we've seen a lot of app updates, some of which are useful, some of which aren't, at least for me. Most people would settle for intro, verse, chorus, ending, breaks. That's it. I think most of us dig biab for the styles. And would be willing to invest more in style innovations and refinements. Instead we're confronted with a needlessly complicated app, too few improvements in the styles department and still purchasing a package deal with tons of styles we don't want to use. I'd love a barebones app for playing and every six months style updates as an in app purchase. I'd be more happy to invest in improvements to my style of choice, rather than fancy menus. Barebones would be like a biab player: no soloists, no recording, no computer keyboard play along scales and so on. Songs, styles, jukebox, playing and conducting, that's all. Anyone on the same page?
We should have a forum for biab midi users, since you have to resolve a lot of issues if you want to use kontakt or vst's. Example: i dig the vintage abbey road drums from native instruments. But you have to change the settings for most keys (toms where biab expects an open hi-hat...) even though these drums are gm compatible. For double bass there's great stuff in Bigcat's blog, suited for Kontakt. But there again, you have to remove key switches or halfway the bass changes from pizzicato to bow!
Nevertheless, a barebone Midi compatible non-audio biab would be great!
We should have a forum for biab midi users, since you have to resolve a lot of issues if you want to use kontakt or vst's. Example: i dig the vintage abbey road drums from native instruments. But you have to change the settings for most keys (toms where biab expects an open hi-hat...) even though these drums are gm compatible. For double bass there's great stuff in Bigcat's blog, suited for Kontakt. But there again, you have to remove key switches or halfway the bass changes from pizzicato to bow!
Nevertheless, a barebone Midi compatible non-audio biab would be great!
I agree about a PGMusic MIDI users forum. This should include BiaB and RB.
I would agree to a BiaB MIDI with RT availability. This would include all of the MIDI stuff, (styles, super MIDI tracks etc) and have the ability to purchase and use RTs. On occasion I use RTs and I would hate to loose that function. This MIDI version would not come with any RTs.
If you post them on the wishlist forum I will +1 them.
Count me in, too, for a simpler approach to everything. I prefer real styles over midi. All I need for what I do is a basic chord chart, with lyrics, and access to the mixer. My use for BIAB is live play. I’ve used the program for years, with little exploration of all the features. It’s too intimidating. Just give me a realistic-sounding rhythm section and I’m happy.
Funny what you all say about a "wishing well" program to do all that... when such a program does actually exist: it's called "Real band", and you all already own it.
Carry on...
EDIT: jokes put aside: that's the program you all should take a look: Tracktion Waveform
I use both MIDI and Real Styles, but I would guess I'm over 90% MIDI.
With good sound modules you can get MIDI to sound almost as good as the real thing. Definitely close enough for the listening audience.
But MIDI is thousands of times more editable than the RTs. Simple things like perhaps you would like that guitar to sound more like a Telecaster, or a Strat, or a Jazz Box? Easy, two clicks. ... Got a note in the comp clashing with the melody? Move it down an octave, change it, or remove it. ... Want a signature kick in the song? More work involved by impossible in RTs. ... Want to change that ride cymbal to a cowbell? click and drag ... thousands more examples can be listed but you get the idea.
We musicians care about tone, and we should, but the public is not so picky. After all they listen on low bit rate mp3s, before than those awful cassettes, worse than that 8 track machines and before that 45RPM records. There have always been higher fidelity recordings available at about the same price.
And what is good tone anyway? The two top rated jazz tenor saxophonists of the 20th century were John Coltrane and Stan Getz. They played the same model saxophone, Selmer Mark VI. Play their recordings back to back and most non-musician casual listeners will think they are not even playing the same instrument, much less make and model.
And since there are a lot of guitar players here, who has/had the best guitar tone? Hendrix? Kath? Slash? Page? Santana? Benson? Hall? Pass? Beck? Les Paul? Iommi? Gale? Clapton? Burrell? Lukather? Ritenour? Dimebag? Abercrombie? Barre? Skunk? Klugh? Gannon? Ellis? Blackmore? Paisley? BB, Albert or Freddie King? Wylde? Orianthi? Remler? Muddy? Caiola? Django? Setzer? Scofield? Pizzarelli? McLaughlin? Metheny? and so on.
They have very different tone and are so famous we know most of them by one name. And on which guitar are we talking about. Jimmy Page played better on his el-cheapo Danelectro than I can on my Parker.
And voice? Dr. John? Stevie Nicks? John Lennon? Blossom Dearie? There are plenty of singers with bad to mediocre voices that sell zillions of recordings. Why? They have great expression, and the expression connects with the audience, not the tone.
So tone is important, but not the holy grail. Expression trumps tone hands down, and you can manipulate MIDI to get more different types of expression than you can an audio recording.
Some day we may be able to manipulate audio like we can MIDI, and as the tools for editing audio improve, I'll use audio more, but right now it's mostly MIDI.
@notes Norton: expression trumps tone! You are so right. Great examples: Coltrane-Getz, Jimmy Page on Danelectro. Same goes for early Jarrett on a clunky piano, Miles' Plugged Nickel where every musician shines despite amateuristic recording or early Nirvana on a cheap weird sounding amp.
