|
Log in to post
|
Print Thread |
|
|
|
|
|
Off-Topic
|
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 4,251
Veteran
|
Veteran
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 4,251 |
Mac,
I completed the homework assignment you gave me in response to my 2 simple yes or no questions.
From 7:30PM to 5:30AM the following day? Even if you had stayed up all night doing nothing but reading the scientific published papers on those subjects, you would not have had enough time to cover the subjects once, much less actually get a handle on understanding the implications involved. whatever --Mac Wow! Here I thought you were giving me a homework assignment and now I find out you're giving a 4 year college curriculum! I can only read so much bullshit before taking time to rinse and spit!  All I asked you to do was answer 2 yes or no questions. Never mind.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Off-Topic
|
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 38,502
Veteran
|
|
Veteran
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 38,502 |
this is such a good point! if I were a religious person I'd latch onto evolution as part of the plan so fast!  if you assume there indeed was a creator then why is it a stretch to also assume he used tools like evolution to craft his world? and, in fact, many religious people have accepted this real science along with their faith. I believed it to be exactly that way at one time myself. It was not until my continuous love of reading about all findings scientific, from the annals of the accepted peer reviewed journals, that evidences as I cited above for Bob to investigate have turned up that have changed the theory via empirical and proofed works. What is the half life of Polonium? Is the Speed of Light a Constant, or has it been changing over time? What proof can we have that experiments performed today will show that the same experiment performed thousands of years ago would yield the identical result? These are only the beginnings. There's more. Lots more. But the way to eat an elephant is one bite at a time... --Mac
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Off-Topic
|
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 38,502
Veteran
|
|
Veteran
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 38,502 |
...and how many folks still believe the earth is flat or that the fireball actually revolves around it?
I am 62 years old and have NEVER met anyone who believes that. Even natives in Nigeria knew about our Apollo moon flights. I call false flag. Leading into a kind of straw man. --Mac
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Off-Topic
|
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 4,251
Veteran
|
|
Veteran
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 4,251 |
Mac, These are only the beginnings.
There's more.
Lots more.
But the way to eat an elephant is one bite at a time... Are you suggesting that the only way people are worthy of having a discussion with you is with them studying to show themselves competent to receive your wisdom?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Off-Topic
|
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 38,502
Veteran
|
|
Veteran
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 38,502 |
religions like to declare that they have THE TRUTH and they are very reluctant to accept new information because to do so exposes that they were wrong and that is not very good for business! so they reject science until it is so overwhelmingly proven as to truly be yesterday's news.
Here you and I are absolutely in agreement. I do not practice any religion. By definition. I am, however a Christian because I have accepted Christ. Matter of fact, a good and thorough understanding of what the bible is all about and what Christ taught underscores that in no uncertain terms. The letters to the seven churches in the book that is the Revelation of Jesus Christ (not "revelations" plural as many mistake it to be) makes that very plain. if I were to start a religion I would base it on science and reason and critical thinking and encourage the evaluation of new ideas. but, I guess it would not be a religion then! Such has already been established. Today's Secular Science camp meets - and exceeds - all definitions of the word, "religion" in no uncertain terms. The so-called Scientists are the Priests and there are followers blindly accepting whatever tales these Priests feed them, just as we can see some doing in this thread. They have never actually investigated the situation for themselves and, as we can also see in this thread, will not actually do so. With feet planted firmly in midair, the followers of this Relative Truth taunt me to give them a push. ---Max
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Off-Topic
|
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 4,251
Veteran
|
|
Veteran
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 4,251 |
Mac, With feet planted firmly in midair, the followers of this Relative Truth taunt me to give them a push. Maybe they should taunt you to place your feet back on the ground and realize that you aren't the oracle of god!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Off-Topic
|
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 38,502
Veteran
|
|
Veteran
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 38,502 |
Don,
The key to starting a religion would be to piggyback it on a very old and respected religion, and then to declare your religion as a fulfillment of the prophesies in the previous religion.
Sound familiar?
