When it's actually played it sounds great, however when it comes to the backing, you would be better off with a synth/Workstation and a Karaoke machine for a fraction of the price. (Or just stream the song on Spotify)
Lets face it, no pro musician is going to want to play along to a canned backing when they can express themselves better by playing the keyboard and backing themselves. (For a home hobby player its great, as you can sound great with minimal effort, but even home hobby players want more than this)

Bill

Bill

Please explain the above - those are pure styles only playing, same as any other arranger.

Exactly, its the same every time, totally canned and mainly song specific, thus not allowing the user to put their own stamp on the performance.
Its particularly bad on the Event (And previous Ketron boards) as audio styles are difficult (If not impossible) to edit, at least with Midi styles the user can edit them to make them their own.
To be honest the only part where audio is really good is in the drums, which if they use Rex files they are very easy to swap about.

Bill

DIFFERENT THINKING Thank you Bill
With my four-piece band, and as an OMB, I wanted freedom. The greater part of my attention was on the people I was playing for. I tried to be there completing their every thought. No music backing, and no song sets.

With my band I played rhythm, solo guitar, and all lead singing. My music book was arranged so it was easy to change venues. I called the key to the keyboard ((Hammond B3) The band was tight, as soon as I started the change, they were right there. After a few months it just flowed. Playing New York, New York, and Macho Man seemed to go together.

I set-up my Technics keyboard the same manner. Many of my friends used recorded backing. Changes on the kn7 were easy --- It was rare not having a job on a weekend.

My happy days, John C.

Having had the Audya for many years including most of the styles available for it, I simply cannot agree with your assessment.

Same could be said for all other manufacturers. I guess all this proves is that we are all biased in one way or the other.

I think both styles and backing tracks have their place. I use both, depending on the venue. For the good old music of the senior set, I use styles that I can change to my liking. However, if I want to be somewhat relevant in a younger crowd, I will add backing tracks and play and sing over them. It is one thing to put your stamp on a song you play well, but another to perform a song specific arrangement that is merely recognizable. In other words, which method produces the best results.

Dear Abacus
I respect your opinion, but I disagree. And I disagree because I realize that you have a wrong opinion about both Ketron and Audio Styles.
And I'm telling you this as a professional musician (as I imagine you are) where my main job is music (Live Performing) and I've been working exclusively with Arrangers since 1991. I've been using Ketron since 2000 with the SD1 and later with the Audya (I never went to SD9 because for many reasons I didn't like it) and now with Event. Also, as you may know I also have the Yamaha Genos and the Korg Pa3x. I was also lucky enough to have the new Korg Pa5x (on loan from a well-known E-Shop) for a month to test it out. In fact, I had also made a demo video which is in Greek, but someone can see it here if they want https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oke6zdkrbZE

So, you talked about (canning). How did you really come to this conclusion? Because as far as I know canned is in my opinion a (narrow-minded – because exactly as you said it does not offer freedom of expression) copying of classic music hits (song styles) where contrary to what you say, this logic is followed by Yamaha to the letter but also Korg and as incredible as it may sound to you, the only company that does not use this logic is Ketron. So, when listening to Preset (midi styles) from both Yamaha and Korg, you hear nothing more than an absolute copy of the orchestration of the entire piece of music, even the Drums Fill. And I ask you here: Have you tried (in a Live performance) to play any Rock song for example on Genos and select for example the 80sClassicRock style?
Before you start people immediately know you're going to play Eye of the Tiger [Survivor], and after you've played the song, if you make the mistake of using the same Style again in another song by pressing Intro, then people look at you because it's as if asking you: But haven't you played this song before? And this is because they have made an exact copy of all the music production.
The same will happen if you use e.g HighRoadRock which is an absolute copy of AC/DC - Highway to Hell and the same will happen to all Styles because they are all copies of specific musical hits.
And for the sake of truth, look here and see in the comments below that users place next to each style the corresponding song from which it has been completely copied. https://youtu.be/HBkNZoYzagQ?t=45
And here I wonder if this is not (canning) then what else is? So, I'm telling you the above incident because I live it in my work, since I still play and work (every day) with Genos and since I still haven't managed to prepare the Event for my personal needs.
The same happens with all Styles and Korg and if you want, I challenge anyone to an experiment and put the Event in contrast with any other Arranger they wish to understand what I'm saying. Also, I would like someone to tell me (since you are talking about canned) listening to the Event Audio Styles one by one what is the (specific song) that each Style is based on?
So here let me say a few things about Audio Styles because from what I can see many of you who have maybe never worked with Audio Styles (by Ketron) are jumping to conclusions that are often incorrect.
So let me put my arguments to you.
So, what is the use of an Audio Style, in relation to the classic Midi Styles but above all, what is the purpose of their existence?

