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.