Curios ???? Dan O'

------------------
Technics,Ketron Yamaha Casio arranger keyboards .
www.keyboardcity.net
1-866-348-8876

I use it some, but mostly for editing midi files. It is way down on my list of really important features.
DonM

Dan,

My main keyboard is Roland G1000 (no speakers), which I play most of the time with the YST-MS50s at half-volume at most - the internal speakers would do nicely to replace them for practice or personal monitoring.

For my smaller gigs I take my Roland E-70, which has I believe 30 watts of internal amplification (woofer in the bottom, plus two speakers on the sides).

I wish that there were a professional (Sorry Casio) manufacturer with 76 keys and speakers in a single instrument.

Yesterday I was playing a very fancy private party (with the MS50s). Towards the end of my playing they had asked me to accompany someone, so I had to move from where I was standing to the stage. I had to move the keyboard with the stand, and separately the speakers (two trips). Had I been using a digital slab piano with speakers, and a laptop, it would have been the same number of trips for me. Ideally, though, someone will make a good 76-key board with speakers and the high-end arranger functions built in.

Regards,
Alex

I never used it Dan ! and probably never will..... just curious : Is 'there' spelled right ? (It's us the Dutchies )

Has anyone heard some news about the Liontracs mediastation ?

Alex, I think you misread the topic. It was internal sequencer, not speakers.
But while we're on the subject, I totally agree with you. I think a 76 key arranger with speakers would be a good seller, providing it didn't get TOO heavy.
DonM

Roel, actually it should be "their". We all know what he meant, but sometimes we forget the international nature of our forum. I have the utmost respect for multi-lingual people. I do well just to understand one language.
DonM

I use my sequencer on the i30, but it's not a simple 16 track sequencer. In the BSQ mode your can record with the arranger functions and on play back you can change programs, intros, fills, endings, and fade etc on the fly just if like you were playing live. For me playing the saxthis is really a nice feature.

Of course it really benefits those who play a horn or guitar etc. I can see where someone playing live keyboard would have no use for these features.

The market would be much bigger for arrangers and software dealers if horn players were educated to see how this stuff works.

Horn players are always looking for other musicans to play with. It's a shame because it's such a task to get guys together to jam, practice, gig or whatever.

Who today hires a 6 or 7 piece band for $500 or more a night? It doesn't happen enough to keep horn players happy.

On a sax forum, I'm trying to explain to beginners who want to learn to improvise on their sax, how valuable BIAB is. It creates solos and will print them out in sheet music form.

It's a full time band that never gets tired, plays any style music or beat you want endlessly. How convienent.

If you can't learn to improvise with these computer tools and arrangers, go lay brick or do something else. BIAB is the easiest way to learn to improvise or improve your playing. Basically, because you can do it over and over with a rhythm section at any tempo that you can play, any time you feel like jamming.

All the experience players on the sax forum are telling the beginners to go out and find people as often as possible to play with to learn to improvise. Just think of all the time they could spend in their homes everyday playing with a band compared to once or twice a month with other musicians who maybe don't even play very well.

BIAB and arrangers are as perfectly in tune as possible. What a great feature that is. It can be a nightmare sometimes trying to learn to improvise. You're no better than the musicians you play with.

To improve you need to practice and especially play with musicians that are better than you as often as they will let you play with them. That has always been a fact of life in the music profession and bricklaying etc.

Dan, I think there's a large market being missed by arranger makers and software people by not getting into schools and making students of music aware of these tools of the trade. Especially horn players.

Dan, carry a keyboard to school with a sequencer, or sponsor a clinic at a local motel for horn players and musicians in general. Show some of the basics and by all means don't play the keyboard. Let the sequencer do the playing and bring a sax or trumpet player that can really play and demonstrate the benefits of practicing and learning to improvise with the background music that they can sequence themselves.

All, that's right I said all horn players primary want is to be able to improvise. Vocalist could care less about improvising.

