PG Music Home Forums PG Music Wishlists Band-in-a-Box Wishlist Converge utility tracks and standard tracks

BIAB 2021 has extended the number of tracks thanks to utility tracks.

This is a good first step, absolutely necessary. Thank you !

Now we will have to converge the standard tracks and the utility tracks and ensure that in the future there are only unified tracks, offering all the basic functionalities (support for bars setting, export to the DAW ... ).

It seems to me an essential step to move towards a coherent and industrialized product.

Yes. Every track should have exactly the same functionality. Presently, some tracks only do certain things, other tracks only do other things. Consistency and Standardization would be the way to resolve all of these confounding issues. I hope the developers are working towards that goal.

+1

Based on comments from the developers, and the fact that improvements were already made toward that goal after the initial release, I think we are all in agreement.

+1

+1

-----------------------
Videotrack, "Every track should have exactly the same functionality."

I agree BUT... how do you envision a workflow were you want shots/holds/rest/pushes used with Utility tracks? I do not believe a quarter of the chord bar cell would support these for many tracks. I was thinking about this for some time now, and the most logical solution would be to place these items in the bar settings.

Of course "visual" consistency and convenience of typing in the bar function would be lost for these Utility tracks. But it seems the only logical place to put these. I am posting my idea here in hope that other folks will chip in and offer other ideas of how to achieve MOST of function / consistency for UtilityTracks. To me it is like a puzzle...would be interested to learn of other possible solutions. .. and of course hoping PG team is listening.​

Rusty,
Yes, plan is to make the util tracks same functionality as regular tracks. (Note that you can generate realtracks on them now, but not as a part of styles).

Thanks for the graphic, shots/holds/rests/pushes would need to go into chord settings dialog, where they are now.
For people who like to type them in, something like u1,u2 could describe the tracks.
So that
Am..bdu1u3 Would rest all tracks except bass, drums, util 1 and Util 3
Peter

It seems that you are still identifying Utility Tracks as being separate tracks with separate functionality that needs to be handled differently.

I'm actually suggesting that all tracks should work the same.

Peter, Videotrack
Thank you for joining the discussion!
Please excuse my ignorance, but I am still confused how "typing in" would work in some situations.
Lets imagine a potential stress scenario. All tracks are used (legacy + Utility). As it works
now, you can "type in" within each of 4 beats in the bar (and even that if used to full extent can look quite complex).

This is hypothetical, but how would this fit in a single bar by typing in such action:

Am7b5..g,b,p,u1,u2,u3,u4,u5,u6,u7,u8,u9,u10,u11,u12,u13,u14,u15,u16,
Am7b5..g,b,p,u1,u2,u3,u4,u5,u6,u7,u8,u9,u10,u11,u12,u13,u14,u15,u16
Am7b5..g,b,p,u1,u2,u3,u4,u5,u6,u7,u8,u9,u10,u11,u12,u13,u14,u15,u16,
Am7b5..g,b,p,u1,u2,u3,u4,u5,u6,u7,u8,u9,u10,u11,u12,u13,u14,u15,u16


I suggested doing shots, holds etc., at the "Bar Settings" for 3 reasons:

1)I believe chord bar might have issues with supporting huge lines of potential "type in" cell commands for shots, holds etc and a possible mistake might lead to a looong rewrite, because it does not act as text in notepad. You can not edit it without re-typing whole thing

2)Most likely larger number of tracks would require constant changes at the bar menu (F5) anyway, so I figured it would take much less steps if done under single menu (tabs?) + More coherent, because there is more space for created "names" of the tracks which could be applied dynamically to the list. Meaning, if you re-name a Utility track to: "CrazyViolin", it will show up as "CrazyViolin" at the bar setting menu, that way you will now exactly what you are holding, shotting or resting or excluding. With U1, U2 etc... it might be like the memory game, the one that you have to find two of same cards when they are face down. Forgive me, but I am not being sarcastic about this. I think it might pose a challenge to people of cross-referencing legacy tracks + 16 new Utility tracks in "type in" or even at the "chord menu" with u1, u2 names., Actual screen space at Bar Settings can support dynamic (given) or even condensed real names that could be displayed instead of U1, U2.

3)Potentially in future, it would be possible to use Shift or Control (or other methods) to bulk change groups of tracks and it is easier if they lined up in certain grid.

P.S. I hope I am making some sense and you did not fall asleep

I thought I remembered making a graphic for that.
Maybe if you ctrl click the chord when it has a shot hold etc..
it could bring up the track option and mirror it also in F5 like you show.
Also have a select all/none check box.
This will prevent the cramming.
Maybe you could have the b,d,g,s,p in that also ?
So it's backward compatible let it read C...b,d
into the check boxes already checked to be exempt and just display C...
Maybe it can be another color if there are exempt tracks ?
Or C...x

Yes, there are lots of ingenious ways to deliver the required functionality. RustySpoon's suggestions and your suggestions are all worthy of consideration.

