Bill,
It appears to me that your the one that is out of touch with the real world of arranger users.
Diki makes some very valid points regarding the needs of arranger players both Pro and Home player and and is not bashing the open keyboard but quite rightly identifies its shortcomings for arranger users. He has stated quite clearly what current arranger players would want from an open system before they would consider moving to an open system,that is, to be at least comparable with current top arrangers OTB.Which as yet is clearly not the case.
Diki point regarding nothing is really future proof speaks for itself and you don't have to look very far to see Why.
Bill I felt it was wholly wrong of you to ,Quote,> To say something is rubbish because YOU don’t like it, just gives the impression that only YOUR opinion counts<,
nowhere in his post did he mention anything was rubbish and it appears you have dismissed the whole context of his post in defence of the open sytem.I for one agree with this post,I am sure many more arranger players would also agree.

Gilbert.

[This message has been edited by gilbert (edited 09-25-2010).]

I think Bill’s comment to Diki that “To say something is rubbish because YOU don’t like it, just gives the impression that only YOUR opinion counts, and the rest of the world (Including those that have looked at the open concept) does not.”
Was referring to Diki’s thoughts that the open arranger’s OOTB do not meet the needs of the open arranger buyer who bought the open arranger.

Diki’s posts show a lack of understanding of the open arranger concept. It is not the content OOTB that matters to the buyer but what you can do to make the keyboard your own.
And, in all fairness, we have not seen any true arranger player here on SZ who bought an open arranger.


------------------
I have shortened my ID to TTG

Thanks TTG
Eloquently put

Bill

And the major thing many people spend their time doing. creating voices and programs that do the same. Most players don;t get into the editing processes. Creating Styles is time consuming as well. Many of us buy what we hear today rather what we envision creating ourselves tomorrow. I like KNOWING the Motif can do more than i will ever do with it. LOL Its like some guys/ who own those 4 wheel drive "show" trucks that never see dirt, or the Harley rider who trailers his bike to an event, or the Corvette owner who has nevr seen the number 90 on his OD...or those of us who must live within miles of the beach and rarely go,,or on a lakefront and never boat or fish....

Sometimes it's just nice "knowing it's there"' is enough. We buy capabilities but don;t necessarily need or use them all.



[This message has been edited by Kingfrog (edited 09-25-2010).]

to the genesys
I think you will find that if you read Diki post that he is identifying Why arranger players DO Not buy open Systems, not a lack of understanding of the open system. He follows on with what might temp arranger player to test the water regarding open art system, which is an improvement in the quality of the OOTB content.
For Bill to THINK that Diki was rubbishing the open system is not grounds for saying that Diki WAS Rubbishing the open system.I feel you need to read the post again with an open mind.
Gilbert.

The open systems are not there for older arranger players that prefer thing out of the box..

They are there for to get the younger players interested intoo arrangers.. And espescially those youger players grew up with synths and the abbility to tweak and control...

Arrangers are an easy way to jam and improvise on your own..

Open keyboards are not a 'concept'... they are a tool. A tool for making music. And, compared to a closed arranger, a fatally flawed tool. The truth is, the VAST majority of arranger players are more interested in MAKING music, and not spending their entire life programming a blank slate just to achieve the functionality that a closed arranger gives you from the day you buy it.

While there may not be as MUCH possibility for improvement, it's not like open arrangers are unique in being possible to improve. Most closed arrangers have a sampler, should one choose to use sounds the manufacturer doesn't supply, and most arrangers have all the tools you need to make your own styles, should you WANT to... But they don't set themselves up so you HAVE to.

And that is why they dominate the market. There is no lack of understanding about what an open arranger is. In fact, everybody is only TOO aware of what they are... and that is why the vast majority give them a wide berth, me included.

Let's face it, once you decide to use an arranger to make music, rather than through composing something and creating SMF's or audio backing, or strictly just recording the old fashioned way, you have acknowledged you are looking for an EASIER path than the traditional way. That's what makes them so popular, even with players that CAN make high quality productions by sequencing and recording audio. And, once you acknowledge that people are looking for a path that IS easier, giving them a pretty much blank slate and saying 'Have at it!' completely misses the point of what they want.

No-one is saying that a well voiced and styled arranger is the END of the line. There are quite a lot of us here that take our arrangers past the state it comes in OOTB. But given a choice between STARTING with a great sounding, well voiced and styled arranger and going on from there, and having to work for what seems like an eternity to even get CLOSE to what is the STARTING point for the rest of us, seems to me most of us here make the PRACTICAL choice.

I keep coming back to this, but it STILL seems that those MOST invested in preaching to us how we just don't 'get it', we don't understand the 'concept' and all the other buzzwords intended to prove their OWN superiority at having recognized the future before the rest of us saps, they are the ones that consistently fail to provide arranger examples to illustrate their point. If it IS so easy, (or even if it is hard!), just WHERE is all this music that YOU have made? Or are you, as seems most likely, STILL trying to coax even ONE standout style from your efforts?

As I said, if any of you have achieved sonic nirvana out of your open arranger, market the data. The line will go round the block once you get full closed capability out of an open arranger to add this functional ease to what would be a GREAT keyboard once it contains it, but isn't until it does...

My check book is ready. How are YOUR styles?

Not so fast abacus..i seem to have issue with that arbitrary "not everybody wants" part of your post. I think it'd be a
g-re-a-t thing if there were people doing some sort of crap on the much boasted about boards and how upscale it is WITH THE EVIDENCE to go along with it for purchase!
The "Nobody wants such things" statement just once again allows the b.s. to go on about "my KB is better than yours so here's my pee stream"

he he he

Well open keyboards is a concept and by saying it is not again demonstrated lack of understanding of the concept because you can not even acknowledge or see the concept.

the VAST majority of open keyboards players are more interested in MAKING music. They are interested in making music that is good for them not for what other persons think is good for them.
Wanting the open arranger to be OOTB what the closed arranger does is not the purpose of the open arranger. Why have the open arranger do what the closed arranger is already doing when the closed arranger is already doing it.

The open arranger gives persons an opportunity to revoice styles the way persons want it. It also allows you to get the styles you want and make them your own. Using the make-up tools on the open arranger, doing style assembly, and creating new styles is what the users of open arrangers want.
We know of some persons on SZ who do not even use onboard styles, who always use style assembly or make-up tools. That is who the open arranger is for.
We have seen successful demonstrations of styles on an open arranger. We have seen some one showcase a Merengue style that suited his need and his playing style.

See the open arranger is all about the player and the player making his or her music as opposed to the closed arranger where the player follows what the manufacture gives. In the closed arranger, persons are more content on being a karaoke player that is why OOTB styles are so important.


------------------
I have shortened my ID to TTG