PG Music Home Forums General Discussion Recording, Mixing, Performance and Production Should PG Music Plan For You To Take It To A Daw or Take It To Band-in-a-Box

If you were charged by Peter Gannon to come up with a one year, five year or ten year plan for PG Music to follow what would it be?

User Musocity +++ mentioned +++ his belief PG Music should be concentrating on the Band-in-a-Box (BiaB) plugin to support working in a DAW.

User MusicVillian states his belief +++ HERE +++ that

There is no right or wrong and both workflows can be accommodated at the present time but what about PG Music's plan for the future? Where should PG Music spend it's development resources?

RB <grin>

jim.

all my dreams are in the wishlists for rb n' bb.
so i wont bore people by repeating.lol.

whether flac or some other non wav format.. m4a i think was mentioned by DR G. particularly i would love to see rb more nimble useing such an alternative.
any solution to waiting for waveforms to draw.

the new bb 23 ive been playing with l'm really happy with the near instant genn times i'm getting.
super duper.

happiness

om

PG Music should aim mainly to stay profitable, which means developing BIAB towards where their market and customers are heading.

So no thoughts about a 1 year, 5 year or 10 year plan for PG Music?

Rharv, how should RealBand fit in PG Music's future 1, 5 or 10 years from now?

Justanolmuso should your suggestions be implemented next release, within 5 years or even later?

Peter's Garage, PG Music can solicit feedback yearly as it attends the NAMM show in California. They also have a robust international distribution network to provide marketing feedback. Assume that while PG Music is taking advantage of these resources they are also seeking input from forum members to formulate long range plans.

My experience is a one year plan has pretty specific goals while five and ten year plans are more about what resources will be needed, what improvements made and new features developed?

Jim.

1..RE….Justanolmuso should your suggestions be implemented next release, within 5 years or even later?

my answer.

as i dont know what the internals of bb/rb are at the code level…i cant address that intelligently. all i can dream is for both bb n' rb be as nimble as possible.

(note so far really pleased with how nimble bb 23 is. but i'm in early tests.)
and as you know i would love to see a lossless environment for recording//playback//mixing in both rb n' bb.

2..RE… PG generally.

i like to support the 'little guy'. i'm a 'romantic' at heart..lol.

in the pg case i'm married to a canadian beauty so i'm sorta biased to wanting to see pg's continued success as a cdn company. so i post wishes.
(a bit of levity…if asked why she chose me…she says... 'well i met the big oaf in winter and i think i had a brain freeze at the time'...lol)


overall i DO think pg should move as quickly as they can with further product development in case one of the big money daw companies decides to get into pg's market etc.
(this comment is from my time years back as a tech product mgr. ie its all strategic aspects.)

happiness.

om

There is a lot that could be changed in a 1, 5, and 10-year plans. Here are a few ideas off of the top of my head:
1-a complete rewrite that includes all time signatures, streamlined menus, and a modern interface/GUI.
2-If no rewrite is in the future then streamline menus, like how many copy and paste options do we really need?
3-Become more like other software. By that I mean things like the horizontal bar in notation, the one like all other software has, except BiaB's doesn't work. You have to click on the little arrows.
3-Have the VST include all of the options in the standalone version of BiaB and when one does MIDI it doesn't clog up your HD with an audio version. This would combine both the Mac and Win versions of BiaB.
4-If #3 is implemented then do the same with RB, thus eliminate BiaB stand-alone completely.
5-Have multiple versions of BiaB, one for MIDI including all charts and MST, one for RTs and RDs, and one for both.
6-Have chord progression templates like rock, blues, jazz, new age, etc. The templates would be various chord progressions in each genre, i.e. 12 bar blues, 16 bar blues. Choose a template and the chords in the key of C would be implemented in BiaB where you would choose a key signature and style. This might help new musicians or musicians with limited chord progression knowledge.
7-Modernize all graphics and change the name to something like The Musicians Ultimate Accompaniment Software.

FWIW, I don't see a fundamental conflict between the two views for songwriting.
If the BBPlugin does the right things in the right way, one can "stay in BiaB" whilst also being in a DAW.

