PG Music Home Forums PG Music Wishlists Band-in-a-Box Wishlist Make BIAB more useful to contemporary pop songwriters.

This fear is superfluous. People who like BIAB will like BIAB.
People who like to play guitar can still play guitar.
People who like playing the piano can still play the piano.
We won't stop running outdoors because of the treadmill
We won't stop playing real football because of football games
I think BIAB has embarked on a new path of music production since more than 30 years ago. Enter chords, select styles, and generate music.
Until today, this is still a general trend in the future.
Many software want to do this, but they don't do it, not because they don't want to do it, but because they can't.
There are core technologies in it, and it takes years of material accumulation.
It's not what you want to do.
Don't studio one want to do it? Doesn't Cubase want to do it? Don't Ni want to do it?
They can't. So we can only produce some Daw and timbre libraries for the time being

Mark.
thanks for your post. it sorta got me thinking bout how many styles would keep everybody happy.
i get what lazarus and others post/ideas etc.
but..there is a 'flaw' to many folks thinking.

Question....how did the stylepicker get so huge with so many styles we enjoy today, and some complain about ?
Answer...cos over the years pg tried valiantly to fulfill
musicians constant requests for new styles probably.

however the FLAW is ...what is this years hot style, next year is PASSE'...whats IN this year, might be not next year.

so i question if pg include some hot new contemporary
styles are included in 2022 version....will they be passe' quickly , replaced by a bunch of styles that are the new in thing.
how does pg keep up with might be just fads for a time ?
the other issue is how much download times might inmcrease for pg purchasers as biab gets bigger and bigger.

i looked at sbmix's nexus product. yes its nice.
lots of nice sounds etc etc. but still time must be spent identifying the nuggets of sound from nexus to use in ones song.

best
om

SBmix,

I appreciate your contribution to the discussion but I think you misunderstand what I'm seeking.

I have never said 'I don't like electronic timbre'. I have loads of electronic instruments and of course they feature in pop songs and should be there in contemporary styles.

The things that don't appeal to me about EDM/Dance/House are more to do with their chord progressions, structure, absence of lyrics, certain insistent rhythms etc. rather than a universal allergy on my part to 'electronic timbre'! I have nothing against the 'electronic elements' in the songs in my list (or I wouldn't have included them!)

I'm not sure what you mean by the songs in my list being "very common" pop songs? If you mean they are conventional songs (with a modern flavour), that is exactly my point.

I (and others in this thread) have said that I don't find the existing BIAB Modern Pop styles reflect the instrumental components of current mainstream pop songs. There are all sorts of 'electronic timbres', some of which fit better with more organic sounds/instruments. To me, the current Modern Pop styles feel more to the Dance/House end of that spectrum than songs like those I posted.

As I wrote in my previous post, what you describe as 'vocal design' is not something I expect from BIAB.

Thanks again for your contributions to the discussion. I hope this has answered your question towards the end of it. I welcome 'some electronic elements'... if they sound like those in mainstream contemporary pop songs!

I know. Imagine if you were selecting a color in a photo application and instead of having a color wheel or something, you just had a huge collection of photographs of things that are different colors.

Maybe some day BIAB will crack the code and it will all be reduced to 3 parameters with values from 0 to 255.

Is +++ THIS +++ Nexus and is +++ THIS +++ Arcade?

As far as I can tell both are plugin samplers. If you're going to go that route why not try +++ Momentum +++, +++ UVI Workstation +++.

The Band-in-a-Box program hosts plugins so all these plugins can work inside Band-in-a-Box.

EDM music itself is designed for parties. Chords are simple.
My consciousness is that as long as I use the timbre of EDM to turn the chord into a pop song, it will immediately feel like a pop song.
What I want to express is that BIAB needs electronic timbre, which will increase the modern sense of BIAB.

