Well first of all you have to consider the market, which for arrangers is the home market, (The fact that they are used by Pros, has little relevance to the manufacture as they are so small in number) and as always a lot of home users get stuck in a rut, (This is why music lessons are good, as they constantly give you something to aim for) and to get out of it, rather then fully investigate their board, (Usually because the manuals suck (Is it deliberate that manufactures make such poor manuals) they look for something new to give them inspiration and gratification.
When a new board comes out, the hype is so intensified that owners in a rut jump at the chance the get something new, (Even if in reality it is only a marginal improvement) and while this attitude prevails (Encouraged by the manufactures) the manufactures will keep pumping it for all it is worth.
Contrast this with the Pro users (And the growing number of focussed home users) who worked out a long time ago that “It’s not what you play, but how you play that counts”
What makes my Wersi Abacus so invaluable to me, (I’m just a home player BTW) is that I can purchase what “I” want for it, (From virtually every music software manufacture out there) and not be dictated to by the manufacture, plus in addition I have saved myself shed loads of cash in the process, as I never need to buy a new board. (Or learn a new OS)
Great post BTW Chas

Bill

Great topic, chas.

In my case, I've stuck with the i30 because it does all that I need it to do, simple as that. Like Gary's 3000 or Diki's G70, it's been a tireless and dependable workhorse. I recently bought a used Pa1XPRO and have spent quite a bit of time tweaking, getting all my registrations from the i30 in there, but modifying this and that. And the 1X, being a much deeper board, I'm always finding new things to incorporate. My wife calls me a sort of musical proctologist because I'm always digging around looking for something new ('cause I know it's in there). And it won't be out on gigs until I can pretty much fly it blind. I have a drawback with the harmonizer on it, but that's another story.

Plus, because I'm used to the Korg way of doing things, I didn't want to jump ship to another manufacturer and have to learn a new way. Familiarity, in this case, breeds less stress.

I agree with abacus that it's not what you play, etc. I can think of many instances where I've worked with some pretty respected session guys whose gear you'd think belonged in a thrift store - till they put their hands on it.

I have a feeling that the majority of 'frequent fliers' upgrade to get new styles. I don't think that it is a coincidence that manufacturers rarely ever make new styles easily backwards compatible, forcing those that want new TOTL styles to buy the new arranger, or wait six months to a year before someone figures out how to convert them...

I also don't think it is a coincidence that the manufacturers have made no attempt to install a usable copy protection system for third party styles (unless it is keyed solely to them, like IDC) because, if skilled third party style creators could actually make any MONEY from making styles, fewer new arrangers would be sold!

But I disagree with how little you all think (or most of you) that arrangers are designed with the professional in mind. To be honest, if they took a survey that asked what of the advanced features were actually USED by 'home' users, they would drop them in a flash! But they would lose ALL their 'professional' sales instantly...

For me (back to the main subject), a keyboard is simply a tool to interpret what I want to play. With 'what I want to play' as the most important aspect, not what the MACHINE wants to play. For the kind of music I usually do (not exactly cutting edge modern stuff, for sure!), my main needs are that the 'bread and butter' stuff be as good as possible, The drums be live sounding (but easy to edit!), and the keybed I actually play them on be as responsive and comfortable as possible. Once that is found, most other considerations are secondary.

I take a LONG time between arrangers primarily because I have always felt that, if you HAVE bought a new arranger, you should make 100% use of all its' new sounds and capabilities, and that involves completely revamping your entire show. Edit every style, edit every SMF, utilize every new capability. That takes a LOT of time, and hey, I'm as lazy as the next guy

Yes, I'm one of the 'one registration per song' type players. I like ALL the sounds I use for it tweaked to perfection. I like ALL the Part volumes tweaked (or muted!) to perfection. I want the splits exactly where they need to be, for this song in this key. I want the registration (UPG) to call up the SMF if I use one. I want all the buttons and controllers mapped to what this song in particular needs.

And so on and so forth.

The job of doing this from scratch is herculean, so rather than swap keyboards more frequently, and skip or only partially do this task, I'd rather stick to what I have until something SO advanced comes out that I HAVE to change. Took ten years on the G1000. Four and counting on the G70...

I'm sorry, but I have to say it... If you can't get nearly ten years of enjoyment and productivity out of a TOTL arranger, you simply aren't using it to its' fullest. New styles can be had (or made ), new sounds can be had (or made), new capabilities can often be had with software upgrades (sorry, Yamaha users!), little used capabilities fully explored (how many of us have even TRIED syncing arranger play with SMF play and mixed it up during one song?), and, finally, as mastery of the instrument finally gets close, there's the most important thing of all...

Switch OFF as much of the arranger as possible, and try to play it all (or as much as is humanly possible) yourself... You certainly won't need the latest greatest to do THAT, yet that is the hardest task to do..!

If Roland brought out a new arranger tomorrow, what would I do? This is a tough one... You know, even if Roland addressed ALL my remaining niggles with the G70 (and that's all most of them are), but didn't improve the sounds in a VERY significant way, I'm not really sure I would migrate. I want EVERYTHING in an arranger to be significantly better before I move, because, when all is said and done, it's the AUDIENCE that should be able to tell the improvement, not you!

I am fairly sure that, other than a few new styles and the odd SA2 sound, few audience members that heard a player go from T2 to T3 knew anything much had changed. But just recently, I installed a new SRX card in my G70 (got some with the backup... thanks, Vince) and have been working hard tweaking some T2 style conversions up to usability levels. And people have been commenting like crazy. Mission accomplished, without buying a new model arranger!

Before you reach for that credit card, try simply working harder at making your sound YOUR sound. It might save you a fortune...

While I agree with Diki's philosophy (in theory ), I just wanted to point out that it was not my intent in this post, to bring anyone around to any particular way of thinking or to suggest that one approach to, or motivation for, upgrading was more valid than any other. Let's face it, if everyone kept their arrangers for 10 years, not only would the used market dry up completely (thus depriving Diki of his relatively inexpensive backup ), but with new sales down say 75%, what would be the motivation for manufacturers to invest in R&D, new technology, ongoing style development, or even continue in this market. In other words, I'm not sure that one solution fits all, no matter how practical it seems on the surface.

I'll be patiently awaiting Diki's rebuttal .

chas

I simply wish that what I write isn't taken as some sort of instruction to be followed... it's JMO, always was, always will be. That this has to follow what I say is absurd...

And while I DO believe that, if you feel the need to upgrade constantly, it IS likely that you haven't exhausted the possibilities in what you currently have, who says that you HAVE TO exhaust them? I certainly don't want to suggest what you should or should not do. As chas quite rightly points out, if we all kept our arrangers that length of time, the industry would be in FAR worse shape than it already is!

I wonder what it means that I have zero interest in trying out other brand keyboards?



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

UNLESS.........the gov't started a 'cash for clunkers' program for old keyboards .

chas

Good 'un, chas!

Bill, what it means is that you're quite happy with your current gear. That's the best reason there is for not wanting to make any changes.

Amen to that...

But, just like women... just 'cos I'm LOOKING doesn't mean I'm going to take them home!

The only thing I'd like to do at this point is ADD to what I already have, and until the arranger manufacturers make it easy to MIDI two together, it seems a threesome will have to remain a fantasy

Right. As married men, you should go to THEIR house.



chas