And can they be edited to suit, also how many chords can be setup and for which parts etc.

With the advanced features on modern arrangers, I am just curious as to how the various manufactures go about it. (Are they pretty much the same, are they totally different, or indeed do some still use simple major and minor etc.)

Comparisons could also be handy to pressure all manufactures to adopt all the different ways available.

NOTE: If you wish to post the relevant sections from the manual, (Which may help readers to understand better) then please feel free to do so.

Alternatively post a link to the relevant manual and page numbers.

http://www.wersidirect.com/WERSI_Direct_Ltd/Downloads_files/OAA%20Manual%20V1.pdf pages 21 - 25

Bill

No can do Billy, infringement of the copyright laws, jobsworth!!!

Good point Tony, I have therefore added an addition to my post.

Bill

Bill,
There's a lot of ways to interpret your question... Yamaha and Technics use one simplified chord recognition scheme which doesn't require (or teach) musical logic, however it's limited to basic chord types. Korg, Roland, Gem, Ketron, etc. use a different scheme that recognizes partial chords and will supply the "missing" notes. However there are subtle variations among these brands. For example: Roland's "Chord Intelligence" will recognize Eb with C above as C-minor, but Korg reads this as Eb6 UNLESS you also press G. However, if on a Korg you play the Eb ABOVE C, just two notes will suffice. There are usually diagrams in the back of the user manuals illustrating which notes (at a minimum) must be pressed to signal each type of chord. In recent years, Korg and Roland have added a menu setting for the Yamaha style simplified chording scheme, but so far even Yamaha's advanced boards don't have a menu setting that emulates the Roland/Korg scheme.

Most boards also have a "professional" mode that requires 3 or 4 notes to be pressed before a chord is recognized. Even here, there are subtle but important differences which go beyond what's published in the manuals. For example, the more advanced Yamahas generally won't give you an Em7 unless you play it in root position. Other inversions get interpreted as G6 (with a usually-incorrect G bass.) To get around this, Casio's latest boards have a mode that essentially disables recognition of the 6th chord to give you the option of playing minor 7ths inverted without moving your hand. Roland and Korg also differ in their recognition of suspended chords in their various inversions. High-end Yamahas didn't used to recognize B,C,E as CM7. But beginning with the PSR-s900, now they do. Low-end Yamahas always permitted this "close" inversion! Etc., etc.

I don't want to reignite the earlier debate on here about "rootless" jazz voicings. Suffice to say Yamaha and Korg have provisions for recognizing these, although their repertoires differ, and to the chagrin of some, Yamaha revised their logic a few years after bringing this feature to market.

All of the truly pro boards have a provision for specifying the bass note to drive the arranger. The fingering varies by manufacturer and can get pretty tricky (sometimes spanning more than an octave!) Having a separate "Bass Inversion" button on the panel facilitates changing this setting on the fly, and effectively doubles the number of chord recognition modes. Yamaha and Korg now have hybrid modes where the lower of two keys pressed is recognized as the bass note, and three or more keys are interpreted as a "normal" chord. But both brands suffer from limitations and inconsistencies, IMO. If I had the patience to learn, I would imagine the cleanest approach to playing on-bass chords would be to use foot pedals, organ-style.

Some boards, such as Casio and Roland in "Standard" mode, acknowledge "free form" chords which will play a thin-sounding or even discordant accompaniment in response to open fourths or fifths. Others won't change the accompaniment at all unless at least three notes are played simultaneously. One handy feature that appeared on Roland's Prelude (and disappeared just as quickly on their current BK-5!) is a "chord latch," or momentary foot switch function that temporarily locks in the current chord, allowing you to play multiple notes in the left hand without fear of changing the chord. Ketron may have this feature also, I can't recall.

