Most modern arrangers, you usually get four Variations. What you DON'T get is enough fills to transition between them all....

The hardest thing to do, when designing styles for an arranger, is to come up with a fill that smoothly transitions between more than one set of variations. It's a piece of cake to design a fill that goes smoothly from, say, VAR4 to VAR3, but to design one that goes smoothly from VAR4 to VAR3 AND VAR1 is much harder. In fact, it is one of the things that makes arrangers less 'musical' than SMFs, that every now and again (depending on the skill of the style composer) a fill just doesn't sound right for the job it is doing.

But wait, you say, won't all these extra fills make style creation MORE complex? To be honest, no.... As long as you know what the fill is going to have to do EVERY TIME, it is a snap.

So I encourage you all to try to put pressure (by discussing it, talking with reps, etc.) to get arranger manufacturers to address this. For the smoothest flow, and to make style creation easier, we need a fill to go from each and every VAR to every other one (including itself!). That's sixteen fills, counting Fill-to Same. Roland currently have seven, not sure about the rest.....

Another feature I would love to see expanded (or even added to Rolands!) is the Break/Fill concept. Why have just one? Why not one per VAR? Once again, it is FAR easier to design 4 Break/Fills that trigger at only one level, than it is to design one Break/Fill fit for all occasions.

While current arranger manufacturers are trying to improve arrangers by adding non-essentials, like HD recorders and samplers that are too slow to use, they are ignoring the fundamental ideas that make arrangers easier to use, musically. I would love to see a return to features that actually improve the ARRANGER, not turn it into a poor imitation of a workstation.

Right on, Diki! Great point.
Probably the smoothest and most complete fills are on Yamaha.
DonM

How many fills do they use, Don?

Overall, I feel that Roland's are also very good, at least in styles developed specifically for the new system, but unless they have the full 16, there is always a degree of compromise....

[This message has been edited by Diki (edited 02-27-2007).]

I agree that Yamaha's are great, almost never sound "wrong" no matter the circumstances. They have one fill per variation ("to A", "to B", etc.), plus one Break.

So.... T2 - 4 VARs, 4 Fills, 1 Break/Fill, 3 Intros, 3 Endings

G70/E80 - 4 VARs, 7 Fills, 1 Break/Mute, 4 Intros, 4 Endings

And yet, here come the Yamaha defenders, yet again, claiming there's no need for ANY improvement. From what I've heard, Yamaha's styles don't transition any better than Roland (and with three MORE fills than Yamaha, Roland MAY be better).....

All I'm saying is, there IS room for improvement..... If you keep rushing to defend your purchase (for who knows what reason) you'll get no improvement or updates (in fact, EXACTLY what T2 users HAVE got, so far!) to your OS.

We'd all still be driving Model T's if no-one ever stepped up and said 'there's got to be a better way'.......

I too agree that yamaha esp tyros has the best fill ins.. But i also think rolands is far superior to korg. Maybe on next years tyros 3 u will get 4 intros etc

I have to agree with the others...Yamaha has the smoothest and most realistic changes.

In this case, more is not always better...it is the musicality that seems to give Yamaha the edge.

I have no reason to "defend" my purchase...I was able to try several new Rolands this past weekend while on a road trip, and I was not impressed with the accompaniment styles, or the fills....I must say the intros were pretty good, especially the major/minor/7th variations...Yamaha could learn a lesson in this department.

Having not played the Korg, I can't comment on the fills.

Ian

------------------
Cha d’dhùin doras nach d’fhosgail doras.

A valid point, Diki, but aren't you a little quick on the judgements? I didn't hear anything in either DonM or Marck's response that sounded defensive, only that, in their opinion, the "fill" thing seemed to be less of a problem with the Yamaha arrangers. I tend to agree even though my T2 is NOT my favorite arranger. Expressing a preference doesn't always translate into "mine's perfect" or at least "way better than yours". Remember, DonM's preference for Yammaha transitions didn't stop him from selling his T2. Also, preferring one brand over another doesn't necessarily mean that you don't want or need improvements in that kb.

Otherwise, keep the good ideas coming.

chas

But which gets the closest to a live band transition.
Enjoy whatever you play

Bill

All these hopes , needs & wants are nice to dream about but.....I feel as sales dwindle in the arranger markets year after year instead of improvements to what we already have or are used to we will see more of a merging between synth & arranger very very soon as in years to come it will all be as one unit....with many features for musical production....watch & see!