Very nice.

So according to her the Tyros 3 is now a Workstation ?. Things are hardly that bad over at Yamaha that they have to start telling lies in order to confuse people.

James

I would say any KB that you can edit from factory settings is considered a "workstation"..

If people do that it will only ever end in confusion because the universally known classification of a workstation is a Synth or Rompler that comes with on-board Sequencer.

It's just the way it is and has always been.

Walking into any music store in the world and ask them to look at their workstations. You can be sure they won't bring you to the nearest Arranger Keyboard.

James

I feel that soon in the furture it will all be as one....Arranger/workstaion we're so close now. Might as well mled the camps and make better products for all.

The Tyros3 is a rompler that comes with an on board sequencer(16 track), so it can be considered a "workstation"...just because it also has arranger features does not make it any less a workstation...it actually makes it far more flexible.

Same goes for PA2XPro and G70.

For sure that's probably where the technology will have to go to survive and adapt to the next generation, but right now the only people who have blurred the lines between Arranger and Workstation is KORG. The KORG Pa2X is as programmable as any of KORG's Flagship Workstations, and just as deep in every way when it comes to the sound engine.

Unlike Yamaha and the Tyros 3. The Tyros 3 is very crude and basic compered to a Motif. The synth engine is very shallow for custom voices, and you don't even have things like a Sampler onboard let alone even a full sequencer.

I know it's not the end of the world, I'm just say so because I thought she had a cheek of calling the Tyros a Workstation...lol...

James

Honestly Donny.., I've always said in the past that it would be great to combine the two.., but I've changed my mind on that one.

I don't want them combined because the price on a keyboard like a Motif XS, Roland Fantom-G, and a Korg M-3 with arranger functions would be FREAKING SKY HIGH!

ALL the keyboard makers pinch the hell out of the arranger market in terms of price--that's not secret either. The price difference is unreal. They start combining these two keyboards (completely).., we'll almost certainly see a price tag of $4,500+ on the 61 key models.

They can't do it for several reasons..., at least not any time soon. They'll lose a huge chunk of their market on BOTH sides of the fence. Di-hard synth junkies don't want arranger functions.., and there are a lot of di-hard arranger players who don't want the complexity of a workstation mixed with their arrangers.

You'd be surprised at what people are saying about the price of a Tyros 3 on other forums compared to the Motif XS and other workstations. Same goes for the other makers arranger line too.

She might have had "cheek" but she wasn't "lying".

The Tyros3 has a sequencer, it may not be as flexible or advanced as others, but it is most definitely a sequencer....thus making the Tyros3 a "workstation"...according to the definition posted.

It is not nice to call anyone a "liar" without proof.

[This message has been edited by ianmcnll (edited 09-21-2009).]

That's all as silly as me calling the KORG OASYS an arranger just because it has KARMA on board.

If we were to keep to KORG only, then fair enough it would be quite an effort to classify a workstation from their arrangers since they are both so advanced, but seriously Yamaha ?...

The Tyros 3 struggles enough to be classed as a Pro Arranger when it doesn't have a sampler, a complete sequencer, or even a synth engine with any depth to it.

James.

You need to look at the bigger picture here of classification that separates the keyboards into the classes they come form.

Just because it carries a the basic function doesn't mean anything. For example my 6 year old daughters keyboard can edit sounds and even record what she plays.

So shall we call that a workstation too ?.

James

No James...it is not that silly.

The Tyros3 is a "workstation", according to the definition you yourself posted.

It may not be your cup of tea, but it is certainly mine, as well as many other professional players...it is exceptionally versatile for both live and studio work.

"Workstations" are too difficult for many players (pros included), hence the addition of arranger and arpeggio features.

IMO arrangers are superior to an Oasys with Karma...try playing a polka or an old fashioned waltz, not to mention most other standard styles.

Yes the Oasys has it's place...I've played one...nice instrument, and you're right, it is no arranger....not even close.

Ahh... then I didn't make my point clear enough.

I meant as in a Synth (not an arranger) that either produces it's sounds by Virtual Technology, or PCM based generation and that has a full blown sequencer.

