Isn't everybody tired of the 'you don't get it' comments from everybody seeking to excuse the MS's lack of quality content?

Personally, I think it is they who have not 'got it'... I honestly doubt there is a single person on this entire forum (including myself) capable of creating sufficient styles on it to gig with at a quality that exceeds my humble G70, let alone a T3 or PA2.

Look, everybody already HAS an arranger with no content... Simply erase ALL the ROM styles from your arranger (if you can). Now how useful is it? And how long do you think it would take you to create enough to gig on? Remember, no cheating and loading up third party styles already developed for your arranger... pretend, like the MS, that you have to do it ALL yourself, and use ONLY third party styles developed for a DIFFERENT arranger that you have to tweak extensively yourself...

Look, we 'get' what the MS is good at... but how many of us 'get' exactly what WE ourselves are going to have to do to make the MS as useful and fun as a closed arranger..?

Let's be honest... if the market really DID want an arranger that you had to style yourself, the Big3 would sell them without styles for less money! After all, Dom has shown that building the hardware, and creating the OS is the EASY part. But creating the content is the hardest part, maybe even the most expensive part if you want T3 and PA2 quality... I'm pretty sure THEIR market research is based on actual research, not some kind of vague hope and crossing of fingers

A TOTL arranger without TOTL content, where you do all the work yourself probably appeals to a tiny percentage of the whole market. And of that tiny percentage, I would be VERY surprised if more than a tiny percentage of even those actually DO have the skills and abilities to deliver on it's potential. Everybody likes to THINK that they could do it, if need be. But I seriously doubt they can, push comes to shove.

Try this.... go and make a dozen styles for your CURRENT arranger, as good as the ROM ones (from scratch, mind you, no reassembling existing styles). If you can do that to your own satisfaction (be honest), then you are ready for the MS. Of course, take how long it took you into account, and then extrapolate for the several hundred styles that you in all probability use right now...

Pretty daunting...

So.... we all 'get' ".....if you want JUST an arranger keep your G70 which is more then capable". The trouble is, do YOU get that we want it to be what it is AS WELL as being a great arranger as we all know it to be? Do you REALLY want an arranger where you will have to do all the work before you can gig or enjoy it at the level of a Big3 TOTL, or do you you (as well as I) really want all that the MS does AND all the convenience of your current arranger?

Because if you don't, why not go ahead and erase all those styles you have now? Give yourself a taste of the 'reality' of owning an MS, rather than the 'potential' of it! And maybe save yourself a chunk of money...

Dom has built an amazing machine, with incredible potential. But now is the time to put it in the hands of those with the skills to make styles that rival the best. Pay the price, Dom. Hire the best. What it costs you will MORE than adequately be recouped by the HUGE chunk of the market that would now actually use and enjoy their purchase when they get it, rather than at some indeterminate, highly doubtful time in the future. In other words, why not make it appeal to the OTHER 98% of arranger users rather than just 2%?

Doesn't ANYONE 'get' this..?

Diki,

i could not have said it better myself

lots of people here talk the talk but don't walk the walk

you my friend are a REALIST...

So...are you guys saying the MS DOES NOT PLAY YAMAHA STYLES? (with the availables options)

Lee S.

it's one thing playing other manufacture's styles,
big deal?, styles works, voila...

it's ANOTHER thing having it SOUND LIKE the actual original or BETTER.

[This message has been edited by leezone (edited 03-12-2009).]

Try Band in a Box http://www.pgmusic.com/#mp1 which can be used with any open keyboard

Regards

Bill

Look, here's the skinny...

If anyone already made a software arranger that blew the TOTL hardware ones out of the water, no-one, and I mean NO-ONE other than a few gigging pros that don't trust laptops would ever buy an arranger again.

EVER...

It's a pipe dream. And I am seriously starting to wonder what is IN that pipe...

Look, Dom drives a Corvette. He isn't stupid enough to think that he can easily put together a kit car that will outperform it, and be as reliable. But he thinks WE are...

A lot of persons still just do not get it.
Creating styles does not mean you want your styles to sound like the manufacturer’s styles. If that were the case wouldn’t that defeat the purpose of making styles?
If I wanted my styles to sound like the manufacturer’s styles, then I would not make styles I would use the manufacturer’s styles.

What a lot of persons think is that their way of using an arranger is the only way of using an arranger and that everyone else uses an arranger like them.

Not everyone uses hundreds of styles, uses all the tracks of a styles or want to sound like the actual recording.

There are a great number of us who want to sound like a 3-4 member band, use more than one style for a number of songs and do not want to sound like the actual recording.

The way most people make styles and the way those of us who have made styles discovered is that we make the styles to complement our live performance. We do not make styles to hide our incompetence’s in playing, nor do we make them to sound like a factory style.


Another secret about style creation is that you use what ever is available to make a style. You may copy tracks from an existing style or midi file.


If you buy an arranger with the mind set of keeping it for 5 or more years, if you made at lease one style a week, in one year you have 52 styles. And remember one style is usually used for 6 or 7 songs.

The problem is that some persons just don’t get it when it comes to using an arranger to its full potential and as such would not get it when it comes to the MS.

REALLY SAD

So, after a year, I could do a 300 song repertoire... whoop te do!

Trouble is, I got a 300 song repertoire I need to do on the day I buy the bloody thing, not a year down the pike. And, for Pete's sake! Of COURSE I don't want styles that are identical to the ROM styles. I already GOT an arranger with those. If I bought an MS, I would want styles of the same QUALITY as the ROM ones I already have. Which, so far, I have heard very few that match them.

Look, I've been saying for a while now that yes, there ARE a few players that design all their own styles, don't expect much in the way of quality style backing, and have a strong desire to be creative and original. If you are one of that 2%, more strength to you. Of course, curiously, that 2% are the ones who virtually NEVER demonstrate these capabilities, but hey! Who am I to doubt it?

But for the other 98% of arranger users, don't you think including a batch of 'closed' arranger beating styles would go a long way to bolster the MS claim of actually BEING better than a 'closed' arranger? You know, as an arranger, and all that...

Sadly, I think it is YOU, not me that is in the minority when it comes to how they use an arranger. Sales definitely bear me out, user posted music definitely bears me out (when am I ever going to hear this stripped down, original music?), plain day to day common experience bears me out.

Look, there's a LOT about your post I actually agree with. I don't tend to use full styles myself. In fact, probably 25% of what I do is drums only. Yes, I work primarily with at LEAST one other player, sometimes up to four or five. The reason I use a Roland is because I have no great need for killer guitar parts in the styles, always picking a guitarist first! And no, I don't want to sound just like the record (and couldn't with my voice!).

But when I DO want quality backing, be it guitar picking and strumming, drums and percussion, synth lines, great bass lines, whatever I don't have enough hands for (which, when you are stuck HAVING to input chords because your stupid arranger has dropped the feature that allowed you to play with BOTH hands is most of the time ) I want them to be as good as they can be. No, I don't want the record line, but I want something AS GOOD as the record line. In the 'style' that I chose to perform the song in.

I also have a big problem with song specific styles. I NEVER use them. If I want to sound like the record (rare) I will use an SMF and Markers. We have a lot more in common than you think, genesys. I also work on a lot of original stuff for others. But there, most of the time, I use the arranger only for sounds, and use my K2500, Triton, or a slew of VSTi's, along with whoever is booked for the session as live players.

Part of the 'original music' thing is that you DON'T use styles for that much (except maybe to make the demo) because you want each piece to be unique, original, etc.. Why bother making a style to do that, when sequencing and WS workflow does the job better, and doesn't need a whole bunch of compromise (don't get me started about basslines!)..?

A 'style' kind of implies you are going to do multiple songs with it. That's not what studio work and songwriting (except the demo, maybe - lots of Nashville writers got an arranger to bang out a quick demo) is about. Everything is supposed to be different ESPECIALLY the bass and drums!

Anyway, let's agree to disagree without the usual 'you don't get it' bull. I happen to think that, at what the MS DOES do well, it is an exceptional piece of gear. I simply wish that, in addition to what it already does well, having a boatload of styles at LEAST as good as a T3 or PA2 would help it dominate the market, and be all things to everyone, rather than the small minority it now appeals to.

If it simply a matter of having a library of style made for it that sound better than a T3, it seems such a small thing to do to turn the product from a niche market into what Dom has said it is since he first made it...

The best arranger in the world...

The problem IMO with that I see with that point is that you are saying right now the MS would not be useful for those who want certain type of styles out of the box and the current features on the MS they would not be able to use.

Now, if you put T3 sounding styles on the MS, the price will increase. Then the argument would go like this. Why should I get an MS with features I will never need but with T3 sounding styles that cost more when I can get a T3 for less?


If the MS had T3 sounding styles and the price went up to $4999.99, when would some one who is only able to turn on a keyboard and play styles want the MS?
The MS would be of no value to that market. To break it down further, A Korg PA2x would not be useful to someone who wants and is accustomed to a Yamaha PSR S 700.
Lets face it as you have been saying all along, the MS is not for your T3/G70 Karaoke keyboard player who lacks the skill to competently use a keyboard. The MS would be too difficult for them to comprehend.

I don’t think that is DOM’s market nor is he saying that is his market.

Well, Dom has been touting it as the best arranger ever, for years now... Not the best arranger for the 2% of arranger users.

Ketron is already showing that, if it sounds good enough, there IS a market for a $5000 arranger. People pay WAY more than that for Wersi's too... and they don't have T3 beating styles, IMO, either!

And I'm sorry, but people are paying $3500+ for a T3 that they will use 10% of it's features at best... because it sounds GREAT! Same with PA2, same (back in the day) for my G70. That cost me $3500+ when it first came out.

I would HAPPILY pay $5000 for an arranger that was as open ended and versatile as the MS, IF it had styles and sounds as well balanced and as useful as my G70's are, or T3, etc.. But I can't see paying what Dom wants for the MS (it IS a reasonable price for what it does) now, when it DOESN'T do the basics that the G70 has. And, in all fairness to Yamaha and Korg, the G70's styles are not as good as many of theirs.

You see, I need BOTH open ended versatility, AND closed arranger convenience. I will do a custom sequence for tunes that no current style gets close (not much point in a style if it's that unique). But when a ROM style DOES get close, there's a day or so of work I don't have to do! Multiply that by hundreds of tunes, and you can see what a time saver hundreds of excellent styles are for the gigging musician and working pro.

I've always felt that the whole idea of 'open ended' was so that you could do what no regular arranger could do when needed. But to lose what the regular arranger CAN do well, just to have the option is not a good use of my time.

I just don't see it as an 'either or' scenario. I need BOTH, or what I have is already the better choice. If designing your own styles is the hallmark of an 'open' arranger user, then I've already GOT an 'open' arranger! If I had the time and the talent, I could make styles for my G70 as well, but unlike some here, I don't really claim I do... OTOH, none of them actually SHOW us their styles, so how can we judge how low or high the bar is?

If Dom is afraid the price bump will put off his WS customers, perhaps he could find a way to copy protect the styles so that ONLY the purchaser can use them (no trading around!) and SELL a T3 quality original (no half-assed translations... every one unique and useful, you know, like all the users are CLAIMING they do ) style package as an add-on. If they truly blew the T3 ones away, as I said, Ketron are showing that quality WILL get you orders... even at $5000 or so.