I have used it for several years now without any regrets. It is a very deep and useful tool for many different aspects of musicianship. I find it most useful for creating backing tracks of instruments that I am unable to play in the chord progression I choose. Normally I will erase and record my parts for original songs but I just wanted to share this short tune of nothing but BIAB I (it) composed a few years ago. Keep in mind the program has progressed quite nicely since 2009. If you like software like this, maybe this is also interesting for you only US $24.95 No offense, but in an effort to not steer Serenitynow the wrong way, Band in a Box is not much like this. It is instead a highly mature sophisticated program that has been in use for many years.

They have great customer service and a huge number of users. I sold the earliest versions of BIAB way back twenty years ago and they have continued to improve year after year since then without losing their personal touch and great service. And you get about a zillion more features for the price comparatively. I don't work for PG Music.

How do I free up system resources on Windows 98/ME? Why is there a delay between when I play a note on my MIDI keyboard, and when I hear the note play through my computer speakers? How do I change from 3/4 to 4/4 time in the middle of my song? How do I create and use Band-in-a-Box Styles in.

I have owned it for many years. I am a jazz musician. It is a great tool for practicing and has become a staple for jazz woodshedding. It allows you to quickly enter a chord progression and play it back using a huge variety of styles. I never really thought about it as a songwriting tool, but I guess it could be. I think a piano or a guitar would be better though.

I have used it as a play along tool AND a compositional tool. The basic version is MIDI driven and sounds as good as your sound card. The Real Tracks are pretty f'ing amazing. If you like software like this, maybe this is also interesting for you only US $24.95 I've just tried this out. I'm not joking.its pretty nifty!

Just what I've been looking for for writing tunes on my laptop when I'm outta the house.which is often as my daughter lives far away.Its perfect.I often dont have a guitar with me but I never go anywhere without my lappy. Throw in a few chords and let rip.After 5 mins I already know this is gonna increase my output BIGTIME! I'll give it the 14 days trial.but.I think I'll be pulling the trigger on this very useful gizmo. I've just tried this out. I'm not joking.its pretty nifty!

Just what I've been looking for for writing tunes on my laptop when I'm outta the house.which is often as my daughter lives far away.Its perfect.I often dont have a guitar with me but I never go anywhere without my lappy. Throw in a few chords and let rip.After 5 mins I already know this is gonna increase my output BIGTIME!

I'll give it the 14 days trial.but.I think I'll be pulling the trigger on this very useful gizmo. I did this with midi files exported from Chordpulse, except for the intro vocal: Still need to work on my guitar playing:), but the program is excellent for quickie arrangements and DIY backing tracks. PS: The track I linked to has plenty of space for further input.wanna beat me to it?

It's my first 'major production':). When I first started checking out DAWs and stuff I couldn't play electric guitar at all, but I quickly decided that what I wanted to do was to play live guitar with my own arrangements. Twelve years later.there it is!

Bless those who make all this possible for the likes of me. I update BiaB every 2 years (due this Christmas) and have never had any regrets, especially with all the Real Tracks / Real Drums, and now they are going back into the Midi side & improving it. IMHO there is NOTHING out there that even comes close, and yes I also own Chordpulse & Jammer Pro, but they have never made me any $$, and BiaB has.it pays for itself within a month of any update I do. There is a downfall tho, the created tracks have glitches, which is really noticeable when you go to render the tracks out to load into your DAW.stuff like double kick hits, some cymbals getting cut off, etc.

The big problem is that this is totally random, so it is not something that you can 'plan to avoid'. Also, the instruments sometimes are not 'together'.for example a bass playing the wrong passing note, or a guitar strum that is fighting the 'feel' of the track. Now NONE of this is show stopping, just something to be aware of. I have been a user since the floppy disk days, so for me it is one of the few programs that is worth the $$ after all these years IMHO.and it runs fine on Win7 x64, but I don't have any SP's installed either.if it 'ant broke I leave it alone!;) Serenitynow, toss me a chord progression and I will create a few different styles for ya to check out if ya want.:cool.