That is where the value of an arranger or software comes in for a large market (potential customers for you Dan) of "want to be Improvisers." Be sure to leave a business card with your phone number. If you can't sell arrangers to such an audience as you will have, come out to Colorado I'll teach you to lay brick and sell you all of the equipment I'm trying to get rid of. Or maybe Fran can teach you to install windows and siding.

Maybe the music teachers are holding this technology back for fear of losing their jobs. The school computers have MSWorks and other software but doesn't seem to have sophisticated music software.

Any music teachers here? Am I wrong again? Please let me know. I'm trying to tone down and keep an open mind.

I'm not doing very well, am I? I'm gonna start sending my post to Terry for editing. He seems to be more tactful in his post. I'm not gonna let Dave edit my post, I don't want to get thrown off of the forum.

[This message has been edited by brickboo (edited 01-18-2004).]

[This message has been edited by brickboo (edited 01-18-2004).]

I stand corrected , THEIR ...not There ...... ........!

Some good points Boo. I don't think music teachers are holding info back on purpose. I think they don't have a clue as to what an arranger is or does. It would be unthinkable for most of them to think "chords" instead of reading notes.
Boo, all the arrangers I've had in the past few years have been able to record the intros, ending , fill-ins, etc., in real time in the sequencers. The only ones I know of that have a dedicated chord loop recorder are Korg and Roland, but the "easy record" feature on Yamaha does the same thing.
DonM

I use the sequencer to make and edit midifiles.
I think it is a great feature to be able to create music from the arranger styles. Saves a tremendous time compared to building them from scratch. I would never buy an arranger that didn't have a sequencer.

------------------
Roy-Andrè

I think an internal sequencer is so important on an arranger. Especially since it is the only keyboard I have. It gives me the versatility of being able to have a full song or midi file ready to play with whether on a gig or for practice. I think an internal sequencer is also so important for composition. I like the all in one capability.

If I had a standalone synth workstation and was looking for an arranger then I would not require an internal sequencer on that arranger. Especially if the internal sequencer would increase the price.

Who knows, as people increasingly use computer software sequencers, they may be no need for a sequencer on an arranger. Maybe this would be good so that keyboard manufactures can concentrate on improving on the arranger functions and sounds. And hopefully the prices of some of these “high end” arrangers would be less.

I own Cubase SX and Nuendo2 and of course, I have the sk880 which prides itself with the best internal sequencer in the market (well, not the best, for Genesys has beaten it) and I use both the internal and external existensively. In fact, I almost use all features, and if they added more features, I will use the added features.

I think a nice feature will be if they can have a digital out on the keyboard so one can transfer 8 tracks of 24bit/44.1khz at the same time to the computer.

I use a computer sequencer. But notice that the new PSR1500 and PSR3000 have built-in Ethernet... that wasn't something that consumers were demanding - it's a way for Yamaha to make even more direct delivery of content to the keyboard. This'll probably end up being like the Apple music download thing: 99 cents a midi file or something like that. So we're not going to need a sequencer as much in the future except for original composition. Also, with color displays, Ethernet and everything else the newer PSR's are closer to actually being computers than ever before. So the Opn Labs (N)eko PC-based instrument concept never was that far off... we're probably getting there anyway.

Don,

You are absolutely correct. That's what I get for referring to people with less than perfect vision as "old fogies".

Poetic justice, I guess.

To address the topic of the post - I never use the sequencer during performances. Sometimes I will download a song to hear what it sounds like during practice. However, I have now found a better way: I purchased MidiNotator, which will now automatically open any MIDI file I double-click. This way, if I need to I should be able to print the melody track and keep it for future reference.

I would venture to guess that most people who play MIDI files on the job are already using the computer for this task. I suppose it is nice to be able to record a song you are playing, but IMHO, editing capabilities in the keyboard sequencer are not mandatory at all.

Regards,
Alex

I have the 9kpro, and if the sequencer was better/easier, I would use it. was sorta forced to go the software-seq route for original composition. I'm still looking for the right keyboard, but w/ Yamaha not doing the 76-key tyros pro, I'm pretty sure it won't be an arranger. the fantom sequencer is pretty straightforward, I hear....

it's a shame, b/c I'm sure lots of people would flock to an arranger w/ a well-equipped intuitive sequencer...

