|
Log in to post
|
Print Thread |
|
|
|
|
|
Off-Topic
|
Joined: Jun 2012
Posts: 3,793
Veteran
|
Veteran
Joined: Jun 2012
Posts: 3,793 |
Playing or writing songs when drunk or on psychedelics has nothing to do with my point.
Steroids can give an inferior athlete the ability to beat a superior athlete. That's what my analogy was all about.
And I can think of a number of singers who can't sing their way out of a paper bag without auto-tune. It's not that they are inferior singers, but not singers at all, Taylor Swift, Ke$ha and so many others.
I heard the Britney Spears cut that was smuggled out of the recording studio before auto-tune. In the entire song, if she hit two notes on pitch, it would have been a coincidence. If you wanted an audio definition of either tone deaf or sour notes, that would be it.
And EQ, amplification and other FX are not the same thing. Echo, reverb, EQ all recreate natural environments. At one time they used tiled 'echo chambers' for the same effect. If you hit a note a half step flat, no EQ or other FX will fix it, only Auto-Tune or a competitor.
I mentioned Bob Dylan, probably one of the worst singers in rock and roll history. At least he was honest about it. And I started imagining what Bob would sound like with auto-tune, and I decided, definitely much worse. As bad as Dylan sings, he uses pitch for expression, and that's the only redeeming quality of his performances.
So I'm old fashioned. If you can't sing, you should be a famous singer.
When I hear the auto-tune artifacts, I change the radio station - and can't do it quickly enough.
To me when I hear auto-tune, that tells me that person cannot sing, is a fraud, and is denying the world the plearure an Aretha Franklin, Ella Fitzgerald, Mark Murphy, Tom Jones, Elvis Presley, Frank Sinatra, Sheena Easton, Brook Benton, Lou Rawls equivalent a chance at that pop fame - and they are doing it by fraudulent cheating.
Now I know the world isn't fair, and connections have always been more important than talent, but IMHO this auto-tune takes things way too far.
That's my opinion anyway FWIW.
Insights and incites by Notes I find it interesting that you feel so strongly about this yet you sell add-ons to BIAB to facilitate people in using computer-based music instead of hiring real musicians for practice, recording sessions, performances, etc. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Off-Topic
|
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,815
Expert
|
|
Expert
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,815 |
Taylor Swift might need be a great singer, but she isn't talentless: Taylor on a bus (the music starts at around 1:48). She writes songs that connects with her audience -- what more can you ask for as a songwriter.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Off-Topic
|
Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,439
Expert
|
|
Expert
Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,439 |
<snip> She writes songs that connects with her audience -- what more can you ask for as a songwriter.
Probably nothing, but it isn't the WRITING that's at issue, it's the PERFORMANCE - I'm with Notes. I play a fair bit of musical theatre (actually opening Phantom of the Opera tonight  ) and I can tell you that there are lots of great amateur singers and performers around who can sing the socks of the auto-tune dependant. Oh, and I do NOT use BiaB to "create" - for me it is primarily a rehearsal tool so my 'bone playing can improve... 'cos it certainly needs it But note, that's ME improving, not my "product" being "improved" by a technological cheat. However, that said, being a great singer isn't the be all and end all. Being a great entertainer IS. Take Kenny G: lot's of people like to bag him out, his pitching on that soprano from hell is often awful, and his circular breathing party trick gets old pretty quick, but guess what - he ENTERTAINS, and he does it well... AND he doesn't use tech tricks to hide the flaws - you can bet he knows his pitching is often off, hell, soprano saxes are notorious for it, but he doesn't try to hide it, he just entertains. On the other hand, while I like a pretty girl as much as the next red-blooded bloke, I WILL NOT watch or listen to the likes of, say, a Miley Cyrus. If these girls must descend to stripping and "twerking" on stage to get sales then I can only assume they are otherwise pretty talentless and therefore not worth my listening time. I would FAR, FAR prefer to listen to, say, Ella Ftizgerald at her worst than these amoral brats at their best.