Does not sound familiar to me at all. And the reason is that you must also first prophecy at least 600 years in advance of an actual event that actually comes to fruition, you must also have other people besides yourself make these prophecies, for obvious reasons, and each and every prophecy made MUST happen right down to the minute kind of detail expressed in the OT about Christ.Several or more of those prophecies must also include some kind of miracles that are prophesied and actually happen. Virgin Birth, no, that's out, already been done. Resurrection of Life, ditto. Raising the dead? oops, can't use that 'un either. How about Healing the Sick? Don't forget thousands of witnesses, including historians who were NOT followers. Well, your work's cut out for ya, better get started. --Mac
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Off-Topic
|
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 4,251
Veteran
|
|
Veteran
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 4,251 |
Mac's on a roll!
Everybody BACK UP! Hehe.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Off-Topic
|
Joined: Jun 2012
Posts: 3,851
Veteran
|
|
Veteran
Joined: Jun 2012
Posts: 3,851 |
Barry Setterfield is not by any stretch of the imagination a mainstream scientist. He is a creationist astronomer who claims the speed of light has decayed and that this can be "proof" of a young earth. from Wikipedia...(and if you object to this source there are a multitude of others) Creation science or scientific creationism is a branch of creationism that attempts to provide scientific support for the Genesis creation narrative in the Book of Genesis and disprove generally accepted scientific facts, theories and scientific paradigms about the history of the Earth, cosmology and biological evolution.
The overwhelming consensus of the scientific community is that creation science is a religious, not a scientific view, and that creation science does not qualify as science because it lacks empirical support, supplies no tentative hypotheses, and resolves to describe natural history in terms of scientifically untestable supernatural causes. Creation science has been characterized as a pseudo-scientific attempt to map the Bible into scientific facts.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Off-Topic
|
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 38,502
Veteran
|
|
Veteran
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 38,502 |
I object to *any* sources that do not come from the mainstream scientific journals. For good reason.
wickedpedia? seriously. Well, I'm serious, not sure about you at this point.
Keep placing your faith in your lying priests.
Your chosen religion takes MUCH more faith in mortals than my faith in Christ needs.
I'm a different sort of Christian than you may have encountered, see, I don't really give a bleep if you don't care about your mortal soul.
What I do defend is when you guys insist on saying that I must be less intelligent, or stupid, or a fool, this in the face of the numerous examples I have presented here over the years that I really am tested and proven to be in the 99th percentile IQ-wise.
The Internet Atheist typically must resort to ridicule rather than argument as a gentleman. That's another clue to me that the devil you types invariably will say you do not believe in actually exists. Lucifer does not care about nor demand that you believe in him, only that you serve his interests.
The funniest Internet Atheists are the ones who rant on about how they don't believe there is a God - because they are angry with Him.
--Mac
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Off-Topic
|
Joined: Jun 2012
Posts: 3,851
Veteran
|
|
Veteran
Joined: Jun 2012
Posts: 3,851 |
Don,
The key to starting a religion would be to piggyback it on a very old and respected religion, and then to declare your religion as a fulfillment of the prophesies in the previous religion.
Sound familiar?
Does not sound familiar to me at all. And the reason is that you must also first prophecy at least 600 years in advance of an actual event that actually comes to fruition, you must also have other people besides yourself make these prophecies, for obvious reasons, and each and every prophecy made MUST happen right down to the minute kind of detail expressed in the OT about Christ.Several or more of those prophecies must also include some kind of miracles that are prophesied and actually happen. Virgin Birth, no, that's out, already been done. Resurrection of Life, ditto. Raising the dead? oops, can't use that 'un either. How about Healing the Sick? Don't forget thousands of witnesses, including historians who were NOT followers. Well, your work's cut out for ya, better get started. --Mac the main failing in your arguments is you base your opinions on "facts" that you have never witnessed nor do you have even a single credible source for a single one of them. show me a single modern virgin birth or a resurrection. none happen because these things cannot happen. they violate all of the laws that govern the universe. and you are not entitled to your own facts unless you can prove them! you are of course free to believe they happened. but you can never prove they happened. I can take you into a lab and prove gravity or genetics or the temperature at which water boils. and you can duplicate my proof anywhere, any time. and legions of other logical, rational people can do the same. that, my friend, is science! and just because there are a tiny number of "scientists" who claim to have proof the earth is 6000 years old or the speed of light is decaying does not make their contentions true. science is a very logical process that must be followed to the letter. it is certainly possible to falsify scientific claims but these are discovered rapidly because the claim can be tested independently. it is also possible to make mistakes in science but again these mistakes are caught and acknowledged quickly. and finally, science cannot prove that god does not exist. a true scientist will not say "god does not exist" instead he would say "there is currently insufficient evidence to support the existence of god". like it or not, faith and science are different. I can believe there truly is a Flying Spaghetti Monster but I cannot scientifically prove that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Off-Topic
|
Joined: Jun 2012
Posts: 3,851
Veteran
|
|
Veteran
Joined: Jun 2012
Posts: 3,851 |
I object to *any* sources that do not come from the mainstream scientific journals. For good reason. you won't find Barry Setterfield's claims supported in mainstream scientific journals. and you know this if you are being sincere. I'm not saying that definitely proves he is wrong but let's at least be honest...he is certainly not mainstream!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Off-Topic
|
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 38,502
Veteran
|
|
Veteran
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 38,502 |
the main failing in your arguments is you base your opinions on "facts" that you have never witnessed nor do you have even a single credible source for a single one of them.
