PG Music Home Forums PG Music Product Forums Band-in-a-Box for Windows 2025 So What To Expect?

I know I'd like more emphasis on midi and far more specific Melodists. Also, new instruments like strings or orchestral midis with some brain cells.

Seems like every year we see oodles of new Real Tracks but, to be honest, nothing to excite. Modern day music is in crisis and charts don't mean anything anymore.

Are we going to get something revolutionary this coming year? More of the sam isn't going to cut it this time. surely?

Is Peter thinking AI?

Mal

Every year previously, the company never divulged what would be in the new release, and I suspect that this year will be no different.
I hope Santa has some goodies that you like, but I guess we just have to wait and see.

"Modern day music is in crisis and charts don't mean anything anymore."

"Is Peter thinking AI?"

I hope BIAB doesn't chase the fool's gold. The fastest road to meaningless charts is AI.

Yes, the AI hype cycle will get you additional eyeballs - and likely sales - in the short term, but someone else will always be able to build a "better" AI mousetrap.

On the other hand, there is and will forever be only one Ron Carter, Brent Mason, etc. It's the ability to use the 100's of lego blocks of top-rate professional musicians to build a great sounding track that makes BIAB distinctive. I strongly recommend that this remains the focus of your product.

I think there will be "over 50 new features"

Vintage

Everyone has put forward many good suggestions. But BIAB's response is slow.
The number of times I haven't opened BIAB is decreasing this year. This is my true situation.

I understand where you are coming from, but actually, I hope not. I really hope there will be a valuable number of "Genuine Improvements to Existing Features".

The old interface will finally be scrapped and replaced by a single unblinking eye. The iris can be customized to the color(s) of your choice, but that is the only option in BiaB 2025. The eye is your portal into the new BiaB interface: ChatPGM, powered by AI. This interface will only respond to spoken cues, so a microphone is a new hardware requirement. To generate a song, one has to simply ask for it in plain English (or the language of your choice). BiaB will then generate lyrics, vocals, chord structure, tempo, arrangement and instrument choices, all neatly provided to you as a completed song in seconds. Don't like what you hear? Just tell ChatPGM what you want to change. "More cowbell?" That's a snap! There will of course be iOS and Android apps...

I've probably said too much. It's possible some of this stuff won't make the December launch. Or...???


Image by Freepik

Ha Ha, DC. Love the ambition, but you and I know: 'It ain't gonna happen'

PS: I like the 'eye portal' concept. Hard to say that that will never happen - maybe one day?

I think the real point here is that we are offered hundreds of real tracks every year each promising to sound ground breaking. When used in a song they just leave you thinking mmmmmmmm.

I love arranging orchestral backings bur BB doesn't cut it here. The midi side of things is dormant and the melodists need sorting out.

Mal.

Well, at this stage, we don't know what we don't know. Maybe there are some amazing track-related things on the horizon. I guess we just have to wait and see.

I think the real point here is that we are offered hundreds of real tracks every year each promising to sound ground breaking. When used in a song they just leave you thinking mmmmmmmm.

I love arranging orchestral backings bur BB doesn't cut it here. The midi side of things is dormant and the melodists need sorting out.

Mal.

I think the real point here is that we are offered hundreds of real tracks every year each promising to sound ground breaking. When used in a song they just leave you thinking mmmmmmmm.

I love arranging orchestral backings bur BB doesn't cut it here. The midi side of things is dormant and the melodists need sorting out.

Mal.

Don,I heard similar rumors! I will add that what does make it probably will not work as advertised right out of the box.

I agree. Other companies are leaving BiaB in the dust when it comes to MIDI.

When you only have a hammer, anything looks like a nail.
If I want to use MIDI, I use my DAW. The Possibilities with MIDI offered within are stellar today. Hard to imagine how PG Music could compete here.
If I want "Real Musicians" I use BiaB. This where PG Music has its nice and a unique selling point.
So I have a choice of tools for the task at Hand. And, it is possible to attach parts to get an assembled object that does not appear as if it was hitten hard by a hammer.
It would sure be nice if a "one size fits all" approach would be possible for BiaB, so customer money would solely go to PG Music. But coopeticion is maybe better for us customers.
I see that happen in the music industrie at many levels. Open Standards to allow for Interaction and thus bringing more tools in my toolbox. The BiaB Plug-In is an example for this 1 + 1 = 3 gain we customers get out of that.
Just my two cents.

definitely more cowbell!
... and Super Midi Tracks.

