Bland in a Box

Chris LeDrew · Post by **Chris LeDrew** » 5 Dec 2006 8:25 am

The great fiddler, Scotty Stoneman, said "if you're playing to please other musicians you'll starve to death".

No truer words have been spoken when it comes to musicians' opinions of their peers.[This message was edited by Chris LeDrew on 05 December 2006 at 08:27 AM.]

George Redmon · Post by **George Redmon** » 5 Dec 2006 8:26 am

ok..put the clubs away untill i'm done posting please, thanks. After listening to both cuts Larry's & B0bs, hell i liked them both! Larry your recording is NOT cheesey! i think the dobro, added the right touch to take it out of the machanical catagory, i like that song, and you did a super job on it and i think the use of BIAB was not over barring or fake sounding in the least,very acceptable. B0b, your recording was also wonderful, i found the drummer had actually stopped playing at one point? why, not sure, but i didn't feel the earth move because he was real and not a digital instrumentation?
If i could make BIAB sound as good as you did larry, i would invest in one. I will check out the 2007 BIAB fer sure.

Bobby Lee · Post by **Bobby Lee** » 5 Dec 2006 8:36 am

BIAB plays idealized parts. No human plays in time down to the millisecond, or plays every note at the same volume.

Real instruments don't have notches for 127 volume levels. They respond to a musician's touch for an infinite variety of tone and volume differences. In another topic, steel players talk about how the angle of a fingerpick affects tone. Think of how many different ways you can strike a drum or pluck a bass.

Real instruments are incredibly rich in variation. You don't hear any of that in BIAB or even in high quality MIDI samples. Instead, you hear tones that were produced independently of any music.

It's interesting that we can piece together sounds with technology. The best sounding music will always come from real musicians, though. That's my story and I'm sticking to it!

------------------
<img align=right src="http://b0b.com/b0b2005.gif" width="78 height="78">Bobby Lee (a.k.a. b0b) - email: quasar@b0b.com - gigs - CDs, Open Hearts
Williams D-12 E9, C6add9, Sierra Olympic S-12 (F Diatonic)
Sierra Laptop S-8 (E6add9), Fender Stringmaster D-8 (E13, C6 or A6) My Blog 
<div style="display:none">

Ben Jones · Post by **Ben Jones** » 5 Dec 2006 8:41 am

Very interesting discussion.
I use 2006 BIAB for practice. What do i need to do to improve the quality of the instrument sounds? My soundcard was top of the line two years ago, so its probably hopelessly out of date now

Maybe there is a vst type set of virtual instruments or soundfonts or something one could install somewhere?

Do 2006 users get a free upgrade to 2007?
I'd love better instrument sounds, even for practice, synthy sound gets kinda annoying. Im with Richard, its not an easy program to understand, least not for me.

Rick Campbell · Post by **Rick Campbell** » 5 Dec 2006 9:03 am

Just one more thing and I'll hush.

I don't think there's any dispute among us. I "prefer" a live band in the studio as opposed to BIAB. I don't think any serious professional, major label, session is going to use BIAB. So, I may "prefer" to drive a Rolls Royce than a Ford, but that don't mean I should give up driving because I can't afford the RR.

Personally, I think there is too much tracking and dubbing in the studios. Even though it's live players, they're there at different times and you lose the interaction between musicians that a live band provides. Reminds me of artifical insemination vs. the real thing. It gets the job done but it's just not as much fun. You do what you got to do.

This can be taken to any extreme. Let's go all the way back to the non-technical extreme. Throw away the rack effects and the amps. Grab up a dobro, a bar, and some picks. Forget the transistors, resistors, etc... If you're any good you should be able to play all you need to with that equipment.

BIAB has it's place. Thanks to PG Music for choosing to price it so that most anyone can afford it, and for making it royalty free so that we can use it without worrying about copywright issues.

MERRY CHRISTMAS TO ALL !!!!!!!!!!!

