question.

Or if that question is too blunt let me sharpen it.

To what degree are you a creative?

For me, I consider myself a creative (albeit, not a very good one) and so, I like to produce, create, build, ponder, experiment, modify, edit and fix. I get an intellectual high from creating something that has never [exactly] been produced before. For me, this is one of the fundamental attributes of being human. I get satisfaction in knowing that my personal thumbprint is on a piece of music. Sure. I have a bunch of tools and toys that help me in this but it is me that controls the creative process. And I choose not to hand that over to a bot.

To be sure, music is far from the only domain where this applies. There are millions of people around the world that get a similar sense of satisfaction and cretive accomplishment in areas such as literature, visual art, medicine, engineering, science, carpentry, design work, sports, acting, education, etc.

At some point I may dabble in AI tools, but I will view them as just that . . . tools. For as long as I am able, the creative engine for the work I produce will always be located between my ears.

The fact that something is new and is better does not render other older products useless or unwanted.

I drive a 2023 car with satellite radio. I don't think people will likely send all the 1957 Chevys with AM push-button radios to the junkyard just because the new car is much better.

BIAB has many uses. There are hundreds of demo songs to play along with and learn new stuff.

Some people want instant gratification and do not want to put any effort into what they are entertaining themselves with. If AI can produce acceptable results for those people, they will use it. If corporate America can push a button and generate a marketable song, they will certainly do that.

AI will also become helpful to people who play music. AI will generate ideas that will give musicians something new to experiment with.

AI will take over some jobs currently done by humans. New technology frequently does that.

P G Music will continue to make improvements to its product in an attempt to continue to be profitable. They have no choice but to adapt to the current demands. Their bottom line will dictate what comes next. Those companies that have the ability to adapt will survive. Those who can not adapt will not survive.

Just because AI may be able to generate guitar tracks does not entice me to stop playing guitar. AI may be able to generate guitar sounds, but it can not play anything at this point.

Relax; the world is unlikely to come to an end this week.

Billy

As I have said many times virtually all of my songs start in BiaB. BiaB is the tool that has kept me interested in and playing music. But I have a question.

What is the difference between asking AI to create a song about love using an intro, 2 verses, a prechorus, chorus, and an ending or putting chords into BiaB and looking for style? Are not both using a form of AI?

Both are tools and how you use them is up to you.

I think they're probably not, though there are all sorts of philosophical possibilities.

I think "AI" means a software that learns for itself from exposure to data and forms an answer from that data by searching for patterns in the data that suggest some consistency upon which to draw a conclusion. The obvious problem is that the data has to be sound and sensible for that to work.

I think BiaB is a set of rules, presumably including some random seeding, created by people about what is expected of music production and that it probably does not learn for itself.

The AI will be influenced by people, though, whether by the choices of data on which it is 'trained', or by public opinion, or by mischievous influence, and by how well it understands(?) cause and effect.

I read recently, though haven't bothered to try to verify it, that (ChatGPT?) was arguing very assertively that the current year is 2022 and was accusing it's questioner of bad faith in telling it that it was wrong and that the year was 2023. It's had a year of understanding that the year is 2022 and only a few weeks at most of people telling it otherwise. How long will it take to recognise that things change and it must unlearn certain facts that have become obsolete? Will it be able to tell that from deliberate lies?

That's really quite tricky.

I selected only this point to comment on.

Mario was right on about the fact that PG products ARE really AI at some level. You give it a style and some chords and it spits out music.

Billy made an important observation. AI won't influence me to stop playing. My diminished skills have influenced me to stop playing. If Real band can make music better than I can (and at this point it's not even close) then I will use the music Real Band makes rather than what I can do myself.

What gets lost in the shuffle of this topic is this.

It's still MY input, MY composition, MY lyrics, MY soul that tells any music generating product to create. And I get to make it do that process again and again until I like it. I am working on a cover of a song by The Cure for Herbstock that has so far seen me generate the basic song, render those to WAV files, start over, generate again, render to WAV again, keep some of the old, add some of the new, and so on.

BIAB, RB, Garage Band, any form of AI, they are just tools. HUMANS ad the "code", the instruction set that makes those tools work the way we want them to. One definition of artificial is "a copy or imitation of something real". So is it really ARTIFICIAL intelligence? The end product is real music, written by human instruction with computer coded instruction produced by HUMAN intelligence.

