Looking at Band-in-a-Box in 2013 on Mac OS X

There’s an amazing piece of computer software for musicians that has been around since 1990. It’s called “Band-in-a-Box” or BiaB for short.

biab_logo_elaborateI bought a copy and played around with it about a decade ago, when I was first learning jazz guitar. But I haven’t used it in at least eight years.

So when I had a recent opportunity to sit in and sing with a very good professional jazz band that has open jam sessions in a restaurant (that’s another story), I decided to invest in an upgrade copy of Band-in-a-Box to help me generate some backing tracks so I could augment my meager rhythm guitar skills and make some practice tracks to learn to sing the songs.

My entire review refers to Band in a Box 2013 for Macintosh, on Mac OS X 10.8 Mountain Lion. I did use Band-in-a-Box on Windows many years ago, but I have not seen the 2013 Windows version, and I’m not referring to any features of the 2013 Windows version of the program in this writeup.

Disclaimer

This is not a thorough review; I have not thoroughly learned to use every feature of this amazing program. I have not yet read the entire owners’ manual. I will say in my defense that in the late 1980s I was a music software reviewer for a well-regarded national magazine in the USA; at that time, I would not write a review without spending months using a program and investigating all of its features and shortcomings thoroughly. This is not such a review. I may say some things about this program that turn out to be erroneous because I’m ignorant of this or that function. Still, I believe I have some insights, which is why I’m taking the trouble to write this.

There are plenty of longtime loyal users of Band-in-a-Box who have long ago accustomed themselves to its notorious tremendous quirks and inconsistencies compared to the way that many other computer software programs work. Those people won’t like anything about this blog post; I’m not particularly interested in hearing from those people. I’m writing from the point of view of an outsider looking at the program with a fresh perspective, which I hope you can appreciate.

What It Does, and Does Very Well

Band-in-a-Box has one main function: You put in the chord progression and form to a song, typically but not necessarily a jazz song. You choose from one of hundreds of musical styles, adjust some parameters to taste, and BiaB miraculously generates a backing band accompaniment using a range of instrumentation: drums, guitars, piano, bass, horns, and strings. You can go further by having BiaB improvise melodies and solos according to myriad parameters. What makes all this amazing is that BiaB incorporates years and years of research into the way that jazz musicians play and arrange real live music, and distills this into computer algorithms. They have done this in conjunction and collaboration with quite a few famous living musicians, and the programmers have furthermore carefully analyzed and attempted to replicate the styles of many famous musicians who are no longer with us.

BiaB achieves amazing results, either by creating sequencer tracks in Standard MIDI File format, which it can play internally, or by using what it calls Real Tracks, which are actual audio recordings of performances by real professional studio musicians which have been chopped up, looped, and sometimes pitch- and time-shifted, so you can create playback tracks in any key and any tempo, within reason.

Search around online and find some demo videos for Band-in-a-Box. You’ll be impressed.

BiaB has a great deal of musical intelligence built-in. It will endlessly improvise different performances of a piece of music, based on the user’s input. The user can select various parameters to vary the performance throughout different sections of the song, keeping things simple for a sung verse, or more complicated for computer-improvised solos. The software can figure out and create introductions and codas, change the feel of different sections based on the structure of the song, and do more tricks than I could possibly catalog (or more than I could possibly find out and experiment with on my own).

Musicians have used BiaB for decades to study and practice jazz music and improvisation, and to make demo recordings. BiaB works great for the purposes that most of its users need it to work.

However, I have my own needs and my own desires, which I would imagine don’t mesh very well with the needs and desires of the typical BiaB user.

Now I get to the part of the blog where I nitpick over things that really bug me about this program.

Background

The good news is the Band-in-a-Box is continually developed and improved, and major new releases come out almost annually. This is a very big deal, and one that makes me feel good about using the program.

As you might imagine, BiaB has a large cadre of loyal users who have been working with the program for most or all of its 23 years on the market. With any program of this sort, created by a small independent development company with only a couple of people doing the code writing, this all adds up to a curse. The code in BiaB is very old and has been added onto and patched endlessly. It started out as an Atari ST program, later moving to MS-DOS, then Windows, then at some point about ten years ago they made a very half-hearted port to Mac OS X. (it’s gotten a bit better on the Mac since then). Today they continue to develop the software for Windows and Mac OS X. The other curse is the users. Even though this program can do some amazing modern tricks, like creating arrangements with the Real Tracks using phrases played by real studio musicians, the program still looks and acts and feels more or less just like it did in the early 1990s. In the early 1990s, BiaB did not pay attention to many of the conventions and guidelines for user interface being promoted by the Microsoft Windows developer initiatives. Today, it still doesn’t. Let’s not mention Mac OS X just yet, but we will.

