Hi Diki.
Personally, I don't think that even YOU could make the MS as good as a T3. Why do I think this? Because you HAVEN'T
No, the only reason why you haven't heard me doing that is because I don't own one and you know this.
Why haven't YOU bought Goliath, and created a few hundred styles as good as the T3's or PA2X's or E80's? You could make a fortune doing that...
Again, because I don't have an open keyboard and your suggestion is simply not practical for one man to achieve in order to have a product they can sell. To write a few hundred styles would take one man years of work.
You see, it's all well and good to say you COULD do this or that. Trouble comes when reality rears it's ugly head. You say people COULD make the MS into a great arranger. OK, be honest. What percentage of the players here at SZ (OK, let's widen the field - what percentage of ALL players you personally know) have the skills to make even ONE style as good as a T3? Now scale that up to the hundreds you actually need... Personally, I haven't heard ONE user style that approaches the ROM ones for live feel, great flow between variations, cool fills and Intro/Endings, and general all around usefulness. NOT ONE.
So now all of a sudden people have to write their own styles from scratch ? Come on man, a quick search on google and you can download the factory styles from ever major keyboard.
As for making them work on the Mediastation or any OPEN keyboard, I've already covered this in detail in my posts above. It's not rocket science but it does take a certain technical ability.
Such are the efforts you must take to create your personal ultimate arranger if that is indeed what you want this open VST HOST to behave as.
You see, were I to actually believe you, there would be hundreds. Thousands. All as good as the T3's ROM styles (or insert your favorite closed arranger here). BUT THEIR AIN'T. How can you keep shouting the open party line, with such a complete lack of evidence? Let's be honest. It is exactly the SAME job to create styles for a closed arranger as it is for an open one (maybe easier, because you already have a well balanced and cohesive soundset to work with). No easier, no harder. So... let's take this fact as a starter. If people can't create their own styles in any number or quality, what on earth makes you think they can do it once they get an open arranger? All of a sudden, they are going to turn into style making virtuosi because they made a purchase? Don't be ridiculous..
Again you do not have to write your own styles.
Arranger users load styles from all sorts of different keyboards all the time.
The truth is, it's one of the hardest tasks in programming to make a style that rivals the best the closed boys do. All evidence backs me up. I'm afraid that theoretically just doesn't cut it. As I said, 'theoretically' you could make a space rocket. Who has actually succeeded? One guy (Burt Rattan)..? Out of how many billions on this planet?
Again with the broken record , your just trying to create the illusion that you have to make your own styles which is total nonsense. I know why your doing this too, your just trying to make things sound as complicated as possible.
Where are YOUR styles posted, James? Can I listen to how well you have achieved what you claim is so easy for everyone else to do? Got some jazz styles, some disco or R&B, some alt rock stuff that comes close to Y, R & K's best ROM styles? No? Perhaps you could show me up wrong by demonstrating for us how easy it is all to do. Or admit that theory isn't quite the same as practice. [/qoute]
My music is with my workstaiton as you very well know, and I'm not at all a bit shy about showing people what I'm able to do. YOU have heard plenty of it for sure. My work work with arrangers is directly with my clients doing conversions of styles from one keyboard to another and I've been doing that for many years. If I had an arranger here to demonstrate the quality of my style conversion work, you can be sure I'd do it just keep you happy.
[quote]A piano is a piano. No-one makes the ridiculous suggestion that owning a piano is all you need to be a virtuoso. It takes skill, it takes practice, it takes genes, it takes a lifetime of work to be a virtuoso. And few that even PUT that lifetime in become one. But apparently, we ALL could become virtuoso style creators and soundset designers, just with the purchase of a magical bean... sorry, I meant an open keyboard.
Your words not mine.
I've made it very clear in all my posts who the keyboards are marketed at and that it takes a end user with a certain ability to be able to make it their ultimate arranger if that's what they want this VST HOST to be. I've also clearly said it's not for everyone. You only need to read my posts in this thread to see all this.
Your post is actually entirely pointless as it bears no connection to anything you have said previously or my reply to your previous post .
I don't believe in fairy tales, and you shouldn't spread them as if they were true.
Be nice now. I've been very objective and very open about my views and who I think this keyboard is for, and what is actually possible. You haven't presented a single argument that can stand against my views becase I'm very much sitting in the middle on this all anyway.
Your problem is based exactly on what your “idea” of what an arranger should be. You want someone else to do all the work for you and to leave the opening of the box and the wow factor to you.
Good for you. So stick to your closed arrangers. There's nothing at all wrong with them and if they offer you all you need, then perfect. Just don't piss all over this thread just because you don't like the idea of having to customise something before you can use it even if that means having to buy an entire sound engine to drive the arranger.
It is what it is and exactly what an OPEN keyboard should be.
Their are gaping holes in much of the rest of your post, I don't have time to address them all, maybe just to say that Dom DID design the arranger OS for the MS. And it couldn't do bass inversions. You can't blame the VSTi makers for something that is NOT what they designed. That one squarely rests on Lionstracs. Take a look at much of the rest of my post without so much defensiveness, and you'll see that, in PRACTICAL terms, much is right. Yes, in THEORY, things OUGHT to be on the side of the open arranger. But once the real world intrudes on the theory, they simply don't.
I scene hostility and a little nonsense
www.live-styler.de And please, for the last time, don't equate an arranger with a WS. Two different tools, to do two different things. Yes, I believe the Lionstracs is an awesome WS/Groovebox, perfect for making music that WS/Groovebox's excel at. Might even get one, one day. But, for all my playing and programming skill (modestly, please take this!) even I wouldn't touch one with a barge pole with a view to turning it into a practical, day to day gigging arranger. You haven't, either. Maybe there's a little voice at the back of your head kind of agreeing with me on this one. I don't see you dumping your Korg PA and moving wholesale to this. And, let's face it, if you took yourself seriously, you would...
So you believe it's an awesome workstation / groove box, yet you can't accept it as an arranger. It boils down to everything I've been saying all along in this thread.
VSTi Synths come as complete packages, ready to go and fully of content that does not need any work at all. But there is no such thing as a VSTi Arranger that comes in such a complete state.
Content is not the problem, neither is function. The problem is there is no sound engine at all and so you have to use a second program paired with the arranger in order to produce a sound. With that also comes the fact that each style needs to be adjusted in volume and assigned sound in order to get the most form the system.
That's all. No writing your own styles or anything silly like that.
Regards
James.
PS: Chill out man. I'm not going to argue with you over a keyboard.
[This message has been edited by Irishacts (edited 01-05-2010).]
Previous Topic
Index