I have had BiaB for years (the all inclusive versions), and Jammer Pro (not updated since 2005 or something) and other similar tools that I never use. BiaB is stuck in a Windows 3 interface. Looks like a toyshop and works in a clunky way unlike modern Windows based software. Often you get a slot where you have to enter a number, instead of clicking a handle. Yes, it can produce a decent backing track for you.

But to me its background from a jazz musician shines through (a chorus is something else to them). A lot of the older styles in pop and rock sounds like a jazz musician trying to play this.

Nevertheless with realtracks this has improved, I admit. But then I can't edit anything. I usually end up replacing everything step by step with my own playing. Except like someone else here has experienced, the bass track may make it into the final version. BiaB is a great songwriting tool.

I'd picked it up when it was still a MIDI-only program, so it sounded pretty cheezy. In worked well with jazz, but really didn't cut it for rock. RealTracks were a real game-changer. They're basically automated Acid loops - you type in the chord progression into a spreadsheet-like interface, and BiaB assembles the audio tracks for you. It's a huge improvement in realism. If you haven't already, have a listen to some of the audio examples on their webpage (What you hear is what you get. It's good for putting together ideas, because you can punch in chords and pick styles to quickly get something together.

It's conveniently trivial to transpose a song into another key. It's can even auto-generate chord progressions and melodies for you. Plus, it's really nice when you want to add 'something extra' to a track, like a sax or mandolin. If I'm doing a song with BiaB, I'll typically render a bunch of tracks as audio, and import them into Reaper. From there, I can slice and dice things together. For example, if I can't get exactly the guitar strum I want, time-stretching in Reaper does wonders.

BiaB still supports MIDI, which is useful for tracks using string pads (which is also can auto-generate). I'm Going Home (was generated from BiaB audio tracks, and then edited together in Reaper. The flute instrumental is a built by editing together the best takes from a BiaB-generated bossa nova flute tracks. All the tracks in this (and the following examples) are BiaB RealTracks, except for the MIDI string part. Over the Rainbow (was an experiment to see how much I could edit the 'random' solos in Reaper. I overdid it a bit on some of the flute parts, but it's amazing how much Reaper lets you micro-edit pitch and time. August Exit (is another song with the audio tracks from BiaB and the solo built in Reaper, and August Exit (Slow Mix) (is the same song after time-stretching (considerably) in Reaper.

In contrast, Hoboken Blues (is straight out of BiaB with no real editing, with a few effects (poorly) added in Reaper. The latest thing they've added are 'MIDI SuperTracks' for bass and keyboard parts, which gives you the best of both worlds - auto generated parts that you can edit. BiaB is a great program. I don't have it but it seems like an interesting songwriting tool.

Just wondering how many here have used it. I used it a little way back in the day. It might be a bit different now, but if it is like what it used to be, then I don't find it a good songwriting tool. What it's good for, is building backing tracks really easily. I'd say it's strength is doing that for jazz, so you can build a backing track and play along with it.

It's sort of like you put a chord progression select some styles, and the computer writes the song. For me, songwriting requires that you have full control. For that, nothing beats a DAW or just an instrument imo. Which DAW/instrument depends on your preference/style.

Since my one pal turned me onto BIAB about a year ago.I have used it religiously. I will play one or two instruments now.and band in the box does everything else. It takes alot of thinning out. Download Video Jurus Tunggal Tangan Kosong. and takes time selecting the correct 'real track'.and sometimes.it just won't fit.but usually it's a breeze. If you click most of the tunes on my site.they are mostly Band In A Box. Shining is my newest.I played the lead guitars and had a sax player do the lead.

The rest is BIAB!!! I freakin' love it. It's amazing. I did an entry for a re-mix comp at Rekkerd.org (and came 4th!).

BIAB did the whole thing - solo included - but cheezy. I then took the midi tracks into REAPER, took the re-mix samples I wanted into reasamplomatic, added some VST's to taste and here's the result. Still cheezy, but quite compelling. A bit of an 'earworm', sticks in your brain. Quite a bit of BIAB tinkering needed.

Harmonies etc and careful selection of what and how the bits are written to MIDI, it's not completely straightforward. I wanted to see if I could use algorithmic s/w to make a 'half-decent' track. Played with KOAN etc many years ago (Noatikl looks interesting from the same camp!) Enjoy. And the THREE amples used were. And here with a different sonic mix and the lead heavily processed.