I’ve seen a lot of pieces of small-niche-market software over the years that have this problem: The program is an accretion of the cruft of 23 years, which makes it very hard for the program to be revised, revamped, or made modern. Furthermore, all those users who’ve been on board for 20 years like that cruft, they are accustomed to that cruft, and if the BiaB developers tried to modernize anything, the old user base would howl in protest.

However, I think it’s worth my pointing out some of the crufty problems, because as amazing as this program is, I fear it’s basically been left behind, and it’s so crufty that BiaB is going to have a hard time selling itself to new users in 2013.

When you start the program up, it looks like your modern computer is suddenly running Windows 95, and then you notice that the program’s user interface, in myriad ways, isn’t even up to Windows 95 standards.

Now I have mentioned before that the program today does many things that it could certainly not do in 1995, such as working with MIDI software instruments, the 10GB and more of Real Tracks you can get as add-ons or bundle deals, and the ability to output tracks of audio performances ready to take into a DAW for further work. Let me make one last protestation: this program does amazing and useful musical things and does them well. But I think there’s a lot that’s lacking from the perspective of a user in 2013.

Crufty Problems

Band-in-a-Box 2013 for Mac’s toolbars are ugly, crowded with features that I would guess few people use. Buttons and features look like they were tacked on one after another over decades, without anybody ever stepping back and saying “Man, maybe we should reorganize things this year.”

toolbars
Click to see the whole image

More alarming is that there are many remaining menu items and dialog box items that refer to features that were deprecated many years ago and have nothing to do with the operation of the current 2013 version of the program. In BiaB 2013 for Macintosh, there are feature settings for a Roland Sound Canvas MIDI module (in hardware or software) for playing back musical instrument sounds. The problem is that BiaB has not shipped with a Roland Sound Canvas software module in many years. The current 2013 edition ships with an optional IK Multimedia SampleTank module from circa 2006, and there are no integrated features within BiaB to help the user hook up and work with the SampleTank sounds; if you go looking for them, you’ll find myriad settings for the Roland Sound Canvas software module (along with references to an obsolete Yamaha General MIDI specification) which is not there anymore. The program has tons of configuration settings for some 1990s technology it hasn’t used in many years (and which is not compatible with contemporary versions of Windows or Mac OS), and no configuration settings for the current sound playback system which is itself out of date by 7 years.

Some of these features are deprecated but the menu items are still in the program years later.
Some of these features are deprecated but the menu items are still in the program years later.

Today, in 2013, computer software programs that provide playback of music triggered by MIDI data do so with internal virtual instrument engines that are integrated into the software through VST or AU plugin support. It’s usually possible to edit the virtual instrument sounds and parameters directly in the host program. This is the case with products like Notion, Sibelius, Finale, Cubase, GarageBand, Logic, and many more. However, it’s 2013 and BiaB for Mac still doesn’t have VST or AU plugin support. On the Mac, one is only able to pass MIDI data out of BiaB and through the OS X IAC Driver pipe and into the aforementioned stand-alone version of IK Multimedia SampleTank. This is particularly awkward, inflexible, and poorly documented by BiaB to boot. If course through Mac OS X’s IAC pipe, it’s possible to configure connections to other virtual instruments (although not standard VST or AU plugins, in the absence of a stand-alone host shell), but again, this kind of patchwork approach just shows how out-of-date and user-unfriendly BiaB is in crucial areas.

Leaving that issue behind, working with the myriad parameters for dealing with variations in musical styles is a mess. All the menus and dialog boxes in the program are ugly and poorly organized. I have to cut BiaB some slack here: this program has a huge range of parameters that do rather non-intuitive things, are hard to figure out how to use correctly, yet result in creating some marvelous and magical algorithmic music composition. I just wish it didn’t have to look so ugly and haphazard.

Click to see the whole image
Click to see the whole image
Click to see the whole image
Click to see the whole image

And there are so many things about using this program that have always been odd and off-putting. For instance, when you enter chord progressions into its “grid” or “spreadsheet” of a skeleton song layout, there’s a field where you type abbreviations for chord names. An abbreviation can take several characters, like “f#dim7”. Well, suppose you make a mistake while typing in one character of a chord name, and you hit the backspace key. You would expect the cursor to go back one character for each time you hit the backspace key, because the backspace key works in this fashion in every other computer program you’ve ever used in your life, on any computer platform you’ve ever worked in. But no, in BiaB for Mac, hitting the backspace key results in the entire string of characters being obliterated and your having to start typing the name of the chord over from scratch. That would have been weird in 1990, and it’s weird today.

