If you (the both of you) don't want to be refuted, don't post stuff like this...

Look, I guess as long as YOU proffer the definition of 'arranger', you can make it anything you want, and no-one else is right, are they?

But look at the response from EVERYONE on this thread other than you and to the genesys (I guess it's simply more FUN to pretend that this argument is solely between you and me, but aren't you insulting everyone else ignoring THEIR refutation of your points, aren't you? ), and you can see much more of a consensus...

Just because the XS/F offers primitive chord following abilities similar to a twenty year old arranger doesn't make it one. Any more than the primitive WS capabilities in a modern arranger makes it a proper WS. Who, in their right minds, wants a WS as 'powerful' as an 01w? In TODAY'S environment?

You offer a FAR too narrow definition of 'arranger', simply to try and make your point. But even that twenty year old arranger had capabilities FAR beyond the latest XF. Maybe if the XF did EVERYTHING the prehistoric arranger did, you MIGHT be able to call it an arranger. But modern arrangers have audio capabilities and samplers equivalent to a WS from say fifteen years ago... Doesn't make THEM real WS's in any sense of the word.

If the XF was released fifteen years ago, no-one even THEN would have called it an 'arranger'. Why you choose to do so now is no more correct. My K2500 has had chord following abilities for over ten years. That didn't even REMOTELY turn it into an arranger!

I guess, if you choose to make the definition of a product SO broad, almost anything can be CALLED an arranger... An old home organ with the most primitive of auto-accompaniment should be called an 'arranger', then, I guess. Or the first monophonic synth with an arpeggiator hooked up... That's an arranger, too.

By YOUR definition.