If you actually like the tracks, do drop me a soundcloud comment. Nice to hear from folks. I did an entry for a re-mix comp at Rekkerd.org (and came 4th!). BIAB did the whole thing - solo included - but cheezy. I then took the midi tracks into REAPER, took the re-mix samples I wanted into reasamplomatic, added some VST's to taste and here's the result. Still cheezy, but quite compelling.

A bit of an 'earworm', sticks in your brain. Baikal Izh 27 Manual Muscle. Quite a bit of BIAB tinkering needed. Harmonies etc and careful selection of what and how the bits are written to MIDI, it's not completely straightforward. I wanted to see if I could use algorithmic s/w to make a 'half-decent' track. Played with KOAN etc many years ago (Noatikl looks interesting from the same camp!) Enjoy. And the THREE amples used were.

And here with a different sonic mix and the lead heavily processed. If you actually like the tracks, do drop me a soundcloud comment.

Nice to hear from folks. You cheated.:) EDIT: ya, sounded like band in a box to me. Since my one pal turned me onto BIAB about a year ago.I have used it religiously. I will play one or two instruments now.and band in the box does everything else. It takes alot of thinning out.and takes time selecting the correct 'real track'.and sometimes.it just won't fit.but usually it's a breeze. If you click most of the tunes on my site.they are mostly Band In A Box. Shining is my newest.I played the lead guitars and had a sax player do the lead.

The rest is BIAB!!! I freakin' love it. It's amazing. That's band in a box that did all that?! The instruments sound so real. How does it do that? It just comes with heavy duty samples integrated now?

Or it supports VSTs? That's band in a box that did all that?! The instruments sound so real. How does it do that? It just comes with heavy duty samples integrated now? Or it supports VSTs?

Ha.I mentioned this before that the BIAB company must be idiots as far as marketing goes. BIAB use to be all MIDI fake sounding shit. (at least I think). So yeah, you could get a basic idea of what the song would sound like, then redo everything with real instruments.

Now they have whats called 'Real Tracks'. They are real tracks. They have a shitload of studio musicians that recorded every which way imaginable leads and rhythms and breaks and chorus builds and everything that goes into a song. Then.they re-played them. Sooo.if you do multiple takes, you will actually get multiple plays with 'some' variations.

The company should change there name to 'Real Tracks' or something. But.what is soooo stooopid, is when you bring up the program and type in the chords and such.what you get is 6 or 7 MIDI piece o shit crap sounding fake things playing your tune. It's horrible enough to send most quality musicians packing in under 30 seconds.

What you have to do is go up to the mixer, and there's a spot that says.' Do You Want To Substitute Real Tracks for shitting sounding MIDI tracks'.and you click 'FUCK YES'.then you have to match up the style. And you also have to audition several of them for track. Because most will not fit or will be cheesy. But the right one is usually there.

The other cheesy thing about it is.it always starts out with every track playing.soooo, you have a lead guitar rockin' away, a keyboard pounding out a lead, a fiddle or whatever.anyway.Just like in real life you have to thin them out. Or it just sounds stupid. Lastly.(maybe) When you use lead instruments.there being played like it's an instrumental. In other words.lots of the licks are going right over top of the vocal. Soooo, you really have to thin these, and sometimes cut and paste them to get them in the 'fill' area and not the singing area. Ha.I mentioned this before that the BIAB company must be idiots as far as marketing goes. BIAB use to be all MIDI fake sounding shit.

(at least I think). So yeah, you could get a basic idea of what the song would sound like, then redo everything with real instruments. Now they have whats called 'Real Tracks'.

They are real tracks. They have a shitload of studio musicians that recorded every which way imaginable leads and rhythms and breaks and chorus builds and everything that goes into a song. Then.they re-played them.

Sooo.if you do multiple takes, you will actually get multiple plays with 'some' variations. The company should change there name to 'Real Tracks' or something. But.what is soooo stooopid, is when you bring up the program and type in the chords and such.what you get is 6 or 7 MIDI piece o shit crap sounding fake things playing your tune. It's horrible enough to send most quality musicians packing in under 30 seconds. What you have to do is go up to the mixer, and there's a spot that says.' Do You Want To Substitute Real Tracks for shitting sounding MIDI tracks'.and you click 'FUCK YES'.then you have to match up the style. And you also have to audition several of them for track.