Arcade, initial. Slice and nexus are gradually supporting the simplification of music production.
The idea is basically editing and generating music.
The timbre of these software is in line with modern music.
The idea of these software, in fact, band in a box started 30 years ago.
Therefore, BIAB has the most advantage in this music software production reform.
Now BIAB only needs to add some modern timbre, modern style, and then make some promotional videos, which will be very successful.
If BIAB does nothing, it will be eliminated.
In Facebook, I left a message to recommend band in a box to many people. Their replies were: "I don't want to try band in a box. The interface is complex and feels very old."
I immediately replied to them: "no, actually band in a box is underestimated."

If you could make a few UserTracks with Nexus it will give users an idea of what you are talking about as they could try them out.
If I had Nexus I would make a lot up, but I'm not up with all the latest music styles to know what to make.
If the style is playing the same phrase for each chord then you don't need lots of that chord, you only need lots of the chord if there a lot of variations in phrases/riffs, so you just make a copy of the SGU wav to stop it over transposing.
Something like the screenshot below, this will give verse and chorus parts.

Oh please. You are here because you like the music shortcuts available by using BIAB. As am I. As are all of us.

In any case, through your discussion, you can see your desire for a new style.
Please make more styles!
More modern kick, more modern musical instruments, more modern feeling.

JohnJohnJohn.
RE "oh please".

i said up thread , ..i would probably use any new features that made life easier.
(of course depending on what it was john.)

i normally upgrade every few years depending how much a new feature interests me.
but "still" if an instant coffee gimme an instant song feature came out ,...like i outlined...
if it was a new serious song i was creating (and not a quickie rough demo) i would still rigorously go through every single biab style (after establishing the chord sheet arrangement).

because ive found over the years if i dont do that i miss some interesting sounds. ive spent several days this week doing just that. in summary , yes there are times i will appreciate instant solutions, but, other times i'm extremely hard on myself and work in a rigorous detailed fashion john.

now some might say "thats crazy going thru zillions of styles etc "...so be it. but my reasoning is simple as an ex coder/programmer.
ie has the AI programming in bringing to me a instant quick song solution missed something ?

thus if pg bring out another few hundred styles in the stylepicker over the next couple of years, i will go through those as well as my current huge list of styles in the stylepicker. (if i'm doing a serious song.)

if pg were to offer an instant solution useing AI techniques, i would probably use the feature for quickie demoing of ideas etc. i hope i make some sense john in my defense..lol. believe me i work very very hard.

Jim Fogle.

actually your post providing links to nexus/output/momentum/uvi products brings up a very interesting point.

just imagine for a moment if pg included all those sample libraries in the biab product.
yes this would make contemporary song creators very happy. but then probably the downloads would balloon by terabytes , thus annoying pg users downloading say the 2023 version of the product. or whichever new version.

thus pg are in a catch 22 situation imho. i cant see how pg can win.
(remember a thread months back with pg simon involved discussing the file size impacts of makeing audiophile even bigger and bigger , and how big it would get ?}

i think if i were to embark on a serious contemporary song project for commercial release , i would do the following.
1. create a chord arrange in real band. and generate a guide stereo wav in rb .
2. use rb to generate lots of *.mid traks. ie playing to the strength of the rb product.
then
3. plug in, as you suggest something like uvi with its huge sample libs. isolating on traks the final sound nuggets i want to use in the song. or i might transfer the mids into reaps and plug in the uvi sample player there. i like rb and reaps cos of lots of traks flexibility.

its sort of a divide and conquer approach jim .
ie use uvi (or another plug in) for what its good at and realband for what its good at too. rather than expecting everything and the kitchen sink in one product.

hope i make sense jim. the thing i like about rb is the right clik over a trak feature , and ease of gen/regen to ones hearts content. a very strong point. as well as the triks i can do in various views.
but thats for another day.
bestest.
om

The reason I am here is also the reason I think about these issues.

