Refresh my memory. I think a lot of folks "unfold the chord sheet to 1 large song for ease.
Let's say I have a song bar 1-4 is an intro. The next 12 bars are a verse. Then there's another identical verse. If I don't unfold the chord sheet and use a repeat for verse 2 will that count as 12 measures or 24.

Neither 12 or 24. The song will have 30 or 32 bars. 4 (intro) + 12 (verse 1) + 12 (verse 2) equals 28 bars. Then there is the 2 or 4 bar ending. Then there are the bars that are doubled when half, double or triple time is used.

In my analogy the program has to "unfold" the chorus to keep track of the possible preference options (middle chorus variations). But the program could just as easily have multiple counters to keep track of both bars and repeats.

I believe repeats are available more to accommodate display of the chord sheet and song file printouts than how the program keeps track of the song timeline.

Of course, all of this is conjecture as I have no way of knowing.

I don't know, either. But should we also include the two-bar count-in in this computation?

I'll do a test and see. Jim I don't mean the repeat at the top.l mean if the chords are entered just like sheet music with repeats, coda, return to coda etc.I think 12 bars with a repeat at bar 16 to start at bar 5 would only "count" for viab purposes as 12 bars.Just a guess.

Right click on chord call and choose repeats,do el coda etc.So I believe you can have a song that is actually more then 255 bars but you only have 255 bars to enter chords. If you look at sheet music the song is always longer then the number of written bars.

Yep song can be longer then 255 by using the et click chord cell and using normal chord entry with repeats, coda etc.

I set, at the top
1.255 bars
2. 1 chorus
3. No repeats
Entered some chords
4. Entered a repeat at 200 to start at 5. It did.
5. It then played to the end.
455 bars long. The song not the chord sheet

If musikluver had entered the notation in his xml file standard I believe it would have worked.

Unfortunately, Silvertones, if you're suggesting that I could have used repeats for the verses and choruses in my song so that the chord sheet wouldn't have exceeded 255 bars in BiaB or crossed the 240/241 bar boundary in RB (and thus avoid the erroneous chord change that occurred in bar 241), I have to inform you that your suggestion won't work for this song due to the differences that exist in each verse and each chorus. For example, the first line of the first verse lasts for four measures, but the first line of the second verse lasts for only three measures. There are also some places in each verse where the melody is slightly different because of the lyrics. The same is true of the choruses. The melody in the second chorus is slightly different from the melody in the first and third chorus. The only thing that could be repeated is the musical interlude that occurs between the first chorus and the second verse and between the second chorus and the third verse. But even doing this wouldn't have been enough to not exceed 255 bars in BiaB or avoid the 240/241 bar boundary in RB because these interludes aren't very long. Plus, attempting this would be very tricky.

However, your suggestion might have been possible with my other long song that I gave to my producer a couple of months ago, but I'd have to take a close look at it to be sure.

I agree RB is still screwed.Just wanted to let you know what I found with BIAB. Yes if all your verses/choruses etc are completely unique then you are correct. It wouldn't work.

<<< I agree RB is still screwed. Just wanted to let you know what I found with BIAB. Yes if all your verses/choruses etc are completely unique then you are correct. It wouldn't work. >>>


Unless you're working with recorded audio rather than generated audio. There is no bar limitation nor will there be any erroneous chord change with recorded audio even if it was originally generated in BIAB. RB functions as any other DAW when you use audio/midi and not BIAB generations that involve those two limitations when attempting a single render. In a single render attempt in RB, it's still screwed up.

Charlie you're missing the point.

That's probably true. What's the point?

If you enter chords for 12 bars then use the repeat/coda feature and tell it to repeat from bar 5 to bar 10 a 100 times then generate it'll play 1000 bars.It only generates bar 5 thru 10 but plays it over and over for 1000 bars.

This is where it all gets confusing; it depends on when you stop relying on BiaB features/apps
Once you ask RB to behave like BiaB .. it does!
Once you tell it explicitly not to, it doesn't, at least in my experience.
Depends on what features you use and how.

Like I said right off, it can be confusing, but FTR I think Charlie was referring to RB and not BB in his post

The original post by musikluver yes was about RB but then the issues with RB brought biab 255 bar limit into the picture. I was clarifying that biab only sort of has a 255 bar limit.
Some do a song in biab as I said then import the sgu/mug into RB and see what happens.

This is correct if an XML file is capable to do repeats/codas, etc and BIAB reads the XML file correctly. Entering chords manually works as expected.

I manually entered chords and created a 32 bar BIAB template song and set it to repeat between 5-32 10 times to create a song structure to use. It has a 4 bar INTRO, VERSE1=8 bars, CHORUS=8 bars,VERSE2=12 and a 2 bar ending so when it plays, it exceeded the 255 bar limit of BIAB just as Silvertones indicated.