I agree 100%! If PGM removed all features unrelated to RealTrack generation such as notation, piano roll, metronome, etc., I would not notice the difference! I use BIAB to generate instrument tracks at a certain tempo in a certain key and then export them centered with NO effects like reverb or panning. Once I get these tracks into my DAW that is where I can mix and add the best fx in the industry. I know some folks use other BIAB features but personally I find so many of those to be distractions and detractions from what BIAB does better than any other software...generate realistic instrument tracks.

Using 2024. Really don’t need more styles. But, would love a better balance among real tracks and super midi tracks to select from. For example----across most instrument categories, e.g., pianos, organ, pedal steel, fiddles, accordian, harmonica, strings, and others, provide more options of tracks that fit both ev and sw style songs at various tempos. Often, I need a particular sw or ev real track at, say, 75, and cannot find anything for that particular instrument. This may not make sense; but, I know it when I run into it.

I find no use in adding more styles to BIAB until there is a more effective search concept available and implemented.
I have 10k+ styles which I hardly ever use because I can’t find my way around them and find what I am looking for.
It normally turns out that I am spending several hours in the style picker and then quit without no results.
I normally just pick some very basic or simple style just to have something to do some skeleton work with.
I would rather prefer more midi.

😎

Absolutely. Having so much material at your disposal and not being able to find what you're looking for is really frustrating, and has a very negative impact on the user experience. This is, IMO, one of the weakest areas of the program, there is definitely a lot of room for improvement here.

Yes, this ^

HA! I see what you did there!

A better way to find content is needed, more so as content grows yearly. No use having that "sitting on a shelf somewhere" and trying to find a needle in a haystick.
I have a hughe amount of sampled sounds from within my DAW itself, from Band in a BOX and from Native Instruments, just to mention the bigger contributers.
And even if I may have more than I will ever need, I may not even find the pieces I do because these are buried somewhere.
NI tries to cope with that via a filtering mecanism that has "layers" to describe better what you search for. That demands "Tagging" and this tags are open to the Companies selling sounds, so komplete Kontrol can even find competitors stuff (another example og Coopetition).
I see some of this tagging and layered filters in the style picker, but that approach needs to be enhanced to deeper levels, so one can make better use of the content.
With the groundwork layed, this shouldn't be a task to different to accomplish for PG Music.

AI is the way forward, it's those setting it up that are the problem.

Yes. I always think of the pupil as a black hole and the door to another universe.

In all due respect then why is PGM trying to turn BiaB into a DAW?

IMHO keep BiaB as the supreme backing track generator and drop all of the DAW stuff.

Like you said "Hard to imagine how PG Music could compete here."

Ok, let's look at the Melodist section. It's hard to find what you want there. The definitions need another look at. Take EzKeys, it's easy to find an arrangement there and complete songs but BB can arrange a new song, EzKeys cannot. What is wrong with these generated songs is that they lack life, feeling, emotion. The tool is a tool but cannot create without the craftsman. Don't get me wrong, BB was and still is revolutionary but does need a real makeover. It takes hours and hours to get a melodist to sound acceptable, some help in 2025 would be greatly appreciated.

It should be well-known here that I’ve long suggested support for a control surface using the Mackie protocol. With something like a Presonus Faderport 8, you could adjust the faders and panning of the mixer settings, including automated fades. You would also have full transport control, hopefully including a scrubbing function. Best of all, no more use of ‘F5 fade by -2’ limited to a measure to measure basis. A smooth fade is one of the most necessary tools for making a song sound more realistic.

Would this make BIAB more like a DAW? Yes. I’m usually against that, but in this case it’s the natural progression of recent improvements to the audio editing features. The basic principle I hope would be followed is to give composers the features they need to stay in BIAB for as long as possible before the song is finalized.

PG Music recognized the concept many years ago with the Frontier Design Tranzport, which is actually still supported. This is the next natural progression.

<< Best of all, no more use of ‘F5 fade by -2’ limited to a measure to measure basis. A smooth fade is one of the most necessary tools for making a song sound more realistic. >>

Just a quick comment to be sure you're aware that newer versions of BIAB that have volume automation, this limitation isn't a factor anymore. BIAB's volume automation works on all tracks except the Thru Track. The Master Track is included.
Any individual track can be volume automated and the final stereo mix that will be rendered can be volume automated.

The Master Track is capable of volume automation for any media BIAB recognizes. Regardless if the style is midi, SuperMidi, RealTracks, audio or any combination of these media types.
On this Master Track, no waveform is visible in the Audio Edit Window no matter what media type the style is, but volume automation works for muting, fade in, fade out and precise volume changes that aren't restricted to measure to measure manipulation only.

I've attached a screen shot of Master Track volume automation on an all midi Style song.