I found myself editing a lot of midi drum styles, mostly altering velocities for added dynamics, rather than changing the groove itself. Adjusting the bass part is more difficult.
the "new" midi to styles function really analyses the chords and respects the dynamics better. Importing a great midi song with a more sophisticated rhythm section gives good results. But I'm no,drummer or bass player, so...
I truly believe better and more expressive styles, including more modern grooves (Joshua Redman's band, Brian Blade, Manu Katche, Roy Haynes, Danny Gottlieb, Dave Holland, Christian McBride) would be worth good money for the live players and lovers of daily practicing. Those same beats, regardless of them being rt or midi, get stale after some time and ruin your practicing. Charles Lloyd could have a whole set of ballads and his band could play it in such different ways that it would sound fresh on every tune.
I regret pgmusic producing new styles while mostly recycling drum and bass styles over 10 yrs old. As a player you feel a little betrayed. Certainly if you're a guitarist/pianist: you stick with drum and bass most of the time, don't you? So the new styles reveal themselves fast as being a rehash of the same old, same old.
An example: as a practicing musician, you probably have 30 or more Bop tunes to rehearse. There's only three bass midi styles and two midi bass super tracks in a really fast tempo and that bores you to death. Same with drums. Same with bossas, swing, "modern" jazz, ballads.
Variety, different feels, dynamics and being able to use your vst's and kontakt libraries 'd be grand!
Dzjang, I enjoyed that last post because you have a most eclectic knowledge of music, by citing that combination of names.
Carry on.
I don't know which feature of BIAB I would be willing to give up, though. I use so many. The addition of a RealTrack to mostly MIDI tracks can do wonders, and vice versa.
@LtKojak, haha. Your link to Tracktion Waveform? It gives you a chord progression in one key. But most of us are way more sophisticated than that, :))) you should check our deft sense of harmony. I'd go all tritone on this app!
As for jazz styles, they seem to have more than one! But no more than ten. Pgmusic would rip this app to shreds.
Imagine: you're practicing a song (as you should, because Mark Levine told you so!) in all twelve keys and that one pattern keeps repeating itself in all keys. You'd go medieval on it anytime soon.
Sadly, this happens in biab too: playing in twelve keys and hearing the same bass line over and over again makes you sad, lonely, resentful and overeating, possibly even turning to illegal substance use.
@Matt: what features to give up on, I get what you're saying.
Maybe it's just me? Most of the time (98%) you'd be rehearsing for a band you play in or refining your chops or trying out new lines, triad pairs maybe? Who needs all the fancy? Recording audio? I have an app for that,
But I'm mostly referring to styles. Much as I dig rock, reggae or country, rnb and electro. I never use it. Variety to me is more variety in the style I practice. Same would be true for a country player who sees 150 country styles, but only discovers after,a while that the same ten bass and drum styles have been applied to all of them, over and over.
So, I'd like some basic reggae styles, but don't have me pay for reggae updates I don't use. While, on the other hand, I'd go all Kim-Kardashian if totally new styles from the ground up, including drums and bass, would appear in the store. I'd spend some money on that. Because it would make me happy! And fun to be around! And cuz it would land me my own reality show in prime time!
True, I use many other software programs to do certain functions BIAB can also do: recording, notation, and sequencing come immediately to mind.
The request for more variety in bass tracks for certain genres has been made in the Wishlist (maybe by you)? Perhaps head there and give it some support with specific suggestions.
Your link to Tracktion Waveform? It gives you a chord progression in one key. But most of us are way more sophisticated than that
The gave just a tiny example showing the very basic function of what the tool can do. If you care to watch again, you'll see an impressive array of different chord progressions, which you can alter, add, subtract, create your own, and chain'em in any way you want. Kinda automated style maker that will be just as simple or sophisticated as your own self want it to be.
@Matt: .......... Same would be true for a country player who sees 150 country styles, but only discovers after a while that the same ten bass and drum styles have been applied to all of them, over and over .... So, I'd like some basic reggae styles, but don't have me pay for reggae updates I don't use .....
My feelings too .... Definitely the MIDI department of BIAB seems to be at a standstill for years compared to MIDI editors and even audio tools f.i. Cubase has. For MIDI: RapidComposer, Onyx Arranger, Style enhancer, and surely quite a quite few more are far ahead ... Besides if you use the GM functions of HalionSonic or the now declared dead Hypersonic VSTs, the MIDI audio-related sample stuff can sound quite good at times, especially compared to BIAB's Coyote wavetable synth. BIAB's drum editor hasn't changed very much since Atari-days LoL. How's about some groove-timing functions there? EZ drummer is far ahead as prerecorded MIDI-drum tool arranger. The strength of BIAB still is the quickly translation of a bunch of typed chords into an arrangement ... oops, ah, alas there's this weird verse-chorus construction and the annoying limited time sign-measures versus bar counting system again and again in each "update". .... F
That's why I love using RapidComposerVSTi with Biab/RB it expands the midi capabilities way beyond Biab's. You can have any midi/phrases where you want them and not just take whatever BB generates where it generates. So you can save Biab midi/MSTs to a phrase. As many chords per bar as you like. Change Signature/Scale anywhere. Store Virtual Instrument keyswitches within a phrase that will re-fit anywhere to any chord/scale.
