Is it determined by the number and quality of on board styles?
Or by the number or type of sounds?
Or the features?
Or whether or not it has specific features?
Or whether or not it works the same like another brand?
Or whether or not it is user friendly?
Or does it depend on the objectivity/subjectivity, competency, openness, and skill level of the player?


With all the talk about these newer keyboards it seems like there are some purist that believe that there is no other way an arranger can be constructed and operated other than the way they were built 8-10 years ago.

Look at the mediastation for example, there are some that are still trying to understand the benefit of a mediastation. Because they are not able to understand, they then conclude erroneously that it is not really an arranger. Although it has everything that an arranger is known for (styles, left hand operation of styles, at least 8 tracks for styles, intros, endings, variations and fills) they still want to call it a workstation not an arranger.
Its just that they don’t think they could operate and use these newer keyboards.

Another example is the new Yamaha Motif XS. Now Yamaha does not call it an arranger but put it in the right hands, it could function as an arranger with chord recognition, variations to the beat and a spontaneous live feel.

The real fact is that all of us use an arranger differently. Some of us use it with a band, some use it as part of a duo or threeo and some of us use it as part of our solo act. We all have different skill and abilities and as such need and use different features on a keyboard.


Some of us need a keyboard that can make us sound like a CD recording with the minimal amount of playing ability. We just want to turn on the keyboard press the start button and with 1/2/3 fingers we can sound like a CD. No real keyboard skills needed. And for some of us that is an arranger.

There are others of us that want a keyboard that could help us augment our playing and electronic music abilities. What the factory gives to us is not as important as what they give us to make us sound like ourselves. We are not closed minded and think that there is just one way to skin a cat. We like to have our own individuality when playing. We are not lazy and are not afraid of doing some work to accomplish that. Because we know in the long run that the work will last us for a very long time.

We are not caught up with words and terminology but use what ever tools are available to give us the most flexibility to express ourselves musically.

I think that an arranger is a keyboard that gives one person the ability to at most sound like a ban with the flexibility of being spontaneous on the fly.

I think that that would cover any arranger from the
$100 Casios to the TOTL Mediastation.

Now whether it sounds “good”, live, easy to use, and the number and quality of sounds and styles is up to the subjectivity and skill level of the user and the manufacturers development workers.

But I don’t think that “good sounds and styles” and usability defines whether or not it is an arranger. If that were the case, you would not call the $100 Casios arrangers.

-------------------
MUSIC IS ONLY AS GOOD AS YOU MAKE IT

do you want a serious response to this or are you just stating what you believe ? I am happy to discuss this with you so long as it is understood that i dont want a cussing match. I am not closed minded to any of the newer breed "arranger" keyboards. So if you want to discus this lets agree its a discussion with just our own take on what an arranger keyboard is as clearly there can be no set definition

[This message has been edited by Spalding1 (edited 04-29-2007).]

Retro perhaps, but does the term "auto-accompaniment" work (as a definition)?

chas

Sorry if my original post appeared confrontational that was not my intent.
This is a very serious topic and I hope it can be discussed civilly and not turn in to another one of the personal degrading topics.

I was just wanting to talk about what is an arranger because as we can see the technology is merging the traditional “work stations” and the traditional “arranger”.

I stated what I believe to be an arranger but that does not mean that other persons would not have a different definition.

That’s the beauty of today’s keyboard technology, different strokes for different folks. And it all depends on what you make it.
-------------------
MUSIC ONLY SOUNDS AS GOOD AS YOU MAKE IT

Yes . I think some form of auto accompaniment must be included in the definition Cgiles. I dont think that an arranger keyboard can be defined by how its used because thats simply too wide a definition.Literally anything could be an arranger.

Of the list that you put up genesys i think the quality of the onboard styles and specific arranger features like being able to drop in and out parts on a style are essential for any aranger.

I agree with most of wht you say about the way that arrangers can be used that are not the way that they are traditionally used. For examle I use my instrument to specifically rearrange established songs in a new way.I hardly ever play solos in the right hand with a different instrument to what i have in the left hand.

Your example of the mediastation might be contentious as noone has a problem with the instrument as a concept. The controversy comes about whether or not it does what its supposed to do to a standard that people generally accept as quality. I dont want to dwell on this . I just wanted to clarify that understanding the concept of new arrangers is not the problem.

"I think that an arranger is a keyboard that gives one person the ability to at most sound like a ban with the flexibility of being spontaneous on the fly. "

I completely agree.

