I agree with Adimatis. The REAL truth is, NO ONE WANTS auto-accompaniment features EXCEPT ARRANGER PLAYERS (mostly 'home players') and a few well-heeled gadget freaks who view them more as a 'technology toy' than a serious musical instrument. While this assumption may not be true, we all know that 'perception is reality'. Manufacturers know and understand this and consequently aim their marketing directly at the 'home' market. It is only a very vocal handful of OMB's and singer/songwriters that can't seem to accept this and continue to clamor for more and more features that directly contradict the needs and wants of the average 'home player' who mainly just wants to hit the 'on' button and play; not staying up 'til the wee hours programming that 'special' killer synth patch. KISS (Keep It Simple Stupid) is their motto.

As Adimatis pointed out; combining all the best features of these instruments into some kind of SUPER 'SYNTHARRANGERWORKSTAION' might work for a handful of people but not enough to keep the lights on at Roland, Korg, Yamaha, and Ketron. In that scenario, Dan at VARRANGER, would be the big winner when the big 3 1/2 went out of business . JMO.

chas

Excellent observation.

We are seeing a tiny bit of exploration into Arranger/Synthesizer combination with some companies (mainly Yamaha and Casio) adding features like arps and real-time ADSR controls to their entry level instruments.

I had a Yamaha PSR-E443 for evaluation, and I was very impressed at the surprisingly rich tones I could get out of it with the two (assignable)real-time control knobs that let me filter and adjust the sound just like an analog synthesizer, including being able to get the filter to self oscillate.

I'd hoped to see these features (with more advanced control) on the mid-line and top-end Arrangers, but so far, only entry level for some reason...again, I think it's to test the market.

Baby steps, I suppose.

Ian

You also have to consider that the preferred range of sounds are different for arranger and synthesizer players and the degree of editing. Some arranger players would quickly complain about the confusing depth of editing options from filters and amplitude envelopes to the waveform level. The way instruments are sampled is also often adapted to certain tastes (I'm thinking of saxophones with a certain delayed vibrato, which sound like from a ballroom swing band, vs.dry pop saxophones). So they would have to throw both sound pools in, which means double storage capacity. Inevitably, both arranger players and synthesizer players would leave a big part of the facilities unused, so they would have to buy a sort of oversized package. It contradicts the idea of market segmentation into distinct customer groups with different needs, and, as the others already said, the group who need both features is too small to be relevant for sales.

I'd say it's because it's a PRO vs Home Organ Player scenario.......where real pro's don't want to be associated with an automatic arranger kb vs a synth workstation stigma....thats why you never see an arranger kb on pro music stage acts all over the world,........you only see Motif, Nord, Fantom, etc, etc,....keeping two separate divisions & more choices = more money for the manufacturers. It's like cigarettes & "light" cigarettes, or salad dressing & "lite" dressing its all in the mind......all they care about is making money. Putting the two together alienates the masses,..although it would be nice why buy one when you have buy two to do the jobs...

OK, all of those that do extensive editing raise your hands. C'mon, don't be bashful, raise your hands. WOW! That many, huh.

Gary

.....and then there is the physical thing. What kind of platform would house this super combo board? The organ-leaning types would want 'waterfall' keys with an organ-type touch, while the pianist in the group would definitely want 'weighted' keybeds with a full '88, while the synth player would probably want non-weighted or semi-weighted keys. The OMB's and older players (often one and the same ) are concerned about weight; the home player or studio owner, much less so. 25, 49, 61, 73, 76, 88; hmmmm.

The point is, even if a board had every functional feature for everyone, the physical platform would still present insurmountable problems, all of which brings us back to exactly where we are RIGHT NOW; a different instrument for different players needs. Also, it stops a lot of 'overbuying'. If you think we only explore 10% of our instrument's potential now, what do think it would be on our new 'super board'. How soon after purchase would Cassp have his back on the market .

Again, JMO.

chas

Me too...more editing for sound AND styles.

But, we may be in the minority on a Arranger-centric site.

Ian

Unfortunatelly things are going the other way that discussed here. Our last TOTL arranger even came out without a sound editor. And it took over a year just to get some kind of sound editor which is not even close to lets say Motif sound editor. And most of the people even said hallelujah. Let's face it, majority of arranger players are home amateurs, and they'd rather let instrument play by it self then actually learning to play an instrument. For some reason it's easier to learn all of the combinations for two finger chords than taking the same time and learning actual chords. And "transpose" button came out of heaven .
Unfortunately I don't think it will get better, I think it will get worse. We will loose even more features. They will dumb us down even more and we will still like them and we will still buy new keyboards thinking this one will make us a better player.
There is no reason to blame these companies, it's all our fault. Just like with everything else in life.

Unfortunetly, much of this is true!

In my work as a clinician over the years, it was actually rare to find an arranger owner who knew how to edit styles, even the most basic approach...which is why I spent some of my clinic time showing how relatively easy it is to make your own.

Still, the majority of users will prefer to buy new styles (or try to get them free), and many trade up to a new instrument just to get a few new accompaniments...often styles they could have easily made themselves from the existing styles on their previous instrument.

Those using the instrument like several of our SZ'ers (playing pro on stage) are the minority...as you say, the arranger buyer is usually a home player, and, therefore, the instrument is designed to be easy to play, with effortless to obtain (and fairly impressive) results...very few will want to customize, and of those who do, the majority won't stay with it for long (and the hard core tweakers will buy a synth).

That's why I keep going to jam sessions; to keep up the playing skills that don't get used much on the arranger...it's easy to get lazy and let things slide.

However, the arranger (especially one as elaborate as my T4) is still a major tool for my needs...a veritable Swiss Army Knife, in my opinion.

Ian