I love RealTracks but as Bob, Mario and others state, more versatility with midi. That's why I'm trying to get PG to make the RealCharts/Tabs usable with Virtual Instruments same as Ample Sound can play Guitar Pro Tab and save measures to Riffs. So the Articulations in Control 85 that represent Bends, slides, Hammer On, Pull Off (Vibrato could be added) can be converted to custom keyswitches or midi bend info for your Virtual Instruments. Also Export the TAB in the MXML. You could have a Sax play a guitar piece as a complement or answer to a guitar. You can create custom Solos within the DI RealTracks by adding a DI Virtual Instrument to any section of RealTrack.
Variety, different feels, dynamics and being able to use your vst's and kontakt libraries 'd be grand!
To me there's a contradiction here. Here it is:
1. Users want simple. 2. Simple is General Midi. 3. Biab is therefore based on GM. 4. The midi styles are GM. 5. GM does not allow for all the dynamics and expression you're talking about.
GM is the limitation here. It's not just the basic sound quality of a high end synth vs a cheap GM synth, as you've written about it's also the nuances or expression of the midi "performance".
Creating better styles that would work well with non GM softsynths wouldn't make any difference. The reason is just because a high end softsynth is designed to respond to very subtle controls that will make a part sound much more authentic, Biab is not capable of sending those commands because they're not part of the GM spec.
This is why if you really want that level of control you can start with basic Biab style tracks but you then need to move them to a DAW where you can have that level of control over your synths.
This is not simple or fast or easy. This takes us full circle to 1 and 2 above.
If you want PG to revamp Biab to incorporate some of the new advanced midi features being talked about great, put those ideas in the Wishlist forum. Peter has surprised us before.
Well, Toontrack sells a lot of MIDI patterns for both EZKeys and EZDrummer, the expressivity coming from being recorded by a human being.
PG Music does something similar with the MIDI supertracks.
But the developement has been centered on producing Real Tracks, as that's what people want; having real musicians playing what you tell'em to following a "pattern", called "style".
I don't see this changing anytime soon.
But I can see an enormous market for acquiring MIDI styles played by human beings, just as solos for melody creation. Eight and/or sexteen bars, that can be easily put together in RB to further editing would be a base to build from.
To support this, RB should be entirely re-written; as is, it unfortunately is much too clumsy and cumbersome to work with. The paradigm itself should be revised.
For all these reasons I don't see it happening any time soon either. Imagine the whish list petition: "change everything in Real Band".
Yes but this thread is about Biab STYLES that GENERATE tracks. Not prerecorded loops. The whole point of Biab is it's name. Band.In.A.Box as in trying to be similar to playing with live players. Biab gives you a slightly different version of a part every time you hit Play just like real players would.
You don't get that from loops. This is the advantage Jamstix has over EZDrums for example.
Real Tracks are exactly pre-recorded loops. They can't be more different then the available variations of the pre-recorded loops assigned to the style.
The only difference is the format: RTs are audio, MIDI is MIDI.
Guys, I have solved this problem. I bought: Jamstix3 EZDrummer2 EzKeys BIAB RB Reaper ST3 Kontact
as well as any other tools to feed my need.
There is pleasure indeed in integrating them all together for the final output. Looking back it is far cheaper than many hobbies and I am having a lot of fun.
Real Tracks are exactly pre-recorded loops. They can't be more different then the available variations of the pre-recorded loops assigned to the style.
Yes of course. That's my point Pepe.
This thread is about NOT using prerecorded loops or RT's because the OP wants better control. All I'm saying is yes better control is available just not by using Biab. You need a good DAW, high end VST's and some good physical controllers to make those VST's do what he wants.
I've been a pro musician all my life and I play drums, sax, bass, guitar, flute, and keyboards. I use my own experience as a working musician to make styles I would like to play along with. You might like them too.
Variety, different feels, dynamics and being able to use your vst's and kontakt libraries 'd be grand!
To me there's a contradiction here. Here it is:
1. Users want simple. 2. Simple is General Midi. 3. Biab is therefore based on GM. 4. The midi styles are GM. 5. GM does not allow for all the dynamics and expression you're talking about.<...>
Bob
I must respectfully disagree.
The only difference between General MIDI and any other MIDI is the patch numbers that correspond to patch names. There are no other differences between GMIDI and any other MIDI.
Grand piano is always patch #1, Rhodes #5, and so on.
The degree of expressiveness depends on the synth you are using. MIDI uses both velocity, expression, Note On, Note Release and others including the continuous controllers http://www.nortonmusic.com/midi_cc.html for making expression.
The synth you are using can respond to any, a few, or all of these expressive devices. Some GMIDI synths respond to all, some non-GMIDI synths do not.
I repeat, the only difference between GMidi and non-GMIDI is that the voice names correspond to the same patch numbers. Note, I said voice names, not the voices themselves. Acoustic bass is 33, and I have one synth where the acoustic bass sounds like a cheap electric, and another that sound so good that you can hear the wood. Both are GM patch number 33. Some people make good synths, others not so good synths.