I could waste my time citing credible sources from all of history, but experience with the Internet Atheist has informed me that such is always to no avail, for you all instantly discredit any sources that don't toe your party line anyway. As you've already done in this thread previously. That is a failing in your argument. show me a single modern virgin birth or a resurrection. none happen because these things cannot happen. they violate all of the laws that govern the universe. Which is precisely the point. God asked a man to ask him for a sign. When that man refused to come up with a request, God told him that the virgin shall conceive. The historical proofs are many, actually, I doubt if you'll really look into this, but a fellow named Josh McDowell is a good starting point, his book, The New Evidence That Demands a Verdict is an excellent source, citations provided there. and you are not entitled to your own facts unless you can prove them! I am a free man in a free nation and I let no mere mortal, especially and not even you, inform me of what my entitlements are. You just gotta put up with me. you are of course free to believe they happened. You just contradicted yourself from the previous sentence... but you can never prove they happened. I can take you into a lab and prove gravity or genetics or the temperature at which water boils. and you can duplicate my proof anywhere, any time. and legions of other logical, rational people can do the same. that, my friend, is science! All you have proven here is that you are the one who does not know that history is not a science and any history can never be empirically proven via experiment. Also, as far as I can tell, I am under no obligation to prove anything at all to you or anyone else. and just because there are a tiny number of "scientists" who claim to have proof the earth is 6000 years old or the speed of light is decaying does not make their contentions true. science is a very logical process that must be followed to the letter. it is certainly possible to falsify scientific claims but these are discovered rapidly because the claim can be tested independently. it is also possible to make mistakes in science but again these mistakes are caught and acknowledged quickly. and finally, science cannot prove that god does not exist. a true scientist will not say "god does not exist" instead he would say "there is currently insufficient evidence to support the existence of god".[/quoie]
I see that you have no concept of the amount of times that the majority of mainstream scientists have been proven WRONG in many differing fields. Some of those wrong beliefs of mainstream science took 50 years or more, a generation to pass away, before those findings were finally admitted and corrected by the mainstream scientists.