I really want to take them to task on how they’ve implemented simple things like where the files go and where documents get saved. On BiaB for Ma, if you create a new document and go to save it, you are prompted to save the document in the BiaB folder in the Applications folder on your Mac! That’s a cardinal sin. Everybody knows that no user documents should ever be saved in the Applications folder. Documents should only be saved in the user’s home folder in either the Documents folder or the Desktop folder. It’s always been that way. It’s never been any different. Now I wonder what happens when you try to save a file on Windows.

Where to save a user document by default is very important, because it has to do with things like reliably backing up user data, and file system indexing and searching. Stow a bunch of user documents in the wrong place, and they are likely never to be backed up or indexed by the automated processes in the operating system that take care of those things for the user. If a user’s hard drive were to fail, a repair technician would not go looking in the Applications folder for data to recover for the unlucky user, and a years of important musical work could get lost.

I’m not up to date on all the details, but it’s obvious that BiaB for Mac does not take into account any of Apple’s latest developer guidelines and requirements about code signing and sandboxing, not to mention guidlines they’ve had for many years about where and how to store user preferences and configurations. BiaB just dumps a bunch of text files into various sub-folders in the Applications folder, where they clearly do not belong, and at the very least should not be visible to the user; they should be bundled inside the application’s bundle and hidden from the default Finder view. Let’s just say that the program works in spite of this, but BiaB would not be eligible to be sold in the Mac App Store without a stem-to-stern reorganization of all these items.

I fear that BiaB equally snubs Microsoft’s current guidelines and requirements for Windows 8 and going forward. I see no evidence otherwise. And I fear that there are hundreds or thousands of BiaB users still on Windows XP who wouldn’t know the difference if their system crashed and nobody in the larger computing universe could figure out where to find the lost BiaB data and documents.

Back to working within the program. The main “grid” or “spreadsheet” where you put together a chord progression seems really daunting to me. It doesn’t look or act like what you would expect to see in a jazz lead sheet or any other kind of sheet music. There is no obvious, visible way to indicate or see beginning and end repeat systems, first and second endings, different sections like intro, verse, and chorus. Why can’t you just click on a measure and put a nice industry-standard begin or end repeat bracket symbol on it? Worst of all is the fact that if you’ve got many measures of chords already entered, I can’t find any way to insert a number of blank bars in the middle of something, or shift groups of bars around in a different order. In other words, if you are composing your own music, and you want to play around with an arrangement or a chord progression, BiaB makes it very hard to do this; to make changes, you may have to write your chord progression out on paper, trash the document you are working on, and start creating a whole new one from scratch.

I have not got the knack of how BiaB wants me to label and tag different measures for things like repeats, changing sections, different endings, intros and codas. There are contextual menus with commands, and there are dialog boxes, all of which ask you to do arcane things and type in strings of this or that. Once you do each operation, there is little if anything displayed on the “grid” itself to tell you what you have actually just done, and whether or not it’s going to take effect. Why can’t the program be revised so that all this can be done with standard music notation symbols, in a user interface that looks like sheet music? You can do this in many other music programs, like Finale or Sibelius (programs which obviously serve different functions) and it seems to me this would be a better way for a literate musician to be able to work with these elements of music.

What BiaB's grid view looks like. Where are the repeats and endings? Don't know. Click to see the whole image.
What BiaB’s grid view looks like. Where are the repeats and endings? Don’t know. Click to see the whole image.
What proper musical structure looks like, and how it would be laid out in Finale or Sibelius. Click to see the whole image
What proper musical structure looks like, and how it would be laid out in Finale or Sibelius. Click to see the whole image

BiaB cannot have multiple documents or songs open at once, and there is certainly no convenient way to copy chords or chord progressions from one document and insert them into another. And why does BiaB quit if an open document is closed? Who wants that? These are things that I would have expected the BiaB developers to address years ago, but they have not.

These are just a couple of examples of salient quirks; there are many more. Now let’s get back to generating a performance of a chord progression.

At this point, after trying to make some changes in an existing chord progression, generating new improvised versions of an accompaniment and playing them back becomes downright buggy. Some choices and changes in the form and structure of the piece that I had entered seem not to work, the MIDI playback becomes several measures out-of-sync with the grid display, and played-back arrangements sometimes stop abruptly before they are finished. When that happens, I find it’s quickest to trash the document and start over creating a new one. Not conducive to a confident user experience.