The reason for the GMIDI numbering system (and that's all it is) is so that a MIDI sequence played on one synth would play the same instruments on another.
If Patch number 28 on my synth was a clean guitar, and patch number 28 on your synth was a tuba, what I played wouldn't sound even close to right on your synth if I sent you the MIDI file. But if both synths are GM they would both play clean guitar. Now your clean guitar might sound like a Fender and might might be a Gibson because GMIDI doesn't regulate sounds, only patch names.
So dissing a synth because it is GM is nonsense. All you are saying is you don't like the patch numbering system, because that is the only thing GM defines.
Real Tracks are exactly pre-recorded loops. They can't be more different then the available variations of the pre-recorded loops assigned to the style.
The only difference is the format: RTs are audio, MIDI is MIDI.
As I see it, they're exactly the same.
Except in MIDI you can change a note without artifacts, do subtle changes of timing, add a little slide or a giant hammer on, and do thousands of other things to that a that you cannot do with audio loops.
You can also erase a measure and put in a song-specific lick without changing the sound of the instrument.
Want to change the vibrato pitch or speed? Put a fall at the end of a note or scoop up to pitch? Easy peasy with MIDI.
And if the instrument is polyphonic there are so many other things you can do with MIDI that you can't do with loops. Change the inversion of a chord, add even more notes to the chord with the same sounding instrument, detune note or two or stretch tune the chord, and so on.
How about change the instrument? If the lead guitar is a jazz box and you would rather have a edgy clean sound, click it's done. The sound of the instrument is changed. Want that acoustic piano to be a Rhodes? That guitar to be a clav? That acoustic bass to be a Fretless? Those brass parts to be played on saxes? That ride cymbal to be a cowbell? That snare to be brushed or a rimshot? And thousands of others click, or click and drag and it's done. Can't do any of this with audio loops.
And all the changes you do in MIDI are done without adding any artifacts to the tone.
There is a big difference in the way audio and MIDI can be edited today. Perhaps not tomorrow, but today you can do literally thousands of expressive things with MIDI that you cannot do with audio loops.
Not to dis the Real Tracks. The tone and musicianship is great, and there is true genius to what PG has done with them. If you just want to hear what others play, they are fine. But if you want to play with your BiaB toy more deeply, MIDI is the way to go. Thankfully PG gives us both so we all can be happy.
Except in MIDI you can change a note without artifacts, do subtle changes of timing, add a little slide or a giant hammer on, and do thousands of other things to that a that you cannot do with audio loops.
You can also erase a measure and put in a song-specific lick without changing the sound of the instrument.
Want to change the vibrato pitch or speed? Put a fall at the end of a note or scoop up to pitch? Easy peasy with MIDI.
And if the instrument is polyphonic there are so many other things you can do with MIDI that you can't do with loops. Change the inversion of a chord, add even more notes to the chord with the same sounding instrument, detune note or two or stretch tune the chord, and so on.
How about change the instrument? If the lead guitar is a jazz box and you would rather have a edgy clean sound, click it's done. The sound of the instrument is changed. Want that acoustic piano to be a Rhodes? That guitar to be a clav? That acoustic bass to be a Fretless? Those brass parts to be played on saxes? That ride cymbal to be a cowbell? That snare to be brushed or a rimshot? And thousands of others click, or click and drag and it's done. Can't do any of this with audio loops.
And all the changes you do in MIDI are done without adding any artifacts to the tone.
There is a big difference in the way audio and MIDI can be edited today. Perhaps not tomorrow, but today you can do literally thousands of expressive things with MIDI that you cannot do with audio loops.
Not to dis the Real Tracks. The tone and musicianship is great, and there is true genius to what PG has done with them. If you just want to hear what others play, they are fine. But if you want to play with your BiaB toy more deeply, MIDI is the way to go. Thankfully PG gives us both so we all can be happy.
Insights and incites by Notes
Bob, even if both your interventions to some may sound as "blowing your own horn", I, for one, feel that were necessary to clarify what alternative styles in MIDI format are, and why they might even be preferable to Real Tracks in many cases.
Thank you for let us having a piece of your mind and your valuable insight on the matter.
If Real Band was written to work with MIDI styles the way Toontrack products work with their MIDI "styles", it'll become the leading program for composers, studio pros and/or aficionados looking to make their own backing tracks. The link I've shown earlier pointing to the Tracktion Waveform DAW program was to "inspire" PG Music to see if they could work into taking BIAB and specially RB into the next level, using a new paradigm that could embrace just as well both sides of making music, meaning taking Real Tracks AND MIDI Supertracks and present'em in a way they could be managed to create entire sequences of several parts using different tracks driving either VST instruments or hardware expanders in a way that'll be easier to the musician to use.
How anyone can even suggest MIDI intruments sound anywhere NEAR a real instrument being played by a real person is totally beyond me!
I have used MIDI for over 30 years, I have used guitar and bass emulation programs, I have used guitar and bass synths (including Kontakt, RealStrat Real Guitar and most of the other bass and guoitar synths/emulators), I have used keyboard techniques to re-create guitar playing...however none, and I mean NONE of these comes close to the real deal.
At best they get you by and worked okay in the past when audio and the manipulation of same was very primitive.