No doubt, PGM developers will have thought out all the detail, the traps and the pitfalls as they proceed with the functionality. In the meantime, I'm sure they appreciate the input and suggestions from the users.

Videotrack,
most likely I am a minority in these discussions with my views, but
I do believe that workflow is nearly important as functions. Sure, there are "fifty ways" things can be made to work, but if they are not made ergonomically, they will be features for selected group of power users. Average user will not be able to see / use many benefits program has to offer. I just wish there would be more discussion on user end design to offer Peter and crew different views and opinions on same feature. Especially on important item of this magnitude, which is tripling the amount of available tracks.

To me personally, Util.Tracks are single most important added feature in BIAB, most likely for years to come.
To echo OP post: "This is a good first step, absolutely necessary. Thank you !"
+1 big thank you from me!

Rusty.
i like your graphic idea useing the F5 dialogue.
for shots/holds/pushes etc.
OR in pipelines graphich just insert instead of the tick, how bout entering S or H or P etc.

OR how bout that linear view i proposed in one of my wishes.
ie. bars/beats/chords linearly over time >>>> at the top.
and the 16 tracks down left hand side.
and like the bb
piano roll "cels" covering everything.
right clik on a cel at a particular time/beat within a chord for a particular track
and a dialog pops up with a bunch of functions.
like shot or hold or push or freeze or regen or patch change or volume or pan change for example for that particular instrument at that particular beat within that particular chord.
ie the general layout would look like piano roll, but,
instead of a keyboard on left hand side like most piano rolls, there are 16 vertical traks, and the white space //cels is used for instrument beat/bar settings/changes ?
add into the linear view markers vertical to match ones daw markers, and YES ! how bout it ?

note. hiliting a series of cels would cover changes over several beats/bars etc etc.

go ahead and critique me.

best.
muso.

Some great suggestions here. I agree that typing in the ‘except’ track names into a quarter of a cell is unworkable, and some sort of editable representation like Pipeline showed is needed. There have been several viable suggestions of how these new extra (and someday equal) tracks should be named. I think the only idea I might rule out is single letters. We don’t want the position of single letters in a long string to be critical, such as this: Am7..d,b,s,l,t,s,b,t

Rustyspoon, I certainly don't think you are in the minority. That's why I wrote this earlier:

I'm a bit worn out from being here too long fighting to make things better and are trying to phase out of this, so it's good to see Rusty coming up also with all these great ideas and graphics to help take PG forward.

See with typing in all the hold exemptions after the chord is a pain to change if you change your mind to to put one track back in.

Videotrack,
I know, you always try to spot valid ideas. I was just tripped with what you said:
"It seems that you are still identifying Utility Tracks as being separate tracks with separate functionality that needs to be handled differently"

As I explained above, it will not be possible to have legacy tracks + 16 Utility tracks be written in cell as we are familiar with legacy tracks. Artificially limiting "written in" U.Tracks, would not be a good idea either for obvious reasons. So in a sense Utility Tracks should have a separate mechanism to achieve rests, shots, holds, exemptions etc.

I think the real question / challenge with this is hidden in workflow. Pipeline has some excellent points with possibility of shortcut, which is in a way advanced. I am proposing a suggestion to combine "Chord Options" and "Bar settings" in one. With a tab in Utility Track section which could follow right after legacy tracks. I have a visual idea in mind. I will make a sketch when time permits.

Pipeline,
You need a beer, or a glass of wine Limit your load, gears will spin more freely. We need you here.
----------------------------------
Riccoboni, sorry for intrusion and thank you for starting this thread. It is a big subject that I hope people will contribute ideas to.

I think this is going to be great once Utility tracks can do what any other track can do. And now, PG Music is alerted to some of the concerns about how we would work with them. It should be fun to see what they come up with.

Yes, that's exactly what I've been trying to say.

"I think this is going to be great once Utility tracks can do what any other track can do."
+1

But... still I think it is equally important on HOW (workflow) it will be achieved. Because if it is not done right, it will be frustration class 101.

I am trying to push idea of combining 2 menus: Bar settings + Chord menu for pushes, holds (that will facilitate these for U.Tracks. Bar setting is probably one of the most used menus in arrangement. This combining would eliminate many steps and cleaner gui (LeSs separate menus). Since both items (bar settings + chord menu) relate to a specific bar, it makes logical sense to me to open ONE location (F5) for most of settings related to specific bar.

P.S. I believe there was a discussion about condensing some of menus recently. I think this is a perfect opportunity to do that for functions of U.Tracks. Kind of getting two rabbits with one shot.