I've bought a ton of arrangers over the years--mainly for the traditional styles. I'd pay them extra to leave all that contemporary junk off my keyboard. I'd like to be able to buy a "blank" arranger and specify which styles I'd prefer. I've got the S910, but hardly touch it--because of Band In A box 2010 and all its Real Tracks, which meets my needs much better.

If I could only afford to hire Nedim...

------------------
www.AudioworksCT.com

I went to a jazz jam over at Twains in Decatur the other night. Loads of musicians. Lot of Berkelee grads. Lots of young players. Most of these guys were 'killer' musicians who could play incredibly beautiful and complex solos over incredibly complex changes to painfully slow or blazingly fast rhythms, without breaking a sweat.....all without benefit of digitized sheet music in front of them, transpose buttons, automatic chord generation, sequencers, mp3 players, etc., etc. They could also accompany the other soloist with equal ease. In other words, they were REAL musicians......in a way that most arranger players aren't. Given the amount of blood, sweat, and tears that they have devoted to their craft, should they look down on arranger keyboards/players? Dunno, but I can understand it if they do.

We get angry when/if someone suggests that arranger keyboards are mostly of interest to 'ol folks' and poor to mediocre players who use them as crutches to present themselves in a better light, musically. If we're honest, we know that this is generally true. Although there are some 'good' players (I haven't heard any 'great' players) here (unlike say on some of the recording boards), I've only heard a couple that could have set in on that jam the other night; not because of genre', but because of the level of musicianship and training. I think serious musicians want to play what's in their heads, not a sequence (played/programmed by someone else) triggered by a 2 or 3 fingered chord (with very sophisticated software to minimize the effects of poor timing, etc.). These are machines designed for and used by hobbyists that are sometimes, but rarely, used by 'entertainers' to give themselves (hopefully) more performance flexibility than the old 'tape' backing tracks of yesteryear (but just in case, don't forget to bring your compliment of SMF's and MP3's).

For the record, I feel the same way about the loopers and slicers and remixers in the world of HipHop. But at least they do it mostly in the studio, not in the middle of a pretend performance.....plus, they don't even pretend to be 'musicians'...they CALL themselves HipHop artists and treat it as a seperate and unique artform (whether we like it or not, it probably is, and as such, requires a certain skill set, talent, and understanding of the genre'). If it were easy, given the amount of money generated, everyone would do it.

Personally, I don't think the development of more contemporary styles or more modern or authentic sounds matter one little bit in terms of attracting a broader market. It's the VERY CONCEPT of an arranger that makes it attractive to some and a turn-off to others. The old auto-accomp home organ mentality is still alive and well; it has just been re-packaged into a more affordable, more portable, form that allows practically anyone with reasonable singing ability to go out and make a few bucks.

Some people can make music with spoons or partly filled water glasses. Some talented folks will always find ways to use arrangers in sophisticated and artful ways. My dog has a VERY soulful howl; I'm still not taking him to the gig.

chas

I don't think "killer musicians" should "look down" on anyone else for what instrument they use and/or how they play, but I suppose if they are narrow-minded enough, it can happen.

Conversely, arranger players should not look down on those incapable of gigging with an arranger just because they can't play one as well they'd like, or it doesn't seem to fit their personal idea of what makes a legitimate instrument.

Generally, critics of either method of gigging (with or without an arranger) are like eunuchs...they know how it's done, they see how it's done, but they can't do it themselves.

Ian

Ian, my friend. It's wonderful to see that you are bright enough and linguistically skillful enough to solicit the empathy and backing of a partisan crowd without ever actually addressing the point I was trying to make; that is, that the very CONCEPT of an arranger could be a turnoff to some musicians and therefore an impediment to it's growth as a popular instrument. Are you saying that that argument has no merit? Also, I liked the way you were able to get in the implication that because someone chooses not to use an arranger on a gig (for whatever reason, legitimate or not), it automatically means that can't play one very well. Could be, I guess, but sounds a little defensive to me. But what the hey, it all just opinion, right?

chas

i hear you chas and i had to read what you wrote a couple of times before the penny dropped and i think i know what you are getting at. It is just the concept of an arranger that stops some muscians from using one. That same concept encourages others musicians to do the opposite. And it is true that some muscians with perhaps more basic skills are drawn to arrangers.

but for those musicians that dont like the idea of an arranger , (in my view) its simply prejudice born from ignorance. Those same musicians will take the XS or Fantome G with them on a gig and play piano, or organ or synth lead just jamming as you have described. Then take the same instrument home and struggle to reproduce anywhere near the sound of the band they jammed with a few hours earlier.

What makes them think they can do exactly what they did at he club on any other keyboard except an arranger ?

i Jam pretty much every week at church and when friends come and play my instrument (when i need a break) they just see that i am playing a Korg model keyboard with great sounding speakers that they have never seen before . They dont even know its an arranger ...Until i switch on a drum track and a bass track and then they realise its an arranger. But by then the prejudice is over come.

