Interesting post, Larry.

In my modest view I see two dimensions in this post.
A. the dimension of the PLAYER and
B. the dimension of the LISTENER.
Starting with the dimension of the LISTENER: she/he and nobody else definites the appreciating of a musicpiece. In this digitally subject one listen to it mostly via the speakers of via a soundsystem. It could be a CD, DVD, Radio or in our case a keyboard-sound-system. In fact he has nothing more to do than listening (and enjoy, I hope ).
Looking at the dimensions of the PLAYER: he can choose what 'instrument' he wants to play. A 'analog' piano, flute, drums, guitar. In this situation the player can only 'build' on his own skills to produce an acceptable standard in trying to enjoy the listener. If the player whishes he could choose to play not solo, but in a band. The reason? More instruments could make the song more attractive for other/certain listeners (they hope/expect). But in this case (with 'analoge' or 'unplugged' instruments) the point is still, they can only rely on their quality of playingskills.

Wow, this goes deep, hope you can (or want to) follow ?
However, we live in the digital century. The 'conventional musicinstruments' has got brothers and sisters. Computermusic, disco-music, synthesizers and keyboards. All 'sampled' and digitalized. You press a key and the buildin synthesizer produces all you want to hear (like sounds in 'conventional instruments' or even like 'human voices').
And now we have keyboards. Technology is still evoluating: we (I) follow; KN800 till KN8000? Who knows where it ends?

BUT: as I said that in case of an 'conventional instrument' (eg. guitar) you need to have good playingskills to make it enjoyable for certain listeners (It's only you and the guitar). When however one 'playes the keyboard', other skills could accomplish or made perfect the performance (for the players' own feelings, the listener judges himself!). These skills are how to use those features in that 'electronic monster'.

My point: the player makes the choice what instrument he wants and how he uses that instrument. It has a awsome amount of features build in. You can choose if you use them or not.

And related to 'Easy Recorded'? As I said, it doesn't matter for me, as a LISTENER, how that songs was composed. That was the choice of the player. As a LISTENER I only 'have to enjoy'. As a PLAYER I like to know sometimes if it is 'live' played, only with the reason to 'know' if it could be done by an 'human being' on this keyboard in a 'live' situation; this knowledge could help me 'to imitate' or 'to learn from' or 'to analyse' the song and to develop my playing- AND keyboard-user-skills.

And I suppose this is just the reason for my small 'preference' for 'Easy Recorded Songs'.

Pfff, End,
best greetings,
Cees

This easy chord thread started by my good friend Larry Hawk is a subject close to my heart.
I have used it from day one. To me there is no other way. As Cees said I play the song over and over till I get it right. It may take a few plays or it may take a number of plays and also I may throw it out altogether.
If I can listen to it at least ten times and still enjoy it that is the song I send to Bill.

One of our forum members asked me if that is actually me playing. I emailed him saying with the exception of a canned intro and ending occasionally everything inbetween is all me. Fill ins and performace pads help enhance a performace but it is the performers feeling when to use these inhancers that make the difference.

Layering ,editing,twinking,etc never interested me.
I just enjoy sitting down and playing this great user friendly keyboard. Period.

Alex

I think it comes down to the "honor system". While it really dosen't matter how you record a song, maybe the performer could tell us if any editing was done AFTER recording. And possibly inform us of how they edited the song. That way we will all know how to achieve a better recording of our own.

To me, substituting sounds, fill-ins, tempo, etc. after Easy Recording is indeed "editing" and probably should not be classified as Easy Record.

So maybe there should be 2 catagories:

1. Easy Record No Edit (Saved exactly as played)

or

2. Easy Record Edited (Saved after some modifications)

I like both recording styles, however, I agree with Colin, its nice to know if the recording was done live with no edits.


Thanks,
Larry Hawk

Easy record is the only way I've recorded, too. I've said it's to keep the music simple, but mostly it's because I'm too lazy to go into a lot of production for a song. I will practice the song over and over until I can play through without a mistake, then kick in the EZ record. However, when I hit a wrong note or chord at the end of a song, I will go into the editor to repair it, rather then start over. By the way, for those of you who don't know the difference.... once you use easy record to perform a song and you finish, it becomes a sequenced song and can be modified or edited with the sequencer editor. Remember also, when you use Technichord during the recording stage and need to repair a mistake, you have to alter both R1 and R2 instruments to get rid of the total doink. Sometimes one can tell if the song has been edited because not many players are so perfect that every note is in the proper position. Once one learns to use the many functions of the sequencer editor, you will understand what I'm talking about. I don't think it matters one way or the other if anyone uses the editor to correct a few mistakes, but practice on the keyboard will always make you a better player, and as you grow you'll have less and less mistakes to worry about. You'll also find that most people don't care if they hear a wrong note. Like Bebop says...it didn't cost them anything in the first place. And, they can always dump the song and keep the style.