Not an arranger keyboard that has a very limited on board synth like the Tyros and a basic sequencer with no sampling.

That's why I mentioned that if we stuck to KORG keyboards only it would be quite hard to define a difference between them because KORG Arrangers are just as deep and fully programmable as their workstation.

Neither carry any read only factory preset data, KORG keyboards are all fully programmable unlike Yamaha Arrangers which have small user memories and limited abilities for programming.



Well there you go, your pretty much pointing out another main difference between arrangers and actual workstations yourself.



You don't understand the concept then.

It can certainly do that and far more than an arranger. It just doesn't come form the Factory programmed that way because KARMA only comes on Workstations which are not mean for people who want to play Polka's.

I uploaded this basic example a few days back to show KARMA playing like an arranger keyboard Style but with the added bonus that it's also able to do things an arranger can't like add a certain amount of randomness to the pattern.

For example have a listen to this. http://www.irishacts.com/misc/file3.mp3

There's nothing really locked down to a set pattern like arranger keyboards are. Everything is being generated in real-time and if you listen to the drums for example you will hear them play more naturally just like real drummer will.

That's not me activating fills or doing anything other than playing 2 different chords. Even the main variation change you hear is generated in real-time by KARMA. It's not me changing to a different set of patterns. It's all the same data doing different things in real-time.

Regards
James

Well said, Squeak...one of the best, and the most straight forward, explanations of that dilemma I have read here on the forum.

Of course I understand the concept...it's been discussed here several times.

You obviously did not make your point clear enough in your description of a workstation...it's become a very "general" term...I remember people referring to Yamaha's little Q-series as "workstations", or "walkstations" as they were sometimes affectionately called.

Yamaha's arranger editing seems to work just fine for it's intended user market, which is primarily the home/amateur...most arranger users, including Korg and Roland, do not edit sounds drastically, or build them from scratch.

Most are content to download new sounds from more experienced users...or, they don't use it at all...Squeak's succinct explanation says it all for me.

There are some that want further detailed editing on their arranger...they can buy a Korg.

The Oasys is a fine instrument...I'm glad you are as happy with it, as I am with my arranger.

Hi James
Here are the official designations of Yamaha's keyboards
http://uk.yamaha.com/en/products/musical.../?mode=overview

This was a great demo! Any idea how I can get this style for my PSR-S900?

If you are referring to the style Ethereal Ballad, which was used at the beginning, and at 3:32, will only work on the Tyros3....the conversions I heard were disappointing, at least to my ears.

I have assembled/created a similar style for my S900 called Freestyle, which allows you to play without strict tempo restrictions, as you can with Ethereal Ballad.

I can send it to you, if you email me.

Ian

[This message has been edited by ianmcnll (edited 09-21-2009).]

Thanks Bill...I notice the new PSR-S910 Arranger Workstation has made it's official appearance.

Hi ianmcnll



I didn't get that feeling at all from you based on your comments about styles above. It suggested to me you had no idea that it could operate in an arranger type mode.



If I didn't explain myself clearly enough for you then fair enough. That said, I do not agree with you that the term workstation has become a general classification.

As I said above, walk into any music shop in the world and ask them to see their selection of Workstations and I bet they wont show you a single Arranger Keyboard.



I never said otherwise. Ask yourself two questions.

1: What type of user is the general Arranger user?.
2: What type of user is the Workstation user?.

Now if an Arranger is supposed to be a workstaion, then the answer to the two questions should be the same, no, yes ?.

The fact is that you cannot deny that there is a difference here and that worsktations and arrangers are designed for completely different types of users.

Can you see what angle I'm coming at here to try explain this ? I don't want to argue with you over such a silly subject, but I do need you to see my point so you don't think I'm narrow minded or anything like that.

I have a genuine point here that there is a huge difference between arrangers and workstations in both features and their intended end user audience.

Regards
James

There are Arrangers (without the sound editing and sequencer)...and there are Arranger Workstations (with sound editing and sequencer).

Simple, eh?

And no, there is not a huge difference between arranger workstations and workstations...you already implied that by your description of Korg's arranger workstations.

There used to be a big difference...not so today...the line is blurring considerably.