About the only instrument genre that is "okay" with MIDI is drum/percussion and even then it needs to be a really good synth to pull it off.
And the attitude that "it's good enough for audiences who probably cannot tell the difference" is quite arrogant and disrespectful IMO. Audiences CAN tell the difference, no matter how "tricked up" the MIDI part is. And THAT is the salient point. MIDI guitars and basses NEED to be "tricked up" with all sorts of controls to even get close to sounding authentic. The real thing, well, it just "is"!
How anyone can even suggest MIDI intruments sound anywhere NEAR a real instrument being played by a real person is totally beyond me!
You do it by giving a MIDI instrument to a real person and recording the MIDI data of what what he/she's playing. That's what Toontrack does with both EZKeys and EZDrummer, and the outcome is pretty good, I may add. For the record, I own both EZDrummer and EZKeys with many MIDI styles for both products, so I have a pretty good idea of what I'm talking about here.
Inherently, all keyboard-based instruments and sounds plus the drums and most percussion instruments sound very convincing when a human being is doing the playing, even through MIDI. Other instruments as guitars, reeds and horns are more tricky to make'em sound convincing and even impossible in certain situations, but nonetheless completely useful to make a demo of your song well enough to give a clear idea to other musicians how to play their parts, vibe-wise.
I've been re-visiting some MIDI-only Smooth Jazz styles in BIAB and some are OK but others are dull, lifeless and mechanic, as they seem to be written with a the note-by-note data entry mode, so there's no dynamics whatsoever. That's exactly why many people avoid'em like the bubonic plague, and TBH, I don't blame'em one single bit for that.
Unfortunately, I don't think PG Music would swing their R&D into this direction anytime soon. I'm sure they put it together with the 64-bit overhaul!
How anyone can even suggest MIDI intruments sound anywhere NEAR a real instrument being played by a real person is totally beyond me!<...>
Depends if you are a good musician AND good at MIDI or not. If you have a good MIDI sound module and a good player you get good music.
But you have to dig into MIDI and learn how to use it, as you do your musical instrument if you want to sound 'real'. Like the drum, MIDI is easy to use, almost any can play with it. But like the drums, it takes practice and learning to play it well.
Every synthesizer since the DX7 has MIDI at its heart.
And you can even fool musicians with their own home instruments.
Examples:
I was playing in a country club lounge and doing an improvised trumpet solo on my wind MIDI controller. A trumpet player came out of the dining room where he could hear us but not see us to see who was sitting in on trumpet.
I was playing a party. Wife was outside, husband who is a gigging guitarist was inside. This was before I started to bring my guitar to the gig. I was playing a Santana song on my wind MIDI controller and the guitarist came out to see who was sitting in with us on guitar
I posted a clip of my playing on wind MIDI controller on the Gibson/Epiphone forum. I didn't tell them it was MIDI, but asked them for opinions. I got a few dozen replies including one that said it was "Jeff Beck Like" and nobody posted that it sounded like a MIDI guitar. Then after a few dozen comments I came clean and told them it was a MIDI performance. More comments came in about how it sounded like a real guitar, and only one said there was something about the use of the trem that sounded funny but he couldn't put his finger on it.
MIDI performances CAN and DO sound like a real musician IF a real musician creates the MIDI performance and uses a decent synth module.
"...at the 1983 Winter NAMM show, a Sequential Circuits Prophet-600 talked to a Roland JX-3P and MIDI went mainstream. Since then, MIDI has become embedded in the DNA of virtually every pop music production (yes I stole that line from Alan Parsons, but I don't think he'll mind)..."
"…Today you can easily record 100 tracks of digital audio on a basic laptop, so MIDI may seem irrelevant in the studio. Yet MIDI remains not only viable, but valuable, because it lets you exploit today's studio in ways that digital audio still can't. ...
Deep editing. Digital audio allows for broad edits, like changing levels or moving sections around, and editing tools such as Melodyne are doing ever more fine-grained audio surgery. But MIDI is more fine grained still: You can edit every characteristic of every performance gesture: dynamics, volume, timing, the length and pitch of every note, pitch-bend, and even which sound is being played. MIDI data can tell a piano sound what to play, or if you change your mind, a Clavinet patch. With digital audio, changing the instrument that plays a given part requires re-recording the track….but MIDI can do much more…"
Quotes from Craig Anderton in Electronics Musician Magazine
If Alan Parsons and Craig Anderton think MIDI sounds real, you are getting expert opinions from a couple of the well-known people in the industry.
And I am sure Anderton et al, would all agree that MIDI guitars, yes are close, sometimes! And then only using the best sound emualations (not GM)! However they are NEVER the same as the real thing. Go ahead, ask them!
And @ Notes Norton - I've heard your stuff. As in demos of your tracks, and they are quite obviously MIDI tracks. The live clips of your duo playing are quite obviously MIDI tracks. And they sound like it! Sort of like an arranger keyboard. Creates background noise at a gig, and for the most part is pleasant. However folks give it the same respect they would elevator music!
Whether played by you (or someone else )dress it up anyway you like, create any sort of argument you like. A real instrument played by a real musician is always better (even with basic comping) than the best MIDI created track! JMO of course.
