PG Music Home Forums General Discussion Off-Topic Please weigh in and cast your vote. **** POLL****

Before i go on with this let's just acknowledge that this is not a new subject, and that we are not truly in the drivers seat here! but here we go.

please cast a vote for one of the following options as to what you feel you would best appreciate and support for future annual upgrades for PGM products.

Band in a Box:

1. 50 new features and 212 new Real Tracks and some cool new styles. (business as usual)

2. 10 t0 20 upgraded current features (I.E. fix older bugs and complete recent Features) and 400 new RTs Loops, Midi loops and some cool new Styles.

examples of fixes and upgrades 255 bar limit fixed, VST3 completed, Tracks view editing upgraded to similar as in the audio edit window, Context menus cleaned up and redundancy removed. Time signatures expanded, RT/RDs enhanced to work with the aforementioned time sigs, GUI clean up, etc.

Please vote 1 or 2 (if you have a couple examples of feature upgrades feel free to add them to the list.

2.

This is what I've recommended for several years. Even with the 'normal' number of new RealTracks, loops and styles, I think it would be the right way to go.

This is a tough choice for me because the two choices don't offer much nuance.

In the way that I use BiaB I either don't notice the bugs/clunkiness/dated feel or if I do notice I can live with it since I get out of BiaB and into my DAW as soon as possible.

But on the other hand if the programmers could incorporate truly new and useful features then I think I'd be happy for years. [To be sure, I'm happy now.] I really don't need the "business as usual" with more pre-defined styles added onto the zillion styles we already have, many of which seem to be duplicates.

Two noteworthy new features for me would be:

a. an AI capability that can accept an audio file as input and create a BiaB "style" based on that audio file
https://www.pgmusic.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Main=101811&Number=770140

b. the capability to craft or find a drum/percussion pattern similar to the EZDrummer capability
https://www.pgmusic.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Main=104862&Number=801236


Forced to choose, my answer is 1 (but I don't need 50 new features or 212 more RealTracks)

BT, i hear you i do not dive too deep either. Still, what you are suggesting may be problematic. Imagine bolting fancy new AI on to older Dephi coding. Right now, even getting VST3 to work seems to be daunting. The new features we have seen in the past few years are just new ways of handing existing code and using existing features and altering them rather than adding anything that is coming from the AI world. I would worry that a brand-new AI based drum or pattern system may half work and take years to work out the bugs. This leaves long sought after issues unaddressed. Time will tell. Let's see what else is added to this conversation.

I worry a little that the directions encouraging us to vote and then also list the examples of suggested feature upgrades compromise the value of the poll. This is not the Wishlist forum. This poll, placed in this forum, should elicit opinions from users about the general future direction rather than be a place for listing those suggested new features. [I do like that a couple of new features, like VST3, were cited to explain the two options.]

Indeed, if VST3 support were added to BIAB, as I understand it Bass Thumper could have his 2nd wish. And I do really like the 1st wish, just not here.

Steve may be more representative of BIAB users than I am, and he may already have most of what is needed to use BIAB to do what he wants to do. I happen to feel that some basic properties of BIAB seriously impede my ability to do my work, and I would rather take a halt on new features and enhance/fix the existing ones. I think that's what Rob is asking in the poll., and it's a valid question. Is that accurate?

I vote for #2. But what is suggested would take a complete rewrite so I doubt it will ever happen.

I vote #2 and it wouldn't even need "400 new RTs Loops, Midi loops and some cool new Styles"; I'd be happy with that part just being the normal "212 new Real Tracks and some cool new styles". I do think they need to add more variety to the RTs they are providing as new; so many seem like rehashes of existing ones.

IMPORTANT: If they released an upgrade and did not include new RTs I would def take a pass! At this point I only upgrade to get the new RTs.

2

#2

#2

#2

Even if it took 2 - 3 years to finish all the bug fixes and upgrades to existing issues-- so no new features except the usual Realtracks. PGmusic could be developing a 2nd version of BIAB based on new code and AI during that time, even if it meant sub-contracting another company to do it.