Audio Styles have two main advantages over midi styles:

1) Realism, because everything contains the (human factor) through Audio.

2) Creativity, because in an Audio Chord Chanel of a Style one can include as a complementary element (in combination with Midi), anything one can imagine. So theoretically (because it is extremely difficult in terms of implementation), but practically because the possibility exists, you can imagine that right now in the Event with the new Real Chord, even a real Symphony Orchestra can be "accommodated" within the Style.
These two elements are what characterize Audio Styles. Nothing more, nothing less.

But this is where the misunderstanding and misinterpretation starts and I think to some extent it is justified, because until today the role of Audio Styles has not been clarified.
So, I will tell you my opinion and you draw your own conclusions.
Audio Styles have no purpose to replace midi styles, but to add additional elements of realism to the midi style, which realism, cannot be compared (no matter how hard we try) through midi programming, because no matter how hard we try, for example, to create a good rhythmic Drum pattern, this cannot be compared to a real playing, in a good Studio by a good Drummer.
The exact same thing happens with percussions, guitar, bass and any other musical instrument or group of musical instruments we want.
And here now is the basic mistake that many people make, who criticize audio styles. And the mistake is that they compare audio styles with midi styles.
This comparison is wrong, because the point here (as I said before) is not to replace midi style with audio, but to coexist, just as it happens today in every workstation (daw) where midi and audio are now an essential and unbreakable combination, which is considered inconceivable not to exist.
So, consider asking a music producer the same question: Which one is better? Midi or audio? Of course, if such a question were ever asked to a music producer, then he would probably laugh, since we are comparing two completely different things and two different worlds that were born to coexist.
So, we shouldn't talk about comparison (because it's an unfortunate expression anyway), but about the coexistence of these two different worlds.
We would be justified in being critical about this if the Event (for that matter) only had audio styles and nothing else, which would probably be completely silly.
But let me respond to the criticisms and arguments of (the enemies of Audio Styles).

FIRST ARGUMENT
"No extended editing capabilities."
There is criticism from many users of classic midi arrangers, that Audio Styles have very limited (actually) or no editing capabilities within the instrument.
So, I'll tell you even worse:
There is no possibility to edit an audio channel of an audio style, e.g., Audio Drums, Audio Chord, etc.
The only configuration option that exists is that of the basic mix, i.e., Volume, EQ, compressor, or other FX such as Reverb, delay, etc.
So, we should know from the beginning that in,
or on the audio channels of an audio style, there are no processing options within the instrument beyond those of basic mixing. Therefore, we should realize the purpose of their existence, and this should be exploited musically and creatively.
There is no reason to look for things that are not possible.
If we focus on the purpose of audio styles, (which as we said is realism and creativity), then we are on the right track, and this is how we will proceed.
If this is our goal, then we should also learn how to handle audio styles.
Here I would like to make a parenthesis.
Many of us who lived through the 80s and 90s will remember that to have at least a few Audio Channels on your computer in a sequencer, such as Cubase, (which until 1997 only functioned as a midi sequencer), was, and seemed like a real blessing.
Thus, when Steinberg in 1997, with the release of Cubase VST 3.5, combined for the first time a workstation, with the possibility of MIDI + Audio sequencing giving the possibility to coexist with 32 audio channels, together with midi, this came as (uncle gift) for music producers around the world.
So, no one then came out to criticize this (necessary combination) of the two worlds, (Midi + Audio) because the capabilities and purpose of midi are different, and the capabilities and purpose of audio are different.
Everyone understood that this would be the defining, natural progression that should take place hereafter.
And that's how it happened. You will tell me that this example is somewhat extreme in relation to Arrangers, but I bring it as an example because I personally think that it is now time for these two worlds (Audio + Midi) to unite in Arrangers as well.
From there it should be up to each user to choose whether to use this combination or whether to use only one option (audio) or the other (midi) or both. The point here, in my opinion, is to have free choice, and believe me, that choice absolutely exists in Event.
Personally, however, I combine all the options, i.e., both midi styles and audio styles, but also a combination of the two.

