Band-In-A-Box v Jammer with Sonar 6

I've never used Jammer, but I have used Bandinabox, which I think can be useful in generating ideas, getting some creativity flowing. Also it makes decent drum tracks. I wouldn't really use it for much else. It does not integrate with Sonar. In order to create something with BIAB and then use it in Sonar you have to export it as a midi file through BIAB and then import it into Sonar and assign the midi tracks the the appropriate synths.

ORIGINAL: mudgel

I use JAmmer as my goto tool for fleshing out a piece of music/song.
I always start working on a piece of music with acoustic guitar. I sort out the general feel of a piece with rhythm, tempo changes, vocal arrangement etc then set that up in Jammer.

Unfortunately it doesn't run inside SONAR as it is a standalone program.

To get it to work I use MIDI-OX to connect Jammer & SONAR so that SONAR runs as a slave device controlled by JAMMERs midi output. this is very easy to do and works well.

Once I have enough of the MIDI work set out like I want it. I just save the JAMMER file as a MIDI file and open that in SONAR, tweak any MIDI, bounce to audio and start on any real instruments, vocals etc.

Its a great creative tool and always gives me good ideas on where to go a with a particular piece of music I'm working on.

Which version of Jammer do you use? I have an old version and see there are newer ones out there. I do think it could be a great tool for scratching out ideas. Sometimes a good bass line can make or break a song and I'm not a bass player, so having a tool like this could be really useful to get a full song moving along.

I have both Band-In-A-Box and Jammer.

BIAB is more complex and clunky interface-wise, but has its good points. With Jammer, I can create custom rhythm patterns from scratch, which I like. It also enables you to use MIDI files to create patterns. I like this feature, because often I'll create the "feel" of a song in Sonar, then use the resulting MIDI file in Jammer from which to create full-length custom rhythm tracks. That way, you only have to play each pattern once and then the software repeats it for the duration of the verse, chorus, or whatever. I then bring the whole thing back into Sonar for touch-ups and to add non-rhythmic instruments, i.e. strings, brass, solos, etc. You can do all that equally well with BIAB too, but like I said, it's rather a clunky process since the BIAB interface is nowhere near as streamlined.

Works for me.

BIAB is superb for Jazz, Swing, Big Band, and even funky Rhythm and Blues. Country, Rock, and most styles that most users here on the forum might use are just so-so. If you work with them and do a lot of editing either to the styles in biab or export to sonar as smf and edit them there you can get some nice tracks. I almost forgot Bluegrass is pretty good but all styles need editing. I couldn't imagine anyone actually just creating a song in any style and it be usable without editing except the jazz and swing styles and even then I probably would be to picky to use them without editing.

Years ago I use to use it quite often back in the late 80's early 90's but I found that I spent more time editing my songs than it was worth it. I could just start from scratch sonar and come out with much better results. I guess I was excited about the technology but I don't think it ever evolved enough. It would be great if you could input a chord chart and come up with tracks that were usable without editing. I think the technology will get to the point to where this will happen at some point.

Bob

ORIGINAL: Michael_uk

Ok .. I know there's a hate following amongst composers and musicians for Band-In-A-Box/Jammer type things and I do have some sympathy with this. However, many people find them useful in various ways and so onto my question.

Hi, Michael_uk,

Well, I for one like Jammer Pro and use it quite a bit. BTW, I have a university degree in Music Compsition and Theory. I don't have the slightest problem with using something like Jammer or BIAB for inspiration. Often, I'll come up with a chord progression and let Jammer come up with some good bass lines and drum parts. Then I'll take the MIDI files, put them back into Sonar and tweak them in the Piano Roll View to my hearts desire. BTW, I'm still using Jammer 4 with Sonar 5.2, so I can't address how well the latest Jammer works with Sonar 6.21.

Which is the better, PG Music's Band-In-A-Box 2007 or SoundTreks's Jammer Pro 6? I imagine either would work well in Sonar Producer 6. Is there anyone here who has experience of both with Sonar who can advise.

Boy, that's a question I'd like an answer to, as well. I'm currently right in the middle of a personal debate as to whether I should upgrade to Jammer 2007 or change to BIAB. The only thing that really interests me in BIAB that Jammer doesn't support yet is audio files. And, as others have mentioned, BIAB has a lot more styles and such available. Jammer is definitely limited in that department. Still, since I've been using Jammer since version 2, I think I'll probably wind up sticking with Jammer and getting the 2007 edition.

With apologies to the musicians in the forums who find difficulty in tolerating these apps.

