PG Music Home Forums PG Music Product Forums Band-in-a-Box for Windows At a crossroads: invest my time mastering RealBand instead of BIAB?

Hi everyone

I have made a few attempts at learning at least some of the many details of BIAB. As you can appreciate, it's pretty daunting. My latest attempt has been watching the 20-video series by Groove 3. Things are getting clearer.

However, the more I learn about BIAB, the more I think about ignoring it and working solely in RealBand (which I’ve only played with a few times.) I’d like folks’ advice on this.

Here is some background:

Once BIAB 2015 arrives, I will be on my third version of BIAB starting from 2013. My experience with the software has been thus... I open something up, hunt for ideas, get blown away by some of the things I audition... but then when the works starts, of turning these ideas into properly arranged finished pieces or stems within BIAB with high degree of control, I start getting lost, or badly cramped, within the BIAB visual framework.

I am used to seeing parts as horizontal tracks, with changes visually marked somehow; whereas in BIAB, if I have several tracks with various changes going on e.g. tempo changes, style changes, patch changes etc. I find it becomes too much work to have to remember where and when these occur; I have to right click each bar to get all this information, bar by bar, instead of having a single view "song map".

This is one of the reasons I have so many works in progress in BIAB (maybe 20) but only 1-2 finished projects. (Another reason is that I tend to wander off exploring the trillions of options available, but that is my fault.)

So, because my job limits my free time a lot, I figure, if I am going to save time and brain juice by properly studying (i.e. including going through the manual, gasp) just one of the two, it should be RealBand. The DAW track layout is so much more intuitive.

I have read posts here in which people say they often do their "finishing " in Real Band, or semi-finishing, with finishing in another DAW.

I very much like the idea of working just in RealBand, as opposed to some in BIAB, some in RealBand. It simplifies things by dealing with just one program, which, from what I understand, does most of what BIAB does.

But -- and here is my main question: what are the main things which you can only do in BIAB? What would I miss by using only RB?

By the way, some more background about how I use BIAB, as this might affect your answers..

I rarely aim or want to create something start to finish using PG's tools. Rather, I will start with a bare-bones midi or audio track created elsewhere, get the chords, tempo etc info into BIAB, and audition accompaniments, often part by individual part. I'm not looking necessarily to have a full New Orleans RealStyle accompany my bare bones track, but I might be interested in, say, its bass or piano RealTrack.

I also don't care much about BIAB Melodist of Harmony functions.

I do want to be able to use Solos (RealTrack, MIDI etc) from available styles though.

Anyway, I'd be grateful for any thoughts.

Since you've got the basics down, I would suggest to keep using BIAB to get started with your songs. I find you can layout your chord progression and audition styles much more quickly in BIAB. Then once you have the basic framework of the song, move it over to RealBand. There you'll have greater control over every aspect of the song.

One thing BIAB does (and this is just for RealTracks, since MIDI generation is instantaneous) is to start playing back the song much quicker than RealBand, because it continues generating the song in the background while the song is playing. RealBand needs to completely generate the RealTracks before starting to play. That's why auditioning styles is quicker in BIAB.

Do the simple stuff in BIAB, then the heavy audio editing in RealBand.

My $0.02 worth.

JFord

Thanks for the interesting comments re: BIAB and RB.
Cheers

My "New Year's resolution" January 2014 was to learn to use RealBand. That's still a work in progress. That said there's a few things I've noticed.

As others have stated it is quicker to build a basic song in BiaB then RealBand. BiaB does much of it's work as background tasks so you can plug in a few bars worth of chords and try them out. RealBand builds tracks from scratch each time before it starts playback. Your wasting a lot of time between track rebuilds.

If you're making a lot of project changes BiaB seems to be more resistant to file corruption than RealBand.

RealBand seems to be more resource hungry (cpu cycles and ram memory dependent) than BiaB. The more powerful your cpu and the more ram available for use, the faster RealBand operates.

When you are auditioning styles BiaB's eight track limitation means it's real good at replacing instruments as needed. RealBand doesn't replace RealTracks. New RealTracks are added but unwanted RealTracks must be manually removed.

My opinion is BiaB excels at choosing initial style, tempo and key signature, chord entry, part markers and bars required; in other words, basic song structure. RealBand is best for track specific tasks such as editing midi, selecting midi instruments, choosing RealTracks, changing the chordsheet to modify a RealTrack's althorithm choices, using effects and mixing.

I stopped using BIAB and only use RealBand. I like it much better now that I'm so used to working in it. It works for me....give it a try.
- Rick

Never use BB anymore, no use for it at all.
Unless you are using BIAB for what it was designed for Auto Accompaniment:
In RB you can SEE what you are doing.
You can SEE what instrument comes in/finishes at a glance.
You can SEE if the track is Stereo or Mono.
(that's why no one knew Stereo UserTracks were generating in Mono because they use BB)
You can mix MultiTrack Drums.
You can generate re-renerate a section on any bar,s on any of the 48 tracks.
MultiRiffs any track/section.
You can mute/fade-in-out sections of track with Volume Nodes.
How could you not need all that ?
That's why I recommend to people DON'T get settled in to BB, you will become an invalid. Take the brave step as others here have and Learn RB now before it's too late.

That's why we have moved from DOS, typing in things, to Windows where you can SEE.

Soildrock

I have to disagree about your view of what BIAB is "only" good/designed for (auto accompanist) - but different strokes makes the world go round (mixing metaphors).

No place else can I generate a SONG or flesh out whole idea, start to finish, faster including my over dubs.

In my view, the bulk of what you mentioned RB does over BIAB is what I would do AFTER I have laid down a song or tune/idea.