Roland, Korg, Ketron, etc. allow the user to create at least 3 different patterns within each variation generally corresponding to Major, Minor, and 7th chords. Reportedly some Yamaha factory styles exhibit this behavior, although a user can only create such styles for Yamaha by using 3rd-party software. Older Rolands had a feature called "Chord Family Assign" that allowed a user to specify which of the three patterns would be used for various "advanced" chords. Somehow the programming team overlooked this functionality when they developed the operating system for the G-70 and newer models.

The more advanced style formats have "transposition rules" that determine whether the recorded accompaniment pattern is transposed by scale degree ("parallel"), or whether an effort is made to sustain tones from the previous chord(s) ["Fixed" or "Nearest".] Also, whether additional notes ("tension") are sounded or ignored. Most brands have a setting called "retrigger" that determines whether the arranger will sound a note if a chord is changed between beats. Usually retrigger is a style creation parameter. However, Gem allows the user to specify it during playback, and Roland lacks a user-definable retrigger parameter. Experimentation suggests that Roland embeds it in the voice sample selected for each accompaniment part.

Another subtle point is how an arranger handles things when you don't get all of the keys down at the same time. To discern this behavior, you have to listen carefully or look at a MIDI recording of the accompaniment. Korg, especially the PA50/80 used a fairly large time window for chord input which makes glitches rare, although you have to lead the beat by a little more to compensate for the slight delay. Most recent Yamahas and the G70/E80 have a sort of "hair trigger" that recognizes a chord right away. Sometimes this can lead to glitching of the bass or the sounding of a false, premature chord. These kinds of glitches make music sound amateurish (arrangerish?) I don't sing, but I can just imagine what these false chords would do to the vocal harmony. I advocate that all arrangers should have a user-adjustable "window" from real time to about 60 milliseconds (.060 sec.), so the player can set the trade off between responsiveness and accuracy. If you're a little late with a key or two, Yamaha (and I think the recent Rolands) sneak the added notes in using pitch bends and portamento. These algorithms are tuned to sound good in local mode on the keyboard, but in certain cases I've noticed there is no MIDI 'note on' message, which limits interconnectivity with sound modules and other devices.

To sum up, what you're asking about gets into the very complex and defining heart of arranger operation. Perhaps also, into the differences between each manufacturer's proprietary technical approach. Hopefully others will chime in, and through discussion we can create a documented "knowledge base" of this behavior based on our collective experience. The MIDI standard doesn't attempt to address style data or arranger play. However, as each manufacturer has used proprietary technology to achieve a unique and realistic sound, consistency and inter-operability in this area have suffered. I totally agree that products from all manufacturers would benefit from more customizability, consistency, and inter-operability in this area. Good question Bill!!

Yes, good question Bill, and GREAT answer Ted. I knew a lot of this, and didn't realize it, and it is nice to see in explained in this context.
It's great to read this because of your command and proper usage of the language.
Ketron does indeed allow latching of the chords via foot switch, btw.
Thanks!
DonM

Hells Teds,

You asked for it Bill and no copyright laws broken that I could see??? here's a man who knows his stuff Bill

Nice one Teds

Excellent Ted

That’s exactly the type of response I was looking for, with the added advantage that it covers most arrangers out there, rather than just the one manufacture. (Which is what I expected?)

Let’s hope others chime in.

Bill

I think that some of the dumbing down of chord type tracks and 3rd party tools for making styles has come as a result of the rampant piracy of 3rd party styles. I know I sound like a stuck record, but the explosion of 'sharing' everything you get on the internet has had some pretty serious consequences in so many areas.

There seems to be FAR fewer people making 3rd party styles nowadays, reducing the demand for advanced editing tools for arrangers. Plus, of course, there seems to be a real slowdown in innovation of the basic OS's, to add new chord types, and more natural voice leading between chords, etc..

Yamaha, Korg and Roland haven't added a new chord type in years. Usually, major, minor and 7th (and Korg add dim, I think). And the truth is, other than Korg, few of even the factory ROM styles, let alone 3rd party styles use these features extensively. You can, in theory, have a completely different accompaniment pattern for each of these chord types. Yet this is seldom used to alter anything but the basic chord tracks.