SECOND ARGUMENT
"Time stretch usually does not have good results and especially at a lower speed than the original (20 to 30bpm) there is serious distortion of the sound."
First, we should say that in general today the Time Stretch algorithm, in relation to older ones, has been improved to a huge extent by each company that uses it, either for software or for hardware.
So, there is a much better response, always of course at a reasonable point. But here too it is important to understand that treating an Audio Style as if it where a Midi style is wrong.
It is not going to work if we assume that an audio style with an original tempo of 120bpm, changing it to 80bpm will play without distortion.
It is certain that the result will be disastrous.
But if we use the audio styles in a reasonable way considering its possibilities then we will not have any problem. We also shouldn't forget that midi styles are always out there to serve our needs, so we shouldn't demand things that can't be done from an audio style.
We either accept this or simply do not choose such styles (audio styles).
Unfortunately, there is no other option.
But beyond the necessary compromises, there is something else that also applies to midi styles.
What is this.
If we assume that in a midi style, we want to change the tempo from 120bpm to 80bpm then we have probably chosen the wrong style.
Of course, this thing also applies to midi styles but audio styles.
In this case we should choose another Style that will be closer to the original speed we want, or even better, we could create it (if we know how to do it).
And why is this happening?
Because each style contains a specific structure and orchestration style. Therefore, even if we are talking about midi style, a reasonable range of speed is imposed by the orchestration itself.
For example, an 8 Beat Ballad (depending on the style of the instrumentation), which is composed at 68bpm, usually has a reasonable range of 68bpm to 85bpm.
A Cha-cha created at 118bpm usually has a reasonable bpm range from 118bpm to 130 to 135bpm etc.
Of course, what I'm telling you is not a (rule), but I think we've all noticed it and all or several of us follow what I'm telling you in the end.
So, when we change the speed on a Cha-cha (midi style), which is created at 118bpm and we go to 150bpm, then we understand aurally that the result is not so good, or in some cases, not good at all.
So, with that in mind, let's learn to manage Audio Styles as well, so we won't have any problems.
Here also we should say that if the companies want to develop the audio styles system there are still many solutions, which can spectacularly improve the time stretch problem by placing an elastic audio type algorithm which has very impressive results.

We should also say that Yamaha has for years registered a special patent which provides a solution to a series of problems concerning Full Audio styles, even though it has not yet been used in any of the Arranger Keyboards it has.
Who knows though. Maybe it will in the future, because for it to have registered a special audio style patent, it means that in the future it will be needed.

And to speak with arguments I quote the numbers of Yamaha's registered patent as well as the corresponding link of the specific Yamaha patent:

Patent 9,147,388 Automatic performance technique using audio waveform data, September 29, 2015
Patent 9,040,802 Accompaniment data generating apparatus, May 26, 2015
Patent 8,791,350 Accompaniment data generating apparatus, July 29, 2014
Application 13/982,476 Accompaniment data generating apparatus, March 12, 2012

http://sandsoftwaresound.net/yamaha-patents-summary-2017/
Read the "Styles combining audio and MIDI" description below.