It's what I would view (no pun), mainly, as "post" work: MIXING/polishing/correcting phase, for me the creative juices just get drained in RB (and PT and Sonar and Reaper and..) when all I want to do is lay down a tune end-to-end, albeit unpolished.

Again just me (old fart, stuck in old ways - like I still think kids ought to learn to use slide rule , or at least pencil and paper, first before calculators. FORCES the skulls full of mush young un's to at least have an idea of the concept of "order of magnitude" for the RIGHT answer (yes, Virginia there is only ONE right answer) instead of whatever gibberish their random key punching yields on the LCD "thing-a-ma-bob" display )


Lingyai,

John mentioned why he thought you might consider effort spent in BIAB first while Solidrock gives very good reasons to start RB first (and maybe only) - each have compelling reasons for their point of view. Both are long time users and always give good advice.

Good Luck no matter where you go or how you use BAIB/RB

Larry

EDIT: PS I'm clearly now posting just simply to increase my post count - someone has to take up the slack now that Mac doesn't post

No, that's fine if it's easier to make it up in BB sure.
Also double click on a chord in BB then RB and see how long it takes to play.

I'd like to thank everyone for the different perspectives.

Soidrock, I must admit there's a ring of full-throated manifesto in your first post that I like.

As I mentioned, my main intended use is not to create things start to finish, but rather, to import something from outside the PG universe, like a midi track which already has a formed, set structure and known key, chords and tempo, and then audition single-part accompaniment candidates, and then pick one or more best candidates for mixing in.

So in Realband, at any given time I will be able to see all my candidates (some of which might be muted) and then arrange the winners visually, using clip length trimming, volume automation and what-not. Losers eventually get deleted.

For this kind of workflow, then, I think RealBand will be best for me.

By the way -- the last RealBand manual I saw was for the 2013 version, with a separate "What's new in 2014" pdf. Does anyone know if they ever got woven together, or even if by chance there is a 2015 version available?

Thanks again to everyone. Though please keep posting on this topic if you wish -- I learn a lot from listening to y'all.

Edit: when I posted below I saw your post (a minute before).
For you, in that situation and with those desired workflows, it does sound like RB would be a good choice for you.


original post:
Speed/Value depend on the workflow.

There is no doubt BiaB generates and lets you try many many ideas faster. So sometimes I use it for just that purpose. But as soon as I have the basics down, I'll move to RB so I can add/subtract what I want in more detail. For me it doesn't take long to hit the point with BiaB where it becomes more efficient (for me) to move to RB.

I think it's because I have the 'linear' mindset of a song, as you described in your original post.

I wouldn't 'avoid' BiaB, but rather learn what RB does and let your workflow decide how you proceed. If RB is more comfortable it'll be evident right away to you. It was for me, but I come from an old school 'track' oriented mindset. The more tracks I have to work with the better!

If I know what I want a song to do before I start, I go ahead and start in RB .. but if I'm tinkering for ideas or styles I start in BiaB.
From your (admitted) tendency to tinker, you may need to learn when to change to suit your workflow/needs. But there's no reason to abandon one for the other.

Have a look at this RealBand_User's_Guide.pdf have not been through it, might just have the 2015 New Features pasted in the top ?

Thanks for that link!

Daunting as it may be BB should be used for the bulk of use of laying down and live play and use RB for the audio adjustments etc.
Jazzman

I've posted this before...

This is how I work.

I write and compose in BB since the software lends itself to the composing process really well. Once I have the song constructed like I want, with everything where it needs to be, I close BB after saving the file.

I open the BB file with Real Band. I use RB to create new tracks and the other tracks that don't generate naturally in the BB style with it's 5 track limit.

Once I have these tracks rendered in RB, I export them to a folder and load them into Sonar X1.

I prefer to work on the mixing and editing in Sonar where I can see things in the track view format, and where I know how to easily cut and paste, as well as drop in FX and envelopes. I set up bussing there as well. I do my final polishing in Sonar using the tools in my DAW.

I export that "finished" mix to the song's folder and open it in a third party wave/MP3 editor/converter. I do final levels and trim the start and endings to loose silence and count in clicks.


So, to me, each program has a specific job that it does well. I use them for their strong points.

Like Solidrock, I work exclusively in RB and never boot BiaB at all.

Maybe it's because I came to BiaB after years of being a Powertracks user, so I already understood the basics of RB. As I see it, RB will do everything that BiaB does, but with the addition of all the editing and mixing power of Powertracks. Just having access to the amazing mixer window is enough to ensure I don't move out of RB, but being able to start a project and carry it right through to mastering in the same program is wonderful.

At the end of the day, it's a personal thing - you use what feels right.

ROG.

Like ROG, I learned Power Tracks, and then when RealBand came out, I switched. I did use BIAB when I first started, but once I switched to Power Tracks, I had no reason to go back. So I guess that's why I like RealBand so much.
- Rick

This is EXACTLY why I've told people for years to learn RB. Taking an already produced midi track and adding stuff to it or edit the midi file itself is way easier in RB.

One thing said earlier that I disagree with is I NEVER open a Biab file in RB unless it's all midi, it takes forever to generate. No, what you do is render the Biab tracks to audio first then D&D them into RB. Much quicker. If you discover a need to recreate a Biab part you can do that easily in RB. Also say your original tracks are a set number of bars like 65. You decide you need another 12 bar bridge or whatever. Go to the Bars Window in RB and simply copy/paste the extra bars wherever you want them no need to regenerate anything. You're simply manipulating an audio track like you can in any other DAW. Once you have a Biab audio track inside RB you can do anything you want with it.

Bob