I have made this point numerous times, an arranger is a keyboard just like any other and it will do only what you want it to do. Thats the message that needs to get out there. Noone would be put off the fantom G just because a novice player was playing it so why an arranger ?

If you dont want accompaniment, dont use it at that point. But when i am jamming with my friends and we have no drummer, voila, i provide the drummer. When we dont have a bass player , voila i play bass in the left hand or use a pre programmed style, no guitarist,voila, no latin styled horns , voila (yes i have learned a new french word !! )

I can change split point on my keys in a flash, have dozens of set up instantly at hand without the need for any auto accompaniment .

If any musician demomnstrated an arranger just as a keyboard with great sounding EP, or pianos or guitars like the T3 , or changing sounds and splits on the fly , do you think any sensible musician would not play it just because it also just happened to have the ability should i choose to play auto sounds and accompaniments ?

Put an arranger in the hands of someone like Peter Baartman from yamaha or Ralph Schink from roland or Andreas Gunlach from Korg (all accomplished professionally trained musicians in their own right )and they could make it sound great in arranger mode or straight keyboard mode using all their formal music training and their knowledge of the strenghths of the instrument.


[This message has been edited by Spalding 4 (edited 01-27-2010).]

So that's the point you were trying to make?

Your words "look down on" were the one that piqued my reply...believe it or not, there are people who look down on jazz musicians and do not appreciate them in the slightest...in fact, they are disappointed the poor players are unable to play the melody correctly through the whole tune.

I'm sure people can look down at arranger players in kind of the same way...they think they can't really play a legitimate instrument like a piano/organ, so they have to use an arranger.

Is either group wrong? Maybe, maybe not.

Now, I'll swing in a little closer to your point again.

Both situations respond well to educating people on how to enjoy them...doesn't always work, but I'm sure it helps....I've pointed out things that are interesting in jazz to people that never would listen at all, and many of them stayed with it.

The arranger is similar...I've brought many a piano/organ player (some extremely competent) into the arranger fold, by educating them on how powerful this instrument has become, and the benefits of using one in their performance.

I'm sure George and Frankie can say the same thing about the benefits of educating people about arrangers.

I believe jazz players, by their very nature, may not be interested in using auto-accompaniment or SMF; too restricting, but there are a few converts, one being Oscar Peterson and his PSR-9000 Pro and CVP-109.

So, bottom line for me, and strictly my own opinion, is that educating people is the key to successful arranger sales, and how the are used and enjoyed.

I can only speak for my region, but we did a real successful tour before Christmas...I'm not at liberty to release any sales numbers, but suffice to say, they were very high.

I'll do a followup in February, or March.

It's working.

Ian

Great, Ian. Glad it's working....I think. Actually, if I ruled the world, young musicians would not be allowed to even know of the existence of an arranger until they were at least 30 yrs. old, at which time, they would first have to spend at least two years programming styles.

I have to discount Spalding's point because his main premise depends on using it NOT as an arranger, but as a synth. When I use the term arranger, I'm referring to using it as an ARRANGER. I'm talking about AUTO-ACCOMPANIMENT. Obviously, when you turn off the arranger function you have reduced it to a regular synth and it will stand or fall on the strength of it's synth-only qualities. However, used this way, one could probably get way more bang for the buck by just buying a synth in the first place.

Look, however much you want to argue the point, you won't find many arranger keyboards being used by professionals in professional venues. There is a reason for that, however legitimate or illegitimate. I think the reasons, in some part, are what I described in my original post. Because it makes some members defensive doesn't mean it's not true. Enjoy your keyboards, use them however you like. The facts are the facts no matter how it makes us feel. Generally speaking, arranger keyboards are considered (in the music community) as a hobbyist's instrument. However, take solace in the fact that "Every general truth is a specific lie".



chas

Chas, most, if not all, of my clients are over thirty and a great many of them already play.

Yes, I've stated all along that arrangers are hobbyist instruments..."home keyboards", no matter what the manufacturer's write on the panel, or put in their ads.

But they are legitimate instruments...why wouldn't they be....they make music?

I've used an arranger in "professional" venues...what is a professional venue, but a place where the musician gets paid, is it not?

Some of us are resourceful/ inventive enough to use these "home keyboards" as gigging instruments, and we can make a good living at it...some pros use them for songwriting, like they do on Nashville Row.

Yes, I feel it is a legitimate musical instrument, but I feel you do not.

Is a singer any less of a singer if they sing over a prerecorded backing track, instead of a live orchestra?

I don't think so.

Am I any less of a keyboardist because I play over an accompaniment section that is controlled by my choice of chords, style and instruments.