There are other links, but I don't think there is any reason to confuse ourselves with more information.
Personally, however, I never liked the few Audio Styles (which contained only drum audio) that Yamaha had created.
In relation to Ketron's Audio Style, their result was particularly poor, as well as the limitations in relation to Ketron were and are much more since Yamaha does not allow you to have an EQ in the Audio Chanel as opposed to Ketron which in each of the three audio channels in the Event Style (Real Drum, Real Bass, Real Chord) it has a 3 band parametric EQ with the possibility of different settings in each channel and each style.

THIRD ARGUMENT
I can't change a Drums Kit or a Drum Part (kick, snare, etc.)
Wrong approach. We said it before. For this job we don't choose an Audio Style but a midi style.

You also mentioned Slices via REX2 Grooves as a better or alternative solution for someone who needs Audio. Allow me to disagree here as well and I tell you this from my experience, since the Pack I have created for my personal needs on the Yamaha Genos is based 100% on Slices (Rex2).
And I disagree because firstly, it requires a huge effort and a huge waste of time even for someone very experienced in this matter like me, secondly the slices require resources from Ram and precious slots which are easily filled, and thirdly it is an extremely complicated and difficult situation to create something. On the other hand, in Event you don't need to do anything more than copy the audio files you want (if they have the right names) to the specific folder (USER_MODELING) and everything is ready to use.
Finally, I would like to put you a video of me with the Event. So, what is this? This is a 100% midi style (no audio track) and I created this Style 100% on Event without using any computer but everything was done in the onboard STYLE EDIT (style creator).
So, you'll see that Event does great on Midi as well. People just don't know about it.
https://youtu.be/Fk25h13rovE

I apologize for my huge post.

huge but really needed and well argumented !

Thanks

when i was proffesional , long ago ,there were keyboard playeres that prefere using playbacks and those like me who prefer using in live the styles of the arranger , each one and his reasons .
for me to be able being spontany , dynamic , and express my self as a player 'instead of being robotic was the main thing , and also i was only playing without singing so i could consentrate in playing.

Hi Bernie, pity Pa4x didn’t have this function

Qui Robinez over on Korg forums has been creating some great video clips.

Makes using midi files for backing, very versatile.

https://youtu.be/SURtgtsGT68


Korg Pa5X: create song specific styles with midi files

00:00 example
00:18 introducing this powerful feature
01:00 loading midi file: Tequila
01:19 how to use the marker system
06:44 how to fix low quality midi file loop points
08:42 demo of a midi file used as a song style
12:01 save the song
12:31 second midi as style example: Sweet Sixteen blues
15:13 outro

I think sokratis has overlooked something when it comes to extolling how real drums and real guitars and basses cannot be equaled with an arranger that uses MIDI…

You only have to look at computer VST’s like BFD or Superior Drums and the like to realize that MIDI drums can be as utterly convincing as a real drummer. It boils down to the performance of the player of the file, and how well the electronic kit is set up, and how well edited the capture is. Same with percussion. 99% of the realism comes from a real percussionist playing the MIDI parts, idiomatically correctly.

The same applies to rhythm guitar and bass parts. There are many VST’s for bass and guitar rhythm work that are utterly indistinguishable from audio. But they are, to all intents and purposes, doing EXACTLY what an arranger does. Just with a better soundset, and arguably better performances.

But what these give you over audio loops is that element of customization. Need a push in a spot in the rhythm that isn’t there on the audio? Piece of cake to edit the control track. Prefer a Strat to a Les Paul, a Marshall amp rather than a Fender? Piece of cake. Want a chord inversion not included in the audio loops? Most guitar VST’s allow you to select where on the neck the guitar is being played. Want the part played lighter? Done. Want to use an acoustic instead of an electric? Easy peasy!

Few of us have the skill to create an utterly convincing part from scratch. But most of us, in our antiquated conventional arrangers, can easily change the sound of a track and create something VERY different to the original. Not so the audio. It’s a Strat through a Fender, and forget trying to change it. And forget about hiring a studio guy to come in and do it with a Les Paul and a Marshall! Who’s got that kind of money?!

