PG Music Home Forums PG Music Wishlists Band-in-a-Box Wishlist DAW Features In BiaB - Yes/No Why/Why Not

It also shows something that's far too easily overlooked ... lots of our interpersonal communication is visual ... with messages like these on fora, it's all too easy to think something was personal when it was never intended to be, or make something personal as a consequence, become heated when, in reality, we mostly agree with each other. That's especially true when people are passionate about things and it's clear that we are. In Misha's case I also presume that English is not his first language, adding another potential source of misunderstanding.

I sincerely hope Misha is still reading and comes back.

We're veering off into personality conflicts instead of concentrating on the topic of a discussion about Band-in-a-Box's graphic interface. I don't want ANYONE to feel threatened, dismissed, put down, personally attacked or called out. Please write your thoughts and responses in a manner that reflects the true you.

I've edited some of my posts above to highlight some areas I hope we can discuss.

It's a bit like parliament all that stuff goes on and things are worked out for the best.

This is I think the third time you are doing this in the past 2 months. Do you expect me to say "thank you" every time you mention your enormous generosity concerning me? Keep in mind that likely most of the time you spent on "me" went into creating couple of User tracks, and I posted them for people to use as they wish - praising your hard work. This was conveyed to you (that I will share these with everybody) before you started. It was common good that lasted while it lasted. About the other thing, you tied age to the problem and I've said it was not cool. Here is something worth considering: "A man who is always his own biggest fan will soon have no audience."

-----
Rob, I apologize too. This was explicitly related to a long dispute between Charlie, me and a couple of other members. As soon as I saw this: "Nothing is broken, it's just not your workflow." It triggered unpleasant memories.

Apologies accepted my friend. Sometimes I feel we all get a bit too attached and invested. This is something we all enjoy and love but it isn’t world peace! If we just take a breath it will be alright. Then we can go on wrangling PGM

"become heated when, in reality, we mostly agree with each other. "
True.

Back to topic.
Colors themes for colorblind / partially color blind +1. It still falls under UI. You can have many themes made, if UI is done right.
Poor eyesight - also I think is solvable with a "theme". Everything bigger / bolder text / more pronounced buttons. Maybe even different levels.
I don't know how JAWS scripts work, so I have no comment.

About other DAW "features". I guess my position is this. If they make it the right way, that will work in harmony with everything else. Seamlessly switching tasks, tools, etc. Does it really matter? If it will break things or make it more challenging of getting from point A > B than it's another story. Just give it a though.

Cerio said everything 10x better than I would. Main problem with BIAB is discovering features and unfinished items. That is why I've mentioned that graphics, UI design has to be weighted on holistically together with features it will represent.

Misha misunderstood the point. Nothing is broken. Neither the process or his workflow. That his only considered method of working with underlying RealTrack midi data was the Tracks View and the limiting factor for accessing the data, causing the necessity to erase the RealTrack. The process otherwise is just as he explains it. By modifying his workflow to expand beyond the Tracks View, all of the parameters he desires and listed can be accomplished using BIAB.

I demonstrated it in RealBand because the view, easy toggling, retaining the RealTrack for more regenerations and exporting to a DAW are all done in a familiar DAW environment and view. It can be done in BIAB rather than RB. Partial Regeneration (Ctrl-F8) is also available in the Chord Sheet, Notation and Piano Roll views and several different menus.

Working with two or more Windows open allows easy toggling between midi and RealTrack, editing from either Window and exporting the midi data without losing the RealTrack which can be used for as many additional regenerations, midi data editing or both. Every regeneration can result in edited midi data to be saved or exported to a Legacy, Utility Track, or external DAW track.

The singular workflow in the videos for accessing the underlying midi data results in having to erase the RealTrack, losing the opportunity for continuing partial or full regenerations and is avoidable.

Underlying midi data appears to be a new discovery for some. Factually, this underlying midi data dates back at least a decade. Underlying midi data can also be added to a RealTrack that doesn't currently have it. Underlying midi data can also be added to imported or live recorded audio tracks. This has been possible since at least 2014 in Windows versions of BIAB and my post wasn't to bury his idea but to expand the capabilities while avoiding losing the RealTrack. Also to introduce the fact that partial and full regeneration is possible from multiple screens. To inform that underlying midi can be visible, edited and exported without compromising the RealTrack.