--=-- My credo: If it's worth doing, it's worth overdoing - just ask my missus, she'll tell ya --=--You're only paranoid if you're wrong!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Off-Topic
|
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,815
Expert
|
|
Expert
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,815 |
.. It's not that they are inferior singers, but not singers at all, Taylor Swift, Ke$ha and so many others... .. Probably nothing, but it isn't the WRITING that's at issue, it's the PERFORMANCE - I'm with Notes. .. So after watching the video you agree that Taylor is not a singer at all. The fact that you guys think that just shows you really haven't taken the time to form an opinion based on fact. Taylor is 1st, a songwriter, 2nd a performer and 3rd a singer -- and she sings better that anyone on this forum that I can tell.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Off-Topic
|
Joined: Jun 2012
Posts: 3,793
Veteran
|
|
Veteran
Joined: Jun 2012
Posts: 3,793 |
.. It's not that they are inferior singers, but not singers at all, Taylor Swift, Ke$ha and so many others... .. Probably nothing, but it isn't the WRITING that's at issue, it's the PERFORMANCE - I'm with Notes. .. So after watching the video you agree that Taylor is not a singer at all. The fact that you guys think that just shows you really haven't taken the time to form an opinion based on fact. Taylor is 1st, a songwriter, 2nd a performer and 3rd a singer -- and she sings better that anyone on this forum that I can tell. +1 I'm with Kevin!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Off-Topic
|
Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,439
Expert
|
|
Expert
Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,439 |
.. Probably nothing, but it isn't the WRITING that's at issue, it's the PERFORMANCE - I'm with Notes. .. So after watching the video you agree that Taylor is not a singer at all. The fact that you guys think that just shows you really haven't taken the time to form an opinion based on fact. Taylor is 1st, a songwriter, 2nd a performer and 3rd a singer -- and she sings better that anyone on this forum that I can tell. That ISN'T what I said. I said that the issue being discussed was PERFORMANCE, and the quality of her writing was irrelevant to that. Just not in quite those words. I don't care either way whether she sings well, adequately, poorly or just plain badly. If she needs Autotune to "sing" a song on key then that's a cheat, BUT singing on key isn't the be all and end all of entertainment. I mentioned I play trombone - you try keeping one of those suckers properly on pitch. One of my worst enemies is habit, especially when I move from one horn to another. E.G. I'm playing a bass trombone for Phantom of the Opera - this is a new instrument for me and I'm still learning its' quirks, but habit from my primary horn (a small bore tenor) has me playing with less than perfect intonation - I'll get there, but it's taking work. Believe me, if I couldn't get it right, WITHOUT technological cheats, I wouldn't get these gigs. Oh yeah, EVERYBODY sings better than me - that's why I play trombone! Speaking of "Phantom of the Opera", our Phantom is being played by Ben Stephens (one of Australia's "Ten Tenors") and he is note PERFECT. Now I know he's a professional, but interestingly "Raoul", "Christine" (2 different women sharing the role) and "Carlotta", all of whom are true amateurs, are also all note perfect, as are most of the rest of the cast. They've worked at it, true, but they've also acheived it, and without technological cheats. But even if they weren't note perfect, they'd STILL be wonderful entertainers.
--=-- My credo: If it's worth doing, it's worth overdoing - just ask my missus, she'll tell ya --=--You're only paranoid if you're wrong!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Off-Topic
|
Joined: Apr 2010
Posts: 5,139
Veteran
|
|
Veteran
Joined: Apr 2010
Posts: 5,139 |
The Autotune debate might be analogous to legacy photography vs. digital imaging. In the Olden Times of film, photos were regularly air-brushed to remove flaws. Every magazine and ad agency had an airbrush section in their photography department. Movie posters were airbrushed. Pinups were airbrushed. Ever notice how “soft” some of the female stars looked in old movies in close-ups? That was due to the use of a “soft” portrait lens, which softened hard edges and smoothed out contours. A soft lens, used judiciously with subtle lighting, could make a regular looking person look quite glamorous. You could buy a special soft lens, or you could just smear Vaseline on a standard lens for the same effect.
Enter Photoshop and CGI. With the exception of news photography, there probably aren't any images you see today that have not been manipulated with image editing software. Same with movies.
So, both Autotune and Photoshop/CGI alter the original audio/image. Are they “cheating”, or are they tech that has come to be not only accepted, but expected?