I think you have got to look at a way bigger picture to future proof it. Think a lot bigger than these 2 options.
PG need to initiate BIG things rather than waiting years down the track to play catch up, VST3 that's old now, DAW's have RealTimeSignatures, DAW's have more that 255 bars, Toontrack has RealTimeSignatures. Get out of the Time Warp, initiate something BIG NOW.
THINK BIG !

#1 & #2 also just clean-up 2024 as it stands and plan something alongside what we have to get a complete functioning BiaB for 2025

Matt, I agree. I also agree that the impetus behind this poll is important but there are some topics too broad to be effectively dealt with via a flurry of individual forum posts; forum posts that will likely become lost and forgotten in just a few short months if not sooner.

Therefore, why not lead an effort with other seasoned “grey beards” and music experts to write an intelligent 4-page white paper?

The purpose of the paper would be to document the strengths and weaknesses of BiaB and suggested goals from a user’s perspective. If even 6 pages is required, so what? The point would be to capture (and hopefully inform) users and PG staff how the program should evolve and why. Such a paper would have much more permanence and staying power compared to a forum thread.

I wouldn’t let the lack of a website to contain the document prevent its creation. There are several solutions to the “dissemination problem” including simple email.

The title of the paper could be something like “An Analysis Of Music Creation Software And BiaB’s Role: 2024 and Beyond”, or similar.

Some possible sections could be
1. Purpose of the Paper
2. BiaB’s Strengths
3. BiaB’s Weaknesses
4. The Needs of the Professional Musician
5. The Needs of the Amateur/Hobbyist Musician
6. The Needs of Gen Z and Gen Alpha
7. The Role of the DAW
8. Trends in Computer Programming Languages, Hardware Platforms and the Internet
9. The Present and Future Competitive Pressures Posed by the Marketplace
10. The Coming AI Sunami
11. Suggested Goals for BiaB 2025
12. Suggested Goals for BiaB 2030
13. Summary/Conclusion

EDIT: Of course everything above would be based on publically available information.

--Steve

#2 (BIAB) - fix known bugs and common sense workflow improvements such as vertical full length cursor in track view, All Tracks Are Equal and few others come to mind. I am not going to mention obvious VST3 as it was said to be done before the end of the year.

--> Full focus on the Plugin as that's likely be the future.

Why vote when pg does not care what you’re asking for?

> when pg does not care what you’re asking for?

Not true.

#2

But it can sometimes feel true.

When that 255 bar limit has has requests for it to be increased dating back around 15 years and when 5/4 time has to be coerced with two BIAB bars for every bar of the song, and requests for broader support of less common measures also date back around 15 years. And when you post lots of stuff showing how to coerce BIAB into less common time signatures, it certainly can feel like PGM don't care.

> when 5/4 time has to be coerced with two BIAB bars for every bar of the song

There’s a single function to set 5/4 for a number of bars. For example, to set it for the whole song, main menu - edit time signature and press whole song. And for shorter ranges select the range you want. That takes about 10 seconds to set your whole song to 5/4. And this will play with any style, any RealTracks and tempo etc.

> And when you post lots of stuff showing how to coerce BIAB into less common time signatures, it certainly can feel like PGM don't care.

Well that’s why I’m posting this information, so people are aware of what BiaB can do. It is trivial to setup a song in 5/4, 7/4, 6/8, 9/8, 12/8 and play them in any style.

These don't fit real time signatures in a DAW. I had to make up UserTracks with real time signatures but change the tempo so they fit the DAW.
This is why it's not sustainable how it works now. Bite the bullet, don't let it drag out any longer, it's too painful to watch.
Users ask for real time signatures, more bars, 48khz 24bit for years n years but it's always a fight against it: 64 bit no way make do with JBridge, the BBPlugin making do with BBW4, can't work on that because we are doing Mac, dragging it out.
"The Writing Is On The Wall" and there is still resistance.