I think the problem with XS is that the instrument is not specifically designed for arranger use although it has some limited aranger functions. I think the instruments primary function should be for arranger use and that kind of makes it an arranger.

Good luck if you can find a tighter definition .


Not to mimic the original but change it

We are sort of discussing the differences (and similarities) between arrangers and workstations, it seems to me. Or are you asking what makes a 'good' arranger? Genesys, you're first few lines of your post seem more in that vein...

Firstly, let me say that NO-ONE has accused the MS of not being an arranger... Just not a good one (yet). An arranger is the combination of hardware, software, and CONTENT.

This is one of the major differences (in the past) between arrangers and workstations. Workstations were sold without content. Until the Triton (I think, not sure about the first one) there were no loops, pre-recorded arps, or full sequences that came with a workstation (WS). You bought it strictly for the sounds and features.

Arrangers, OTOH, have ALWAYS been about content, as well as sounds and features. No manufacturer ever sold an empty arranger and said 'OK, here you are. Make your own content'. They gave us (eventually) the ability to add more content, and finally even make our own, but never attempted to make us do all the work first. The skills required to make an entire style library, at anything approaching the level of ROM styles is completely beyond most players. Even the majors now use a team of programmers, with drummers playing pads, MIDI guitarists and bassists, and skilled imitative keyboard players.

It is no secret that many (dare I say most?) workstation users don't always do their own sequences, relying on third party SMFs to get that 'full band' sound, or at least drum and MIDI guitar libraries to get those tricky parts authentically. That is, if they are using it as a 'virtual' band or rhythm section. Studio use is another thing.

This is one of the 'problems' (I say advantages!) of todays TOTL keyboards. They do everything! You can use an arranger as a workstation, and you can use a workstation (especially the MotifXS) as an arranger. But how well do they do each task? A LOT depends on the type of music you are trying to perform.

For simple loop based hiphop, techno and urban styles, something like the MotifXS would be all an arranger player would need, with little need for Intros and Outros, Fills, Rit/Accels etc., but, as is being realized, for more complex musics, not quite sufficient to do the job.

I think the Keyboard article nailed it with the analogy of a workstation being a situation where you say to the drummer 'OK, play kick on 1 and 3, syncopate your hi-hats and play the back-beat on a 12" brass snare, bassist, play an upright bass, swing it a 63% and play these notes' etc., etc.. And an arranger is you in charge of a band and say 'OK, let's play this one like KC and the Sunshine Band, key of Bb, 1-2-3-4....'

How much you need either of these approaches depends a lot on where and what you are playing, and with whom...

There is no doubt that most of the TOTL arrangers double as an extremely good live band keyboard (in fact, I prefer them to most workstations because of the more 'meat and potatoes' sound sets, and intuitive splitting and layering and effects options compared to WS's). Let's face it, an arranger is designed from the ground up to be used 'live', and most WS's are designed more for studio flexibility than live ease. But if you are in a full band, well rehearsed, then the flexibility of the WS may be of more value. This one is a tie (IMO).

But an arranger, WITHOUT good styles is a crippled tool. IF... you are using it as an arranger. Use it as a WS, and cool, no problem. Use it as a live keyboard, cool, no problem. But if you want to use it as an arranger, for the purpose that arrangers are PRIMARILY designed for, the styles are probably more important than any other feature. Great styles with a less than average sound set go a LOT further than great sounds with a less than average style selection.

If you use your arranger for what it is primarily designed for, rather than as a vague hybrid, then yes, the styles are almost the ONLY consideration. If you need marginal style functions, but extensive WS functions, then MotifXS's and MS's may fit the bill.

Hi to the genesys
Just apply the dictionary definition to a keyboard, and you have the answer to what an arranger keyboard is or should be.
Arranger
- put somebody or something in order: to put people or things in a position or order
- prepare for something: to do what is necessary to make something happen in the future
- make agreement for something to happen: to make an agreement so that something can happen or somebody can have something

Enjoy whatever you play

Bill

All very good responses here. Although they are worded different, the common theme is that an arranger should be a keyboard that has some type of spontaneous backing track capability.


One way is by having auto accompaniment technology that results in styles. Another way is to have arpts that have intelligent chord recognition.

How they sound is a totally different question and is up the what the manufacturer puts in the keyboard and the user’s ability. But IMO, the quality of the on board styles/arpts does not define whether or not it is an arranger it only says how good of an arranger it is (which is very subjective and depends on the user’s needs/playing ability).

