PG Music Home Forums PG Music Wishlists Band-in-a-Box Wishlist DAW Features In BiaB - Yes/No Why/Why Not

Background:

RustySpoon# and I started veering off topic in the Specific suggestions - Toolbars, layout, menus, preferences and “other” thread started by Simon +++ here +++.
I suggested starting a new thread so the original thread can get back on topic. I also hope other users may want to contribute to a discussion about how much should the Band-in-a-Box graphic interface resemble a DAW.

One thought is Band-in-a-Box, or BiaB for short, is predominately a song structure and arrangement tool that creates backing tracks. There are numerous structure and arrangement commands that have no counterpart in the typical DAW. Navigate to Edit > Song Form and ask yourself, "Can a DAW do these things?" For example BiaB has a chord sheet with bars that can handle multiple choruses, repeats/codas/1st & 2nd endings.

RealTracks, MIDI SuperTracks, UserTracks, the Melodists, the Soloists are track content creation tools unique to Band-in-a-Box. BiaB can even create midi from patterns. BiaB creates track content, DAWs can in some instances but it's not a strong point.

The really big thought though is this, there are four major steps to a song project, pre-production (planning and practicing), production (track content creation), post-production (editing and mixing) and mastering (distribution preparation). The way many users use BiaB is in pre-production and production. They then move the BiaB tracks to a DAW for post-production and mastering. Why not stay in BiaB? Because editing and mixing is more comfortable in a DAW than in BiaB. BiaB has unique editing and mixing features but they are grouped in different places within the program.

For that reason, I'd like to see the editing and mixing functions in BiaB look and work more like a DAW.

yes + to infinity for normal daw featuresn in bb.
as ive said many times since bb tracks view introduction...make bb tv creation central re songs and enable users to use it as much as can be done and minimising time lost flitting around to access other views.
eg i can currently do most of my work in rb track view.

also to go with bb tv i think as there are many different new bb gui opinions and needs out there a new feature needs to be implemented called BB TV CONFIGURATOR..the aim being to allow a user to configure the bb tv as they wish within reason.
sorta like in ones home where one can set up ones tv to show say ones fav tv channels they only use.

om

Keeping the tabs and all the functionality available on the current Audio Mixer and packaging the functionality in a new mixing console view makes sense and would make the mixer more user friendly to those that are accustomed to working with DAWs. If repackaging the Audio Mixer interface is taking the Audio Mixer too far, I'm fine with the existing mixer. Having said that though, my expectation is PG Music will implement the four suggestions I made in +++ this +++ post.

The Tracks View excites many users and has the potential to become the most DAW like window in Band-in-a-Box. The obstacle I see hindering the Tracks View is it displays a song linearly. Much thought will have to be given as to how the Tracks View can display a song that is not linear.

My answer is not meant to suggest it will work for anyone else.

I use BIAB as a composition and arranging tool, so I'm always tinkering. I don't even need to get to your step 2, 3, or 4 - production or post production, and I rarely even do these steps to make a composer demo I share with other musicians. [ But if I did, I would do it in my DAW.]

I would like to be comfortable staying in BIAB as long as possible as I hone ideas. The features I want are to facilitate and improve this. For example, I would love to have support for a Mackie Control Surface so I could automate the mixer faders. This is very much a DAW function, but BIAB has had support for the old Frontier Design Tranzport for decades, so they did understand at one time what I'm talking about.

I don't mean to derail another thread, so let me know if it is of value for me to write more on the subject.

"Much thought will have to be given as to how the Tracks View can display a song that is not linear."
Jim I think I know what you are trying to say... You mean things like repeated choruses, etc? If I am right, I don't use that technique myself, but why don't you open Track View with one of your projects and see what is happening. Most likely it just generates a copy of chorus? In any case, I believe it will give you visuals of what is happening.

Idea that had been voiced already is to have proper timeline with "in typing" chords. So in linear world, the most common sense approach (addressing non-linear) would be select section of time line and define it as Chorus, Verse or whatever. Color coded. Then, be able to re-order or/and repeat sections. I believe Cakewalk and likely others are using similar method.

Hi RustySpoon#,
Multiple choruses itself is likely is not that much of a limiting factor on the Track View. The Track View should automatically unfold a song project to linearly display song tracks and I think that is how tracks presently display.

I think it is more likely the current 255 bar restriction may be thought of as a hard barrier. But I ask you, if you have a 100 bar song and repeat ten of the bars 100 times how many bars is in the song? Point is a there is at least one "workaround" available to bypass the restriction. How should the Track View display repeats (all tracks loops) versus audio loops (single track loop)?

The Edit > Song Form sub menu is a great example of commands that do not necessarily align with a linear track display. Some DAWs have an optional arranger track to handle the song form dialog. In the DAW world each section can be labeled Intro, verse 1, chorus, outro whereas in BiaB the song form dialog automatically uses A, B, C etc. Either way could possibly be folded into the Track View. But I'm not sure how the Track View should handle first and second endings, codas, tags and so on.



Thanks to both JustAnOldMuso (JAOM), Matt Finley and RustySpoon# for joining the discussion. I hope more will find this interesting and contribute their thoughts.

"if you have a 100 bar song and repeat ten of the bars 100 times"
Sorry Jim, I don't have time making, or even listening to such songs.

"The Edit > Song Form sub menu is a great example of commands that do not necessarily align with a linear track display."
Well, what is happening in T.View when you use Song Form? Why would it not align? It's likely just reuses parts like loops? Something must be happening there

""workaround" available to bypass the restriction."
Get rid of restriction - problem solved. For example, by default it could have 350 bars and if a user would need more, it would have a toaster warning - that generation might take long time - but will not restrict adding more bars.

