it's not as hard to understand the American romance with workstations and avoidance of arrangers if you look at it in that light. Minivans represent soccer moms, unromantic family practicality, amateur drivers. Suv's represent cool. Never mind that 99% of suv drivers never go off-road, are bigger outside w less cargo space inside, are heavier and get worse mpg, don't handle as well or ride as comfortably, have only a small height advantage if they are the big suv's, and lack the convenience of sliding doors. Yet, when I got my Mazda mpv minivan and showed it to a lady fiend who just bought an Explorer, she said " Mo, a minivan? that's so not how I think of you" and this from someone w/no practical use for suv, really needed a small sporty economy car, but she felt so cool!
It's a cultural thing, mfrs need to advertise accordingly.


------------------
Miami Mo

Mo: I agree with your analogy. The boom-chuck nature of many of the styles makes arrangers a tough sell to "younger" ears in the US. With all the focus on computer-based instruments it makes it an even harder sell.

I have always thought that, if arranger manufacturers would put as good styles in a contemporary arranger as can be found in the 'loops' sections of most workstations, and reworked the sound-set to be more contemporary, workstation sales would be decimated.

They would need to add a few features to the arranger OSs to make them better suited for urban styles (particularly the ability to allow any track, not just drums, to be non-transposing), but basically, it's all about the styles and sounds.

Perhaps an arranger with an arpeggiator in there as well as usual arranger functions.... Imagine a MotifES mated to a Tyros2, or a FantomX with G70 arranger capabilities. Tasty, isn't it....? They are SO close, and yet so far.

Maybe when software/hardware arrangers like Mediastation put pressure on this market, the Big3 will finally wake up to the fact that most young keyboard players would LOVE (and pay lots of money for!) an arranger that sounded as contemporary as a MotifES or Triton Extreme or FantomX.

After all, it's just as hard to make hiphop on a workstation as a good big band tune, you still have to do most of the work. If arrangers can make urban styles as easy to play as we find big band styles are now, imagine the sales......

It’s the usual chicken and egg situation, Arranger manufactures will not incorporate the latest styles unless there is a demand, youngsters won’t buy Arrangers unless they have the latest styles.
There is a possible kick start, (If manufactures don’t want to spend money immediately) and that is in their sales blurb and demonstrations, point out how it is relatively easy to convert a Midi file into a Style (Virtually all upper range keyboards have this feature) and use a Hip Hop, Rap etc Midi file for the demo.
This will hopefully create the demand that the manufactures look for.
Just a thought

Bill

Arranger keyboards are basicaly good at standard genres, (originaly arranger keybds were made for song writing)
Workstations are good in all genres, perfect in modern electronic music like Dance, trance etc...
of coarse, neither Arranger nor workstations are exelent in Rock, because Rock is for Guitars not keyboards...but electronic music is for keyboards...

In arranger keyboards the Song mostly depends on the manufacturer, in Workstations the song depends on the player.

i heard alot from arranger keyboard USERS that Workstations are not good at traditional music, this is the TRADITIONAL song i made on workstation keyboard : http://www.sendspace.com/file/bjfapa
it sounds pretty good to me, even better than on arranger keyboards, but of coarse as i said:In arranger keyboards the Song mostly depends on the manufacturer, in Workstations the song depends on the player.

Hi Vadim
It depends how you approach the Arranger Keyboard, you can either choose the style and then choose a song to match, (As you say playing like the manufacture wants you to, and which is great for starting off in music) or choose a song and then find a style that gives a good match, (The player makes the decisions not the manufacture, which is great once you have gained experience) and then modifying the style to suit. (If required)
Rock Music is Primary Guitars, but keyboards are also featured (Particularly Organs) a lot in the background.
Another way to look at things

Bill

The distinction between arranger keyboards and Workstations are for the most part completely ficticious. An arranger can pretty much do most of what a workstation can do in terms of sequencer, sampling, and sound synthesis. The only real major advantage that a workstation has is the ability to route effects in a more complex way to various tracks. Many producers today produce the most phat beats and grooves by looping and chaining the loops together to make a track. Thats excactly what an arranger does but in real time.

The difference between arrangers and workstations for the most part is just perception. If you switch off the aranger functions on a top of the range arranger you actually have a pretty decent stand alone workstation. Switch on the arranger and you get a work station on steroids!