Where I do see a potential conflict would be if the consequence of a DAW-centric plugin broke the way I mostly use BiaB, and the way for which I believe it was originally conceived ... as a pseudo-band for me to play along with for practice. But I reckon that would not be broken, provided the BiaB-standalone supports that use case.

Something like that—no disagreement in any case.

I have never used BIAB for my own projects—maybe, someday but not yet.

I bought it for clients who want to do vanity projects and have made a nice little side gig from it. Sometimes, projects get larger and, for that, the DAW plug-in is nice.

Although I understand why RealBand for the Mac never existed, it would have been nice for me. The DAW plug has superseded the need—sorta' kinda' but RB would still be nice to have. Not holding my breath.

Mario's suggestions are well thought out and I can see their usefulness in the long run but I don't have a real problem with the way things are — assuming that the Mac version catches up with the Win in 2023.

Mario's idea list is more like the responses I hoped for when starting this thread.

Unifying the Mac & Windows versions into one release is a great example of a goal that likely will take more than one year to implement. A good time to combine the Windows and Mac version would be during a code re-write. I can also see that as a five year goal. The two versions sharing more features each year might be a stopgap measure until a consolidated version written in new code is released.

A good example of a one year goal is to streamline menus.

I find Gordon's comment intriguing. What's the right things in the right way? What are the minimum specifications the DAW plugin should meet?

Jim,

In my opinion best approach is taken with Steinberg's Halion
Which has two components: Halion, which has very deep features and smaller brother Sonic - a light weight plugin (or standalone) that can do many things Halion can, without deep editing features.

In theory, sure BIAB can become "all in one solution" without the need of "separate" DAW, and the Plugin could be used in the 3rd party DAW of choice with less of deep features. But a lot of work needed to make BIAB a DAW like program. No matter how close it can get to DAW workflow, it is very different in many ways, so it would require different kind of thinking in making the best of DAW like features integrated well with very specific BIAB features.

Ok....

"If you were charged by Peter Gannon to come up with a one year, five year or ten year plan "

One year plan -
BIAB:
Major cleanup which can start with:
1 Start integrating non-modal pop up box menus into the workflow and eliminating those modal boxes (not leaving them as a secondary "way") An example would be current Partial regeneration Modal and Non-modal box menus.
2 Consolidation, clear wording and position (priority) of Menus
3 Addressing known long standing issues (for example 255 bar limit, working with MIDI patterns, etc.)
4 GUI. Start thinking about making elements modular. High resolution icons and Dark theme. Touch audio / midi track navigation.
5 If 255 bar limit is broken, would start development of User Track console, which would accept complete template in a single BIAB session. End goal: User Track wizard / assistant for RTs or MIDI.

Plugin:
Stability across different DAWs and Compatibility with files shared between BIAB -> Plugin and wise versa.

RTs/MIDIs: Less of what is recorded, more of what is not.


Five year plan... That is a tough one. I will Try

Most of internal code is updated:
instant RT playback
accommodation of all time signatures,
GUI is well established and accepted by most: Fully customizable, resizable and modular.
Universal picker for all creative content. A single place / librarian.
Full DAW features, with no track limit.
Changing WMAs to FLAC or similar.
Chord / structure theory assistant.
Integration with future plugins, that may include AI.
Distribute 24 bit Audio
Bug tracking system.

Plugin:
Sold as a separate entity
Instant playback
Live Arranger
Hardware Live arranger module

RTs/MIDI/styles and other content sorted in a way, so it does not create confusion.
Expanding on current idea: "What add-ons I have"

Ten year plan..... Jim this is getting hard...

Flexibility. Being able to adopt easily to people's needs, yet being able to surprise with some features not available anywhere else. Record world class musicians.

Phew... that is short of it.

I'm afraid I'm going to duck that, at least for the present, because I don't presently use BiaB as a songwriting tool.

In a way, it's for PGM and the interested users explore, distill and refine.

I don't often do 'slopey shoulders', but I make an exception here.