But you can also have a slightly different drum pattern (change some accents on ride or hi-hat, for example) and percussion track that changes depending on the chord. This would be an excellent way of getting rid of the mindless repetition that plagues auto accompaniment. But it is seldom used.

Or add a Karma module to the PA3

Great explanation and summary. However, by the time I've absorbed all of that to the point where I could instantly respond on stage to any given situation, I could learn to actually PLAY at least five different instruments. Does make me wonder if we spend too much time learning the wrong thing; after all, what does an audience REALLY come to see in a musical performance---how well we can manage our computer's (Arranger) operating system or how well we play the keys. I can only speak for myself but I hate having to divide my attention with non-musical stuff when I'm playing. Maybe that's why I only use the organ when I play out (what you play is what you hear). JMO, your mileage my vary.

chas

I think it comes down to how long you have been using the arranger as your main instrument...many of us have started on arrangers with far less options, and grew with the instruments as additional features were added over the years.

Early arrangers were lucky to recognize several different chord types (Major, Minor, 7ths, Minor7ths) and over time, the technology, and the demand for more flexibility, grew to the point where any type chord or inversion would be recognized.

Styles have also evolved and cover just about any genre, and sound far better than the boom-ticky-ticky stuff on early instruments...plus, they are editable.

In the hands of an experienced user, an arranger performance can be very interesting to the listener, but, even more importantly, it doesn't have to feel like a restriction to the more advanced player.

As has been said here on SZ many times...it is just another type of tool to make music.

The arranger keyboard is not for everyone...some prefer more input and control and less "automatic" background, and some fear they will not sound a whole lot different than another player using the same type of arranger.

To me, that will depend on the musical skill/knowledge of the player, and, also, just how creative they are with the many features available, such as style manipulation, and the appropriate use of the many sounds available.

I still like to jam with my friends using live bass, drums, guitars etc., and I can use my present arranger in those situations, but they don't happen as often as they used to, so the arranger can serve as a dependable "combo" that is always ready to play and have fun.

For me, it is a valuable musical instrument/tool, and one I'm planning to keep on using.

Ian

Well said, Ian.

I think lots of people could use the same arranger and won't sound alike unless they all play the same song with the same style with the same tempo and the same three chords in the same key and sing alike!

I don't think even two people will sound a like because there are too many style of music so on and so forth. How can two sound alike if one does Johnny Cash all night and another does Bee Gees all night.

Too much variation in music to sound alike. Seems impossible to me. You play Sinatra, Ray, Tony etc I play Elvis , how are we going to sound alike.

Exactly my point, Boo...thanks.

Ian

I realize that most modern arrangers can PLAY just about any chord type you throw at them. But what the style in the first place is programmed with is still the same 3 or 4 chord types that have been around 10 years or more. The more complex chords are derived from these 3 or 4 simpler chords. And often, the results are not QUITE as musically accurate as they would be if programmed specifically for that chord.

And, in many cases (particularly user created styles) they don't even bother with the 3 or 4 that ARE allowed. The arranger only needs to be programmed with a major (some of them want a major 7th) and the minor and 7th chords are derived, with even LESS accuracy and MORE repetition.

I don't think that any two of us here, playing the same arranger and performing the same song would ever end up sounding the same... But I do think that some of us here are FAR more satisfied with where the bar is, rather than wishing for it to be set a lot higher. Of course, whenever something new DOES finally make it to their arranger, they are only too happy to have it, and tout it as the best thing since sliced bread.

But it is strange how determined they seem to be to NOT try and suggest these features before they actually appear. If you can't recognize the difference between arranger output, no matter WHAT you do to mitigate its shortcomings, and REAL music played by REAL musicians, and can't come up with some ideas to bring the two closer, you aren't really trying!

So just what is a Real musician?

To paraphrase Justice Potter Stewart (on defining pornograpy), 'you know one when you see (hear) one'.

chas

yea right......that's the scary part...