If you are an aspiring artist trying to break into the business, will you choose purity over expedience when your producer says he will be using AT? If you are pitching a song to a producer or artist, will you use AT on the vocal track? Does it give you and unfair advantage to use it, or a disadvantage not to?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Off-Topic
|
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 6,395
Veteran
|
|
Veteran
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 6,395 |
<...snip...> I find it interesting that you feel so strongly about this yet you sell add-ons to BIAB to facilitate people in using computer-based music instead of hiring real musicians for practice, recording sessions, performances, etc. To me that's an entirely different thing. People using backing tracks are obviously using backing tracks and enhancing them with vocals or instrumentals. The lead part, whether it is vocal or instrumental is the focus of what the audience hears, and with automated backgrounds, at least the focus of the product is real. It's like a person hiring a background band - but with today's economics performers in small venues just don't get paid enough money to hire a band. And for example, in the small rooms our duo plays in, they would never hire a large band, and they wouldn't fit anyway, so we aren't putting people out of work. So we have our backing tracks (which I create myself), we both sing, I play sax, wind synth, flute, guitar, and sometimes keys, and Leilani plays guitar and synth. We are performing skills over a track we created (sometimes with the help of BiaB). But as I said, the main part of the product, the focus, the most important part is real. "Singers" using auto-tune are not performing any skill at all, not even singing. They are pretending to sing, and the vocals are the focus. It's like going into a restaurant, ordering grouper, and getting tile fish or snapper. It's also like when Martha Wash (of The Weather Girls and Two Tons Of Fun) sang the lead to CC Music Factory, Black Box and probably a few other groups. The sexy model danced around on stage while the prerecorded Martha Wash voice came out of the speakers - Milly Vanilly like. Martha is quite obese but a great singer. So they have some sexy model/dancer pretending to be a singer - to me that's fraud. And she got cheated out of being credited and the royalties from the record "Gonna Make You Sweat Now" - sued - and created a landmark decision. Taylor Swift might need be a great singer, but she isn't talentless:<...snip...>
She writes songs that connects with her audience -- what more can you ask for as a songwriter. Taylor Swift is a talented songwriter but she isn't a good singer by any stretch of the imagination. She needs auto-tune - therefore she isn't a singer - period. Let her ditch the auto-tune and sing badly Bob Dylan style and I'll show her some respect. Until then, I feel she should write songs and let real singers sing them. That would do even more justice to her creations. My duo partner Leilani is a great singer and a great entertainer, and can sing rings around any of those auto-tune frauds. In my life I've had the pleasure of working with a lot of talented singers. I've heard them practice long tones to stay on pitch, expressive nuances to ornament their music, and listen intently to study what the great singers do and how to do it. I hear Taylor, Miley, Ke$ha and so many others "sing" and it just turns me off. And many of them are like the stand-ins for Martha - pretty faces and bodies doing an erotic dance while pretending to sing. Oh I too like a pretty girl and like to admire her body. But what we have here are soft-core p0rn stars using the term 'singer' to legitimize their act. And I have nothing against p0rn stars, they needs no legitimizing to me. I like to see unclothed and semi-clothed women, but lets call a p0rn star a p0rn star, not a singer. 90db mentioned photo shop. When the supermarket tabloid takes a picture of some starlet and splices in a picture of a young star that they never went out with and prints a story about their hot new romance - that's the equivalent of auto-tune - a fraud. When a cable news station takes the speech of the president, slices it, dices it, and rearranges it so that he appears to be saying the exact opposite of what he really said, that's the equivalent of auto-tune - a fraud. I know it's not going to stop, and it isn't going away any time soon, but I don't like the sound of auto-tune artifacts, I don't like the abruptness of pitch changing, and I don't like to hear someone who can't carry a tune pretend to be a singer. That's my story and I'm sticking to it  Insights, incites and minor rants by Notes
Bob "Notes" Norton Norton Music
https://www.nortonmusic.com
100% MIDI Super-Styles recorded by live, pro, studio musicians for a live groove
& Fake Disks for MIDI and/or RealTracks
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Off-Topic
|
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,815
Expert
|
|
Expert
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,815 |
... Taylor Swift is a talented songwriter but she isn't a good singer by any stretch of the imagination.
She needs auto-tune - therefore she isn't a singer - period. I like how you guys stick to your stories and beliefs -- even when confronted with facts that show the exact opposite. You can continue to believe what you want, but I think you are just misguided when you include Taylor in your anti-whatever stances. Yes, Taylor is not a "great" singer, but to just say she isn't a "singer - period" comes across as ignorant at best and jealous at the worst. Taylor's songs and career are not the enemy of your songs and careers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Off-Topic
|
Joined: Apr 2010
Posts: 5,139
Veteran
|
|
Veteran
Joined: Apr 2010
Posts: 5,139 |
Playing or writing songs when drunk or on psychedelics has nothing to do with my point.
Steroids can give an inferior athlete the ability to beat a superior athlete. That's what my analogy was all about.
And I can think of a number of singers who can't sing their way out of a paper bag without auto-tune. It's not that they are inferior singers, but not singers at all, Taylor Swift, Ke$ha and so many others.
