I also noticed you made reference to Songstyles as evidence this isn't new, as well. Let me clear up the difference...

Yes, you can use style divisions as preset chord changes, but they are hardwired to the style. A chord sequencer is independent of the style, so one CS can drive as many different styles as you want. Creating songstyles by importing the SMF of that song's separate structure elements into different style divisions is a complex task, and you still end up with it in only one style. If you want a dozen different versions of the song in different styles, you have to repeat the work dozens of times. Best of luck!

With a CS, you do it ONCE.

The other primary difference between using a multi-part CS and a Songstyle is, you have to remember what each style division does, what part of the song Variation 4 is, or what part is triggered by Fill3, and whether you have to remember to loop it or play one time, etc.. There's no on screen guide... If you have dozens of songstyles (or hundreds!), that's dozens or more styles you have to carefully remember what each division does, and trigger it carefully, or it's a train-wreck..!

Yamaha's CS has names for each segment on screen. Yes, admittedly at the moment, the type font for each segment is harder to read than it could be, but it IS there... If enough Yamaha users made a stink at Yamaha, perhaps they might modify it so the main part of the display had the segment name rather than the chords (which doesn't make sense if you use the transpose unless you have them as I-IV-V type!).

In almost every way, Yamaha's eight part CS is easier to use than songstyles. The one win for the songstyle is that there are more divisions in a style than eight (3 Intros, 4 Variations, 4 fills, 4 outros and a break/fill). But, in fairness, most songs don't really have more than eight distinct sections (verse, chorus, bridge, solo etc.), and the ability to use the CS on any style you want instantly more than outweighs that, I think.

In truth, the songstyle is listening to its death knell, I think. The multi-part CS is superior in almost all respects...

Woah, easy Diki! I wasn't referring to songstyles in the traditional sense of a song-specific style. What I meant was this:

Let's say you ARE using two arrangers MIDI'd together. Let's say Arranger #1 is a Yamaha Tyros, and Arrranger #2 is a Roland. Many of us have this in our closets!

On Arranger #1, you create a custom "style" consisting of your favorite chord progressions: C, Am, Dm7, G7 or whatever. ALL this "style" would consist of, is one MIDI channel containing triads or tetrads of the desired chords, and another with the desired bass note. Record at a slow tempo. No drums, etc. Let's say this is just style Variation 1. You could make the progression as long as 32 bars with some embellishments toward the end, because you don't always have to let it play through and loop. If you NEVER want it to loop, you could create your chord sequence an ending, or even an intro. You also have three other variations at your disposal!

Now Arranger #1 MUST be a Yamaha or Korg because those brands allow you to designate a style track as NON-TRANSPOSING. I.e., with the proper settings, the track's pattern is ONLY affected by the Master transpose. So if you create your "style" in C major, you can use it in any key by changing the transpose on Arranger #1. So what you've really created (using my example above) is a generic I, vi, iim7, V7 progression.

The output from this Yamaha "style" is fed into the NTA (Note to Arranger) channel of the Roland via MIDI. Many guitarists and accordionists are familiar with this approach. Ideally the MIDI clocks of the two boards would be synched, but the system will still work if they're not. Because all that really has to be transmitted are note-on and note-off messages. (That's really all ANY Chord Sequencer does... it's not magic!) Also, if the custom progression is recorded at a slow tempo, it might sometimes be useful to play it back in double-time.

On the Roland, you can set up two adjacent "performances" or "user programs." One is a standard LH live chords, RH melody configuration. The other could move the split point, and summon the MIDI set where the input to NTA drives the chords. Now you can play "Piano style" or modulate SN guitar sounds across the whole board ("Split" would be moved out of the way to the far left facilitating two-handed play.)

With the above arrangement, the style controls on the Yamaha become your "Chord Sequencer." You can restart a lenghty variation after just a few bars, or let it play for more if you included some jazzy "color chords" toward the end. You also have 3 other variations, intros, endings which could summon different progressions corresponding to the chorus, final verse, etc., on command.