Because most will not fit or will be cheesy. But the right one is usually there.

The other cheesy thing about it is.it always starts out with every track playing.soooo, you have a lead guitar rockin' away, a keyboard pounding out a lead, a fiddle or whatever.anyway.Just like in real life you have to thin them out. Or it just sounds stupid.

Lastly.(maybe) When you use lead instruments.there being played like it's an instrumental. In other words.lots of the licks are going right over top of the vocal.

Soooo, you really have to thin these, and sometimes cut and paste them to get them in the 'fill' area and not the singing area. I wouldn't mind playing with that for a little bit, and seeing if it could be a fast way of filling out some of my songs. I tend to have a little bit of an uncommon rhythmic style though, so, I'm not sure if band in a box could fit with that. I have a feeling that i'd have to tweak it so much, I might as well just write the whole thing myself.

You cheated.:) EDIT: ya, sounded like band in a box to me. Yup, twas a 'cheat', but I wanted to see what I could do with just a few samples rather than use the up 115 available.

Most, if not all the other entries used Ableton with tunes they had lying around for some time - at least people admitted to what they were doing. So not really so much different as their melody lines would have been midi most probably. The thing with the BIAB approach, was, thin it out, see what harmonies it could come up with, thin them, and most interesting, see what lead line it could do. Many incarnations, but I decided on this one. It was a toss up which entry to put in. The laid back version, or the GTR processed screaming lead?

In the end I had fun and for my efforts got a version of Ivory II Grand Pianos - which I might say sound very nice. Thanks for listening, those that have. I can see you;-) db. Yup, twas a 'cheat', but I wanted to see what I could do with just a few samples rather than use the up 115 available. Most, if not all the other entries used Ableton with tunes they had lying around for some time - at least people admitted to what they were doing. So not really so much different as their melody lines would have been midi most probably. The thing with the BIAB approach, was, thin it out, see what harmonies it could come up with, thin them, and most interesting, see what lead line it could do.

Many incarnations, but I decided on this one. It was a toss up which entry to put in. The laid back version, or the GTR processed screaming lead? In the end I had fun and for my efforts got a version of Ivory II Grand Pianos - which I might say sound very nice. Thanks for listening, those that have. I can see you;-) db That's a substantial difference to using melody lines someone made with midi lying around.

Personally, I find that computers can't match humans for making great melodies. I don't think they will be able to for a long time. That's cool you got Ivory pianos II though. That's the best piano VST available imo.

I wouldn't mind playing with that for a little bit, and seeing if it could be a fast way of filling out some of my songs. I tend to have a little bit of an uncommon rhythmic style though, so, I'm not sure if band in a box could fit with that. I have a feeling that i'd have to tweak it so much, I might as well just write the whole thing myself. My songs are pretty straight forward and simple. There is a pretty good amount of chord variations you can use.but it won't do them all. Also, if you are doing a weird timing thing.I would say, it might be real difficult to work with.

Also.sometimes in deciding which acoustic guitar is the perfect one.or whatever I'm auditioning.I could easily have recorded the guitar myself! And I find that one or two instruments of my own playing is essential to make it seem more real, and unique. Usually I wind up playing the bass and an acoustic. The bass is the hardest I've found to make it sound correct. The B3 keyboard is worth the price all on it's own.

It comes out really well.and sounds really good. Give or take a lick or two. Also.I like using there 'real drums'.because there so easy to audition and use.but, this is the area I get most of my thumbs down from people. Don't know if I'm doing something wrong with them.but.most drum fans say the tone of the toms isn't that good.and such! I still use them although I have EZ Drummer as well. I guess they just don't bug me enough to take the extra time. If I remember right, there are several different packages you can purchase of BIAB.it takes about the $300.

Ish package to have a good supply of the real tracks. For $100 you're pretty limited, but you can still upgrade down the road.OR. Buy individual packs that you want based on your style.