I guess I am a minority, but I would like BIAB to adopt a few of very particular DAW features. Specifically simple multi track recorder.
All the functions are already in place in BIAB. Also a new Track View is there. It's just the way this (record vocals or instrument) can be achieved now... to put it gently is awkward at best.
A simple: "select input" "arm" / "record" on the actual track header will solve this.
This will be especially beneficial to a singer/song writer who doesn't need, or doesn't want to learn another piece of software and just needs a few tracks to lay out their input. For someone like me, it could be used as a scratch pad. To record some ideas / snippets / reference, while still be able to change arrangement without constant import/export and jumping from software to software.
--------------------
MIDI.
Besides content, I would like MIDI to have proper routing. For example from one track to another, or one instrument to another. Simple example: A midi plugin Scaler, Re-midi, or even EZ line of plugins and whole lot of others that can output midi > routed to a sound producing VST synth. DAW feature? Maybe. It's missing. I want it!

I know these are wishlist things, but since it's an active conversation, these are my 2 cents.

P.S. Kindly don't mention RB. I am glad that somebody finds it useful, but those who don't, likely know the reasons why I am asking not to mention it here.

i know some will disagree or deride me...so be it.. but heres my take haveing worked in tech and seen both successes and failures. hopefully others with experience in tech will see what i'm driving at.
and its got to do with tech business strategy or mba 101 in biz schools.as follows...
(i'm approaching things from a big picture biz strategic perspective.)

1..the tech biz landscape is littered with tech companies that didnt diversify.
i worked for one once in product management and as i was very close to users i warned snr management we needed to take an aggressive posture re our product in the market...at that time i was derided by the higher ups as i expressed my concern for the future of the company.
as roxy music once said 'you can guess the rest'. this wasnt a company with a few employees but a very large one.
2..if one looks at businesses that are successfull one will see they diversify.
viz..for those that want pg to concentrate on only bb...
amazon doesnt sell one product do they ?
does walmart ? and i could cite lots of other successfull biz examples.

given the above,and obviously its pg's call the above are just a few reasons i disagree with people who say 'drop rb' and 'concentrate on bb'.

i suggest pg go full steam ahead with bb getting more daw features.
(more daw amazeing features in the brilliant bb tracks view concept..)
and full steam ahead for more aggressive development of rb and make it a market slayer.
(its already choc full of great features i cant find in other daws based on my recent market analysis.)

so deride away....lol. think of the fact that a market slayer rb might bring more creators into the pg fold thus ensureing more revenue for pg and thus more goodies for all bb users.
ie...DIVERSIFY !! THINK BIG !!
do we really want pg to become just a server upper of content ?...
like a waiter in a diner ? or do we want more ?
as i see it if bb is reduced to just a 'slave' to other non pg daw products pg has no control over this could have various ramifications..cost of maintenace and keeping up with changes in other daw products being one.


but hey what do i know....deride away.
oodles of my wishes/suggestions have been posted in the wishlist section as well the contacts with pg personnel. bottom line i want a great small canadian company to not just survive over the short term but over the long term in this crazy world.

ps Mal.great point re AI. also re medollists.

anyhoo its uk footies today on nbc. thank you nbc....yippee.

happiness

om

om, I agree that PGM should diversify but in all due respect we differ on how to achieve said goal.
I would love to see PGM make BiaB a superior backing track generator sans any DAW features for those of us that already use DAWs. I also would love to see PGM add everything currently available in BiaB to RealBand for those whom want a BiaB with DAW features. IMHO this would diversify PGM and satisfy both camps.

om, in no way am I trying to degrade your opinions. We both want PGM to succeed, just in different directions.

Om, tech fails and becomes obsolete, music changes. As long as there's music, there's a place for BIAB. The Airbus a380 was the largest passenger plane in the world and was obsolete and discontinued in nine years. Radio play of Adult Contemporary, classic rock, country and oldies all attest to the lack of obsoleteness of music genres.

Regarding the diversity of Amazon and Walmart, The diversity of BIAB is it doesn't make only one genre of music, only have one RealTrack, one style, one mixer track. The same as Amazon and Walmart, BIAB has lots of products. Its product is thousands of Styles, hundreds of genres, thousands of instruments, thousands of midi styles and instruments consisting of midi, SuperMidi, Sforzando, KV331 Synth, Synthfont, midi notation, midi piano roll, and Playable RealTracks and many more. There's DAWs that don't have the ability to read chords, analyze audio like the Audio Chord Wizard, and none can generate real instruments by real musicians without actually having real musicians playing real instruments.