In my personal opinion, you have no need to apologize, nor feel in any way bad, for using an application such as Jammer or BIAB. Like most of the other marvelous applications we use, Jammer and BIAB are nothing more than *tools* to help you get to the place you'd like to go as a composer. While I doubt I'd ever wind up using anything that has been generated by these programs without alteration, they can sure spark some ideas in your head that you may never have thought of. Anyone who calls that "cheating" or the like is simply ignoring another tool that we have at our disposal at this time in history. That's the way I see it, anyway.

Bill

I've used Jammer since V2 now 6.1 Pro or something and have all the styles packs with the new musicians packs as well. I don't find it limited at all and have never got to the point where I thought it lacked depth in the quantity and/or diversity of styles.

I use it to trigger SONAR.

I have a template setup in SONAR across all 16 MIDI channels and route each MIDI channel in JAMMER through SONAR's soft synths and Drums like SD2 & DFHS and it sounds awesome used this way. if I'm just mucking around with ideas I'll often just use my external SB Extigy and its inbuilt Soundfonts but so much better going through SONAR.

I've emailed Soundtracks and asked about a VST version of JAMMER and they've hinted at it for the future some time but no firm commitment.

With apologies to the musicians in the forums who find difficulty in tolerating these apps.

It seems quite common and accepted on this forum to use drum loops - it's a regular topic. I really don't see a difference. I have an old version of Jammer that came bundled with something and have played around with it, but am seriously considering buying the latest version and commiting to learning how to really use it for composing original songs. I've played around with BIAB and just do not care for it's jazzy sound. It does that style well but as has been pointed out, it does not do rock well.

I use it to trigger SONAR.

I have a template setup in SONAR across all 16 MIDI channels and route each MIDI channel in JAMMER through SONAR's soft synths and Drums like SD2 & DFHS and it sounds awesome used this way. if I'm just mucking around with ideas I'll often just use my external SB Extigy and its inbuilt Soundfonts but so much better going through SONAR.

Is this something you can explain a little more or share your template? My biggest beef with Jammer is that I cant use VST/Dxi softsynths.....

Thanks

Greetings all,

Thanks to those of you posting about Jammer. I may need to look at it, also.

I've never used Jammer, but BIAB for several years now. The menu system is clunky; the whole interface is clunky. This is a result of incremental improvements going on for, what, 20 years now? The MIDI support is absolutely horrid. The audio support might as well not even be there; it's very minimal (which I mention for Bill "Cromberger"). I find the Real Drums interesting but almost quaint. The music theory is based on jazz theory, so this explains the comments by others regarding the lack of range of styles. But this is a strong point, not a weak point. Jazz music theory appears to be quite well-formed and strict, so it's never really "wrong." More about that in a minute. Also, yes as others have said, you need to do a lot of editing. Indeed it is difficult to impossible to imagine putting a song straight out the door, other than for an ad jingle or something like that, and let's face facts; a lot of people need exactly that kind of capability. Sometimes I do this myself.

However, now having "dis'd" BIAB, I must say that it is by far the most creative tool I have and I use it all the time. It's one of those "Love-Hate" relationships I suppose. If they had a reasonable update this week, I'd get it without hesitating.

--------------------------------

The reason I like BIAB so much is that I do what I call "subtractive composition." I turn on everything I can find in BIAB, embellish melodies, create guitar solos, creating a boatload of MIDI data. This would be like creating white, pink, or brown noise to feed a filter, except that it has a strong basis in jazz theory (which is a good grounding for this kind of thing --- you know it will sound good after working with it awhile). I then export it (because BIAB's MIDI support is gawdawful) and then turn it all off in a MIDI editor. After that, I slowly add things back in while switching instruments and parts all around and moving measures around all over the place. Eventually I narrow down my editing to smaller and smaller pieces.

Were it not for BIAB, I'd probably not have any compositions that were worth anything musically --- or certainly not of as much potential musical value.

Here is a recent example:

http://mysite.verizon.net/dave_clark/Encounter_with_Unknowns.mp3

It doesn't sound anything like BIAB, or at least not to me, yet this is indeed where it began its life. I threw out the drum track and set Jamstix loose on the bass part. I also added some "ear candy" keyboard noodling and electric guitar tomfoolery. This type of thing is always necessary to keep it from sounding so formulaic from BIAB.

Regards to all,
Dave Clark

P.S. On Edit: Another very important factor in making BIAB so strong is the extensive (and I mean *extensive*) list of heuristics you can apply. This, combined with jazz music theory, is what makes BIAB such a serious compositional aid. Also worthy of mention for anyone trying to decide about purchasing it is that you can import MIDI files and chop them up into styles. You can also create your own style from scratch, and this is actually quite simple to do in my limited experience.