"Sorry Jim, I don't have time making, or even listening to such songs." I know. You've made some outstanding sounding song projects. But I thought "if you have a 100 bar song and repeat ten of the bars 100 times" provided an extreme example of what a user might try to do. I can see someone attempting to create such a song project to use during instrument practice.

"Well, what is happening in T.View when you use Song Form? Why would it not align? It's likely just reuses parts like loops? Something must be happening there" Agree but I just don't know. I haven't used Track View much so I've not checked out all its capabilities. That's one reason I hope that users that do use Track View on a regular basis are contributing to this conversation.

"Get rid of restriction - problem solved.". I'm all for that idea. But the focus in this thread is on the BiaB graphic interface and if, how, or should the interface resemble a typical DAW interface.

In a post few weeks back, Simon said that the limit when playing chorusses was 2000 bars: ++ here ++

I know not what BiaB does if one tries to unfold such a song. Presumably it must either refuse or it must fail in some form.

Yes. An interesting discussion followed about why the numbers are what they are. What did NOT get discussed there was that the introduction of the double-time timebase for some RealTracks cuts down on even the 255.

Make Biab into RealBand then get rid of RealBand ?

"Make Biab into RealBand then get rid of RealBand ?"

Band-in-a-Box may gain a more DAW like interface in some windows. I can see the audio mixer becoming a console view and the functionality of the Tracks View expanded. Because we're discussing graphic interface changes and not functionality changes I wouldn't expect to see much difference in the Piano Roll, Notation or Chord Sheet windows other than look pretty stuff.

Because RealBand has some functions that differ from Band-in-a-Box my expectation is RealBand will stick around. You may have noticed though that some effort has been made to make 2025 RealBand more pretty.

I agree with the concept in as much as users would have a choice to stay in BIAB longer if they wished, however, they would also have freedom to move to their DAW at any stage of the production.

So extended DAW functionality inside BIAB would be a very versatile feature, and never compromise a user's specific workflow.

Jim, the title to the OP "DAW Features In BiaB - Yes/No Why/Why Not" is not the question to me and perhaps others if you think about it from a user experience standpoint.
This post states this is really about UX, found in many creative software platforms. It is not just about DAWs. It is about user friendliness.
So, that answer is obviously Yes.

Having said that, and after reading through this thread I am confused on your dilemma of Linear Tracks vs Charts or Scores with repeats/jumps in them. (invented to save paper BTW)
PGM has already handle that in the Linear track view. They just unfold it all as you can see the bar chorus /repeats in parentheses.

Can they do a better job at it? Yes, IMHO it desires a dedicated "Arranger Track" to cleanly show the parts of the song form. Just as they need a dedicated editable Chord Track in the Track View.

Is there a wall at 255/128 in double time? Yes and no. Think of it as a spreadsheet (in software terms an array). They can play through that 255 cells many times and change the algorithm as they go. They have already solved that by unfolding in the track view.

Is 255 bars still a problem, yes when you consider their double time solution divides it in half to 128 bars, and the solution above only works with entire (their term Choruses), so long songs with different movements are not possible without splitting the song up into parts killing the workflow but I don't this we want to discuss that here.

"Because we're discussing graphic interface changes and not functionality changes I wouldn't expect to see much difference in the Piano Roll, Notation or Chord Sheet windows other than look pretty stuff."

This is a wrong perception. Main idea behind users pushing for UI redo is mainly workflow / customization addressing known issues on the way. You have to view this holistically. Not one or the other.

--------------------From an earlier question--------------

Jim,
see attached image. This is how T.View looks with multiple choruses. I was actually able to generate 32 bars X 40 Got one giant snake of 1280 bars in T.View. And you can(!) partial regenerate segments of any tracks in any one of these 40 repeats. So not really sure what was the question about T.View in non-linear structure. Works like a charm.

"DAW Features In BiaB - Yes/No Why/Why Not"

NO

I know that I am in the minority here but:
1-put the entire BiaB package into RB
2-put the entire BiaB package sans the DAW features into the VST

As for #1 do the GUI upgrades listed in RB, i.e not in BiaB. You will get more tracks, measures, and other DAW advantages that are already in RB. In other words rework RB and not BiaB.

As for #2 a complete BiaB VST could be available for both PC and MAC (maybe even Linux - don't know) simultaneously. Also those of us that already use DAWs other than RB would not have to pay for functions that we would never use in a DAW version of BiaB.

Mario.

actually that makes a lot of sense.
kudos. i ssume the bb plugin vst could also be used standalone like bb is currently whereby i can just drag genned bbtracks into a daw that supports d and d which ive done lots of.
eg bb to rb or bb to reaps.

om

Not just more pretty but it is easier to use when a lot of stuff is hidden. Also it is more powerful in the comping and generation is much improved.

Great discussion! I'm glad to see Gordon Scott, musocity, AudioTrack, jpettit, MarioD and Rob Helms have joined the discussion.

RustySpoon#, jpettit and MarioD have presented differing views about how deep an upgrade we are discussing. Summarizing the thoughts as I understand them, jpettit and Rob Helms are concentrating only on changes to the graphic interface, RustySpoon# believes underlying issues can/should be fixed while changing the graphic interface while MarioD and JustAnOldMuso supports ditching Band-in-a-Box all together while splitting the features between the Plug-In and RealBand. Wow! Can't get much more divergent than that. These divergent thoughts demonstrate why I thought it was a good idea to start a discussion thread. We won't know which thought is nearest to being correct until PG Music drops an update or in the next annual release. Perhaps the summertime Mac release will give us a hint.

Looking back at Andrew's directive in the +++ original thread +++ he was pretty specific about what he wanted, "This thread is for suggestions regarding the Toolbars, layout, menus, preferences and other. This is for specific suggestions only, not general comments."