My songs are pretty straight forward and simple. There is a pretty good amount of chord variations you can use.but it won't do them all. Also, if you are doing a weird timing thing.I would say, it might be real difficult to work with. Also.sometimes in deciding which acoustic guitar is the perfect one.or whatever I'm auditioning.I could easily have recorded the guitar myself!

And I find that one or two instruments of my own playing is essential to make it seem more real, and unique. Usually I wind up playing the bass and an acoustic.

The bass is the hardest I've found to make it sound correct. The B3 keyboard is worth the price all on it's own. It comes out really well.and sounds really good. Give or take a lick or two. Also.I like using there 'real drums'.because there so easy to audition and use.but, this is the area I get most of my thumbs down from people.

Don't know if I'm doing something wrong with them.but.most drum fans say the tone of the toms isn't that good.and such! I still use them although I have EZ Drummer as well.

I guess they just don't bug me enough to take the extra time. If I remember right, there are several different packages you can purchase of BIAB.it takes about the $300.

Ish package to have a good supply of the real tracks. For $100 you're pretty limited, but you can still upgrade down the road.OR. Buy individual packs that you want based on your style.

Thanks for the insight. I find the drums sounded really good. It's a shame about the bass, that would be one of the most useful things for me. Bass and drums. The rest I think I would prefer to do myself most of the time.

But it might be cool to play around with some other stuff too. I don't really play stuff with weird timing in the sense of tempo changes or strange time signatures, but my guitar tends to be rhythmically.

Unorthodox I guess for lack of a better word. It's not usually kind of common strum pattern, which i think would suit band in a box better. What would be cool, and I'm guessing it doesn't do, is if it had some algorithms, where you could create hit points, and chop up transients, like you'd find in some sequencers, and in some DAWs for doing time stretching. Then you could adjust sensitivity, and then make some fine tuning adjustments, and the software would write the extra parts based on that, accentuating the sort of rhythm your sample uses. Does it 'listen' to user tracks at all?

Or just to its own midi? Or is it more, you just put chord sequences, and a style, and that's it? That's more like what I remember it to be, but I never played with it all that much. From what I remember of band in a box, you could select styles, which works very well for those styles, and maybe some of them would work with what I play, but I get the feeling it might sound out of place, and I'd have to make a lot of adjustments, which would defeat the purpose. Auditioning sounds wouldn't be so bad, because I think for most my music, once I've found a couple I like, I would just stick to those exclusively.

It has come a long way. Sounds great.

When I heard your music I thought it sounded awesome, really surprising to me that it was band in a box. That's a substantial difference to using melody lines someone made with midi lying around. Personally, I find that computers can't match humans for making great melodies. I don't think they will be able to for a long time.

That's cool you got Ivory pianos II though. That's the best piano VST available imo. Agreed if you just let it run. But if you dig deep and get into the system and make your own styles and solists, then it can do better than straight out of the box. I have been doing styles etc since version 2, which came bundled with my Roland Sound Canvas many moons ago. I guess 'tweeks' was probably a bit understated, but BIAB does do quite a good job, even if it 'hints' at melody lines which you can take into Sibelius (or what ever score system you prefer) and then alter, but still with your original chord sequences as 'styled up' by BIAB (I like to take in just the keyboard chords or guitar chords along with the melody and work from there). As for harmonies related to the style/chords, then that's more difficult, but again, once into Sib, then you can start to modify them as well - sometimes it's just a matter of thinning down the number of notes played and in what range.

Basically making 'space' for the rest of the sounds to breathe. Not used the 'real band' versions, so cannot comment - I upgraded many times, but decided to stop when the 'composing' side of the system didn't change much and more was put into the instruments side. Though, by all reports, the 'human' features achieved by careful use of the 'real band' sounds interesting again. How many times have you got a nice chord sequence played in (real piano or keyboard) and then think, 'darn it, I need a melody for this as well', and does one come. No it doesn't. Melody generators can help hint towards something useful when you have the musical equivalent of writers block.

But, I agree, computer generated melodies are still way way off anything real humans can do - I find them more interesting and compelling in the more ambient styles - hence my reference to SYSEO Koan and Noatikl from: Some free versions of Noatikl available and 'tadah', it says the plugins are tested with REAPER. Again, you can dump out the midi and work from there if you wish. How many times have you got a nice chord sequence played in (real piano or keyboard) and then think, 'darn it, I need a melody for this as well', and does one come.

