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 !!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=utbO6Dw1dlM

also here
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q3hgCN46Tps

[This message has been edited by spalding1968 (edited 09-04-2010).]

Hi Spalding, its nice but still way behind for Arranger features then M3 KARMA...i dont know
if you've ever checked that out, that would make a better arranger then this.

Why the heck can't they make the Tyros sound like that?

Sounds fantastic...I have a funny feeling some of the Motif XF features will trickle down into the new Tyros 4 arranger on Setember 17th I think we'll be very surprised....

they can chony, but for some reason they think that the arranger market is distinctly different to any other keyboard market and we keep telling them that this is true by repeatedly buying the same repackaged keyboard every 2-3 years.....

Because the Motif is a PRO workstation and that group is competing with Kurzweil, Roland, Korg, etc.

Funny isn't it...the arrangers cost a lot more, but the overall sound is beter on workstations. Of course there is exceptions,
SA, SA2....DNC these are pretty cool and the WS's don't have them.

Samples and programming seem to be better on Motif than Tyros is some but not all cases.

This has been a complaint of mine for a while.

Remember the Tyros is a grown up PSR...and that is from the home keyboard division.

Lee S.

There's some pretty significant differences in the way you work an arranger compared to a loop and arp playing WS. Now, I haven't played the XF yet, but the XS had VERY limited arp playing options.

First on the list - you had to manually select the loop you wanted... OK, maybe some of you are used to doing that, but arranger players have it a bit easy. When you press Fill, what is ACTUALLY happening is that the fill pattern drops in IMMEDIATELY (usually) into the currently playing pattern, then, when the fill is over, it then goes automatically goes to ANOTHER pattern (or the same one if Fill-to-Same is pressed). But on an XS, you have to do ALL those different things yourself, all in realtime

Now think about what Intros and Endings do... one plays fully, then goes automatically to another loop, and the other plays, then automatically stops.

That's a LOT of things being done for you on an arranger, that you don't get on a WS (AFAIK). So be careful calling them 'styles'

The XS is an arranger with styles.
The difference between the XS and the T3 as it relates to styles is the operation. If Yamaha wanted the styles on an XS to operate like the styles on a T3 does any one think it can not be done? All they have to do right now is to do that in an OS upgrade. But you know how Yamaha is with OS upgrades.


The next generation of Yamaha workstation will probably have more functions with styles (the same like what you are accustomed to on a T3).
And Yamaha would market it to workstation users as something very innovative and revolutionary when it has been already done on arrangers for decades.

Its like having flash memory on the new XF. I have had that on my “antiquated” Genesys since 2001.
But now with the XF it is the greatest thing since sliced bread.

Its all about holding back what people really need and slowly include them as additional features in a hardware upgrade. That is the way Yamaha does it. Can’t blame them as a business way of doing things it is good for Yamaha.

Its still a style Dikki. Different buttons to press to operate the style does not stop the actual sounds coming out that change when you change chord to be a style.

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.

My brother thinks this is brilliant for recording quick and dirty sketch pad ideas and then add the detail later .

And its not just him that likes the idea as yamaha have taken the same idea into the XF range and ADDEDD INTROS AND ENDINGS !

This is exactly what i do with my PA1X. Once you get your mind open to the possibilities Dikki you will stop focusing on complete pre programmed styles and understand that whatever the manufacturer intended the product to be targeted for, it has much much broader capabilities akin to the needs of MOST musicians including workstation users , producers gigging musicians and hobbyists.

Mark my words. In the very near future all keyboards will come with preprogrammed styles as a 'suggestion' to the end user.



------------------

Allways liked the Motif series... they allways outperformed Tyros...

I'd add an M3 rack (since Oasys ain't available anymore), Lionstracs groove rack and a Roland Vsynth and your home studio is set to rock and your relation with your friends to crumble....

I came to the conclusion that bny owning the above with the right software VSt's you'd have the best of all worlds...

Sadly this is not an option when traveling a lot and having the income to pay atleast 2 roadies, so we're still wayting for that one in all band solution that covers all or wishes...

If Yamaha only put their arranger options on top of the XF with improved ways to controll VST's running on a laptop, they would be close tough.

The Motif is NOT even close to playing with styles as we know it...I had one, I still have a Kurz K2600 same game, patterns, arps etc. Beautiful instrumentfor sure!

There are patterns...yes they are midi patterns...that where it stops. You have to PROGRAM all the stuff you want for a song. Or yuo can use the built in patterns...no intos, no ending no VARS, breaks, filles as we know them. They do have sections so it kind of starts looking like styles...but no real banana.

Yes it is true a very talented WS programmer can make that baby talk.

I rturned it..I don't have the that kind of time to devote to all the programming/setup.
Why in the 'H' would a guy on stage need styles? That's who mostly buy the WS's. Sure songwriter, but sog writers justuse Pianos too. They are creative, and if you want to get away from styles as we know them...go for it.

IMHO, they are not a one man band instrument.

But they have great sounds, great ARPs, KARMA in the case of Korg, and you have more programming and sampling that you could use in a lifetime.

I once tried to MAKE an arranger out of a Kurzweil K2600X and tried various methods to do the styles, Livestyler on PC, Yamaha QY100, Akai something or other, and got very frustrated. The thing is, if you want to spend days and days you can get it to work kind of,,,The integration is not there AND the content is not there.

Lee S.

Actually, the Motif XS does have styles. They have programs where when you press chords, it would follow your chord changes just like a “traditional” arranger.
When you press the SF buttons, you can get variations and fills.

Now, it has its limitations. For example, it only has four (4) tracks and not 8 like “traditional” arrangers.
And, the fills don’t behaves like a “traditional” does in that if a style has four beats per bar, you can not press fill on the second beat and have the fill last for 2 beats. The fill will last for 4 beats.