Until we agree on what feedback Andrew is requesting the conversation will continue to diverge in different directions. To me Andrew's request is for graphic interface changes with minimal to no changes in operation. Also past changes indicate changes will be gradual (think non-modal to modal windows) and tempered (think Control+T to switch between the Minimal Screen Mode and Normal Screen Mode). What do you guys think?

Again I hope additional users will contribute to the conversation and that those that have contributed so far will continue to do so.

What I really can't understand - the pushback against "DAW features" in BIAB...
What exactly are people talking about? What NEW features that are being proposed are not part of BIAB already that few people are so afraid of? Please be very specific. No soap operas please.

The way I see it, 90% of what is asked by users is enhancing workflow - like moving away from labyrinth of pop up menus to non modal panels, consistency, finishing existing features to accepted standards - and flexibility of UI. Where is the evil DAW hiding?

"To me Andrew's request is for graphic interface changes with minimal to no changes in operation."

Nope. That is definitely how I don't see it. Why would you want transfer broken or half baked feature to new tool (panel)? It's poor planning at best, as you would have to go in at change that at a later time. Why would you want to do double work? That is the biggest issue with BIAB - addressing issues only partially. That's how we got here in the first place. For example, if a big push was made in 2016, when Minimalistic view was in works, addressing much (!) wider scope of UI/Workflow issues, we would likely not have these conversations.

RustySpoon#,
You interpret change in look and functionality in this, " "This thread is for suggestions regarding the Toolbars, layout, menus, preferences and other. This is for specific suggestions only, not general comments." ?

You and I disagree on that point. But that's fine as that is what discussion is all about.

Now, if you were to ask me if I prefer your view, then I could answer yes I do. There are numerous functions I don't like how they work or believe they are not complete.

But I just don't see a request for "feature or function changes" in Andrew's request. I'm sorry we disagree on that point.

Functionality is a very subjective term. If these threads were aimed at just "the looks" I doubt that so many people would have participated in conversation. And I did not find anything in Andrew's post that says suggest only visual changes. So if a faulty, unfinished, or poorly executed function is hypothetically in line to be transplanted, it has to be brought to attention.

I've been here all along, but mostly watching.

There are people here with much more experience than me at using BiaB. In many respects I only scratch the surface of it. Better that I watch and comment occasionally if something worries me.

I worry about complexity by way of "keep the old stuff as an option". Old stuff + new stuff + option make for complexity, makes for bugs.
Better if PGM can to make a simplified interface that people will enthusiastically grasp ... "Yes, this is good!"

I worry a bit about the occasional "it'll only be a few lines of code", because I know the feeling when someone says that but the reality is that the "small" change means a very substantial rewrite due to some nasty inherrent limitation. I always try my darndest to avoid those, but I only succeeded 99% of the time.

Sometimes asking for something apparently challenging is actually surprisingly easy to do.

In my many years doing requirements capture I spent a huge percentage of the time trying to find out what the client actually wants, rather than what they think we can deliver, without them knowing what are our constraints and our opportunites.

Misha my friend in all do respect why reinvent the wheel? RB is a DAW without some of the the limitations of BiaB so instead of turning BiaB into a DAW why not add BiaB to a DAW, i.e. RB?

Yes those enhancing workflows are great suggestions. IMHO the "evil DAW" is hiding in the tracks view. I know PGM is trying to please everyone but adding that track view had invited many suggestions on how to improve it, thus leaning BiaB into a DAW. IMHO keep BiaB as the perfect backing track generator and let DAWs do the DAW stuff. YMMV

I suppose it could be used as a stand-a-lone program also but why? One could Drag n Drop from the VSTi into a DAW as you can do now with the VSTi.

Also if BiaB sans the DAW stuff were merged with RB one wouldn't need the VSTi with RB, or am I missing something?

Mario.

good points...i was just thinking im sure someone somewhere
will want standalone...eg a new user who just wants to try out some song ideas and doesnt want the learning cycle of rb or another daw.

respect.

om

Mario,
Ok now I see your point, but here is the deal. If I am correct, you are using about 20% RTs - rest MIDI. I am mirror opposite. To me, Track view combined with partial regeneration is a blessing / an indispensable tool working with Real Tracks. Most people (not all) use BIAB specifically for realistic sounding tracks.

I didn't ask for T.View. It arrived as a wonderful surprise. As of now its simply incomplete. Why castrate
something that is not interfering with anything else? It just needs to be completed in the spirit of accepted standards, especially if 90% functions are already present, but not hooked up the right way.

Misha, I now see your point. If you eliminate the RT charts from the equation my actual use of RTs is around 1%.

Unfortunately just about every new feature in BiaB is incomplete is one way or another, i.e. utility tracks, track views, the VSTi, etc.

I see and respect your views but I still think putting the entire BiaB into RB, modernizing and improving RB's GUI and putting the entire BiaB sans DAW features like the t-view into the VSTi are better moves. Just my opinion.

Have a great day my friend.

Good points om that I didn't think about. Yes having the VSTi as a stand-a-lone like it is now is a good idea.

Perhaps this will change some views:

Thanx so much Misha. I have to admit that I was wrong and that the track view is valuable. I didn't realize about the audio to MIDI function.

PGM's convoluted menu system messed me up. I viewed your video again, I did see it the first time, and got the track actions part of it so I went to the CTRL F7 menu, as I did previously. It also has a track action and erase function but it erases the entire track. I thought that it was just another PGM almost ready for prime time add on to BiaB. I had to view your video a couple of times to see that you were clicking on the track name to get to the correct erase function. Why are their two erase functions that have two different end results?