[quote]like it or not, faith and science are different. I can believe there truly is a Flying Spaghetti Monster but I cannot scientifically prove that. Don't know what this has to do with anything. If there were many historical reports of people having seen your monster, including historical accounts entered into the history by those who did not prescribe to the notion, as is the case with Christ, it is considered by intelligent historians to be a historical proof. Again, the proper historian is not a scientist and never allows for preposterous notions of empirical proof. You are mixed up about this. Love yer rants though. --Mac
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Off-Topic
|
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 4,251
Veteran
|
|
Veteran
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 4,251 |
Mac, With feet planted firmly in midair, the followers of this Relative Truth taunt me to give them a push. Have you gotten your feet out of midair yet? Have your followers "taunted" you to place your feet back on the ground? Do you feel good enough about your IQ score that you'll allow yourself to speak to mere mortals? Or do you just want to rant a bunch of nonsense?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Off-Topic
|
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 38,502
Veteran
|
|
Veteran
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 38,502 |
you won't find Barry Setterfield's claims supported in mainstream scientific journals. and you know this if you are being sincere. I'm not saying that definitely proves he is wrong but let's at least be honest...he is certainly not mainstream! To my bookshelves: Barry teamed up with Trevor Norman of Flinders University in Adelaide, and in 1987 Flinders itself published their paper, "Atomic Constants, Light, and Time." Their math department had checked it and approved it and it was published with the Stanford Research Institute logo as well. One simply cannot get more "mainstream" than the Stanford Research Institute! Scientific American 267:6 (1992), p. 19;. J. Gribbin, New Scientist 9 July (1994) pp17
R. Matthews, Science 271 (1996), pp759
http://www.wnd.com/2004/07/25852/There are plenty more "mainstream" papers available where other scientists, even and especially the secular scientists, have studied Barry's work and came to the conclusion that, while his work creates a dilemma for them, it is nonetheless a good work and a scientific finding. I'm sitting here recalling a convention of same where one of the mainstream secular scientists up on the dias, whose name I can't remember now, stated that he reviewed and understood Barry's work, found it to be actual and real, but, stated that he just "did not want it to be so!" At least this one was honest about it. --Mac
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Off-Topic
|
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 38,502
Veteran
|
|
Veteran
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 38,502 |
Have you gotten your feet out of midair yet? Have your followers "taunted" you to place your feet back on the ground?
Do you feel good enough about your IQ score that you'll allow yourself to speak to mere mortals?
Or do you just want to rant a bunch of nonsense?
I must ask your forgiveness for believing that you could restrain yourself from the ad hominem attack in this discussion. I do understand that it is all you got, though. --Mac
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Off-Topic
|
Joined: Jun 2012
Posts: 3,851
Veteran
|
|
Veteran
Joined: Jun 2012
Posts: 3,851 |
I could waste my time citing credible sources from all of history, but experience with the Internet Atheist has informed me that such is always to no avail, for you all instantly discredit any sources that don't toe your party line anyway. As you've already done in this thread previously. no credible sources! God told him that the virgin shall conceive. this one is a scientific issue as well as an historical one. unless you are deluding yourself you would admit there can be absolutely no scientific proof of this virgin birth. you can take it on faith but you can never prove it! You just contradicted yourself from the previous sentence... nope. my point is there are things that are provable through science and there are things you simply must take on faith (if you claim to believe them). I see that you have no concept of the amount of times that the majority of mainstream scientists have been proven WRONG in many differing fields. Some of those wrong beliefs of mainstream science took 50 years or more, a generation to pass away, before those findings were finally admitted and corrected by the mainstream scientists. I covered this quite well when I acknowledged science always has mistakes and the goal is to test and correct them. unlike religion where you decide what you want to believe ahead of time and them scramble trying to find facts to support it! thanks! I enjoy your mental wanderings as well!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Off-Topic
|
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 4,251
Veteran
|
|
Veteran
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 4,251 |