I still think Squeak said it best.

Ian



[This message has been edited by ianmcnll (edited 09-21-2009).]

lol.. Lets agree to disagree.

In my opinion you have...

Arrangers
1: Home Keyboards
2: Pro Arrangers

Workstations
1: Workstations

At no point can an arranger be classed as a workstation as the only word in it's description.

Cheers
James

No problem.

I do understand about "workstation" being a stand alone term, but arranger-workstations, and workstations, and their intended users, are not as distinct as they used to be....I work in the field and demo and promote these products. I have seen both types of users change camps.

It's like digital stage pianos with pitch/mod wheels, and a whole bank of sounds, some types even allowing basic editing (or in the case of Korg's PA-588, arranger functions, sequencing with detailed editing, and decent synthesizer functions as well)...the line is becoming a tad murky with these products as well...are they weighted action romplers, or digital stage piano/arranger workstations?

I always say, we live in an interesting age...technology has advanced geometrically in the past few years, and no doubt, will continue to do so.

BTW, I liked the Oasys a lot...would be a monster for film scoring, just to name one use that comes quickly to mind.

Ian

this is a good discussion. I owned the yamaha PSR8000 years ago and the sequencer on that was termed a "song player". I dont think yamaha at the time themselves dared to call it a sequencer. I used it though as a workstation and found angles on getting the best out of the song palyer function that even yamaha had not thought could be done. I had an interesting discussion with one of the product managers on the Motifator forum about the Motif XS and how it was a workstation and how the yamaha arrangers could not do similar functions and i had to correct him many times. But thats another discussion however although the song player features on the Tyros 2 and 3 are virtually still the same as the PSR8000 they now call it a sequencer !! Go figure !! its all good marketing fun :-)

And then it always comes down to the non "Pro TOY" Arranger"...vs the so called "PRO Workstation" label which is totaly BS IMO....some things never change.

Spalding brings up a good point...Yamaha always called the sequencer on their arrangers "SONG CREATOR"....not "sequencer" Still do), figuring that the home user, for which the instrument was mainly intended, would become confused...they even made and named the controls to mimic those of a tape recorder.

Workstations are designed for the pros, and aren't afraid to use big, fancy, manly, techie words.

Bottom line on all this is that, if you ONLY consider the old fashioned description of a WS, then pretty much ANY keyboard can live up to it.

But, MODERN WS's are rife with features and abilities no modern arranger (MS excepted, and that suffers in the arranger part) has. Arpeggiators, loop slicing, beat synced effects... control of computer programs, VSTi's... random arp generators (up to and including Karma).

You want to use a twenty year old description of a WS, to make your arranger look more important, have at it. But CALLING it a WS doesn't make it one. t least, not in the modern sense of the word.

Yes, but Yamaha and Roland have to do SOMETHING to catch up with Korg.

If you can't beat 'em...redefine.

[This message has been edited by ianmcnll (edited 09-21-2009).]

And besides whoneeds all that so called workstation stuff on a keyboard when today you can do it all and better using computers in so many ways with some awesome programs...

[This message has been edited by Dnj (edited 09-21-2009).]

The Tyros 3 sounds so boring I fell asleep listening to this video. Besides funny people here on this forum. Tyros 3 a workstation HAHAHAHAHA so funny.

Don't blame the instrument but the player.

I wouldn't call Miss Nakagawa's playing sleep-inducing. She's an accomplished musician. You should also keep in mind that since home players are the main buyers of the Tyros 3, it makes sense for Miss Nakagawa to play songs that are approachable to such players. The potential buyer should be left with the feeling that they can produce the same stuff. Over-the-top playing will only scare them off. JMO

Regards

Taike

apparently most of the keyboard players out there do. the fantom G is a self contained workstation where everything you need to do production wise is within the unit itself. Same for the Yamaha XS, and the latest Kurzweil. Musicians like options and if you have learned to create music with the instrument you make music on it can be really hard (and uneccessary) to have to adapt to making music with a computer attached. I make all my music with just the PA1X and because thats the way i work i can produce and write eficiently and seemlessley. That way the technology works with me and not against me. If the workstation elemnet was taken away from my arranger i woukd be stuffed creatively.