> I had to make up UserTracks with real time signatures

UserTracks are for use in BiaB. There’s no need to set a timesig like 12/8 in a DAW, you should set to 4/4 in the DAW for your UserTracks and you will be fine.

If you want to fit tracks to existing real time signatures, this is why Toontracks give you a choice of real time signatures.
You may have backed yourself in a corner with no way out in Biab like other aspects of it, but you have a golden opportunity to get it all sorted out in the Plugin when you get away from old BBW4.

In Reaper I can generate up userstracks for any existing real time signatures, any number of bars, I can generate up RealDrums in Reaper for any number of bars. I'm sure Logic with AI instruments and chord track can do the same, in an iPad also.

> but you have a golden opportunity to get it all sorted out

There are already a number of things still planned for time signatures in Band-in-a-Box. We currently don’t support every time signature, we just the n/4 time signatures (3/4, 4/4, 5/4 etc.) and the compound time signatures (6/8,9/8,12/8). But we don’t support odd time sigs like 7/8, 11/8, or 13/16. Support for that is on the roadmap, as well as improving the display so when you set it to 6/8, everything says 6/8 and the bar lines are every 2 beats,

Hi Peter,

Thanks for the reminder about setting up these time signatures. I remember playing with these quite a while ago and I never returned them. It's time for me to get adventurous in 5/4 or 7/4 now that there are so many Realtracks to choose from! When it comes to songwriting, BIAB has already opened a million doors for me that I didn't know about. I cannot praise your software strongly enough nor enthusiastically enough. For me, you and your team really have taken the IMPOSSIBLE and turned it into I'M POSSIBLE.

--Noel

If I can generate up tracks in the same sig as the DAW is currently in so they will fit to the existing tracks, then that will work.

Will 5/4 eventually be correctly displayed in a single 5/4 measure, or will it remain presented in two separate measures of alternating 3/4 and 2/4 as it is now?

(My sight reading is excellent, however, I really struggle to count in 5/4 while reading this 2-measure format)

Proper 5/4 formatting would be one of the #2 improvements I would hope could be delivered.

Of course, but that doesn't stop the maximum length for a 5/4 song now being only 127 '5/4' bars.

Same for me!

I agree with some saying that many of the old limitations would imply a complete rewrite. But I also would add that... perhaps it's about time to address the limitations mentioned.

#2 for me

Jeff

Is it a Mission Impossible ? maybe forget getting blood out of a stone, maybe that's why I say concentrate on the Plugin, get rid of the old BBW4 with all these limitations that have been brought over and start anew.
Mission_Impossible.mid
The DAW will handle an impossible mission but it's out in Biab.
I remember Mission Impossible from when I was a kid, they always accomplished the mission !
Can PG do this with the Plugin ? or is it another dead horse flogging that will drag out ad infinitum ?

#2

I've been asking that for years:

https://www.pgmusic.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=273165#Post273165

#3

Sorry, useless I know, but I am feeling snarky today.

I think you’re good. My reply trying to change the rules was a bit snarky and I try very hard to suppress that urge here most of the time.

I would choose 2. I find new real tracks very desirable. Simple database search features for existing content is still weak although much better this year. I see less need for prepackaged styles. Give me more real tracks and the tools to find them!

#2.

but then im conflicted..lol.
i see such huge potential for fab new bb tracks view to slay anything ive used or seen in music apps...and also useing such meaning i dont have to flit tween different music apps constantly etc etc.
i came across something i would really love this week ie...to save me time auditioning lots of styles and drums..i just would like to tap out a rhythm and then bb shows me a list of styles and session muso content that might fit.

i spend lots of time you see auditioning loads of styles and content in my crazy search for uber fab styles and sounds that i call gold nuggets....

as i said conflicted..

happiness..

om 🇨🇦 🇬🇧

Querying with more than one variable can make interpretation of the results uncertain. I think I understand how Rob wants to help, yet I am unsure whether the more votes for option #2 are for more RealTracks, or for fixes instead of new features. That’s why I suggested keeping the number of new RealTracks the same. I’m sure they have a process, budget, and timetable for this labor-intensive work, and speeding it up may not be an option.