------------------
Emmons Lashley Legrande D-10 8/4, Peavey Nashville 400, Peavey Nashville 112, Peavey Bandit, Baggs Fiddle Bridge, Peavey Profex II, Several Fiddles, Fender Tele and Strat, Martin Guitars, Eastman 815 Mandolin, Johnson Dobro, Rich and Taylor Banjo, Yamaha Keyboard, Upright Bass, Yamaha Bass, Korg Tuners.

racmusic.tripod.com

Sam Lewis · Post by **Sam Lewis** » 5 Dec 2006 9:03 am

I use BIAB for practice, but I don't use the computer sound card - I MIDI thru a very good keyboard, into my Tascam 2488 recorder, to a two-channel amp w/Bose speakers. Works pretty well. I will agree, I have never had much luck with the computer generated sounds, but what the heck, I've never had a million-seller CD, or even a "one" seller, either. Lots of fun for an old player.

------------------
Sam Lewis, Mullen RP D-10 8&5, Dual Steel Kings, Pevey Effects, Goodrich pedals, Elite seat.

Larry Bell · Post by **Larry Bell** » 5 Dec 2006 9:11 am

The point I've tried to make is that I don't really use BiaB as an 'end all'. I agree that the tracks generated by the program can be a bit too perfect to be human. BUT, this is certainly not a problem that hasn't been addressed by Peter Gammon and the other programmers who work on computer generated music. Most any good midi editor / sequencer includes a humanize function that allows the user to randomly vary parameters such as velocity (loudness) and timing within specified limits to remove a lot of the robotic feel.

My process is to use BiaB only for Step 1 -- it gives me its best effort at producing a rhythm track.

Step 2 is to dump it all to a General MIDI file and open with a good editor -- I use Sonar. Within Sonar I tweak each part -- often note by note. This can include changing parts, humanizing timing and feel, and often recording the midi part to audio and applying plug-in effects like graphic/parametric eq, reverb, delay, etc.

Step 3 is recording all live parts and getting a good rough mix with the midi parts (which, by that time, may all be audio tracks and no longer midi).

Step 4 is mixdown. All tracks are combined and levels and fx set as needed.

Step 5 is post production. The stereo product of Step 4 is optimized / normalized and any EQ or other effect to be applied to the stereo mix is done.

It's really not as time consuming as it sounds. Why would I ever do it this way when I know good musicians? Because it doesn't require studio time, scheduling musicians, and all the red tape and expense that entails.

Do I prefer live drums? Sure. But I don't find that drum tracks or (especially) bass and keyboard parts derived from MIDI modules -- esp the newer ones -- make me cringe like they used to.

ALSO, it is noteworthy that the track I posted with MIDI / BiaB tracks was recorded in 1986 -- TWENTY YEARS AGO -- on a 4 track minidisc machine. The one b0b is comparing it to was recorded three years ago in a real studio using much more expensive equipment and a whole slew of musicians and much more time and money.

Here is a newer example, recorded onto my computer using BiaB tracks -- a couple of years ago -- probably a better example . . .
. . . and a Christmas wish for all of you
Have Yourself a Merry Little Christmas

My conclusion:
Band in a Box is an EXCELLENT practice tool and, in the right hands, can produce music that is very listenable and enjoyable for most listeners.

------------------
Larry Bell - email: larry@larrybell.org - gigs - Home Page
My CD's: 'I've Got Friends in COLD Places' - 'Pedal Steel Guitar'
2003 Fessenden S/D-12 8x8, 1969 Emmons S/D-12 6x6, 1984 Sho-Bud S/D-12 7x6, 1971 Dobro, Standel and Peavey Amps
[This message was edited by Larry Bell on 05 December 2006 at 09:27 AM.]

Rick Johnson · Post by **Rick Johnson** » 5 Dec 2006 9:35 am

Larry
Thats great music, I'm thinking about
trying BIAB 2007, I need to be able
to generate my own practice tracks.