Although onboard styles have been common practice on arrangers, I think as manufacturers try to be innovative, and to capture markets and to be economical, we may have to expand our thinking about what is an arranger.


For example, what if Roland were to create there new “workstation” (lets call it the Prince) and four versions of it. The Prince 61, 76, and 88 would be strictly “workstations” with all the features a workstation should have.

Now, what if they had another version that is 76 keys, has all the features of a workstation but can also double as a traditional “arranger” (lets call it the Prince ar). They would have designed it so that a lot of the buttons would have duel purpose. There will be two modes a “workstation mode and a “arranger mode”.

And what if they did not have any styles onboard (but for 8 demo styles). They would allow users to be able to download/purchase styles from the G70 and other Roland arrangers and other third party styles. And of course you can create your own styles and it would have a lot of other style editing/make up/conversion/transfer features.

Would the Prince ar be considered an arranger? After all, it doesn’t have any styles only the ability to play styles.

I just think that as manufacturers continue to develop new products, our definition of what is and is not and arranger or workstation would have to change.

-------------------
MUSIC ONLY SOUNDS AS GOOD AS YOU MAKE IT



[This message has been edited by to the genesys (edited 04-29-2007).]

Well, if to expand the definition of the word 'arranger' you have to accept keyboards that are less capable of the job, why not include dual manual organs with bass pedals. LOTS of guys can make those sound as if a whole band is playing (sort of!), and they have no content at all!

It seems to me you want to expand the definition of 'arranger' to be more vague than it already is, kind of making pointless ANY descriptive term. The whole reason to label a tool is to define it's function (or function determines the label, either is good!). If ANY keyboard with ANY kind of non-live played parts is an arranger, and ANY keyboard with ANY kind of sequencing functions is a workstation, well, most keyboards now are identical, label-wise. Which makes for some VERY confusing marketing and buying decisions.

Rather than lump more and more keyboards under the same blanket description, we need to find better and more precise labels for these hybrids. Otherwise, how does someone looking for an 'arranger' know what to look at?

Of course, 'look at them all' is a good idea, but few have the time or patience to sample the entire market. If I want an arranger, why should I waste my time driving to a Motif dealer, just because it has some quasi-arranger like features...? It ISN"T an arranger, at least if we stick to the definition an arranger has had for the last 15 years or so. And a G70 is NOT a workstation, despite even having the words on the front panel! For one thing, there is no user patch storage, a basic WS feature, or the ability to call up ANY external CC/PC# combination (just the ones that correspond with ROM voices), another basic WS feature.

Allowing manufacturers to mislabel these things, and confuse ourselves is counter-productive. Another, better, more descriptive label for what keyboards like the MotifXS are is what is really needed. 'Loop-stations', "Looparrangers', 'Arpstations', whatever... Until it has FULL arranger capabilities, it should NOT be called an 'arranger'

As to the Roland 'Prince' (the keyboard formerly known as ¥), firstly, unless the style package for it is very expensive, why would anyone buy the basic? And if it IS very expensive, why would we buy it? Secondly, style and sound-set are a VERY interlinked package (witness how poorly most styles translate to other non-native arrangers), so styles from a G70 would sound very differently on the Prince.

There ARE a few true WS/arranger hybrids. The MS is one of them. But note that you don't save much money getting one of these rather than a WS AND an arranger. Of all the mainstream arrangers, the PA1XPro is about the closest thing to what you are talking about, but it has NO loop/arp capabilities (in M3 or MotifES terms).

The thing is, hiphop and urban music have VERY different auto-accompaniment needs than more traditional styles. What works well for one does NOT work well for the other. Until the two forms of auto-accompaniment DO finally make it to the same keyboard, let us not jump the gun and start labeling them the same...

When most people talk about sounding like a band, it is generally accepted that you would hear a drum, a bass, some type of a chord or comping instrument and different solo instruments.

You see the issue is that the technology is at a crossroad where needs, functions and markets are changing. It seems like we want to define an instrument by the specific features it has and not by its general operations and functions.

Yamaha does not call the Motif xs an arranger. But in fact, we really don’t know what it is. To me, it seems as if Yamaha is hiding the arranger capability probably because of the stigma of arranger to synth players. However, I am sure a skill Yamaha rep who knows about arrangers could operate the xs as an arranger. I am sure as time goes on and as people play with the xs they will find a way to where it can do fills intros and variation. Now it may not be the same as how we are accustom to have been using arrangers for the past 14 years, but the end is the same.