I don't think so.

If I play piano over a SMF?

I don't think so.

The "facts" are only dependant on point of view, prejudices, and history for a starter, so they'll be different facts for different folk.

I sure don't have a problem with people who don't agree with my use of an arranger or don't think it's legit...I'm not that insecure, and I'm sure a jazz musician doesn't give a hoot who digs his playing either.

Can't please everybody.

Ian


[This message has been edited by ianmcnll (edited 01-27-2010).]

What people also have to keep in mind is that it's not just the consumer that refuses to allow that definitive line between arrangers and workstations to fade. The keyboard makers themselves play a huge role in keeping the two divisions separate.

The ONLY keyboard company of the top three that has (and continues) at least to some degree..., "blur the line" is Korg. The Korg PA series is without a doubt a Hybrid Arranger. While it may not pack the punch in what we consider "modern styles" (and honestly what arranger really does).., the PA series is however a true synth arranger.

Upon release the PA series had Triton based sound engines. Not only that, look how detailed the patch editing is on them.., and as you go up the PA line you even get that killer Korg Combi mode ON AN ARRANGER! Korg continues to allow features to "trickle down" into their arranger line. If memory serves me correctly.., couldn't the original PA-80 load Triton programs (with some limitations)?

Companies like Yamaha for example do more "trickle up" features. Many good sounds from the arranger line have "trickled up" to their pro synth line. However.., they cheeseball the arranger community by "re-naming" these signature arranger voices. They then redesign the arps on the Motif XS with a more sophisticated chord recognition system than used on previous models..., yet go out of their way to make sure to note (to their workstation community) that although it's using chord recognition "It's NOT" auto accomp. It's of course not auto accomp.., but Yamaha wants to make sure their workstation crowd doesn't run the other way when they see the term "chord recognition".

Yamaha released the MM6 (which is without a doubt the rebirth of the ORIGINAL Yamaha DJX -AKA- the PSR-D1). The MM6 is an arranger keyboard produced in the arranger keyboard factory.., yet Yamaha does everything they can to disassociate the MM6 from the arranger line of keyboards. They play the "name game" by calling the styles on the MM6 PATTERNS.., again to disassociate the MM6 as an arranger keyboard because on the workstation it's a pattern and on the arranger it's a style. However.., the patterns on the MM6 use (auto accomp). The MM's styles aren't as full featured as a traditional arrangers.., but that's exactly how the DJX was (but the DJX had more style sections). Yamaha marketed the MM-6 as a "synth" and really upset A LOT of buyers who later found out they bought an arranger keyboard. The MM6 really should be called the PSR-M6.

The MM6 is the "love child" of what happens when a Motif ROM chip sneaks out when the lights go out.., and runs across the street to the PSR factory for a quick piece of feel good. Nine months later.., a quick smack on the ass (waaaa waaaa) you got the MM-6. I wonder how much longer the it'll be before we see the MM-6 on the Maury Povich show saying "It's yo baby!" while the XS is sweating bullets in denial".

Roland already has an arranger keyboard on the market that they could use to literally run the show to draw in the younger crowd. The GW-8 is already set up for this. There are several different versions of the GW-8. Each of these versions all have the same (base traditional styles).., but what makes each one different is a "special style section" specific to a region. All Roland has to do is use what they already have.., and replace that "special style section" with a bunch of modern sounding styles.

Look..., the younger crowd today doesn't want to just "sound like" what they hear on the radio. They also want the ability to make their own songs to "sound like" what they hear on the radio. The younger crowd WILL buy an arranger IF there are styles that appeal to them. The Success of the DJX is proof of that.

Plus an arranger like the GW-8 with both a traditional style section and modern style section becomes a VERY benefical and USEFUL performance tool. Along with its control knobs it just sweetens the package even more.

We (the consumers) aren't the group that can change this age old stereotype by ourselves. The keyboard makers have to get their heads out of their backsides and "get a clue". Look.., software is really taking off BIG TIME. There's going to come a time when the makers will realize that combining these two models IS a good move.

Arranger keyboards and the sales numbers CAN go up majory in the USA. What has to change is the Companies that make them. Roland's an excellent example. Call the RolandUS support staff and ask a question about a Fantom, SH-201, Juno-G, Juno-Stage, Juno-Di, V synth, and they'll be all over your question. Ask them about the arranger line.., and really dig in with some good questions and watch how fast the tone of the conversation changes.

Last time I checked.., rock, alternative, blues, and jazz, are still quite popular here. Isn't that what an arranger is primarily designed for..??? You throw in a special "modern style" section and you draw in the younger crowd (which most by the way DO listen to other styles of music). You'd be surprised how many Hip Hoppers are also into blues, jazz, and rock.

Sqk

[This message has been edited by squeak_D (edited 01-27-2010).]