Love this kind of discussion!!! Nerdvana!

This is what I fear the most...

As far as humans are concerned it's thinking you know more than you really do!

Second point.... after considering it for a bit.....

You may or may not know that BB has had a sort of AI built in for a very long time. Way back in my early days of playing around with BB, expperimenting to see what was under the hood, I came upon the MELODIST function. When used, the Melodist creates a "song" for you according to the info you give it.

Quite a few of my early day creations in the jazz and bluegrass styles were initially created using the Melodist. In most cases, I ended up doing at least some rudimentary editing or in other cases, a major overhaul and redesign of the basic idea from the Melodist.

I haven't used the Melodist now in a very long time.

This graphic is how I boil down this subject. It's all about how much personal creativity we have pushed into any given song. We and everyone else is sitting somewhere on this spectrum for any song we have or will produce.

So on the extreme left of the spectrum we have "Cave People Joe and Jane" who first figured out that banging a stick onto a tree and singing to it was fun. There is no greater creativity. They invented their instrument and they were influenced by no other cave people because they were the first.

On the extreme right you have "write me a song" spoken into an AI program or you have outright stolen the song; thereby achieving no creativity at all. Any creativity that does exists in this case is from the people who wrote the stolen song and/or the AI technology used.

I would say that most of us are in Zone 2, 3 or 4. I hope I never end up in 5.

And sorry . . . it's too late to bang a stick on a tree and claim credit

There is a fundamental difference between BIAB and AI. AI can change its outputs based on new inputs, while an algorithm (BIAB) always generates the same output for a given input.

So, no, BIAB has no AI involved that I am aware of.

If you think there is no skill or creativity involved in generating an AI song, make one in Synthesizer V using BIAB for the backing track and post it.

At some point in the future, perhaps we will be able to describe what we want to hear, and a hit a button and a song will result. That is not today.

Actually, I think much better AI software will require even more skill and creativity to use and get good results.

Billy

You missed the last zone.

Billy,
"(BIAB) always generates the same output for a given input."

I thought BIAB was randomizing results with each change (input), unless you freeze or use partial regeneration.
That actually was a huge problem for me until partial regeneration came along, as tracks were acting like snakes with pinched tail when change was introduced


"At some point in the future, perhaps we will be able to describe what we want to hear, and a hit a button and a song will result. That is not today."

I think, it will be more like spitting in the tube connected to Inteloteslapple, AI will analyze your mood from saliva and will generate your personalized masterpiece hit of the day. Those who "Describe" will be considered maestros.

I'm not so sure about that. Pick a lead voice in the Melodist and have it create an entire song. Then without changing a thing create another song. You will get a completely different song, different chords, different style, different lead, etc, but with the same lead instrument. That is different output for the same input as nothing was changed in the input criteria. Note that is a good way to learn new chord progressions.

I'm not trying to start a war, I just trying to understand.



I agree there is much skill and creativity involved in AI. AI, BiaB, DAWs, VSTs, RTs, etc are just tools. Pick the right tool for the right job for your workflow.

I don't care what it is but if it gets more people interested in making and understanding music then I'm all for it.

I'm not so sure about that. Pick a lead voice in the Melodist and have it create an entire song. Then without changing a thing create another song. You will get a completely different song, different chords, different style, different lead, etc, but with the same lead instrument. That is different output for the same input as nothing was changed in the input criteria. Note that is a good way to learn new chord progressions.

I'm not trying to start a war, I just trying to understand.

[quote=Planobilly]
Mario, I could be wrong here but from what I know and have seen in BiaB, it does not contain AI. You can easily get different outputs when given the same inputs from simple look-up (sequential) tables where execution 1 uses value 1, execution 2 uses value 2, etc. Or you can achieve different outputs from stochastic methods (sampling from a probability distribution such as a bell curve).

I very much doubt that BiaB currently has any of its own integrated AI. The program has sequences of predefined patterns which it can cleverly join in multiple different random ways to provide a neat result.

Each new generation uses a combination of the same or different patterns in perhaps a different sequence to produce a different result.

Artificial Intelligence on the other hand is the simulation of human intelligence processes by machines.

I really don't believe that BiaB simulates human intelligence. I think it provides innovative pattern matching techniques.

