PG Music Home Forums PG Music Product Forums Band-in-a-Box for Windows Change MIDI sounds in the same track within one song?

Here's what the problem was: My melody track is using the Plogue Sforzando plugin, which does not support program change messages sent from BIAB.

I'm kind of annoyed, as I liked the sax sound from the HiQ MIDI sound that I used, but I suppose I should be more annoyed with Plogue Sforzando than with BIAB.

If you must stay in BiaB here is a workaround but it is a little tedious. Copy your melody track to the utility track(s) the number of times you want different sound, including your initial sound then mute the melody track. In either the notation view or the piano roll view delete the area you do not want that instrument to play. Do this for each utility track(s). Assign the SFZ sound your want for each utility track.

Well, I did pretty much that, but I copied the melody to the soloist track and used that for the sax melody.

Is there an easy way to copy the Melody track to a Utility track?

Yes, right click on the track you want to move and select track action/copy move track. Then select the utility track that you want to move or copy the melody (or any track).

I've been presuming there's a reason why you want to change the instrument on one track, rather than having each instrument on its own track. If there isn't such a reason, you might consider that alternative.

If you expressly wand the single MIDI track and program changes, I believe you're correct that sforzando doesn't do that.

Some other sound engines do. A number of people use the VSTSynthFont64 that PGM quietly bundle with BiaB, but say little about ... it is in the manual, though. The recent versions claim to support SFZ files "... much better now". If that doesn't work out, there are some excellent free soundfonts that may offer a comparable sound to the sax you like. If all of those fail, there are also tools around that will convert SFZ to SF2, though I think I've never tried that.

HTH.
Gordon.

Originally Posted by Bob Calver

sorry Audio Track - i know the post was in the BIAB forum but the point i was trying to make is that whilst you can do almost anything in BIAB, what the OP wanted to do is so easy in RB. I'm on a one man mission to ask people who have never even opened RB to take a look at the program they get for free which is actually simpler to use than BIAB - IMHO.

i know i'm not alone in switching to RB after generating a basic track in BIAB and appreciate that some users prefer to stay in BIAB to the very end.

As you say............."We can only hope. Maybe 2025? In the meantime, we can only work with what we've got.
Also, not all users are highly skilled at mixing, especially dynamic mixing, and many would not have the required add-ons."

We've all got RB and it takes very little skill and no add ons to achieve what the OP wants to do in RB.

But whatever work flow works for individuals is up to them and BIAB is a truly amazing program.

No problem Bob. I'm sure you understand what I said and demonstrated, but I'm not sure you got my point. Most opinions you, OM and other DAW proponents commonly assert are true and I have no issues with them. What's lacking with your point of view in not only this discussion, but all DAW/BIAB comparison discussions, is there's never a presentation outlining the differences to how BIAB does a task as compared to the steps in a DAW. There's a huge difference between BIAB being a non-linear software that's based around the Chord Sheet for user input and display - to all DAWs, including RealBand being linear software for input and display. This difference obfuscates what are advantages compared to disadvantages between the two systems.

To do the task in this post using BIAB's default midi sound engine or MultiStyles, requires no mixing or add-on's, so no such skills would be necessary and it would be accomplished within the program and take little time, without losing any of BIAB's tools, features, Styles or instruments.

"I'm impressed with what you can achieve in BIAB"

My point is to impress upon and other DAW advocates, what -you- can achieve in BIAB.

The example demo I posted simply requires anyone curious to what I've just explained, to hear the difference by opening and playing the demo SGU file in BIAB and then Opening and playing the same demo file in RealBand.

Using the steps with either BIAB solution presented to this simple problem, using BIAB, it's possible to quickly, efficiently and without advanced or even moderate mixing and arranging skills, for BIAB to create quite a complex arrangement in seconds without manual manipulation, multiple instrument track generations, exterior programs- RB or other DAWs.

I didn't really have a good reason to change the instrument on one track, except that both were the melody, and I realized that I didn't like the vocal melody played by the sax. Not having inuitive ways to copy/paste to different tracks is unhelpful, and including a function to change MIDI sounds within a track *but* *only* *under* *certain* *undocumented* *circumstances* certainly detracts from timely workflow. How was I to know that Plogue Sforzando sounds are off limits for changing a MIDI sound? If we're expected to just have different instruments on separate tracks, why is there a function to change the MIDI sound within a track at all?

all.