But all of that is just operational features that can and probably will be corrected by an upgrade.

It is very easy to use the Motif XS as an arranger. For example, some one could use the motif XS to play Misty. The accompany section could have drums, bass and a guitar and the melody could be played with a piano.
If some one did that and put it up as a demo and not tell you what keyboard they were using, you would think it was an arranger played with a very simple style.

I read a lot about the Motif XF espescially on Motifar.

Its sad to see that the XF gets the same accusation as the Tyros line... Its a collection of small improvements which make a much better instrument as a whole, but there is no innovation in the product line.. same concept same options as the orriginal 10 year old Motif.

Why does the company that brought us the DX technollogy and VL synths stop being innovative. It has been proven in any buiseness that as soon as you stop being innovative you'll start loosing your market share...

I am really exited to see if the upcomming Roland and Korg workstations can be inovative enough to take away the lead of the Motif series in the workstation market.

I think Steven Kay prolly stopped working on the Karma implementation for openlabs about a year ago to help design a new KORG product.

Roland should be able to put things like V-synth, V-piano intoo their new workstation range which also should rock in controlliong things on computers to become the ultimate masterkeyboard all in one instrument based on the awesome Fantom interface.


I think Yamaha is up for some heavy competition, espescially from Korg... but also from Roland if they finaly would use their technollogy and innovation in a workstation.

'The Motif is NOT even close to playing with styles as we know it...I had one, I still have a Kurz K2600 same game, patterns, arps etc. Beautiful instrumentfor sure!'

It most certainly is filled with styles but you are right, they are not as you know it. They are not just direct copies of songs a typical OMB musician might play because its not their primary purpose .

This is an instrument aimed at younger and more creative musicians who dont just want to mimic music created 30,40 50 years ago or who cant think outside of what they have been used to doing for years and years.

But the tool is exactly the same as an arranger in terms of musicality however the application of that tool is different and thats the point. Some bright spark at yamaha saw the idea of how styles could be used to flesh out songs in the early stages of song writing. You cant do this on a piano nor can you do this on a traditional workstation because it takes too long. It can only be done in arranger style. Thats why it is a serious selling point in the workstation market place and other manufacturers have had to follow suit.

Genesis,
Yes..but I still call them sequences or patterns not styles...I guess because it is more open. Meaning more for a small backgrond not a full accompanyment.
It makes sense to do it that way as it is designed for a giggng stage musician in a group (primarily).

Maybe it's just terminology..but I know that when playing its a different ball game with a Korg or Yamaha arranger VS a Motif or other WS/PRO Synth.

Lee S.

Having both I can say the Motif is not an Arranger by any stretch as in oder to make it "arranger like" you have to create everything by stringing together different ARPS yourself poking and hoping, experimenting which takes a lot of time all of which is done for you already on the Tyros.

This is easier to do in some cases because of the pattern looping mode. But not by much. In many cases I like to use the Tyros arrangements and port the MIDI information to the Motif sound set as a start and go from there. Since I am in most need of Bass playing skills and cannot create the guitar parts in real time I used to play rhythms for the bars I needed switch the chords and record another few bars and string the results together because I cannot change chording smoothly in one pass. The Motif and Tyros has been a boon for me in that regard. I would buy as many Guitar ARPS as would be available.


ON the Motif many sonic details can be edited in real time. The effects routing is pretty complex as complete as well. I have had it over a over a year and I still have not touched 50% of the features. Very intimidating ubtil you approach it from the standpoint of learn what you need when you need it.

I think they compliment each other but one would never replace the other on many levels. IF one loves programming and wants to create original arrangements that cannot be found in the arranger world, the Motif would be the better choice after a long learning curve. You have to PLAY everything on the Motif. Most of the Tyros plays itself. For cover tunes the Tyros is much easier to get results from. For live play one had better have an IATSE stagehand nearby to load and unload the thing or personal roadie.

The style section on the motif XS (lets be sure that we are talking about the right keyboard) does have styles where you do not have to play anything except the chords and the tracks will follow your chords just like a Tyros.

I suggest those who have an XS and haven’t taken the time to get to know the XS, go to pattern mode, select a pattern, press chords in your left hand and press the fs buttons. Do this first before coming on the forum and giving incorrect information.


Based on the limitations of the arranger section on the XS, I could do a whole gig using the XS as an arranger. It may not be like a Tyros, but it would get the job done of sounding like a band.

That goes back to the topic Spalding had about using an instrument creatively.

Saying the XS is not an arranger is like saying the Korg PA 2 x pro is not a workstation when you can do on the PA 2x pro the same thing you can do on the 01w.

Hi To the Genesis
Does the XS include category’s (Latin, March, Waltz, Swing etc.) that allow you to play the type of music for that category with intros endings, Fill s etc., if so then it most definitely has styles, if it doesn’t (It just has patterns) then it does not have styles. (A pattern following a manual chord sequence is not a style)
As I am not familiar with the XS, I look forward to your answer.
Regards

Bill

What!! Are you serious?
“A pattern following a manual chord sequence is not a style.”

Whether the style is organized in to categories is irrelevant as to it being a style or not.
Whether a style has intro, endings, fills is irrelevant to it being a style or not.

A style is a multi track groove that has auto accompaniment.

Whether they are organized in to categories, has intros, endings, variation or fills are just manufacturer’s specific features.
Soon from now we would be saying Korg pa 80 is not an arranger because it only has two fills per style. Or we may be saying a style that has all audio tracks and can not play a Cm7 flat 5 is not a style because it does not have midi tracks and can not play chord extentions.

The Motif XS does have fills it just has an OS deficiency as to how you can use them.



[This message has been edited by to the genesys (edited 09-08-2010).]

Hi To the Genesys
A pattern is nothing more than a rhythmic Arpeggio, and a selection of pattern/arpeggios that follow the chords you play, are most definitely not styles.