Basically, you either LOVE the audio style, or you’re screwed. Ten minutes on my Roland, I can turn a hard rock style into a gentle folk style. Brush drums, acoustic bass, acoustic guitars, acoustic piano. Done. Let me know how well that works on an Event!

As to pre-canned intros, the solution is, don’t use them! If they define the tune you have to follow them with, they only have one song you can play. The Roland has four intros. One yes, possibly derived from the song the style is in the vein of. One with changes but no defining solo. One shorter one that follows your chords. And a simple one bar count-in. That two to three that aren’t going to define the song. Hitting Intro1 and sitting on your hands while the arranger shows you up by playing better than you is so lazy!

Take away that defining intro, and you’d be surprised at how many songstyles can be used on other songs as long as they aren’t TOO locked into the original. Same with endings. And fills, if too song defining, aren’t THAT difficult to go into the style and change around a bit. Far easier than doing the entire drums from scratch…

Personally, I think that audio arrangers are a dead end. A temporary solution while VST equivalent features get added to MIDI arrangers. We’re already at the point of some arrangers’ guitar modes being quite good, good enough to fool the ear. Drums could benefit from a few more velocity levels and some room mic options, but that’s well within current technology to add.

I think a lot of sokratis’ enthusiasm for the potential expansion of audio styles created by the user is theoretical. I’d really like to hear how much time and possibly expense it took to change a factory style radically, or create one from scratch from a real user. I know how little time it takes on a MIDI arranger.

Very little.

Diki I totally respect your opinion. I don't want to comment on anything. I expressed my opinion. Everyone can draw their own conclusions and make their own choices. I simply let history either disprove what I believe or confirm it. For now (at least me) I'm fine with what I have. That's all.

wise answer after all these endless attacks...
I'm VERY satisfied with mine...you're right: it's a revolution, which opens the way to other developments!
I have work for the coming months !

Apart from Audio Styles (Whether Midi or audio it is still just a style) what does the Event offer over other keyboards, as not everyone wants to play along to a style.

Bill

Interesting comment on an arranger forum! But I know how you feel. I think arrangers of any kind have still got a long way to go before they fool the discerning ear that it’s live. The ear of the player, that is…

Sure, use a live audio style, be extra careful to NEVER ask it to do something that exposes any glitches or weaknesses, you can fool most non-players for a while. Until they hear the exact same fill twice, or the inability to dial back the intensity for a quiet passage, or the impossibility of throwing in a 6/4 bar if needed.

The thing is, these are things that MIDI arrangers can do with ease. My Roland can adjust the velocities of parts (not the volume, but how hard the guitar is strummed, or the drums hit etc) in response to how hard I’m playing…

It’s things like this, the arranger’s tendency to plow on regardless of how YOU are playing that is the main area I’d like to see improved. It’s like playing with a bunch of really good deaf players!

Trouble is, this is a type of thing that would bring massive complexity and expense to fully live audio arrangers. Now you got to get your studio guitarist to not only play all chords, but at ever increasing intensity, and find a way to seamlessly crossfade between the parts.

Look, for me, audio vs MIDI arrangers is very much like sampling vs. modeling. Sampling will give you a supremely accurate picture of a sound in ONE state. To be more accurate, you need many, many recordings of multiple velocities (and round robins for repeated notes) before you can play it expressively. But it still sounds wrong as soon as you start to phrase with it unless you have a very sophisticated articulation library, and even there it falls a bit short. But that simple sample has now ballooned into a multi-GB sound.

Modeling, otoh, maybe not QUITE as close as a recording of one note at one velocity. But play a phrase, play with dynamics, and the expressive nature completely changes how you feel about that one note. No timbre shifts, no unidiomatic note transitions, simply the behavior of the real thing. For the true player, that’s worth any slight lack of realism playing one note. Heck, 40 years ago, I was using a breath controller on my DX7, and the sheer expressive nature of the sound still stands up to many modern arranger sampled saxes.

The simple fact is, yes, you can get utterly convincing backing with audio loops. But without considerable skill and considerable expense, you can do a damn thing with it other than just roll over and take it the way they give it to you. Conventional arrangers, otoh, can’t QUITE give you the same realism (though they creep closer and closer to audio each generation) but at least they are yours to alter and create your own individuality on, to shape into something unique.