Perhaps this is a short clip of where BIAB already is with the use of AI. This is a short experimental clip generated out of BIAB using both BIAB as a backing track and a BIAB vocal converted to a midi to provide the vocal melody for the AI.

This has not been mixed and has only been modified through pitch correction. There is a large amount of control that can be used in both programs.

https://soundcloud.com/planobillydfw-89880386/test-take-five

What generally happens as technologies mature there is better/easier integration.

To answer the original question, "where is BIAB going", there is only one likely answer. They will go where they must go to stay profitable.

To further confuse the issue of AI-generated vocals, not all vocals from Synthesizer V are AI-generated.

Billy

Artificial Intelligence (AI) is an umbrella term for computer software that mimics human cognition in order to perform complex tasks and learn from them. Machine learning (ML) is a subfield of AI that uses algorithms trained on data to produce adaptable models that can perform a variety of complex tasks.

Clear as mud.

Just remember if we don't want the machines to take over, don't build them in the first place.

I suppose if I wanted to write a song, AI could do it for me.

I've tried writing, and for me, the lyrics always sound trite and corny, a lame repetition of what others have written. AI could probably do it that well.

But I'm not really a songwriter. I am a musician, I play music, I interpret music, I arrange music, I improvise over chord changes, I get into that zone where there is no me, no thought, just the music flowing through me, and it's the most fun I can have with my clothes on.

Why would I want AI to do that?

So if someone writes a song with AI that I like, I'll be happy to reinterpret it, and play an improvised solo section.

I really don't know if BiaB technically qualifies as AI or not. I do know that I can plug some chords into BiaB, choose a style, pick up my sax, and have a backing band around when I want to try something out.

Plus, I know that I can load the chord changes to a song, and choose many different styles to hear what it sounds like as a Reggae, Blues, Swing, Funk, or any other style song.

I don't think this is something that ChatGPT is going to do for me anytime soon.

I truly feel that almost every musician would benefit from having these three tools: A sequencer/DAW, Band-in-a-Box, and a full-blown notation program. Perhaps someday a fourth essential tool might be added to that list, and it might be something like ChatGPT.

But like the electric guitar, never replaced acoustic guitars, Sousaphones never replaced tubas, and synthesizers never replaced pianos, I think AI will simply add something new to our choices.

Insights and incites by Notes ♫

Thanx Steve for that info. As long as I can make music with BiaB I don't care what is under the hood.

Firstly, I'm an old guy but I've enjoyed tech things since I was a kid when taking apart radios and building Heatkits. I find AI fascinating and not, as many, threatening.

However Biab is so multifaceted that in general it IMHO must be considered within the context of the user. And this is from a guys who loves BiaB but uses a tiny percentage of its capabilities. AI providing a backing track and vocals per request is one thing. Another is sitting at a DAW comping up multiple generations of RT's, MST's and RD's to support your song. And pitching shift RT's notes to segue as you like into vocals, tags, etc. And then mixing it all to your likes.

You and your hmmmmm ... isn't that based on your experiences, your likes and dislikes, your definitions of feeling and soul? So perhaps you could end up with an AI product some or perhaps many folks like. But would you?

OK I do understand that with the development of ChatGPT, etc., you might be able to talk with AI for hours or days until is understood you and what you want. Oh, wait a minute, I think I read this morning that Bing with incorporated ChatGPT is bombing out after a longish session and even making insulting comments, etc. Yeah we are on the cusp and so much more is to come. Of course that view often seems to assume no limits or long stalls … all of which have occurred with many other technologies.

A few years ago fellow forum member Icelander posted links to audio files where the audio files seemed to prove his thought that RealTrack backing tracks were influenced by the song melody.

I consider the algorithms Band-in-a-Box uses as a form of artificial intelligence because the software is making musical decisions based on melodic song structure.

Surely that's using some well designed and clever pattern matching algorithms, isn't it?

If it was true AI, then BiaB would continue to reason and learn all on its own - it would continually become more and more intelligent.

Separately, it wouldn't need 192,000+ RealTracks files and 14,000+ Drums files, because it would be able to produce that music itself using a much smaller array of audio sounds instead or pre-recorded musical extracts.