Rick
www.rickjohnsoncabs.com

David Mason · Post by **David Mason** » 5 Dec 2006 9:35 am

Rick Campbell reiterated something I was trying to say: there's just too much stuff on a very large number of recordings. You need bass, drums are OK (though I'd like to frisbee the cymbals to Pluto sometimes). It's nice to have A rhythm instrument, maybe double-tracked for richness. But FOUR acoustic guitars, all playing different inversions? PLUS a piano, a "Hammond B3", a b@njo, steel, doubled lead guitar, fiddle, harmonica ALL trying to squeeze in? If one instrument can't carry your melody from start to finish (with variations) you maybe need a better melody, or a better instrumentalist or something. I wonder how many people total, including producers and engineers, worked on Alan Jackson's last hit, vs. how many people worked on "Blue Suede Shoes." And which one is more memorable?

Bobby Lee · Post by **Bobby Lee** » 5 Dec 2006 9:46 am

Larry, I love your "Friend in Cold Places" CD. I had no idea that the BIAB-based CD was produced so long ago. Very impressive!!

I dove deep into computer music in 1990, producing an album that fooled many people, even one magazine reviewer. It was 100% electronic, but was accepted as a live band. Randomization of parameters was the key to the deception.

In the end, I came to the conclusion that humans do not really "randomize" when they play, and that there's no way to really parameterize artistic expression. The creative process and the nuances of performance are driven by far too many factors to duplicate in a computer.

The best, most efficient apparatus for generating music is the human mind. There is no shortage of these here on Earth.

------------------
<img align=right src="http://b0b.com/b0b2005.gif" width="78 height="78">Bobby Lee (a.k.a. b0b) - email: quasar@b0b.com - gigs - CDs, Open Hearts
Williams D-12 E9, C6add9, Sierra Olympic S-12 (F Diatonic)
Sierra Laptop S-8 (E6add9), Fender Stringmaster D-8 (E13, C6 or A6) My Blog 
<div style="display:none">[This message was edited by b0b on 05 December 2006 at 09:46 AM.]

Larry Bell · Post by **Larry Bell** » 5 Dec 2006 9:50 am

Thanks for the kind words, b0b and Rick.

David,
Lets not confuse production decisions with the issue at hand: the judicious use of tracks generated by BiaB or other computerized music programs. I rarely use more than bass, drums, and keys from midi sources on anything I record at home.

Everyone has personal prejudices and many audiophiles I know claim that the best recordings -- e.g., of a symphony orchestra -- are made with a high quality TWO TRACK STEREO analog recorder. This may be true but most of us like the ability to tweak each individual part before mixdown and post production.

Bland is in the ear of the beholder and there are certainly ways to minimize the blandness within limitations of budget and equipment.

------------------
Larry Bell - email: larry@larrybell.org - gigs - Home Page
My CD's: 'I've Got Friends in COLD Places' - 'Pedal Steel Guitar'
2003 Fessenden S/D-12 8x8, 1969 Emmons S/D-12 6x6, 1984 Sho-Bud S/D-12 7x6, 1971 Dobro, Standel and Peavey Amps

Andy Sandoval · Post by **Andy Sandoval** » 5 Dec 2006 11:50 am

BIAB can sound a lot better by simply upgrading to a better sound card. Coyote Electronics offers a program called Fortedxi that is highly compatible with BIAB and really makes it sound a lot better to my ears. Here's a video that demos this awesome program that is also available through PGmusic.com

James Cann · Post by **James Cann** » 5 Dec 2006 12:07 pm

It's just a tool. Like a nail gun--one guy will find a way to build a fine piece of furniture with it, and another guy will end up nailing his foot to the floor. Not the tool's fault ...

Right on, John M.! I could hear Sean Connery delivering this line in one of his films! [This message was edited by James Cann on 05 December 2006 at 12:07 PM.]

Greg Cutshaw · Post by **Greg Cutshaw** » 5 Dec 2006 12:22 pm

Owning, using and understanding what BIAB can or can't do for you is important. I used it for years as a tool for learning new songs and chord changes. It is great at that. I was trying to learn the old standard Cherokee last year. A few clicks and I was playing along with a track and I had all the chords laid out for me. It ahs helped me expand my reportoire beyond the standard country fare.