Really, if you could get it down to a one-click Google-based operation, how would you regard the recordings you were producing? Would the experience of clicking one up be anything like the experience of actually composing it? Would you really feel you just created a new song? But it will be SO tempting, won't it? Record a new album in the time it takes to put together a playlist! Get the optional CrimeLord module and the generator will avoid training on tunes with a history of copyright litigation.

I do have mixed feelings about that scenario.

But it's not about "fear", it's about where we want to go, collectively and individually. And exactly how much we choose to value efficiency, convenience, and automation, and why, and over what other values.

My point is Band-in-a-Box and RealBand are plugin hosts. They don't need to imitate a plugin since you can use the plugin inside either PG Music program.

Everyone gets to choose their own standard when it comes to tools. There are a very wide range of options,

- do everything virtually including all virtual instruments, using MIDI patterns or prerecorded topline beats and maybe even using virtual vocals

- use BIAB to do all instrumentation

- use BIAB to provide basic instrumental backing while singing and playing your primary instrument

- use only real instruments and live musicians in the studio

- grow your own maple, spruce and walnut and learn to handcraft your guitars; raise and slaughter your own goats to handcraft your own banjos, drums and tambourines

So which is best? It doesn't matter! The end result is what matters!

All your levels are well short of the nearly total automation imagined for our "hitmaker". Popping a tune from that thing is more like subscribing to a service and having them send you something every morning.

If you really want to make a pop hit, the arrangement of your own chords (what BIAB does) is only ever going to be a small part of the process.

I would recommend Songtown.com for anyone who wants to learn the reality of what it takes to find concepts and lyrics that will cut through and get cuts by artists.

That's if you want to make actual songs.

If you're making electronic music with no lyrics, just the occasional "Ooh yeah baby" from a sample collection, much more of that process is automatable but that is dance/edm territory which won't feature in mainstream pop or AC (adult contemporary) charts.

And, of course, dance/edm is an equally valid form of musical expression!

Actual SONGS will always require substantial human creative input.

P.S. Most pop hits now have multiple (human) writers. Many more than used to be the case so now, in the contemporary pop industry, it takes more people to write a hit, not fewer! I don't think we need worry about being replaced by machines.

I’m interested in learning more about this (which is easy, because my knowledge of the modern pop music industry is zero). I’m curious what it is that requires more people. Thanks.

Lazarus....you said.
Actual SONGS will always require substantial human creative input.

i'm not necessarily disagreeing with you.
but some might say too many cooks spoil the broth also.

frankly haveing done loads of songs in my life solo and with
others, i'm not sure there is a perfect solution.
sometimes too many egos get in the way.

frankly i like the way the pg user showcase seems to work.
i like how its friendly and collegial.

best
om

Hello Matt,

Lots of professional and aspiring writers work in teams. Most pro songwriters now write collaboratively. I suggest you check out Songtown, run my Marty Dodson and Clay Mills, who have a string of number ones between them and are very generous with their insights about how the industry works. They have written a several books, including A Songwriter's Guide To Mastering Co-writing.

https://www.amazon.com/Songwriters-Guide-Mastering-Co-Writing-Techniques/dp/1543958311/ref=sr_1_1?dchild=1&keywords=a+songwriters+guide+to+co-writing&qid=1633460309&sr=8-1

Teams will often include a 'track guy' who may bring a backing track or develop one as the song progresses. Someone like Marty is brought in to focus on lyric and concept. Songs are often written with artists and a group of writers.

Another book, Song machine: Inside the Hit Factory, explains the recent history of teams around the world crafting today's pop songs.

https://www.amazon.com/Song-Machine-John-Seabrook-audiobook/dp/B015TM12RS/ref=sr_1_1?dchild=1&keywords=the+song+machine&qid=1633460341&sr=8-1

Hope this helps.

I'm not that keen on co-writing. It's worked for me a few times but I'm not personally in sympathy with the lyrical content of many songs so I'd rather write something I believe in.

I'm not familiar with the PG user showcase. Maybe I should check it out. Songtown offers pro and peer feedback on your songs, which I have found useful.