you know, you said something very relevant to me. I have read the manual again and in fact, the 'chord track' in the Korg is called 'Step Backing Sequence'. Holy cow. I seemed to not notice it at all when I have read the manual last time.

I will buy an used Korg and try it intensively for a few days. The Korg really could be for me because although the Tyros I find is a great sounding instrument, that freaking sequencer is a bit too basic for my taste.

Korg, here I come

PS. I think that I was a bit too harsh on the Korg in a previous post. If I think that a PA800 costs about half as much as a new Tyros, and still be a pro arranger, then I am starting to see Korg very differently.

And the freaking 'Step Backing Sequence' function totally escaped my attention. Truth is, Korg explains that function very differently from Yamaha or Technics, which I am more familiar with.

I am really starting to change my mind about Korg.

Thanks for the heads-up. I won't sell my Tyros for now but will definitely buy a used PA2x and see for myself.

There are a couple for sale on Korg Forum.
http://www.korgforums.com/forum/phpBB2/
DonM

arranger_yes_pc_no,
Download the PA2XPRO manual and look at pages 187 onward for the sequencer mode...PRO features all the way..then onpage 194-196 is the backing sequence record (Quick Record) where it explains the chord/acc track and the kbd/pad grouped tracks.....
Hope this helps to see if it fits what you want.

arranger_yes_pc_no,

If you want to do it all on the arranger, the Korg has the most flexible and elaborate sequencer.

Professional all the way.

I have to give credit where credit is due.

Ian

yes, I did examine the manuals of the PA2X and the PA800 again last night, and indeed it seems that the 'chord track' is there!

I won't be able to afford an used PA2X for now, so will buy the PA800 and see how the puppy behaves

The only reasons why I chose Yamaha were purely the 'chord track' as main reason ,and the sounds, but now things are starting to change as a Korg arranger might be what I really want.

Korg explains this 'chord track' concept in totally different terms, also on their website they specify the sequencer as 'Quick record' , 'Multitrack' and 'step sequence'.

The first two are present in most arrangers, so nothing new about them, but by 'step Record' I thought it was simply a step sequencer where you enter one note at a time for everything.

That spec fooled me, because the fact that the Korg allows this 'chord track' thing, changes all my perspective about the Korg.

Thanks for mentioning this important feature. Got to get a Korg ASAP as I am very curious about it

But yeah the 'chord sequencer' being called a 'chord looper' would definitely represent more what it really does, I agree with the OP.
It sort of neatly describes it's true function.

arranger_yes_pc_no... (any chance of a shorter name we can use with you?!)

I wasn't really referring to actually MAKING the initial arranger backing using a computer, I myself still use the handy Recorder in the G70 for getting the initial capture of any arranger performance.

But once captured, and you want to start to do detail edits - for instance, on full production pieces, I like to go into the capture and slightly alter all the fills, so no two are ever identical (a hallmark of arranger produced music), and I often like to substitute a new bassline that walks TOWARDS the next chord (arrangers never know what the next chord is until you play it, unlike real players), and basically fudge around with the backing sequence until it is no longer recognizably machine derived - There are a LOT of little detail edits you can do with a computer that are not available on even the most sophisticated arranger sequencer...

Let's say your backbeats are spot on on the snare, but you'd like to bring up the ghosting and subsidiary beats - it's a snap in Cubase to select ALL the snare drum notes EXCEPT those on or VERY near to the backbeats. Ten seconds of editing versus five minutes or more.

I guess, having used Cubase since the Atari days, I am just SO familiar with it, nothing else approaches the speed and power, especially any on-board sequencer. They have their uses, and if pushed I could do an entire production on one, but I would feel stifled. The trick is not to let the computer be a distraction, but make it merely a TOOL.

I am afraid I seldom find the unedited output of an arranger adequate for professional clients. Extensive editing is ALWAYS needed, at least for me to be happy with the final product. And whatever gets that done the quickest without compromising what I can do is what I strive for. Particularly as how you have to learn a NEW sequencer every time you change keyboard brands, I am a LOT happier doing most of my detail edits on something I have got nearly 20 years of experience on!

I respect your decision to go the way you do, but somehow feel you are missing out on some of the better sequencing features by remaining with hardware. For me, it's more important to have the keyboards that SOUND the way I want them to, than have to move to another brand because the onboard sequencer is not up to snuff.

Got to say that I agree with you all the way. Now the one in the Tyros suddenly appears very basic compared to it.

It really seems to be what I needed.

One thing is certain: arrangers kick ass.