For recording it's nice to have a whole arsenal of tools just like it is for doing graphic arts or websites. If I have a drum machine, real drums, BIAB and a few other tools I am equipped to handle any situation from quick demos to finished recordings. I might use just the midi track for piano or drum parts from BIAB to drive a drum machine or keyboard.

Greg

Gary Preston · Post by **Gary Preston** » 5 Dec 2006 4:00 pm

Larry Bell . I listened to your song posted for everyone to hear and in my openion it's very nice . I suppose you have the cd for sale right ? If so let me know because i would be very proud to own it . Great steel playing with great tone . Gary .

James Cann · Post by **James Cann** » 5 Dec 2006 5:58 pm

Personally, I think there is too much tracking and dubbing in the studios. Even though it's live players, they're there at different times and you lose the interaction between musicians that a live band provides. Reminds me of artifical insemination vs. the real thing.

Here's a coincidence. My wife just brought home George Strait's "Fresh Cut Christmas." Looking at the credits, we have--
1. Recorded at Starstruck Studios,Nashville;
2. Mixed at Loud Studios, Nashville;
3. Additional Recording at Starstruck Studios, Nashville;
4. Digital editing at Sound Mind Productions,Franklin;
5. Mastered at Independent Mastering, Nashville.

Talk about the scenic route!

[This message was edited by James Cann on 05 December 2006 at 06:01 PM.]

Wayne Franco · Post by **Wayne Franco** » 5 Dec 2006 6:18 pm

Perfect timing for this subject. I've been looking out the door most of the day for delivery of BIAB 2007. The real drum tracks should be a great addition.

Lately I've been going to a lot of jam sessions where I have little control of what is being played. I just take what comes along for at least 99%. If I had to rely on what I learned to play based on being a side man and what other people play as I used to for over 20 years I think I'd go nuts. Now I do my own thing anytime I want to or have a selection of songs others have to follow because I hired them to play MY gig. I couldn't be happier with BIAB!

George Rout · Post by **George Rout** » 5 Dec 2006 6:47 pm

Scrolling quickly down through the threads, I saw Beetoven's name mentioned. Did he use BIAB???????????? !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

George

Ron Turner · Post by **Ron Turner** » 5 Dec 2006 7:40 pm

In my studio I have done a lot of computer generated music with BIAB as a starting tool to lay down the chords and back up. Then you import it into a professional recording program like Sonar and use VST plug in instruments that are actually real instruments recorded and played by professionals. You can also humanize the instrument so it is not perfectly in time. You can't tell that it is computer generated. A good composer or studio person can do this. We still mix live playing too. It all depends on the song, etc.

Chris LeDrew · Post by **Chris LeDrew** » 5 Dec 2006 7:41 pm

At 57, he actually became BIAB : "Beethoven In A Box."

Terry Downs · Post by **Terry Downs** » 5 Dec 2006 8:22 pm

I use BIAB to make the practice rhythm tracks for my geetar instructional videos. It has been an invaluable tool for me. I use the Roland sound canvas. At mixdown I add a little reverb and enhance the overall EQ.

Here's a sample of my noise.
Right or Wrong Sample

Regards,
Terry
http://terrydownsmusic.com

Tony Prior · Post by **Tony Prior** » 6 Dec 2006 2:39 am

Recordings that have synths on them are not PC programed by Steel players wanting to create a backing track.

Please do not overlook this.

Recordings that use synth sounds are programmed by REAL musicians..not a PC program that lets you choose a style and type in a "C" here and there.

A synth programed sound is NOT the same as a PC "type a chord as you go" program.

BIAB is a wonderfull tool for creating practice materials and simple tracks for performances..

but it is the FISHER PRICE of synth programming when it comes to hi end productions.

