Just a few more thoughts on the topic.
My well-meaning "provocation" (take a year off, fix all the issues), which is unrealistic for obvious business reasons, seems to imply that one has to choose between either more features or less issues / bugs / interface complexity. Such either-or choice shouldn't be the case, obviously. In an ideal world, a great product should have the ability to offer both more features over time, and a issue-free / not overly complex user experience. Now, I think most users (including myself) are happy to be patient with this non-ideal dichotomy because we realize the incredible value that BIAB offers and the incredible complexity of the program, and we realize that the two things are somewhat correlated - if BIAB was simpler, it would be easier to make it bug-free and user-friendly, but it would not provide as much value (and viceversa). But, at the same time, the two things at some point can become anti-correlated: too much complexity may actually decrease the value of the user experience. It's a fine balance to find and maintain.
Very well articulated, it's a fine balance indeed.
The only 2 cents I would add (which is somewhat implied) is the competitor factor. With the rise of AI there
has to be people "nipping at the heels" of BiaB with the idea to enable chord-progression-based computer assisted composition to be more general and less dependent on a finite set of styles. The large set of styles available in BiaB is certainly a great feature, but also contributes to the complexity. Artists will always be tweeking existing styles and creating new ones. At some point, keeping up with every new style while retaining the old ones will not be possible, hence the need for a more general solution to the problem of providing the maximum number of styles to the user.
Dansk
Deutsch - Windows
Español
Français - Windows
Italiano - Windows
Nederlands
Polski
Português
Svenskt
русский
Japanese
Simplified Chinese
Traditional Chinese
Korean