Also again the track names changes just like in drag and drop. Again why can't they keep the track names constant? I have included pictures.

I will change my stand and have the track view included to my BiaB RB merger and BiaB VSTi merger suggestions.

Not to hijack the OP question, but Charts for RTs have been available in the plugin for 5 years.
For example, using the charts to drive Drums or Keyboard VSTi's is a common approach especial if you want note by note editing in the DAW.
Back to the OP.

And we're back from "BiaB PlugIn Does Charts". Just picking jpettit.

I thought Gordon Scott made a pretty interesting thought when he said "I worry about complexity by way of "keep the old stuff as an option". Old stuff + new stuff + option make for complexity, makes for bugs.
Better if PGM can to make a simplified interface that people will enthusiastically grasp ... "Yes, this is good!".

I think a " simplified interface that people will enthusiastically grasp" is what everyone wants and hopes for. The devil is in the details and how PG Music approaches that goal.

Most DAWs have multiple windows with each focused on a main task. Normally the DAW windows are linked together so what a user does reflects in every window. Do you think Band-in-a-Box currently has windows linked together? If so, how can the link be strengthened?

Mario, Jeff.
It's funny, but today somebody in Cakewalk forum asked a BIAB related question. RT>MIDI.

The standing problem is that while you can extract chart, it doesn't take further regeneration once RT is deleted. I've requested this feature before, but I don't believe most people understood what I was talking about.

To be able to work with RT underlaying MIDI by itself. So it not only responds to further chord changes, but does partial regens as well. That is quite a big chunk of MIDI content that can be used quite differently. Since the MIDI counterpart functions are already in the code and currently work in tandem with many RTs, we really (really!) need to ask PGM to have a way to toggle between the two the easy way. That is in my view falls under enhancing workflow of existing feature. Making process less complicated

Once you are done with your partial regenerations, just drag MIDI track to DAW directly from header.

This is what you can do now (Cakewalk adds extra tracks, I am not sure if it's specific to Cake) :

1 No problem just trying to help but maybe that is not what you want. Remember my opening statement to your OP was you are asking the wrong question. I do appreciate your keeping the Specific UI/UX pinned questions cleaner.
2) Don't we all really think this?
3) The point of my workflow conversations over the last 18 months.

1) Yes, is a MIDI Transcription of the current RT The plugin is simpler in that it mirrors the RT on each generation.
2) Isn't that is what Playable RTs do. (BTW they do not exist in the plugin YET)
3) True in all cases.
4) Split by note or split by channel? Yes, most DAWs can do that if wanted.

Generally we do, but I also think sometimes it's a good idea to state it explicitly - to inform a focus.

Funny how the Band In a Box to RB subject comes up every now and again. Just a few years ago it was Band in a box to power tracks and that’s how RB became. RB while it has its issues is not that far from being complete. There are some cleanup, some powerful additions like non-destructive editing, few upgrades to the automation, an update the editing tools with like a split tool maybe a smart tool.

I have no interest in RB. Because it's not even remotely close to any DAW that is currently in development. Cheap or free. Years apart. I get it, it's free, some people got used to it, have existing projects, don't need anything else out of DAW... How many people joined in the last 5 or even 10 years made it their "DAW of choice"? Just check RB threads. Exclude people who registered pre 2015 and those who spoke negatively about this software and didn't find resolution.
-------------

What I am still confused about, the topic "DAW Features In BiaB..." what exactly we are talking about? To have civilized discussion please give specific DAW features, functions of which are not present in BIAB that are being offered, and what exactly you don't like about these newly proposed features. Details.

< To be able to work with RT underlaying MIDI by itself. So it not only responds to further chord changes, but does partial regens as well. That is quite a big chunk of MIDI content that can be used quite differently. Since the MIDI counterpart functions are already in the code and currently work in tandem with many RTs, we really (really!) need to ask PGM to have a way to toggle between the two the easy way. That is in my view falls under enhancing workflow of existing feature. Making process less complicated >

<< I have no interest in RB. >>

Perhaps this will change your view: Easy to see and toggle between the RealTrack and its underlying midi RealChart in RealBand. In RealBand, it's user selectable to include RealCharts or not to include. The RealChart is labeled to match the associated RealTrack. If the track or a selected region is regenerated, the underlying midi is updated also. The RealChart midi track can be used independently from the associated RealTrack.

No erasing RealTracks or copy/moving RT midi data. It's laid out in DAW form in RealBand. PG Music provided a way to toggle between RealTracks and Midi RealCharts years ago with RealBand.

Charlie... talking about RB in BIAB topic. I am not interested in this underdeveloped sub-daw only because it has sprinkles of features that are for some unknown reason are present, but not available to users in BIAB. Nothing will change my opinion about RB. I've tried it at least a dozen times. In my view, this is a legacy software that is being kept alive only in the spirit of good will for those who are still using it. I have not seen any enthusiasts on this forum embracing it in the past 5 years.

It seems that PGM is considering partial redo of BIAB. UI/Workflow/Menus My only hope that they will address known issues and broken workflow items such as these MIDI charts for example when/if they do this. There is absolutely no reason to artificially suppress existing features.

Let's be clear. I didn't bring up RealBand. Someone else did and you responded to it. I mentioned it because it does exactly what you "really, really" need, exactly in the view you want to see. Thought it may help you. You also mentioned and posted a video about Cakewalk. Why are we talking about Cakewalk in a BIAB topic? Because the thread topic DAW features in BIAB seem to infer that DAWs will be mentioned and discussed, including RealBand.

It's a choice to have no interest in RealBand when it's available to you and has the sprinkles of features today and in the past that PG Music has provided for people that prefer DAW view and features.