Staff pizza.
What more can I say that I haven't already said a couple of times over 14 years.



Why is Biab allowed to generate quick but the BBPlugin and RealBand are not allowed to do that ?
Why can't Biab tracks be opened instantly in Reaper with one click ? as it's the most easiest thing of all to implement right now.

There are some great DAWs and they have become a pretty common tool among recording musicians and songwriters. As such, putting resources into RealBand doesn't make a lot of sense. Sonar is free, Reaper is $65, and they are both great. No reason to reinvent the wheel.

I use BIAB both as a standalone and as a plugin and am glad it can do both.

It's a bit of a champaign problem that I have with the style picker. After trying to filter I still have such a giant list of styles to sort through that it takes up a lot of time. Maybe it's just a user error on my part, perhaps I am missing something.

Frankp/All.

even tho' ive loved reaper from its inception i personally dont want to see rb disappear. because it has some features i havent seen in any other daw.
(see the loooong menu in rb.) that i find v useful .
yes there are rb features i would like, and have suggested in the rb wish forum.

but lets remember rb IS free. and in fact with just a few added features imho would be the daw market leader. (maybe i'm a hopeless romantic…lol i always root for the underdog.)

yes rb is a tad 'ugly' but if one takes time to delve under the hood and really persists for some time..and develop ones own work methods there is lots to like.

i just want to see rb continue.

happiness n' have a great 2023.

om

The best way to keep RB going is donate it to an enthusiastic Delphi programmers club where lots can chip in and add these features.
PG's numero uno enthusiasm is Biab. The Plugin and RealBand are just way behind in development and love.

The combination of RealBand and BIAB because they are linked together is a set-up that is ideal for beginning a recording in RB for any live recording of instruments, vocals, backing vocals and recording multiple inputs then moving the project into BIAB for the final arrangement and then doing a final mix in RB if necessary.

The operation of RealBand and BIAB is very similar to the new hybrid stand alone mixer/recorders like the Tascam Model 12.

RustySpoon#'s answer was pretty detailed and comprehensive. I find his initial comment interesting: How does Steinberg's approach differ from what PG Music is doing with the main Band-in-a-Box program and the plugin? The main program has all available features and the plugin is light on features.

The main omission I can think of with RustySpoons 1 and 5 year plans is I didn't see anything about merging the Mac and Windows programs into a single cross platform program.

Musocity suggests pizza, track injector and more development resources for the plugin and RealBand.

FrankP seems to suggest dumping RealBand and develop the (Band-in-a-Box or plugin?) StylePicker.

Justanoldmuso wants PG Music to keep RealBand.

Charlie Fogle suggests using the combination of RealBand and Band-in-a-Box together to emulate a standalone multi-track recorder. I'm sure the Mac users would like to be able to have RealBand so they could agree.

It looks like it's tough to come up with imaginary 1, 5 and 10 year plans. Hard game to play.

Ok I'll try and restrain so post don't get deleted again.

1. Keep developing Biab but you need to look at crossplatform as too much time is wasted doing Win then doing Mac.
2. The BBPlugin needs to have all the generate code contained within it so it will become a professional VST that can be used professionally in a studio same as Toontracks. If they don't want to do this it serves no purpose as you can drag n drop from Biab, so it should be dropped.
3. RealBand I don't know where the resources will come from to do anything but a few token tweaks as there is no Mac version so it's no fair for them.

There never seems to be any open discussion from PG at all.
I'm not sure if I serve any purpose here if the things I suggest are too advanced and too far into the future. I can't really dumb my thinking down to just look at basic things and remain in that technology period.
I seem to be the only one here that post this stuff yet it's just normal stuff in other forums.
PG might be better to ask "we are looking for a way to improve such n such", then we can pitch in with solutions.
But when you give stuff out and it goes under the radar, you don't serve much purpose and are basically wasting your time here that is physically and emotionally draining if the energy goes nowhere.

What did I just say about dragging from Biab ? then I go to the Reaper forum as I posted the RT to SFZ there. Yet I'm always the bad guy.