I try hard to be a consensus builder and discuss topics in a friendly collegial fashion.
it really disturbs me when someone suggests a particular aspect of a pg music app or all of it is c**p.
like some comments weve seen over the years on these forums.

i always disagree with such comments because pg apps are very powerfull tools.
one only has to see the benefits eg the user showcase plus music education
institutions plus commercial songs and adverts and things like songs for films etc etc.

the problem for some new users, and i agree with rob helms is that word 'familiarity'.
these are very very deep products because pg i suspect is trying to cater to a very diverse user base world wide with many different needs.
(like we used to have when i worked in tech.;..its darn difficult to keep everyone happy.)
because of how deep feature wise these products are imho users must commit to 'dive right in with both feet' in order to get the best from these apps.
like charlie and many other users.

it worries me that 'lurkers' in the background who might be potential buyers might run for the hills on reading negative comments and thus lose products that could really help their song creation endeavours.
thus we all suffer...pg included. pg loses revenue and possibly we all lose great new features or such features might be delayed.

i'm a half glass full kinda guy and i know all of us want to continue to see pg be successfull.
thus i laud those pg users that devote their time to helping new users.

what i DO think is there is an urgent need for is a chart rather like the pg packages chart showing feature differences tween bb and rb.
this i feel would clear up any confusion for new users.
because this seems to crop up occasionally.

there also great 'synergy' a user can realise by using bb and rb together rather than an either or.
for example ive done lots of songs whereby ive used bb to generate 'song bed tracks' which ive then dragged over into rb for its advantages.
although i use the great reaper less these days due to advances in rb...
reaps AND bb AND rb all support drag and drop.
so there is another synergy option. (or useing any non pg daw that supports D n'D....lol.)

i suggested rb with regard to the op need cos i just find i can move chunks of midi and audio data around easier in rb and many midi features... eg as in i like that drum fill at bar 48 and want it for bar 55...sorta idea.
i often wonder how many users have discovered tricks in rb bars view for example.
this is not to belittle bb which i hope will get more daw like features.
(but i know some disagree with this. and of course its their right.
i just feel that bb new fab tracks view could be a market slayer with not ALL dawlike features maybe with the nost important ones.
for example i'm not expecting spectral editing daw features in bb.)

bottom line yes bb has lots of nice features but so does rb.
i try to take advantage of the plusses of each.

Funk as has been pointed out maybe look at rb sometime for lots of midi features i cant go into as i would be typing a book. see the pg rb manual on this site to see how rb might be usefull to you.

happiness.

om

Actually most of the good MIDI sound sources have one patch/sound per track.

The reason there are program changes, that is changes of sounds, per track as all GM sound sources can utilize them. Your problem is that Plogue Sforzando is not a GM sound source. If you want or need program changes and want better sounds than what comes with BiaB then I advise you get a soundfont player. Many GM soundfonts (SF2s) sound better.

PS - I use the BiaB sounds as a scratch pad. Once I have the song the way I want it I drag and drop the MIDI to my DAW, Studio One Pro, and utilize my much better sounds. It does take a little time but the results are worth it, at least to me.

< If we're expected to just have different instruments on separate tracks, why is there a function to change the MIDI sound within a track at all? >

With live applications, midi channels 1-16 can be routed to one port. Midi devices have Midi in and Midi out for routing. In live applications, it's called daisy chain, it allows two or more midi devices to be combined. Sometimes you'll a keyboard player with three or more keyboards on stage.

In BIAB, channels 1-16 can be on one track. Prior to the introduction of Utility Tracks, BIAB only had seven tracks, with midi and using channels, more than seven instruments could be used in a song.

Also prior to the introduction of Utility Tracks, BIAB included this same concept for audio files. Although there were only seven BIAB tracks and one Audio track, the seven tracks had a proprietary method to convert audio tracks so they could reside on any track, not just the Audio Track. When RealTracks came along, BIAB put this function on all seven tracks. Each track has a ten channel sub-mixer window for placing multiple RealTracks that can be configured multiple ways. Today, with Utility Tracks, a song can have 264 RealTrack instruments if all of the sub-mixer tracks are used.

Multiple midi and multiple RealTracks are available today on all 24 BIAB Mixer Tracks.

As others have pointed out every soft synth has strengths and weaknesses. Some soft synths are multi-timbrel and polyphonic. Others are mono-timbrel and polyphonic or mono-timbrel and monophonic.

Multi-timbral soft synths can produce two or more timbres (also called sounds or patches) at the same time. Soft synth examples include the Microsoft GS Wavetable included in most Microsoft Windows editions, the PG Music modified VSTSynthFont64 Gordon Scott mentions, Coyote WT included with Band-in-a-Box and the no longer available for download Cakewalk TTS-1 Peter Gannon recommended in another post. Hardware instruments also can be multi-timbral such as many consumer electronic keyboards, synthesizers, samplers, and music workstations.

The PG Music provided multi-timbrel soft synths use the General MIDI, or GM, patch list to associate patch names with patch numbers. That way a guitar is always a guitar and a piano is always a piano for example.

Normally you want to select a multi-timbrel soft synth in the Band-in-a-Box Synthesizer/Sound Card selection. (Ctrl+E > MIDI Driver) See 2nd screen shot.

Multi-timbrel soft synths are also polyphonic meaning they can play more than one note at a time. However there are also Monophonic soft synths that are multi-timbrell. Plogue Sforzando plugin is an example.

There are also monophonic soft synths that can only play one note at a time but this is not the place to discuss them.

Look at the screen shots below and you may find it easier to understand what the settings are and how they are associated in Band-in-a-Box.