BIAB has an amazing array of DAW features that are built into the main algorithm. BIAB uses WAV Instructions to automatically and professionally do Fade-in, Fade-out, crossfades, soloist intro's and outro's, it's programmed to mute, return to normal, fade per bar, louder per bar, change by user directed amount. The Audio Editor does all of the most common edits necessary to edit a track.

The Mixer can have up to 264 instruments in a single SGU file. Each with individual pan and volume settings. BIAB has two Audio Edit Tools, BIAB has included effects. The BIAB Mixer functions as a robust, digital multitrack recorder and player.

There's a post here in the Windows Forum where I detailed the steps to create a four style MultiStyle backing track with a medley of four soloists that change with each change of style. You should look at that post, try your own demonstration and decide the next time you encounter a new user, if you think they'll find your MultiStyle demonstration more impressive than a vertical curser or the Live Tracks view.

A lack of DAW features isn't a limitation of BIAB. Every demo, tutorial, and lesson produced by PG Music is finished in BIAB as an SGU type file. Not as a DAW product. PG Music uses DAWs for the things DAW do better, faster and more conveniently but bring those tracks into BIAB not BIAB out to DAW. Check out the PG Music demo with vocals and you'll see they are pro grade.

It makes sense to create and edit tracks in a DAW and import them into BIAB where you have 100% of BIAB's features, tools, instruments, mixer, effects, and Chord Chart to generate and polish your song.

"A lack of DAW features isn't a limitation of BIAB"

Some are. Like simple Arm and record track. The way it's done now, is not for fainted heart users, who don't want/need another program, and want a simple way to record 1-6 tracks on top of BIAB arrangement. Function is there. Implementation is not user friendly. This should be a matter of taking existing code / function and just making it work as user would expect. The thing is called optimizing workflow.

Same goes for simple track to track, or instrument to instrument MIDI routing.

Yes, thank you Charlie for the very good reminder. Unless I missed something, you still have to enter each node and drag it, which is what using a fader on a control surface can do for you so much easier. I wasn't clear; that's what I would like to see. Now that the improvement you cite is in BIAB, adding motorized fader control should be possible.

With all these creative, futuristic suggestions, don’t overlook us simple folks, who only want and need a good style and chord sheet to play out live. That’s my only use for BIAB on a daily basis.

I agree Matt. My point was just to clarify yours. Not only would it be beneficial for control surfaces but there's a current trend in mixers, both analog and digital to include interfaces with PC's that may not control the DAW but allow for external analog mixing from the consoles. Tascam, Zoom, Behringer, Mackie, Yamaha, Soundcraft and most other brands all offer both options now. Behringer's X32 and Wing are control surfaces with 32 in/out and motorized faders and scenes. I have a Tascam Model 24 that I can mix 22 tracks analog from the mixer and route to my PC DAW.

Rustyspoon#, arming a track and recording isn't limited in BIAB. A limitation means something can't be done, not that it's inconvenient for not being included in the Tracks View. Nor is it difficult for the faint of heart. The Focusrite Scarlett 2i2 4th Gen USB Audio Interface is the most popular audio interface in the world for the home studio. It has two inputs and two outputs. It's perfect to record as many tracks as a user needs in BIAB. Also, the recording process would be the same to record six tracks into a DAW as it is in BIAB.

I assume you're referencing a wishlist item for 2025 to expand recording to the Tracks View. That would be great and a nice convenience feature, but certainly doesn't introduce a feature that's not currently possible in BIAB. BIAB has been able to do it for years.

You missed the point I made to do things that are best achieved in a DAW, in the DAW and import those tracks into BIAB instead of the sending BIAB tracks to the DAW. Review PG Music demos with vocals. They are all, each and everyone, finished as a BIAB file.

I recorded six tracks today to ensure I hadn't overlooked that recording multiple tracks had somehow been removed.
I've attached a PG Music demo recorded with ten additional vocals and saved as a BIAB file.

Charlie,
of course there are limits. User limits: like time limit, patience limit, etc. Yes, it's all about convenience. That's why most people buy bread instead of making it. I doubt most of us like to tinker in deep menus to perform basic tasks which are standardized everywhere else in the past 2+ decades.

"It's perfect to record as many tracks as a user needs in BIAB." - with workflow of 1998 maybe it's "perfect". Not for 2025.

P.S. I am sure PGM has further plans for the Track View. I guess we will soon find out

I've long since lost count of the number of times that I've warned directors that they need both a business strategy and a product strategy. I've also lost count of the number of times I've had to say "we don't have the foundations to do that, because you thought it wasn't important.
Some bosses are remarkably stupid. C'est la vie.