As I recall from an explanation several years ago, Notes Norton is intentionally not using the best possible MIDI sounds in his online demos (plus the files are compressed). He admirably uses something more 'average' so as not to over-hype his product. As you know, MIDI has no sound of its own, thus MIDI sound quality is heavily dependent upon the synth chosen.
I'm pretty sure when I set up with my keyboard, computer, and amp as a one-man band, no one is going to come up to me and complain that the sax player doesn't sound like a real sax player, because, well, there is no sax player.
And if they did, I would just politely ask them to take it up with the sax player. Oh, wait...
Because it's just me and my keyboard and backing tracks...
That doesn't mean I won't try to get close to the best sound I can, but it's pretty clear that it's all electronic. And if they don't like it, then they can hire a 10-piece live band to ensure everything is "real".
And if folks are having a good time, then that to me is what counts. And if purists complain that it's not "real", well, they are clearly in the wrong place; I don't know what they were expecting coming to a one-man band show. And of course, if you do fool some of the purists because sometimes it does sound "real", then they just get mad at you anyway because you fooled them.
And the fact of the matter is this...for most of us here, I suspect very few are going to have a hit record, most are not making a living at it, and most are mainly going to play for family and friends or at local venues where folks already know you anyway. Getting stressed over MIDI versus real just gets you stressed; who need that in your life.
So, I just say, everybody get on the floor and dance and have a good time; sing along if you wish, you know the words.
You have made a very good point but there is an equally strong point of commercial importance
That is, just imagine the complexity of having a barebones edition and then all the separate add-on parts that we will choose individual and different combinations
I agree that some parts I dont and never have used but I would like to think that one day I might
I also think that by by being virtually a one size fits all woudl bring the overall cost down anyway
PG Music has given us a pretty complete product that generally meet the need of a great many of it's users - there are areas which can be improved by external programs if your requirement is for a higher level in these areas
I too would like a bigger and better selection of styles even though we have a vast number ( many of which could be replaced by improved styles and "styles" with one instrument change- which we can do ourselves)- I do not want to copy the greats or sound like them - I want to create my own music drawing on many influences but trying to make it my own
When using styles I use the Hybrid function to tailor the styles to fit my ideal of what I want - so useful
We all have different set ups using Band in a Box and my setup is that I play sax and wind controller with a pianist so I use BB for just Drums - Bass - Guitar backing. I guess this is a popular combination, but I still experiment with other features
I get only good comments on the quality, with many people saying they thought it was studio made backing tracks
The reasons I use BB are many - it is a great educational tool - it is a great practice/rehearsal tool - a great backing track maker and as my venues increaingly will not pay for more than 2/3 musicians I can cover the costs whilst we enjoy ourselves
Realtracks - Midi - (Real)Midi - Super tracks etc are fine and all have a part to play - I dont want everything done for me I want to put my own mark on what I am doing
From the start of BB with a handful of floppies = 6 or so Mb's(we thought it was amazing then) to look at it now and each year it never ceases to go on amazing me
And I am still finding out more about BB even though I have been using it for some twenty seven years jazzman
Yes, my demo files are done on the mediocre plug-in soft synth that PG provided at the time. I could have put them on the best sounds of my array of modules, but then if someone bought them and played them on the Coyote or whatever, they might think I misrepresented the product. Plus they are recorded as mp3 files - some with a low bit rate of 32kbps because back then people used dial-ups.
I'm thinking about re-doing them with a Ketron and higher bitrate because things are better now, but it's finding the time. We are gigging doing 4-5 one-nighers per week in the season and 2-3 in the off season, and I'm also trying to make more MIDI styles and Fake Disks that can use either MIDI or RT styles. (I haven't watched a single TV show since the late 1980s)
And if MIDI sounds fake, than the majority of keyboard parts you hear on hit records and plenty of the other instruments sound fake to you as well.
But that wasn't my point.
My point is expression is 100 times more important than the sound. And MIDI allows you to customize the expression. MIDI allows you to change the expression to whatever you want it to be. It allows you to manipulate the music to say what you want it to say.
Yes, our promo video sounds MIDI-ish, and most of the songs definitely have BiaB in there somewhere. I've added some song specific licks and kicks in them to make them sound like the songs I'm representing, and not sound like someone using an arranger keyboard or BiaB live accompaniment. What I've done to them you couldn't do this with RealTracks.
Plus, we have been working steadily since 1985 and get more work and charge higher prices than those duos playing 'real instruments' with a drum machine.
The public doesn't give a @!#&% whether your sounds are MIDI or "real", they want to hear the music the way they want to hear it.
Now the RealTracks sound great, as a musician I appreciate good tone. But I am also a pro musician and know what the public wants. And what the audience wants is actually more important than what I want.
You can play for yourself, you can play for other musicians or you can play for the general public. If you are good enough, you'll get the audience you asked for.
If the RT fits the bill perfectly, I'll use them. Sometimes I'll use RT or some RT instruments on songs, especially jazz standards that are chord/melody based instead of riff based like a lot of modern pop music.
But most modern pop music is riff based and any auto-accompaniment style is generic by design. With MIDI I can modify the BiaB output and put the riffs and kicks in.