I don't understand why some are against using the facilities provided by our great keyboards. The comment about No Edited sounds, No Custom Styles, No Multi Tracking..... WHY??
What difference does it make whether you use a standard built in sound or one which has been 'Tweaked' slightly to better fit the song/tune? If a particular song/tune would sound better if one of the built in styles was slightly modified then why not modify it? If a particular recording would be improved by adding say a counter melody in Part 4 then why not add it? If someone creates a really super Jazz Style, then why should it not be used in Easy Record? The creation of new Styles is an art in itself
None of the above detracts from the player's performing skill. For instance, adding a counter melody to Track 4 is just like having two musicians playing together in real time except that the single performer is playing both parts. This shows that the performer has an extra skill - the ability to compose and play the counter melody, thus enhancing the total musical experience.
Anyone with knowledge of the KN instruments, or indeed is of a musical 'bent', will be able to easily recognise that the resultant recording has been multi tracked so no one is being duped into thinking that everything has been recorded as One Take.
Anyone remember Les Paul? - The innovative guitarist of the 50s who did many superb recordings using the available limited technology - nobody doubted his playing skills.
I find that using Easy Record, is a good way of 'Laying down' the basic format of a song/tune which I may or may not subsequently edit.

------------------
Willum

Hi All,

This thread has been so interesting. I am impressed by the friendliness of the chatter and the diversity of opinion. I agree with your remarks, Bill, concerning recording one track at a time as we had to do in the past. It was indeed hard work and very time consuming. Easy Record is likely to be the only method I will use when I begin making recordings to share with all of you. All of you have given me a good lesson in using Easy Record and I appreciate it. You are a great bunch of people.

Chuck

Hi All,
I don’t know if this adds to the thread or not!
But hear goes.
I only record in Ease Record. When I recorded
Stranger In Paradise recently, I used the intro from
Organ Foxtrot, which I put in p.m. 8, at the end of the intro,
with the foot switch I changed to p.m.1 where I had the Theatre
Organ set up from the ‘Music Disk Collection’. I played Stranger
In Paradise, using Busker Style chords and melody line, I switched to p.m.5 for contrast then back to p.m.1. At the end of the song,
I switched back to p.m.8 and used the ending of Organ Foxtrot.
The over all result, was only brought about by 1.The people who
made the Styles, 2.The people who made those lovely Organ sounds, and
3 the people who reduced this lovely song to chords and melody line.
The end result is down to me, but could never have been brought about,
without the professionalism of those other people. With the KN7000,
no matter how good I think I sound, I have no delusions it’s all me.
The point I am trying to make is, how can any one say with certainty which parts of the final song is actually me.
I’m just a reluctant musician who taught himself chords and melody line. But that’s another long story.
Fred UK

To answer Bill Norrie who said "why are some people against using the Technical features of our keyboard".
I do not think anyone is against using its Technical features.

Multi recording. Easy recording. It is a personal choice.
No matter what method you choose to record in the most important thing is that you are happy and enjoy playing your keyboard.

Alex

Interesting, Interesting!
What a great diversity of opinions. All correct!
To make sure that everyone understands my viewpoint, I am not against any form of making music. As I said previously, I have enjoyed every piece of music that has been presented on the forum and on Cees' site.

Some have been produced entirely by entering one note at a time using step record. Some have been layered, one track at a time, by actually playing each track and adding to that already recorded, and some by a combination of both.
Some have been easy recorded using only default styles and sounds that are native to the keyboard as received from the factory with no post editing.
Others have easy recorded using a combination of default factory styles and voices, plus edited styles, intro's, endings and voices with no post editing of any kind. (This is the method that I have used for the songs that I have presented).
Others have used any or all of the above easy record methods plus post editing to correct mistakes or change voices, add fills, change endings, ETC.

All methods make good music that is worth listening to with the final quality of the result dependent on the skill of the music maker, whether it be finger dexterity, chord voicing, composition, layering and sequencing skills, or whatever.

I think that this whole thread goes back to Cees' request that on his web site he would like only songs by easy record method.

My opinion is that using factory defaults, edited styles, edited voices, edited intros, edited endings, ETC., but played in real time without post editing, most closely fits the description of "easy record only".
In other words, it should sound exactly as if you recorded it while playing for an audience.

I believe that the value of this is that the listener/keyboard player can easily disect the piece and learn something from it besides just enjoying it.
This of course puts some restrictions on what songs are presented to Cees' site.
Perhaps Cees would consider another page on his site devoted solely to sequenced songs, sequenced plus layered, post edited, ETC.
There was a good suggestion that the player note what was edited and how it was done -- this would be a good learning tool for us not experienced in sequencing and editing.
Again, just my thoughts,
Regards to all,
Walt

[This message has been edited by Walt Meyer (edited 08-18-2003).]

Hay Larry, are you some kind of a pro for starting these great threads?

Grandpa Doug