Let’s get back to MIDI

The BiaB people would probably counter that they lost interest in MIDI sound playback when they invested in the Real Tracks system, which sounds good in many situations (and less than good in many others). But after playing around with the Real Tracks, I decided to disable all that and go back to good old MIDI data. The reason is a bit complex:

I want to use BiaB to learn about how jazz music is played and arranged. It’s quite gratifying to start with a chord progression and build up the elements of a performance and arrangement and be able to analyze what’s been created. To do that, you need the MIDI data. When BiaB creates a very convincing-sounding performance using time- and pitch-stretched loops of real musical phrases played by musicians, it doesn’t create any music notation to go along with it. When you switch off the Real Tracks and ask it to compose MIDI data instead, then BiaB can display standard notation of the notes being played. It displays notation fairly intelligently, too. It will create complex tracks of strummed jazz guitar in myriads of MIDI notes, but it will display nice orderly quarter-note chords in its Notation display for me to study, so I can learn how to finger and arrange chords on my own guitar.

Notation, notation, notation

BiaB 2013 can display sheet music notation for all the musical parts it creates in an arrangement. Seeing the full musical notation of all this musical algorithmic wizardry is extremely educational to a journeyman musician like myself; it’s the main reason I purchased the program. But the implementation for music notation is only half-done, and leaves me feeling seriously unfulfilled.

As a music copyist who has worked with Sibelius a great deal, and Finale some, I know that music notation is a very complex and arcane art. Putting all those notes in a form and shape and layout that is conducive to musicians being able to read it easily is a formidible undertaking. Applications like Finale and Sibelius have conquered this problem and provide tremendous flexibility to the user in getting things just like the user wants them. Notation files can be saved and edited later; beyond working with the program you are in, data can be exported and exchanged between many notation and music software programs by a free and cross-platform document specification called MusicXML, which is currently owned and maintained by MakeMusic, Inc., the developers of Finale.

BiaB can display standard musical notation of its algorithmic compositions and arrangements, and properly notated at that. It is particularly amazing in that it can show tablature of guitar parts in a way that would actually make sense to a guitarist who wants to learn to play those arrangements. Seriously. There are many other software programs, including the previously lauded Finale and Sibelius, that cannot do this nearly as well as BiaB can.

But the frustrating drawback is that BiaB’s screen display and controls for adjusting the appearance and layout of the music notation is so awkward, inflexible, and buggy that you would not want to use BiaB’s score display to read from in a performance or rehearsal. It has printing features, but what it prints out is so poorly organized and laid out that you would have to flip through eight pages of hard copy to see the amount of music you could conveniently display on one page of carefully-laid out music in Finale or Sibelius or the like. This won’t do for performance in concert.

What would be a godsend would be if BiaB could export its saved arrangements as music notation in MusicXML format, so that I could take these amazing arrangements and export them. I could do further work on the scores in another software program that has better tools for formatting the physical appearance of sheet music: Finale or Sibelius. I could bring a BiaB arrangement in MusicXML into Sibelius, and get really good professional-quality arrangements to print out, or view on an iPad. There is currently no way to do this.

There is a freeware open-source music notation app called MuseScore that purports to be able to open a standard BiaB document and display a chart in music notation, and thence to convert it to MusicXML But what it actually can do falls far short of what you would think. MuseScore can only import and display the simple naked chord chart from a BiaB file. It cannot read any of the actual notes in the tracks of music that BiaB has created from the saved BiaB document.

Now BiaB can export a standard MIDI file, and you can import such a standard MIDI file into programs like MuseScore, Finale or Sibelius. But if you’ve ever tried to do this sort of thing, you know that what you get in your music notation program is not proper music notation at all. It’s the programs’ attempt to parse a ton of MIDI data and display it in notation, and the results are so very messy and inaccurate that there’s almost no point in the exercise.

Back in BiaB, it has generated a very musically sophisticated and realistic arrangement in MIDI data, and within the program, it can intelligently simplify the music notation display of that data in something that makes sense in standard music notation. But BiaB cannot format that notation into something useful and practical that you could print out and read at a gig, and there is no way to get this notation out of the program and into some other program like Finale or Sibelius that is much better at that sort of thing.

How I’m Using It Now

So what I’m having to do right now is this:

  • Realize a MIDI arrangement of a jazz standard in Band in a Box
  • Format and print out the musically-accurate but horribly-wonky-looking notation that BiaB can create
  • Manually key all that music into Sibelius to create a score that I can study and work with, which seems like a great deal of redundant effort
  • Take a Standard MIDI File output from BiaB and import it into Apple GarageBand to create a project where I can record my own rhythm guitar, singing and bass guitar to learn how to perform the song.