I repeat because it's important, the public doesn't care if the sound is MIDI. They want to hear and feel the music. Try doing James Brown's "I Got You (I Feel Good)" with a real track and tell me how many people are going to dance to it. Or thousands of other songs that need something that identifies them.
You can't do this or thousands of other songs with RealTracks, but you can manipulate MIDI tracks to do this. We do this song and the crowd loves it.
I'm thinking about re-doing them with a Ketron and higher bitrate because things are better now
Notes, Yes. I think they really deserve this. I think you will be doing the product the justice it really deserves, and potential customers a great favor.
When I wrote earlier about the differences between GM and non-GM midi I was referring to stuff like Garritan uses the mod wheel for volume control. That's not GM spec. SampleTank has some drum kits that are GM mapped but most of them use Imap. This allows keyboard players to use their hands to play drum parts on a keyboard in a much more natural way than GM drumkit mapping allows for. Same thing with other drum controllers. All use different mapping than the standard basic GM.
Most of the big name softsynths don't even have a GM soundbank. Ask yourself why is that? It's because GM is way too restrictive with it's midi controls, way too restrictive with it's instrument banks. Notes talked about how the patch map numbers are the same. True but you only get one or two patches of each instrument. One nylon guitar, one standard grand piano and one bright piano. A piano VST by itself has dozens and they give you stuff like mic placement controls, lid up/down/partial controls, room ambience and much more. Partial pedal dampening. None of that is in the GM spec.
The best horn and string VSTi libraries are the same. All the different lip, mouth, bowing articulations that have zero to do with GM. It's all those controls that allows a good player to make synths sound real.
That's what I was talking about. GM is very basic and pro's could care less about it.
Bob I agree that is basic and limited and that is why a lot of amateurs also do not use it. Even BiaB is breaking away from strictly GM by adding VSTi and ST2 and Sforzando (sfz).
Have you noticed how many "how do I add (insert a VSTi), "how do I assign a MIDI channel" etc BiaB questions lately? Some forum members are discovering there are better MIDI sounds than what comes with BiaB, even though there are much better sounding VSTis then what comes with BiaB now. But the fact is ST2 and SFZ both sound a lot better than BiaB GM plus you can do more with them.
As far as I am concerned GM is dying a slow death.
The only thing standard in GM are the patch numbers.
The 127 continuous controllers are the same on all synths, GM or not, they are part of the Standard MIDI File set. Whether a particular synth responds to all 127 CC's depends on the synth maker. And there are GM and non-GM synths that don't support them all.
And yes, GM synths don't have every sound known to the synth world, but neither do no-GM synths. But GM synths do include the standard 127 voice GM set.
And no, all GM synths are not restricted to one sound for each of those 127 instruments. My SD 90 has a minimum of 4 variations and up to 20 variations of the same sound simply by adding a MSB and LSB into either the patch selector or entering them with CCs.
My XV5050 has thousands of sounds and it included a GM bank. Same for my SD90. My Ketron has 4 banks, one of which is GMIDI - so please don't be spreading the misconception that GMIDI synths are limited to GM sounds. There are plenty of synths that do not have a GMIDI bank that have thousands of fewer sounds than my XV.
There are good sounding synths with a GM bank and lame sounding synths with a GM bank. There are also good sounding synths without a GM band and bad sounding synths without a GM bank.
All GM specifies are common patch numbers for 127 patches - or twice that for GM2. Everything else is covered by the Standard MIDI File specs, and both GM and non-GM synths either include or don't include everything in the specs.
The only thing standard in GM are the patch numbers.
And yes, GM synths don't have every sound known to the synth world, but neither do no-GM synths. But GM synths do include the standard 127 voice GM set.
And no, all GM synths are not restricted to one sound for each of those 127 instruments.
My XV5050 has thousands of sounds and it included a GM bank. Same for my SD90. My Ketron has 4 banks, one of which is GMIDI - so please don't be spreading the misconception that GMIDI synths are limited to GM sounds.
There are good sounding synths with a GM bank and lame sounding synths with a GM bank. There are also good sounding synths without a GM band and bad sounding synths without a GM bank.
All GM specifies are common patch numbers for 127 patches - or twice that for GM2. Everything else is covered by the Standard MIDI File specs, and both GM and non-GM synths either include or don't include everything in the specs.
My search today was to find a method for humanistic feels from BIAB. I believe you may have satisfied my quest. Ive heard some really dynamic jazz backing tracks that was said to been created by BIAB. But as you've stated they probably used a DAW for the final product. So I should learn how to get BIAB multi midi tracks properly imported in a DAW. I have LogicPro X, StudioOne V3, and Cubase. Will one work better than the other. My main need for BIAB is to create dynamic backing tracks for my wife (singer) and I (sax) to perform with and not sound boring.
I would very much appreciated if you would share anymore words of wisdom.
My search today was to find a method for humanistic feels from BIAB. I believe you may have satisfied my quest. Ive heard some really dynamic jazz backing tracks that was said to been created by BIAB. But as you've stated they probably used a DAW for the final product. So I should learn how to get BIAB multi midi tracks properly imported in a DAW. I have LogicPro X, StudioOne V3, and Cubase. Will one work better than the other. My main need for BIAB is to create dynamic backing tracks for my wife (singer) and I (sax) to perform with and not sound boring.