Have a look at this post in the Music Player Forum. http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php?/ubb/get_topic/f/18/t/021171.html
Yet another view

Bill

Thanks for that link Abacus. From the responses to the original posters query it is clear that there is an incredible lack of awareness of what can be done on an arranger !

for example "They also have pretty good or even better voices than workstation keyboards these days, albeit generally with more of a focus on acoustic rather than synth sounds, but the editing ability tends to be pretty limited (you're basically restricted to presets, whereas you can create your "own" sounds as limited by the synth engine of a production workstation), and they often lack the expandability of a production workstation (e.g. expansion cards with new samples/voices on them"

I am not trying to disrespect the poster but if he were to go on Irish Acts for example and click on the download section he would see tons of free sounds that can be downloaded for the PAX including some great synth sounds. The editing features on the Pax are just simply vast ! More than most people could use competantly . Editing waves can get pretty deep without using additional external software to shape the sound.Currently you can mix 4 Oscilators (sounds) and edit each individual one to your taste. The PA800 has the ability to use 16 oscillators at any one time and has 128 note polyphony!!! You can create the most sophisticated sounds that you can imagine.

another example "If your focus is writing lyrics and you don't want to write drum parts, bass parts, rhythms, etc... then an arranger is for you.

If you want to write all aspects of the song including all instrument parts, then a workstation is better."

One of the reasons i bought the Pax was because it could do it all. I did not want to have to choose between a work station and an arranger and i dont have to ! The Pax has a comprehensive sequencer that can record in step edit mode, Quick record mode i.e using the arranger functions in a simple single pass recording as i play live and traditional linear sequencing, copying , pasting punching in and out of tracks inserting deleting, quantizing parts of tracks , copying parts of tracks etc etc in and out each individual track and micro editing it afterwards etc. and whats more i can combine all the methods if i so choose within the same song ! For example i might have the bones of a groove and a funk style might suit it best. so i quickly record in a single pass the various chord progressions that suit the idea i have in my head. I now have a scratch pad to work from. Using the same recorded peice i can enter Multitrack sequencer which will allow me over dub parts of tracks that i want to individualise so for for example i could reprograme the base line where ever i felt it needs some extra kick or more complex pattern or reprogramme the drums adding different percusion . Then i could add additioinal tracks like fat piercing brass stabs or oscillating synth pads to add a moving texture to the overall sound. If i really wanted to get deeper still, i could then use event edit to edit the song on a micro basis i.e note by note of each track individually if i so chose changing the note in its entirety , its velocity, its cut off ...you name it.

What i am trying to say (in a very verbose way) is that most people have never dipped any deeper than playing styles on an arranger keybpard but i can only speak for the Pax, if all you are playing is the styles then you will only have scratched the surface on this machine and i suspect on other top endarrangers.

My brother has the Triton Extreme and make no mistake its a deep instrument. But he ofetn "secretly" plays my keyboard when he thinks i am not around. Why ? Because he get immediate gratification musically and almost invariably is inspired to create something on his own keyboard.

I'm the one who started this thread and I'm now more confused than when i started. It's hard for me to imagine there are so many out there that are working production people who make full use of most of the capabilities of a top-end workstation or a top-end arrnager, for that matter. My hat's off to them if there are, because I can't ever imagine myself doing all that. Seems like a full-time occupation to me, there's so much to work on it seems overwhelming. I would think there are many more out there like myself, but maybe i'm just out of it. I'm a working musician, jazz-oriented mostly, who uses an arranger for omb, duo, and rare trio gigs, and while I enjoy tweaking some of my most-used sounds, and paring down and remixing some of the styles---what I need an arranger for is to follow my LH in full kb mode,
splits or no, and to provide me the best possible dozen or two sounds and styles I would use on a gig, along with a few good effects.
It's beyond my comprehension why anyone like myself would need hundreds of sounds, styles, and effects. Why
I look forward to upgrading is to find among the newer models improved sounds, styles, vocalizer, navigation features, etc.
So am I so atypical, or is the workstation freak atypical?

------------------
Miami Mo

..... Arrangers or Workstations, what kind you prefer or use depends what kind of job you do( producing songs, or OMB performance, playing in the band..) (of coarse I know what arranger can do, and what workstation can do, i was doing stuff on arranger that wasn't possible on workstation, and i was doing stuff on workstation that wasn't possible on arranger)
that's why I have both an Arranger and a workstation (plus my guitars,bass, accordions, software..)because I play keyboard in a band, I produce songs, I play piano, and i play arranger keyboard...
arranger is a tool for one certain job, workstation is a tool for another job...

it's like saying what is better a flashlight, or a chandelier... depends an the situation and the job adn where you are... both flashlight and chandelier produce artificial light, like Arranger and Workstation produce artificial sounds...

[This message has been edited by Vadim (edited 12-12-2006).]

Vadim, what you are not getting here is that most top of the line arrangers are virtually as powerful as workstations as they are arrangers, whereas most workstations have NO arranger capability at all.

Both the T2 and the Korg line (not Roland, unfortunately) allow almost as much voice editing capabilities as their workstation cousins, have capable samplers, and extensive sequencing abilities (the Rolands have that, though!).

Your minivan/suv analogy only exists in the minds of users, not in actual capability. What we have in an arranger is a minivan that, if you press a button, morphs into an SUV! Something no workstation (even Oasys) can do......