It would be totally amazing if a company like those of the developers of Finale or Sibelius could buy out or license the BiaB technology and put it right into their modern music creation and notation environments. But I have no reason to hope that they would want to do that, or see any advantage to having that functionality. And I doubt that the BiaB developers would want to hitch their wagon to somebody else’s company or development environment anyway. BiaB has been all by itself, doing its own thing, for a very long time, quirks and all.

BiaB does so many things amazingly well, yet frequently frustrates me. I suppose I should be grateful that such a program even exists, warts and all, and is surprisingly affordable, even though it’s such a pain to work with. Making music is a tremendously difficult and arduous undertaking, with a steep learning curve all the way. But it’s rewarding.

Be Sociable, Share!

32 thoughts on “Looking at Band-in-a-Box in 2013 on Mac OS X”

  1. Some interesting points. PG Music does listen to feed back though.

    Couple of things:
    If you have followed the program since it was ported to OS X and the 4 year gap they had until they pretty much had parity with the Windows version, the program has VASTLY improved. They used to keep everything in the Band in a Box folder in Applications, and have since moved things into subfolders. And saving a song doesn’t, for me, result in it going to the Band in a Box folder. It does to a folder I have for songs. I think there is something in the preferences to change it.

    Buttons. Yes, PG Music likes to clutter the screen with buttons. The last couple of versions I’ve beta tested for them, I have complained about it, and they still won’t remove some of the redundant buttons, like the PG Music Website button which is also a menu item. Though they DID take my suggestion to hear in the 2013 version and moved the Woodshed thing to a button. It used to be buried in the preferences 2 menu or something.

    Menu items. Yes, there is a lot of stuff that needs to be removed. However, a lot of musics still use old modules and midi. Heck, I still use a Sound Canvas SC8820 sometimes with band in a box even though I have Kontkat 8 and Logic. I think it should be cleaned up, but I don’t see them doing it.

    Exporting Midi/Notation. Honestly, MusicXML is about as good as Midi importing into Finale for me. The Midi from Band in a Box is pretty darn clean if you set the quantize to eighth notes or sixteenth notes and force it to not do whatever rhythm it thinks it is. And the program DOES display the Midi and notation to most all the realtracks.

    The Grid. I think the grid works great, and I really don’t see how else it could work. You have 4 bars on each line, and you type in the chord progressions. Yes, it would be nice to see a repeat sign, but program is set up to not really handle more than ONE repeated section so it’s kinda a moot point.

    Multiple Docs/Copying. True, you can’t open more than one doc at a time. I don’t see this as a problem. And copying from one doc to the other, I think if you use the menu item it does retain the info if you close out one document and then open the new one and paste it in.

    Sandboxing/Guidelines. For the program it is, I don’t see this as a problem. Sandboxing is really for App store things and brings with it a whole list of problems with very few benefits for PG Music.

    Band in a Box is not an EVERYTHING program. It does basic, and very usable lead sheet printouts. It can do basic notation but not anywhere close to Finale/Sibelius. It DOES to an excellent job making music. Each version gets faster, and the realtracks get better sounding. The latest version included SuperMidi tracks, which offer a lot more variation in the midi accompaniments than before.

    The initial price of the program is a lot, like $400+ for the EVERYTHING Pak. Which is what everyone should get. And once you get it, the upgrades are well worth it. Each one generally includes several gigabytes of new realtracks, midi tracks, and general refinements to the program. I don’t see this program EVER conforming to how an Apple program, or even a Windows program, is supposed to look. PG Music isn’t really interested in that or they would have done it a long time ago. They are more interested in continually packing new realtracks and other things into the program. I think that is fine. I just hope someday they fix the bug/missing feature that I keep harping about (Open By Title does NOT parse subfolders, so if you have 5000+ songs, they have to be in the same folder…..but the Windows version does it….)

  2. This is a great review and very helpful for buyers. I am waiting for my copy of BIAB to arrive by mail and now I am warned. Indeed, some of the old fashioned stuff is quite staggering, I would e.g. have expected a VST function as a no brainer. Also, the problem with inserting bars seems a big one – its one of the key things one does when experimenting around.

    On another page: What I find quite surprising is the praise that Sibelius gets in your review. In my humble experience, Sibelius is one user unfriendly software hell, counter-intuitive in almost any aspect that I can think of, except some very basic stuff. E.g., try inputing counterpuntal music in piano staffs, with more than 1 voice per staff – you end up throwing your wonderful PC out of the window given all the silly things Sibelius does. Or use the auto-notation function when you are making “real” music, rather than inputing children melodies. What Sibelius produces in this context is very often simply ridiculous, and I use it for many years. I know, its off topic, but I just wanted to mention it.

  3. @Alex, what I would say about Sibelius is that it seems hard to use and it behaves in counterintuitive ways, yet by comparison it is in fact much easier to use than any other program I have ever seen or heard about. It also produces final results that are completely professional and look as good as any other program.

