Joe sounds exactly what I did last month at a big High School here in NJ Senior prom with real Seniors . You HAVE TO have a packed tool box to Get Er Dun!!!...as for everything else you mentioned what can I say?....

GREAT MINDS THINK ALIKE

Boo......let me delve into my resources stay tuned buddy!

DP

Just try to remember one thing... playing over an SMF does NOT mean necessarily playing over a commercial SMF. You don't HAVE to sound just like the original (and probably even the original artist doesn't perform the tune EXACTLY like the single)...

One of the best things that SMFs can do is to make your styles even more realistic. The nature of arrangers is that repetition thing... Same bassline for each variation, same fills for each transition, same horn licks in the second chorus as the first. But if you make your OWN SMFs from the arranger's output (so essentially, you are getting what you WOULD play if you were still in arranger mode), but then go the extra mile, and edit the SMF to help get rid of the repetition, and give it a bassline that sometimes moves in the direction of the NEXT chord change (something no arranger can do - anticipate a change), fills that are non-repetitive, etc., etc., you gain a backing that is NOT just a copy of the record, it is still your own creation.

Add to that the ability to play at least TWO parts at a time yourself on top of that backing (you've got two hands, don't you? ), so less need for automated parts at all, and you get something that the audience will definitely notice is more live, more PLAYED, than just sitting there inputting the same old changes over and over again while you bang out the melody with your RH.

Even though the backing is initially derived from the arranger output, you have knocked the sharp corners off the machine-like nature of it, and increased your degree of involvement in the final sound. Now take Mark/Jump abilities into consideration, and you have back a large degree of the arranger strength of re-ordering the sections.

And one last thing. Make the registration include the Link to the SMF, and also the original style it was derived from, and midway through the SMF, or at the end to extend or segue into another tune, you can simply stop the SMF and sync-start the arranger (some arrangers do this seamlessly, others simply need practice to do it manually, but it CAN be done), and carry on in the usual fashion.

Just don't get the fixed idea that SMF's ALWAYS have to be commercial files, and ALWAYS have to sound just like the record, and ALWAYS have to have too many parts.

They can be, if you let them, be just as distinctive and unique as your arranger playing, and if you use them to free your LH from the tyranny of inputting the same chords over and over again (I'm sorry, but I see few here with the ability to reharmonize a tune on the fly, from what I've heard -at least intentionally! ), you can at least DOUBLE the amount of music that YOU are playing (not the machine), and that is something the audience WILL notice, being different every night...

Diki
That's a great post.
Thanks
Bernie

Well said Diki.

It's funny, but what you suggested (using SMFs created from your own modified arranger styles) I actually use for songwriting - I mean, that's WHY I use arrangers (as opposed to Synths/Workstations).

Live, I use SMFs (from so many different sources - free "off the net" (but ALWAYS modified/tweaked/stripped by myself), Pro files, and Custom made sequences occasionally written by myself, because whilst I agree with the "SMFs are mainly for singers statement" - we're Singers first, instrumentalists second - we are also very much a "Dance Act" and all the dancers we play to almost invariably practice with the original recordings, so SMFs/MP3s of those original recordings from the specific artists required, help beginner dancers, intermediate, (and even advanced) do their (sometimes complex and meticulous) routines perfectly.

Just another way to look at the reasoning behind using SMFs.

I really think that arrangers are by far the easiest way to START making music, but SMF's are the way to polish it off. Until that repetitive thing is dealt with, I always feel I am playing with a machine, but as soon as you go into the derived file, and start to mess things up a bit, suddenly it starts to sound like music that people played, not a machine...

People are FAR more aware of mechanicalness of music than you give them credit for. No matter how untrained, most people's ears can distinguish when a section of music is just a cut and paste repeat, and not an actual 'replaying' it a second time. Once you edit the arranger's output so you get this impression, things start to feel a LOT more like playing in a real band... Whether for original music OR for cover tunes.

Arrangers give the jumping off point, but they aren't the finishing line

Now this would be an interesting meeting session. In addition to get-together jams, an educational workshop on just how to do these type things would be GREAT. There's simply not enough support hands-on support for the consumer that explore all that can be accomplished.

zuki

Zuki......aside from instructional DVDs which are hard to find due to the lack of manufacturers who dont want you to learn your unit "in depth" because then you wouldn't move on to the next so fast which in turn = less money for them. So instead we have to hope that some dedicated players or third party people are willing to put in their time & efforts to produce DVDs for certain units & hope you can get something out of them.

Some great thoughts here, let me add mine.

With my KN7000 I would alter the style variations, intros and endings to my taste. I am having a bit of difficulty doing that on my S900.

Having a noticeable changes in the variations and then having 4 custom pads to add, (again made to my taste) I feel the boredom is gone. What is left is my left hand, full chords and my right hand --- and my ability to make the changes on the fly.

I change the bass lines, volumes and sometime the drums. It only becomes boring when I am boring. Or when I am not sure of the song I am playing – my concentration is diverted to finger and melodies and searching. When I edit the variations I picture what a live band sounds like when they change from mood to mood, it can be interesting.

This does not put down playing along with midi files, it’s just another approach to making music.

John C.

John the lack of "EASY" flexible editing regarding interchangeability within styles, variations, Intro/Endings parts has always been something that holds a player back from his creative juices flowing to the best of his/her ability to really make an arranger their own. Each company just gives you a mere few features to wet your whistle but always omits a few so you always need more. IMO Roland has the most to offer regarding this, eg: makeup tools are the best Ive used so far,easy & precise. Style are the engine of an arranger and being able to manipulate & FULLY Edit them in any way possible to achieve your goals is a major factor that needs to be addressed & included in future units.
Cut, paste, record style parts in an on-board simpler fashion needs to be added with FULL DVD instructional volumes in all levels. Otherwise its business as usual, bad manuals, lack of players needs, and buying & selling year after year.



[This message has been edited by Dnj (edited 05-21-2008).]