After many years to use a Roland, I went to replace it. The salesman said to me: "better yamaha, Roland have anything good now", and then, he showed the PS·3000 to me.
It seemed very attractive, many buttons, very good sounds. very good screen, although I didn't like the key feel. But when I gone to play styles, I experienced a special deception in three aspects (Perpahs I am old, or I am out of phase)
1. The styles were very simple. In my old roland, the style change throughout the measures (it last two, three, or even four measures), and that give much variety to the music: a lot more inspirating for me. In Yamaha, the style repeats itself throughout the measures.
2. In my old roland, the instruments sounding in styles were varied. That make the styles very different one from other, and very suggestive and inspirating too. In Yamaha, it seems that it is the same group of five or six instruments playing all the styles always.
3. In my old Roland, a minor chord made the style different; a seventh chord also. In yamaha, style is always similar in this respect.

Is all of this so? Is it normal to be disappointedd with Yamaha in these aspects? Must I to recycle myself, to update myself?

Try sequencing. Seriously - styles are just short sequences that get repeated every measure or phrase so naturally they are going to sound repetitive. Full-song sequences allow you to vary the backing throughout a song and give your music character. This is best accomplished with a computer although internal sequencers will work too. It's a craft unto itself to produce swinging sequences and they can free up your hands for playing a lot more than trying to control an arranger with your chording all the time.

The main thing I look for in any keyboard is quality of sounds, polyphony, and hard drive storage/playback capability of my midi files. If it happens to be an arranger then I will use the styles and/or create my own for occasional use but I will rely on my SMF's for most of my show. This allows me to keep building on a lifetime of unique sequencing work because the songs will remain with me even if I upgrade my keyboard later.

My dissapointment with Roland and especially Yamaha stems from their selective support - they purposely choke off any support for some keyboards while throwing their full support behind others. But that doesn't seem to be a problem for the Yamaha Tyros or PSR3000 which come standard with OPT voice editors that work within sequencing programs. I would think these keyboards would work quite well with sequencing programs like Cakewalk Sonar or Yamaha's SQ1.

I realize there are a lot of people who use styles only for backing and never sequence, but I think you are limiting yourself when that happens. There's a world of limitless performance possibilities open if you develop the skills to take advantage of the tools at hand.

Hi Artahar
I like to comment on this observation (1) of yours. I agree with you that styles are simple in a way. So I had Technics styles converted for the psr3000 and .... I didn't want to use them. The Technics styles of which I thought were better at first, now seemed to get in my way. With the Yamaha styles I can use the MultiPads to add some of my own ideas in the style and trigger them whenever I want. In one case I even shut down one instrument of the style, because it played something I didn't want. The Technics-styles seemed to be more arranged and don't give me enough room for my own ideas. So "simple" is better in my case. I think it depends how much you want to contribute yourself to the song apart from the styles. Because every keyboard player uses these styles, all the extra arrangements will return anyway. You can hear that for instance with the arranged intro's #3 and endings #3. You can't use them too often.



That is a very nice touch you mention. This would improve styles. If you are used to these changes, I can imagine that you would be disappointed.

------------------
drdalet

[This message has been edited by drdalet (edited 12-18-2004).]

Hi Artaher,

if you do a search you will see that we had this discussion about Yamaha styles several times in the past.

When I auditioned different KB's in the past I was very intrigued by some of the style patterns and their variations.

Even though I liked a lot of the styles, I couldn't come up with any songs in my repertoir that the styles would fit.

As drdalet mentioned the Yamaha styles leave enough room for my own playing and are not getting in my way.
By using different variations, fill in's, breaks multipads etc. and of course my right hand playing, I bring the music to live.
Plus I am a singer therefore I don't want the KB to take over. In my case it is supposed to back me up.
Several people in the past, that use Yamaha KB's mentioned similar things.

However I agree with you that it would be nice to have more variation in the strum pattern to give it more a live feel.

As a matter of of fact, Yamaha used to have a button on their older models that would do that. You push it and the strumming changed.

Different strokes for different folks.
What a great concept. Imagine all KB's would do the same thing.
How boring: "A" we all have different needs as we can see from this discussion and "B" we could close the SZ because we wouldn't have this discussion.

Eric

From my observations, most folks rarely explore all of the options and wonderful tools that today's arranger keyboards have to offer. I sincerely beleive the Yamaha PSR-3000 is among the most incredible devices I've ever encountered, and every day there is something new to explore. However, most owners never realize the possibilities of their keyboards, both Yamaha and other brands, simply because they don't make the effort to expore the keyboard's operating system and all that it has to offer.

