Talk:Band-in-a-Box

I took a major step to give the most basic information about the software program to completely remove the need for any deletion. Chris F

I editted the article in an attempt to make it more neutral. Here's a summary:

Together with a good bass and other instruments, Band-in-a-Box is increasingly being used by many musicians who want to play in a band setting without the inconvenience of having to get together with other humans, who may or may not be so patient as to endure countless repetitions and practise loops - something that a machine can do effortlessly. 130.215.112.54 21:30, 19 November 2006 (UTC) John S.
 * I changed "all genres of music" to "many genres of music" because it's nearly impossible to have arrangements for all genres of music.
 * I changed "very quickly" to "quickly". I suppose saying "a simple arrangement can be created from scratch quickly" is still a bit biased, but it's true that it can be done quickly (for me, at least, and I'm guessing most people with a music theory background) and I don't know how I'd make it less biased without making it bloated and wordy.
 * I changed "literally hundreds of other things it can do" to "many other things it can do" because "literally hundreds of other things it can do" seemed an unnecessary thing to say. I'm guessing that many of those things are merely combinations of a few basic things anyway, and I feel the only unbiased way to claim it can do hundreds of things is to link to a source that details those things.
 * I changed "realistic" to "more realistic" because "realistic" is a value judgement. Technically, "more realistic" is also a value judgement too, but I think most people would agree today's music computer technology results in more realistic-sounding music than previous technology. Also, there's got to be a line somewhere between an article being definitely biased and being bloated with weasel words.
 * I changed "impressively realistic" to "more realistic".
 * I changed this sentence...
 * ...to something which was more concise and less biased but still explained that musicians may prefer using a program to having people come over and play and change what they're doing to suit the composer's whims.
 * I removed "to cater to its fans" because it seemed obvious why Band-in-a-Box sold Styles, Soloist disks, etc.

This page seems fairly neutral to me and doesn't contain any direct links to PG Music Inc's site nor does it violate any copyright. This is a very basic description of what the program will do as well as some of the improvements that have been made to it. I disagree that this page should be deleted.
 * Please sign your comments... This page needs more info, but it does not need more ad content... it was written as an ad for Norton Notes and Band-in-a-Box... but I fixed it for now. - 68.228.35.79 (talk) 20:04, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Re: "It was first introduced in 1990. Since then PG MUSIC has been a recipient of numerous awards."
 * What were the awards, or an example of one? It doesn't say the award was for this particular software, and since PG Music has other products, this statement could be off the topic. Rmkeller (talk) 00:15, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

More neutrality efforts
I've made more suggestions for more objective (non-editorial) language. Perhaps now we can remove these top warnings: – AndyFielding (talk) 12:29, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
 * This article contains content that is written like an advertisement. (October 2010)
 * This article may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. The specific problem is: This article appears to be written like an advertisement and contains swathes of incoherent gibberish (October 2018)


 * The article may be more coherent, but it still reads like an advertisement. It's pretty obvious that this page was written by the PR department of the software developer, which is very much frowned upon in the Wikipedia community. This is an encyclopedia, not a place to advertise. One of the first lines in the article states:
 * "The software has many capabilities, but perhaps the most remarkable one is..."
 * "Perhaps the most remarkable" is immediately and obviously not appropriate language for Wikipedia.
 * The major thing is that all the quotes should not be directly integrated into the page like that; it reads like advertisement copy. The page needs to be completely rewritten in an format more appropriate for an encyclopedia.
 * In it's current form, the page is not neutral by any imagination. RawBarkInTheWater (talk) 07:59, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Trying to improve the article
I have reworked the article considerably, trying to get a NPOV and add some references. I deleted the existing sound file, replacing it with an updated one. I removed the templates and, I hope, cleaned out the "swathes of incoherent gibberish". Eagledj (talk) 16:23, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

NPOV dispute
The article may be more coherent than in the past, but it still reads like an advertisement. It's pretty obvious that this page was written by the PR department of the software developer, which is very much frowned upon in the Wikipedia community. This is an encyclopedia, not a place to advertise. One of the first lines in the article states:

"The software has many capabilities, but perhaps the most remarkable one is..."

"Perhaps the most remarkable" is immediately and obviously not appropriate language for Wikipedia. Calling a section "From MIDI to real instruments" is not proper language for Wikipedia. All of the quotes should not be directly integrated into the page like that; it reads like advertisement copy. The page needs to be completely rewritten in an format more appropriate for an encyclopedia.

In it's current form, the page is not neutral by any imagination.

I've made an effort to remove the irrelevant information and inappropriate language. We don't need to know that "PG Music" is named after the founder "Peter Gannon", that's obvious. We don't need to know the details about their father's life. This isn't Peter Gannon's personal page, and including that stuff is part of why it reads like such nonsense.

I removed a bunch of quotes that didn't contribute any information, serving only to boast about the software and promote it, etc.

Removing all of that stuff necessitated a full reorganization of the page, as there wasn't enough substantive information to justify a dedicated section for stuff like "RealTracks" anymore. Once you remove the irrelevant, inappropriate, and duplicate information that should be under the Capabilities section, there's like one uncited line left.

Others could improve this page a lot more - there are still many problems in regards to its neutrality. The NPOV tag should remain until more non-biased, non-advertisement-copy information is contributed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RawBarkInTheWater (talk • contribs) 08:48, 10 March 2022 (UTC)


 * You have deleted valid and helpful parts of the article in a way that I believe is too drastic. I have restored the deleted parts. I believe it would be more prudent to address any suggestions one by one, with consensus. For example, the sound files are helpful in allowing the reader hear for himself what the product sounds like. Furthermore, the article includes negative reviews— it includes rather strong criticisms, flaws and shortcomings of the product that no PR person would ever use. Eagledj (talk) 00:58, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Toward NPOV by adding shortcomings and critical reviews
This article certainly had neutrality issues earlier. I have edited it to remove promotional language. I have added sources that criticize the software and point out its shortcomings in the section "Critics opinions". Even the lead says "reviewers have described the software interface as awkward or outdated". I think it is approaching a reasonable balance of pros and cons. Is the section "Capabilities" promotional? Should it be deleted? Eagledj (talk) 13:30, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Removing promotional-sounding language
I deleted an entire section of this article, "Capabilities" that sounded like an advertisement. I hope this helps moving it toward NPOV. Eagledj (talk) 02:29, 1 September 2022 (UTC)