I'm aware of several options in BIAB to obtain similar results to RealBand but they don't include Tracks View because it's not fully developed for such tasks yet. Nothing is broken, it's just not your workflow.

"Nothing is broken, it's just not your workflow."

THAT ^ is the philosophy that kept BIAB from where it needs to be for many years. Workflow has to be universally accepted, adhering to existing accepted software standards as much as possible, not analogue hardware world.

Historically you were pushing back against many workflow improvements that were offered in wishlist section, silencing new voices of reason. But what really striking is that you don't really use the features you so desperately trying to steer away people from. If obscure workflow and endless workarounds to achieve something trivial bring certain satisfaction to you - that's you. There is no need trying to stop much needed progress.
------
What really should happen is strong backward compatibility of content. That way, those who like modal windows, endless pop ups, artificial limitations, ten step workaround that should take two, can happily use whatever version they prefer, yet get a discounted content upgrade. Core program update was only $50 recently. I want to see BIAB live on, not fade away.

This what steams my clams around here. Dare to have a different opinion and you are slammed for it. Every stinking time! It is always the same old tired rhetoric. " You are holding development" Whose development!!! a small select group that wants to drive the bus. How do I know this, I spent a long time on that bus. The level of tolerance for different ideas here is shocking and sad. The level of selfishness in the name of selflessness is amazing. I hear I want I want I want all day long. Andrew kindly and honestly posted threads about each and every PGM software title, giving all who want to offer ideas an open forum and some of you use it for your agenda. thinking you know best about how the entire user base feels. I am sorry but that is sad, and exactly what is wrong with society in general.

Have at it! slam and push away this is exactly why i left the suggestion group. You can write volumes about how wrong i am, i just don't care anymore i will post my thoughts privately from now on.

Just as I was "slammed" numerous times... when more tracks, partial regeneration other features and workflow improvements were offered for the first time. With same "Nothing is broken, it's just not your workflow". But thankfully there were enough reasonable people to support these ideas.

Where have you been Rob to protect the views of those including mine who proposed these features that were met with fierce nonsense?

"Andrew kindly and honestly posted threads about each and every PGM software title, giving all who want to offer ideas an open forum..."

Trying to get a reasonable idea buried is not the same as to "offer idea". Two big differences.

jeesh...cant we all just have friendly collegial discussions ?

i agree rob there should be room for various opinions as pg user base is worlwide.
also i consider charlie the bb guru. imho a degree of respect should be accorded to people with many years also helping new
users on these forums innumerable times like charlie.

ive detailed my ideas on how wonderfull bb tracks view bbtv could be with certain daw features including direct to Andrew .
(a great representive of pg imho.)
but im also a realist haveing been on the developer side of the fence and the huge challenges involved in keeping various differing opinions and various user groups happy.

also lets remember every day songs are being done all over the world useing bb (and lol dare i say also rb....which ive used on 90 songs and so many demos ive lost count)....quirks and all.
the user showcase is an examp!e that even with various quirks
in pg apps tons of songs are done all the time.

frankly i have to say over the last few years ive become more upset with some threads on these forums and the tenet of such
and the directions they sometimes take.
lets remember numero uno per dr pg ie...HAVE FUN !!!!
this is wby i do songs. im a fun happy go lucky guy.


happiness to all.

om

You are correct RustySpoon#. Those are the questions that need to be discussed outside the threads Andrew posted soliciting suggestions. What DAW features do you WANT to see in Band-in-a-Box? What DAW features do you think NEED to be in Band-in-a-Box? There are multiple threads to list specific DAW features. This is a thread where you can advocate for those features, others can advocate against and discuss alternatives.

For example, in +++ THIS +++ I suggested 4 changes to the existing Audio Mixer. This prompted a discussion about the mixer. I'm suggesting discussing ideas in this thread with a goal of meeting Andrews direction.

Also, Simon said in +++ THIS +++ post, "UI, UX, and workflow are a big focus for us right now. We're going to work on both looks and interface functionality with a focus on workflow."

We can stretch to meet Simon's focus on workflow but, as we do we need to define what user workflow we're aiming at. There is singer songwriter, audio producer, educator, hardware DAW user, create backing tracks. I'm sure I've overlooked some so add to the what workflow are we talking about list.

Band-in-a-Box currently supports JAW scripts for the blind. JustAnOldMuso reminds us that the graphic interface needs to work for those that have vision issues.

I hope that addresses your questions.

"Band-in-a-Box currently supports JAW scripts for the blind. JustAnOldMuso reminds us that the graphic interface needs to work for those that have vision issues."
I am frightened to mention [RXXXXX] but I did see themes for color/colour blind.

Reality is, 95% of ideas offered specifically concerning "DAW like features" are related to enhancing existing features/functions in BIAB.

"define what user workflow we're aiming at."

My take:

Reducing obscure complexity both in number and wording of menus - better sorting. Consolidate related menu items.

Easy access to common functions and tools, completing under-developed features > getting rid of obsolete ideas. Example: modal/non modal Partial Regeneration

Moving tools to Panels

Navigation, zoom and consistency of project views which includes minor adjustment to transport.

Customization of UI - detachable tools, custom colors & buttons, second/third screens compatibility, etc.

Completing Track View. Proper start marker, tracks on demand (not displaying all), proper ARM, zooming / expanding individual tracks, bringing editing tools from AE. A cherry topper would be per-track volume automation. If done right, AE can be removed as there would not be need in it. Less (unneeded) complexity - better workflow.

And yes, I would like a toggle between RT and MIDI notation on demand, since feature is present, but masked for unknown reason.

Whatever, truly not interested in this debate anymore. “Where was I” think back over the last three years I have supported many of your ideas openly and behind the scenes. Sadly if I don’t agree you, you argue your point to the end. Sorry but I am just too tired of the constant barrage of battle with anyone who sees something different. I give up have it your way.