Mac, I do understand that it is all you got, though. Whoa Mac. You're talking totally out of character. That's the lowest I've seen you sink. I realize now that you have delusions of grandeur, but I didn't realize you were trying to unseat Pope Francis. I didn't bring up your IQ. You did. I didn't place my feet in midair. You did. I didn't say people were taunting me from my place in midair to give them a push. You did.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Off-Topic
|
Joined: Jun 2012
Posts: 3,851
Veteran
|
|
Veteran
Joined: Jun 2012
Posts: 3,851 |
you won't find Barry Setterfield's claims supported in mainstream scientific journals. and you know this if you are being sincere. I'm not saying that definitely proves he is wrong but let's at least be honest...he is certainly not mainstream! To my bookshelves: Barry teamed up with Trevor Norman of Flinders University in Adelaide, and in 1987 Flinders itself published their paper, "Atomic Constants, Light, and Time." Their math department had checked it and approved it and it was published with the Stanford Research Institute logo as well. One simply cannot get more "mainstream" than the Stanford Research Institute! Scientific American 267:6 (1992), p. 19;. J. Gribbin, New Scientist 9 July (1994) pp17
R. Matthews, Science 271 (1996), pp759
http://www.wnd.com/2004/07/25852/There are plenty more "mainstream" papers available where other scientists, even and especially the secular scientists, have studied Barry's work and came to the conclusion that, while his work creates a dilemma for them, it is nonetheless a good work and a scientific finding. I'm sitting here recalling a convention of same where one of the mainstream secular scientists up on the dias, whose name I can't remember now, stated that he reviewed and understood Barry's work, found it to be actual and real, but, stated that he just "did not want it to be so!" At least this one was honest about it. --Mac again, he is certainly NOT mainstream. in fact, his views on creationist science are very much fringe. now you can single him out in all of science and decide you are convinced that this odd man out has the truth but if you are being honest with yourself you must acknowledge that his motivations (to prove his religious views have scientific validity) at least make him suspect.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Off-Topic
|
Joined: Jun 2012
Posts: 3,851
Veteran
|
|
Veteran
Joined: Jun 2012
Posts: 3,851 |
OK. I see we have hit page 10 and we have not resolved this issue yet!  So I'm gonna get off the merry-go-round right here. But before I go... Mac, I can see you are a very intelligent guy and obviously I have great respect for your music skills and you are a dang good resource here in the forum. We'll just have to disagree on the whole religion and science thing! I did enjoy the conversation and I just want to be sure and say, although it was spirited, I hope I did not offend you as that was never my intention! So g'nite!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ask sales and support questions about Band-in-a-Box using natural language.
ChatPG's knowledge base includes the full Band-in-a-Box User Manual and sales information from the website.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Band-in-a-Box 2026 Video: AI Stems & Notes - split polyphonic audio into instruments and transcribe
This video demonstrates how to use the new AI-Notes feature together with the AI-Stems splitter, allowing you to select an audio file and have it separated into individual stems while transcribing each one to its own MIDI track. AI-Notes converts polyphonic audio—either full mixes or individual instruments—into MIDI that you can view in notation or play back instantly.
Watch the video.
You can see all the 2026 videos on our forum!
Bonus PAK and 49-PAK for Band-in-a-Box® 2026 for Windows®
With your version 2026 for Windows Pro, MegaPAK, UltraPAK, UltraPAK+, Audiophile Edition or PlusPAK purchase, we'll include a Bonus PAK full of great new Add-ons for FREE! Or upgrade to the 2026 49-PAK for only $49 to receive even more NEW Add-ons including 20 additional RealTracks!
These PAKs are loaded with additional add-ons to supercharge your Band-in-a-Box®!
This Free Bonus PAK includes:
- The 2026 RealCombos Booster PAK:
-For Pro customers, this includes 27 new RealTracks and 23 new RealStyles.
-For MegaPAK customers, this includes 25 new RealTracks and 23 new RealStyles.
-For UltraPAK customers, this includes 12 new RealStyles.
- MIDI Styles Set 92: Look Ma! More MIDI 15: Latin Jazz
- MIDI SuperTracks Set 46: Piano & Organ
- Instrumental Studies Set 24: Groovin' Blues Soloing
- Artist Performance Set 19: Songs with Vocals 9
- Playable RealTracks Set 5
- RealDrums Stems Set 9: Cool Brushes
- SynthMaster Sounds Set 1 (with audio demos)
- Android Band-in-a-Box® App (included)
Looking for more great add-ons, then upgrade to the 2026 49-PAK for just $49 and you'll get:
- 20 Bonus Unreleased RealTracks and RealDrums with 20 RealStyle.
- FLAC Files (lossless audio files) for the 20 Bonus Unreleased RealTracks and RealDrums
- MIDI Styles Set 93: Look Ma! More MIDI 16: SynthMaster
- MIDI SuperTracks Set 47: More SynthMaster
- Instrumental Studies 25 - Soul Jazz Guitar Soloing
- Artist Performance Set 20: Songs with Vocals 10
- RealDrums Stems Set 10: Groovin' Sticks
- SynthMaster Sounds & Styles Set 2 (sounds & styles with audio demos)
Learn more about the Bonus PAKs for Band-in-a-Box® 2026 for Windows®!