At least for me, that’s worth its weight in gold! 🎹😍

One thing I really like with the Event is thas I can use MIDI and/or audiofiles depending on the circumstanses. This makes it VERY easy to create the style I want. For example I have bought a package with thousends of styles for not very much money. Unfortuonately most of the styles are crap with only some useable parts. But when I put down a few minutes exchangeing some of the instruments with Ketron MIDI and/or audiofiles, I suddenly have a not just useable, but even really good style. It has never been nearly this easy with any of my previous keyboards (Korg PA4X, Yamaha PSR-SX700, Roland G70).

Yes those types of style packages are just poorly converted styles from other brands, and you are lucky if you get even a few that are anything other than naff.

Bill

Trouble is, of course, you are simply taking audio Parts from existing Event styles. Not creating something new. And they need to match the groove of the rest of the style perfectly, because you can’t edit them in any way.

Creating a brand new audio Part is daunting, to say the least. You need to record your player (hopefully someone of session player standard) playing at the very least a major, a minor, a 7th and maybe a diminished pattern in several keys (not really sure how many keys, it depends on how good the Event’s pitch/time transposition is). Probably at least six, so you don’t have to get the transposition algorithm to do more than one whole step.

Rinse and repeat for each Variation and Fill, then Intros, Endings and Breaks.

Phew…

Now bring in a drummer and a bass player.

I don’t honestly see how anyone with less than session pro skills is ever going to be able to pull this off.

We’ve been able to Frankenstyle (TM, patent pending, LOL) our arrangers for years. Bits of this style, bits of that. But brand new ones even using MIDI based arrangers was never easy. Add in having to record real players now, I just don’t see many succeeding. TBH, I doubt many will even try.

Just a comparison of workflow by making a style with MIDI, if you wanted to, you could create ONE pattern per Variation (say just a major chord) and the arranger style engine would automatically derive every other chord and key from it. Get a little more expert, you could make slightly different ones for a minor pattern and 7th. But still just the one key.

Audio, you HAVE to audio record every single chord type you need. In multiple keys. That’s so much work, even Ketron themselves only did it on some styles. Most have a more limited chord selection before the audio cuts out and a MIDI pattern is substituted. But those patterns had to be created too, so you got to do that yourself as well.

Just do the math. Create ONE pattern in a MIDI arranger, every chord type in every key is done automatically. Do it in audio, let’s be generous and just limit your possible chords to major, minor and 7ths, and let’s be generous and limit the key transposition to a whole step up and down (or you’re going to hear artifacts for sure!). That’s a minimum of three keys. I honestly expect you’ll need more, but we’re being generous here.

So… three chords, three keys. Nine audio patterns to record. As against one.

The math starts getting hairy if you want diminished, augmented, sus4, maj7th, 11th, open 5th, add9’s, 6th, 7#9’s etc.. that’s 12 chord types (and certainly not all of them!). Now you are talking about recording up to 36 patterns. For ONE Variation… 😱. Now multiply by four. And another four for the fills. Now four Endings, four intros and a break.

With a conventional arranger, one per variation, fill and intro/ending/break. Done. Yes, you can do more, but you don’t HAVE to.

I’m just not convinced that many realize the implications of creating a versatile style in audio that you can play what YOU want to on it. Anything less than those 12 chord types, and you can only play what it LETS you play. I don’t think that’s what people buy arrangers for… to be told what they can and can’t play.

There’s a lot of incredible technology going on behind the idea that, give a MIDI arranger a major chord pattern in one key, it can derive any chord type in any key you want. Are we really sure we want to give all that up?