Don't get me wrong, what this system does is exceptional. It is brilliant. But unless it 'learns by itself' and as a result becomes more and more smarter, i.e. creates its own intelligence, it's not AI.

FWIW I agree with AudioTrack. BiaB is brilliant and exceptional as-is. I also realize that continual progress of the program is required to remain relevant and competitive.

However, if/when AI becomes fully embedded in BiaB (and I think at some point it will) that it is implemented in a way that does not diminish or restrict those of us that thrive on human-produced creativity. I for one, do not want a bot making my creative decisions for me.

One approach to accomplish this is a user-selectable switch that enables or disables AI bot assistance.

I hadn't thought about the learning to improve. What AudioTrack says makes sense to me.

To differentiate AI vs algorithm based things, think about it this way.

If you buy a software chess game for your computer, and when you start beating it like a drum it learns how well you play and plays better to level the field, that is AI.

When you have software that generates music based on loops assigned to styles (algorithm), that is not AI because it isn't learning to anticipate your expectations and adapting to your tastes to create better music.

If you pick a soloist and generate solos, there may be many options that the software can create, but those options will be finite. When you play a 48 number lottery, there are 12,271,512 of 6 numbers. That's a lot yeah, but it IS finite.

So if you are willing to spend $12,271,512 and spend the time to write out betting tickets for 12,271,512 combinations, you will win the lottery. I just hope that jackpot is at least $12,271,513.

I am not even close to good enough at math to calculate the number of combinations of all the thousands of styles and chord progressions, but it WILL be finite. Maybe hundreds of millions, but finite.

I think I'm firmly in the GREEN zone.

I'm not confirming your result.
How did you arrive at 12,271,512?

What formula did you use?

I used Google.

Can someone please ask ChatGPT this for me and report back:

How do I get someone to listen to my new song 1,000,000 times on Spotify and buy it 1,000,000 times on Amazon or iTunes?

Please give precise instructions and links.

If it gives you a good answer please post that here and then I will look into using it.

Hey thanks y'all. Gotta run!!!

Or perhaps share the win with one or more others

Also, if you can fill out one set of numbers per minute, never sleeping, it would take you 23 years to hit every combination.


1 2 3 4 5 6
1 2 3 4 5 7
1 2 3 4 5 8
1 2 3 4 5 9

Etc. 12,271,512 times.

Thumper ask Google how many combinations of 6 numbers there are in 48 numbers.

Exactly what this thread needed!

J&B

I didn't ask Google but here is my answer.
It's a BIG number.
--Steve

PS> This stuff is great for keeping the gray matter nice and wet. It's a glide slope if you let your noggin dry out

Just got off the phone with ChatGPT. It says this will take a bunch of time and with the cost of electricity these days it has to charge $400/hr.

He says a $1000USD retainer should cover it, any credit card should do

Many artists - musicians, writers, painters, etc.- abhor anything AI. Just a generation ago, 2D artists decried the use of anything digital used to create images. Before that it was anything computerized that made correcting errors easier. Before that it was the typewriter. Where does the fear end?

Shouldn't the question be, "What is the end result to be?" rather than "Will it replace me or let someone with less talent/skill be as good as I am at what I do?"

Is the goal to present music the audience enjoys/wants or is it to preserve "the old way" of doing it?

Use it or not, AI in art is here, probably to stay. If the argument to get rid of it is that it saps human creativity, then BiaB and other aps, digital instruments, and any other technology beyond the stick and stone should be similarly relegated.

Remember Sony's AIBO from 90s.. that was supposed to "replace" pets? Should not be long now, with all mighty AI. Better start thinking now how to properly retire our eating, pooping, scratching, misbehaved Bingos and Snowballs....

BIAB for the most part is "Human" musicians performance library. Why should it be anything else?
I hope PG team will continue to record / support talented humans and further develop the "box" that houses them.

While AI has made significant strides in generating music and images, it is unlikely that BIAB will become obsolete in the near future. BIAB has been a reliable tool for musicians for over 30 years, and continues to be used by many professional musicians today.

The program's strength lies in its ability to create custom backing tracks based on user input, which allows for a high degree of creative control. Additionally, the program's vast library of realtracks and styles allows for a wide range of musical expression.

