PG Music Home Forums PG Music Wishlists Band-in-a-Box Wishlist Time for a fundamental rethink?

I'm new to this forum, and only a few months into BiaB, but this seems like a mostly friendly group, so I'll throw this out. I am benefiting immensely from BiaB's ability to comp my practices and to add color to songs where I can't do it myself. The internal algorithms are advanced and creative, and the program's engine is to be commended. HOWEVER.....BiaB appears to be Ford Focus frame on a Ferrari engine. (Sorry for being blunt, but that's exactly the metaphor that comes to mind when I load the program. I'm not trying to offend.)

Leaving aside the time warp to the early 90s that the UX offers, there are just too many usability quirks and inconsistencies with mainstream user interface standards. Example: everytime I want to save a file, I have to scan the (24!) options under the File menu to find Save. (Comes after Karaoke options - really?) Cutting and pasting usually leads to unanticipated results. The list could go on and on. And yes, I know there are shortcuts and key equivalents for all of these to be learned, but as a 21st century software user, I have an expectation that the program should be 85% usable out of the box w/o instructions. BiaB gets about a 40% score based on my exerience.

While I'm satisfied with what the program accomplishes, I'm dissastified with the amount of work I have to do. I can't in all good conscience recccomend BiaB to a prospective buyer either. It's simply too hard to use. Frankly, I use the program b/c it's effective, but I heave a sigh of resignation when I click the icon (and hold my breath that it doesn't crash while generating Realtracks.)

At some point, PG will have to bite the bullet and do a complete remake of the look and feel, and I vote sooner rather than later. Otherwise, fans will leave and new customers will be hard to acquire. Believe me, I know how hard this is - I've been in the technology industry for some time. Long-term loyal users will rightly howl that they need to change habits, customer support costs will skyrocket for a while, developers will be diverted from new features to usabilty designing, etc. Been there. But I also know it has to be done.

FWIW, here at a minimum is what I would change, and I invite others to chime in:

-Contextual icons: over 1/3 of my screen space is occupied by buttons, most of which I rarely use. I just counted 76 button icons, not including the instrument and playback options. BiaB should know what I'm doing and present me with only options that are relevant to the task at hand. (Yes, the icons can be hidden, but that's not the point; it's about enhancing workflow at each step of the process). One possibility is the use of tabs - this has become common in many programs, and almost all browsers, so there will be a less steep learning curve.


-The instrument selection radio icons continue to baffle: I can click Strings and yet add a MIDI generated percussion instrument, or a Banjo realtrack, and the option still says "Strings." This is an area where a more traditional DAW approach may be in order, with tracks lanes, and more easily customizable track names.


-Use wizards instead of menu dialogs. The buttons on most dialog boxes are dense, and often lack logical flow. Example, the notation dialog box. Formatting options are presented alongside transposing options, sandwiched in between guitar chord options. Takes a lot of reorienting myself with every dialog box that is open. This is one area where consitency is paramount. Give me tabs with my options, and let me find only what I need, and make the tabs the same across every dialog box.


-There must be a reason why BiaB doesn't write to the Windows registry, but I don't know what it is. This makes BiaB not play well with my system and I suspect is the reason for a lot of instability and frequent crashes. I'd suggest reevaluting this policy.

-General lack of graphic enhancement. In this era, people expect the graphics to be engaging, intuitive, exciting and useful. I can't say this about BiaB's UX presentation layer.


Don't get me wrong, I admire the program and would like to see it stay around. However, I fear that over time it will fade into the night along with its loyal long term users. A newer generation of users will be put off by an archaic interface, and find something else. I think that would be a shame. That is the intent of this posting and I hope it is taken in that light.

There is truth in what you are saying. The overall look is rather old fashioned. And the multitude of buttons are confusing, for a while. Some of this is due to the fact that the program is unique. There is no other program, the only close competition pales in comparison.

The idea you had on track lanes is a decent one, IF this was a DAW, but it is not, it is based on the concept of a chords screen, and the fact that it has a list at the top for the tracks is that it is giving you some adjustment for the backing tracks generated. It may still say strings, but right above it it tells you what real track it generated. If you want track lanes use RealBand, it IS a DAW. And you can rename any track you want.

What i worry about is stability, and adding new fancy graphics, and users tools, plus more coding for these could potentially make it more buggy. I have almost zero crashes with my system. RT generation is solid now. It could get a basic facelift alright, but i for one would hate to see it's overall functionality change much.

Yes it could look a bit better, but as far as suggesting this program to others, i do often, and some have said it looks old, but once they see what it does, they all get a different view of it. This program flat out works, and once you bump around it for a while it is not so confusing. It is actually very simple to use.

People have been predicting failure for the program due to it's graphics for a long time, but it keeps on selling, and selling and growing. I agree some modernization is needed, but I want slow changes. I have seen what happens when program keep piling on the features and fancies. (Sonar) The forum there is filled with complaints over waht is still not working, and it has a nice crisp new look. And still folks come there constantly griping about the graphics. Can't please everyone no matter what it looks like.

I'd say a more appropriate metaphor is that of a 1980's Ford Escort Engine in a Model T body. The latter I can live with for some unknown reason, but it's the engine that worries me the most. And yes the amount of knock on effects from changes prompts one to say 'leave it alone' as from recent experience there's no telling what can go wrong with BIAB when new things are added. if there's to be any fundamental rethink I suspect it's going to have to involve recoding the entire program from the ground up.

Regards

Alan

I agree with Robh. Why a fundamental rethink for BIAB when Real Band will function like you want? Thousands of us love BIAB for it's main function - automatic regenerating accompaniment. Everything else is gravy. Later, Ray

I bought a Mini Cooper. They put the retro speedometer circle in the middle for old times sakes. Sometimes old is new.

I was in a bar and between sets someone requested a song. It's a country song. The guy is using what he admits is a dated older version of band in a box, 2 speakers on poles, one monitor a power mixer and an acoustic guitar with output. One mic. He walks over to the laptop, enters 20 chords, 3 repeats, and 30 seconds later runs it through one verse on headphones, comes back finishes a beer, and does the song which sounded really good.

Guy never bought band in a box in his life and says to me,...what do I need newer stuff for it works great. I never even needed a manual.

Wowser.

I alos am a new user, but have been around for many years. I have been using sequencers fopr decades and have a heavyweight Cubase studio. I must agree that BIAB is like a Ferrari in a Ford Escort chassis - its a truly fantastic breakthrough program with Real Styles and very useful in other ways too.

But.... the GUI is confusing and odd. I can see why its 'endearing' to some but a ground up rethink is in order now. Why two programs? WHy Real Band AND BIAB.

I must admit I dont really know the program well, but to me, and I guess to others, its confusing, even though I have been around a while with DAWS. Its like an application with bits added on, and bits added on to the bits, and bits added on to the bits of the bits...

I LOVE it though...more real styles please...

+1 for the initial post of masondr, except for the registry thing. I love the ability to run BIAB from a portable hdd. The use of ini files is crucial for this.

I've used BIAB for many years and I'm very used to it. I would hope that if there is a change in the GUI, the option to retain the old GUI is there. I don't know of any decent music program that doesn't have a learning curve. Later, Ray

Well for a start 3/4 of the screen is the chord sheet, no way around that and I like it that way.

If you feel that the look is outdated there are options to use different colours, might help if there were a few different themes made or users knew how to make their own.

Although I ask questions often on the forum, I don't feel that biab has a steep learning curve unles you want to use things like the stylemaker, to be honest I have never read the manual, in fact I think for a newbie starting to read the manual will make things seem more difficult than they really are.

Joe

Why two programs? WHy Real Band AND BIAB.

Because they are for different purposes. RB is a Sequencing program for recording, it does allow some generation features of BiaB, but it is a Sequencer, or recording studio if you will.

BiaB is for auto accompaniment generation and live playback, quick design, not really a full on recording studio at all!

I'm a long time user and also like the look and functionality the way it is. Sometimes I'll use different views, like scrolling melody or fake sheet, but mostly I use the main page with the chords on 2/3 of the screen, the big lyrics (or lyrics document) wind on 1/3, and the visable keyboard turned off. So for my purposes there are plenty of options to fit my needs. Also I don't want to go through a learning curve and the many tweek updates to follow. If it is in the planning stages, I would support the person's suggestion that this original gui is an option.

RbH,
With respect to you..

Real Band is a sequencer, but so is BIAB. You could say Real band is accompaniment software, but its still a sequencer of sorts. You can record in both.

I've used biab for 3 years now and I love it to bits. I wouldn't change it too much as many users who've been loyal since the start could just as easily hate any major changes. Over the 3 years, my site reading has improved enormously. I'm playing stuff I wouldn't have dreamt of not that long ago.
If it ain't broke...Don't fix it !

I understand what you are saying ZZ, but also with all respect, you are missing the point. BiaB was never built as a recording studio type sequencer. It was designed to arrange accompaniment tracks automatically by style sets, and a recordable track was added to accomodate folks who wanted to add one audio track to the arrangement. The solo and melody tracks can also hold some stuff but were developed to add generated solos and melodies. One of the key features that BiaB has that is very different from recording studio software is the ability to rearrange the file everytime you hit play. That is fundamental to what it is, and also very unfundamental to recording in general.

Realband however is a new product based very closely on Powertracks, and for all intents and purposes it is Powertracks, a true recording studio software package. It was build from the ground up as a recording studio with 48 tracks. It has some of the BiaB arrangement features added so one could open BiaB files, and generate RTs and RDs in the tracks. But it has all the same features as PTPA, including the tracks view and the Mixer view. It has all the effects and slots for mixing and processing that a true studio needs. It is a full on recording studio audio/midi sequencer, and BiaB is not. I truly doubt PG plans on morphing BiaB into one program with PTPA, cause they already have, and it is called RealBand. I suspect that the development for RB and BiaB will continue for years to come. BiaB will continue to develop as it has in the same direction. BiaB is used both by those who use it to auto arrange by style and those who use it to generate live backing tracks. Rb will slowly develop as a full fledged recording studio, with some nice basic arrangement features. Really bringing both worlds together, and PTPA will most likely stay a simple easy lightweight DAW.


So BiaB is a arrangement program with limited recording capability, and Rb is a recording studio with limited arrangement capability. I beleive the drop and drag features bear out that the two shall remain the same for at least a long time. They have built a bridge for the two to meet at.

Hi,

I registered to the forum just to reply to this post.
I've used BIAB way in the past, and I've come back to it just this year.
Seeing the user interface nearly drove me to tears.

What is keeping you from updating it? It looks and feels as if development was never done against any sort of planning. Hard decisions seem to have been put off, investments have not been made.

Can you tell me, how much time do you spend keeping the old stuff alive in changing environments? How often did you think "if only I had chosen the newer path 5 years ago, I could now easily do this and that, and make the program look shiny and fresh..." And that growing group of Mac users that complain of the differences between the Mac and Windows versions.. porting could be so easy! The new platforms that mobile devices offer... ah, but that is not even about the UI..

You could make use of a GENERATION (it's 2011!) of new insights in how to build a user interface, how to organize code, install, distribute, etc..

Are you just not aware? Is it that you are afraid of something? Are you just unable to set aside the time and money? I can't believe you wouldn't give a ***. How long do you think you can rely on the comments of your long time customers like the ones above, who have aged along with your program? Do you read other threads, where people complain about not getting their money's worth with an upgrade? Is the interface part of their complains? Or do you rely on those loyal clients who fork out the cash and spend time to defend that it was worth it once again. You survived Microsofts funny Songsmith-experiment, my guess is the next time they or another big software company seriously try, it's all over for BIAB.

PLEASE! Update the user interface. Do it for this new generation of users, that may open up to the music styles that you provide, that they never hear on the radio. Do it to help keep the practice of playing musical instruments alive, rather than seeing more and more people "do it all" from the computer. Do it because you know that even though they like it, you are still fooling those clients who just don't realize what a fresh interface would do for them.

Above all, do it because you owe it to yourself. Recognize that this program is too good to grow old and die of some compatibility issue that you just can't solve anymore.
If you don't know how, get help!

Eddy

I really like the interface. I find it very efficient to use and I like having having so many options readily on hand. For my needs, it's designed perfectly. I see the layout as neither old nor modern. To me, it's simply highly functional.

Noel

At the risk of going wayyy out on a limb, here, I have a prediction:

2011.5 will be, 'as per usual.'

2012 will be ONE program, perhaps called "RealBand in a Box," which will have a whole new slick configurable 21st-century interface, and will combine both programs, seamlessly.

Or am I just dreaming again.

Daisy

I wouldn't mind, but I'm not the majority.
I find RB SOOOO much more intuitive. I find myself clicking all over the place in BiaB to find what I want to do. This is why I spend as little time in BiaB as possible before moving the project to RB. I know many here have grown accustomed to the menus, but I don't think it is intuitive for newer users.
Just my humble view.

I think that this post is morphing a bit, but here goes. As far as my post before, well i was not addressing the user interface as much as the wish that PG scrap both BiaB and Rb development and build something brand new and pour both programs in a blender and pour out a new one. It just seems rather selfish to ask a company to abandon their whole program in favor of a half dozen people who want it their way.

As far as my growing old with BiaB, i have only used it for 3 years now. I will admit that the user interface and GUi is rather old fashioned. But that thing flat out works, and is pretty darned solid. Sonar is struggling with their new look and i do not want to see PG go that route. If they want to clean it up a tad great. Give it a modern new look but not a full rewrite. I do not want to go through years of pain to do a job.

So what it does not look great, does it work? Personally i like function over flash. I do not think PTPA, or Rb are fancy or great looking, but they work. Make it strong, make it solid, make it functional, make it stable. Fix the VSTi issues, and all that. Yes maybe slowly overhaul the interface and make it a bit more user friendly, but for God's sake do not completely redo it at the loss of stability.

If a new user wants a fancy 21st century look over full function, then he might be wanting the wrong things. I listen to people on DAW forums all the time prattle on about wanting this and that, but seldom see them actually record anything. How could they they spend all there time fussing. Use the tool if it works. If you do not like the product use something else.

On a personal level, there are things i would like to see done with the program, that would enhance my work flow, but hey it is not all about me, there are users around the globe, that all do things differently. It is my choice what i use.

+100