ORIGINAL: DaveClark

Greetings all,

Thanks to those of you posting about Jammer. I may need to look at it, also.

I've never used Jammer, but BIAB for several years now. The menu system is clunky; the whole interface is clunky. This is a result of incremental improvements going on for, what, 20 years now? The MIDI support is absolutely horrid. The audio support might as well not even be there; it's very minimal (which I mention for Bill "Cromberger"). I find the Real Drums interesting but almost quaint. The music theory is based on jazz theory, so this explains the comments by others regarding the lack of range of styles. But this is a strong point, not a weak point. Jazz music theory appears to be quite well-formed and strict, so it's never really "wrong." More about that in a minute. Also, yes as others have said, you need to do a lot of editing. Indeed it is difficult to impossible to imagine putting a song straight out the door, other than for an ad jingle or something like that, and let's face facts; a lot of people need exactly that kind of capability. Sometimes I do this myself.

However, now having "dis'd" BIAB, I must say that it is by far the most creative tool I have and I use it all the time. It's one of those "Love-Hate" relationships I suppose. If they had a reasonable update this week, I'd get it without hesitating.

--------------------------------

The reason I like BIAB so much is that I do what I call "subtractive composition." I turn on everything I can find in BIAB, embellish melodies, create guitar solos, creating a boatload of MIDI data. This would be like creating white, pink, or brown noise to feed a filter, except that it has a strong basis in jazz theory (which is a good grounding for this kind of thing --- you know it will sound good after working with it awhile). I then export it (because BIAB's MIDI support is gawdawful) and then turn it all off in a MIDI editor. After that, I slowly add things back in while switching instruments and parts all around and moving measures around all over the place. Eventually I narrow down my editing to smaller and smaller pieces.

Were it not for BIAB, I'd probably not have any compositions that were worth anything musically --- or certainly not of as much potential musical value.

Here is a recent example:

http://mysite.verizon.net/dave_clark/Encounter_with_Unknowns.mp3

It doesn't sound anything like BIAB, or at least not to me, yet this is indeed where it began its life. I threw out the drum track and set Jamstix loose on the bass part. I also added some "ear candy" keyboard noodling and electric guitar tomfoolery. This type of thing is always necessary to keep it from sounding so formulaic from BIAB.

Regards to all,
Dave Clark

P.S. On Edit: Another very important factor in making BIAB so strong is the extensive (and I mean *extensive*) list of heuristics you can apply. This, combined with jazz music theory, is what makes BIAB such a serious compositional aid. Also worthy of mention for anyone trying to decide about purchasing it is that you can import MIDI files and chop them up into styles. You can also create your own style from scratch, and this is actually quite simple to do in my limited experience.

Hi, Dave,

Thank you very much for the personal "shout out" regarding the audio capabilities of BIAB. Doesn't sound like a feature that would make me dump Jammer, since I've been working with it for so long. However, your comments about how you use BIAB as a compositional tool have now got me even more interested in BIAB. I've always been curious about BIAB, of course, so maybe I'll just have to upgrade Jammer *and* get a copy of BIAB. One can never have too many tools in the old kit bag. I'm not a "jazzer" by any stretch of the imagination, but I'm a blues guy who is trying to stretch his blues a bit more towards the more sophisticated concepts of guys like Count Basie, T-Bone Walker, Robben Ford, the "jazzier" stuff from Charlie Baty, etc.. From your description, BIAB may be just the ticket for me. Thanks for your well thought out critique of the program.

Bill

ORIGINAL: stratcat

It seems quite common and accepted on this forum to use drum loops - it's a regular topic. I really don't see a difference.

I don't see the difference either. And by that same logic (i.e. it being cheating), wouldn't using samplers, synthesizers and drum machines in place of the real instruments be cheating too? Or comping a "perfect" vocal/instrument track from several different takes (since the vocalist/player didn't actually sing/play it like that)?

I think maybe most of the naysayers of these programs don't like them because they think they sound cheesy, not because they view it as cheating. But that's entirely subjective. Example: I was reading user reviews a few years back for the Roland JV-1010 sound module. I laughed because the guitar players that reviewed it thought the guitar patches were lame, but loved the "realistic" pianos. The piano players that reviewed it thought the piano patches were lame, but loved the "realistic" guitars.

So there.