I heard the Britney Spears cut that was smuggled out of the recording studio before auto-tune. In the entire song, if she hit two notes on pitch, it would have been a coincidence. If you wanted an audio definition of either tone deaf or sour notes, that would be it.
And EQ, amplification and other FX are not the same thing. Echo, reverb, EQ all recreate natural environments. At one time they used tiled 'echo chambers' for the same effect. If you hit a note a half step flat, no EQ or other FX will fix it, only Auto-Tune or a competitor.
I mentioned Bob Dylan, probably one of the worst singers in rock and roll history. At least he was honest about it. And I started imagining what Bob would sound like with auto-tune, and I decided, definitely much worse. As bad as Dylan sings, he uses pitch for expression, and that's the only redeeming quality of his performances.
So I'm old fashioned. If you can't sing, you should be a famous singer.
When I hear the auto-tune artifacts, I change the radio station - and can't do it quickly enough.
To me when I hear auto-tune, that tells me that person cannot sing, is a fraud, and is denying the world the plearure an Aretha Franklin, Ella Fitzgerald, Mark Murphy, Tom Jones, Elvis Presley, Frank Sinatra, Sheena Easton, Brook Benton, Lou Rawls equivalent a chance at that pop fame - and they are doing it by fraudulent cheating.
Now I know the world isn't fair, and connections have always been more important than talent, but IMHO this auto-tune takes things way too far.
That's my opinion anyway FWIW.
Insights and incites by Notes I find it interesting that you feel so strongly about this yet you sell add-ons to BIAB to facilitate people in using computer-based music instead of hiring real musicians for practice, recording sessions, performances, etc. If you have a problem with people using tracks in live performance (which you evidently do), you might try putting a professional 5-6 piece band together, get some gigs, and then get paid enough to keep the band together. Let me know how that works out for you.  Notes has already explained the economic realities in the market today, but instead of accepting his real world experience, you choose to take a cheap shot at his side business. I fail to see how his dislike of AT has any relevence to his BIAB styles.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Off-Topic
|
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,815
Expert
|
|
Expert
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,815 |
I fail to see how his dislike of AT has any relevence to his BIAB styles. I think the comparison is relevant. Both are the use of technology in the recording/performance world. I think we have cleared up that Taylor does not use AT in a live situation (or at least most live situations). Does she use AT in the studio? All studios use AT. Also in the studio, Taylor can afford to record take after take until she gets the performance she wants. I bet not much pitch correction is done -- but AT is used to get that modern sheen that everyone does nowadays. Taylor does not use AT to cover up the misguided opinion that she can't sing at all -- in the studio or out of it. She uses it to tweak studio things here and there -- and why not? Truthfully, the comparison between taylor and what notes' band does breaks down on many levels (notes said the female in his duo sings rings around taylor, so he made the comparison). Taylor is an ARTIST, Notes' band is a successful cover band. No downplaying here the work and effort and talent is takes to be a successful band, but Taylor is just in an whole other league.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Off-Topic
|
Joined: Apr 2010
Posts: 5,139
Veteran
|
|
Veteran
Joined: Apr 2010
Posts: 5,139 |
“I think the comparison is relevant. Both are the use of technology in the recording/performance world.” So creating a BIAB style is the same thing as using an autotune program in performance? OK. “All studios use AT.” I would like to see the reference material from which you draw that conclusion. I think that you may be mistaken. Josh Groban comes to mind, for example. “Taylor is an ARTIST, Notes' band is a successful cover band. No downplaying here the work and effort and talent is takes to be a successful band, but Taylor is just in an whole other league.” Do you think “Taylor” could cover the songs that Notes does? Does she have the chops to play everything from Gershwin to The Miami Sound Machine? "...No downplaying..." I don't know what else one would call it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Off-Topic
|
Joined: Jun 2012
Posts: 3,793
Veteran
|
|
Veteran
Joined: Jun 2012
Posts: 3,793 |
If you are an aspiring artist trying to break into the business, will you choose purity over expedience when your producer says he will be using AT? If you are pitching a song to a producer or artist, will you use AT on the vocal track? Does it give you and unfair advantage to use it, or a disadvantage not to? Nicely put!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Off-Topic
|
Joined: Jun 2012
Posts: 3,793
Veteran
|
|
Veteran
Joined: Jun 2012
Posts: 3,793 |
Playing or writing songs when drunk or on psychedelics has nothing to do with my point.
Steroids can give an inferior athlete the ability to beat a superior athlete. That's what my analogy was all about.
And I can think of a number of singers who can't sing their way out of a paper bag without auto-tune. It's not that they are inferior singers, but not singers at all, Taylor Swift, Ke$ha and so many others.
