PG Music Home Forums PG Music Wishlists Band-in-a-Box Wishlist Specific suggestions - Toolbars, layout, menus, preferences and “other”

1) many agree that existing dialogues are all candidates for panels. Bar Settings, Chord Options, Micro Chords, Partial Gens etc.
3) Many things were designed due to the fact that BB did not have a track view. Now it does. The implications require a conceptual discussion. with the ability to select multiple tracks, an option can be applied to one or more intersections of time (the chord progression) and tracks. This s requires a re-think of all dialogues.

4) yes
5) yes
6) yes

Rusty(and All.)
the reasons i dont get into very deep detail re any new bb gui are..

1..the list of what i would like changed re gui would be very VERY extensive if i got down to the level of every menu and toolbar and dialog entry.... eg just on one dialog like audio drivers it would be oodles of typing and my eyes get tired frankly.

2..pg staff are very intelligent talented people.
i'm sure they are very very well aware of different gui issues.
so i assume they have concerns also about various gui aspects as they would use bb themselves.

3..we all know what the root problem is...viz..
pg over the years have tried obviously to keep lots of different users happy re user feature demands.
its a prob every dev faces.

you want specifics ?? re you said...
'give a clear suggestion for a feature or improvement'...

just one example i would like redesign of the drivers dialogs focused on new users and resolutions of driver installation problems.
and ease of prob diagnose and reporting.
reason being that in any music app most new users have often set up problems as weve seen on these forums over the years.
and its often not a pg problem but say a win setting.

with my new audio interface install awhile back i didnt have to do one bb driver tweak. bb ran first time....no probs.
but many new users arent techs and dont often realise the importance of windows and other settings etc etc. ie there are various pitfalls for a new user to music production. anything gui wise re problem solving if tech issues occurs would be of benefit imho. includeing helping pg tech support diagnose issues.

imho its no good haveing a beautifull eye candy new bb gui if the new user is stuck at the sound interface installation phase before useing the new gui whatever.
pg isnt alone in this...often users get problems with the driver and other settings in any music app.
in summary anything gui design wise that would help rapid problem diagnosis so a new user isnt frustrated would be of benefit imho.

obviously Rusty you and i dont agree on some things from our exchanges over time. but thats life it would be a boring world if we all agreed.
maybe you think this post is too lacking in some detail...
dunno...but i do the best i can and thats all i can do.
we are all different.

happiness.

om

Yes, we don't agree on many things. But one thing for sure. I asked you several times, including privately, not to derail these important threads and stay focused of what is being asked by PGM staff if you are participating.

Jeff,
We had this discussion in the past. The main issue of what you are proposing is constant "manual" reselection and that will be extremely challenging for several reasons.
#1 - each view is different. Selecting a random group of tracks will not be a unified process. Especially in expanded views. They would have to be minimized. Existing Bar Settings works in any view equally same.

#2 Intersection is defined by either selecting a particular bar, nearest bar to cursor position, or type in the panel itself. I think reinventing the wheel here is not needed.

#3 amounts of clicks and moves it will take to do things like:
Bar 1 -Mute all except for 2,4,5,8,9,12,15,17,22,24
Bar 3 - Unmute all except for 3,7,11,14, 17,22,24.
Bar 10 -Mute all except 2,6,23

To simply put, it can't be programed automatically, because of rules and overrides(Exceptions). And you can't automate selection inversion, as each change at the bar is individual user preference. Exceptions (overrides)

---------
I fully understand the concept you are proposing, I just believe existing logic for mutes/unmutes is brilliant and user should not think: "How do I do this in this view?". Since we talked about this before, it would be very interesting to hear from somebody else who is using Bar Settings - "Mutes" often.

#1 Yes there are cases especially if non continuous that the current approach which recreate the track view in the chord view works as good.
More importantly I'm beginning to see your side of the conversation only because BB is unique in that originally had a hard coded array of 7 x 255 chords, so they're hard coded approach to 7 tracks made sense. I think you have noticed when they tried to expand that to 24 it became more awkward.