Rob,
you inserted yourself in the ongoing 6+ year conversation between me and Charlie. Look, we are almost married. And no, I don't remember you being active in several very important conversations that took place about 5 years ago.

Thankfully enough key updates were done starting with minimalistic UI to make BIAB tolerable for me in 2025.

Sure, as you said, "whatever". I wanted to have a discussion of how to better propose something. To have fuller picture., but I don't really need this headache as well. I will just propose what I believe will bring positive change on my own and if it comes together, great, if not, I will not cry.

I will excuse myself from this thread. Take care.

To get back to the discussion. Actually Musocity that's a good point since we're talking about graphic improvements.
A few years ago a few graphic themes were developed and released.
As with many things the themes have not been maintained and are now ineffective because they are out-of-date.
I don't remember if this was a user or PG Music incentive but it was nice while it lasted.

I believe jpettit did a +++ mock-up +++ of a context menu and the panels idea was shown in +++ Preferences +++ and +++ Main Interface +++ mockups by robertw.

Those posts can be a good place to begin a discussion about all the clutter presently in the top of screen menus. I'd like for everyone to look at each item and decide (1) should an item be global, (2) per song, (3) not a menu item (4) removed from preferences, (5) added to preferences or (6) deleted all together.

Here is a screen shot of the Help menu. There is a lot of stuff there and it's one of the smaller menu lists. What do you think?

For example, I selected the Write A Request File option and the second screen shot displayed. What does the binary file say? I have no idea. Why would I send something to support@pgmusic without knowing what it is? I'd vote for either deleting the command or hopefully PG Music can chime in and tell what it is for.

This brings up a good point. I am partially color blind and can't tell many colors. In some threads I have to highlight some areas as I can't read them. Thus any color theme in BiaB must have the option to adjust or change any color.

Misha, i want to apologize for going off on you. I do appreciate your efforts and admire your grasp of the program. I do support many of your ideas, and suggestions. I am just tired of the way many respond to others when they offer suggestions that are different from theirs. There should be open dialog, that is why Andrew offered this thread. It seems that we all get very passionate regarding these programs that we all love to use. Again I apologize for giving you a bad time. You did not deserve it and i want to apologize here in the public forum out of respect you and all who work hard to help here. Your friend Rob.

Amen ! Mario you are the first one I thought about when I saw that color blind theme in that other DAW I can't talk about.

When Rusty first came here I was happy and supported him as he had so many great ideas to bring about change, so I recommended him for the beta testing (along with Robb), though others tried to stop him but I fought for him.
If Rusty looks back through his PMs he will see how much I have helped him but there is a bit of RustyMemory of all the ways I have helped. Things went wrong when I was talking about old and new users and he took it the wrong way that I was putting down "elderly" but it was nothing of the sort as I'm probably older in age than most here.
Then because I posted about "that" DAW that was not liked and caused many issues when all I have been doing is showing how Biab can be improved with ideas I could script in "it", these have improved Biab and the BB Plugin no end and we might even get improvements in RealBand from it ? Look at Song Master Pro Cerio posted about It's a wonderful GUI that we can also learn from.
I just wish a bit of understanding can come as to what I do and where I'm coming from, while going through massive life n death challenges in my own life I still give freely to help all users. All that I have been through has spiritually awakened me and those that need help are sent to me, I don't go looking for it. However stupid it may sound I think I was sent here for a reason as no matter how much I fight and try and get away I'm drawn back here, so if it's a God thing so be it. When you leave this world, emotions, opinions are all left in the body on the ground

I have to agree, not only there are lots of broken / outdated features all over the program (many of them reported for years as anyone with some experience here knows very well), it's also that the lack of standard procedures and intuitive methods is a serious obstacle to the workflow of the average user. BIAB has thousands of features, but many of them are so hidden and / or convoluted that most users will never discover or use them.

A perfect example was given by Misha a few posts ago:

Being able to partially regenerate any track from the tracks view is a great feature, but how can anyone not familiar with the program discover that? There's no contextual menu on the track wiew showing that option, after selecting a section, right button does nothing, there seems to be no "regenerate" command on any of the main menus, no icon, nothing... The only way to regenerate seems to be memorizing one of the three different (but non customizable) shortcuts to access three different (but redundant) ways to do the same:

- F8: Multiriff
- Alt + F8: Floating Regenerate window
- CTRL + F8: Regenerate

Come on, that's terribly confusing and counterintuitive!

Discoverability (how easily the average user can find the features in the interface) is one of the most important aspects of GUI design, and plays an essential role on improving the user experience. In this example (as with many others), the feature is there, but the probablity for an average user to discover it is virtually 0. That's why so many people find the program so difficult to use. That's why so many people say they use BIAB as little as possible, before moving the program to their DAW. And that's why identifying and reporting these anomalies is so useful.

It also shows something that's far too easily overlooked ... lots of our interpersonal communication is visual ... with messages like these on fora, it's all too easy to think something was personal when it was never intended to be, or make something personal as a consequence, become heated when, in reality, we mostly agree with each other. That's especially true when people are passionate about things and it's clear that we are. In Misha's case I also presume that English is not his first language, adding another potential source of misunderstanding.

I sincerely hope Misha is still reading and comes back.

We're veering off into personality conflicts instead of concentrating on the topic of a discussion about Band-in-a-Box's graphic interface. I don't want ANYONE to feel threatened, dismissed, put down, personally attacked or called out. Please write your thoughts and responses in a manner that reflects the true you.

I've edited some of my posts above to highlight some areas I hope we can discuss.

It's a bit like parliament all that stuff goes on and things are worked out for the best.