Historically speaking, this is just the same thing again; Tell the Forum BIAB/RB can do something and the real pushback comes. I didn't speak out against Misha's suggestion but offered BIAB/RB alternatives that exist that were not acknowledged or mentioned. There isn't an indication in his videos or posts he was aware of alternatives. Only, without question for input, declared the process broken. Since that post, others have spoken up they were unaware also.

I previously recorded a short video demonstrating a view of the Tracks View window, Piano Roll window and RealBand in a single screen display. The screen shot expanded RealBand from the background but prior to the midi export to RealBand, Piano Roll and Tracks View could either be used for multiple Partial Regenerations, Full Generations, audio editing, midi editing, audio export, midi export, audio/midi export, playback from Piano Roll or Tracks View, and the two BIAB views had curser sync with the Tracks View used as Master.

Honestly, I was unaware I was in a 6+ year dispute and thought the RB DAW view, avoiding erasure of the RT, both midi and RT visible and toggleable might initiate a discussion and the above information could be shared with everyone. Guess it wasn't meant to be.

Rustymemory you still have no idea, when one day you leave this world you will instantly see what the story is.
"Cast not your pearls......."

I did not misunderstood anything. Nor I asked for a workaround of any kind.
I clearly stated that I want a feature that is artificially hidden in BIAB be available, as it stands process
Is broken. Or only partially working.

The 6 year dispute I am talking about rooted in discussions on more tracks, partial regeneration and a few others, where you fiercely fought to suppress views by stating things very similar to statement in question. The latest (hot) one about a year ago on simple right click Copy/Cut/Paste/Delete discussion. Which reminds me!!! I need to make this suggestion if its not there already

Nobody is perfect, but advocating for items that were done in a rush or something else, that do not conform to common sense expectations is just nohow. With these discussions I expect constructive thinking, offering suggestions on improvement of the software in question (which is not RB)

Charlie i think this also exposes many of the issues that float around here. We often misunderstand each others posts. We often get crossways with others because we don't understand their way of doing things. I know Misha comes from a very positive direction. He has specific things that would be better if the workflow was developed differently. One issue i have seen over the years is that many BiaB features are hidden or have not been explained in years. The program has changed since then. I have watched videos that are hardly even relevant anymore because tools have been upgraded and look very different. We need new how to videos that meet current methods. There are processes that have been around for years that are hidden under layers of upgraded code that only long-time users know where they exist. Much of this needs to be upgraded to be helpful. Not just video help but workflow enhancements. tool bars, right click menus. Panels combined and eliminated. that is why this new thread exist.

The thing is Charlie you are not wrong your just coming from a different angle. Misha is not wrong he is just from a different angle.

One thing we all need to remember is we can all offer ideas and suggestions till the moon shines no more, but until PGM decides what to add or upgrade it is just talk. That said we can't get all flustered if what we want does not happen.

My hope is that a new GUI and workflows will be so intuitive and straight forward that hardly no videos would be needed.

A big +1

I have been using Studio One Pro for a number of years now. I think I have had to look at the manual maybe 2 or 3 times.

just an idea.

lots of new gui concepts have been introduced so far eg tracks view.

i feel it might be usefull at this juncture if pg could analyze all the proposed gui enhancements...and....as they know the code base of bb that the rest of us dont...it might be usefull to show gui mock ups ?? which then could be commented on by us users.

we used to do mock ups often in industry and they served as a nice way to do things....my concern is we dont know the bb code base....

hope i make sense ??

om

PG never tend to do pre-beta, the beta is dumped a week before and it's basically just for bug testing, nothing gets changed until the next year release.
As I said unless there are actually have a new crossplatform code like the Plugin uses that allows for good quality GUI and quick feature implementation due to the code being specifically designed for audio applications, as there are many features asked for that need this. Look at the GUI pics Cerio posted.
Is it wrong to want something like that for "Band in a RealBand Box", is it just too much to ask for ??

Let me offer some clarity here since you both seem very far apart on this issue. Charlie yes there are many features that have been there that are working as intended. You mention the ability to record over the audio track and created more than one track, well that is not very easy to do. It is the reason they gave is utility tracks because it was difficult to understand and people wanted to stay in BiaB longer and not go to a DAW. So you are right it can be done, but it was not intuitive at all. then when utility tracks came in they were better but still had some obvious weaknesses, and needed further development. I conversation with Peter explained his long term view of all tracks equal but they were not yet. The tracks view became a reality due to conversation with Peter again to give as he said a more DAW like workflow. they are great, but again they could use some more development. Not a one time deal but an opportunity for the program to grow. Second example. You mentioned Song master, Cakewalk , and Reaper, but only RealBand was singled out as being suppressed. The first three are not requiring development time here but RealBand does. To me that is fine i like RealBand, but this thread was aimed at improving BiaB. Which some view RB as a hinderance to that. Not me i think RB helps BiaB since it is developed by a different person. it offers ideas back and forth.