So, what I would hope to learn from the poll is very simple. Do people here prefer emphasis for next year on

1) adding 50 new features
Or
2) making 10 to 20 fixes

[I vote #2, big time]

Yes that is the point right there. Maybe i muddied the water by using RTs as part of the example. I was sort of leaning on the idea of more Rts and style that features, offering something for PGM to put out there as bait for sales. Just slowing down the idea of features was met with some level of resistance last time. But focusing on fixes and bugs while offering more content would be a double-edged sword. Giving PGM sellable content and also making users happy with bug repair.

I think that a marketing headline that stated: "heaps of improved features" would really get the attention of plenty of existing customers to upgrade, especially if those features are currently seen by them as show stoppers.

#2

I think we are honing in on this. Thanks, Rob.

By the way, when I first suggested a year of No New Features, I never said no new content. I always assumed the pace of producing new RealTracks was separate from programming code.

We who are here have no way of knowing what the total user base wants. The users who comment on this forum are likely to be a small subset of all users. However, we occasionally read comments that someone already has all the RealTracks and styles they need. How would they vote?

This is an excellent point!

All of that is very true, however those who post are the only ones who get heard! Repair of long standing bugs and completion of existing features will benefit even the most distant user.

Here is what I see as viable. AI is here to stay! It will only get stronger. The things we are seeing in the EZ products and the stuff that’s coming out now with logic is the tip of the iceberg. Maybe some of it isn’t as far along as the progress of our RTs and RDs but as development goes on that type of technology or outpace it. BiaB is a marvel of coding. And surely will hold up against new challenges but it’s workflow needs serious improvement.

#3 No new features, no realtracks. Just fix and improve what's already there. Get rid of all nested pop up windows and menus, make the "filter" actually filter and sort. Clean up the categories and organise the tracks properly. Clean the whole thing up and make it more intuitive. That's just a few from the top of my head. I don't care it still looks like something from 1995 as long as it isn't such a mess to use.

Most users think that it's true, apparently.

Why adding features with a haft [*****] function? fix / improve the function most users requested first before adding new one.

#2 for me. Also really looking forward to VST3.

Actually I can add that I'd really like to see more MIDI styles and tracks/supertracks given that I have tons of excellent plugins and also often transfer what I do in BIAB to notation software at some point, which is greatly simplified by having good quality MIDI data as the starting point.

Quote:
"Why adding features with a haft [*****] function? fix / improve the function most users requested first before adding new one."
Quote:
"#2 for me. Also really looking forward to VST3."

I am patiently waiting for the VST3 support and hoping it will be done right way, with users able to Send and Receive MIDI data from one track to another through simple means with workflow in mind, not buried deeply in menus. If VST3 will not have these basic tools, that would be a "half [****] function" as Vincente noted.

P.S. I can also argue that VST3 needs a full implementation with all the bells and whistles (including graphic environment) it has to offer, but hoping for a bare minimum of MIDI Send<>Receive from track to track.

This board itself speaks to PG Music’s dedication to its customers. How often nowadays does one find a civil well moderated board? For most companies you have little choice for an opportunity to express opinions other than product support, Facebook groups or Reddit. I think PG Music’s tolerance of the way some (but not all negativity) is expressed speaks volumes.

Bud

#2

I will not be satisfied until all of Musocity's Ideas have been implemented and everything works as it should or removed from the Program.

Keith

2

I would prefer fewer, not more, new "features."

Rob, with the qualifications we have discussed, it does appear the people voting here strongly prefer an emphasis on fixes over new features.

#2

#2 for me as well

Based on a re-consideration of this poll question and the many things I learned while collaborating on the white paper, I change my vote to #2.

https://www.pgmusic.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=811732#Post811732

Can I have both?