I saved the file and opened the SGU file in RealBand. I had used a midi style with RealDrums in my BIAB song, so I added three RealTracks to the RB song and saved the song in RB format, SEQ. The three RealTracks and RealDrum track generated all the measures without error and specifically, no erroneous chord at bar 240-241. The 255 bar limit was no issue whatsoever.

Regarding Muziluver's comments:

"I have to inform you that your suggestion won't work for this song due to the differences that exist in each verse and each chorus."

This is incorrect. I was able to edit the RB song without any issues.

"For example, the first line of the first verse lasts for four measures, but the first line of the second verse lasts for only three measures. There are also some places in each verse where the melody is slightly different because of the lyrics. The same is true of the choruses."

I was able to delete a measure from the first line of my second verse and the RealBand program deleted the measure and seamlessly crossfaded the preceding and following bars. I also edited the chord chart for verses and chorus's and regenerated those specific sections without issue and without having to regenerate the entire song.

"There are also some places in each verse where the melody is slightly different because of the lyrics."

This should be no problem. If the melody line is midi, that's quick and easy to edit. If it's audio, that section would have to be overdubbed (punched in/out) but again, only that particular section would require editing, not the whole melody track or all the lyrics.


"attempting this would be very tricky."

Not at all. Very easy and straightforward DAW editing of copy/paste and edit/regenerate Chord changes.

Whether the song originates in BIAB or RB, the key for this to work is to structure the song and break it into sections using Part Markers. In RealBand, the Part Markers can be named to match the song structure and each individual section can be highlighted\selected to edit the chord chart, tempo, key signature, number of measures and regenerated by each individual section quickly and easily. For instance, select the last measure of VERSE 2 and Edit\Delete Bars from Song and designate the number of Bars to Delete. Insert Bars works the same way. RealBand will automatically crossfade the preceding and following bars seamlessly. If you edit any chords in a section, Highlight the section and regenerate that section.

Just an FYI. I encountered editing,rendering and multi riff RealTrack issues using Silvertone's step by step instructions that included having repeats to be only one chorus. While the regenerations did not affect the midi tracks, the whole process was cancelled so no changes were made to the midi tracks either.

But, when I changed the Chorus repeats, I did not have any problems at all editing, rendering or multi riffing RealTracks or the midi tracks anywhere along the length of the song.

so as long as Muzikluver or anyone else can keep track of where they are in their song and use part markers to mark and navigate between intro, verses, bridges, Chorus's and outro's, they should be able to accomplish creating, structuring, editing and rendering their project in RB.

Thank you Charlie for doing this.You added validity to my being.

I think I can say this.
I just tested RB build 4 release 4 and all works as it should. Hopefully nothing new pops its head up.

I downloaded the new build and I reopened the RB file I had been working with above after the update. All was good except for one 8 bar section I had changed the chords in and regenerated before the upload. The RealTracks in that section were not playing the correct chords when I first opened the file with the new build. I regenerated the section and the regeneration corrected the audio. I saved a copy before regenerating in case there is something that pops up I can send that file to PG Music staff.


"Thank you Charlie for doing this. You added validity to my being. "

Lol, you said in 5 steps what I was trying to say in 100 posts in the other thread.

As I mentioned in another post on my other thread in the RB forum, BiaB does not handle repeats in XML files properly, so I always have to duplicate my repeating sections in MuseScore before I export the song as an XML file. Otherwise, a song with two verses and a chorus that occurs after each verse will only have one verse and one chorus in BiaB.


What was the last chord in your test song prior to bar 241? If it was a C chord, you wouldn't have had an erroneous chord at bar 241. The fact that you didn't have an erroneous chord at bar 241 suggests to me that your most recent chord was a C chord. Alternatively, if it wasn't a C chord, did you listen carefully to the transition from bar 240 to bar 241 to make sure that there wasn't a chord change in bar 241? As I've indicated in another post, RB will not show a C chord in bar 241 even though it makes an audible change to a C chord in that bar.


Which RB song are you referring to---yours or mine? My statement above was made in response to Silvertones suggestion for me to use repeats on my verses and choruses in BiaB so that the 255 bar limit won't be reached. But as I said above and in my subsequent statements, repeats won't work for this particular song because of the slight differences in the melody for each section and because of an additional measure in the first line of the first verse. IOW, each section is essentially unique, and Silvertones agreed that this would prevent me from being able to use repeats to avoid the 255 bar limit in BiaB.

"Which RB song are you referring to---yours or mine? "

I'm referring to the file I created. Yours may not work since it was not created using repeats and we know it is subject to both the 255 limit and the erroneous chord issue. The file I created has neither. But more to the point of the differences between each verse and chorus of your songs, in the song I created with using repeats, I can also edit each and every section without any issues. Every verse and chorus can be edited to be completely unique and different from every other verse in my song regarding backing tracks.


How do you input the melody? is it midi or audio? That will be the important factor to how you change the melody.

