Owners should be able to program arrangers to do the same (You will need to put some work in) providing the style engine does not limit the number of bars.

Enjoy

Bill

Hi Bill,
brilliant demo. Only had a chance to watch the first 10 min so far.

Definitely yes, from what I’ve seen to date, would have been doable in a Korg
( not sure about my psr , haven’t checked max no of bars allowable per variation).

Korg, 32 bars allowable per variation ( as well as fill /intro/ending).
I tried it with a couple Band in a Box styles. The style morphs throughout a song, so I thought I’d give it a try.
Basically the idea worked, but biab styles use phrases that don’t really lend themselves that well to an arranger style, so by the time I eliminated the ones that wouldn’t work, it left a fairly bland style.

Thinking though, if someone started with a fairly basic style the core bits, drums bass, piano or guitar rhythm, lengthened it to 16 or 32 bars, the addition of the twiddly bits like the brass , horns etc could make a style more realistic instead of being so repetitive. ( approx 6 min into video).

I’m going to try and watch the rest shortly.

Great find , thank you Bill.

Hi,
did some further checking, my sx can do 32 bar variations, also 32 bar Intro/ Ending, but only 1 bar fills.

Best part, in style creator, one can actually lengthen an existing style variation ( intro/ending) from there, style can be exported to Jørgen’s style split software, the the midifile part can be loaded into a pc sequencer, edited, saved, and one has a new style.

Haven’t tried it yet with 32 bar style, but I have edited a couple of other styles usin* Jørgens software and xg works sequencer.

So thanks Bill.
Haven’t watched video 2 yet.

Less repetitive styles have always been a Lowrey feature starting in the early 80s with the MX1 that chose (I think randomly) from several different patterns that also differed for the dominant, subdominant, 7th. This is explained in the MX1 patent. My old Lowrey Genius G300 also chose randomly from several different patterns. I think that for patterns to be generic, that they cannot be too long; but one can program several similar (but not identical) shorter patterns and choose randomly from them. I cannot imagine that introducing this requires great changes to the style engine. The hard part is writing 3-4 patterns for each variation A-D for Yamaha and Korg arrangers. But in the end having - for example - one generic Miller Big Band - with several randomly chosen, similar patterns for each variation, is better than having several separate styles of one type. Thus, the many-pattern per variation style can be put together (by the style programmers) from various styles that already exist. The only novel aspect is allowing each variation to have a several possible patterns and choosing them randomly. The is, I think, what Lowrey does with the styles (but not the FX or fill bar); but note that they do not have 4 variations per style, only 2.

Keep safe.

Sam

Band-In-A-Box (BIAB) is the ideal example of less repetitive Styles.

Bill, thank you, the video brought out things that I have been trying to say, but a more elegant way.

In my explanations I have left out one important thought, people who have played in a band with other musicians are more likely to do what the video pointed. Start playing at the right time, people like Don, Tony and Donny do that without thinking. They are also more aware of what the style is doing.

Controlling the style:
Helpers in order of importance. Registrations, mixer, and the pads.

I picture Tony with his band; he listened for a lead-in for him to sing, or solo. (like listening to the style) He did not want all the same instruments to keep playing, they would have been in his way.

There is more, much more, so thanks to Bill we may listen to styles differently now.
John C.

PS, one of the reasons organs have lost their popularity was demonstrated in the video; playing big band music with organ sounds. Wersi demo people never did that

So, what if we take a MIDI file of a song, and make a style out of it....that is more what I heard on the Lowrey demo?

That's waht I have wanted all along as I don't sing...I think if you sing (well) it is fine the way it is as the variance is the singer, and that's what people hear mostly...However if it is a n instrumental performance a style most of the time falls short.

I'm not sure I described that very well??

The problem in converting a Midi file is that it is fixed, whereas a style can change depending on the chord played. I.E: The backing will be different due to more loops are available for the style to choose from, (A midi file is just one big loop with no variations even if converted to a style) as an example: the intro of a style will be different depending on the chord played, whereas if it is a converted midi file it will be the same no matter what chord you play.

Bill

Korg solves this really well, converting midi files to styles,...

That’s not new, but when you play a 7th chord instead of a major chord does the pattern change, or if you play the intro is it a different pattern depending on whether you play a major or minor chord, as this is how a dedicated programmed style works.

Bill