|
|
|
|
|
|
#348462 - 08/05/12 10:18 PM
Re: Korg vs Yamaha- Bass Paterns
[Re: montunoman]
|
Registered: 04/25/05
Posts: 14266
Loc: NW Florida
|
About the only issue I had with Korg's styles' bass lines is, yes, much longer loops are nice, but the problem comes if you have phrases OTHER than simple 4/8/16 bar lengths. The longer loops in Korg styles means you CAN'T stop these 'pickups' from happening... They are stuck in the middle of a longer phrase, and you are going to get them whether you want to or not.
Now possibly, this is because, until the PA3X, Korg made do with a mere TWO fills (and a Break/Fill) for a FOUR variation style. So they needed these pickups because there wasn't enough variety in the fills themselves.
They also have an issue with the fills being two bars long, and whether you ask for the fill on an odd or even bar number, it will determine how long the fill is. Once again, an uneven number of bars to a phrase can completely throw this off.
When used in the right context, they are spectacular (I've got a translation of that Bebop style and it is fun as hell!), but don't throw anything odd at them or you can get surprised!
Roland tend to go with shorter loops, usually only 4 bars long, but have plenty of fills (again, only one bar, but they can be triggered at all kinds of different places), so you can choose when YOU want that pickup (or not) rather than Korg deciding for you. Swings and roundabouts, I suppose, but I tend to prefer to have the upper hand over my arranger, not it over me!
Not to mention, Roland don't have the software that decides when either a two bar or truncated one bar fill is played on odd or even bars, so asking for a fill on the last bar is going to give you a two bar fill, like it or not! Once you are used to one bar fills, remembering to call them up two bars early (and remembering which styles do this and which DON'T!) can be a real minefield on the gig.
I also feel that, rather than having ONE 16 bar loop, why not have FOUR 'VAR 1' loops, and allow the arranger to either play them in order (so you can pop pickups in when you want) or even in a random order (to lend less repetition to the loop)? This seems to me to be a more MUSICAL use of longer phrases...
And... as I have posted about in the past, only 4-6 fills for a four Variation arranger is short-changing us. You really need 16 fills to go smoothly from every possible combination of Var. to Var., including Fill-to-Same. The odd thing is, you would think this would make the style creator's job a lot harder, but the opposite is true! Trying to make ONE fill work for a variety of destinations is a lot harder than simply making one for each. The flow remains natural, you can simply PLAY the fill knowing where it is supposed to go, and it's job done. But trying to make one go to multiple destinations takes a LOT of work (or you end up with unnatural jumps).
I think that there is MUCH that can be still done with an arranger's OS to end up with a more MUSICAL backing, and avoid some of the 'mechanical' pitfalls the current system forces on us.
_________________________
An arranger is just a tool. What matters is what you build with it..!
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#348478 - 08/06/12 09:34 AM
Re: Korg vs Yamaha- Bass Paterns
[Re: Diki]
|
Senior Member
Registered: 06/25/99
Posts: 16735
Loc: Benton, LA, USA
|
About the only issue I had with Korg's styles' bass lines is, yes, much longer loops are nice, but the problem comes if you have phrases OTHER than simple 4/8/16 bar lengths. The longer loops in Korg styles means you CAN'T stop these 'pickups' from happening... They are stuck in the middle of a longer phrase, and you are going to get them whether you want to or not.
Now possibly, this is because, until the PA3X, Korg made do with a mere TWO fills (and a Break/Fill) for a FOUR variation style. So they needed these pickups because there wasn't enough variety in the fills themselves.
They also have an issue with the fills being two bars long, and whether you ask for the fill on an odd or even bar number, it will determine how long the fill is. Once again, an uneven number of bars to a phrase can completely throw this off.
When used in the right context, they are spectacular (I've got a translation of that Bebop style and it is fun as hell!), but don't throw anything odd at them or you can get surprised!
Roland tend to go with shorter loops, usually only 4 bars long, but have plenty of fills (again, only one bar, but they can be triggered at all kinds of different places), so you can choose when YOU want that pickup (or not) rather than Korg deciding for you. Swings and roundabouts, I suppose, but I tend to prefer to have the upper hand over my arranger, not it over me!
Not to mention, Roland don't have the software that decides when either a two bar or truncated one bar fill is played on odd or even bars, so asking for a fill on the last bar is going to give you a two bar fill, like it or not! Once you are used to one bar fills, remembering to call them up two bars early (and remembering which styles do this and which DON'T!) can be a real minefield on the gig.
I also feel that, rather than having ONE 16 bar loop, why not have FOUR 'VAR 1' loops, and allow the arranger to either play them in order (so you can pop pickups in when you want) or even in a random order (to lend less repetition to the loop)? This seems to me to be a more MUSICAL use of longer phrases...
And... as I have posted about in the past, only 4-6 fills for a four Variation arranger is short-changing us. You really need 16 fills to go smoothly from every possible combination of Var. to Var., including Fill-to-Same. The odd thing is, you would think this would make the style creator's job a lot harder, but the opposite is true! Trying to make ONE fill work for a variety of destinations is a lot harder than simply making one for each. The flow remains natural, you can simply PLAY the fill knowing where it is supposed to go, and it's job done. But trying to make one go to multiple destinations takes a LOT of work (or you end up with unnatural jumps).
I think that there is MUCH that can be still done with an arranger's OS to end up with a more MUSICAL backing, and avoid some of the 'mechanical' pitfalls the current system forces on us. Very well said. I agree. DonM
_________________________
DonM
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|