By using the adjacent registrations on the Roland, at any time you can toggle between "live" chords or "canned" chords being driven from the recorded progression. This approach gives a whole new meaning to "faking it!"

For the next song, you would choose a different custom user "style" with its corresponding triads and tetrads. However, many songs share and can be played with the same common chord progressions. You'll probably have to create your generic progressions in at least two different time signatures, 4/4 and 3/4. But with flexible tempo and the drum beat supplied by the style on the 2nd board, the time signature isn't as important as one might think.

If you don't want to use style variations to store and summon your chord progressions, you could also use simple two-track MIDI "songs" formatted in a similar way: triads or tetrads on one track and bass notes on another. In this case, the desired progressions would be recorded sequentially end-to-end, rather than as parallel style variations. The Tyros specifically allows you to mark up to four positions in a song, and jump to them immediately. So it's almost as flexible as using non-transposing style tracks. I think Roland and Ketron both made MIDI file players with this kind of mark-and-jump functionality.

Bottom line, most arrangers still don't have a chord sequencer. But connecting two arrangers (or an arranger and a decent MIDI song player) to each other lets you approximate this functionality. You definitely don't have to be a genius or program your own arranger from scratch. Just make imaginative use of the tools that are already there!

Let’s put it this way... I don’t know ANYONE that does it your way. I know dozens of people that use chord sequencers. They’re easy to operate, don’t need a stack of gear, don’t need extensive setting up, basically they do the job with an absolute minimum of effort and expertise.

Quite honestly, that’s the most convoluted, insanely difficult way of doing such a simple task I have ever read. Be honest...

Do you really use this? 😂

Now this is about me, and what I have always felt about recorded backing

Live playing VS. recorder backing --- is like
Painting an oil painting on canvas VS. paint by numbers.

This is just my opinion,
and this is what makes the world goes around.

John C.

Diki I tested it once around 2014 because VERY FEW arrangers being made at that time had Chord Sequencers, and you always emphasized how valuable they were! I also read about Ketron's "riff mode" and it sounded interesting. I had two arrangers stacked on an A-frame stand. I understood the basic mechanic of how a CS works so I thought "what the heck." If anyone is interested I can tell you that it works fine, just takes a little time to set up. [I also used my Yamaha for its animated "follow the bouncing ball" score display, because I didn't own an iPad at the time, and I've NEVER been able to turn the page in a book without being late or hitting a wrong note.] Sometimes two arrangers are better than one!

Eventually my two-keyboard setup gave way to a single Tyros 5 and the Roland BK-module. I never tried the stored chord progressions with this second-generation setup. My thoughts are like ^^John C's. When you start playing along with saved chord progressions, even if they're just sending notes to NTA, you're in a grey area between "live" and sequenced music. "Real-time" chord sequencers may be the greyest of grey areas, but generally I play all my one-finger chords live. So no I don't make regular use of the system I described.

Actually, in REAL live music, you have no control over the chords. There’s a bass player, a guitarist, maybe a horn section, and unless the chord structure is agreed upon before you play, it’s a train wreck.

And, no offense, but if you are limited to one finger chords, your ability to use complex substitute changes is essentially zero. Look, you either play a song with its actual changes, or you decide to play it differently. Either way, you set yourself a set of changes you want to solo or sing over. And repeat them each verse and chorus. So, whether you are inputting the chords yourself, or playing them in live once then looping them, or programming them in advance in different segments and triggering the segments as needed, you are still getting the same chords.

Does it really matter whether it’s you playing a I-IV-V or the CS playing the I-IV-V? If you want a I-IV-V,that is... Don’t forget, with a CS, at any time you feel like deviating from the song’s ‘normal’ changes, you can switch off the CS and input alternate chords, then switch it back on again. This isn’t an audio backing or an SMF. It’s just an extra LH. That you have full control of.

I realize that if your LH is limited to one finger chords, you may not realize how much your LH can add to a style. But styles are repetitive. There are a myriad things you can do to add alternate voicings, rhythms, comping, counter-melodies with your LH to completely alter the feel of a style backing, to the point where you can turn off just about everything but the bass and drums.