Look the truth is that if BiaB was still like it was 6 years ago i bet many would have moved on to other cleaner and more modern programs to accomplish what they need. The Multipicker, Tracks view Utility tracks just to name a few are helping BiaB compete in todays market. Is there some truth to the fact that many features are there and complete that folks fuss about YES, but the Model T ford was complete and functional no one would like to drive it everyday to work now. Things have to keep up with progress to compete. PGM is asking what we would like to see, so let them discuss it and let PGm decide what the develop.

To avoid confusion, this is a response to now deleted Charlie's post.

What doesn't work for me is this:
Charlie says:
"You discover a process or feature, like you have in this thread, and suddenly it's broken, was poorly designed, rushed and released before it was fully developed and doesn't conform to some mysterious, universal industry standard."

I was aware of this for about 4 years. Unlike you, I actually voice my concerns when I see a problem such as the one in question at the time of release. PGM asked for feedback on enhancing workflow. This is one of the items I believe should be addressed.

The mysterious industry standards are such of Daws and Virtual studio instruments that were developed in the last quarter of a century. Universally accepted ways of doing certain things. Charlie, I know you don't use VSTs, but have you actually tried working with another DAW, other than RB - a more current one (last 5 years?). Reason for asking is how can you make certain assessments or build certain arguments if you are not following evolution of music making software?


Methods? There are no "methods" to specifically what I proposed. Zero! They are workarounds you offered. "Alternatives" as you said yourself above.

I singled out RB because it was NOT proposed to take certain element(s)from RB and move to BIAB. That would be perfectly fine. RB agenda is pushed to use RB instead of BIAB. Big difference there.


Why go this route? Argue for the sake of arguing? Its boring as hell. Please let it go. There is absolutely nothing wrong with my request.

yes the songmaster gui is rather nice.
as ive said many times new bbtview could slay...but imho its very important HOW its developed further.
my suggestions in the past ive sent to pg.
eg editing...and need for speciall chord...tempo...marker and lyrics editing tracks with the concept being like rb i can do most of my work in track view and so im not feature hunting.

my major concern at this time is simply put i think pg needs to inform us what concepts/features presented so far are just not doable for various tecnical reasons. then these can be ticked off and other concepts presented by users.
ie drill down into what is doable.

as to various daws on the market lets not forget they dont have
the complication technically of offering the track generation features of bb and rb.

so imho its not comparing apples to apples.?
i suspect if us users knew the pg code base then we would be very impressed as to what pg have achieved with bb and rb.
this stuff isnt trivial imho.


om

"as to various daws on the market lets not forget they dont have
the complication technically of offering the track generation features of bb and rb."

Lets not forget that they have their own complexities. They are addressing them. So as PGM, but at much, much slower pace. Hopefully this time around it will be different.

At least foundation blocks for next level workflow / UI will be laid out.

I pulled my comment because as Rob stated, I spoke of features too complex for most hobbyists using the program daily and I anticipated that my points would be dismissed and only result in more bashing of BIAB and RB. Responses are totally as expected. All's good.


Except for the nice dodge by RS to twist his response away from the screenshot I asked him to evaluate to reiterate his "it's broken" mantra. Too funny.

"as to various daws on the market lets not forget they dont have
the complication technically of offering the track generation features of bb and rb."
There are VSTis that do this like NI Session Guitars, UJAM Guitars Piano Bass, MusicLabs Gutars, Toontracks EZDrummer Bass Keys.
Then you now have Logic with Chord Track and AI instruments. Not to mention you now have a RealTrack keyboard. You also have JJazzLab that has millions of styles and works as a Live Arranger.

"Lets not forget that they have their own complexities. They are addressing them. So as PGM, but at much, much slower pace. Hopefully this time around it will be different.

At least foundation blocks for next level workflow / UI will be laid out."

Hopefully this time around it will be different if they are using a new crossplatform code designed for audio applications to resemble the quality of Song Master Pro.