I heard the Britney Spears cut that was smuggled out of the recording studio before auto-tune. In the entire song, if she hit two notes on pitch, it would have been a coincidence. If you wanted an audio definition of either tone deaf or sour notes, that would be it.
And EQ, amplification and other FX are not the same thing. Echo, reverb, EQ all recreate natural environments. At one time they used tiled 'echo chambers' for the same effect. If you hit a note a half step flat, no EQ or other FX will fix it, only Auto-Tune or a competitor.
I mentioned Bob Dylan, probably one of the worst singers in rock and roll history. At least he was honest about it. And I started imagining what Bob would sound like with auto-tune, and I decided, definitely much worse. As bad as Dylan sings, he uses pitch for expression, and that's the only redeeming quality of his performances.
So I'm old fashioned. If you can't sing, you should be a famous singer.
When I hear the auto-tune artifacts, I change the radio station - and can't do it quickly enough.
To me when I hear auto-tune, that tells me that person cannot sing, is a fraud, and is denying the world the plearure an Aretha Franklin, Ella Fitzgerald, Mark Murphy, Tom Jones, Elvis Presley, Frank Sinatra, Sheena Easton, Brook Benton, Lou Rawls equivalent a chance at that pop fame - and they are doing it by fraudulent cheating.
Now I know the world isn't fair, and connections have always been more important than talent, but IMHO this auto-tune takes things way too far.
That's my opinion anyway FWIW.
Insights and incites by Notes I find it interesting that you feel so strongly about this yet you sell add-ons to BIAB to facilitate people in using computer-based music instead of hiring real musicians for practice, recording sessions, performances, etc. If you have a problem with people using tracks in live performance (which you evidently do), you might try putting a professional 5-6 piece band together, get some gigs, and then get paid enough to keep the band together. Let me know how that works out for you. Notes has already explained the economic realities in the market today, but instead of accepting his real world experience, you choose to take a cheap shot at his side business. I fail to see how his dislike of AT has any relevence to his BIAB styles. My position is simple! If you feel that using backing tracks enhances your performance, then by all means use them! Likewise, if you feel Autotune enhances your performance then use that too! Use whatever you like in your music and if you are able to find a market for it (or even if it simply gives you joy) then that is a home run! But when you embrace one technology to enhance your own performance while labeling artists who choose a different technology as "frauds".......
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Off-Topic
|
Joined: Oct 2008
Posts: 8,075
Veteran
|
|
Veteran
Joined: Oct 2008
Posts: 8,075 |
Lots of interesting and valid points of view being expressed here... though I wish the H word would remain absent from the discussion. No need to attack a friend when he has opinions we may not share. What I think is interesting is that intelligent and analytical people can come up with very different conclusions about a topic. In the end, we make choices based on our own individual preferences... and debating such topics is a lot like debating whether chocolate or vanilla is better. Having said all that, here is a clip I haven't seen posted yet, but may be the one to which Notes made reference: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sET9NYIA5tAto be honest, the more I listen to this clip, I hear artifacts that suggest somebody may have manipulated the vocals to make it worse (rather than being an un-edited natural voice)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Off-Topic
|
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 23,504
Veteran
|
|
Veteran
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 23,504 |
Lots of interesting and valid points of view being expressed here... though I wish the H word would remain absent from the discussion. No need to attack a friend when he has opinions we may not share. What I think is interesting is that intelligent and analytical people can come up with very different conclusions about a topic. In the end, we make choices based on our own individual preferences... and debating such topics is a lot like debating whether chocolate or vanilla is better. Having said all that, here is a clip I haven't seen posted yet, but may be the one to which Notes made reference: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sET9NYIA5tAto be honest, the more I listen to this clip, I hear artifacts that suggest somebody may have manipulated the vocals to make it worse (rather than being an un-edited natural voice) Pat I think that vid might be a fake. Here is a vid of her real singing voice: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SW-X9zF_S1c
The fitness trainer asked me, "What kind of a squat are you accustomed to doing?" I said, "Diddly."
64 bit Win 11 Pro, the latest BiaB/RB, Roland Octa-Capture audio interface, a ton of software/hardware
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Off-Topic
|
Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,439
Expert
|
|
Expert
Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,439 |
OK, I have a question.
What is "in tune"?
As a trombone player with an easily achieved pitch change, I'm like the string player (without frets), I can play the "right" note in any given context.
But what IS the right note?
Bach wrote works for "The well tempered Clavier" and it is still debatable which temperament he meant.
In the western world we are bombarded with "equal temperament" Every semitone is 100 cents from the next, even though this makes "perfect fifths" out of tune.
On the other hand, musicians who play fretless strings and other easily "tuned on the run" instruments (I guess that really only leaves trombones and singers) most often naturally use a "just temperament" which will make Perfect fourths and fifths "in tune" even though they will not match equal temperament.
SO, when using a tool such as Auto Tune, WHAT IS THE RIGHT NOTE? You will get different answers from different artists who use different instruments.
A piano player will have one answer, a violinist will have another. Often singers will have different answers again... There are so many temperaments that, even though by convention we usually use even temperament, most musicians prefer some form of just temperament.
Try this example: I really enjoy listening to the harmonies that barbershop quartets achieve - I reckon a good barbershop quartet is awesome harmony wise. Why? They sing "just temperament" is why. IMHO Autotune would break a barbershop quartet.
Then you have the singers who use "vocal gymnastics" to the same extreme that AT has been used and that many of us find so objectionable. To me, the vocal gymnastics is the singer saying "What is the ##^$@%$&#$@ note?"
So how does AT answer "What is the ##^$@%$&#$@ note?" and is it truly musical?
So I ask again: "What is "in tune"?"
--=-- My credo: If it's worth doing, it's worth overdoing - just ask my missus, she'll tell ya --=--You're only paranoid if you're wrong!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Off-Topic
|
Joined: Oct 2008
Posts: 8,075
Veteran
|
|
Veteran
Joined: Oct 2008
Posts: 8,075 |
So I ask again: "What is "in tune"?" MAC woulda had a clever and theoretically correct answer for that. (I don't) Mac? Now would be a good time to come back...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Off-Topic
|
Joined: Apr 2010
Posts: 5,139
Veteran
|
|
Veteran
Joined: Apr 2010
Posts: 5,139 |
"What is "in tune"?" I always thought it was A/440 Hz. Of course, it may be different for a trombone, but it's always worked for me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
XPro and Xtra Styles PAKs Special Extended Until August 31st!
XPro & Xtra Styles PAKs Special Extended Until August 31st!
The XPro Styles PAKs and Xtra Styles PAKs special offers are now available until August 31st at 11:59pm PDT!
Ready to take your Band-in-a-Box® 2025 experience to the next level? Now’s the perfect time! Expand your style library with XPro and Xtra Styles PAKs—packed with a wide variety of genres to inspire your next musical creation.
What are XPro Styles and Xtra Styles PAKs?
XPro Styles PAKs are styles that work with any version (Pro, MegaPAK, UltraPAK, UltraPAK+, or Audiophile Edition) of Band-in-a-Box® 2025 (or higher). XPro Styles PAKS 1-9 includes 900 styles!
Xtra Styles PAKs are styles that work with the UltraPAK, UltraPAK+, or Audiophile Edition of Band-in-a-Box® 2025 (or higher). With over 3,500 styles (and 35 MIDI styles) included in Xtra Styles PAKs 1-20, the possibilities are endless!
Get the XPro Styles PAKs 1 - 9 for only $29 ea (Reg. $49 ea), or get them all in the XPro Styles PAK Bundle for only $149 (reg. $299)! Listen to demos and order now! For Windows or for Mac.
Note: 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.
Get Xtra Styles PAKs 1 - 20 are on special for only $29 each (reg $49), or get all 19 PAKs for $199 (reg $399)! Listen to demos and order now! For Windows or for Mac.
Note: The Xtra Styles require the UltraPAK, UltraPAK+, or Audiophile Edition of Band-in-a-Box®. (Xtra Styles PAK 19 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.
Don’t miss this chance to supercharge your Band-in-a-Box setup—at a great price!
Mac 2025 Special Upgrade Offers Extended Until August 15th!
It's not too late to upgrade to Band-in-a-Box® 2025 for Mac® and save! We've extended our special until August 15, 2025!
We've added many major new features to Band-in-a-Box® 2025 for Mac®, including advanced AI tools like the amazing BB Stem Splitter and AI Lyrics Generator, as well as VST3 plugin support, and Equalize Temp. Plus, there’s a new one-stop MIDI Patches Picker with over 1,100 MIDI patches to choose from, all neatly categorized by GM numbers. The MultiPicker Library is enhanced with tabs for the SongPicker, MIDI Patch Picker, Chord Builder, AI Lyrics Generator, and Song Titles Browser, and the tabs are organized into logical groups. The Audiophile Edition is enhanced with FLAC files , which are 60% smaller than AIFF files while maintaining identical audio quality, and now ships on a fast 1TB SSD, and much more!
