i remember about a very old casio model(small 49 keys) having separate buttons for each accomp track, with four positions each, so you could use different drums (4 types) different bass (4 types) different two accomp tracks (4 types of course) of a style at your free will.
that was very long time ago, i think i saw this model... 17 years ago.
but more modern concept from roland it seemed quite interesting to me, but unfortunatelly was not implemented after VA series, meaning morphing style function.
i am sure something similar could be developed also for fills, or intros or endings. having degrees of combination between two fills/var/intro/endings can give almost unlimited posibilities, you'd never sound like the other owners of the same keyboard....

I agree that Yamaha has great fills, but Diki's idea would definitely be an improvement.

I agree with Diki that the most important function is the arranger function.

Beakybird

we are talking Bass LINE variation...
not bass sound.

It depends on your background.
If you are used to playing the backing yourself (Organ/Piano etc) then super all singing all dancing arranger functions are not so critical, (I come from an organ background and all these sofisticated arrangements sometimes completely annoy me) and this is why it will be most unlikely that I will purchase the Wersi Open Art Arranger Software (At least at present) when I move up to OAS 7, as the standard arranger functions are way above what I require, and the multiple additional facilities of the OAA would most likly not be used. (One of the many reasons I like Wersi is that you can buy what you require and not what the manufacture says you should buy)
Another point of view

Bill

[This message has been edited by abacus (edited 03-01-2007).]

[This message has been edited by abacus (edited 03-01-2007).]

hello mr.9000 ....

Ketron can lock any part of any style in real time , registrations are not needed.

Whether you are using the full arranger, or just bass and drums, or even just drums (as I often do myself) the smoothness and musicality of the transitions is the main thing.... Having a dedicated fill FROM each Variation TO each variation would be the best way.

As I said earlier, Yamaha's, newer Roland's, many good arrangers sound VERY good. BUT..... it takes considerable skill to create a style yourself with this degree of smoothness. It is (to my ears) the main difference between pro styles, and user styles. If there were this more elaborate fill system, it would make smooth styles a piece of cake to do yourself, rather than relying on the big 3 to produce as many as we want, with as much style variety.

That's all I'm trying to say, I guess. The main style writers already have very good skills at making fills that perform double (or triple or more!) duty. But for the rest of us, it is a difficult challenge. Only having to worry about making one fill go to one destination would speed the process up drastically.

Imagine.... to make a great fill, you only need copy the last bar of the source variation. You then carve off the last two or three beats and perform a fill that transitions to the destination variation. Job done! No worrying about how well it also transitions to three OTHER destinations, too! Rinse, and repeat. You now have created a style that could rival the top stylemakers.

I would hope this would lead to an explosion of good user styles, rather than trying to find something suitable from the limited selection of commercial styles.... Something we would ALL benefit from.