Not sure what tip you want Matt. Its simplicity itself ro achieve what the OP wants in RB. BIAB is a little more complicated but clearly described above. Once a file is open in RB users still have access to adding RTs, regenerating, multiriffs and editing midi tracks so I always prefer to go straight to RB. If you want to work on a midi file maybe there are some advantages working in BIAB - I think Jim or Charlie posted reasons that BIAB could do things RB can't - but for what the OP wanted RB is the simple solution.
Does anyone know what happens if you open a midi file in RB then save as BIAB file? Do the separate tracks import into BIAB easily and simply? If so, surely that's the easiest way to import midi files onto separate tracks.
The simplicity is the same for BIAB and RB if all the OP wants to do is open a midi file on separate tracks and listen. Beyond that, there are many more advantages working in BIAB. Particularly if one wants to do anything beyond open and listen. BIAB is the flagship and there are features included in BIAB that are not included in RB. Some of the are significant for generating complex arrangements. The same complex arrangement can be done in RB or any DAW but it will take hours to do what BIAB can generate in minutes. It may require multiple programs unnecessarily. Here's a good example.
RB doesn't recognize and use MultiStyles. PG staff have created thousands and included them in BIAB StylePicker. These styles are visible and useable in the RB StylePicker but they don't function as MultiStyles. My system has 1,015 MultiStyles that are unusable in RealBand. RB has many uses and does some tasks better than BIAB and it appears that PGM intentions are to use those strengths not compete with BIAB.
In the 6 substyle MultiStyle screenshots it's obvious the loss of variety and complexity between BIAB and RB
Dansk
Deutsch - Windows
Español
Français - Windows
Italiano - Windows
Nederlands
Polski
Português
Svenskt
русский
Japanese
Simplified Chinese
Traditional Chinese
Korean