No it doesn't. This is literally never an issue for me.

I would just loop the piece of music, and then freestyle over it, which would be a lot of fun, and quite literally invented a brand new melody on every pass, until I find something I love that strikes me and that ca repeat nicely, something that I want to hear over and over, then use that as a melody. Of course it depends on the thing a little.

If it is a vocal melody, then I do that while playing the instrument. You do what works for you, and you enjoy music how you want to enjoy it. That is what music is for. I'm just saying that even if you refine it, it is different if a computer comes up with something, and then you work on it.

For some stuff, it makes no difference to me. I mean just some simple bass in the background, just some simple drums keeping the beat, supporting your tune, ok. You could even make a great song that way. But the melody I think is the most important part. That's the hook.

I get it, that you took ideas the computer gave you, and worked on those, but I just don't like the idea. It's less human, less organic, less art to me. If you play jazz, then that can be more tough. But most music tends to stick to the key of the song very well. Iow, if you play something in the key of C, all you have to do, is stick to the white notes the whole time, dipping into the black ones for a little spice from time to time. In your defense, I will, on rare occasion, while playing, just hit some notes, that I'm not sure what they will sound like. A kind of a educated guess sort of random.

Then I build off of that, which is not far off from a computer giving me ideas, I also find that unexpected stuff like maybe a delay might inspire you in some way, which is also not far off from a computer writing it for you. But, idk, it's less like. Beautiful I guess. And, I think you could always tell, in this day and age, whether a melody was made by a computer or a human. Not always, but there are melodies that humans can make, that you could tell could never have been made by a computer. Idk, I'm just saying, to me, that's cheating.

I'm a little strict for that though sometimes. I mean, is starting with a drum loop cheating? You know, there are many shades of grey, many different people with many different view points, and methods. I'm just saying band in a box writing something, and you refine it, to me, constitutes cheating.

But who cares. You keep on doing music how you like to do music, and how you enjoy making music, because at the end of the day, that's what matters. Not what I think. No offense, but in an effort to not steer Serenitynow the wrong way, Band in a Box is not much like this.

It is instead a highly mature sophisticated program that has been in use for many years. They have great customer service and a huge number of users.

I sold the earliest versions of BIAB way back twenty years ago and they have continued to improve year after year since then without losing their personal touch and great service. And you get about a zillion more features for the price comparatively. I don't work for PG Music. I think that people should be able to make their own suggestions without being reprimanded for it.

I prefer ChordPulse over Band In A Whatever - the price is right, all updates are free and the learning curve is very low and the software intuitive. Speaking of Personal Touch, it's only one guy doing it;-}. BIAB, these days, seems pretty legit. The RealTracks are tremendous. It's still a clunky-ass piece of software, though.

Just TOO MUCH. And yeah, I agree with other forum members that you need to slim down what is created. Oftentimes, the leads (even in RealTracks) are played via MIDI. Cheese central. Mute an instrument or two, and you have something usable. They need more 'cool' styles, though.

So much country, jazz, etc. They need like, uke pop, indie pop, indie rock, new wave, neo-folk, etc. I just get tired of the contemporary styles. But yeah, it's powerful stuff. The price is high if you want the RealStyles, though. But often, it's pretty worth it. CLUNKY CLUNKY CLUNKY.

BiaB can do great stuff. I very often use it for instrument practicing (of course singing training would be also appropriate if I could sing). IMHO it's perfect for that purpose, especially as you can get a lot of songs as BiaB files.

I tried to do some composing (writing melodies) in BiaB and never could get up to speed with the (horrible?) BiaB score editor. Regarding production, it would be great if I could synchronize BiaB with Reaper to take advantage of the BiaB real tracks and add midi and audio tracks in Reaper, without previously recording the BiaB audio output, to be able to tweak the BiaB parameters on the fly. Count me as a longtime user. I do a lot of work on theatrical scores and video sound design, which means being able to produce music in a much wider range of styles than the majority of working musicians do. BIAB is a huge help in being able to meet tight deadlines, create music in styles I'm not naturally fluent in or, if I'm using Real Tracks, get usable parts on instruments I don't play like fiddle. My typical approach will be to use whatever parts sound acceptable and overdub new parts over whatever doesn't make sense, then export the keeper tracks into Reaper. Not all parts will fit or sound good, but if you are a working pro, BIAB is a secret weapon and a mighty cost-effective one, too.