Wow, what a great read.

This has been one of best threads on SZ for a while in my view. Well thought out and written arguments by everyone.

Bravo!

Dennis

The trouble with the no-computer description is that, for at least twenty years now, computers HAVE been central to making music, to the point that there is a whole generation of mature musicians that feel more comfortable on a computer making a music production, than 'within the box' of a self-contained WS.

Sadly, I only really see either older players or complete technophobes trying for the 'in the box' experience any more. To the point where one of the most popular new additions to WS features is the ability to control external computer DAW's and VSTi's from the keyboard itself. Hardly the sign of a generation looking to rid themselves of the DAW...

Although you CAN put together a pretty decent production withing a WS entirely by itself, I see VERY few players doing that any more...

i hear you Dikki but there are very few musicians out there that put together a traack for people to listen to commercially all by themselves. The finished product is as the result of a team of musicians, producers etc and the workstation keyboard will have been one element of many that went to make the finished product . The workstation, no matter which one, is never going to be used to produce a finished radio ready track even if you use a computer to help. Fully produced music that you and i will hear on the radio requires whole teams of people including technicians , sound engineers,song writers and proucers. I dont think you will disagree with me that it takes a team of people to put a decent commercially ready track out there.

So why does the concept of a workstation continue to exist at all if what i have just said is true? (by the way i am not asking if its true , i know it to be true !)

I suggest because the musician who perhaps created the original song wanted to get as close to what he/she heard in their head in the first place and then hand over te "concept idea" to a producer who will then put the arrangement of the song into sharper focus and pull in the bass players, drummers, horn players ete as they see fit. The workstation however you use it helps the song writer get their ideas accross.

And one more thing. You are right that a lot of young musicians use mostly the computer to make music and not actually any particular instrument itself.....and it shows !! cut and paste music has proliferated the music industry for the lat 25 years to the point where pretty much every song i hear on the radio sounds like the one i heard before and there are more cover versons than original song writing because so much has to be done with copywrite clearance because of the samples used in contemporary music that it is easier simply to get one clearance from the record label for a cover of the song than 20 for each sample that is being used in a "new song".

You will also find that many new producers see themselves predom inantly as that "proucer" and not neccessarily great musicians. Many of them can play a little keyboard, a little guitar, some drums a bit of bass but not actually to a high standard for any. There are exceptions to this obviously but for the most part this is true.

The reason workstations have the capability for both integration into a larger music production system as well as being self contained is because thats how very many musicians work in the real world. If that were not so, then the work staion element could be dropped altogether and all that would be needed was an instrument that could play a stack of VST and nothing else. But the most popular keyboards today and the best selling are fully functional self contained and extended integration capable machines.

Hi Spalding1968
The only reason musicians are not using VSTi extensively, is because apart from the Mediastation and Neko there is nothing that is fully integrated, and musicians don't or can't spare the time to set up the software to match their WS.
Times are now changing, and manufactures are responding to the demand, in that when you now buy most of the latest VSTi, there is a drop down menu that allows you to choose your WS or controller from the list, and the software is automatically set up for you. (The beginning of widespread integration)
With smaller and more powerful computers now available or in the pipeline, (A 64 bit OS is ideal) you will find Lionstracs and other manufactures will start building on the Mediastation/Neko principle to fulfil the demand of WS musicians. (Most of the features/ideas from the big boys are developed by smaller guys and adapted)
Times they are a changing.(This decade has been experimental with the hardware/software link, the next decade will see music playing/production go to levels hitherto unheard of so far)(Software allows flexibility and design beyond anything that can ever be achieved with just hardware alone)

Whatever definition you want to use for Workstation, in fact Yamaha have been using that description for Tyros2 &3 (and possibly Ty1 I can't remember) all the time. (ie. it's not an unofficial/cheeky invention by the current presentor )
At bottom right of the case just below where the words Tyros 2 or 3 are printed and on the front of the Manual it says Digital Workstation. If you connect the Tyros to a Computer via USb and select it in say a Sonar hardware setup menu it shows up as Digital Workstation.