"What was the last chord in your test song prior to bar 241?" "As I've indicated in another post, RB will not show a C chord in bar 241 even though it makes an audible change to a C chord in that bar."

-G- There was no erroneous chord change. Nothing happened out of the ordinary to bar 241.

I've been accused of not being very verbose. Lol
Thanks

I assume you're referring to your repeating sections. Are you able to edit your backing tracks for those sections within BiaB? Or are you doing this in RB?


When BiaB imports my XML file that contains my melody, it always imports the melody as a midi track. RB does the same thing. In BiaB, it usually shows up as the fifth track and is labelled either as Piano 1 or Piano 2 (if there's already a piano track). In RB, it's visible as a blue track, and I think it has the same label as in RB. But because of the poor sound quality, I always create a WAV file of the melody from MuseScore and then import that as an audio track into BiaB. Any changes I make to the melody, I make in MuseScore because that's my primary reference for my song. Then I import a new audio file after I kill the current one. Another thing I will often do is play the melody in MuseScore at the same time that the arrangement is playing in BiaB with the audio and midi tracks of the melody muted. This enables me to experiment with various melody ideas quickly in MuseScore without importing a new audio file into BiaB until I've settled on the one I like the best.


You must be using the latest beta version of RB (Version 4 release 4), which is the same version that Silvertones is using.

Reminder, you should probably try not to mention beta versions in the public forums.

Sorry, but I didn't know that, Matt. Thanks for letting me know.

Thanks!

I would never disclose a new version release however this has been a nightmare so I figured disclosing an upcoming fix to a broken feature was not an issue.

Plus, it's been six months since the latest version was released, so I would think that RB users are anticipating that a new release will be happening soon anyway.

In reference to Matt's comment
I feel it's OK to say 'support is working on it and think they have a fix' .. but not OK to release actual Beta data. Seems nit-picky, but we agreed to that in order to become beta testers. At least I did.
'What happens in beta stays in beta' type of thing.

I know Silvertones would never leak a new release or such, but we still need to watch our step in the public forums as far as what is discussed in beta vs support.
I appreciate Silvertones' efforts behind the scenes very much and don't want to lose that.

One of the hardest things about beta testing is not telling everyone that is complaining about item A (like a 64 bit version of BB or a BB VST plugin for example) to just relax and wait a few weeks. <grin>
As far as a release date for anything; they'll do it when they are ready. None of us can answer that.
We're often surprised when they decide to release the next year's version; it's not like they ask us if it's ready or anything .. we just test and report back. They fix and release when they feel comfortable.

What do you mean by "not OK to release actual Beta data"? Are you referring to the Beta version description or to the potential fix of a particular bug in a specific Beta version?

To disclose NEW features would be wrong. To be chastised for disclosing that an exting feature is broken but a fix is testing and works is also wrong and ties my hands to help.

edited -
It's not what was said, it was how it was said.
'They think they have a fix' is different than releasing version numbers and other such beta info.
Like I said, it's nit-picky but is what we all agreed to; the line can be fine and easy to cross if we don't help keep each other accountable.

/love ya man!
//Look - ver 4 is now released

To disclose NEW features would be wrong. To be chastised for disclosing that an exting feature is broken but a fix is testing and works is also wrong and ties my hands to help except to answer " How do I ...

And build 4 is out.Have fun!

"Are you able to edit your backing tracks for those sections within BiaB?"

Yes you can but there's no need to. I think it's more efficient and easier to edit in RB once the BIAB song has been opened in RB.


"Or are you doing this in RB?"

I did all of my editing in RB.


"When BiaB imports my XML file that contains my melody, it always imports the melody as a midi track."

In RB, you would edit the chord chart and number of measures, any tempo or key change for any verse or chorus throughout the song for a particular section backing tracks to match your melody changes per section.

That makes sense, and it's what I had thought, too.


Right, I'm with you on this, too, and it would be easier to edit the melody in MuseScore and re-import it into RB instead of editing it directly in RB.

No one was chastised. You are correct about the difficulty beta testers face, to remain silent about an upcoming fix until PG Music decides the time is right to release it. Sometimes I want to join in a thread and say, that’s been fixed! But I don’t.

Why are the planned updated releases so secretive? In many forums there is a place dedicated just to the available current works-in-progress (betas). For those who want to be on the cutting edge, they are welcome to download and report back. This is the way bugs get fixed and fixes get verified. I honestly don't understand why this would be a secretive process.

PG Music has this. You can request to become a beta tester.

Ya I get it, just an unusual practice in my opinion, the secretive thing that is.

A open beta would seem to work better. This would still allow those with the time and willingness to dig deep and provide thorough evaluations to actually beta-test(something that I don't have the time to do at this stage in my life), however, if the beta was available to others big fixes would likely get circulated quicker. Just sayin..

Yes, I see.

I tend to think that all released software is an open beta test.