I am certain Yamaha, Roland , Proteus , Kurzweil etc... will have something to say about BIAB sound programs.

Please do not place BIAB and synth programs in the same sentance, this is NOT what BIAB is or was intended for.

Last time I checked a $59 item did not replace a $4000 Kurzweil module .

Concerning the "I don't have the money" to do a CD project and hire musicians, then basically you are not ready for the project yet. A CD project which is going to be offered for sale requires some sort of investment by the Musician with the hopes of capturing the initial costs in the sale proceeds.

Additionally, if we are serious about doing a quality project, and if we are NOT proficient at recording with our home gear, take the project out of the house and let someone who IS proficient turn the knobs. Concentrate on the Music, let somone else concentrate on the
signal levels.

There is no free lunch.

but there is BIAB for a fine practicing tool.

t

Larry Bell · Post by **Larry Bell** » 6 Dec 2006 3:21 am

I don't understand the comparison between a synthesizer or sound module (of any brand) with a program that uses artificial intelligence (aka musical rules) to create soundtracks.

Why would Kurzweil, or any mfgr of a high quality kb / sound module care about a software program? BiaB is not a synthesizer. You can run tracks sequenced by the program through any midi sound module you choose.

What is a 'synth program'? Who ever said that BiaB was trying to replace a $4000 sound module? They perform completely separate functions. BiaB only creates sequences of notes. I wasn't aware that a sound module did that.

Maybe I'm just dense or missing the point here.

------------------
Larry Bell - email: larry@larrybell.org - gigs - Home Page
My CD's: 'I've Got Friends in COLD Places' - 'Pedal Steel Guitar'
2003 Fessenden S/D-12 8x8, 1969 Emmons S/D-12 6x6, 1984 Sho-Bud S/D-12 7x6, 1971 Dobro, Standel and Peavey Amps

Tony Prior · Post by **Tony Prior** » 6 Dec 2006 4:24 am

Larry, as I wrote..

"Recordings that use synth sounds are programmed by REAL musicians..not a PC program that lets you choose a style and type in a "C" here and there"

I never implied that the $4000 module self programs itself..it requires a real person with the appropriate midi recording modules.

The comparison is purley for those who are stating that many top recordings are using synth tracks, which they are..but they are NOT band in a box created or even PC auto generated. They are generated by a musician playing the parts and then sequencing. Some above even comment about the VSC drivers and that they sound good. Thats why the reference to the top brands. You wanna hear good ? Listen to the Yamaha and Kurzweil's, now your talking good...

You are correct in that BIAB is a totally different tool and the two mediums are not to be compared..

Some comments above appear to place them both in the same catagory. My comments separate them, as do yours.

I personally like BIAB for it's intended purpose, but for recordings where overall quality and performance is the goal I'll pass. [This message was edited by Tony Prior on 06 December 2006 at 04:49 AM.]

Jim Sliff · Post by **Jim Sliff** » 6 Dec 2006 5:02 am

I've tried BIAB, and I think as a practice tool it has its uses; I use something similar with the Fender GDec, although to me the GDec has more realistic sounding backing instruments and a wide range of preset styles. The disadvantage is there aren't a bunch of "Ssteel songs" programmed for it (and only thee new version is really "song" programmable, the old one can be programmed for only certain variations on existing things). One other GDec advantage is that the tracks *aren't* steel tracks, either in style or sound, so that you end up "out of the box" and playing everything from metal to surf to ska.

Either way, neither one compares to playing with humans. The dynamics and ebb-and-flow of playing with oxygen-using drummers and bass players is irreplaceable, and no "canned" track can react to eye contact, yelled out cues, etc.

That's one reason why I've never gotten the idea of "jams" using a computer backing track. I'm sure there are bass players, guitarists and drummers who know songs - why not use THEM at a jam rather than a computer, which is going to 1) sound artificial no matter how good your equipment is, 2) be robotic - i.e. perfectly in time, unlike "real" musicians (and something you HAVE to adapt to on real stages) and 3) alows no opportunity to really "jam".