I don’t think because a keyboard does not have a subset of a feature we should say that it is not one or the other.

A keyboard with out the ability to generate a backing track by chord recognition I would agree is not an arranger. However, if it has that feature but it doesn’t have endings or intros (in the most direct way of pushing a button), I don’t think it should not be called an arranger.

Likewise, if a keyboard does not have a sequencer and sound editing it is probably not a workstation. However, if it has those features but does not have at least 16 tracks on the sequencer and only gives the user the choice to override and existing sound with a user sound, I don’t think it should not be called a workstation.

Those keyboards should still have their labels, it just that the features and price would be different from a full featured arranger or workstation (a Korg tr is still a workstation so is the Korg Triton extreme).
BTW, the Genesys is truly a workstation and arranger as it has styles, a sequencer and sound editing and storage. It may not be the best arranger or workstation but it is both.

If a manufacturer labels a keyboard a workstation or arranger, it is for the consumer to find out whether or not the features on that particular board meets his or her needs.

Regarding the Prince, The Prince ar would cost more than the other three because that would be the only one that would enable you to play styles. Those who want an arranger would by the Prince ar even if it cost more money. People pay more for a G70 than a Fantom x7.

Of course Roland would make the G70 styles playable and sound good on the Prince ar (hay they are going to be charging you all for them so they better). Other third party styles and converted styles that may be free, Roland would provide make up tools on the Prince ar for the user to make the style sound good. Now I know arranger players would be able to do at least that.

This way, you only get the styles you want. You don’t have to worry whether you play hip-hop, jazz or slow ballads. After all, you really only need 15-25 styles for a gig.

The only thing I would say about the mediastation is that instead of upgrading two hardwares (a workstation and arranger) you would only have to upgrade the software. And if you do have to upgrade the hardware it is one not two. Not to mention you can integrate the workstation and arranger in one board rather than having to jump from one to the other.

-------
MUSIC IS ONLY AS GOOD AS YOU MAKE IT

Boy, I don't know when I've heard such eloquent discourses on such a vague and pointless subject. I think you guys should just forget about music and start a writing class. Diki, could you give us a couple of paragraphs of your thoughts on the visual properties of clean air. ......just kidding you, man, I love reading your stuff (irregardless of it's value or lack thereof).

chas

BTW, I think an arranger is like pornography; we all recognize one when we see it.

chas

I think I would prefer to have one no-compromise arranger, and a no-compromise workstation, than one keyboard that was the best at neither....

If and when a perfect hybrid keyboard ever gets made, sure, I'll give it a go, but in the meantime, to get hybrid capabilities, it seems SOME sacrifices have to be made. I certainly don't want to have to do months of work on an XS to give it the full arranger feature you think it MIGHT be able to do (and I completely disagree that it IS capable of most 'normal' arranger capabilities, despite having chord recognition), if I could go out and get a T2 or G70 off the shelf and it already have those capabilities.

The thing is, most arrangers are more than just sounds and styles. It is a philosophy of live 'ease', of being able to call up a new style while one is already playing, of muting parts within those styles quickly and easily, of calling sounds up for keyboard playing quickly and seamlessly, of not worrying about large jumps in volume between different patches (the bane of workstations, OOTB!), of having easily accessible songbook database functions for large repertoires, of on screen lyric displays... And so on, ad nauseam.

There's a LOT more to an arranger than styles...

Workstations (whether they have loops and chord recognition or not) seem to have a philosophy of 'if you have enough time to prepare for a gig or song, there is nothing better'

Arrangers have more of a philosophy of 'if you have NO time to prepare for a song or gig, there is no better keyboard'...

I agree that with enough time and patience and flexibility, you COULD make either do the other's job. Just not well, so why bother..?

Chas, did I just get an 'F' in my writing class....?

Anyway, it sure beats flaming each other over which arranger weighs the least. And NOBODY wants to hear me whine about the Chord Sequencer any more!

Perhaps, if you find this thread 'pointless', you might start a thread on an arranger related subject that is more to the 'point'.... I just take 'em as they come..

I dunno, but I think I just got an 'F U'. Anyhoo, all in good fun.

chas

I couldn't agree with you more. I think whether a keyboard is called an arranger is a vague and pointless subject. That is what I thought when keyboards like the mediastation and the XS was call not an arranger. I am glad this discussion has caused people to come to that conclusion.