I would very much appreciated if you would share anymore words of wisdom.
Thank you
The DAW that will work the best for you is the DAW you are the most familiar with and understand the best to edit audio and midi. BIAB exported tracks are 44.1k/16 bit audio files so they are recognized by every DAW exactly the same.
With time and patience working and learning BIAB, you can make as professional quality backing tracks as anything you can find on the market.
Yes, my demo files are done on the mediocre plug-in soft synth that PG provided at the time. I could have put them on the best sounds of my array of modules, but then if someone bought them and played them on the Coyote or whatever, they might think I misrepresented the product. Plus they are recorded as mp3 files - some with a low bit rate of 32kbps because back then people used dial-ups.
I'm thinking about re-doing them with a Ketron and higher bitrate because things are better now, but it's finding the time. We are gigging doing 4-5 one-nighers per week in the season and 2-3 in the off season, and I'm also trying to make more MIDI styles and Fake Disks that can use either MIDI or RT styles. (I haven't watched a single TV show since the late 1980s)
And if MIDI sounds fake, than the majority of keyboard parts you hear on hit records and plenty of the other instruments sound fake to you as well.
But that wasn't my point.
My point is expression is 100 times more important than the sound. And MIDI allows you to customize the expression. MIDI allows you to change the expression to whatever you want it to be. It allows you to manipulate the music to say what you want it to say.
Yes, our promo video sounds MIDI-ish, and most of the songs definitely have BiaB in there somewhere. I've added some song specific licks and kicks in them to make them sound like the songs I'm representing, and not sound like someone using an arranger keyboard or BiaB live accompaniment. What I've done to them you couldn't do this with RealTracks.
Plus, we have been working steadily since 1985 and get more work and charge higher prices than those duos playing 'real instruments' with a drum machine.
The public doesn't give a @!#&% whether your sounds are MIDI or "real", they want to hear the music the way they want to hear it.
Now the RealTracks sound great, as a musician I appreciate good tone. But I am also a pro musician and know what the public wants. And what the audience wants is actually more important than what I want.
You can play for yourself, you can play for other musicians or you can play for the general public. If you are good enough, you'll get the audience you asked for.
If the RT fits the bill perfectly, I'll use them. Sometimes I'll use RT or some RT instruments on songs, especially jazz standards that are chord/melody based instead of riff based like a lot of modern pop music.
But most modern pop music is riff based and any auto-accompaniment style is generic by design. With MIDI I can modify the BiaB output and put the riffs and kicks in.
I repeat because it's important, the public doesn't care if the sound is MIDI. They want to hear and feel the music. Try doing James Brown's "I Got You (I Feel Good)" with a real track and tell me how many people are going to dance to it. Or thousands of other songs that need something that identifies them.
You can't do this or thousands of other songs with RealTracks, but you can manipulate MIDI tracks to do this. We do this song and the crowd loves it.
Notes
I get where your coming from, but for me it's all about real tracks. Why would I pay for audiophile edtion just to use MIDI. Sure, I'm not going to have the backing track emulate the oringal song, but I'm nopt all about that. If the general public doesn't care about whether or not you use MIDI or not, then people would not pay money to see live bands. I do understnand your point as I have tracks made by a guy that use cheesy keyboard sound recorded onto mp3. Also, I don't have the time to meticulously edit every detail for ever MIDI track.
<...snip...> If the general public doesn't care about whether or not you use MIDI or not, then people would not pay money to see live bands. <...>
People pay to SEE live bands because they want to WATCH them make the music.
I have been in a duo since 1985 with 100% MIDI backing tracks that I make myself. We work steadily and are probably the highest paid duo in my area. We currently have a house gig for 9 years running now and have had repeat business that have hired us since the 1980s.
It's what I do for a living.
The public neither knows nor cares that my tracks are 100% MIDI. They like watching Leilani and I sing and play guitars, sax, flute and synthesizers along with the tracks.
What we do is play our music expressively, choose the right songs for the customers, and entertain them.
And I might add that our MIDI tracks sound more "life" than pre-recorded tracks.
What?
Is this blasphemy?
Actually not. There is a difference between having a mix for a recording and a mix for live. What do you hear as you approach a gig with a live band first? Snare drum and bass?
By having complete control over every instrument I can remix things for live performance. I can kick up the snare and kick drum leaving the rest of the drum set alone. I can also exaggerate the groove and put the snare ahead or behind the beat a tad when appropriate. I can even mix a little timbale on the 2 & 4s on the snare to approximate the drummer hitting the head an the rim at the same time and put a couple of MIDI tics between them.
I can pump the bass up, I can change the guitar to a different brand of electric, I can detune the horns a little to approximate stretch tuning to make them sound better and do all kinds of things to make the backing tracks sound more "live" than a recording mixed to sound good in your living room.
That's not to negate Real Tracks, because everyone has their own way of doing things and there is more than one right way to make music.
This works for me, paid off the mortgage, and buys me a yearly international vacation.
Same goes for early Jarrett on a clunky piano, Miles' Plugged Nickel where every musician shines despite amateuristic recording or early Nirvana on a cheap weird sounding amp.