The White Paper project is public. One reason for doing it that way is that several of us began, several years ago and behind the scenes, to identify the items that should be prioritized for fixes. PG Music has our suggestions. Along with that, I raised the idea of 'no new features' for one year, while these fixes are worked on. (New RealTracks and styles would continue as usual). That suggestion was not well received. Perhaps now the winds are changing.

That would be nice of course, but I think No. The premise of those who request choice #2 is that the continued introduction of new features each year, on top of a framework with identified deficiencies, only makes things worse. That's my opinion, but I believe it is shared by some others, many of whom have programming or systems analysis backgrounds as I do, and who have tested and used the program for decades as I have.

I say these things with all possible love and appreciation for the program, and hope for its continued success.

"Perhaps now the winds are changing"

I think that's because we got most of the big items, such as:
More tracks, Partial (near instant) regenerations, MTP Library, Track view and whole bunch of others.
Now, time is ripe to refine & consolidate those features, focusing on eliminating bugs, redundancy and tuning things for optimal standardized workflow.

P.S. I don't care what language BIAB is written in and dirt cheap storage makes footprint (size) also irrelevant. Main thing now is user experience. A bug (+workaround) free & intuitive workflow.

I'm #2 as well. But every year I try to integrate a new feature into my workflow and every year I mostly fail. So in truth, probably just 1/2 of #2: new RealStyles. Those are the gift that keep on giving.

But PG isn't going to be able to do just #2, much less just 1/2 of #2. With technology evolving in the music creation world as rapidly as it is, they are going to have to evolve with it. Hopefully NOT by bolting on an AI module, though that seems most likely.

Haven't read the whole thread, so sorry if this is redundant.

Number 2, definitely.
I'd be happy with ZERO new features and few, if any, new RTs, if the bugs were to be fixed and UI significantly improved.

Number 2

This is a perfect explanation on what I would also like to see happen.

Bump city!!!!!!

Number 2 all the way. I don't need any new styles as I have over 10,000 of them now. Fix the bugs that have been reported over the years, update this outdated UI interface to modern standards, VST3 ability, and PLEASE fix that darn "Do nothing when I click the OK button" that showed up recently.

#2 as well!!

BiaB already has tons of features I never use, so new features aren't a big draw for me.

I'd still buy it if the next release only offered additional RTs.

That said, a GUI cleanup would be nice. I went to change the drum track on a song the other day, and it was painful.

Of course, "fixing" things would mean breaking things for people who are used to doing something another way. Good luck balancing that out.

A fair point. I like the way PG Music handled this last time, keeping the ‘old’ GUI as an option. It’s still there, by icon or Ctrl+T. I would hope a major change could be handled that way again.

Agreed, there are a few challenges. I only ever use the new interface, but there are many others who still use the old one.

Having a choice means that workflow improvements can be delivered for those who wish to use them. Of course, improvements go far beyond the user interface. They include resolving a number of shortcomings that the program already suffers from. (Notice that I didn't say "bugs" )

David,
you are a man of reason, but I disagree with this:
"Of course, "fixing" things would mean breaking things for people who are used to doing something another way. Good luck balancing that out."

In my view, it's the art of software development - balancing things out. I feel that BIAB (not the Plugin) reached it's pinnacle of "features", and time is (red hot) ripe to make all these features work organically with each other and bug free - make the best of it. Will some oppose? Sure! The main question that should be asked is, if the goal is making software better for most users?

P.S. Maybe there is a long term solution for those with conservative views & who have no interest in further development of the program... Make new RT's backward compatible.

Thinking like a businessman, the goal is, how to keep generating income to keep the company alive.

Of course, servicing your customers is the most important part of that. And part of servicing your customers is making sure your product is working well (in the software world, bug free).

But sooner or later, a product becomes mature and the market more or less saturated. There isn't much to do to keep the old customers injecting money into your company to keep you, and all the help, employed. What do you do?

One way is more features. BiaB is good at this, it's gone from a simple, 3 instrument auto-accompaiment app with no intros, endings, shots, holds, and only 24 styles. Now we have thousands of styles, shots, holds, real tracks, notation, micro-chords, endings, melodist, soloist, and every year new styles/realtracks.

Me, in the BiaB end of my biz, it's new style e-disks and fake e-disks. In my performing musical duo biz, new songs to keep our fans from getting bored with us.

Some companies go the subscription route, which I am not fond of for most products. For example; if you want “Office 365” why do you need to pay monthly for a piece of software? Paying monthly for what? Are there enough monthly innovations to justify the cost? I know MS needs the money, but why this way?

Thankfully, PG Music doesn't do this. Instead, it tries to offer us new features and styles/tracks that are attractive enough to make us want that new upgrade. And IMO they have done a very good job at that. Plus, wisely, they give us a wish list so that they know what we want. Of course, to keep the app back compatible, which I love, not everything we wish for is possible. That's OK with me. Other things are not practical, or in some cases, not just a good idea for the majority of us.

But remember, the only reason for a business to be in business is to make money. And to get back to your initial question, making the software better for most users is definitely a way for the business to make more money.

Insights and incites by Notes ♫

Notes, was that a one or a two?

"But remember, the only reason for a business to be in business is to make money."
Well, only partially true. Sure, it has to be profitable, but you have to love, or at least like what you do. And it seems to me, PGM done a great job of finding and recruiting very talented & diverse musicians and offering subscription free catalog at a very reasonable price. You gotta have a heart in it

However, there are approximately 50 items in total which includes known issues and gaps in workflow that preventing BIAB to be all it can be. Software development doesn't necessarily mean adding complexity. I would be absolutely happy if a full yearly release is just focused on known issues and bridging workflow gaps + new Tracks.

I think there's still some new code to write.
The style metaphor in place seems too cumbersome.

instead of 5000 styles perhaps PG Music could experiment with a new approach to style.
A continuum based on a particular style, not 100 different minor permutations of said style.
Most of which never get used.

For example,
Start with a style - lets say Rock Ballad.
Create tracks in BIAB with 3 or 4 musicians (Drums, Bass, Keys, Guitars) in a basic rock style.
Let user adjust a parameters for each musician to get some groove they are after.
Some of us currently do this in a very manual way in BIAB
Example- Select bass player 1, regen, listen. Throw away, Select bass player 2, regen Listen
Lather rinse repeat until Eureka! , or your will to live subsides and you live with what you have.
Or you do midi.



AAPL does some of this in session musician.
Its perhaps but a taste of the future.
Its not well developed but there are parts of it that are compelling. The drummer for example.
If only they had more Jazz/Latin Drummers.

PG has a head start on this.

Anyway,

I like it!

I'm so often reminded here of Colin Chapman's (Lotus cars) line: "Simplify, then add lightness".
A nicely pragmatic interpretation of Occam's razor.

Not so easy with a software product like BiaB, of course, which is quite complex by its very nature.

Quote "Some of us currently do this in a very manual way in BIAB"

I believe BIAB 2024 solved a few major workflow items with non modal MTP Library, Track View and Partial regeneration. I've done a video of showing my current way of handling a few things in BIAB:
https://www.pgmusic.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=821055&#Post821055

Getting back to original thread topic... This ^ was a game changer for me, and I do want a few missing bits, like whole length vertical cursor, but mainly I would like existing tools to be refined and known issues solved instead of adding new features.

And again, I think doing that would be a welcome feature.

Yes, this, exactly.

I would like to edit rhythms and the feel on individual tracks. I think this would add a layer of complexity that most users would not appreciate.

Since I can export the tracks and put them in a DAW easily, this is not very important to me.

That's me, I love making music. If I didn't need the money, I'd do it for free.

So I figured out how to make a business of what I love to do. But the reason I made it a business is to make money. And when I make a decision of what song to learn, what style to write, and quite a few other things, the will it be profitable factor comes in.

That makes me lucky. There are people who don't love what they do to earn a living.

Peter Gannon has done the very same thing. And IMO, does it quite well. I've enjoyed BiaB since it was a pre-Windows DOS based app, and still love it.