#2 I don't understand the argument, but I was only showing how all DAWs deal with settings across many tracks (no reinventing at all). Just the idea of settings being in panel so they can be applied to many tracks as a good thing.

#3 this seems to be the same argument as #1

I do understand your point that the current hard coded approach works good for your scenarios (if real).
I am just used to dealing with settings be adjusted by the "selected tracks" norm, which is my key point.
There currently is no behavior/ action in BB that works by multiple selected tracks. This is due to the fact
that a multi-track view did not exist in the past. Now it does.

Hopefully we can agree that there are two good but different points here.

FWIW, may favourite question after closing a requirements-capture session was to as "If we didn't have to worry about things like timescales or budgets or physics, what would you like this to do?"

When the pressure and the worries were off, they'd come up with totally crazy ideas.
Sometimes I'd be able to say "actually, I think we may have a way to do that".

Unlike DAWs BIAB main task is arrangement. You have to be able to quickly try, change, flip items. This (current F5) is the fastest way. In about 80% of the cases, I would still use gain automation in DAW after transferring project either to adjust timing or artifacts that often creep in. Nevertheless it is still the fastest way to flesh out initial idea out. The difference between my #1 and #2 is this:

#1 specifically deals with expanded views. For example width zoomed Track view. You would either need to zoom out all the way, to have full access to (potentially) all 24 tracks in one screen, or scroll down through entire project, carefully selecting tracks.

#3 deals with mechanics. As if to be done your way, user would definitely need to use shortcuts. For example selecting all tracks, then holding CTRL trying to find proper tracks to exclude. And you would still need the window (panel) that would show you the list of what exactly was applied and where.

and that is actually #4
#4 - Because you need to be able to see what was applied and where, you would still need a panel to display all tracks mutes status and global changes. My proposition to leave all functions intact but to have it done better for improving workflow, fixing existing flaw of "utility" dropdown and embrace new design/panel
--------------------

There were 2 main reasons why a few years ago I was so insistent that we need more tracks besides legacy. One was obvious - to be able to to make better & richer arrangements, to have option to hear different tracks side by side on actual arrangement, but another reason was related specifically to Bar Changes. While you "can" change style at the bar, it has it's own set of issues, so I found the easiest and most stable way is to build arrangement of lets say 12 tracks and alternate between them using Bar Settings mutes at the bar on different parts of arrangement, instead of gluing pieces together on a single track (as some forum members did for many years). All I am saying, tool has a very specific purpose and I hope somebody who is using it often can offer a view.

That is an easy one. Focus more on a musical idea I am after and not obscure mechanics that need to be employed to achieve it. I gain nothing from the later, except of frustration and wasting time. This, I believe is the main goal of current and several other pinned conversations. Offer particular ideas on how to make workflow better and smoother.

I agree with RustySpoon# about F5 Bar Settings.

In addition to all the neat things a user can do to make a song more interesting by using the F5 Bar Settings, the F5 Bar Settings window allows the user to apply changes across multiple bars and choruses. The chorus and bar drop-down menus and the left/right arrows allows a user to navigate the whole chord sheet without leaving the window. The print summary at the bottom of the window allows the user to maintain a record of what changes were made.

I normally copy & paste the bar summary into the user side of the song memo. There is also a print bar summary button in the song memo window.

My suggestion is to have the bar summary print in the user song memo window whenever either button is selected instead of Notepad.

We are all trying to help, but to each his own.
Considering that > 99% of customers do not take the time to give feedback, it is time that PGM tell us what they are considering or else we are all wasting time.

I agree it will be helpful and nice for as many users and forum members to submit suggestions. I'm sure everyone reading these threads have thoughts on what changes they would like to see to the Band-in-a-Box graphic interface.

However I will point out that jump-on-the-bandwagon support for some ideas seem to be better acknowledged than dissenting views or the start of a discussion seeking clarification about how an idea will work in certain situations such as a middle chorus.

A lot of good ideas and especially mock-ups have been presented. But it seems as though most of the ideas are to make Band-in-a-Box more closely resemble a DAW. Less thought is given to Band-in-a-Box features that support it's strengths of song arrangement and backing track creation.