As I said earlier, the only REAL difference is the sound-set, which can be remedied with the sampler section, and the availability of good urban styles. The first manufacturer to address this is going to make a fortune..!!

I do a lot of production work myself, and if at all possible, I will always start with recording a 'style sketch' into the arranger's sequencer. I can then work on it in traditional workstation workflow, but with the advantage that the whole basic tracks effort takes a fraction of the time it would with a workstation.

I can then add in recorded audio, more parts on external MIDI gear or soft synths to give it that extra sheen. But all in a fraction of the time a traditional production takes. THIS is why an arranger is at the heart of my production workflow. If workstation addicts want to take more time than necessary, that OK with me.....

So rejoice that, in one keyboard, you have an arranger, AND a workstation. Most soccer moms would LOVE a mini-van that morphs into a sporty SUV!

thanks for your post Dikki. That completely concurrs with the way i use my arranger. The arranger function for me is when i want to jam with myself or simply play grooves and experiment with songs . For example just the other night i was play "close to you" by the carpenters using a country style. Then i thought how would it sound in a reggae style ? Instantly i could switch the up with some horns and a sax solo played over the top. All done in about 45 minutes. And i could change the style again to an RnB version in minutes or reproduce the whole thing again in an accoustic guitar double base and jazz kit drum version in 30 minutes. This kind of creativity is impossible on a traditional workstation and yet if i switched of the arranger functions i could still use the instrument as a standalone workstation.

I look at the yamaha motif and see that they are importing similar "arranger functions " like pads that trigger guitar strums, loop drum patterns, that follow your chords etc into their Work station instruments. I have seen a similar thing on the Roland top of the range RD stage pianos . More consumers are reaping the benefits of arranger functions on "pro keyboards" . The Oasys uses the most advanced arranger function via the Karma technology but it still cant do what an arranger can. But its only a matter of time before there is no dividing line between arrangers and workstations.

It's beyond my comprehension why anyone like myself would need hundreds of sounds, styles, and effects. Why
I look forward to upgrading is to find among the newer models improved sounds, styles, vocalizer, navigation features, etc.
So am I so atypical, or is the workstation freak atypical?

------------------
Miami Mo

Keysvocalssax, Songs have different feelings, like strong, gentle and whatever you might feel when listening. Within that there are many variations, not using many different styles limits your performance. You run the risk of lacking in color – boring.
Because you have a duo and sometimes a trio you have the ability to add your own feelings to the song (Live is always beautiful) the many styles will just add to what you are doing.

Have you sold the KN5000 yet?

John C.

well, all this is interesting but not exactly what i was trying to get at. which was that the arranger suffers from an image problem just as a minivan does. a "sporty" suv is only really sporty if it goes off-road. otherwise, it's just the boxy body style that is considered more "cool " than the slope-nose sliding-door minivan, but the mini actually is a more practical vehicle that rides and handles better to boot. several of you have addressed that, and the analogy i drew seems even more valid if u are right and the arranger can do 95% of what a workstation can, except for
maybe a couple of things the workstation excels at just
as the "off-road' capability of suv(which only 5% use)

As far as creativity w/ many styles available, to me that's
just an unnecessary distraction. the greatest art is made within narrow limits, too much choice waters it down. if
i have a dozen great styles, that's more than enough for me to make really interesting music from, as a jazz player. In fact, if a great jazz player has only 5 or 6 of those styles, he would be more engaging and less boring than all of the rest using dozens of styles and sounds. As far as i'm concerned, the more styles and sounds any of you would use, the less i would be interested in what you had to say musically. Check out the Ray Charles-Jerry lee lewis-Fats Domino video on "no arranger"thread here
recently. Howe many sounds, styles are they using? I rest my case

------------------
Miami Mo

sometimes creativity needs inspiration thats why there are so many styles that many musicians might find interesting. I would never have started to like bosonova's until i heard "you are the sunshine of my life " by Stevie wonder in that style or loved slow piano jazz till i heard Kim Burrel sing "somewhere over the rainbow" using her Gospel tones and jazz chording. Personally i would be very board if there wasnt the variety of styles of music available for me to dip into and learn to appreciate. Its all about what things tickle your fancy . I know that the more i listen to other genres of music the more my tastes in music have changed. I love Ray charles and his friends but i would get bored very quickly if all they ever did was 3 chord banging piano songs....

getting bored with Ray Charles is like getting bored with great sex or homemade lasagne or hot fudge sundaes. and he does a whole lot more than 3-chord banging, but "only" uses piano and rhodes, and "only" sings in one voice. but his art is genius personified, he doesn't need to
range over hundreds of sounds and styles. learn from what you hear, sure--there's nothing wrong with having zillions of sounds/styles on hand to choose from, it's a
fantastic thing. But if you want to be great, you have to choose what you will concentrate on.

------------------
Miami Mo