Now, I don’t know about you, but that makes me feel FAR more ‘in control’ of what’s coming out of the speakers than being only in control of what chord the pre-canned backing is playing, and only being able to change those chords at the risk of not actually playing the song you are trying to.

Bottom line, as useful as the feature is, you passed on it because of the complexity of setting it up, having to lug two arrangers around to use it, and the lack of interactivity the way you were doing it. And I don’t blame you! But that’s not how they work when implemented properly. They are an OPTIONAL extra hand when you want to either use the bender a lot, play alternate chords or dissonant chords without freaking out the chord recognition, play another instrument, walk out front and sing, whatever you feel like.

Without giving up on styles.

Personally, I don’t give a rats whether my backing is a style, a style driven by a CS, an SMF or an audio backing. And neither does my audience. But I DO care when decades of practice and experience are reduced to rote boring chord input by one of my hands when it is capable of SO much more! 🎹😎

I didn't "pass" on anything. And I don't gig out (nobody would pay to listen to me!) so there's nothing to "lug around." If by voicings you mean inversions, I understand those, and I make use of the Bass Inversion function to play them when the score calls for it. I don't have decades of practice and experience. I don't use the bender; I doubt I could accurately emulate an acoustic instrument. I also don't sing or play any other instruments. If my left hand didn't input chords, it wouldn't do anything at all! So no, I'm probably not the target customer for a C.S. That doesn't mean that I think it's a useless feature.

I looked at the manual and it certainly looks like the chord sequencer on the SX900 is very convenient and user-friendly. Maybe the best implementation to date. The point of my first post, is that someone doesn't have to spend $2100 on a new Yamaha to get SOME of the benefits you're touting. (And I agree with you that those benefits could be significant!) If someone wants to jam over stored chord progressions, or even seamlessly select from one of several different progressions in real time, I described how they might do so in a studio setting, by making use of that extra arranger they probably have in the closet. That's all I was trying to say. Peace.

There are so many sides about you Diki, it would be interesting to meet with you.

John C.

No worries... I get where you’re coming from Ted, but you have to admit, your perspective on this seems to be extremely skewed by how limited your playing ability seems to be. There’s no shame in this, everybody has their level, but I have to wonder, if you had put the level of effort and ingenuity you used to cobble two arrangers together to do a sort of chord sequencer together into learning better left hand technique, or being able to utilize a bender well (and that hardly needs much LH skill at all) where might you be today?

From how quickly you abandoned the idea, it’s obvious it’s far more effort than it’s worth, but being able to play chords with more conventional fingering for one thing frees you from one of your main gripes, being locked into one particular brand’s one finger chord system over others. To me at least, it seems like the time you spent trying to achieve a sort of preset chord sequencer (which, while useful, still doesn’t achieve the instant chord sequencer implementation that was the only form of the idea until they started allowing them to be stored, just a few short years ago) could have been spent achieving a more long term useful goal...

It’s odd how quickly we accept our limitations, and then spend a lifetime tediously catering to them rather than eliminating them! It takes about the same amount of effort... Just imagine if those weeks of putting this together had have been spent practicing bending like a sax player, or a slide guitar, or a synth! That would have been times well spent... for the rest of your life. 😎

By the way, the inversion thing is one of the cool tricks you can do with a CS to get more variety without having to turn it off and hand play new changes...

I tend to try and lay down the initial chords for a song while I’m recording into the CS in non-root inversions, but with root recognition on. This way the backing sounds normal. I can then let the CS take over on the fly, and start to do my thing without having to input the chords.

But at any time I want to change things up, I can switch on the Bass Inversion recognition, and instantly the changes take on a whole new flavor. Great for spicing up the later choruses. Strip your backing down to just bass and drums, even more so! This would even allow you to PLAY some completely different changes and/or substitutions.

There’s a lot you can squeeze out of the same basic chords when they are looping..!