  4. thanks for your review of Band In A Box. you have given it a fair review I would say! I have owned it for almost a year and I must say mine is a love/hate relationship with it!

    first, I am personally only interested in having it generate backing tracks using RealTracks so all of the midi stuff is only in my way and I wish I could simply shut it all off! and I really do not care about its printing capabilities.

    what I LOVE is the amazing quality of the backing tracks I can produce with very little effort! as a songwriter I find I can really blast ahead on a new composition by just entering some chords, choosing a style and then fine-tuning it. (BUT, you have to be very careful because this can quickly become a crutch/dependency and all your songs can start to sound the same!)

    on the HATE side of the equation is the awful user interface. it is very user-unfriendly and frankly very uncool (more on why that matters in a moment)! you explained it well but the program has probably more of a Windows 3.1 interface including the 8.3 file naming convention it still uses for certain files.

    if you set out to make an ugly piece of software it would be hard to come up with something worse than Band In A Box! 🙂 and over the years they have cluttered the interface with worthless “features” like Title Generator, Windows Mixer Launcher, Burn an Audio CD, PG Music website link, Pitch Invasion game, SoundCloud and so on! I am sure at some point these “features” looked good in marketing copy but I cannot imagine anyone actually wanting these on the toolbar here in 2013!

    And here are my two main arguments for a complete rewrite of the GUI,

    1) it would dramatically improve the overall user experience and allow the product to get me where I want to go much quicker. figuring out how to do something in the huge and outdated user guide is not fun and often not productive!

    2) it would make the program cooler! people who participated in the early days of the IBM PC or the Apple II (most of PG Music’s users I suspect!) can put up with this ancient interface but younger people (anyone under 50!) take one look and move along to something a whole lot more modern! because this is supposed to be fun too!

    and I think that last reason is what may ultimately cause the end of Band In A Box in a few years. if they refuse to upgrade and catch up with the times fewer and fewer new/younger users will purchase the software. and sad to say, but if their forums are any indication, their current core user base likely cannot be counted on to continue to purchase upgrades much past the next few years. couple all of that with the fact that someone else will come up with a killer product that does what BiaB does but with a modern interface and then it is simply Game Over.

    That would be sad to see because BiaB outputs amazing backing tracks using RealTracks! My opinion is they would need to make a major investment and hire a UIX expert and GUI programming team rather than use their current in-house resources. and that just might be more of an investment than they can/will make.

    in the meantime, I will continue to use this great/awful product to produce some amazing backing tracks for my songs!

  5. A BiaB-to-Finale Workflow

    1 Do BiaB Arrangement
    2.Open in RealBand (RB)
    3.Drag-and-Drop from) tracks to Cubase (use DROPBOX)
    4 Do Cubase stuff
    5 Export to MusicXML

  6. Good review! I use BIAB mostly to generate music for use in other projects, so I’m interested in the various “Real” performances and not in the MIDI. I find that the larger editions of BIAB are a relatively economical way of creating high quality background music for video projects – much cheaper and more versatile than a music library. But what a chore to use! The interface is cluttered and ugly – you’ve hit the nail on the head in your review. But I could live with that if there was a good tutorial to learn the quirks – the quality of the music is worth the effort. Unfortunately, the user manuals and tutorial videos seem to have developed in the same haphazard way as the software, apparently through a process of slow accretion. They explain the latest new version features, how to solve various hardware problems, and what each menu item does – all the sort of thing an already experienced user would appreciate – but there seems to be nothing explaining the correct workflow for a new user. As far as I can see, based on YouTube videos, most people who use BIAB don’t get very far in – they can pick a style and type chords, but never reach the more advanced features, because the program is unintuitive and the documentation is appalling. I can tell that the ideas behind this program are amazing, and I’m delighted with the results I’ve managed to achieve. It’s a shame it’s so hard to get beneath the surface.

  7. Hi guys, thanks for what I already know about BiaB, since buying it around 1999, and using my Roland Dr.770 to make good sounding rhythms the Roland/Boss BR1180CD as a digital recorder to add live vocals and instruments and then “PowerTracks” to sequence it all together in real time, which took forever…but the finished Demo product was good and got nice reviews from my friends..I’ve updated thru the years,latest was BNB 2010 but got more and more frustrated with dead ends and erasures etc.In this day and age is there something/anything available with the same idea as BNB, but as you talk about, features that are user friendly in 2013?..I would be happy to invest..I would even chain together some programs to get simple to use, great sounding backing tracks for original music, video and audio editing..live performance, on and on..Please point me in the right direction…Thanks so much, Nelson 8-21-13

  8. Enjoyed your article. Upon a cursory reading there are a couple of items you might want to re-visit. When entering a chord symbol in a cell, you can use the back button to erase the last character. You can also enter x number of bars at any spot and not lose anything. I’ve been a long time user of BIAB. I only use bass and drums to accompany my piano playing. So I only use a small fraction of BIAB’s capabilities. Later, Ray

    1. @Ray Mabalot:

      You wrote: “you can use the back button to erase the last character. You can also enter x number of bars at any spot and not lose anything.”