I believe RustySpoon# said it best, "Unlike DAWs BIAB main task is arrangement. You have to be able to quickly try, change, flip items."

Yeah, but it doesn't mean that DAW features already in place should not be completed to accepted standards and left As-Is. F5, in my view is definitely an exception, so are likely 100 other BIAB only items. I offered a mock that I think will work best for F5, as it mainly will remain same. Just more integrated and flaw of Utility dropdown gone.

UI modernization is not an easy task. However, most participants agreed that Panels are the way to go. F5 and Chord Settings - specifically Rests, Shots, Holds and Pushes are in my view some of best candidates for exploded view Panels with all tracks in use visible. Current adaptation is flawed because of the "dropdown" menus for non-legacy tracks, so to make it right functional design would have to be changed for these.

RustySpoon# said " it doesn't mean that DAW features already in place should not be completed". I agree 100%. The DAW changes already in place seem to be well liked. You've already mentioned PG Music is onboard to making more changes to the DAW like features. My assumption is, and has been, that the changes will be made so the DAW like features will feel more complete to the end user.

I'd like to move this discussion to a new thread +++ Link to new thread +++ so this thread can remain on topic. You or I started a new topic with a link to your post above if that's okay with you.

@Rusty" fixing the existing flaw of the "utility" dropdown. ?

As a Band-in-a-Box customer, I've noticed that many creative software programs, like those for music, art, and video, use similar design ideas that make them easier to use. If Band-in-a-Box added more of these common features, it would be even more user-friendly for everyone. This way, it could keep its unique strengths while improving the user experience for a wider audience.

Here are some specific suggestions:
+ Panels instead of dialogue boxes.
+ Consistency in actions, mouse behaviors for navigating, cursors, navigations, and hotkeys across the entire application.
+ Drag and drop functionality wherever it makes sense.
+ Context menus that are specific to the next steps and various scenarios, such as timeline markings, timeline chords, generation regions, track header, track name, FX, routing, and the MP library being 100% in context to where you opened it (current track, type, instrument, genre, tempo, feel, etc.).
+ A UI that is OS-aware, recognizing light/dark preferences, DPI scaling, and providing crisp, sharp fonts at any resolution (less reliance on outdated graphics).
+Rock-solid performance, ensuring high quality and reliability in all functions.
+ Seamless integration with associated applications, including drag and drop and common file interchange.

Thank you for considering this feedback.

+1.

There are so many great ideas here and in so many other posts of other users, I remember posting so many of them from years n years n years ago. When these were said way back you were thought of as being crazy. Why are they doable now and weren't doable way back ? Maybe PG have decided to do a total crossplatform re-write after all ? in that case Hallelujah !

Yes, first let me rename the thread back to the original name. (done)
Yes, you and others have brought these ideas and others up many times in the past.
Is PGM serious about them?
Only PGM can answer that, thus my repeated request from PGM to let us know if they are currently discussing and planning to make any of the suggestions in the nearly 200 posts in their threads.

In the bar 5 window the drop down for the utility tracks should be changed to a slide bar to the right and only the tracks used should show and if say 15 tracks are a being used then the slide bar would allow access to them quickly.

One of the most powerful tools in BIAB, if not the most powerful is Partial Regeneration. (I strongly encourage those who don't know about it, try it)

Currently there are 3 issues that I would like to be addressed.

#1 There are two pop up dialogs, Modal and Non-modal. Combine the two to a non modal panel item (tab)

#2 When you generate a part of the track, lets say section somewhere in the middle - track gets semi-frozen. You can still do partial regenerations to segments on the left and the right but it will not pick up new changes in those. Proposition is to only semi-freeze the sections that went through partial regeneration process, leaving all other segments "unfrozen".

#3 Undo sort of works, but I would like to be able to save some regeneration variants that I thought were interesting, as you can lose regenerations and there is no good way to get them back. For example implement A,B,C variants so you can audition side by side and pick the one that fits better. This is important one and needs thorough discussion.