Video: New User Interface (GUI)
Join Tobin as he takes you on a tour of the new user interface in Band-in-a-Box® 2026 for Windows®! This modern GUI redesign offers a sleek new look with updated toolbars, refreshed windows, and a smoother workflow. The brand-new side toolbar puts track selection, the MultiPicker Library, and other essential tools right at your fingertips. Plus, our upgraded Multi-View lets you layer multiple windows without overlap, giving you a highly flexible workspace. Many windows—including Tracks, Piano Roll, and more—have been redesigned for improved usability and a cleaner, more intuitive interface, and more!
Watch the video.
You can see all the 2026 videos on our forum!
Introducing XPro Styles PAK 10 – Now Available for Windows Band-in-a-Box 2025 and Higher!
We've just released XPro Styles PAK 10 for Windows & Mac Band-in-a-Box version 2025 (and higher) with 100 brand new RealStyles, plus 28 RealTracks and RealDrums!
Few things are certain in life: death, taxes, and a brand spankin’ new XPro Styles PAK! In this, the 10th edition of our XPro Styles PAK series, we’ve got 100 styles coming your way! We have the classic 25 styles each from the rock & pop, jazz, and country genres, and rounding out this volume's wildcard slot is 25 styles in the Praise & Worship genre! A wide spanning genre, you can find everything from rock, folk, country, and more underneath its umbrella. The included 28 RealTracks and RealDrums can be used with any Band-in-a-Box® 2026 (and higher) package.
Here’s just a small sampling of what you can look forward to in XPro Styles PAK 10: Soft indie folk worship songs, bumpin’ country boogies, gospel praise breaks, hard rockin’ pop, funky disco grooves, smooth Latin jazz pop, bossa nova fusion, western swing, alternative hip-hop, cool country funk, and much more!
Special offers until December 31st, 2025!
All the XPro Styles PAKs 1 - 10 are on sale for only $29 ea (Reg. $49 ea), or get them all in the XPro Styles PAK Bundle for only $149 (reg. $299)! Order now!
Learn more and listen to demos of XPro Styles PAKs.
Video: XPro Styles PAK 10 Overview & Styles Demos: Watch now!
XPro Styles PAKs require Band-in-a-Box® 2025 or higher and are compatible with ANY package, including the Pro, MegaPAK, UltraPAK, UltraPAK+, and Audiophile Edition.
Introducing Xtra Styles PAK 21 – Now Available for Windows Band-in-a-Box 2025 and Higher!
Xtra Styles PAK 21 for Windows & Mac Band-in-a-Box version 2025 (and higher) is here with 200 brand new RealStyles!
We're excited to bring you our latest Xtra Styles PAK installment—the all new Xtra Styles PAK 21 for Band-in-a-Box version 2025 (and higher)!
Rejoice, one and all, for Xtra Styles PAK 21 for Band-in-a-Box® is here! We’re serving up 200 brand spankin’ new styles to delight your musical taste buds! The first three courses are the classics you’ve come to know and love, including offerings from the rock & pop, jazz, and country genres, but, not to be outdone, this year’s fourth course is bro country! A wide ranging genre, you can find everything from hip-hop, uptempo outlaw country, hard hitting rock, funk, and even electronica, all with that familiar bro country flair. The dinner bell has been rung, pickup up Xtra Styles PAK 21 today!
In this PAK you’ll discover: Energetic folk rock, raucous train beats, fast country boogies, acid jazz grooves, laid-back funky jams, a bevy of breezy jazz waltzes, calm electro funk, indie synth pop, industrial synth metal, and more bro country than could possibly fit in the back of a pickup truck!
Special offers until December 31st, 2025!
All the Xtra Styles PAKs 1 - 21 are on special for only $29 each (reg $49), or get all 21 PAKs for $199 (reg $399)! Order now!
Learn more and listen to demos of the Xtra Styles PAK 21.
Video: Xtra Styles PAK 21 Overview & Styles Demos: Watch now!
Note: The Xtra Styles require the UltraPAK, UltraPAK+, or Audiophile Edition of Band-in-a-Box®. (Xtra Styles PAK 21 requires the 2025 or higher UltraPAK, UltraPAK+, or Audiophile Edition. They will not work with the Pro or MegaPAK version because they need the RealTracks from the UltraPAK, UltraPAK+, or Audiophile Edition.