I don't have it but it seems like an interesting songwriting tool. Just wondering how many here have used it. Band in a Box is an excellent program for preparing backing tracks. It is the the very first music computer program I ever saw and it changed my musical life at the time back in the 90's. In the old days it was strictly midi.

Today it is midi & RealTracks. RealTracks are professional audio loops. You need RealTracks if you want to product quality tracks. It handles VSTs too. The only problem with BIAB is that it can get expensive. The full blown program with all the RealTracks is close to a grand. It can still be used for strictly midi as well.

The features are endless. It can do a lot musically. Simply type in your chord progression & away you go. I still love the program & was working with this morning on a country ballad. I import all the audio tracks into Reaper.

The RealTracks can be formatted to waves once your arrangement is completed in BIAB. It's a wonderful writing tool for laying out song arrangements. It offers many styles. Country, Rock, Blue, Traditional etc, etc.

If you are writing your own songs & can afford it - I say go for it. It will pay off. Your songs will come to life quickly.

The RealTracks for the most part are extremely well done. Some of the solo or 'Soloist' parts don't work for me.

They are adding new RealTracks on a regular timetable which can be purchased separately. These audio tracks are performed by first class studio musicians.

All the best. Band in a Box is a great resource if used with taste and care. RealBand is a DAW which is designed to work seamlessly with Band in a Box. For instance if you make a BIAB song you can open it in RealBand and it will generate all the Real Tracks.

The great thing about RealBand is that it is much more flexible about the generation of the RealTracks. For instance if you have the perfect RealTrack from BIAB apart from a few bars in the song, you can highlight just those bars (measures in US speak!) and it will regenerate just that portion. Each time it regenerates it is slightly different so hopefully produce more of what you want. BIAB is a program that has lots of depth (like REAPER) so takes a while to understand. Definitely worth it though. From BIAB every time the Real Tracks are generated they are slightly different.

This mesns you can make different versions of each part and produce wave files. Then you can take them into REAPER or whatever and listen and cut and paste. I think BIAB is a program that is grossly underestimated by people especially younger generation. The GUI is terminally uncool but you can modify it and though uncool it is actually functional. People often get too hung up on what something looks like and then forget what it is actually offering.

BIAB has been around for years so rhey must be doing something right. Old topic, but still:) 2 examples: #1: This one is auto-generated in BIAB with a mix of realtracks and midi, which was then arranged in Reaper (Effects added, and synths recorded (hardware-synths, plus the 'soft-synth' Vocaloid which was fed one of the midi-tracks)) Style: pop, easy-listening #2: This one is auto-generated in BIAB doing all the midi, no real-tracks, which was then arranged in Reaper with soft-synths only (effects added, plus a single speech-sample that is mashed up (via simple timeline-editing, split/copy, on the Reaper timeline)) Style: Ambient, chill-out.

After YEARS of waiting, and saying it was comingit is here.. I could hardly believe it myself. Yes, the languishing program that was 7 versions behind the Windows version (2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2007.5, 2008, 2009) has been brought back to life. I wondered what happened to Dr. Frankenstein.seems he was hired to bring the Mac version of BinaB to life again.

I always thought it strange that PG Music made a HUGE effort to move Band in a Box to OS X with their version 12, but then promptly let it sit for years and years while the Windows version added more and more features. It was mentioned years ago they were planning on a new version but.nothing ever materialized. Well, no more. The 2009 version pretty much brings the up to the Windows version. First off, the program is HUGE if you want to download it, you better have a high speed connection. A real FAST high speed connection. We are talking 20+ gigs of stuff to download if you purchased/upgraded the version with RealTracks (more on that in a minute).

