Let me make it as simple as I can.

If I use a spoon to CUT something, does that make it a knife?

try to read and qoute in context diki. I know that its a stretch for a blind person but still...

For example here is one full qoute that you misqouted

'arranger features intergrated even more into workstations. My next arranger is likely to be a motif. i havent finished with my PA1X. This is just pure gear lust. I admit it straight out ha ha'

Heres the rest of the other one

'My brother has an XS and it works in the same way as any style. The whole purpose of it is to use it as a creative song writing tool. You select the groove you want as a template. You lay down some chord progressions so you have some sense of a beginning middle and ending and drop it in the sequencer.Mute the parts you dont want or delete them entirely. Then you programme your own intro , your own drum breaks and fills using the preset drum patterns if you want as a template which you can alter to your will,You can use the effects that have been provided in the template or use your own, change the instruments completely etc'

and lastly in your amateurish attempt to misquote me you missed this blindingly obvious one.

'It could not replace a fully featured arranger in its current form.But it does have arranger features, drum fills, styles of increasing and decreasing complecity that follow chord progressions as you have just seen. Is that clear enough ??? Or did you not see that ???? I almost think that blindness is catching ha ha :-) (i am just kidding with you Leeboy , dont be offended''

But i guess that one did not suit your purposes or your blindness genuinely missed it. You wouldnt deliberately misqoute my words to mean something i clearly did not mean would you diki ???????

I mean i posted directly in repsonse to you by saying

'Arranger 'features' does not mean the motif is an arranger. Noone is saying that it is . What is so hard to understand when i say it has arranger 'features' ? The whole point i made when i posted the clip was to show arranger features being used in a workstation. The clip showed exactly that. But a blind person cant see. My mistake really ha ha !!!! '

Did you not see that one either Diki ???? My my my !! this is really disappointing.

Also just how can my definition of an arranger be both 'narrow' and 'broad' at the same time ? I love the clarity of your thought processes although i am amused that you cant seem to make up your mind :-)

As for your last post . Have you ever heard of a Swiss Army Knife ? Thats what an arranger attempts to be and the XF has swiss Army Knife characteristics .

actually i have assumed you understand why people buy Swiss army Knives. I mean from the way you reason, they should simply carry around knives, forks, screw drivers cork screws can openers all dedicated for their purposes right ?

i have probably confused you even more and i dont want to spend the next few weeks explaining to you what constitutes being called a swiss army knife ha ha :-)

Take it easy diki :-)

[This message has been edited by spalding1968 (edited 09-15-2010).]

Now, that is funny.

Spalding. here is a link for Diki, and that will get you out of any week long explanations...you should be spending that time playing and having fun, rather than educating poor Diki (not that it wouldn't also be a lot of fun).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swiss_Army_knife

Ian

Amazing how broad or narrow the definition of an 'arranger' becomes when one wants to make a point..!

For instance, Ian contends that Yamaha don't make 76 note arrangers, despite the DGX's and NP-80v being obviously those. They are, without a doubt FAR closer to the arrangers that you and I play than a MoXS/F. But Ian will deny it three times before the cock crows, so he doesn't have to acknowledge that Yamaha, far from not making them, simply make really BAD ones. So they are magically transformed into 'home pianos' with arranger capabilities, as if every 76 and 88 note 'true' arranger (true, in that Ian is willing to accept that they ARE arrangers ) aren't exactly the same... big keyboard, great piano sound, full keyboard chord following. What's the difference between a DGX and a PA2X? NOTHING other than their basic capabilities (due to pricing, not anything else).

And, having a quasi-chord following ability (no-one has really bothered yet to point out that arps don't revoice chords... rather than figure out what chord you played, they simply follow what NOTES you play and slavishly play them all - a far cry from the chord recognition abilities in an arranger) seems to be enough to make the XS into an 'arranger'...

It just seems that you got yourselves stuck in an untenable position and decided to dig your heels in. Nobody agrees with you. So you end up retracting or repositioning everything you said, to somehow excuse the simplistic point you started to make in the first place.

To call something an 'arranger', even a substitute for one, it has to have a LOT more than simple chord following. Could you substitute an XS for an arranger? Depends on what you are doing. You can use a home organ to substitute for an arranger. Doesn't make it one. You can use a piano to substitute for an arranger... after all, if you are just playing a piano part, they are as good as each other! But that doesn't make it an arranger. As I said, if you want to OWN the definition of arranger, you can make it anything you want. But there's a clear consensus on this thread that, despite your retractions and redefinitions, no-one even remotely thinks the XS/F series is an arranger, or even has contemporary arranger capabilities in any form at all.

I'm afraid you've come pretty close to saying that the XS has black and white keys, an arranger has black and white keys, they MUST be the same thing

And, who can argue with THAT..?

Silly boy...they are PIANO based arrangers...who is denying they aren't.

That's what Yamaha calls them, and that's what I go by...perhaps you should too, to avoid the constant conflict you drag around with you.

Then, of course, there's always the "convenient" definition that you bend and shape (or fabricate) to suit your novellas.

No wonder Spalding is frustrated with you...

I just find you hilarious.

Ian

Round and round Diki and Ian go where they will stop no one knows

Diki has completely ignored the fact that person have used the XS as an arranger on a gig.

There are good arrangers and bad arrangers. The T3 is a very good arranger. The XS is a very bad arranger.
And, if you adopt Diki’s logic, 10 years from now the T3 would not be recognized as an arranger.

If Yamaha called the DGX's a duck, he would be telling us how good they are with orange sauce...

This whole thread is a joke! You can't call an arranger a piano, and it magically become one. You can't call a WS loopstation an arranger and it magically become one. Or I can call you all wankers, and that settles it! That's what I am calling you, so that is what you MUST be...

That's your logic, isn't it?

LOL Diki!!
Did some one say timeout?

Where did that come from?
No one said an arranger is dependant on what a manufacturer calls the keyboard.

An arranger has to have certain basic capabilities.
Some persons including you want to define an arranger down to the modern day features that manufacturers are now putting on their arranger.
I would not be surprised that some persons would say that if the keyboard does not have a harmonizer, it is not an arranger.