Well, yes and no. Divesification can be a two-edged sword. You can lose sight of your raison d'etre; you can spread yourself too thinly in areas that don't necessarily help. The important thing is to spread your business to minimise the impact of a sigle or small group of threats. Lots of businesss do very well by focussing on niche markets. They don't grow to Amazon or Wallmart sizes, but they do well. The problems then come when a new threat appears and replaces the old (e.g. candles->gas-lamps->incandescent lamps->LEDs).

A good strategy, tricky as it may be, is to be the best at what one does, whilst keeping a close eye on what may change or is likely to change, and what will likely be the significance of each likely change.

I think PGM has a good niche market. I think they do well much of what they do, but you'll know I have strong reservations about some of how thwy do it. They have threats from things like EZKeys, Scaler, iRealPro, regenerative AI, DAW-based beatmakers. Undoubtedly some other things.

One threat IMHO is that I think they presently gat away with being, um, clumsy about how they handle some things. I've always striven to get the customer not to say just "Yes, that's what we wanted", but to say "Wow ... that's more than we thought was feasible". I didn't always succeed, but I darned well tried!

Both a business strategy and a product strategy.

some excellent points made.
(loved your strategy comments gordon.)

how about this concept...critique it.

1..the bb plugin continues getting love and is the 'waiter' serving
up pg content for people who have a daw and dont want to learn another.
2..current bb gets users complaints/legacy problems addressed.
and some added features for the lovely new bb tracks view.
particularly good editing of audio and midi tracks within the view ?
and maybe special tracks like...
..a tempo track
..a lyric track
..a chord track
..a special track for creating drum solos and fills etc.
3..for those of us that like rb...a really aggressive development schedule
to make it a market slayer.
(franklly for me with the 2024 rb improvements i find i dont have to use reaps as much which ive used for years.)

just some ideas. i know ive missed something...lol.


happiness

om

FWIW, I personally think that's very important. DAWs are fairly complex and many people find them hard work to learn. If they also already do most of what one wants in a way and to a standard one wants, why should one change?

Typically are reluctant to change just to get a feature. Unless it's really compelling, they'll tend to "manage without".

Nobody mentioned there aren't any limits to BIAB. I responded to your assertion specific to recording in BIAB.

Convenience? Just like with bread, I suspect most people buy/download music instead of making music. Don't you?

There's no deep menus to record music in BIAB. There's a button. Actually two. And, if you accidentally select the audio record button when you meant to record midi or if you want to record midi and audio at the same time, select the audio button.

What deep menus are you speaking of? Yes, you have to set up the interface and audio settings once in BIAB just the same as any digital recording device, but once your settings are done, the attached screenshot record menu page is the only screen you'll interact with.

I agree PG Music will continue development for the Tracks View and adding new features, I'll embrace them when they arrive.

Charlie,
You maintain that pictures you posted (I am not even talking about actual process here)... conforms to 2024 standards of recording digital track audio? If it's all good by you, I am afraid there is nothing constructive to discuss.

I never said that recording is not possible. Functions are there. Method is badly outdated. All I proposed, that PGM organize existing recording functions with workflow / standards in mind, so average or new user will not be discouraged using it. Given new Track View, it's natural to assume that's where it is heading.

Will you provide a link to the 2024 standards of recording digital track audio?

I agree PG Music will continue development for the Tracks View and adding new features, I'll embrace them when they arrive.

Charlie,
feels like a rhetorical request. But if you are sincere, I believe most (if not all) digital audio workstations have: input select, input meter and Arm on individual track headers. It doesn't ask silly questions / pop ups (by default) if you want to simply record - a start position is defined by vertical cursor. Obviously most DAWs have significantly more things happening on track level, but these are the most basic "Standards" that we are missing in BIAB... for now.

Ohh, almost forgot. A full length vertical cursor, instead of a short one we have now that follows the track position. I just hope it was oversight and will be fixed in 2025. That is also a "Standard"

Misha,

In relation to recording in BIAB, I personally think it is very friendly these days. It is also consistent with all the other menus in the way BIAB uses "Bars | Beats |Ticks". Knowledge of these bars/beats/ticks is only need if a user decides to punch in a new section or overdub an existing section (#4 on the image below).

Recording BIAB is a one-click, two-settings process. After clicking on the recording icon (#1), the settings window opens and then it's necessary to select what section to record (#2) and which track to record 2 (#3).

--Noel

No, not a rhetorical request, but sincere. However, you answered appropriately so I understand the basis of your proposal. I do agree PG Music will continue development for the Tracks View and adding new features that I'll use when they arrive.