      On BiaB 2013 on Mac OS X, I can find no way to do these two things you have mentioned. If you can explain to me how to do these two things, I would appreciate it.

  9. I’m one of those 20-year BiaB users you didn’t want to hear from, but I always value the observations of new users. If you read the user forums, you will find much support for a more modern user interface and revised documentation. You are correct that many of us would point out we can use the current program with great results. That doesn’t mean some of us would not support a GUI rewrite.

    One correction: you mentioned that BiaB does not support VSTs. It does. Perhaps you meant to say VSTi instead, but it does that too, coming with a basic form of SampleTank in new versions.

    1. @Matt Finley: No, sorry, you are missing the point. BiaB 2013 for Mac OS X has no support for VST or VSTi.

      As I mentioned, I do use SampleTank with BiaB 2013 on Mac OS X, but because BiaB has no support for VST or VSTi within the program, you have to use an elaborate workaround that does not involve any VST or VSTi plugins. In order to use the SampleTank virtual instrument (which is a stand-alone application version of SampleTank and not a VST or VSTi plugin) you have to wire it up to BiaB externally using Mac OS X’s IAC interface. That is not the modern, acceptable way of doing things.

  10. Pretty darn comprehensive review. Lots of points are spot on. Bottom line, Love it or hate it, nothing else on the market does what it does.

  11. Thank you for clarifying that you intended for the “no VST” comment to apply only to the Mac version of BiaB.

    1. @Matt Finley: Sorry that I did not make it more clear from the outset; my entire writeup applies only to the Mac OS X version of BiaB 2013. This is clear if you read the review all the way through. However, I’m going to revise my initial post to make that point more clear.

      I do not use BiaB 2013 for Windows, and I have not seen that version.

      I did use BiaB on Windows many years ago, but none of that has bearing on this writeup.

      I am a bit taken aback that so many BiaB users blithely assume that everybody else is using BiaB on Windows. I bought BiaB for Mac for a reason; that is that I want my purchasing dollars to help encourage the developers at PG Music to continue to take developing for Mac OS X seriously.

  12. Similarly, the comment by Ray Mabalot about backspacing chord entry may be referring to the Windows version of BiaB, where this function works fine.

  13. Since I use the Windows version I can not comment on the Mac version of the program.

    That said, I believe you have well stated your opinion.

    The PG Music forum has separate threads for Windows and Mac users.

    I would guess from the small number of Mac postings that your past experience as a software reviewer and ability to clearly state your opinion would be of great value to PG Music should you volunteer to be a Mac beta tester.

    1. @Jim Fogle: Thanks. I have made a few comments on the PG Music BiaB Mac forum, and I’m sure that the developers have taken note of what I’ve said. I appreciate that so many BiaB users have read my blog post and are commenting. This seems to be the most popular post I’ve ever put on my blog. As for being a beta tester, that might be fun. I’ll see if PG Music is in need of help in that area.

  14. My cursory reading was very cursory! What I said applies to PC. I have no doubt that PG Music will be adding those features in the near future to Mac OS. One of our regulars in the BIAB forum posted that it would be very hard to pare down BIAB without losing some functionality. Later, Ray

  15. I highly recommend the beta testing process; I’ve done this for many years and always found PG Music to be responsive to our observations. Please do follow up and volunteer, as your detailed observations show you could be very helpful.

    As to many in the BiaB community commenting on your blog, we saw a post about it in the BiaB forum. Note, it was in the BiaB for Windows (!) forum; there is nothing yet in the BiaB for Mac users forum.