Check out all the new features in Band-in-a-Box® 2025 for Mac® here:
Purchase your Band-in-a-Box® 2025 for Mac during our special to save up to 50% off your upgrade purchase and receive a FREE BONUS PAK of amazing new Add-ons. These include the 2025 RealCombos Booster PAK, Look Ma! More MIDI 13: Country & Americana, Instrumental Studies Set 22: 2-Hand Piano Soloing - Rhythm Changes, MIDI SuperTracks Set 44: Jazz Piano, Artist Performance Set 17: Songs with Vocals 7, Playable RealTracks Set 4, RealDrums Stems Set 7: Jazz with Mike Clark, and more!
Upgrade to the 2025 49-PAK for just $49 and add 20 Bonus Unreleased RealTracks and 20 RealStyles, FLAC Files for the 20 Bonus Unreleased RealTracks, Look Ma! More MIDI 14: SynthMaster, MIDI SuperTracks Set 45: More SynthMaster, Artist Performance Set 18: Songs with Vocals 8, and RealDrums Stems Set 8: Pop, Funk & More with Jerry Roe.
Learn more about the Bonus PAKs!
New RealTracks Released with Band-in-a-Box 2025!
We’ve expanded the Band-in-a-Box® RealTracks library with 202 incredible new RealTracks (in sets 449-467) across Jazz, Blues, Funk, World, Pop, Rock, Country, Americana, and Praise & Worship—featuring your most requested styles!
Jazz, Blues & World (Sets 449–455):
These RealTracks includes “Soul Jazz” with Neil Swainson (bass), Mike Clark (drums), Charles Treadway (organ), Miles Black (piano), and Brent Mason (guitar). Enjoy “Requested ’60s” jazz, classic acoustic blues with Colin Linden, and more of our popular 2-handed piano soloing. Plus, a RealTracks first—Tango with bandoneon, recorded in Argentina!
Rock & Pop (Sets 456–461):
This collection includes Disco, slap bass ‘70s/‘80s pop, modern and ‘80s metal with Andy Wood, and a unique “Songwriter Potpourri” featuring Chinese folk instruments, piano, banjo, and more. You’ll also find a muted electric guitar style (a RealTracks first!) and “Producer Layered Guitar” styles for slick "produced" sound.
Country, Americana & Praise (Sets 462–467):
We’ve added new RealTracks across bro country, Americana, praise & worship, vintage country, and songwriter piano. Highlights include Brent Mason (electric guitar), Eddie Bayers (drums), Doug Jernigan (pedal steel), John Jarvis (piano), Glen Duncan (banjo, mandolin & fiddle), Mike Harrison (electric bass) and more—offering everything from modern sounds to heartfelt Americana styles
Check out all the 202 New RealTracks (in sets 456-467)
And, if you are looking for more, the 2025 49-PAK (for $49) includes an additional 20 RealTracks with exciting new sounds and genre-spanning styles. Enjoy RealTracks firsts like Chinese instruments (guzheng & dizi), the bandoneon in an authentic Argentine tango trio, and the classic “tic-tac” baritone guitar for vintage country.
You’ll also get slick ’80s metal guitar from Andy Wood, modern metal with guitarist Nico Santora, bass player Nick Schendzielos, and drummer Aaron Stechauner, more praise & worship, indie-folk, modern/bro country with Brent Mason, and “Songwriter Americana” with Johnny Hiland.
Plus, enjoy user-requested styles like Soul Jazz RealDrums, fast Celtic Strathspey guitar, and Chill Hop piano & drums!
The 2025 49-PAK is loaded with other great new add-ons as well. Learn more about the 2025 49-PAK!
Bonus PAKs for Band-in-a-Box 2025 for Mac!
With your version 2025 for Mac Pro, MegaPAK, UltraPAK, UltraPAK+, Audiophile Edition or PlusPAK purchase, we'll include a Bonus PAK full of great new Add-ons FREE! Or upgrade to the 2025 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 2025 RealCombos Booster PAK:
-For Pro customers, this includes 33 new RealTracks and 65+ new RealStyles.
-For MegaPAK customers, this includes 29 new RealTracks and 45+ new RealStyles.
-For UltraPAK customers, this includes 20 new RealStyles.
- Look Ma! More MIDI 13: Country & Americana
- Instrumental Studies Set 22: 2-Hand Piano Soloing - Rhythm Changes
- MIDI SuperTracks Set 44: Jazz Piano
- Artist Performance Set 17: Songs with Vocals 7
- Playable RealTracks Set 4
- RealDrums Stems Set 7: Jazz with Mike Clark
- SynthMaster Sounds and Styles (with audio demos)
- 128 GM MIDI Patch Audio Demos.