These most basic "Standards" that are missing in BIAB for now may be a stretch goal in 2025 for the following reasons.
First, BIAB isn't a DAW but an accompaniment and arrangement program with some important differences that PG Staff will have to address and consider.

Second, All DAWs record linearly exclusively. Currently and historically, recording in BIAB is linear but it's settings and activation are based on the non-linear display of the Chord Sheet. Examine the record pop-up that displays after the record arm button is pressed on the Main Chord Page Tool Bar to see that recording takes account for having multiple Choruses, repeats and codas.

Third, It will be burdensome, cumbersome and an inequality to suddenly require the users that use the program as it has always worked to change their workflow to accommodate a distinct segment of the customer base. Such a change would not be an enhancement to users that don't use a DAW, or never have recorded any way but the way BIAB has always been since audio recording was implemented. To implement recording solely in the Tracks View is a disservice to other segments of the customer base that aren't DAW dependent.

We may get everything you wish for in DAW features, and I'll adapt to them but I believe there are big hurdles for PG staff to cross to make it so.

"Third, It will be burdensome, cumbersome and an inequality to suddenly require the users that use the program as it has always worked to change their workflow to accommodate a distinct segment of the customer base. Such a change would not be an enhancement to users that don't use a DAW, or never have recorded any way but the way BIAB has always been since audio recording was implemented. To implement recording solely in the Tracks View is a disservice to other segments of the customer base that aren't DAW dependent."

That is only your opinion. And perhaps a few others. Only few.

Sorry Charlie, I care about the future of the BIAB. I don't buy some strange philosophy that program should be soaked in formalin for selected few. I am glad features like partial regeneration, more tracks, near instant regenerations, MTP library and others became a reality despite efforts to derail these and other great ideas at conception. I think it's time to hit a break pedal.

Noel,
these "punch in" methods to are not the way most people do basic tracking.
It's OK to have such menu somewhere, but for standard recording, arming & input metering should take place at the track level. (Full length) Cursor should be the guide for start recording position.

Mal,
I am sorry if I derailed your thread in a way. Topic seemed like an open question. I agree to some extent to what you are saying. But RT's are designed / recoded in such way, so they can be easily manipulated and surely because of that there are some limitations. However by using Partial Regeneration you can get pretty interesting and fulfilling results. A much better fit than initial random generation. Personally, I enjoy the diversity of genres and instrumentals PGM offers yearly.

I am certain there are tracks that you like in BIAB. Why not request similar, or offer concrete suggestion? For example, I would like very much to get more acoustic and electric Reggae, Ska and Surf rock RTs, which are represented very narrowly and are hard (except for drums) to fake with Midi. These have to be played. I am not sure if it happened specifically upon my requests or not, but a few tracks from the genres above were added past few years.

Well, there is always this discussion between diversify or focus on core business. The later is mostly what was the drive behind starting that particular business.

But there is another consideration I want to bring attention to: Strenghten your strengh! (that could also translate into keep your unique selling point unique).
There is so much that sets Band in a Box apart, makeing it unique (not just unique to be unique, but delivering what no competitor can do).
Biab as it is plays in a league of its own.

aren't we back to a debate we've had many times? if we define BIAB as an amazing auto accompaniment program we can all agree. but is it a DAW? what can't be questioned is that adding DAW like features have made it much more complicated and there are lots of posts about confusing GUIs and 'hidden' menus. and posts that say its very complication is putting off new users.

like lots of forumites i work in BIAB then as quickly as possible get into RB (or the DAW of their choice) which i find much easier to use for DAW like features.

i can almost guarantee that new features won't affect my work flow as BIAB already does what i need, but i will upgrade for new RTs and styles.

I like Bob’s point----don’t need, now, nor will use, new features----just new styles and real tracks. No deep diving, here. Only need good-sounding, realistic, reliable backing tracks. 2024 is working great at the moment.

Bob,
Here is the thing. I didn't ask for a Track View. It was an interesting and bold decision by PGM. At first, I saw it as burden, similar to a complexity you are describing. But I gave it some time and it works wonders when it comes to partial regeneration and other types of visualization and editing.

My take is this. If something gets rolled out, it should get finished. At least bare minimum standards, which in this particular case I believe would be input selection, input metering and Arming track on the track headers and a full length vertical cursor instead of a short one they got now.

Yes, we had several big conversations this year on what people wanted for 2025. General consensus concerning software (not the content) was that people want to see know issues fixed + existing features finished and improved, including improving workflow.
Getting basic standard functions (that are present in other form already in BIAB) at the track level is "improving existing features" in my view.

This ^^^. With perhaps additional and varied RT endings.

What is needed, is to allow the user to hide parts of the interface they do not use.
It's best to make everything into a tool bar, where they can use the ones they want, and place them where they want! that includes floating the toolbar.

Let the user setup the way they want BiaB UI!

Robert

Back to add, that BiaB should reopen to that screen I want. I have a 4 monitor setup and want Biab to always open on screen #3, It doe not!
it just defaults to screen 1 (Windows default).

Robert

I wonder if a window manager might resolve that.

I've never done it on Windows, but on Linux I use a window manager to size and place specific windows onto specific screen in specific workspaces (cf 'Desktops' in Win10 and Win11). On my music PC I have a single large touch-screem and have one-touch access to any workspace.

There are certainly window managers around for Windows, but I haven't investigated any of them personally and don't know if they're as effective.

There have definitely been requests for configurable menu options, starting off with a 'basic' menu setup and also including an 'advanced' menu option(s).

Band-in-a-Box has two display modes, normal and minimal. The normal mode is the classic view with the Drop, Song, Transport, Tools, Views and Tracks toolbars. The minimal mode replaces with tabs labeled Files, Views, Tools, Tracks, Misc., Custom and Mixer.

Both modes have methods to display or hide the audio mixer. The audio mixer can also float and resized.

The minimal mode's Custom tab allows you to display only the tool icons you want.

There are two ways to toggle between display modes; use the keyboard shortcut Ctrl+T or select one of the two buttons just to the left of the DAW button.

Jim is right. Main chord view in Minimalistic GUI is pretty slim. The biggest eyesore and real estate parasite is the "radio bar" at the top. Which is kind of useless considering all the tracks we have now. I never used it and never will. I wish they would remove it, or at least make it optional for those who can't live without it. Navigator is also not up to specs, especially if you are working with ~100+ bars. Otherwise layout is pretty good.

In my view, most complexity comes from menus. Their locations and wording. If they were sorted, positioned more intuitively and worded better it would make life easier.

I use BIAB to either generate backing tracks for my own use at home, or to generate parts that I can import into Reaper, replace with my own samples, and form the basis of a track with other live instruments.

I am strongly against messing with the current melody and solo generation in any way (unless it's adding a new melodists to the existing ones), just because it still produces more usable results than the AI software currently out there. And the MIDI aspect means that you can replace it with whatever patch you want, or throw it onto notation and learn things from it, or seamlessly edit choruses together, etc

I know not everyone is a fan of the presentation but I've been using BIAB since 2002 so I always have a pretty good idea of where I need to go.

I guess what I'm saying is, please don't touch the features of BIAB that are still the best at what they do.

Just an example, one of the better AI melody composers currently available still has a fundamental limitation where it doesn't stick to a prescribed set of chord changes, and the longer the passage you have it generate, the farther it wanders away from the original melody and form.

Great for experimental and generative music, not so great for pop and jazz forms.

BIAB gives me what I need when I'm just wanting a bass line for a set of changes that I might not come up with, or a burning Rhoads solo that I wouldn't be able to play at tempo.

First of all, please excuse my English...

as a BIAB user since the DOS days, I think that time is mature for a radical change. We can not ignore the actual and future importance of AI. I think that this should be implemented *someway so far better* in BIAB 2025 and future releases. I've tried to use both SUNO and Udio, and I am really impressed with the quality of some of the results. Now, just try to imagine what results could be obtained by an integration of the great auto-accompaniment expertise of BIAB with a better use of AI composition tools inside BIAB (melodist)!

In this way PGM would have a double advantage, IMO: keeping the main characteristics of the best auto-accompaniment software (for mature musicians and amateurs who don't like approach AI); AND begin to look seriously to the future of assisted composition, a very likely future reality, I think. If not so, there's the risk that others (SUNO, Udio and so on) will be the ones chosen by young generations of (potential) customers.

And, please...no more styles...more than 10000 are already enough to choose...

Alfredo

alfstone,

You made a well thought out and phrased post. I like your idea of using Artificial Intelligence to enhance the capability of the Melodist. Along with that idea perhaps AI could enhance the Soloist.

Thank you for your contribution to this conversation.

Thank you Jim!
AI is making giant steps and, set aside the ethical aspects of the whole thing, just in few months has achieved great results in terms of "quality". I think it will not be a long time from now, when we'll be able to throw a specific chord progression in SUNO-Udio etc...we can already instruct to make its music according to ANY music style. Now, if I were PGM, I would be rather worried about this possibility...