I have hardly ever used the sequencers on any of machines (XP50, iX300, PSR2000). I did experiment with the XP50 a little; it had a great loop sequence. But for the most part, anything I want to sequence I record and edit through Cakewalk or PowerTracks.

Don,

Their is a difference with a sequence that is made in the i30 in the "Backing Sequence Mode" (BSQ) all of the functions work like fill-in fade etc while playing the sequence for performance. I thought other arrangers didn't have this capability with sequenced tunes?

I can also while sequencing while using the arranger function while in BSQ mode just re-record one bar where there is a mistake. I don't have to start at the beginning. I can also copy a bar or the whole chorus and paste it at the end of the first chorus etc.

I thought someone said that they had to start over from the begining to correct a mistake and that they couldn't record just one chorus and then copy and paste it to make a 2 or more chorus tune. They acted like if they want 4 choruses they would have to record the all 4 choruses.

Maybe I read all of those old post wrong.
sorry about that.

Hi Dan: I use and find the onboard sequencer on the Yamaha Tyos (and formerly on the PSr2000) convenient when I want to record an auto accompaiment/keyboard performance from begining to end, in one take, I rarely (if ever) use the keyboard's on board sequencer for post editing, other than editing an isolated note. I also rarely ever attempt to quantize the live performed parts because this seems to always result in removing the spontaneous magic of the original kebyoard performance. One nice advantage of the Yamaha sequencer's onboard sequencer is that it also saves the auto accomp chords with the song, so the chords can be displayed & send to the harmonizer on playback as well, convenient if you want to record (or re-record) your vocal track (with harmonies) later. - Scott

Ok...nice feedback .

Not many are making sequences from scratch on their internal sequencers is what I'm getting .
Traditionally a midi sequence would have to be copied into the sequencer of your particular keyboard for the end user to edit the song . You would make the adjustments , save the new settings (sounds , transposition , effects etc..)and save to disk .

Agree ?

Would you say that it is easy to edit sequences on your keyboard ?

How many use the keyboard to change the sounds from a sequence ?

How many use a computer sequence program ?

I'll check back in the morning.

Good Night . Dan

Dan,

The overwhelming majority of my sequences are from scratch and are done in the keyboard. The best way is to start with the sequencer of the keyboard but the finalization of editing can be done on the computer.

If somebody wanted to edit an already-made sequence, I think they would go directly to the computer. But I do not do that because I write my own arrangements and sometimes, I even compose my own melodies.

For me, a sequencer is a tool and there is a place for both software and hardware tools. Dropping or limiting the sequencer of the keyboard can be, in my humble opinion, a big mistake an arranger keyboard can do.

I have a dream, that the people here in this forum will be able to create their own styles from scratch. That these styles will be of the highest quality and that they can do this with ease, confidence and enjoyment. Only then, we will see creativity increase and the prices of arranger keyboards decrease.

I concur with SK880's thoughts.

Though I don't create my midi sequences totally from scratch, (I record mine on the onboard sequencer, utilizing the styles in the kb) I rarely (if ever) utilize or perform along to commercially produced midi sequences, because even the best ones always end up sounding too canned (and predictable) for my tastes. The MAIN attraction for me to arranger keyboards is its ability 'to follow' your playing moods and spontaneous chord changes (and chord substutions) as well as taking an extra chorus, modulating to another key if the mood strikes, etc. The ability to do these things on the performance fly makes all the difference between a predictable (boring?) performance and one filled with energy & spontaneity resulting in a more satisfying & memorable performance for both you and the audience, keeping them coming back for more. Though I realize some of you rely heavily on performing with midi sequences (and that's ok I suppose), I urge everyone to learn to perform as much as possible in arranger keyboard mode, or at least create your own custom arranger kb sequences to play along with. I 'don't want' my songs to sound exactly like the record (karaoke ) , and my audiences don't either. Sorry if I sound preachy here, but this issue sits close to my heart. - Scott

Well- I never used the sequencer in my years of owning the KN series, but I reaally relied heavily on the composer function (which I sorely miss).