Looking for more great add-ons, then upgrade to the 2025 49-PAK for just $49 and you'll get:
- 20 Bonus Unreleased RealTracks and RealDrums with 20 RealStyles,
- FLAC Files (lossless audio files) for the 20 Bonus Unreleased RealTracks and RealDrums
- Look Ma! More MIDI 14: SynthMaster,
- Instrumental Studies Set 23: More '80s Hard Rock Soloing,
- MIDI SuperTracks Set 45: More SynthMaster
- Artist Performance Set 18: Songs with Vocals 8
- RealDrums Stems Set 8: Pop, Funk & More with Jerry Roe
Learn more about the Bonus PAKs for Band-in-a-Box® 2025 for Mac®!
New! Xtra Styles PAK 20 for Band-in-a-Box 2025 and Higher for Mac!
Xtra Styles PAK 20 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 and greatest in the all new Xtra Styles PAK 20 for Band-in-a-Box! This fresh installment is packed with 200 all-new styles spanning the rock & pop, jazz, and country genres you've come to expect, as well as the exciting inclusion of electronic styles!
In this PAK you’ll discover: Minimalist Modern Funk, New Wave Synth Pop, Hard Bop Latin Groove, Gospel Country Shuffle, Cinematic Synthwave, '60s Motown, Funky Lo-Fi Bossa, Heavy 1980s Metal, Soft Muted 12-8 Folk, J-Pop Jazz Fusion, and many more!
All the Xtra Styles PAKs 1 - 20 are on special for only $29 each (reg $49), or get all 209 PAKs for $199 (reg $399)! Order now!
Learn more and listen to demos of the Xtra Styles PAK 20.
Video: Xtra Styles PAK 20 Overview & Styles Demos: Watch now!
Note: The Xtra Styles require the UltraPAK, UltraPAK+, or Audiophile Edition of Band-in-a-Box®. (Xtra Styles PAK 20 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.
New! XPro Styles PAK 9 for Band-in-a-Box 2025 and higher for Mac!
We've just released XPro Styles PAK 9 for Mac & Windows Band-in-a-Box version 2025 (and higher) with 100 brand new RealStyles, plus 29 RealTracks/RealDrums!
We've been hard at it to bring you the latest and greatest in this 9th installment of our popular XPro Styles PAK series! Included are 75 styles spanning the rock & pop, jazz, and country genres (25 styles each) that fans have come to expect, as well as 25 styles in this volume's wildcard genre: funk & R&B!
If you're itching to get a sneak peek at what's included in XPro Styles PAK 9, here is a small helping of what you can look forward to: Funky R&B Horns, Upbeat Celtic Rock, Jazz Fusion Salsa, Gentle Indie Folk, Cool '60s Soul, Funky '70s R&B, Smooth Jazz Hip Hop, Acoustic Rockabilly Swing, Funky Reggae Dub, Dreamy Retro Latin Jazz, Retro Soul-Rock Fusion, and much more!
Special Pricing! Until July 31, 2024, all the XPro Styles PAKs 1 - 9 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 9 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.
New! Xtra Styles PAK 20 for Band-in-a-Box 2025 and Higher for Windows!
Xtra Styles PAK 20 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 and greatest in the all new Xtra Styles PAK 20 for Band-in-a-Box! This fresh installment is packed with 200 all-new styles spanning the rock & pop, jazz, and country genres you've come to expect, as well as the exciting inclusion of electronic styles!
In this PAK you’ll discover: Minimalist Modern Funk, New Wave Synth Pop, Hard Bop Latin Groove, Gospel Country Shuffle, Cinematic Synthwave, '60s Motown, Funky Lo-Fi Bossa, Heavy 1980s Metal, Soft Muted 12-8 Folk, J-Pop Jazz Fusion, and many more!
All the Xtra Styles PAKs 1 - 20 are on special for only $29 each (reg $49), or get all 209 PAKs for $199 (reg $399)! Order now!
Learn more and listen to demos of the Xtra Styles PAK 20.
Video: Xtra Styles PAK 20 Overview & Styles Demos: Watch now!
Note: The Xtra Styles require the UltraPAK, UltraPAK+, or Audiophile Edition of Band-in-a-Box®. (Xtra Styles PAK 20 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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Forums58
Topics84,632
Posts782,055
Members39,709
| |
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