  16. I enjoyed your comprehensive review of BIAB 2013. I am another longtime user of BIAB, and first used the program in the late 90s. I use BIAB everyday, as nothing else does what it does, and as a jazz musician it provides things I need (backing tracks and practice experience). Do I ‘love’ the program? Absolutely not. It is arcane, at best, and downright user-hateful at worst. It’s GUI is a joke when compared to any modern software, and the interface is cluttered and poorly arranged. Do I ‘hate’ BIAB? Of course not, but its interface sure needs an upgrade. PG Music, the makers of BIAB, have put out a new version every year. Those upgrades have of late largely focused on new realtracks and enhance midi features; both excellent features, by the way. However, it would be to everyone’s benefit if, for just one year, instead of new realtracks, PGM would spend their time and efforts to revise the interface. A well-designed interface with tabs and other modern features would surely be a benefit to everyone. That said, I will continue to use BIAB and upgrade, because in the end it does what I need, despite all the program’s idiosyncrasy. Cheers, Bob

  17. I have been using BIAB windows version since 2005 and love it . then I upgraded to 2007 then 2008.5 which I’ve been using to this date with no complaints .I purchased BIAB for mac pro 2010.5 hoping for better sound quality that the mac gives. what a disappointment! it is so much harder to use than windows version.today I ordered BIAB 2013 and thanks to your excellent review I ordered the windows version.

  18. There is a neat piece of software developed in Australia called Songtrix, the company who developed it are called Chordwizard. You can download the basic program on a free trial which will give you some idea of its capabilities. Its very easy to enter chord progressions and play around with stuff. The styles are limited and sound terrible but for a quick look see at ideas it works really well. There are excellent tutorials as well. From this you can then drop your song into BIAB and very quickly get a result. I then export the tracks into my DAW and further mess around. Sometimes I even make something that a) I’m proud of and b) other people like as well.
    Finally Songtrix has its glitches and faults as well but their support is outstanding. Send them an email with your problem and they send you an email back with a solution.

  19. Thanks for this interesting review. I have a comment at this remark: [quote]
    What would be a godsend would be if BIAB could export its saved arrangements as music notation in MusicXML format, so that I could take these amazing arrangements and export them. I could do further work on the scores in another software program that has better tools for formatting the physical appearance of sheet music [/ quote]
    I use now the app “Notion music” at my iPad. That can import music.xml from e.g. Dropbox and seems to be the best notation program around (say others).
    The great trick is that BIAB exports PDF files that very good can be converted into XML by e.g. “PDFtoMusic Pro”. Importing the XML results into “Notion” gives a amazingly good results including the chords.
    An almost exact copy is pruduced in “Notion”.
    The results can directly be transposed in any key including the chords and exported as PDF file again. In other words it gives you an “on the spot” transpose of fake music.

    However the BIAB “Fake Sheet Mode” does produce usable results. But creating repeats in “Notion” can be done so fast that you never will use that mode anyway in BIAB again.

  20. Thanks for this older, but still valid review. I havejust purchased the 2014 BiaB for PC, and my first thought was – Win 3.1. But Atari? Seriously? No WONDER it clunks along like a drunken elephant. That was a 6502 1MHz if i recall. Like Apple without the marketing…

    I got it to augment my live solo piano gigs, most of my backing tracks are hand-recorded or iReal Pro for ioS. IF I get the styles and instruments to integrate, it will work well. But MAN, does it feel like I should be typing DOS commands…

  21. For Mac users this program does not have many of the very useful features that the Windows version has. For example repeats, 1st and 2nd endings. The product development group continually releases a sub standard version for Mac. When I wanted to “crossgrade” my version to Windows I find out that the cost for my version is 400 dollars. The greed of this company is deafening. First they shortchange mac users then they charge almost the same price as the original version. I doubt I will continue to do business with them. BTW I pay the same price as Windows users. I get the impression they despise Mac users. Mac user buyer beware!

  22. Thanks for this review. You saved me from buying this horrible pile of noxious code. It’s clear BIAB is a cash cow and nothing more. They’ll keep the core code on life support until they’re blown out of the water by the next generation of up-and-comers looking to create a modern music generating platform/

    1. I think you are over-reacting. BiaB is frustrating, particularly in its Mac incarnation, but believe me, it gives good musical results. You have to put up with decades of the accretion of cruft, but I still like the music I can make with it.

  23. Excellent review. Purchased BiaB 2013 for Mac last year, and I concord with all the comments in this review.

    Has anybody tried out BiaB 2014 for Mac? It boasts : revised GUI, new Toolbars, Chord sheet with handwritten font (!).

  24. Good grief, right from the off the article says it relates to BIAB for Mac only, and the Windoze clan arrogantly think BIAB is only on Windoze? I thought Apple users were meant to be simple?

    I used last years version, Megapak, pretty good, took a while to learn but I got there. Thing is, I found that the way it works made me more likely to ‘go the easy way’ and some song structures were different than my mind had thought out…but all is good…

    I am now giving up Macs -I am fed up with their attitude and the way the machines and software are going- so I will be porting BIAB to Windoze at some stage…be interesting to compare…

    Nice thorough article though, for those that can read and comprehend…

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *