Hi all.
Something I touched on earlier might be interesting enough to have it's own thread, and I'd I've love to hear your thoughts on all this too as I'm sure will others.

Basically ask yourself the question, do you honestly think the majority of the younger generation growing up have any interest in arranger keyboards any more ?

You have a flood of DJ type devices that allow kids to make music, Software controllers, MPC's, VSTi's and the major change in workstations to contend with here.

How has the arranger keyboard changed to move with the times and the generation growing up now ?. Do you think the future looks bleak for arrangers, or do you think they will adapt.

I'd love to hear your thoughts on this.

Kind Regards
James

Once we're gone its all over for arranger KB's for the next generation....& how can you blame them an era has ended & a new one has begun already...for the lingering dinosaurs like us ....just adapt and continue top make music in other ways adapting to the new technology. We are the last generation to experience both pre & post computer age. I would say no matter what comes down the pike you can always play keyboard arranger or not and record backing tracks, Smf etc to play along with versus real time arranger styles....and in many ways be more creative with your music that way vs the repetitious style methods used in today's arranger keyboards.maybe it is time to branch out and try new things. let's face it Dj's, Karaoke J's, and audiences attitudes in live music has so much expanded & has become so apathetic to different types of music being performed that they will accept most anything that sounds good no matter what technology is used to create it. old school hardliners will fall to the wayside in years to come so jump on the new wave technology train its leaving the station folks or be left behind!

[This message has been edited by Dnj (edited 08-17-2009).]

i've always considered arrangers a 1 finger,
1 keyboard organ that is a carry over from the '70s. organs/arrangers have always appealed to the older generation because of ease of play. now with the consumer being more tech savy a change has been comming in playing of and listening to music. with the exception of the entry levels,i look for arrangers to start to disappear do to the changes in demand.

I think Donny hit the nail on the head with his response. The generation these arrangers are designed for is "shrinking". The target market needs to change in order for arrangers to survive IMO.

At this rate I expect the lower end arrangers (typically "that first keyboard") to be the big seller for arranger makers. If they don't make some changes I think the semi-pro and pro arrangers are doomed.

I think it's more of an issue of exposure...these things are cool and if younger folks were really exposed to them I think sales would include them too.

Mfg's need to come up with a real marketing plan..which they currently do very poorly.

Any young person with musical interest I have showed my arranger too was really impressed and did not know they existed at that QUALITY LEVEL. They only see the $100-200 ones at Best buy ect.

The manufactures have gotten very lazy...they don't want to really market and don't want to pay for it as well.

So, IMHO if things don't change...yes, the only one's that will survive are the low end toy type ones. But it will be awhile.
:-) were not dead yet! :-)

Le S.

Funny.

I recall hearing much the same question on a few forums when arranger keyboards started growing in popularity, only the argument was that those of us who actually play the whole piano or organ, being our own "arranger" were about to become extinct.

I still get my share of gigs.

Change is a part of life. It is a constant that we should count on instead of fearing.

--Mac

I sincerely believe that when those of us that are currently performing turn up our toes and depart this world, it will be the end of a wonderful era. DNJ hit the nail on the head, particularly for those that wish to continue making a living in the entertainment industry. Sometime in the not too distant future the only keys that entertainers will utilize are those that I just used to type this message. Sad, but true!

Cheers,

Gary

I can think of one older teenager/1st year college guy who plays keys in a band. That's the only one...

As far as using arrangers specifically? Well, hard to say...technology will advance us past what we call "arrangers" over the next few decades, for sure.

I was 40 years old before I had any clue things like this even existed.

As is the case now, I think there will be some relatively small group of users using whatever is available then.

An issue I'm already facing, is the younger audiences that are showing up in Nursing Homes and Retirement Communities. They want more and more of the 70's music, which doesn't always translate well to arrangers.

Honest to god, there's a ELP fan at one of my clients and I keep telling him, that's going to be rough trying to play like Emerson did on an arranger.



------------------
Bill in Dayton

Lee that is quite possible.......
but remember years ago many of the players had no alternative but to "REALLY learn and take lessons etc, if you wanted to play an instrument, all before all this easy computer based methods, programs etc, giving everyone many alternative ways to create music. Even with major advertising I doubt it will win them over by the droves.....right now arranger players are a small percentage segment of the whole music playing public. There are simply too many choices out there...some easier then others but none the less all these choices slim down the majority in all genres. As an example look at any Philharmonic orchestra today and you'll see a majority of Asian players that have gone to conservatories of music to learn Violin, Cello, Oboe, Bassoon, French Horn, etc, where other kids today go the total opposite route and become looped based DJ's, Rappers & what have you etc,...there's a new world out there moving along very fast. There's a place for arranger players but it will have to share it with the rest of the worlds alternatives. Being very versatile, using all that is available, and do NOT be a one trick pony will serve you very well as a performer in today's musical market place if you want to be a full timer..

PS... as a side note being able to Sing very well will certainly improve your success rate no matter what method you use..instrumentalists will be at somewhat of a disadvantage when using other methods besides playing and arranger.



[This message has been edited by Dnj (edited 08-17-2009).]

I must reluctantly agree with DNJ. Most people have no idea whether you are playing "live", using midi files, MP3s, DVDs or STDs. And they don't care as long as it sounds good.
They can see you singing though.
I have tried to find younger people, including my own kids, interested in learning to use arrangers. No luck.
The music stores here quit carrying them, except for the little bitty ones, a Casio or two, and piano/arranger combos such as Clavinovas.
I believe the future of arrangers is limited unless the manufacturers start promoting them to younger people. Not sure how they would accomplish that, short of getting a well-know performer to admit using them.
I recall Techics running ads showing stars, such as Johnny Cash, using them.
Of course they went out of business!
DonM

I think Korg had a good idea of marketing their arrangers to songwriters.

Arrangers are fantastic songwriting tools. With an arranger you can get a quick idea of how your song idea would sound in a variety of styles, rhythms, and tempos. There is no substitute for an arranger in doing this as far as ease and portability.

We have seen many companies bite the dust over the last decade. Nevertheless, I would bet that there will be arrangers 20 years from now. I wonder what features the Tyros 10 will have.

Beakybird

[This message has been edited by Beakybird (edited 08-17-2009).]

Very interesting topic. I agree with Beaky that arrangers of some sort will be around for a while. They are great writing tools, but not with the cache of old styles they now support. If they are to continue there will have to be a lot of newer styles and/or rhythms available. Maybe even a new style creating system would help - I know I've never edited or created a style, but I am intimidated by the thought. A simple set of templates... oh, what the hell do I know.

Personally, I think young players already ARE using arrangers. Thing is, they don't call them that. They are called 'workstations', loopstations, groove boxes, basically anything BUT arrangers. (Look how Roland REFUSE to call the GW-8 an arranger, even though it is one in all but name)

There is little that we need for something to be called an arranger that the MotifXS or M3 doesn't already do. All that remains is some small details in controlling and triggering the arps (we would call them style sections) and voilá! Now it's an arranger...

With chord following arps, what is the difference between these and an arranger? The main difference is CONTENT... The younger players love the loop style (although they aren't audio loops) content, but you still have to PLAY them.

And, we can doom and gloom ourselves all we want, and wax nostalgic for the 'good old days' all you want. The truth is, behind every DJ, there's a MUSICIAN that makes his loops, that makes the tracks he samples from, that makes the hits he spins. Always will be. You can jump on the DJ bandwagon all you want, IMO the only people that need to do that are those that can't currently play well enough to compete with the DJ's. Or are so musically fossilized that they wouldn't play any modern music even if the DID have the chops and gear for it...

Personally, I see NO drop off in live music opportunities. I haven't seen a single club round here go from a band to a DJ. They might drop from a full band to a duo, or solo, but where live music is played, live music continues to be played. And, when it is played by young people FOR young people (or older people for young people), the youngsters still pack in.

Don't forget, you 'old farts'... we survived the disco craze of the seventies, in which FAR more live music venues opted for DJ's than have now. And we didn't have to spin vinyl to do it You can either grab your laptops and try to compete on the DJ's level (and you will always lose out, because, let's face it, what kid wants to go out and party at a place where their GRANDFATHER mixes beats? ) or you can grab a WS and add it to your arranger arsenal, and be able to perform in any style they need...

Me, I'd rather make beats FOR the DJ than be one...!

Hi Diki.



Workstations tent to have far more complex sequencers, intrack sampling, normal sampling, re-sampling (all very different functions), greatly more advanced Effects engines capable of running far more effects at the same time, even Vocoders. Detailed routing, real-time controls, MPC type functions, drum pads, external controls for controlling computers, much deeper synth engines, fully programmable, no factory presets, faster processors, better connectivity, X-Y Controllers, ADAT connections,.....the list goes on and on.

In the Yamaha world the Tyros 3 is even in a worse salutation compared to the Motif. Yamaha don't really seem to share technology from the workstations with the arrangers, where KORG are about the only ones keeping their arrangers close to their workstation. They do share a lot of the technology between them in house.

All in all, arrangers are very different and they even tent to be more suited to bread & butter sounds, where Synths and workstations are designed for modern music in mind at all times.

Regards
James

Diki,
Well said...
Lee S.

I think, though, that the major difference between the arranger and the 'chord following loopstation/WS' is that the arranger is optimized for live play. All of that stuff you mentioned is pretty much impossible to get to on a gig. It means ultimate flexibility in the studio, but impossible complexity on the bandstand.

I am going to be VERY interested to see how the MoXS has been shaped for the live stage in it's S90XS and S70XS incarnations. It already appears to have several functions added to make splits and layers much easier to call up on the fly.

I had an XS7 here at my house for a while last week, and was completely stymied on how to call up the patches I wanted into a simple split/layer combination. Couldn't find the transposition button for bringing up the octave of the lower sound and down on the top sound to save my LIFE without a manual (which I deliberately chose not to use), let alone bring the correct effects in and assign them to the right parts.

All that flexibility makes it a PITA to use, live.

But the S70XS shows that Yamaha are at least TRYING to shoehorn the power into something that works well live. They don't have that far to go, IMO. Then it is merely the content. And Yamaha already have the personnel in place for that from their T3 team...

The 'arranger' is alive, although not yet mature. Only the name has been changed, to protect the innocent (from thinking they are playing their grandfather's arranger ).

I'm going out on a limb here, but I'm guessing that if arrangers, 'loopstations', 'ACID', FL, samplers of all descriptions, etc., were to disappear tomorrow, the quality of (pop - including all the popular genre's) music would improve tremendously; along with the number and skill level of performing musicians. JMO.

chas

I think in order to have a meaningful discussion on this topic, one must be able to articulate what is an arranger.
And, yes there is a difference between an “arranger” and a “great arranger”.

If one really knows what is an arranger you will see that if manufacturers continue with their current ways these are exciting times for arrangers.

Look, arranger technology is being integrated in to modern work stations and software technology (just look at the Motif XS Korg M3 Audya Mediastation).

I think gone are the days of a keyboard just being able to function as a traditional WS or a traditional arranger. The lines are blur and the manufacturers know it. Question is do the users know it?

For example, the Korg PA2x can function as an arranger and a WS. If you don’t believe me, if you take away chord recognition and styles from the PA 2 x, what do you have?

I don’t believe the arranger is dead, but the traditional styles you are accustomed to hear from an arranger is dead. Also, a keyboard would not just have arranger features only any more.

Since the Motif XS includes an arranger, the Audya includes audia loops, the Korg PA 2x puts a WS and arranger together and he MS has everything, there is no turning back. Manufacturers have to include arranger features, loop features, audio manipulating features on any TOTL keyboard they make in the future.

Remember an arranger is judged on the type of music it is trying to reproduce.
If you are trying to reproduce music made in the last 20 years, you are going to have to use samples, loops and other forms of audio technology.

Long live the Arranger.

I'm not so sure on that one James. Ever tried rigging up your PA2 to a Motif XS and porting the midi data over?

No way THOSE sounds could be called bread and butter.

In essence, I believe Diki is correct in that the Motif XS, apart from a few controls could be entered as an arranger. The rest of the stuff you quote is mostly connectivity, and a lot of which, with the right connections to a PC, can be accomplished with most "specified" arranger boards.

As for the "arranger" not being cool, my son (13) is learning bass and guitar, and he hangs with a few other guys at HS. They ALL think the arranger I have is super cool and heaps of fun to play with.

Maybe they are a minority, maybe not, all I see is the reactions they have when mucking around and playing with it.

Dennis

Hi miden.



Sorry but I think I'm missing you point there. It's the Pa2X that will have the complete collection of bread and butter sounds, not the Motif.




If Yamaha did add arranger functions to the Motif though look how far more advanced it would be over the Tyros 3. That's pretty much the point of this thread.

The Tyros 3 has not moved with the times, where the motif has. There's no Sampler on the Tyros 3, no real sequencer and certainly no sound engine anywhere near as deep, lacks realtime and external controls, connectivity and so on.

Maybe the arranger will live on in workstations like the Motif and that's why Yamaha are not developing the T3 as the same speed the likes of KORG are doing with the Pa2X. That might me Yamha's plan all along.

When the time comes, they just pull the plug and keep going with the Workstation line with the addition of it's Arranger functions in SEQ mode.



I don't think it's not that they can't be cool, its more like that they are just not as cool as the tiny Toys coming out now that do make modern music dance music unlike arrangers. The new toys require far less music knowledge too.

You also don't see anyone using arranger keyboards in pop music or any style of music that the majority of younger generations are listening to.

I think arranger can be cool, but being current and hip is more of a problem for them.

Regards
James

James, sorry I don't think I made it clear.

I do agree the PA will have ALL the B+B sounds, but what I was trying to say was that if you want styles to be played using MORE than just the bread and butter sounds on the PA2 (or 1), then sending the data to a Motif XS and using some of the great sounds on the XS makes a huge difference.

As for the new toys, I tend to look at it a bit differently. I think a user needs a good grounding in loops and loop/sample technology AND PC's/Macs to even get something half decent out of them. And then the ability to put it all together into something musical.

Mind you having said that, I am not too au faix with all the current crop of audio loop and sample gear, so I could be wrong in that view.

I have no doubt that YOU could do this with ease, and I daresay using just those tools, would have a song up and running in minutes, but that expertise has taken you a few years to acquire, yes?

The arranger, o.t.o.h. CAN (although shouldn't be, imho), be set off with just one finger, O.O.T.B.

I DO agree with you that it would be super if Yamaha do drop their top of the line arrangers and instead add these functions (intro/ending/fill etc) to , as you say, the sequencer section or similar.

That, as you say, COULD be where Yamaha have been aiming all along, and if so, perhaps the arranger per se may be in decline but will be carried on in another form.

It would surprise me in the least to also see Korg move down that path.

They, like Yamaha, already have the technology in existing boards (although Karma in the M3 is way ahead of the arp technology in the XS), so perhaps they too may incorporate the top end arranger into a top end workstation?? And retain a small range of budget arrangers.

Dennis

I get ya now. Yeah that would make a huge difference for sure. Back in my Technics days I used to do that myself with a KORG M3-R sound module. Worked quite well too and gave me a sound back in those days that Arrangers just didn't do.



Yeah, working with samples is like a black art in many ways. Someone people master it, and some just never get their head around it at all no matter how much you try explain it to them. In my time I've even written small little applications that actually tell people where the loop points of samples are so they can loop their Beats without knowing exactly what they are at. It helps, but you would be surprised just how may people can make music from data that simple does not match up at all.

I feel sad in a way saying this, but modern dance music as evolved or devolved whichever suites the way you want to look at this to the point where all noise is music. It's now cool to take a sample that's not even looping right, throw an effect on it and call it music.

Just like there is a very good reason why all people who write hip hop music own an AKAI MPC. These kind of toys are for both musicians and those who have no musical ability at all. Both will still write music with it.



In the last few years I've been wondering will keyboards like the OASYS be the future of all Keyboards. Something entirely software based, but as stable as dedicated hardware.

Something that is sold to the end user as basically a shell, and from there they can pay to activate certain modules of software as their needs expand.

That way users of all levels can grow with the keyboard and only activate what features they need which in turn gives them a keyboard prices exactly to their needs.

Basically they don't have to pay for features they would never use. The OASYS is a lot like that right now. The different synth engines are all there in Demo mode and you simply activate and pay for only what you need.

Regards
James

I agree 100%. That would, to me, make the perfect marketing device. If a user wanted the arranger engine, they just pay for the module.

Just quietly, if I had the $'s I would buy an Oasys now. But in Oz even s/h 76 noters still go for $7k +

In fact after reading some of the stuff you have posted about the Oasys, I SHOULD have bought it, instead of the "other" one!

But back to the thread LOL....

Dennis

I straddle the fence on this one. Yes, I think arrangers (and mostly arranger players) will soon be history, and probably in our lifetime. I’ve been pondering this issue for the last few years now. To the point of even considering buying an arranger or two simply because they will soon (VERY soon) dry up on the market, or the selection WILL be only of entry level machines. It would be kind of like hoarding gold for the future!

Now, on the other hand, there’s been some bright spots on the horizon for me. I went to two local opera presentations, and while they were sloppily done, still the audience was mesmerized by the opera music and the vocalists. I studied the spectators periodically and they were glued to what was in front of them. No one moved...no one talked...no one even coughed. This observation led me to believe that people will always be moved by legit music when they’re able to hear it (and the DJ’s and 3 chord wonders will always be sitting on the sidelines when push comes to shove).

Also, I’ve been watching PBS and NJN television...concerts by David Bennett (pop violin) in Berlin, this young pianist from Jordan (concert in Jordan), Yanni, etc all playing their own compositions and Classical music “covers.” The audience numbering in the thousands and sitting there spellbound by “proper” virtuoso’s playing their instruments in a professional presentation

And don‘t forget Abba, whose music will never die ‘cause it‘s too darn good.

I think this demise of music, and arranger’s, is geographical and is mostly happening here in the States. I think in Europe and other countries, there is still a market for great music evidenced by these huge sell-out concerts done by the above. I don’t think the Stones could even fill out a venue as well as these artists do. I also think that arranger’s are still selling well over there. But, I could be wrong too.

So the conclusion I’ve come to is what someone here has alluded to. Anyone who wants to stay in the field playing an arranger needs to re-invent themselves. I can see that Classical music, or modern music done in a Classical vein will always move people, if you can get it to them. Harder here in the States, but still going strong in Europe. Again, if any Europeans are reading this, please correct me if I’m wrong on this one.

One more point. I think that the fall of the arranger keyboard could be beneficial to some of us. When they stop being produced and, obviously, no one will be using it on the job (they’ll all have computers with MIDI files done on Band-In-A-Box or Karaoke discs)…then, it you’re a top notch player, you’ll have the field all to yourself. You’ll be a musical icon because “everything old will now be new.”

James...great topic...I'm glad you brought it up!

Lucky

First of all, I am of the opinion that arrangers will never completely die away... Look, they are STILL making home organs, thirty years past their shelf life ... But the progress and innovation (and particularly the affordability) of arrangers will come to a grinding halt.

The trouble I see happening is that, while CERTAIN arranger aspects are being copied - the chord following, the primitive division triggering, etc., certain aspects of arranger ease are NOT. Specifically, the ease of triggering divisions (call them arps if you want) at any point in the music and having the machine figure out the best transitions. Currently, most loop WS's only allow you to trigger divisions on the beat or bar boundaries. An arranger is FAR more forgiving in allowing you to hit fills whenever YOU want, and it still keeps the beat going.

Most arrangers also use a very gig-orientated workflow... You can order things by songs, by beats, you can have alternate keyboard settings be called up just by the song...you can have your lyrics synced to the arps, you can have vocal harmony effects synced with the arps.

It is important to make WS users aware of some of the more gig usable features over at THEIR forums. Make them see how some of this stuff is REALLY handy on a gig, and you stand a chance of getting them behind the cry for the feature to be ported to the WS OS...

Manufactures are well aware of the changing times and will adapt their boards to suit, however only when it becomes profitable to do so. (Making money for their shareholders is their main concern)
The big 3 could quite easily make a Wersi OAS or an MS instrument today, but little money would be made, as the big bucks are made by selling new boards. (Even though they may be only marginal upgrades, folks always want the latest)
As an example take the Tyros range, it has been in production almost as long as Wersi OAS, and most users have been happy to upgrade (And loose a fortune in the process) to T2 then T3, whereas a Wersi owner has just upgraded the software/hardware as required, and so has cost them a fraction of the cost of Tyros owners. (The big boys will always go for the biggest profit, and is why they have not yet gone the Wersi OAS route)
Interestingly Yamaha has now started along the option route (Buy the options you need (Premium Packs) just as Wersi have been doing for years, so it looks as if at least one of the big boys is now slowly changing. (I still think there will probably be a T4, but after that I think they will go the whole hog for the modular format, as people will be no longer prepared to loose a fortune of their cash, just to get a small upgrade)
So Basically
Arrangers will continue, just not in the current format.

Bill

i think what will happen is that the arranger/workstation will be the default keyboard that can be purchased. The divsion between workstations like the Korg M3 or Yamaha XS and say the PA2X and the Tyros 3 is created simply top hgenerate separate streams of income for the companies and the differences between the two types of machines deliberately maintained for profit reasons. If you never use the arranger section on an arranger keyboard then you are left with a very good if basic workstation keyboarc which in live use is indistinguishable from its "workstation "cousin. What i believe will happen is that the content of the arranger workstaion of the future will be completely customiserable (new word) and customers can purchase the content that they want for their instrument based upon their needs rather than buying a boat load of styles they may never use.

There are many arranger playing musicians that use their keyboards live sometimes with the arranger functions activated , sometimes without and we are already seeing traditional workstations beggining to morph in basic arranger keyboards. If i were to make a prediction i see only one keyboard type emerging and it will be an arranger workstation but perhaps not in the form we currently have it. It will have more highly advanced effects, sequencing, computer intergration, ease of OS updates and compatability with commercial production software but all these additional bits will be optional.

I don't think you get the wholesale migration of T2 to T3 users part right there, Bill. To be honest, it seems more the T1 and S900 users that feel the need for the T3. Many T2 owners have already stated that there simply is not sufficient change to warrant the move.

So, if you look at the time gap from T1 to T3 ('02-'08), that's a fair bit of usage from something that, until the price hike from Yamaha, was costing you maybe about $370 a year (if you allow a used T1 worth $1500 and a new T3 at $3700). Not too shabby, given how upgrades in 'open' arrangers are often accompanied by a need for an upgrade in hardware (motherboards, CPU's, etc.) and additional cost for 'voice packs'

Theoretically the 'open' arranger has the edge, but advances in the VSTi's is always accompanied by an advance in the need for bleeding edge hardware to run them. Look at how long you can go with a closed arranger before anything truly significantly advanced comes along, and you lower the TCO of a closed arranger considerably. Me, I got over ten years out of my G1000 before the G70 made the move pretty much mandatory And still sold it for over a grand. Take the $3500 that the G70 cost me, subtract the grand, you got $2500. Split that over ten years and you got a TCO each year of about $250. Five bucks a week... WAY less than I spend on coffee

I can afford the closed arranger, and gain it's bombproof operation and operational simplicity compared to the 'open' one. And STILL have all my VSTi's running on my DAW computer for studio needs, which is where they truly belong.

I mean, what are our options? Either a Wersi, with it's dated soundset and 200-300% markup on a normal arranger (you could keep trading arrangers for DECADES before you have used up the price difference between the Wersi and a PA2Xpro, for instance) and its' weight (they make my G70 seem featherweight), or the MS, which seems to be a totally 'build it yourself' arranger few seem capable of getting to work well as a closed arranger (read Dennis's posts for the real skinny on gigging the MS).

Or a move every eight to ten years to a MUCH better arranger for less than one large frapuccino at Starbucks every week...

Eventually, one of the big 3 WILL go this route. But I imagine that firstly, they will wait for the technology to mature enough for the system to be stable, and secondly, they will be SURE that it at least ships as a fully functional arranger in the sense that we all know them, and THEN add the rest. Just like Wersi, to an extent, but they won't do it until it can be done at a price that is affordable.

Me, I can wait that long...

I'm sorry, but there I have to disagree with you. In live use, most arrangers, and especially the G70, completely blow any modern WS out of the water for ease of use, live. So far, I have been able to call up just about any type of sound any song that has been asked of me from the G70's presets, including some great pads, synth stuff, etc.. But what sets it apart from all the WS's is, I can do this live, on the gig, create and change setups for different songs on the fly.

I'm one of those kind of players that always has two or three different sounds split on the keyboard, LH piano, RH brass or organ, LH organ, RH Clavinet, that kind of thing. I defy anyone to be able to call these up on the fly, assign splits, balance effects and volumes, etc. on any WS out there with the ease the G70 (and truth be told, most arrangers)... I have K2500 and Triton, use Motif's and NONE of those are anything short of PIGS for this, onstage. If you have the time and know the songs, you can create setups for each one beforehand on a WS. But try doing it live, while the song plays, and you have to play with one hand while the other dials in the patches and splits.

It's a nightmare!

There's MUCH that modern WS's could take from arrangers that would make them FAR better keyboards for the gigging pro...

But given them a keyboard that despite costing several times more than the Tyros still sounds more like a PSR-6300, circa 1985.

Bad choice of example there, I think.

Not in KORG land these days. For real-time controls the arranger functions have been merged with the workstations, and some of what the workstation could do has made its way into their arrangers. The lines that separate them in the KORG world are very blur right now. The PA2X engine is like a Triton Series engine with a 16 part COMBI mode actually in PROG mode. Pretty advanced stuff really.

It's almost like KORG Italy get every other system from KORG Inc handed to them except for the arranger functions. Even though that's not the case entirely.

James.

I've been away from the work stations for quite a few years, so my knowledge is limited to some degree about what they can and cannot do on the fly. If I recall correctly, they were never intended for live performances and quite cumbersome when it came to utilizing multiple functions. I have to agree with Diki--the TOTL arranger is currently the best way to go for live performances, particularly when you are often setting up two to four songs in advance.

Cheers,

Gary

OT

Hi Seamaster
I don’t want to be picky, but in a previous post you couldn’t tell the difference between a Tyros 2 style and an OAA style, therefore your observations are not based on a good grounding of what is old and new. (Also ask any studio (Or Pro VSTi user) which sounds more accurate, Steinberg’s Hypersonic VSTi (One of the sound engines used in OAS 7) or a Circa 1985 PSR, and once again you will find yourself in error.

Hi Diki
Most VST manufactures have now developed their sound engines for live play. (East West with Play, NI with Kore 2 etc)
Also with an open type keyboard the VSTi is used to supplement what is already there, (Totally different to VSTi only systems) so you don’t need the same cutting edge processing.
As to T3, have a look on the Yamaha forums and you will find most have upgraded from a T2 to a T3. (Particularly in Europe)
The cost of the computer hardware to run the latest Wersi OAS (If you need to upgrade) is less then £200. ($200 in the US, where everything is a lot cheaper then the UK)

BOT
Whichever way you look at it, arrangers (Although not in today’s format) will be around for many years yet. (The organ market was supposed to be dead, yet manufactures are bringing out new models left, right and centre)

Regards

Bill

Hi travlin'easy

But not all workstations are equal. What Diki said does not apply to KORG.
I can't think of one feature the Pa2X can do from it's front panel that the M3 or OASYS can't. But I can think of plenty the Pa2X can't do the M3 and OASYS can.

The tables have been greatly reversed.

[This message has been edited by Irishacts (edited 08-18-2009).]

Tell you what, put me to the test. Play an Abacus and Tyros behind a curtain and I'll have no difficulty sniffing out the wurst.

'As for the "arranger" not being cool, my son (13) is learning bass and guitar, and he hangs with a few other guys at HS. They ALL think the arranger I have is super cool and heaps of fun to play with.'

EXACTLY...but the problem is not many young folks have ever been really exposed to a TOTL Arranger. MFG's need to get em in the schools.

As to arrangers vs workstations..(I've had lots of both, and Organs too)in general...A gigging band member, up on stage would rarely have any interest in an arranger...why would he/she, my God they have a live drummer, several guitar bangers and sometimes other instuments. AND you rarely can even hear them play the keyboard. Live bands (todays Rock)(few exceptions) is about all that loud guitar playing , drums and vocals.

I like PRO workstations, I like arrangers too..That's why I have a Korg and sold the Yamaha. The PA2XPRO, while not perfect for sure, is a PRO level arranger to me that means I have lots of features and programmability like a PRO WS, AND an arranger section too. For those that don't understand how powerful the songbook on the PA is...wow, it's worth the change from others.

My wish in arrangers is to integrate even more PRO WS sound, features Karma etc into a PA...because I want both.

If I played in a band..just give me a M3, Motif, etc.

Yes, The USA is loosing ground on arrangers just like it did on organs. I think there is plenty of demand everywhere else.
Lots of reasons, but that's another thread.

James...so if they put a full M3 into a PA3XPRO..WOW...I want one today.

Lee S.

Simply put,IF the big "Y" integrated ALL keyboard functions into ONE keyboard,the Arranger would N-e-v-e-r go the do-do bird.All these crazy model # for this purpose,model # for that purpose is just stupidity from the Ty2 and on...KISS!

I am not so sure about that... a lot of arranger users are befuddled by the comparatively simple OS's and voice and effects editing they already have

Shoehorn that with the complexity of something like the MoXS, and I'm not sure you wouldn't end up alienating most of the target market...

The S90/70XS new 'live' keyboards from Yamaha seem a step in the right direction, marrying most of the MoXS's power with a simplified OS, and expedited live control functions. If these are successful, perhaps some of this live ease will trickle UP to the full WS OS?

Diki,
There's room for both.
There is always the folks that just want a simple MOTL arranger that is easy, and does not have all the bells & whistles. You just turn it on and play some music. This is where Yamaha shines IMHO. Get a S900(910) and be done with it.

Then there is folks like me...I want TOTL sound, functions, MIDI impementation, VP, editing sampling, expandability etc.

Actually the Korg PA2 is pretty close (like James also said) ...but there is some work to be done. Don't get me started! :-)

Lee S.

Shoot.., when I really think about it some more. I don't want a merge of the two because the price would be unreal. TOTL arranger are already WAY past TOTL workstations in price. I can only imagine what they'll start charging for these units.

Truth is the makers have grown quite comfortable with their target market for arrangers. They're gonna ride it as long as they possibly can. If they don't start updating these styles (soon) for the next generation then I think TOTL arrangers sales are really going to drop.

As much as it hurts some of you here to to think about it.., (I don't mean this in any disrespect either).., but we're on a "generational change" in music. Arrangers have always catered to the mature audience and mature buyer too. Well the next generation of buyers are fast approaching.., yet the arranger makers still refuse to bring these arrangers up to date. Clearly they won't because.., well they'll lose their market. Truth is MOTL and TOTL arrangers aren't designed for the "modern music player". That's why so many go for the workstations. If the three major makers did a massive overhaul on the styles..., you'd see more interets from the younger crowd.

Arrangers could easily become "cool to own and use". The youth just needs to see them being used for their styles of music. There are just as many classic pop, r&b, and hip hop songs out there to fill a "music data base" on any arranger.., but all you really find on these arrangers today are preset arrangements designed to play music that had it's day in the 70's and earlier. Hell you can't even get good 80's cheese on an arranger keyboard anymore (I'm talking about that GOOD 80's cheese too).

Does any one believe if arranger manufacturers took a traditional arranger and loaded it with “modern sounds” and “modern styles” you would be able to play classic pop, r&b, and hip hop songs made in the past 15 years?

The style operation of a traditional arranger is not conducive to today’s music.

If arranger manufacturers were to try to make such styles they would end up making song specific styles (which defeats the purpose of an arranger). Any thing song specific, would be best dealt with as a midi or audio file and the keyboard would have to have markers and great navigation within that file.

If you think of an arranger strictly as it relates to content (which it seems most persons on SZ do,) then yes arrangers would become none existent in the near future.
But, if you think of an arranger as a live performance and creation tool, then you would see that the arranger popularity is just beginning.

Well, no offense, but you can play some pretty serious 'old school' on the MoXS, FantomG etc.. But you CAN play some serious 'new school' on it too. That's all we want, really. BOTH worlds. Arranger manufacturers are going to miss the point if they go like Yamaha did with the little Hiphop arranger they made... Great for rap, etc, but of no use for trad stuff.

If they can balance the soundset in the MoXS (and put it out for a fraction of what a T3 costs), they ought to have no problem with a crossover arranger.

Every time I see someone on this forum post a reply like this
---------------------------------------------
The style operation of a traditional arranger is not conducive to today’s music.
---------------------------------------------

All I can assume is you've never laid your hands on a Yamaha DJX. Do you have any idea how many youngsters were using the DJX to play the HITS of that time....?????? I can't tell you how many times I saw the younger crowd using a DJX to play MODERN music....

Saying the operation is not conducive IMO is just bullshit..... YES IT CAN BE DONE. The makers WONT do it becaues if they did there goes 95% of their market. How many of the typical arranger buyers out there (today) would buy one if it was choc full of modern styles..?????

Arrangers already have styles that are (close)..., and I mean FREAKIN close. The problem is that the makers won't let their kiddies all play on the same playground. It's obvious those (on the arranger style design teams) have little experience in this area. If the makers would let the kids from the Workstation design team play with the arranger kiddies.., you'd for damn sure hear some amazing UP TO DATE styles.

Again.., once they do that there goes over 90% of their market.



[This message has been edited by squeak_D (edited 08-18-2009).]

Style operation of a traditional arranger is what it says. You press a chord in the left hand and the arranger has bread and butter sounds play those chords.
You see when traditional arrangers were being first made, they were made where the genres of the day had a lot of the songs with similar accompaniment. For example, take a ballad. You could play many songs where the drums, bass and piano have the same feel and each song will sound like the original. So you did not have to have song specific styles.

Now however, a lot of the music today is hip-hop influenced.

And, you could not approach playing 50 cent’s “in da club” on a traditional arranger the same way you would play “all the things you are.”


Or Beyonce’s “Single Ladies (Put A Ring On It)” I would like to see if one could approach it the same way you would autumn leaves on a traditional arranger.

Again, it is not that I think modern music can not be played on an arranger, it is just the approach would need to be different from how you would play a standard on a traditional arranger.

And, you would have to address the issue of having song specific styles.

Remember, there was a reason why Yamaha did not include DJX type styles on the T1, T2 or T3. And it is not because of the WS/arranger war with in Yamaha IMO. I think Yamaha knew that the traditional arranger and a DJX in one keyboard would be like putting oil and water in a glass.

[This message has been edited by to the genesys (edited 08-18-2009).]

[This message has been edited by to the genesys (edited 08-18-2009).]

As long as it did BOTH well, how could they lose?

Trouble is, the DJX wasn't much for trad styles, and trad arrangers aren't worth a damn for modern styles. But the MODE of operation of both were basically the same. Only the CONTENT was different. I rest my case...

An interesting topic and a lot of good comments. Will the arranger keyboard as we know it go the way of the home organ? Eventually they probably will. Does that mean arranger instruments will be totally gone? Probably not. There is still a home organ being manufactured today, the Lowery. They sell for some crazy high prices but they do sell. I think there will always be a place for some kind of traditional arranger keyboard.

Will the line between arrangers and workstations continue to get thinner and thinner until only one all-encompassing keyboard evolves out of each instruments best features? Maybe...it is already happening with instruments like the Mediastation; it can be whatever the owner wishes provided there are applications available.

Like several others have already mentioned, the manufacturers need to find a way to market these instruments more effectively. Korg markets the Pa500 as a song writing partner. From personal experience having recently purchased a Pa588 (not for the song writing aspect mind you) I have already written several songs by randomly picking a style and recording what I played in quick-record mode. There is a lot of inspiration to be had from this instrument, or any arranger instrument. I think chances are 99% positive that if you could get a higher-end arranger into the hands of a song writer who otherwise would never consider an arranger keyboard, they would see how useful and inspiring this type of instrument can be.

As for the current arrangers not being up to the task of some of today's music, well that's just not true. It is true if you plan on just using the factory supplied styles and sounds. But if you learn how to create your own styles and edit your own sounds, most any of the mid to high end arrangers would fit the bill. So why don't the manufacturers take on the job of updating styles and sounds? Because they want to sell product. The vast majority of people who can afford a high-end arranger are not interested in the latest in hip hop. For those of you who think that the manufacturers are missing the boat here, then take advantage of their blindness and start creating the styles yourself and sell them on the internet. I don't mean that to sound sarcastic, but serious.

Lastly, regarding sound capabilities. I don't know how extensive the sound editing is on the Tyros 1-3, or the top end Roland arrangers. But I will say that the synth engine of the Pa series is every bit a high-end programmable synthesizer. I have been able to do little programming tricks that some of the workstations I have owned couldn't pull off. This thing is a killer machine!

Dave

------------------
Wm. David McMahan
LearnMyKeyboard
JazzItUp Band
The Modulators

Well said WDMcM!!

Manufacturers would probably not want to market an arranger that would work best for your traditional arranger player and the hip-hop musician. Neither of them want to be associated with each other.

With respect to “As for the current arrangers not being up to the task of some of today's music, well that's just not true. It is true if you plan on just using the factory supplied styles and sounds. But if you learn how to create your own styles and edit your own sounds, most any of the mid to high end arrangers would fit the bill.”
You’ve hit the nail on the head. Your traditional arranger players do not have the skill nor do they have the interest in creating their own styles and sounds (which is the linchpin of hip-hop and modern music).

And, there does not seem to be overwhelming evidence that there is a modern music market for arrangers. The question is not just whether traditional arranger players are interested in playing hip-hop. But it is whether Hip-hop players would use a traditional arranger.

For hip-hop and other modern music manipulation of audio is critical. Whether you agree with it or not, that is where music production is going. Why do you think almost all the hip-hop people use an MPC? The only companies that seem to be trying to bridge the gap are Ketron with the Audya, Korg with the PA2x pro and the Mediastation.

And I still say to any one, find a song in the Hip-hop or R&B style and try to play it on the T3 or G70 in arranger mode and first see if you can get it to sound authentic and two see if your approach is different from when you play days of wine and roses.

This is the blind spot that we keep hitting and it gets on my nerves honestly. Who said you have to use an arranger keyboard in arranger mode at all or all the time ? I play modern music on my PA1X which is a fully fledged arranger but i dont do so in arranger mode just like a musician writing his Motif XS or Fantom G doesnt use it purely based upon Arps.

The PA Series allows you to create music in any way you like whether using Styles, purely the sequencer or sampled sounds and loops. Tell me what else does a budding hip hop artist need to write the next hit ???????????

If you understand the genre you will know that they need nothing else !!

Can this be done on a modern arranger such as the Korg PA series ? Absolutely

We need to think of the arranger keyboard as simply a keyboard. Forget the arranger element. then ask the question is it capable of being used like a workstation, it does not have to be exactly like a workstation. It just needs a workstations capabilities, if it can then whats the problem ? And most hip hop music is loop based which is basically what a style is . and you can drop in or fade out elemnts of the style as you choose just like pretty much all hiphop music does.Arrangers are easily adaptable to modern music and relies upon the same talent to make the music.

The DJX basically proved that, if you include the sounds and styles the kids want, they will buy 'arrangers' like they are going out of style But it also proved that, if you don't include the sounds and styles older players want, they won't buy them at all.

What annoys me the most is that, there ARE some pretty hip sounding drum kits, synth basses, etc., in my G70, I KNOW there's a ton of contemporary stuff in a PA2X (not really sure about the Tyros3, but it's got to have at least SOME up to date stuff), but NOBODY is writing styles for these arrangers. Korg have excellent style writing teams for the M3/M50, Roland have personnel for the FantomG, Yamaha for the MoXS loops. Why can't they simply get THOSE guys to do styles for the arrangers? Can't be any harder than doing arps for the WS's.

It is still CONTENT... we keep arguing about hardware, but there's no reason the majors couldn't make some pretty hip stuff for the TOTL arrangers (sell them as a 'Contemporary Beats' collection) we already have.

It's a shame we can't get an authoratative voice from the majors on here saying just what those reasons are, Diki. Surely they must have their reasons. We paeons can guess and surmise until we're blue in the face about this. Let's get it from the horse's mouth.

Anybody out there?

Hi,
I think it would be great if they could be loaded up with the type of styles ( & sounds required ) that the user wanted ie
jazz, swing, country or dance, rap whatever, for the youngsters, oriental for those that want it.

I've never used an oriental style or a rap style, doubt the kids would use a vienese waltz.

For years they've tried to please everyone with a mish mash of styles.

Will they survive, time will tell.
best wishes
Rikki


p.s
One thing I'd luv to see is an onboard phrase library , so that it would make it easier to create user styles, something along the lines of Technics Easy Composer.

http://www.wersiclub.co.uk/Rhythm%20Designer%20-%20English%20Manual.pdf

Hi Bill,
very interesting. Can't be tempted though, no Wersi's in Aust. unless specially imported.

With the Technics, ( from memory)I was actually able to create a complete style part ie the 5 instruments, plus bass, & drums. If I remember correctly the drums were split into, bass drum patterns, snare patterns, hihats . In short you could even create new drum patterns quite easily .

You just kept scrolling thru various tracks till you got something that suited.
Could have been better set out, but it was simple.
best wishes
rikki

[QUOTE]Originally posted by abacus:
[B]

One thing everyone has to realize is that arranger manufacturers (and keyboard makers in general), have primarily one thing as their first concern and that is $$$.

Having a modular based system where you can get the styles you want on the same arranger would not bring them as much money as making you buy a new hardware board.

Take for example the Roland GW8. They have the latten version (hardware), the East European version (hardware) and the Asian version (hardware).
Why didn’t they make one master keyboard and have the ethnic sounds and styles as plugins?

Also look at some of the other brands that have oriental versions (hardware) of their arrangers.

It is better for the arranger manufacturers to sell a hardware unit than just and additional sound and style set.

The hardware-led business is unsustainable in its present form. Simple as that.

The problem is the hardware sale is a rare one-off. Take myself as an example. I've average 8 to 10 years from every Roland 'board I've bought over the last twenty-odd years. Few are kissing £2000 goodbye every year for a new TOTL arranger with nothing meaningfully new to offer. Sure, there are a few suckers who've upgraded T1, T2, T3, but even they must acknowledge the law of diminishing returns has kicked in. All the manufacturers have reached a plateau of functionality it's hard to see moving beyond.

In such a stagnant market, the up-sell becomes more important, generating revenue from the existing user base. Diki has floated the idea on the Roland Arranger forums of manufacturers shifting focus, and offering an iTunes-style model of new styles/voices/features being offered via an online store. Why it hasn't happened before now has me scratching my head. It's so obvious and, frankly, there's no other way I can see in the present climate of generating sustainable revenues.

In some cases, there are totally separate teams working on the pro and home market products (arrangers still considered to be home market). It is my understanding that in at least one of the brands you mentioned, the two divisions don't really communicate with each other at all much less do any real collaborating. It has been my observation (keep in mind that I have been on the wholesale side of pro and home keyboard products for quite a few years) that the employees on the pro side look down on the home products division like they are an evil stepchild. The pro reps want nothing to do with them, the designers of the pro gear want nothing to do with them. I think I'm a little odd because I share equal enthusiasm for both types of products.

So maybe one of the reasons things are the way they are is that the manufacturers themselves aren't real sure of what to make of an arranger instrument. Just a thought.

Dave

------------------
Wm. David McMahan
LearnMyKeyboard
JazzItUp Band
The Modulators

[This message has been edited by WDMcM (edited 08-20-2009).]

Hi rikki,

Just curious and not trying to be a smart aleck. In the amount of time it takes to scroll through the many solo kick drum, snare, hi hat, bass and chordal phrases and stick them together into something useful, couldn't a person actually create their own personal rhythm and accompaniment tracks? The answer may be "not if the person doesn't know how to play drums". But my thought is in the amount of time spent reading the manual and learning how to use the style creation features, one could just as easily learn how to create their own drum beats, etc. and then have a style that is totally unique.

Dave

------------------
Wm. David McMahan
LearnMyKeyboard
JazzItUp Band
The Modulators

Actually both Yamaha and Wersi have been doing this for some time, (Wersi being software has a big advantage here) with Yamaha further upping their game with the T3, other manufactures haven’t bothered for some reason, so their owners have to rely mainly on 3rd party support developers.
One of the reasons may be the limited amount of Ram and Rom space on current boards, (And loading time of course) but all manufactures could overcome this if they wanted to. (If it was hardware it would probably have to be a new board though)
Anyway keep the pressure on and who knows.

Roland chose the SRX route, which offers exceptional quality - and NO load waits - but it's still, necessarily, a hardware solution limited to voice expansion. They were very short-sighted in abandoning the style aftermarket, especially when the Gold styles of the E-80 V2 upgrade proved they are still peerless at creating them.

Unfortunately, with piracy so rampant, what is their incentive to make them? They certainly aren't cheap to make. Without new product in the MOTL-TOTL range, why would Roland want to LOSE money (or break even or only make a small profit ) keeping our interest up in a product they no longer sell?

I can see the point doing this so that current owners will happily migrate to a new Roland, knowing that after sales support in the styles dept. is excellent. But when you don't HAVE any new product, and seem content to let owners that want to upgrade go to another manufacturer rather than bring any new models out. Five YEARS between models is simply too long when you compare it to other production cycles.

Dave,
One GREAT thing about Korg arrangers,.
Korg DOES NOT consider them HOME keyboards, as you no doubt have been experiencing since you got yours. :-)

Lee S.

Hi Dave,
I tend to think the majority of arranger players are hobbyists like myself.

Personally I don't know how to play drums.
( don't mean physically haahaa I mean drum style patterns)

The way I put styles together is by hearing what I want ie building up from bass & drums, & auditioning assorted style tracks with a song.
Be easier dialing up phrases & auditioning along the way, than using the copy function.
With the copy function you have to leave the style creator to audition the style with the song.

As far as the Technics Easy Composer was concerned, it was really simple to use.
Would not require much studying. Unfortunately I don't think it had the option of auditioning song while in easy composer mode either.

I think it would be handy if there was an easy way to create a style.
We audition styles with songs, why not phrases. Not just for the sake of it, but if an onboard style doesn't suit, try & create one's own.
Doesn't have to be elaborate using 6cv's for each style track, korg does it reasonably well with 1cv, so does yammie.

Anyway, hypothetical, just a bit of a pipe dream of mine.

[QUOTE]

Hi rikki,

Just curious and not trying to be a smart aleck. In the amount of time it takes to scroll through the many solo kick drum, snare, hi hat, bass and chordal phrases and stick them together into something useful, couldn't a person actually create their own personal rhythm and accompaniment tracks? The answer may be "not if the person doesn't know how to play drums". But my thought is in the amount of time spent reading the manual and learning how to use the style creation features, one could just as easily learn how to create their own drum beats, etc. and then have a style that is totally unique.

Dave

------------------
Wm. David McMahan
LearnMyKeyboard
JazzItUp Band
The Modulators

One thing that would help assembling styles out of bits of other styles would be a 'groove extractor' like they have on a lot of MIDI DAW's (and audio, now).

Basically, this would allow you to impose the 'groove' (swing factor, 'feel', whatever you want to call it) from one part (whichever feels best to you), and impose its' feel onto other tracks you import. This would vastly increase the number of style possibilities, IMO...

BTW, anybody miss the old 'swing' knob from the earliest, simplest drum boxes and Rhythm Aces? You could get quite a lot of variety from ONE simple pattern with those...

OMG I can't believe it has been 37 years since I played out with just my B3 and Rythm Ace. They were simpler times when the patrons marveled at the technology.

OK, now I get it. Sort of like folks using Sony Acid to build songs out of individual phrases. That's cool.

Dave

------------------
Wm. David McMahan
LearnMyKeyboard
JazzItUp Band
The Modulators

------------------
Wm. David McMahan
LearnMyKeyboard
JazzItUp Band
The Modulators

Overhere in europe still many childrens first instrument is a low entry level arranger (Yam/casio) and i think that many of them will try and find those feautures in the more professional systems they buy when they get better and older.

Still an arranger using styles is an awesome and easy way the try out new mellodies and musicall ideas even for the pro's

For me the future is clear, people allways want to play around with music at their homes and for them an arranger is a very nice instrument.

Many of the pro's are still looking for the TOTL instrument. For me the TOTL instrument would be a combination of an Arranger and an extended arpegiator like KARMA..... with many different sound sorcess, like OASYS or a mor VST based system.

While home users want/prefer/are used to 61 keys... many of the pro's really love 76 keys for live gigging, So if they really want to make arrangers a gigging choice in the future they should aim more for the stage musicians with their top models instead of for the Home players... and then the home players will just follow.


Arrangers have a future... but wether it will be on stage or only in the living room has to be seen in the next 20 years....

My daughter is loving her rythm piano, while learning piano for 30 mins a day the hard way, she also has 30 minutes of making fun music with the styles on the arranger part, and thats where music is all about having fun... many of the young that play piano loose interest because of the chore... while she keeps having fun because of the ease of the arranger part. Just simple mellodies with simple chords, but they she sounds like a pro...


[This message has been edited by Bachus (edited 08-21-2009).]

Difference is, now WE have become jaded. The patrons still marvel at the technology (if you play it well ), but we no longer gawk and gasp at it, despite it's utterly amazing improvement over those Rhythm Ace days...

Not enough any more, unfortunately. Certainly not enough to replace the ones dropping off the scene at the other end of the demographic scale.

Hi Diki,
just checked,psr's actually have a groove & dynamics functions in their style creator section.

Never thought to use it.
best wishes
Rikki


[QUOTE]Originally posted by Diki:
[B]One thing that would help assembling styles out of bits of other styles would be a 'groove extractor' like they have on a lot of MIDI DAW's (and audio, now).

Basically, this would allow you to impose the 'groove' (swing factor, 'feel', whatever you want to call it) from one part (whichever feels best to you), and impose its' feel onto other tracks you import. This would vastly increase the number of style possibilities, IMO...

Does it allow you to copy and paste? That's a pretty handy tool, there...

I think that Korg have got the best handle on style creation, allowing you to do it in a computer MIDI sequencer, then import easily to the arranger. No shortage of all the esoteric MIDI editing tools you would ever need.

But I feel they need one extra step... the ability to play the style WHILE it is still in the computer, as banging the files back and forth ('save' the style, transfer to the arranger, THEN get to listen if the edit actually worked, then re-edit the style, 'save', transfer to the arranger, listen to see if THAT worked, and so on and so forth ad nauseam ) is a total PITA.

Korg (and actually, all others too ) need to create a simple 'Style Player' software so that works in progress can be quickly checked as you edit them in place, IMO...

Hi Diki,
don't know. Probably pretty basic compared to what sequencers can do.

Yep, luv the Korg import/export function.
DEfinately makes style editing easier.
One day I may have to look into a better pc sequencer. I'm using PT12 & XGworks, pretty basic.

As for the last suggestion, that would be great.

Actually I keep forgetting about the Korg pads. I could actually create my phrase library out of multipads. ie mute certain tracks in a style & audition the pads.
Then when a suitable combination is created, the pads came be copied into the style itself.
Organizing them might be a bit of a challenge.
best wishes
Rikki

Hi Dave,
I must have explained that really badly.

What I meant was,
just say I'm looking for a style to play a waltz like moon river or fascination,
I try the onboard styles first, unless I missed some, I couldn't find one to suit.
Next I'll try muting all the tracks except drums & percussion . I think Slow Waltz 2 drums may work. Next I try the bass with the drums, doesn't work, so I have to use a different bass line. Then I'll check to see if any of the other instrument tracks suit the song.

Probably clear as mud. haahaa

Anyway since a phrase library as such, doesn't exist, I may look at trying to use multipads as a library. I keep forgetting about them.

best wishes
Rikki

Sequencer and Keyboard

Just connect the Midi Out of the sequencer to the Midi In of the keyboard, and tell the sequencer to use the voices on the keyboard, then as you modify any settings in the sequencer you will hear how it sounds as if you played on the keyboard. (That’s the way I have always done it since I started with Midi in about 1985, when I combined my Atari ST with my Wersi Alpha Organ)
Tip: If you own a Wersi OAS instrument, use Midi 2 for your sequencer, as by default this is set up to directly work with an external sequencer.
Hope this helps

Bill

Trouble with that, Bill, is it still only plays the ONE sequence, and doesn't follow your chord input, or switch in and out of fills and Intro/Endings. Getting the basic pattern is not so tough, but designing styles that flow smoothly through the fills and other segments, and seem natural progressions through the Variations, and also provide just the right amount of variety between the maj/min/7th/dim variants is MUCH harder to tell from playing the one chord pattern you just created...

Just getting the chord parts' ranges right, so they don't jump around too much requires the style engine to play the part in the first place... Then listening to any glitches as you change mid beat from major to minor, etc. means a trip to the arranger...

It would speed things up and make decisions about things like this much easier if the computer actually PLAYED the style...

JMO...

There's this....
[URL=http://www.korgpa.com/pa_root/software/history/bonusware/pa1x/Pa1X_StyleToMidi_303.zip]http://www.korgpa.com/pa_root/software/history/bonusware/pa1x/Pa1X_StyleToMidi_303.zip[/ URL]

It allows you to bypass exporting the style to the Pa1X for testing and assembly. You can do the lot on the PC and test it through Midi.

Once your happy, you can load the actual style straight in. No conversions.

It's an old tool but all KORG Pa-Series keyboards can read this format of STY files.

Regards
James

[This message has been edited by Irishacts (edited 08-22-2009).]