Modern arrangers usually allow multiple different patterns for a style part which can be assigned to any chord, so you don't have to rely on the manipulation of one pattern to play other chords (Which can become boring), which is a lot easier than creating audio chords.
If you connect a computer (An iPad can also be used to a point) then you can play those VSTs directly from the arranger (You just set the Midi out for that track and style part) thus giving you the same as an audio style created using those VSTs, but more importantly it is easily modified if you feel like a change. (If you have a VST Host onboard than it is even easier)
Don't get me wrong, audio styles can be great, but the work involved to make them is extensive and beyond most users. (Which are mostly Home Hobby Players)
Just think, you have a style which you want top get a better guitar for and the onboard guitars don't cut it, so load the Real Guitar VST onto a computer and use a voice from there by just selecting the Midi program number for that voice, which is a lot easier than creating a new audio pattern.

Bill

Exactly…

It’s hard enough to create a style in a conventional arranger. I think that probably fewer than 1% of arranger users (as you say, we’re mostly elderly hobbyists) even create simple styles derived from one chord, let alone creating different patterns for minor and 7th as well.

Despite audio styles’ protagonists trying to tell you how easy it is, I don’t think a single one has posted up an example of THEIR work. Sure, you can always find a YouTube video of someone somewhere doing it. But it’s a big planet..! You can find someone throwing a full court basket too, doesn’t mean you can!

If making styles was easy, it would easily be the most common type of post here, people sharing their fantastic user styles, making amazing music they created. It’s not…

In fact, one of the primary reasons most buy new arrangers is boredom with the old styles. If making styles was easy, that simply wouldn’t happen.. Now along come audio style arrangers, making the problem exponentially harder.

Be nice for a change someone posting about home made styles being easy by actually demoing their work instead of trying to encourage others to do what they apparently haven’t

Personally, the most important feature an arranger needs for style creation is robust copy protection and a free to use storefront run by the company. Then we could go back to the days of people that actually ARE talented at making styles being able to do so AND being able to make a living from it without the fear of instant piracy the minute they sell ONE copy.

Style making ain’t easy. Let’s at least add the one thing that would help the talented make it worth their time… 🎹🙏💵💵💵

Greetings

Diki says......."If making styles was easy, it would easily be the most common type of post here, people sharing their fantastic user styles"

Boy! Am I finding that out! In the past my style "editing" was confined to OTS and tempo changes. Lately I have immersed myself into style creation. There's a lot going on with that style engine. Using third party style software and Genos's onboard style creator I have been studying and dissecting all types of styles. I admit that at first I thought it would be easy. After creating my first Main A variation I was pleased with the result but only then realized that I needed to record ALL the variations, intros, endings, breaks, fill ins ect.

This isn't going to stop me but it was a real kick in the head to realize what all is involved with style creation. I still have high hopes wanting to share some of my creations. and I will. I once had a big boss who's favorite expression was "if it was easy everyone would be doing it" As much as I hate that saying it seems so relevant now! -charley

Get yourself a song Midi file on your computer and isolate the melody lines.
Analise the remaining accompaniment tracks (See where it would be possible to break into variations, fills etc.) and use this as a guide to creating song styles.
Once you have digested how things work together (And have gained more knowledge & experience), then go about creating your own styles, as you will now have a basis of how styles work.

Bill

Get yourself a song Midi file on your computer and isolate the melody lines.
Analise the remaining accompaniment tracks (See where it would be possible to break into variations, fills etc.) and use this as a guide to creating song styles.
Once you have digested how things work together (And have gained more knowledge & experience), then go about creating your own styles, as you will now have a basis of how styles work.

Bill

Bottom line… you got to be able to PLAY just like a guitarist, just like a drummer, just like a percussionist, just like a horn player, just like an orchestral string player, just like a great synth player etc., etc..

Most of us have trouble playing like a piano player!

We often comment about how expensive arrangers are compared to workstations with similar sound engines. Up to a thousand more (sometimes more!). Well, here’s your answer. Styles take incredible skill, often by a team of musicians with individual specialities. And the technical ability to create Variations that all flow together, and fills that can be called on any beat in a bar and not sound jumpy. Plus impressive Intros and Endings…

That costs a LOT of money. Hundreds and hundreds of great styles. There’s the cost difference. Content. Pro quality content.