With my triton studio- i have no choice but to use the internal sequencer.

but I've never used any outside sequencer since the MC500 era (my goodness- that was like some 20 years ago??)

I've got two Ensoniq keyboards (ESQ1, SD1). One of the reasons I bought the ESQ1 rather than (say) a Yam DX7 was the inbuilt sequencer. I got the SD1 because it had a more flexible sequencer and critically a floppy disc (yes I know I could have maybe got an SQ80 but this didnt move the sound capabilities onwards and I like to upgrade for more than one good reason at a time!).

On both of these keyboards I became very adept at using the on-board sequencers.

However when I lurched into Midi Files things changed wholesale. I got a PSR630 because a Hotel my duo (KEYS/DRUMS) play's at were badly short of a midweek "SINGALONG" solo act so I gave it a go and discovered that you really need some help with the backing. I got the 630 because it used XG (and I had an MU80 so I knew about XG) and played back Midi Files from a PC floppy. At this point it was clear that I would use a PC to edit and create midi files because the editability of the sequencer on the PSR630 was abysmal even compared to the ESQ1.

So I 've been a Cakewalk/Sonar person ever since.

The PRS2k sequencer is still woeful in comparison to the PC or the Ensoniq, but I can use it to do remix / revoices so that can help.

So - I use the sequencer on the 2k only to replay midifiles. I only edit using it if a really have to, and then only to do very basic things.

I use the sequencer on my pa80 because I find it is easier to create a midi sequence with the internal sequencer.
Then I use the computer sequencer (cubase) to edit the midi sequence. This is generaly to edit extra notes, to modify the bass line, to quantize well. These operations seem more easy in the computer because of the large screen view and the mouse.
Then, my midi file goes on the pa80 where I edit the final mix, the effects, the balance...

I have to say I have a little problem when creating midi sequence on the pa80.
When I load this sequence inside cubase I can see somme parasitic notes (most often on the accompagnement tracks) that I have to erase manualy.
I don't know why.

Is there somebody else who has the same problem?

Yes, I use it. Not much but when ever I feel like I need to do something more complex than just play.

For me an arranger goes hand in hand with an on board sequencer. The quick record way of using styles with fill and intros to record a song, as a midi file to me is a very easy way to get a full song recorded.

95% of the times I use the sequencer to create songs from scratch. Sometimes I would create a user style with just the drum tracts, record that in to the sequencer then add the other parts. The time I use commercial midi files is when I want to learn a new song.

I would use a computer software when I want to record vocals. I would transfer my sequence on the keyboard by an audio connection and synch the keyboard to the computer sequencer. So I would have both vocals and separate music tracts on one program.

DanO,
One of the main reasons I buy a keyboard is for the sequencer. Even though I don't really care for the direct disk recording on my 550 (which is quite limited), I still find myself using it often.... Everytime I sit down to play my keyboard I always use the sequencer. The only thing I really don't use on my arranger is the style recorder. I just can't get into the drum sounds on my PSR. They seem so bland and dated. All my drum tracks are recorded using a drum machine midi synced to my keyboard. Using the drum machine is so much quicker and utilizes pattern chaining (which I think is a must when recording drum tracks).... Every now and then I like to use my 550's sequencer to edit midi files.

Squeak

[This message has been edited by squeak_D (edited 01-19-2004).]

With my G1000 ,I use the onboard sequencer all the time. I find it better and faster than the PC, although many of my edits after sequencing are system exclusive to the G, but that is no problem...the G being my go to keyboard anyway...On my PSR2100, the sequencer....forget about it...When I use a PC sequencer, I prefer PG Music's Powertracks over Cakewalk Sonar..since I use it for basic edits...

I only use my Roland VA5's internal sequencer.....its quiet amazing..

used to long ago, not anymore