ORIGINAL: slughand

Michael, I purchased BIAB 2007 last year after it came out having heard about it but never trying it myself. I was pleasantly surprised how this one tool sparked my creative juices as it did and got me to working in Sonar again and completing long awaited projects. If you would like to hear an example of a song using a product of BIAB 2007 using Real Drums then goto www.soundclick.com/drmiller and check out the song "Living Water". The drums, bass and pads were all created using BIAB 2007, exported to wave file and imported into Sonar (no midi) where I added the guitars and vocals, mixed and mastered. For the money BIAB 2007 is worth every penny.

Thats a very nice song! Drums and guitars sound nice as well, cant believe biab churned it out!

Neole,

Thanks for your comment.

As you probably saw in a later post: Yes, I just copied the bassline to the MIDI track of Jamstix (which most synths would just play) and it created new MIDI output data which I recorded, then fed to a hardware synth.

No, I did not edit the Jamstix MIDI output much at all; however, I used the bassline and the new drum track as the starting point from which I decided when/where to turn on various instruments, what those instruments would be, etc. If I had had some preconceived ideas about this already, I would have had to edit the Jamstix MIDI output (the new drum track), but I suspect that this editing would have been largely confined to moving bars/measures around rather than note or phrase editing. It could stand a little editing, but came out quite well without much.

IMO BIAB + Jamstix = 1-2 Knockout!

On edit: Thanks to this thread, I'd like to look at Jammer, too. These types of tools are pretty amazing.

Regards,
Dave Clark

ORIGINAL: DaveClark

Most of the credit for what you heard should go to BIAB and Jamstix, although it does take some talent I suppose to remove stuff and change the instrumentation all around! What you heard is radically different than what was originally put out by BIAB, but it was "all there," so to speak --- a "diamond in the rough." Primarily I wanted to show that things put out by BIAB don't have to sound formulaic; this is up to the user.

You are absolutely right, Dave. The talent is in *hearing* the music in whatever form it appears. I, too, have had some real inspirational moments by just clicking through various patches on my XP-50 while playing a given MIDI file. It's amazing what can come out--and where it will lead. But, you do, as you say, have to have the talent to hear the good stuff and ignore the not so good stuff. It's as valid a method of composition as any, as far as I'm concerned.

On Jamstix and the bassline: Sorry if I confused the issue. I copied the original bassline to the Jamstix MIDI track, and Jamstix built a new drum track using that bassline. I did modify the bassline, but it was largely already there. BIAB has reasonable basslines and accompaniment in general.

OK, I get it now. I have only messed around with Jamstix for an hour or two (been busy as hell for the past couple of months) and I was trying to figure out how you got it to play a bass line. It's clear to me now what you did. Thanks.

(I do not have any compositional background, but probably inherited something from one of my grandmothers who had a degree in music and taught piano for many years.)

Breeding always shows, doesn't it? ;>)

Bill

.. on the notion that use of these programs equates to cheating.

It's not so black and white.

Personally, I think it's a gross misrepresentation, and a huge disservice to one's self, to proffer music as "originally conceived composition" that's nothing more than canned ideas generated from anywhere but from inside you.
This said, I often begin my projects with canned ideas. When a canned starting point has been warped so far away from it's initial premise (when it becomes something that could only have come from me), I consider what it has become wholehearted, without reservation: my original idea. This is my voice, my heart, my soul, my signature sound.
There are times I consider a piece I've posted up, one with lightly altered canned midi, a co-authored collaboration. (this is mostly just jam-over wankage)

Were I a professional, charged with creating works within time constraints and whatnot, I wouldn't think the prideful way I do at all. By necessicity, my values would evolve along very different lines. First off, I'd be so completely immersed in my task, I'd never consider such folly as: "Is this cheating?" :regarding my use of canned midi. I'm doing my job. Whatever I make, regardless the means of derivation, is wholely my creation. Use of unaltered canned midi in a working professional's piece is 100% acceptable and 100% honorable.
Professional necessity forges its own path, it's own unique value set, which is different than mine.

A working professional, even a home hobbyist such as myself, can't BS his peers. Heck, the most casual of listeners instantly recognizes the sound of canned cheese.
To sum: Either your music sounds right or it doesn't. Either you got chops or you don't. There really is no cheating and getting away with it.

This is a great topic! I'm enjoying this thread. Leonard

Interesting. There are different philosophies. I hear you that you are just trying to stay on schedule. However, I have to say that this is something I think sad happening in the pro music area. People using regurgitated acid loops, etc..has brought us to a place where musicians are acting more like producers than actual composers anymore. I think its sad when a "pro" lowers the craft to this level. If a pro can't stick to a higher level of artistry, then who else is going to do it.