This is I think the third time you are doing this in the past 2 months. Do you expect me to say "thank you" every time you mention your enormous generosity concerning me? Keep in mind that likely most of the time you spent on "me" went into creating couple of User tracks, and I posted them for people to use as they wish - praising your hard work. This was conveyed to you (that I will share these with everybody) before you started. It was common good that lasted while it lasted. About the other thing, you tied age to the problem and I've said it was not cool. Here is something worth considering: "A man who is always his own biggest fan will soon have no audience."

-----
Rob, I apologize too. This was explicitly related to a long dispute between Charlie, me and a couple of other members. As soon as I saw this: "Nothing is broken, it's just not your workflow." It triggered unpleasant memories.

Apologies accepted my friend. Sometimes I feel we all get a bit too attached and invested. This is something we all enjoy and love but it isn’t world peace! If we just take a breath it will be alright. Then we can go on wrangling PGM

"become heated when, in reality, we mostly agree with each other. "
True.

Back to topic.
Colors themes for colorblind / partially color blind +1. It still falls under UI. You can have many themes made, if UI is done right.
Poor eyesight - also I think is solvable with a "theme". Everything bigger / bolder text / more pronounced buttons. Maybe even different levels.
I don't know how JAWS scripts work, so I have no comment.

About other DAW "features". I guess my position is this. If they make it the right way, that will work in harmony with everything else. Seamlessly switching tasks, tools, etc. Does it really matter? If it will break things or make it more challenging of getting from point A > B than it's another story. Just give it a though.

Cerio said everything 10x better than I would. Main problem with BIAB is discovering features and unfinished items. That is why I've mentioned that graphics, UI design has to be weighted on holistically together with features it will represent.

Misha misunderstood the point. Nothing is broken. Neither the process or his workflow. That his only considered method of working with underlying RealTrack midi data was the Tracks View and the limiting factor for accessing the data, causing the necessity to erase the RealTrack. The process otherwise is just as he explains it. By modifying his workflow to expand beyond the Tracks View, all of the parameters he desires and listed can be accomplished using BIAB.

I demonstrated it in RealBand because the view, easy toggling, retaining the RealTrack for more regenerations and exporting to a DAW are all done in a familiar DAW environment and view. It can be done in BIAB rather than RB. Partial Regeneration (Ctrl-F8) is also available in the Chord Sheet, Notation and Piano Roll views and several different menus.

Working with two or more Windows open allows easy toggling between midi and RealTrack, editing from either Window and exporting the midi data without losing the RealTrack which can be used for as many additional regenerations, midi data editing or both. Every regeneration can result in edited midi data to be saved or exported to a Legacy, Utility Track, or external DAW track.

The singular workflow in the videos for accessing the underlying midi data results in having to erase the RealTrack, losing the opportunity for continuing partial or full regenerations and is avoidable.

Underlying midi data appears to be a new discovery for some. Factually, this underlying midi data dates back at least a decade. Underlying midi data can also be added to a RealTrack that doesn't currently have it. Underlying midi data can also be added to imported or live recorded audio tracks. This has been possible since at least 2014 in Windows versions of BIAB and my post wasn't to bury his idea but to expand the capabilities while avoiding losing the RealTrack. Also to introduce the fact that partial and full regeneration is possible from multiple screens. To inform that underlying midi can be visible, edited and exported without compromising the RealTrack.

Historically speaking, this is just the same thing again; Tell the Forum BIAB/RB can do something and the real pushback comes. I didn't speak out against Misha's suggestion but offered BIAB/RB alternatives that exist that were not acknowledged or mentioned. There isn't an indication in his videos or posts he was aware of alternatives. Only, without question for input, declared the process broken. Since that post, others have spoken up they were unaware also.

I previously recorded a short video demonstrating a view of the Tracks View window, Piano Roll window and RealBand in a single screen display. The screen shot expanded RealBand from the background but prior to the midi export to RealBand, Piano Roll and Tracks View could either be used for multiple Partial Regenerations, Full Generations, audio editing, midi editing, audio export, midi export, audio/midi export, playback from Piano Roll or Tracks View, and the two BIAB views had curser sync with the Tracks View used as Master.

Honestly, I was unaware I was in a 6+ year dispute and thought the RB DAW view, avoiding erasure of the RT, both midi and RT visible and toggleable might initiate a discussion and the above information could be shared with everyone. Guess it wasn't meant to be.

Rustymemory you still have no idea, when one day you leave this world you will instantly see what the story is.
"Cast not your pearls......."

I did not misunderstood anything. Nor I asked for a workaround of any kind.
I clearly stated that I want a feature that is artificially hidden in BIAB be available, as it stands process
Is broken. Or only partially working.

The 6 year dispute I am talking about rooted in discussions on more tracks, partial regeneration and a few others, where you fiercely fought to suppress views by stating things very similar to statement in question. The latest (hot) one about a year ago on simple right click Copy/Cut/Paste/Delete discussion. Which reminds me!!! I need to make this suggestion if its not there already

Nobody is perfect, but advocating for items that were done in a rush or something else, that do not conform to common sense expectations is just nohow. With these discussions I expect constructive thinking, offering suggestions on improvement of the software in question (which is not RB)

Charlie i think this also exposes many of the issues that float around here. We often misunderstand each others posts. We often get crossways with others because we don't understand their way of doing things. I know Misha comes from a very positive direction. He has specific things that would be better if the workflow was developed differently. One issue i have seen over the years is that many BiaB features are hidden or have not been explained in years. The program has changed since then. I have watched videos that are hardly even relevant anymore because tools have been upgraded and look very different. We need new how to videos that meet current methods. There are processes that have been around for years that are hidden under layers of upgraded code that only long-time users know where they exist. Much of this needs to be upgraded to be helpful. Not just video help but workflow enhancements. tool bars, right click menus. Panels combined and eliminated. that is why this new thread exist.

