Just to clarify for those who feel this thread has degenerated into, Yours is better than mine.

Firstly. The Thread has be allowed to go well off Topic mainly due to some replies bring personal attacks,nonfactual Quotes.and vested interest. this I felt unfair and could not be left unchallenged.

Second. The only board mentioned in the entire post is the Meditation,other brands names have only been used to identify in which areas the open system at this time does not appear to match the needs of the established arranger players.I don't consider this a better than yours, but healthy discussion,

I have for some time been interested in the open Keyboard and welcome any discussion that helps me identify if this is the direction I should move.

I have been a member of this forum since 2002 and over this period have benefited from the vast knowledge held by the many members who have shared their knowledge with both poster and non posters alike.

I can remember the times when the type of ill will that is emerging on the forum was not prevalent and it was a far more creative,happy and lively place to be.


There has always been heated discussion here with no need to insult or harass fellow members,surely it is now time to re establish some sense of DO UNTO OTHERS and remember this when posting.
It only takes a little thought to make a defensive
post into a constructive one.


Gilbert.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Dnj:
[b] he he he

[Yamaha

[This message has been edited by Fran Carango (edited 09-26-2010).]

[This message has been edited by Fran Carango (edited 09-26-2010).]

Excuse me but isn't the whoe "idea" and primary purpose of an Arranger Keyboard to recreate rather than to create?

MOst of the "styles" are yesterday;s creations allowing a single player to recreate a cover song as closely as possible to the original producer's intent...be it David Foster,Glenn Miller or Barry Gordy.

Creating something new and fresh on an Arranger keyboard is a task without a Workstation and/or DAW. The mere creation of a style on the Tyros is a task better left to the Motif in my house.

The Workflow is not what I am used to in that regard. There is where I believe Diki hangs on to his Roland. I am betting it may be able to do both equally well. I thought initially the Korg PA2x would give me the "all in one" solution but it did not.

I have two areas I have to cover. Original material for myself and some clients (which is easy when they specify Motown, of Hoedown,,,My own music is constrained by the Tyros.

The other area is creating cover song backing tracks for my wife who carrys only a netbook with itouch back up, a guitar and 88 keys, The Tyros pays for itself. The Motif not so much....LOL which is why unless I can get a straight across sale/purchase of the XS8 to the XF I won't jump.But I will pay up to the T4 to the point of selling the T3 for less than $2000 if need be.

[This message has been edited by Kingfrog (edited 09-26-2010).]

That is true for most of the users...

But then there are also those that want to recreate a song and give it their own unique sound, which would reuire a lot of sound and style ediiting... Those people are beter of with for example a Korg then a Yamaha. Or they could choose to use modules or computers to get a broader choice of solo voice characteristics.

And then there are composers who use Arrangers and styles as backing while trying to create a new mellody... These people should be happy with the open instruments that let them do all steps of the creation of a new piece on one machine,
1) use Arranger to get an idea for new song and to work out mellody line and chords.
2) Create their own backing instruments and lead instruments
3) Use a sequencer in step mode to record their backings.
4) Create their whole song in chain mode
5) Record solo's
6) Record vocals

Since the open systems are just as much arranger as synth workstation as production studio, the open systems mostly target this user group, where the arranger part is just a step in the creative process. (I used the brandname Lionstracs to indicate open systems in a previous post as this is the only currently available open system that supports arranger functions)

Needles to say that these players are not the average arranger players but do use/require the arranger functions of an open end keyboard.


My orriginal post was targeted at group one, those people that want to edit their styles and sounds to create an own unique style of live playing. People that just love to play around with sounds and sounddesign. Not because they need to but because its fun. I myself could spend evenings just to create that perfect Trumpet sound for live play... and a tool as described in the very first post would be very welcome to me.

My question was about creativitty, and how to use such tooling in your creative process.

Its fun to see that most people seem to confuse this kind of creativity with open systems, because i think that for example most Motif owners would also love to have this tool in their own creation process of new sounds. And even some PA2X users would love to create their own DNC sounds.

So let me refraise my orriginal question :

"Would you use such a feauture if it was embeded intoo your arrangers OS? "




[This message has been edited by Bachus (edited 09-27-2010).]

Actually, the 'concept' you are talking about is the creation of MUSIC, not the tool used to do it with. You can be creative on ANY keyboard, if you are creative.

The thing is, you doom the open keyboard arranger to hell, suggesting that it is BETTER sold as a blank slate than voiced and styled as professionally as a closed one is. Truth is, these things would dominate the market completely if sold already as well set up as a closed arranger. Everybody wants what they can do... but they want it AS WELL as what the closed arranger does. And setting up an open one that way would in no way whatsoever cripple it for someone that DOES want to start from scratch themselves.

But it sure as hell cripples it for the vast majority that DON'T. Once again, being on an arranger forum, I am strictly talking about the open keyboard as an arranger. If you want to use one as a WS, no problem. But, be aware that even the BEST WS's come with just as much high quality CONTENT as a TOTL arranger, albeit in slightly different format. And, if the entire 'concept' of a WS involved ONLY creating original music,. you wouldn't think they NEEDED to include that, would you?

Sorry, but the minute you say 'arranger', and to be honest, WS too, you need to acknowledge that content is an important part of the whole package. And one that is badly ignored right now. If you want a healthier 'open keyboard' segment, and have it be more than just a niche product (the more they sell, the faster innovation will become), rather than excusing it's lack of content as some kind of weird BENEFIT, you should jump on it as much as most of us already have.

Adding pro quality content to an open arranger certainly won't make it WORSE...