Alfredo

Quite so. Its why I didn't buy 2024. I didn't want or need 50 more features that need a year of updates to get to work properly. I want more RTs and MORE RDs and not have relearn the System all over again. How about selling a Set Pack of 2025 RT/RDs that will work on earlier versions?

sixchannel,
Can you elaborate?

I believe more, not less RT's were introduced in 2024 than prior year(s). And the price you pay for upgrade at promotional period is very reasonable considering amount of content (RTs, RDs and MIDI) you are getting. Consider software as a freebie. Of course you can wait to upgrade mid year (still get the "upgrade" discount) and have most new bugs of that year addressed.

What exactly is that you think would make you "relearn the System all over again"?
With exception of handful of people (about 5 to be more specific) that for very minor reasons didn't want to use new MTP Library, no major issues were reported specifically with 2024. Almost zero items concerning "new features" that "prevented" people from using BIAB. Nobody is forcing you to use new features. Ignore new buttons - problem solved!

New "features" aside, did you know that 2024 BIAB generates tracks about 5 times faster? If this was the only item on the table for 2024, I would still upgrade.

Having said that, I do agree with you that RT's should be backward compatible at least for 2-3 years of last version of software.

From my use & perspective there are lots of things in BIAB I've not used &/or not been interested in.
I slowly try to use new aspects so that I might find something that works for me - but it's a slow process. I've tried the Melodists a few times. I can't say it generated anything worth using even after serious editing & comping but, then again, I try not to replace myself with a machine when I can manage it. As I've improved by skill & discernment, (I think the latter being the more important), I've found using Multiriff I can generate decent solos, with a bit of cutting & pasting in the DAW, from the solo RTs I have in my stack.
I'm not interested in A.I. music generation.
I think I'd like BIAB 2025 to be a "making time" version in which many things that need fixing, correcting, smoothing & debugging are addressed, tarted up with new RTs and Real Drum stems, (with the addition of a cymbal choke in the source file) - dare I say it - some Video tracks too, (I used a video track in my latest song video but as it was a completely different style from the song I had to obscure it a bit). Definitely not a sales pitch for the new buyer but that'd give me more time to explore what currently exists and use new sections with confidence.
Menu clarity? Yes that would be part of the fixing.
I know PG can't afford to hold its collective breath on new sales bait but one can always wish.

Sixchannel, Misha (Rustyspoon) has nicely responded to the concerns you raised. I would only add that I do not expect software to introduce new features that can be used on older versions, and I think that practice is normal. For example, I use the DAW Studio One. They just introduced version 7. Version 7 loads a project written in my prior version (6.5) just fine, but when you go to save, it will first give you a caution that if you continue with the save, the project can only be reopened in version 7 from then on. I think that's fair.

Specifically, about BIAB, this subject was raised before, maybe within the past year or two, when someone asked if the newest styles or RealTracks could be used in an older version of BIAB. Don't hold me to this, but I think the answer was sometimes yes, sometimes no. The biggest hurdle was selecting the new tracks because they were not contained in the index that had been made without knowing of their existence. I believe they could be located manually and would work, however don't hold me to that either because I did not need to test it, having purchased the upgrade.

Well, I will most certainly disagree with the 'no more styles' request. I mean, we have a full thread devoted to further requested styles.

https://www.pgmusic.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=postlist&Board=6&page=1

Whether some of them are viable or not, I don't know. Furthermore, even though we have Utility tracks, I still would like to see an expansion of some of the older (and newer) styles to up to 8 parts. I use an Arranger Keyboard, and I don't know, currently, of any Arranger Keyboard that doesn't use up to 8 accompaniment tracks. I would love to see that expansion in an upcoming version, for both Real Tracks and MIDI tracks. MIDI keyboards today are getting a lot better in sounds, so having more MIDI styles wouldn't be a bad thing.

G

Hi Gary. In the discussions we have had about concentrating on improving existing functions over introducing 50+ new ones, it was assumed that the company would continue releasing new RealTracks and styles. The assumption is that these are two different areas of the company. That could be wrong.

I just want one single thing in the new 2025 BIAB, nothing else.

An efficient and improved “Search Concept” so I can use BIAB and find what I am looking for in the huge amount of content that I have.
(I don’t see any point of more styles/instruments if there is no way for me to easily find them in the database).

Yes, that has also been the subject of much discussion here.

2025 So What To Expect?



An Horizontal Mixer?

DiaB

At this point, nobody, except for PGM, knows what 2025 might bring. Lots of excellent ideas have been put forward though.

One December we will get a streamlined interface and good search tools. Maybe it’s this year, maybe five years from now. I’ll still keep buying the upgrades.