A style is categorised into a theme/collection, (Swing, Funk. Waltz etc.) and is designed to play within that style of music. (Hence the name styles)

Regards

Bill

Well we would just have to agree to disagree on this one.
Most people would agree that it does not matter if the style is categorized or not.
It is a style regardless of where you put it.

Once it has the basic feature of a multi track groove that is looped and follows your manual chord changes, then it is a style.
Where you put that on the keyboard does not change what it is.

If I put a funk style where all the reggae styles are it does not change the fact that it is a style.

The categorization of a style is a manufacturer specific feature to help the user and not to define what the tool is.

The Motif XS may have a rock style followed by a blues styled followed by a hiphop style. It does not change the fact that they are styles.

I think Bill is closer to the facts...Arps have been part of "workstations" for a long time...even cheap workstations..

To use an "arp" (Not a Style), compared to "arranger mode"..as a performing solo act..is nothing short of a nightmare..

If you put as much programming time into programming an "arranger" keyboard like G70, PA2x, Tyros3, Audya....the results will far exceed the capabilities of the Motif..or the M3 and Fantom...

Here are some noted differences..a style can have more parts..the basic 8 parts with different variations (as many as over 20)..within a style (arranger style, not a pattern or arp)..

Styles could be 32 measures long and play glitch free when used with other variations with different measure lengths..

Same with the intros and endings...and fills..


You guys that perform solo workstation gigs..I want to come and hear you..They don't call them "workstations" for nothing..

After 60-70 songs as a solo...you would have earned your money...and don't ask for request..you most likely wouldn't be able to handle them..

The only saving grace..the workstations will play sequences too..

I am of the same mind set that I have always been...."workstations" are highly over-rated...even sound wise...The "modern sound" is a cop out to use workstations...and I still say if you spent as much time on an arranger as you would need too ..programming a workstation....you would be ahead of the game...far ahead..

BTW: I am not impressed with the quality of the sounds on the Motif...or the Fantom..

I take the G70 over the Fantom any day....In fact I have already done that..

The manufacturers would have to modify their workstations so much to conform to the abilities of their top line arrangers..that is makes no sense...Just add what the workstation has and add that to the superior "Arranger model"..I don't know what feature I would want from a workstation..sampling, maybe multi track recording..or some other less than useful feature to use on stage..

For those who have not played a XS in performance mode, I would suggest that you do that before talking on this topic.

If you go in performance mode, select a performance like a jazz performance, and play chords, you would see that the performance follows your chord changes. You do not have to do any programming. So that is the first incorrect statement that you have to program in order to make the XS behave as a style.

Now if you press one of the SF buttons, you will get variations and fills. There are 6 SF buttons but only 5 are available for variations and fills. so you may get 3 variations and 2 fills or some combination there of.

So far what I just described can be done on a G70.
Now, is the XS a full featured arranger? Of course not. No one ever said it is. However, it can perform basic arranger functions with the use of styles.

Whether a style has 4 or 8 tracks does not make it a style. Whether a style can play fills in the middle of a bar does not change the fact that it is a style.

Who cares? ....that's why you have the choice of the two styles of units,.... arranger or workstation..simple as that.
There so many OTHER things in the music business that DON'T use styles at all, this is where a Workstation shines, Motion picture scores, commercials, sound effects, television shows, etc, etc, etc, and on & on all using Synth/Workstations. Having one of each is the perfect combination IMO to create music of all kinds.

My brother owns the Motif Xs and the instrument has performance mode . In that mode you can select categories like,

Rock, Jazz,Funk, blues etc

Select the category and the preset configuration will allow you to hold down the left hand keys and play lead in the right hand and the appropriate style for that category will play.....just like an arranger.


Dont just take my word for it.

This is from the magazine electronic musician January 2008
http://emusician.com/elecinstruments/yamaha_motif_xs/

'The XS provides 384 Performance memory slots and 128 Master slots, all of them user programmable. In a Performance, you can split, layer, or both split and layer four Parts across the keyboard, with each Part containing a Voice. You can assign a separate arpeggio to each Part, and all four arpeggiators can run simultaneously and in sync.

Many of the factory Performances put drums, bass, and a chording instrument on the left half of the keyboard, all three with active arpeggios, while the right hand can play a separate lead sound. If you play lounge gigs and need to play requests, you're going to love this feature. Just dial up a Performance in some appropriate style (many pop styles are well represented), and you're ready to go. Each Performance stores settings for the audio input, allowing you to route a mic through the chorus and delay effects, assuming you have a separate mixer or a mic with a ¼-inch plug. A mono XLR input would have been useful.

In Performance mode, you can press the Record button and record a 4-Part keyboard performance into a Song or Pattern Section. This capability is one of my favorite XS features. For sketching a song into the sequencer, it can save days of work.

Like Performance mode, the Master section is intended mainly for gigging. Each Master can call up a Voice, a Performance, a Pattern, or a Song. Each can also map keyboard zones to the MIDI Out port for controlling external modules. Master mode is useful for gigging with backing tracks in the sequencer, because a Master lets you layer two or more internal Voices within a single keyboard zone.'

if you did not understand all that, then in simple terms its says ' this keyboard has arranger functions including registrations and a song book feature similar to the Korg PA range where you can call up settings and styles linked to songs for your performances'.

Thanks Spalding
That’s all I wanted to find out when I asked the question about the XS. (As I said I am not familiar with it)
It meets all the requirements that a backing needs to be legitimately called a style.
Regards

Bill

I listened to all the youtube videos...again..

Is "yuk" a word?

If this is what you want to use..go buy it...Save the box...if you use it live for any extent of time...you will be bored at best...

This is a workstation..pure and simple..it plays "arps"......Spend $800 on a Juno G or $1,100 on a Juno stage....and get it out of your system..at a fraction of the cost..

Using the Motif as your backing instrument, is not for me....If it works for you..fine..

I can't see the Motif being used this way...not when the same company makes an arranger...There is not a single benefit for me doing so..

The vast majority of people I know that work with workstations..live...just misunderstand the advantages an arranger has over the workstation...

and yes..I have owned many "workstations" from Roland , Korg and Yamaha...

The only "workstation" that qualifies as an arranger too..is my MediaStation..

Motifs and other workstations from Yamaha and Roland have "arranger" features, but that does not make them arrangers.

The styles (arps) in a workstation are far less complex than the styles in an arranger...they are still "styles", but they ain't nearly as flexible.

Ian

If you guys are judging the Motif XF sound quality by that YouTube video you shouldn't. I played the Motif XF8 in person and I can tell you firsthand the sounds on it are very, very good to excellent in quality. Compared to the Motif XS (which I owned for a short while) the sounds on the Motif XF are slightly an improvement in my opinion. One thing Yamaha does well is in giving their workstations very good sounds, especially in the Acoustic sound category. I noticed that the Synth sounds on the Motif XF are very nice also. Kudos to Yamaha for continuing their tradition of providing excellent bread 'n butter sounds as well as very good to excellent Synth type sounds too.

Another thing I'd like to point out is that the "melding" of workstation's and arrangers is coming closer together as we see with the new Motif XF. It would be nice if Yamaha added actual "styles" to their workstations but instead of calling them styles Yamaha could give them a more professional name - for the professional crowd who are mainly the people who buy high end workstations in the first place. Perhaps "Performance Beats" could fulfill that function but would need to include "intros, endings", eight instrument channels to give a full band sound, breaks/fills, etc., which they seem to partially do right now, at least in a rudimentary way.

One thing I wish Yamaha would try and change is the LCD screen on the Motif line which is still too small plus the resolution is substandard in my opinion. I also noticed there was a noticeable screen change "delay" when pushing some of the buttons on the XF which was frustrating to say the least. You want the buttons and menu screens to change instantly especially on stage during a live performance. The Tyros2/3 also have a noticeable screen change delay too, which is unfortunate. Apparently Yamaha is using older CPU chips?? that don't have the necessary "gumption" to keep up with everything in real time; at least as far as navigating between screens goes anyway. If the processor(s) are up to snuff there would be NO delay whatsoever, needless to say. Maybe Yammie is trying to save a buck (or two) in the production process although if they are they're being penny wise and pound foolish, as their customers are ultimately the one's that lose out and may well drive people away from Yamaha (and the Motif XF) and to other keyboard manufacturers - like Roland and Korg, etc.

All the best,
Mike

Yes Michael, Yamaha has driven so many people to Roland arrangers, that Roland had to stop makin' 'em...probably because they couldn't keep up with the demand.

All companies try to save money by various means, some successful, some not...but, you are right to some degree...the customer can vote with their buying power; however successful it will be, remains to be seen.

Ian

So the XS plays arps. So does the G70.
That’s right. All a style is a collection of different arps.

It is just that the arps on the G70, T3 Pa 2x pro have more advance real-time features than the XS.

I guess people would start rewriting history and say arrangers from the 80s and early 90s did not have styles. After all, they had the same limitations yesterday as does the XS have today.
Remember the old Casios?

OK...let's see if the XS is has arranger functions ...AND we all know it's a bunch cheaper that a T3..and you can get them in 61, 76 & 88...why, then do we buy a REAL arranger..the T3??
Do you suppose it's for the fantastic VP, NOT, how about the superb full arranger function, into's, vars endigs ect CONTENY and available content...Yep!

A Motif, Fantom, PC3 etc. can make some great music in the hands of a very talented PRO player...arrangers are for the most part home keyboards, also..used some for song writing, and pofessional entertaiment (Paid)

Terminology does not change what it will and will not do....That said..my Kurzweil K600X (and a PC3 for a while)can play sequences, ARPs etc and sounds real good...but it is not an arranger as MOST of us would describe it!

From what I have observed..the main utilization of most WS's is to go on stage, play along with all the much louder instruments, especially guitars screeming, to be part of the group.
Beautiful instruments and talented keyboard players..that you rarly can even hear. Exceptions of course...like the Bee Gees etc.
And of course studio work.

Of course some of us have both so we can use the right tool for the job.

Lee S.

Having played an XS extensively, let me tell you I wouldn't DREAM of using it as a substitute for an arranger. There are some VERY significant differences between running a WS loopstation and an arranger. First of all, the simple triggering of the divisions. I already posted about this, but somehow spalding seems to find making four or five button presses with great timing precision no more bother than pressing ONE... I guess actually PLAYING anything with your LH, even just chords, isn't really that important!

Add to that, let's just say... no Bass Inversions (what, don't use them, eh, spalding?) no complex mode changes, no accurate voicing of guitar chords for complex chords, no velocity switched changes to patterns, no automatic changes in patterns depending on what chord is played, the list goes on and on just in an operational level.

Then, forget all the live gigging conveniences of an arranger (lyric readout, songlists, with programmable transposition, sensible placing of controls to allow operation AND playing at the same time (WS's just have a more studio approach to where they place the knobs and sliders, etc. - for instance, the arp selection buttons are all in the MIDDLE, just under the screen, rather than close to your LH).

No, sorry, only a person that hasn't TRIED gigging on a WS would suggest one as an alternative to an arranger. Spalding LOVES to taunt us with how these things OUGHT to be possible, but it's pretty obvious he's never tried. Or he would already know this stuff.

Oh, and BTW... what possible reason would one try to create a STYLE, to compose original, creative music? I admit, as a simple scratchpad to sketch out an idea, the arranger is pretty good, but after that, if you are doing the job PROPERLY, you go ahead and replace almost everything with real playing. But if you have to create an original style in the first place, JUST to make the scratch track, and THEN chuck it all away, that's doubling the work you need to do. I LOVE using commercial styles as the scratchpad for a song, but if I haven't got a style that does what I want it to do, I'm not going to create one first, THEN chuck it all away!

I just do what everybody else does... Sequence up the song from scratch. If you want to BE creative, unless your goal IS to produce repetitive mindless music with instrumental parts no REAL player would ever play, that's what you end up having to do anyway. Sorry spalding, but you can't brow beat us on this. Many, many of us have worked extensively with the latest WS's as well as TOTL arrangers. We are all too well acquainted with what each of them does, and does best (and worst). And if choosing to use each of them at what they do best is being less creative, then sorry. I look forward to hearing your magnum opus done entirely on the arranger...

Ah, but what's this? You apparently seem to have a pretty good working knowledge of WS basics (but apparently come up a little short in the practical live application of them), but surely, if an arranger is ALL a creative person needs, why do you bother with WS's at all in the first place? I'm sorry, but it appears all too obvious you are as aware as the rest of us that the arranger isn't the be all and end all of keyboards.

I would suggest you take your own advice, and rather than start topics based on factory demos and plain flat out gear lust, actually go ahead and USE one for a while, then their shortcomings (and strengths) might be more easily ascertained... After all, it's just a bit bipolar to, on the one hand, say that ALL any creative musician needs is an arranger, then turn around and admit you really like this Motif, just because it has a few ten year old arranger capabilities on it. Because, simply following VERY basic chords around, VERY basically (compared to a TOTL arranger, for instance) is a nineties, maybe even an eighties arranger trick. They've come a long way, baby...

You are hard work dikki :-)

Have you ever made a style and then just chucked it away ???? I dont. I use them again and again in different ways just like an arranger was designed to be used !

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 !!!!

Not all the arranger features are present just like they were not on the mediastation and possibly still are not but it still has arranger features right ? Why do these discussions always have to go to the extremes ? Just as the arranger has workstation features, but not all workstation features. I cant believe (actually i can) how stubborn some people can be just to score points . But it is a debate about music so i guess its all good !

I dont know how individuals make music in terms of songs here whether from scratch or from styles or both or if anyone has ever remixed a song . But when i do, i experiment with chord progressions and styles and mostly just grooves that i have doodled with (created myself) . The grooves i do mostly have some sense of build up just like an ordinary style that can be get busier or plainer as you wish. Using my PA1X ,i sing and play with bass drums and guitar and keys with a style or groove or combinations of both i have programmed earlier when just doodling in arranger style for fun or for a specific project,singing a melody out loud ( to the annoyance of my daughter ha ha !) . If i like the general direction of the song I drop it into the sequencer as a rough draft in one pass. i might do this again in a different style . Instant remix if you will :-).if i come back to it later and dont like those progressions or want to extend or change the progressions i punch in the chord changes etc using that same style . i might do this several times as the inspiration takes me in different styles or grooves, whether original on my PAx1 or ones that i have developed over the years myself.

Now i have a song or maybe several versions of the same song that i can work with in the sequencer in the traditional way. I might let the choir leader listen to what i have done to see which version/versions she likes best . We have songs that we do in morning worship which are geared towards the main church and the remixed version of the same song for concerts where we might get a bit livelier haha !! The key advantage is that she can hear the song not just piano and me singing (which could completely sour the song) ha ha !! but with some accompaniment so she gets a good idea of the feel of the songs etc. I can then use those tracks in terms of editing the drums keys guitars additional strings horns effects breaks fills manually until i am happy with the end result. The rough draft, once i have the basic structure of the song, might have taken just 5 minutes in a one pass in style mode recording to lay down. The creative thinking, experimenting with progressions and developing the melody might take a few hours or even days just like any song creation but the physical laying down of the tracks takes no more than 5 mins and i can lay down several different versions of that song with full tracks in separate recordings if i wish and each recording would take around 5 minutes. Each version of the song could have a different groove feel and i can edit any version that i choose as i wish at a later date. This is particularly usefull if i am remixing a choir song using differnt grooves or feel for someone else to tell me what they prefer.

If i did the same on a workstation using just the sequencer. I might spend hours producing something that i like and put it in the sequencer manually. Bass drums, keys guitar. Each track taking about 5 minutes each if i play each track note perfect the first time.(of course that happens every time right guys ?) If i dont like the progessions in the first draft or want to try it with a different groove or feel....well you can just imagine the work ! i have to reprogramme every track just to mess about with the structure of what i might have done before. Anyone that has ever done this will know it can take hours.

So an arranger helps at the very start of the writing process in the creative phase in a way that a workstation cannot.

Now an arranger is not exactly like a workstation neither is a workstation exactly like an arranger . i hope that clarifies it for some here that continually , perhaps deliberately miss the point !! but thank God someone at yamaha had just a tad of creativity and imagination in them to see how arranger 'features' could help both pro and hobbyist musicians to make music.

I hope this information is useful to somebody. Sorry if i come accros as brow beating. Thats not my intention at all. I am not just debating to score points or come across as being superior or more knowledgeable than anyone else. we are all musicians here trying to help each other (apart from those that are not ) and i am just throwing out there new ways of making music easier to make. You cant hear the tone of written responses but generally i am just trying to help and maybe being a little cheeky too ! If it helps just one person see the potential advantage of arranger features in both types of instruments then all these words did some good.

I hope you all accept the spirit of my posts.

Cheers .

Spalding


[This message has been edited by spalding1968 (edited 09-08-2010).]

I understand what you are saying....I don;t know which Motif XS8 you have But Performance mode on mine is nowhere near the Style playing mode of my Tyros. The only thing they have in common is they both track chords played. For one thing you are limited to FOUR voices in Performance mode while the Tyros has EIGHT and 10 instantly and perfectly timed variations on the fly and multi pad loops.... No variations on the XS HUGE difference...and when you do use the ARP changes in creating patterns you have to time them correctly.

You cannot select different variations breaks, intros and endings in "Performance mode" which means performance meaning "on the fly" playing live. All you get is chord tracking of 2 voices a Bass and a Drum Track that stays static for a "style" of music and a right hand voice. Not exactly something a "one man band act" would want to use. There is where the similarity ends.

The XS has the capability for better sounding voices because they can be edited in great detail. Not so much with the Tyros WYHIWYG...

You cannot do many things on either machine that you can do on the other, No pattern mode on the Tyros.....No variations to record in real time on the Motif XS in Performance mode. The Tyros mainstay is in Performance mode. Playing the Motif Live not many would use Performance mode as usually you are playing with a band. You create voices using eight elements, some of which can be ARPS.

The recorded "song" is created on the Motif stringing together patterns or in linear mode. Every voice has to be played unlike the Tyros where eight of 16 tracks are completed for you. Some voices can be ARPS which will track chords (or Drum parts which obviously don't) You record the pattern chaining in real time to create a song..In the Tyros you record the VARIATION changes to create a song. You are limited to four (excluding intros and endings). In the Motif you are not limited to the number of "variations" or patterns when creating a song. The EM review is misleading as few would use the Motif as a one man band instrument when keyboards like the PA1x, GWa and Tyros are available for that purpose exclusively. One thing they both do well is voice guitar parts correctly but to my ears even there Tyros beats the Motif. The ARPS on the Motif are plentiful but limiting at the same time.

Motif and Tyros Apples and Oranges.....in the same fruit bowl. They compliment each other but are not replacements for each other on any really useful level.




[This message has been edited by Kingfrog (edited 09-08-2010).]

I can understand what Kingfrog is saying but with one correction. You do have variation on the XS. As I said before the SF buttons below the screen are used for variations and fills in real-time.


When you are using the styles in performance mode, you do not convert them to a pattern. You play the style straight from performance mode.

And, one of the great features on the XS is for song writing.
When in performance mode and you pull up a style, you can recorded your playing the style in real-time by just pressing the record button.
So you have in one take 4 track being recorded at one time.
The drum track, the bass and chord instrument that are following your changes and a lead sound. You can even record the variation changes in real-time. And if you want to send it to some one you can even record it as a wave file.
The same thing you would do on a G70 when you record a style to the sequencer without the Audio recording.


Now can you use the XS in a one man band application on an everyday basis? Absolutely!! If you have never played an arranger and are prepared to spend time customizing the XS it can be done.

Can you take the XS out one or two nights a months on a lounge or dance gig an use it a similar way you would use a G70?
Absolutely.

The XS allows you to play drums, left hand bass and a sound in the right hand. The XS also allow you to play simple styles.

If you are accustomed to using a T3, G70 MS or PA2 X pro in full style mode 100% of the time, is the XS the keyboard to replace your keyboard? Absolutely not! Don’t even try it.
The XS is not for you.


P.S Not too long ago, arrangers had no Bass Inversions, no complex mode changes, no accurate voicing of guitar chords for complex chords, no velocity switched changes to patterns, no automatic changes in patterns depending on what chord is played and they were still call arrangers and they still had styles.
You know keyboards like the PSR 510 and earlyer arrangers.
So some persons seems to be confused that as time goes by, a keyboard could be an arranger one time then a few years later it is not.


[This message has been edited by to the genesys (edited 09-09-2010).]

well said Genesys.

If you think you can use patterns like Variations and Fills on an arranger, you are sadly mistaken. Yes, you can use them to make accompaniment, but the whole paradigm is utterly different to how an arranger works. An arranger is all about spontaneity, about being able to do ANYTHING the second you decide to do it, a loop station is something you decide IN ADVANCE what you want it to do. You can't drop a fill in wherever you want it, you HAVE to cue it up a bar in advance. You can't preset where it goes to, you HAVE to input it's destination by hand... Perhaps not important in a studio setting, where you don't need it to be realtime, but it makes a HUGE difference when trying to play live. Trust me on this one (I've tried to do it!), you might like to create a song on a MoXS at home, but take it to church, and decide to mess with the structure live, you are going to be cursing it's obstinacy probably more than how you feel about me..!

As to song creation, well, there's no right and wrong way... just whatever works! But some ways are easier to do than others. I've used your system, I've used others. To be honest, when simply working on arrangement and structure, I tend to do it the old fashioned way and simply PLAY it, sans backing, until I hear it flow the way I want it to, then start to add the fluff. I find too much fluff at the start tends to color my impression too early. But there's no WRONG way, as long as it works.

And, sorry, but a ten year old WS isn't going to impress you very much in the ability to create live arrangements. And current WS chord following abilities are at LEAST ten years out of date. If the ability to voice complex chords correctly, to have bass lines follow inversions, and all the other things we take for granted on an arranger are in the least bit important to you, having them completely missing even on the TOTL WS's is going to be a hassle. You wouldn't trade your PA in for a ten year old arranger, you'd miss WAY too much stuff. Sadly, you are going to HAVE to miss that stuff if you try playing on a loopstation WS.

Neither is an adequate substitute for the other, yet, IMO. That's why I have both, and USE both. Trust me, if I felt one of them could cover BOTH bases equally well, I would sell the other in a flash.

+1.......I bought the Tyros first and felt very handicapped trying to use it as an ORIGINAL song creating machine. Great for Ideas and using some parts and setting song structure for simple AABAAB songs. But trying to do things along the lines of Gist of the Gemini By Gino Vanelli and projects similar in scope the Tyros is woefully inadequate. But it's voices are not.

You would not believe the young WS users that I meet day after day that are blown away by the S910! But they soon realize the limitations if they don't go outside their box and absolutely need Pattern mode. For those who do traditional music writing it is very much accepted as well as those who don't do computer recording and want to do vocals over already produced and arranged tracks.

Watch this clip. You might not care for the styles in the demo but concentrate on :

1. The drum fills
2. The trigger to style variations of increasing complexity
3. The endings

all triggred live and in real time on the XF .The demo is not great as the demonstrator is obviously not used to playing arranger style but this shows you despite all the nonesense that has been said here, exactly how the XF could be used as an arranger. Perhaps not to the nth degree that some here want to strecth the point but never the less the XF/XS clearly has arranger features and according to your tastes and skill as an arranger.

Go straight to 3mins 10 seconds and watch the demonstrator in performance mode record straight into the sequencer and demonstrate all of the above.

Only a blind person could not see this.

http://www.youtube.com/user/yamahacorporation#p/u/30/Q3hgCN46Tps



[This message has been edited by spalding1968 (edited 09-10-2010).]

That was pretty sad. All I mostly here is drum patterns, yes they change, yes a little accompamyment , but nothing like an arranger as I know it. Maybe good on stage to augment a band performance (if you could even hear it) but not for one man band full performance.

Could you do it, sure, a talented musician can just use a piano, maybe with a PC on the side with Midi's or MP3's.

Wouldn't work for what I want...and I have the wonderful Kurzweil K2600 for that kind of playing if I want. It has drum sequence, arp, full PRO level 16 trk sequencer and awesome sounds.

And ask yourself this...out of the box...does it have content to just set down and pay thousands of songs with full auto accomanyment...with a push of a button or music finder selection (songbook in my case)NOT. Just to figure out which patterns to use & which ones fit a song...would be very time consuming.

Todays WS's have some arranger functions and todays arrangers have some WS fuctions.

But they are two different animals dsigned for different purposes.
Who knows some day there may be combined...the best of both worlds..it would be nice but don't count on it in our lifetime.

Lee S.

oh for goodness sake lee !! Noone is saying it is EXACTLY like an arranger !!! How many times does that have to be said ?????

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)

I dont know how old you are or how long you are intending to live but i gaurantee you that fully featured arranger functions or their equivalent will appear on workstations in my life time and the profit driven separation between arranger keyboards and workstation will disappear. In fact there is a song book feature on th XF but it is not desribed in those terms it...oh never mind !!!

You are right though , it was not a great presentation. Not quite sure if yamaha are willing to let the lucrative arranger market die just yet. But that market will die eventually . There are only so many times that the current owners of yamaha arrangers will be prepared to buy the mext arranger model that contains 90% of the same features as the last arranger model. That can be said for their workstations too as the XF is a minor incremental advance on the XS. However workstation owners are continually coming into the market as more young people tend to buy them and upgrade as new models come out.

I suspect (dont know for certain) that the arranger market is a shrinking one as us more mature buyers get older and not enough younger ones come into the market to replace us and purchase new arrangers. For example ,the demise of top arrangers from manufacturers such as roland ,Gem,kawai,casio and quite possibly in the future ketron.

Dont look for a lot of updates for your audya , it took Ketron nearly 4 years to complete the Audya from the time they anounced it. They will need to sell more and bring out new models in the future to make profit. Free updates dont make good business sense to a small company like Ketron.

But thats another topic.

Thanks for engaging in the discussion.


[This message has been edited by spalding1968 (edited 09-10-2010).]

[This message has been edited by spalding1968 (edited 09-10-2010).]

Unbelievable!! So because the XF has less arranger tracks than today’s arranger means it does not play styles?
There have been demos and written explanation about the XF and XS using styles and some people choose not to get it.

Whether it has a song book or music finder feature is completely irrelevant. When arrangers of yesterday did not have song book and music finder features did they still not play styles.

But then again I should not be surprised with people not understanding what is an arranger. A while back I had asked a question what is an arranger and gave different instruments and ask why and why not those instruments are arrangers. And no one appeared to be able to articulate what is an arranger.

One thing you have forgotten, maybe?
Arrangers are played by MANY older people and just folks of all ages that want to play Home On The Range! They do not want or could grasp any of the complex features, programming and learning curve of a Motif XF, Kurzweil PC3K etc.

The arranger is here to stay.
If you are heavy tech. and PRO player..just move on to a Motif XF..leave behind the true style playing machines. I think the home keyboard is very well received?

When refering to styles, it would be better to call it something else...AH...Yamaha did...Patterns, Sections etc. So did Kurzweil and Korg. Actually I think in the PRO board market Karma is very creative. One of my close friends has a M3 and the Karma is pretty cool. But there is a learning curve.

Remember there is 2 Lee's on here. I am Lee S. not Leezone.

Lee S.

You can say it as many times as you want, but the WS does NOT have fills like an arranger. In an arranger, you hit for the fill any time you want it, and it drops in, in perfect sync with the beat...

On a loopstation, you HAVE to call the fill up a bar in advance, it takes a FULL bar (or whatever length it is) to play, you can't call the fill up on beats 2 or 3 to make a pickup out of a full fill. You want a pickup, you have to program it up in advance.

Just this ONE glaring omission on contemporary arranger's current capabilities is enough to cripple the WS as a live performance tool. Can you play music with it? Of course. Can you do what YOU want to do, when you want to do it? Not a chance.

Loopstations are VERY good at doing music built completely around the loops. Once you decide to go with what they do, rather than what you might WANT to do, they are fine. But, personally, I prefer a machine that does what I want it to do, when I want it to do it, and with a minimum of interruption to my playing. Making the triggering of loops as complicated as a WS makes it is all well and good for the guys you see hardly PLAYING anything, choosing to make their creative input the controlling of the loops (more DJ-ing than playing, IMO), but if you want to PLAY, and don't want a machine to dictate to you what you can and can't do (and when you can and can't do it), these loop playing WS's are a VERY poor substitute for an arranger.

Once again, I REALLY encourage you to actually try this stuff for yourself in a live situation BEFORE you start to make judgments about it. It SEEMS like it (the WS) ought to be able to be an adequate substitute for an arranger, but I have actually tried (and several others here, too) and I find it somewhat insulting to hear our actual practical experienced dismissed so casually, by someone that it is utterly obvious they have never actually tried it themselves...

The devil is in the details. To be honest, you could take a first generation arranger and make music. And it would STILL probably be easier than trying to play live on a WS with it doing chord following accompaniment. Twenty years ago, with sufficient time, I could do home production music that comes fairly close to what I can do now... but it got a LOT easier, so I don't use the gear from twenty years ago. And modern WS's are about twenty years old in their chord following and live accompaniment generation capabilities. So yes, you CAN use them. But WHY..?!

Take a MoXS to a gig before you tell us how easy it all is, eh? You know, like some of us already HAVE

i give up with you dikki . My brother has a motif XS. I play his.

You put up too many straw man arguments and i have no burning desire to debate with you .

In your zeal did you not see me say this to Leeboy

'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'

If you think i have insulted your experience with the XS then sorry. That was not my intention but never mind. We are all big boys here i hope.

Anyway its late and i have lots to do. Have a great weekend genuinely.

Worth



[This message has been edited by spalding1968 (edited 09-11-2010).]

No one ever said the XS is a perfect arranger.
And it is incorrect to say that styles would be equivalent to Patterns and sections on the XS.
You do not have to go in the pattern mode on the XS to play styles.

And remember all an arranger is a loop station customized for live band like playing.

If you could have played an arranger professionally 15 years ago you can do it on a XS with no problem and have much better sounds doing it.
This is not just theory but from actual experience playing a lounge gig in arranger/performance mode on the xs.

"Is that close enough?"...

Sorry, guys. NO.

And you may have PLAYED your brother's. Have YOU tried to gig with it? Big difference, IMO.

Look, we can go round all day long, but if your sole point is to say that, as long as you work within the drastic limitations that WS impose, OK, you CAN use a WS to 'sort of' substitute for an arranger... But WHY? Even YOU don't have one or use it that way, live. You've got more sense than to do that, why criticize the rest of us for having the sense not to use one, either?

When you give up on your arranger, and gig solely on a WS, come back here and tell us how good it is. Until then...

i cant tell if your comments are geared to me or not Diki as they bear no relation to anything i have said. You have created these straw man arguments that i never made . I dont recall stating that the XS or XF could substitute an arranger . Do you ? I know i said that it could be used as an arranger and posted a demonstration to illustrate the point. I thought the clip was quite arrangersque but obviously not in your eyes. I thought the clip was pretty clear whatever the limitation. I dont recall critiscing anyone for not using the XS XF as an arranger , this is news to me . But i guess that it must have said it somewhere. When i started this thread i mentioned that my next arranger is likely to be a motif but i had not finished with my PA1X yet. But in your eyes i guess that might have meant that my next arranger purchase WILL be a motif and that it WILL replace my PA1X.

I am sure you would not put words in my mouth just to support your points......

Thats why there comes a time where i have to just let stuff go .

Its nothing personal but when you get into your zone you see stuff that isnt there (i am sure you really believe what you are seeing) and cant see stuff that is there .

I am done with this one but thanks for the polite debate. Two people can disagree without getting their knickers twisted :-)



[This message has been edited by spalding1968 (edited 09-12-2010).]

If you (the both of you) don't want to be refuted, don't post stuff like this...

Look, I guess as long as YOU proffer the definition of 'arranger', you can make it anything you want, and no-one else is right, are they?

But look at the response from EVERYONE on this thread other than you and to the genesys (I guess it's simply more FUN to pretend that this argument is solely between you and me, but aren't you insulting everyone else ignoring THEIR refutation of your points, aren't you? ), and you can see much more of a consensus...

Just because the XS/F offers primitive chord following abilities similar to a twenty year old arranger doesn't make it one. Any more than the primitive WS capabilities in a modern arranger makes it a proper WS. Who, in their right minds, wants a WS as 'powerful' as an 01w? In TODAY'S environment?

You offer a FAR too narrow definition of 'arranger', simply to try and make your point. But even that twenty year old arranger had capabilities FAR beyond the latest XF. Maybe if the XF did EVERYTHING the prehistoric arranger did, you MIGHT be able to call it an arranger. But modern arrangers have audio capabilities and samplers equivalent to a WS from say fifteen years ago... Doesn't make THEM real WS's in any sense of the word.

If the XF was released fifteen years ago, no-one even THEN would have called it an 'arranger'. Why you choose to do so now is no more correct. My K2500 has had chord following abilities for over ten years. That didn't even REMOTELY turn it into an arranger!

I guess, if you choose to make the definition of a product SO broad, almost anything can be CALLED an arranger... An old home organ with the most primitive of auto-accompaniment should be called an 'arranger', then, I guess. Or the first monophonic synth with an arpeggiator hooked up... That's an arranger, too.

By YOUR definition.

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.

Question.

Is an I pad an MP3 player?

No Diki, this whole thread is not a joke, but I must say, your posts are pretty funny.

This place is like a vacation...wouldn't miss logging in here for anything.

Thank you,

Ian

sometimes its funny. sometimes its disturbing......

When Diki is unable to respond directly to my post and the fact that he has deliberately misqouted me, he then misqoutes someone else you ha ha !!!

I cant keep up with him :-). There are only so many times i can reason with someone so....how can i put it .... unreasonable ?

If anyone else thinks that my posts were unclear or disjointed or that i have insulted or maligned or offended them in any way as Diki suggested then please either post here or email me and i will immediately apologise. I have no problem doing that.

Cheers

Worth