PG Music offers digital downloads in addition to physical media available on DVDs or an 80 gig hard drive (same price). As a previous owner of version 12 for the Mac, I opted for the “Everything PAK” and the 24 PAK upgrade that included some extra stuff. Ok, nowlets dive into the program, the features it has, what works, doesn’t work, and what is still missing in the Mac version that the Windows version has. Let’s start with the new features. The biggest thing is the RealTracks. When PG Music announced this for the Windows version beginning in Band in a Box 2007 (just for the drums, or RealDrums), I thought it was a gimmick and a bad idea.

But actually using it, it made a HUGE difference in the backgrounds the program generated. It made them “feel” better. Even with the lame ass Microsoft software synths. Heck, the RealDrums could have even made Sanjya from American Idol sound good;-). PG Music took this concept, refined it, and expanded it.

Now, in version 2009, there are several “RealTracks” in addition to the RealDrums. Guitars, Metal Guitars, Acoustic guitars, pianos, basses, saxophones. It is really a marvel to hear how well, generally, the program will create music even on the most strange chord progressions (or just random chords). The RealTracks are not perfect by any means, but when it works, it works very well.

And if you don’t like it, you can switch to MIDI instruments or use your favorite Software Sampler/Synth. Next big feature “Direct-to-Disk” Audio rendering. So, need to make a background and save it? This renders your Band in a Box song to disks in a few seconds. It includes real tracks and real drum tracks.

It won’t render any external software instruments (like if you are running Kontkat 2 player or something). What is different from the PC version? Well, it is missing some things the windows version has. The ear trainer is MIA. I really liked that one. The PC version can render audio files (ie: Direct to disk) if you use external programs, like using Kontkat plugin.

Not a huge deal, but I wish they could do put this in. A lot of sequencers, like Digital Performer, offer this. It’s not a deal breaker though. One thing that does kind of suck is that if you own BOTH the PC and the Mac version, you have to buy separate Real Tracks for both. So, if you have a PC laptop with Band in a Box on it, and a iMac at home, you can’t just buy ONE Real Track set to use on both.

That kind of sucks. Also, the “licensing” agreement says you cannot use Band in a Box on more than ONE PC.

Even the lame-o’s in Minnesota (MakeMusic) let you use software on two computers. Also, Band in a Box only runs on Intel Macs.

Since Apple hasn’t made PowerPC based Macs in about 4 or 5 years, its not a big issue. The program can be really slow.even on a Quad Core MacPro depending on how many Real Tracks you have enabled (and do I ever enable them!). PG Music also has updated the program 6 times so far since releasing it, including a free update to 2009.5 which fixed some little problems. The program also runs on Snow Leopard (10.6) according to reports. Should you get this?

This is an incredible program that will provide you hours of fun while practicing any song, in just about any style, with tons of choruses. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Recent Comments • janekroll on • on • scottycollinson on • on • JZ Saxophone on Downloads • Zinn Practice Regimen III (592.7 KiB, 52,667 hits) You do not have permission to download this file.

Please either login or create an account first. • Zinn Practice Regimen (211.9 KiB, 20,151 hits) You do not have permission to download this file. Please either login or create an account first. • Breckerisms - Michael Brecker Type Patterns (379.6 KiB, 14,916 hits) You do not have permission to download this file. Please either login or create an account first. • II-V-I Patterns in Bb (4.6 MiB, 12,288 hits) You do not have permission to download this file. Please either login or create an account first.

• II-V-I Patterns Reference (600.9 KiB, 11,963 hits) You do not have permission to download this file. Please either login or create an account first.

• II-V-I Patterns in Eb (4.7 MiB, 11,591 hits) You do not have permission to download this file. Please either login or create an account first.

• II-V-I Patterns in Bb Pages 1 to 100 (1.7 MiB, 11,392 hits) You do not have permission to download this file. Please either login or create an account first.

• II-V-I Patterns in Bb Pages 201 to 289 (1.6 MiB, 10,931 hits) You do not have permission to download this file. Please either login or create an account first. • II-V-I Patterns in Bb Pages 101 to 200 (1.9 MiB, 10,921 hits) You do not have permission to download this file. Please either login or create an account first. • II-V-I Patterns in Eb Pages 201 to 289 (1.6 MiB, 10,864 hits) You do not have permission to download this file.

Please either login or create an account first. Sites • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •.