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

Robh, Raymb1,

Can you show the rest of us where you got the numbers?
Apparently you guys have access to information on the number of users who like the program to remain as it is, and the much smaller number of users who want changes. Rob, you even go so far as to say that you yourself have wishes, but you think you are a minority? Apart from the fact that each of you are just one person like everybody else, where are the figures to back up your claims?

Personally I find the comparison of BIAB or RB to Sonar a tad arrogant. The PG programs are not in the same league as the big DAWs are. PG products compare to DAWs as skelters compare to sportscars. (Video anyone?)
And that's forgetting that Cakewalk DID add functionality AND managed to make their DAW evolve with computer standards. They do use the registry, they do use context-sensitive menus, etc. etc. The complaining users over at the Cakewalk forums seem to be at a different level of computer literacy altogether, is my strong impression.

Another thing that I find confusing is the assumption Robh makes that improvements inevitably lead to years of pain to do a job, and loss of stability.. why is that? Are you suggesting that improvements are altogether impossible, or are you suggesting PG Music is incapable of doing a major upgrade without messing it up?

As you may have noticed, the complaints are not about flash over function. Everyone recognizes the value of parts generation by BIAB. What we just don't get is why having parts generation requires us to enter early-90s-UI-Hell.

People make suggestions to improve this software, and they should be taken seriously. How about a list of suggestions, and a poll to vote for them. If PG could step up and promise to implement the features that get the most votes, that would be great!

Oh and Rob, you don't become a veteran forum user by recording music...

Eddy

Phave,

I am one of the biggest proponents of certain changes in the GUI, largely relating to menus and essential features. I agree with what you have to say in that regard.

On the other hand, one thing that sets PG's fora apart from others--notably Cakewalk's--is that it is a very friendly community. Personal remarks are uncalled for, especially when one has little experience in the community.

FYI, Robh is a "veteran" by virtue of the forum software itself, which assigns these labels. Personally, I giggle when I see the label "Expert" under my name. "I am only an egg."

Wishing you a happy future here and with PG products,

Richard

Richard (Ryszard) makes a good point that new posters sometimes do not realize: the forum software assigns the ratings/titles under our names automatically. It's based only on the number of posts we make.

We can't even be a self-appointed 'expert' or 'beginner' around here; we are only what the forum software says we are. Even those titles that we have are skewed, because PG Music changed the forum software in 2000, and we long-timers started over with post counts of zero.

One recent positive change is that we high-count posters are no longer "Team PG - whatever" which I consider to be a good change since nothing I ever said represents PG Music. Now I'm just a 'veteran', even though I'm not a veteran. Oh, well.

Richard, Matt,

Thanks for the remarks, I'll try to be a bit nicer.
I am aware that the titles are given automatically according to the number of posts you put up. In this case, my remark was specifically targeted at the following part of Robh's post:

QUOTE
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.
UNQOUTE

If you think like this about people with a lot of posts under their belt, what does that mean for your own status as a poster? And what does it say to all the posters above who try to make a heartfelt point regarding functionality and the user interface of BIAB? Stop whining and live with it? In my view, it is this kind of dismissive posting that kills a fruitful discussion. Hence my questions to Rob and Raymb1.. if you make claims of any kind, please back them up....

Eddy

Eddy, first off, my comparision to Sonar is in that i have been using Cakewalk products since the late 90s. I have seen them struggle to keep up with the nonstop barage of request for changes that the forum clamors for. I have also seen the product become less stable rather than more stable. I do think Sonar is a very powerful app, that is designed to compete with the big names in the industry. But whether you personally have issues with the new X-1 there are a Ton of issues being discussed over there, and many can't be dismissed as just user error.

Sonar is a great program, but there was a ground swell movement to get Cake to make major changes to the GUI, and user interface. Programs like Presonus studio 1 was tossed around as a model, Reaper was thrown out as the holy grail, Cubase was used as a measuring stick. X-1 is great looking and for many fairly stable, but for many almost unusable as well. These are not newbies that have never used Sonar, but Vets that have 8.5.3 working smoothly (finally, after several patches) What they got was a program with many design flaws that will take several patches to iron out, and maybe it will not be done until version 2. Hopefully all will go well, but it has cost them. I for one do not want to be forced down that path with PG, just because a group of newer users want it to look like something they are more familiar with. While i understand the desire to have BiaB look and function like a program these folks prefer, is that really fair to the ones who have been hear longer and are comfortable with the existing program?

PG's Sequencers namely PTPA and RB are not in some ways as sophisticated as Sonar, maybe from a pure DAW feature standards, but in their own right they do an awful lot. the BiaB feature in Rb are a complete world until itself and Sonar, Cubase, ProTools, Logic, Reaper, nor any other program on the market is even close to that.

PTPA was never designed as a top of the line top dollar DAW. It was rather a cut above entry level in price, and bargin product with some very niffty features for the money. A product you could buy and use to polish up the BiaB generated projects, or record simple audio midi projects. PG does not even address video, that is another world. If you read over at Sonar, it's video capabilities pale in comparison to other video products.

As far as writing to registry, that is a PG decision, that involves allowing the program to have a very small footprint, and allow for it to be housed on a external hard drive so people can use it on either a laptop or a desktop. It also allows for quick updates and patches. Quick re-installs in the case of problems. It is a fundamental for PG, and i doubt they want to change that, but if they do well we will see.

As far as the numbers, i have no actual numbers, but what i go on is that fact that PG has a very loyal user base and from what i have read here since joining, the vast majority are happy with the program. I would bet that almost all would love to see a slow make over of the programs to a more modern computer look, but doubt seriously that the majority would like a full overhaul. Any Program of this type has to deal with bugs and issues with each new release, Sonar, Cubase, Reaper, PTPA. RB, BiaB, all of them have bug patches, and fixes during the year. If you go with a major overhaul you will add to that issue greatly. Sure I have confidence that PG can handle it. But do all of us want to go thru that? Really!


I use the program three of four times a week as time allows. What i like is I can open it up and knock out a project quickly, i do not have to relearn it and I am sure I am not alone in that view. Whatever changes PG decides i hope that it does not include a total make over that will fundamentally alter the program. I also see what you are talking about, in that some change would be good, slow change that does not subject long time users to completely having to change their process. Simpler menus, a modern look, and such would be cool.

As far as me being a forum vet. If you are incinuating that i spend more time posting than using the program you are wrong. In the last three months i have pounded out three original tunes, and 50 cover tunes for playing live. All mixed and mastered in RB. I post during breaks at work mostly, i use the program at night, when at home and on weekends. I participate in the forum because i learn a lot from other long time users.

I did not attack you, but some how what i said made you mad. I appologize for that, but you want to be mad cause i do not agree with you. I want to see PG grow at a reasoanble pace. But a strongly resist tha notion of a rapid morphing of the two very successful programs into some hybrid. Actually that is exactly waht RB is, and people want more and faster progress i guess. lets be real here for a minute, Rb still has some issues that have not been resolved, with VSTi, with little things like the Juke box, and such let's fix those before launching a full rewrite.

Respectfully Rob

Rob,

Thank you for your reply. I respect your opinion, and the way you voice it.
I took your remark on people "prattling on" in other forums as a description of what was going on in this thread. You concluded that with "If you don't like the product, use something else". Frankly, with that attitude, you do not want to post on a wish list thread.

Your last reply makes me aware that you do care, and that you do allow for change, just not in big chunks that could make the program unstable, and that could require users to relearn the program.

All fine by me, in my mind rethinking the software, stability and keeping an eye on your user base are three different things. One doesn't exclude the other. Or to put it differently: software stability is always a must-have, and whenever you redo something you need to give attention to what that means for your users.

I'm supposing a professional software-company here, so I may have assumed some things self-evident. I will try to avoid that in the future.

Best regards,
Eddy

Yeah i definately mis said a couple things. One issue that i struggle with with PG is that there seems to be some small issues inherient with the base code. I.E. the reason VSti only partially works. What i mean is that any VSti that requires times control, like say jamstix will not work. This has been a request for about three years. So my assumption is that at it's base code, in PTPA and RB by inheritance factor this is a problem. So I am leary of big changes until those things are addressed. Maybe i am wrong and a total rewrite isneeded, but so far the program works less a couple issues.

The second most said deep level gripe is a lot of new users want to scrap BiaB and Rb in favor of a program that is inherantly both in one. I personally think that is a rather bad idea, since there are many users that never even use RB, and some that seldom use BiaB. Those two worlds are softly married in RB, and to force everyone to learn a new hybrid is not fair to older users who have no need.

I think with patience, and a bit of time Rb will be that product. We ahve to remember that it is only in it's third real year, and has grown a lot. The very fact that Rb does what it does makes it a very serious DAW. EVEn the giants, Samplitude, Pro Tools, Cubase, Logic, and Sonar can't begin to touch the BiaB features in RB. The fact is only Mixcraft even begins to add auto generation to the base code of a Sequencer, and that is nothing but a light weight looping tool built in, and not even close to RT/RD generation.

RB is lacking in Pure DAW sophistication when view along side Sonar, but it is suffering from far less growning pains, and the fix list is short. Give it three more solid years and i bet it will suprise you. Remember where Sonar was 6 years ago.


Anyway, thanks for your thoughts, open dialog is good on the forum, and if anything i said was demining or condesending, or even aggressive I appologize. I hope you continue to contribute and share your ideas and thoughts here. Oh don't forget to record more than you post! We don't need anymore Veteran talkers around here!!

I don't mind the idea that "banjo" or "organ" might go on a "strings" track, because it's still based on the idea that you're adding a miscellaneous instrument to an otherwise-standard arrangement. However, the idea that one might add ONLY one miscellaneous instrument is limiting. I wouldn't call the program overall difficult to use, but there are staggering obstacles to workflow.

And to the rest of you, saying "No, if you change anything, you'll break it": stop sympathizing with your kidnappers. You paid for it, and they're coming after you every year asking for upgrade dollars. Expect your money's worth. It's 70% of a great program, and it's stubborn about fixing that infuriating other 30%.

If there was one thing I could ask from PG (individually and collectively) it would be for transparency--especially on this subject. (Note that I am not asking, although I am very curious.)

My thinking is that there are very good reasons for what is and is not done with BIAB. I am sure that a lot of the advancements are driven by marketing, and that a lot of what doesn't happen is determined, first by what resources are left over after taking care of market-driven priorities, then by technical limitations. That's just a guess.

Offhand, I can't think of another company that is responsive to the degree that PG is. I know that we are taken seriously. If you have been around long enough you know that many suggestions made here are incorporated as new features. A lot of them. If you haven't been here that long, hand around and watch.

Apart from my rant about Rewire, I have probably been most vociferous in my call for a rework of what everyone in this discussion agrees is a cluttered interface. Specifically, I would like for users to be able to create a customized menu of Essential Features, and not have to wade through the rest.

That's nice. I buy a new version about once very three years (and use maybe 5% of the features available). How much attention should they pay to me, as opposed to a pool of institutions who are buying multiple multi-user licenses on a regular basis?

So I'm torn. I want "my" feature because it is important to me. On the other hand, I BIAB has wrought a revolution in my musical life and. PG have certainly never disappointed me. In fact, they have delighted me in some unexpected way with each iteration.

Patience, Grasshopper.

I've used BIAB for a little over a year now, currently have 2010.5 and it is a stable, workhorse of a program that delivers the goods. The user interface could use some improvements, I will concede that point, but as others have stated, I hope that PGMusic does not give us a bug filled crash monster with a great user interface.

It's funny, because I think that in some ways PG is responsive, but in other ways not. And one of the ways in which they are not is highlighted by your desire for customization: a lot of great software is that which the developers realize that is going to be used in a lot of different ways by a lot of different people, and that some of those ways will not have been foreseen by the developers. BIAB is not good at allowing flexibility in ways of doing things. See my thread on "VST Patch Changes" for an example that's given me some degree of frustration. On another forum, I compared this to Microsoft Office, which I often feel lets me do everything in the world except the _exact_ thing I'm trying to do. And it's not really about wanting "my" feature: I want options. For everybody. There aren't many new features I want at this point: just take the existing features, and realize that some users will like part of the feature and dislike/be unable to use part of it, and allow the user to select HOW that feature is used, instead of just whether it's available or not.

Interesting thread and valid points on all sides. I speak from the POV that this is a compositional tool, not a DAW and so it might be worthwhile to consider this as the basic engine and not worry as much about the GUI, dated as it is.
Where else can I go to enter 6 or 8 chords and a style , play this and see if it's close to what I have in my head or get fresh ideas on what I'm working on.Since I don't play an instrument, I'd be lost without this feature.
I'm not saying the interface doesn't bug me at times but a new one would take a learning curve as well.
I seem to remember a thread that talked about the programming language used, (Python maybe) and this I believe is the basis for the current look of BIAB.
I'd like to see a simpler way of style development because I don't see the midi styles keeping up with what "I" want, but that's just me
I have yet to explore all of BIAB, I just use what I need at the time and I've had the program for years.
I've got Sonar 8.5.3 and have tried Reaper, there's good for what they do but BIAB & RB work well,as is for me. Two cents and change, Wyndham

BIAB has been in existence since the early 1990s. Obviously there have to be thousands of users for the company to stay in business. As I've stated before, BIAB is great for MY purposes. My interface is not cluttered as only the buttons I use are showing. In my experience, there aren't very many programs that are "intuitive". There's always a learning curve, just as there are no shortcuts to becoming a good musician. There are a few cosmetic changes that could be done, but the fundamental purpose for which BIAB was created should not be changed. That purpose being automatic accompaniment. Everything else that has been added is a plus. Later, Ray

P.S. There are over 16,000 registered on the forum. Probably many more who are BIAB users and are not on the forum.

Thanks for the reply, I got a better idea of where you're coming from. I will continue to post, am learning a lot as it is. Biggest worry is that I may join the ranks of the veterans sooner than I thought..

You are most welcome. I've had a lot help over the years from the vets on this forum. There are a lot of knowledgeable people on the forum who can help with any problem. Keep on posting your ideas and suggestions. PG Music does listen. Later, Ray

Deleted. Wrong thread...

There are a lot of great graphics program. I hear over and over the graphics user interface is old and out of date. I'd lover to see how someone who knows new gui's think it should look, and maybe if you understand java you can make it so it has nice menus that pull down and stuff. I know the current one does that in a very old fashioned way. I suspect someone like Super Mario will do a Victor Borge type of thing at the start and talk with a funny accent and change outfits when the style changes. We are Canadian so don't expect Mexican styles to feature a guy dressed as a gardener, here he picks apples ok?

Now down to the gritty, we need a scrolling piano window, a Lead sheet window, a window for entering notes, one for chords. And we need it to scroll in time and note based lyrics on the window. And a menu for melody manipulation, solos, and the standard File menu and submenus and wait, I'm thinking a program I have does that, with buttons for stuff. I think what they need to do is make fancy wee radio buttons at the top that say whatever based on what you choose, so that if you put a fiddle on the piano track instead of saying piano it says fiddle, on the button not underneath. Now that we have that tackled we can do it for each of the buttons, and each is a feature and each sub-feature. Cool. Let's charge 99$ for an update. Wait, the program still does the same stuff, is it legal to make people pay more for it? Hey the car industry does it.

Hi you all

Haven't been on the forum for long, but this is really a recurring subject.

Been using BIAB only since 2005, started on PC. I'm a basic user of BIAB, only for jazz composing and making accompaniment tracks, I never use it for anything else. I'm always amazed at what certain people can do with BIAB.

That being said, I find everything I need in the interface the way it is now. Hell, in the MAC version you can't even choose which button to keep, they're always there. (or did I miss an option ?).

True, the interface does have an oldie look to it, but it doesn't bother me a bit. I can get to were I want, with buttons, menus, or a right click. There are some parts of the interface that I never notice, 'cause I don't need them. I am probably missing a lot BIAB potential, but it works well for what I have to do. In the future, if PG wants to change their interface, I still don't mind. New interface to learn, no sweat, as long as I get the same results. But it can stay the way it is as far as I'm concerned.

I think the wife needs a new interface. She's so 70's. I look at pics of that smooth face and fair complexion and think, na, I traded in the old wife for wild times on the bit of cash she and the lawyer didn't take and ended up married again. I think I've learned to put up with the old interface, I understand when to shut up. This isn't one of those days when I should talk at home. I'm doing supper and she's bouncing around with a vacuum cleaner and rags.....

as a new user to 2011 biab i still dont understand
the yapping bout the current interface.
it took me all of an hour , in fact less to gen some traks/songsup n running.
now it all just makes sense to me.
i think it behooves people that critique the interface
to actually show design pics of their "better interface"
so that the rest of us can comment on it.
if i see a goodie i'll be the first to vote for it.
as an ex developer myself i see lots of snazzy interfaces
these days which often dont do much for me in a practical sense.
in fact i hear from users of lots of different software
these days that "the snazzies" are often more bloat and
often not what users want.
apologies for my strong feelings on the subject
n mebe others dont concur.
just my viewpoint.