John

I hear you abacus. the point i was making is that musicians dont just want VST integration on their Keyboards. They want the whole package,sequencer, sound editor, sampler etc available on one unit with the potential to integrate it with a larger production system. Its the flexibility that the musician needs and not to have their options restricted. If this is not true then Yamaha and korg and roland all made incredible marketing mistakes and they could reduce their production costs by half and it would have ZERO effect on their sales .....do you buy that ????

here is a great example of a guy that has done all his production on the Neko sequenceing recording, mixing all on the one unit. It is the future of all keyboards and is exactly the way that computer technology should be hidden within the instrument that you use to create the music http://www.youtube.com/user/OpenLabsInc#play/uploads/111/KBjnz4Kectw

[This message has been edited by spalding1968 (edited 09-22-2009).]

I am not sure I articulated my point well... I simply believe there isn't the DEMAND from young keyboard players (the meat of the market) to integrate everything, computer, DAW, VSTi's and WS features in one 'all in one' package.

To be honest, I would shudder at the thought of having to do a complete production 'in the box' when faced with those tiny display screens (tiny in comparison to a pair of 24" widescreen monitors, anyway!).

The only reason I can see for putting it all ITB is so that you can carry it around with you more conveniently than a laptop. But, on the whole, who needs a DAW on the go? Most of the really high end VSTi's are not designed for the 'live' experience, and, in all fairness, 'closed' arrangers or WS's get SO close that the extra detail the VSTi offers you is lost on the live listener.

Back in the studio, I would prefer to have all the components separate, to balance the loads better. Maybe in the future, when CPU horsepower gets up to as yet unheard of power, they MIGHT make something that can do it all as effortlessly as the tower computer based systems (and I MEAN 'systems' - one computer isn't generally enough) and as affordably as modern WS's (and arrangers ).

But, as you point out, modern production is a team effort. Why load yourself up with something that can do EVERYTHING (even if it could), when your needs are so much less?

I simply don't see the large percentage of computer based musicians moving wholesale away from the things that make THEM comfortable, to go back to stuffing it all in one small box with a small display. And if that is not an issue, if it is static and has large monitors attached, it begs the question 'Why bother?'... The sytems we have right now do the same job as ably, and considerably less expensively.

This issue, to be honest, was decided back in the nineties, when everybody moved wholesale towards computers, and once we got hooked on how easy it all was when you weren't trying to do whatever it was you were trying to do on a tiny little display, there really hasn't been much of a trend back. I for one would never give up my music production rig for a NeKo, and try to do it all 'ITB'.

BTW, although there isn't much released nationally that is the work of one man, an AWFUL lot of local work, jingles, band production, radio spots, you name it, actually IS done by just one man in one studio.

I wonder how long she's been demonstrating for Yamaha shes really good.

Taike makes great sense with this statement...

"You should also keep in mind that since home players are the main buyers of the Tyros 3, it makes sense for Miss Nakagawa to play songs that are approachable to such players. The potential buyer should be left with the feeling that they can produce the same stuff. Over-the-top playing will only scare them off.

I know using the same technique works very successfully for me in my demos.

Ian

So0 Ian what your saying is thet Barttman should tone it down to make more sales?

Nope...there is a place for some flashy stuff, generally at the end of the demo, and only if the demonstrator feels it will not intimidate the client, or clients from trying the instrument themselves...a concert performance is different.

Baartmans and Harris don't always play complicated tunes...it will depend on the situation.

BTW, I have an S910 on order....hopefully I'll get one in late October, or early November.

If you watch his demos you'll notice that there's a very distinctive balance between what the average player and the advanced player can pull off.

As for Miss Nakagawa, one of Yamaha's best Jazz Electone players, is not only a demonstrator but a performing artist as well. In fact, most of the Japanese demonstrators are either winners or finalists of the Yamaha Music Festival. Apart from demonstrating and giving concerts they also publish music books (arranged covers and own compostions) which include registration data.
http://riavenclaw.wordpress.com/2009/05/08/mina-nakagawa-performs-at-ps-mall/ (It's in Indonesian but you'll get the picture.)

[This message has been edited by Taike (edited 09-23-2009).]