While some of this is due to the horrendous manner that instruction manuals have been composed, an equal portion of the blame can be directly attributed to individuals that are just not willing to do the work. Fortunately, there are forums such as this one, and a few others, where a few folks take the time to delve into the inner workings of their perspective boards and share this information with the rest of the members.

Happy Holidays,

Gary

Hi Gary,

right on. I agree with you a 100%
A friend of mine plays a Solton KB. Out of the box the styles are deffinatley more alive and in your face than my 9000Pro.

However I have spend a lot of hours exploring its potential, tweaked and revoiced the styles and the sounds.
My friend says with that it sounds every bit as good as any other board.

The Yammies don't often sound as good out of the box, but they give you a lot of tools and possibilities to make this board your own. But as Gary said you have to work with it for a while.

There are also a lot of third party styles out there, which are fantastic. Many more than for other brands.

I had my Pro now for about 3 years and I still find new things to explore and I still get excited about it every day when I play it.

Eric

[This message has been edited by Eric, B (edited 12-18-2004).]

Artaher,
I understand where you're coming from. To me, Roland styles are more 'alive' than Yamaha's. I leave it at that.
zuki

Artaher,

Your observations are right on my friend! Yamaha styles are very simple and sound bland. Roland styles are much more interesting with a great deal of pleasing variations. If you cherish complexity in arrangement that span 16 bars with subtle musical variations as you change from a major to a minor to a seventh chord and more, you should look into the Korg arrangers. The Pa1Xpro takes the cake in the style category.

Yamaha styles sound repetitive. Nothing has changed from the PSR3000 to their flagship CVP-309.

Having said that here is your solution. Get the Universal Style Bank CD from this link:
http://usb.free.fr/

These guys have captured every style from all popular arranger keyboards made by Korg, Keytron, Roland, Solton, Yamaha and compiled a universal database. They distribute these styles for your particular instrument on a CDROM. You still have to do some additional work revoicing them. I believe their database contains over 7000 styles. Enough to keep you busy for years! You will get to enjoy your favorite Roland styles and the new Pa1Xpro styles too.

I fully agree that the keys on the PSR3000 are too wimpy. I would not be able to play on it. Feels like a cheap Casio.

The solution is to get a 88 key controller. The Yamaha P250 is an excellent choice for $1800. Even the M-audio Keystation Pro 88 makes an excellent USB controller for under $500.

There is yet another approach to getting styles and auto accompaniment. Have you looked at One Man Band? For a mere $50 you can get this fabulous program that you can load into your laptop and you will have instant access to thousands of styles freely available on the internet. Spend $1800 on a master controller like the Yamaha S90 with its great collection of voices and you are ready to rock and roll.

Download a demo version of One Man Band here:
http://www.1manband.nl/omb.htm

I believe, software arrangers will be the future. The OMB program is a trailblazer.
I will let Rikki elaborate further on this. She is the wizard on this topic.

Tapas

Hi Artaher,
I bought my first top end Yammi Arranger about 3 years ago. ( 9000pro ).
Previously I had Technics , Korgs & Rolands. At first I thought the PSR styles rather bland, but eventually I realized how versatile they were.
I went back to Technics kn7000 for a couple of years, but now I'm just using a software based arranger.

There are 1000's psr style conversions on the net. With a bit of tweaking &/or editing they come up well. I use OMB software for that. (Actually I use OMB as my realtime software arranger as well.) Works out cheaper than owning 3 keyboards at a time haa haa.

best wishes
Rikki


[QUOTE]Originally posted by Artaher:
[B]

The 1st point Artaher was bringing up is a small concern to me - the simplicity or business of styles is a personal concern to many. Some people find more inspiration in more complex styles, others like simpler ones as more versatile. You can convert styles to Yamaha format and easily edit them to make them busier, plus I understand that the newer Yamaha styles are more complex.

The second two issues are shortcomings of Yamaha: Roland does have a dynamic arranger feature, which makes the styles sound different depending on how hard you press the chord notes with your (left) hand.

Also, the Yamaha styles are recorded in 7th chord - if you are playing a major, the 7th is dropped, if playing a minor, the major 3rd is replaced with the minor 3rd note; however, the basic pattern is the same. In Roland, the major, minor, and 7th are actually individually programmed - you can make them sound very similar by copying the parts, but there is also the flexibili to make them completely different - some internal styles make use of this capabilities. This also helps in having a more varied sound. One of the other posts (I believe talking about the G70 manual) complains about having only 3 chords in Roland - that is not true - it will recognize a great variety of chords (perhaps not all of them correctly), but rather than play the single pattern (as Yamaha and Korg would), it will conjugate one of the three patterns - the one which is closest to the chord being played.

On the other hand, the Yamaha players can add variety to their styles by using multi-pads - something Roland would be smart to incorporate.

Regards