Introducing XPro Styles PAK 10 – Now Available for Mac Band-in-a-Box 2025 and Higher!
We've just released XPro Styles PAK 10 for Mac & Windows Band-in-a-Box version 2025 (and higher) with 100 brand new RealStyles, plus 28 RealTracks and RealDrums!
Few things are certain in life: death, taxes, and a brand spankin’ new XPro Styles PAK! In this, the 10th edition of our XPro Styles PAK series, we’ve got 100 styles coming your way! We have the classic 25 styles each from the rock & pop, jazz, and country genres, and rounding out this volume's wildcard slot is 25 styles in the Praise & Worship genre! A wide spanning genre, you can find everything from rock, folk, country, and more underneath its umbrella. The included 28 RealTracks and RealDrums can be used with any Band-in-a-Box® 2026 (and higher) package.
Here’s just a small sampling of what you can look forward to in XPro Styles PAK 10: Soft indie folk worship songs, bumpin’ country boogies, gospel praise breaks, hard rockin’ pop, funky disco grooves, smooth Latin jazz pop, bossa nova fusion, western swing, alternative hip-hop, cool country funk, and much more!
Special offers until December 31st, 2025!
All the XPro Styles PAKs 1 - 10 are on sale for only $29 ea (Reg. $49 ea), or get them all in the XPro Styles PAK Bundle for only $149 (reg. $299)! Order now!
Learn more and listen to demos of XPro Styles PAKs.
Video: XPro Styles PAK 10 Overview & Styles Demos: Watch now!
XPro Styles PAKs require Band-in-a-Box® 2025 or higher and are compatible with ANY package, including the Pro, MegaPAK, UltraPAK, UltraPAK+, and Audiophile Edition.
Introducing Xtra Styles PAK 21 – Now Available for Mac Band-in-a-Box 2025 and Higher!
Xtra Styles PAK 21 for Mac & Windows Band-in-a-Box version 2025 (and higher) is here with 200 brand new RealStyles!
We're excited to bring you our latest Xtra Styles PAK installment—the all new Xtra Styles PAK 21 for Band-in-a-Box version 2025 (and higher)!
Rejoice, one and all, for Xtra Styles PAK 21 for Band-in-a-Box® is here! We’re serving up 200 brand spankin’ new styles to delight your musical taste buds! The first three courses are the classics you’ve come to know and love, including offerings from the rock & pop, jazz, and country genres, but, not to be outdone, this year’s fourth course is bro country! A wide ranging genre, you can find everything from hip-hop, uptempo outlaw country, hard hitting rock, funk, and even electronica, all with that familiar bro country flair. The dinner bell has been rung, pickup up Xtra Styles PAK 21 today!
In this PAK you’ll discover: Energetic folk rock, raucous train beats, fast country boogies, acid jazz grooves, laid-back funky jams, a bevy of breezy jazz waltzes, calm electro funk, indie synth pop, industrial synth metal, and more bro country than could possibly fit in the back of a pickup truck!
Special offers until December 31st, 2025!
All the Xtra Styles PAKs 1 - 21 are on special for only $29 each (reg $49), or get all 21 PAKs for $199 (reg $399)! Order now!
Learn more and listen to demos of the Xtra Styles PAK 21.
Video: Xtra Styles PAK 21 Overview & Styles Demos: Watch now!
Note: The Xtra Styles require the UltraPAK, UltraPAK+, or Audiophile Edition of Band-in-a-Box®. (Xtra Styles PAK 21 requires the 2025 or higher UltraPAK, UltraPAK+, or Audiophile Edition. They will not work with the Pro or MegaPAK version because they need the RealTracks from the UltraPAK, UltraPAK+, or Audiophile Edition.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Forums57
Topics85,351
Posts791,182
Members39,859
| |
Most Online25,754
Jan 24th, 2025
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dansk
Deutsch - Windows
Español
Français - Windows
Italiano - Windows
Nederlands
Polski
Português
Svenskt
русский
Japanese
Simplified Chinese
Traditional Chinese
Korean