The thing is Charlie you are not wrong your just coming from a different angle. Misha is not wrong he is just from a different angle.

One thing we all need to remember is we can all offer ideas and suggestions till the moon shines no more, but until PGM decides what to add or upgrade it is just talk. That said we can't get all flustered if what we want does not happen.

My hope is that a new GUI and workflows will be so intuitive and straight forward that hardly no videos would be needed.

A big +1

I have been using Studio One Pro for a number of years now. I think I have had to look at the manual maybe 2 or 3 times.

just an idea.

lots of new gui concepts have been introduced so far eg tracks view.

i feel it might be usefull at this juncture if pg could analyze all the proposed gui enhancements...and....as they know the code base of bb that the rest of us dont...it might be usefull to show gui mock ups ?? which then could be commented on by us users.

we used to do mock ups often in industry and they served as a nice way to do things....my concern is we dont know the bb code base....

hope i make sense ??

om

PG never tend to do pre-beta, the beta is dumped a week before and it's basically just for bug testing, nothing gets changed until the next year release.
As I said unless there are actually have a new crossplatform code like the Plugin uses that allows for good quality GUI and quick feature implementation due to the code being specifically designed for audio applications, as there are many features asked for that need this. Look at the GUI pics Cerio posted.
Is it wrong to want something like that for "Band in a RealBand Box", is it just too much to ask for ??

Let me offer some clarity here since you both seem very far apart on this issue. Charlie yes there are many features that have been there that are working as intended. You mention the ability to record over the audio track and created more than one track, well that is not very easy to do. It is the reason they gave is utility tracks because it was difficult to understand and people wanted to stay in BiaB longer and not go to a DAW. So you are right it can be done, but it was not intuitive at all. then when utility tracks came in they were better but still had some obvious weaknesses, and needed further development. I conversation with Peter explained his long term view of all tracks equal but they were not yet. The tracks view became a reality due to conversation with Peter again to give as he said a more DAW like workflow. they are great, but again they could use some more development. Not a one time deal but an opportunity for the program to grow. Second example. You mentioned Song master, Cakewalk , and Reaper, but only RealBand was singled out as being suppressed. The first three are not requiring development time here but RealBand does. To me that is fine i like RealBand, but this thread was aimed at improving BiaB. Which some view RB as a hinderance to that. Not me i think RB helps BiaB since it is developed by a different person. it offers ideas back and forth.

Look the truth is that if BiaB was still like it was 6 years ago i bet many would have moved on to other cleaner and more modern programs to accomplish what they need. The Multipicker, Tracks view Utility tracks just to name a few are helping BiaB compete in todays market. Is there some truth to the fact that many features are there and complete that folks fuss about YES, but the Model T ford was complete and functional no one would like to drive it everyday to work now. Things have to keep up with progress to compete. PGM is asking what we would like to see, so let them discuss it and let PGm decide what the develop.

To avoid confusion, this is a response to now deleted Charlie's post.

What doesn't work for me is this:
Charlie says:
"You discover a process or feature, like you have in this thread, and suddenly it's broken, was poorly designed, rushed and released before it was fully developed and doesn't conform to some mysterious, universal industry standard."

I was aware of this for about 4 years. Unlike you, I actually voice my concerns when I see a problem such as the one in question at the time of release. PGM asked for feedback on enhancing workflow. This is one of the items I believe should be addressed.

The mysterious industry standards are such of Daws and Virtual studio instruments that were developed in the last quarter of a century. Universally accepted ways of doing certain things. Charlie, I know you don't use VSTs, but have you actually tried working with another DAW, other than RB - a more current one (last 5 years?). Reason for asking is how can you make certain assessments or build certain arguments if you are not following evolution of music making software?


Methods? There are no "methods" to specifically what I proposed. Zero! They are workarounds you offered. "Alternatives" as you said yourself above.

I singled out RB because it was NOT proposed to take certain element(s)from RB and move to BIAB. That would be perfectly fine. RB agenda is pushed to use RB instead of BIAB. Big difference there.


Why go this route? Argue for the sake of arguing? Its boring as hell. Please let it go. There is absolutely nothing wrong with my request.

yes the songmaster gui is rather nice.
as ive said many times new bbtview could slay...but imho its very important HOW its developed further.
my suggestions in the past ive sent to pg.
eg editing...and need for speciall chord...tempo...marker and lyrics editing tracks with the concept being like rb i can do most of my work in track view and so im not feature hunting.

my major concern at this time is simply put i think pg needs to inform us what concepts/features presented so far are just not doable for various tecnical reasons. then these can be ticked off and other concepts presented by users.
ie drill down into what is doable.

as to various daws on the market lets not forget they dont have
the complication technically of offering the track generation features of bb and rb.

so imho its not comparing apples to apples.?
i suspect if us users knew the pg code base then we would be very impressed as to what pg have achieved with bb and rb.
this stuff isnt trivial imho.


om

"as to various daws on the market lets not forget they dont have
the complication technically of offering the track generation features of bb and rb."

Lets not forget that they have their own complexities. They are addressing them. So as PGM, but at much, much slower pace. Hopefully this time around it will be different.

At least foundation blocks for next level workflow / UI will be laid out.

I pulled my comment because as Rob stated, I spoke of features too complex for most hobbyists using the program daily and I anticipated that my points would be dismissed and only result in more bashing of BIAB and RB. Responses are totally as expected. All's good.


Except for the nice dodge by RS to twist his response away from the screenshot I asked him to evaluate to reiterate his "it's broken" mantra. Too funny.