While AI-generated music can certainly provide new and exciting possibilities, it is important to remember that it is still a relatively new technology and has yet to match the level of creativity and flexibility that BIAB provides. Furthermore, AI-generated music lacks the personalized touch that is only possible with human creativity and emotion. As such, it is likely that BIAB will continue to be a useful tool for musicians for years to come.

And at one time people abhorred:

• Automobiles (Get a horse!)
• Saxophones (Especially in German bands when saxes were new)
• Jazz (Devil's Music)
• Electric guitars (They aren't real guitars)
• Rock n Roll (Devil's Music)
• Electric ignition on Harleys (Real men kick start)
• Disco (Disco Sucks!)
• Home computers (I'll never have one of those in MY house)
• Backing Tracks (You're not really playing that)
• and so on, and on, and on

Those who adapt well will survive, those who don't have more difficulty surviving.

AI is just another tool added to our collective toolbox. AI will be used for good, for evil and for boring stuff too.

I play a Wind Synthesizer. It didn't replace my saxophone, just expanded my expressive capabilities. I play the sax a little less, but it's still my primary instrument. The Rhodes piano didn't replace the acoustic piano, the electric guitar didn't replace the acoustic guitar, and AI won't replace Band-in-a-Box. It's just another tool.

Like it or not, it's here to stay.

Insights and incites by Notes ♫

I find this interesting. Why would this forum software allow the title of an existing thread to be changed?

And what is the significance of "Q"? Or did you try to hit Tab but hit Q instead in the title field?

Thump, the forum didn't "allow" it. It's just text on a page and anybody can change it.

Hmmmm, I learn something every day.
Maybe the Q was short for Quintessence?

Or Q-rious!

After reading some messages after my last reply I feel rightfully chastised for not responding directly to the original post which, believe it or not asked a question about BiaB's direction vis a vis AI.

I'd say BiaB will most likely continue on the path they are on. Folks who use AI to put notes on manuscript paper and/or in scores are likely uninterested in creating or playing music. As long as there are musical artists AND listeners who prefer "real" music to AI generated notes, BiaB has nothing to worry about.

I do take umbrage, however, at the idea that "AI engines .. are apparently capable of generating high quality images and music". Not yet. the engines still make unintended mistakes and have no way of correcting them or folding them seamlessly into the images, text, or sounds. That is the difference between I and AI - humans recognize and correct or put into perspective the errors they make where AI just keep moving without concern for what they've done.

Again, just my opinion, but it makes sense to me.

I already asked, and the response was the usual about building a fan base, and creating interesting content to grow your fan base act... Quite boring answer. I asked for suggestions or if could come up with some genius ideas for creating content on a limited budget act - well ChatGPT more or less told me not to quit my day time job

A few years ago, I posted a topic called "BiaB :A Swiss knife?". It was intended to question the trend of the soft relative to its initial goal.
Actually, when I bought BiaB (in floppy disks), the dealer told me it was an accompaniment software designed by Canadian jazz musicians for jazzmen. Now, BiaB is everything for every people.
IMHO, PGmusic should choose what they want BiaB to be and stick to it. Honestly, I personally never use Klerzmer, RAP, metal, etc music styles and I don't think I will.
Many people use BiaB to create backing tracks, proving that's evidence of useful potential of the soft.
As for AI, other members rightfully said that it's only a tool, and it's output will heavily depend on input quality.
I currently see several possibilities of applying BiaB to jazz creation : sampling, soloing, strings and brass arrangements, vocal jazz, etc.
I'd be particularly excited if BiaB could use pdf scores (partial or whole) to serve as a starting point to make a background multi-instruments music... Can be endless possibilities there...

I can see there're quite some arguments happening here in this thread, as to whether BiaB is an AI or just another smart algorithm.

Let me end the fight in this way.

BiaB is the most intelligent music software I have ever used. Period.

Over past years, I have used hundreds of various VSTs and DAW plugins to produce commercial music. Not a single one of those software has the intelligence level comparable to BiaB's ability of extracting source material based on built-in music theory based algorithms.

Second place, not even come close, I would give to iZotope, for its AI based detection technology, such as Ozone, Neutron, RX, and Nectar.

Third place? I don't know. Hit'n'mix RipX? Dreamtonics Synthesizer V? Celemony Melodyne? Seem all worth of being mentioned.

I do hope someone in this forum can prove I'm wrong, by simply naming a software more intelligent than BiaB.