Diki, I am very impressed with your reply. You have definitely more experience than I have, I definitely never used an Atari although it has always intrigued me. All you said about your techniques , i.e. editing the fills and bassline, are real pro ideas, and I will do that too. To be truthful, I am only now starting to compose full pieces. For years I have been very dissatisfied with my music because I had no knowledge of harmony, etc etc, but since then I have learned a lot and I now feel I have learned enough to be able to write good some good music.

I totally respect what you said, however for me the final sound would definitely come from the sample libraries I have bought. I certainly want the best sounds possible in my arranger, but to me the arranger is more like my musical notepad. That's how I have used it until now, lots of ideas but not yet full songs written (which I can now easily compose out of these ideas).

So, basically, I have recorded very few complete tracks, and I did it with Cubase. Basically, all my talk about the arranger as a composing device, is almost theoretical, therefore you may well be right about all the editing, and personalizing the basslines,etc.
Frankly, it's a great idea and definitely something that I too will do.

But I will use the arranger at least as my tool to write the complete song, then make all the final touches on a computer, probably. I don't know yet. I have tried to learn to like Cubase, etc, for years, but never succeeded. The manuals are crap. Many times I wanted to know how to do a certain thing, and I could never find it on the manual, even basic ,common things like punching-in or out. I feel that many VST's really sound boring, except the best sample libraries, etc.

Well, I am talking about what was available a few years ago....I have not kept in touch with the latest VST stuff, beside buying my sample libraries.

I just feel that all the zillions options in a DAW are not really necessary. For example, yes you can drag lines and velocities for the snare, etc, but you can also record it on a track on your arranger keyboard at a slower tempo, in real time. It's more difficult, but more natural than drawing lines and all that crap. I really can't get to like this stuff anymore. If I am not able to play a part well, I want to practice it more and then directly , and simply,recording again.

All this drawing velocities curves with a virtual pencil, feels alien to me.

I am at least going to give the arranger a good try at how well it works to compose and write everything. So far, I must say I am impressed, although it's true about what you said about having to personalize certain things more, like basslines etc (especially when you use bass inversions and thus the arranger only plays the bass note that you specify while you play the chord, without passing notes, as it instead might happen when you set the arranger for 'root chords only' ).


I am definitely not abandoning the computer (impossible, even if I'd like to), but I guess I want to learn to be more of a 'better player who can play and record things played well straight off the bat',rather than doing a lot of editing.

Doing a lot of editing is definitely what I want to avoid doing, but yes, if one has to, then it's much faster with a computer.

As for distractions, well that's another problem. In the past I used to have an internet partition and a partition only for my music programs, without internet. But now it's been about a year than I have not succeeded to make the music partition, to work. So I have ended up using Cubase on the internet partition, and I get distracted much more easily with email etc, also considering that I am a trader and sell on ebay.

All these things.....the difficult learning curve (I have found it impossible, even by reading the stupid Cubase manuals), the feeling of doing all these edits unnaturally by drawing lines, the constant problems (something always fails to work), the email, and all that crap, only got in the way of music, really.

That's why it feels great to turn everything off, switch the keyboard on and just even forget that I have a computer.

As for the Korg, well it's not that I am buying it for the sequencer alone, the sounds to me seems pretty good. As it happens with these instruments, some will seem to be a pleasure to use and are very inspiring, some others don't, even if on paper the specs looks great.

I remember when I did buy a Korg Trinity years ago. After 2 days, I could not stand it anymore. I hated the sounds even though I found the interface and the keybed, really great.

I resold it to buy an used Kurzweil K2000, the K2000 had a stupidly small and dim screen, compared to the Trinity's,as well as a more difficult to use sequencer, and the keys felt cheaper, but I have been in love with the instrument. I guess you are right, if you don't like the sounds, then it really doesn't matter how great is the sequencer....

I am very impressed with your experience, though....I have always wanted to try an Atari, eh eh

PS. you can call me AYPN....or Arr....that's pretty short as a name

Wow! My very first music-gaming PC was the Atari 1040ST running 'Notator' ! Awesome Rock Steady midi timing. It was subsequently replaced by Logic with groundbreaking GUI interface. It was a very sad day when Atari went out of business, but I guess they had no one to blame but themselves because they ignored their loyal musician following. I subsequently purchased a Mac & Logic on the Mac was fine, but nothing compared to on the midi rock steady Atari platform. I had to migrate to PC when I got into arrangers (for Yamaha & 3rd party utility software), so was happy to see Logic then available for PC, but with Apple taking it over, that went bye bye too. That said, Logic on the Mac remains (imho) the best Audio-Midi Sequencing Program available out there, and causing me to have a 2nd look at coming back to the Mac platform.