Rikki we used at least two keyboards, sometimes three..and a drum machine.

It was common for us to use an electric piano[rhodes], and have a synth for left hand bass[Roland SH101], and another synth for added color sounds like strings and organ[Roland Juno]..
This working together with a programmable drum machine[Roland TR 707]..

Actually it was an enjoyable time performing in the "Good Old Days"..

Here Here! Let's listen to the Lady!


ROFL .... I think they were called minstrels and wandered from village to village playing flutes and harps and things Then one day a rather enterprising minstrel taught his monkey to play the flute leaving himself free to play his harp and sing.

This caused much contoversy in the minstrel world. All the other minstrels were livid and said he was cheating by using his mini (or midi) monkey. (Hence the term ...'A trained monkey could do that' )

Still he made lot's of money and eneded up marrying the Kings daughter (after slaying loads of dragons and stuff) so he did not really care. The argument has raged ever since!

....... At least I think thats how it all happened!

Best wishes
Tony

PS... Disclaimer (sad but seemingly necessary). This post was ME having a titter and nothing more. No hidden messages or agenda. After all it is better to smile than to frown!! I love you all....even those who don't want me to so there!

Hey guys,

If you get a chance and you feel like talking about it, I'd like to hear more on why you say this. And don't be afraid to get technical, I love technical details. What is it that's so bad or wrong? If it's just the sounds, well, that's subjective and you're entitled to your opinions. But if Yamaha is doing something wrong like maybe not adhering to the General Midi standards or something, I'd like to hear about it. It would be great if you had proof. I'd like to see if there's a fix.

You see, I'm thinkin' hard and heavy about getting a T2 and I'm proud to say that I'll use it 50% of the time for midi playback (home use). And I'll take it one step further, I plan on studying the way Yamaha implements Megavoices and I'll duplicate that on my existing collection, one song at a time (if that's even possible).

-mike

Mike the Yamaha's I have owned and heard have a problem reading the correct drums in SMF's.

It is definitely a Yamaha error[not conforming to the GM standard or GM2 standard in this area..

The other problem I noticed is in consistent volume levels of the GM sounds used for SMF playback..

As for sounds , you are right, it is a matter of taste..

All of the other manufacturers do not share the same problems associated with the Yamaha playback tables..

You asked for my opinion...Here's hoping no one blames me for bashing Yamaha..

As in all things..if it works for you, what do you care what others think.

Rikki, I first used an organ. They started putting primitive drum machines on them back in the 70's. They kept getting a little better, adding auto bass and chords, but the main drawback was the heavy weight. When Yamaha brought out some of the first arrangers (I think Casios were first, but they were terrible), I started using them, but had to have an external drum machine, DX7 for leads, a piano module, and an external processor for early vocal harmony. In other words the arranger mostly controller bass and tempo. This was in the mid to late 80s.
The first arranger I used without any extras was Technics KN2000, which was way ahead of its time.
DonM

If I may, I'm a rookie to this forum. I've been playing out since the 1950's. I do this for a living. Like most of you, I started out acoustic. About 7 years ago, I discovered midi. I now get more work, I can work as a single and because of the sound quality, I can compete with DJ's. I use SMF's about 40%+ of the time on a gig. The patrons of the venues I play want to be entertained. Most could care less about the level of my musicianship. If I were to pursue a concert career where musical ability is showcased, I would probably take a different approach. At this point, I do whatever fills the tip jar and keeps the venue owner having me back. It’s not that I am not concerned about my ability, I am still studying music. For me, practically speaking, SMF’s are tools that I keep in my toolbox and use to make the job more effortless and fun, just like a carpenter may use a fancy power saw rather than a hand saw at times. Sometimes musicians get hung up trying to impress each other. We must take our beautiful music to the masses, make them happy and make our mortgage payments.
Ciao,
Jerry

Hi,
I haven't read such opinions you talk about in this thread so far. Why do you say this?
People have the right to have and express opinions especially in situations that offer many possible responses.
As a listener I can judge the result one achieve using either metod. Voncken's interpretation of baroque music may appeal to the home users who can't play well but you might agree that it sounds very primitive when such music is played like this.
In other cases doing a sequence makes is useless because a style perfectly fits the music.
And nowadays there are arrangers with recording capabilities, so one can combine the both methods.
Best regards,
George V

I have NOTHING against using midi sequences (commercial or otherwise), and as I've already acknowledged many times, I will utilize them myself, if the situation bears: solo singing, or specific audience requested tunes which demand it. My only beef is when guys (and/or gals) use them and then pretend to be playing on the keyboard, the parts played back.

I also acknowledge that Yamaha isn't the best sounding in the GM/GS sound dept, and that Ketron and/or Roland is perhaps the better choice if SMF playback is your highest priority in an arranger kb. On the other hand, Yamaha's claim to fame is XG format midi files, and of which supports a larger (and perhaps even more impressive sounding) sound set. When it comes to midi files, I prefer XG to GM, but since I don't use midi backing tracks very often anyway, what Yamaha delivers in this dept, is more than suitable for me, especially considering that (imho), Yamaha excels in arranger specific sounds, styles, and user friendly navigation.

That said, my number one preference when performing is 'auto -accomp' mode because it provides the most live performance flexibility, including the ability to utilize various different chord substitions (on the fly) to invigorate the song with my own unique creative twists (on the fly), ability to trigger spontaneous fills (= LIVE), modulating the key of the tune at will, or conveninetly repeating a section(s) of a song, all on the fly, to respond to the mood of the audience as needed. SMF's not only lock me into what is played on the MIDI sequence, but, except for those few songs that include hook lines which can't be easily duplicated in live playing, I have no interest in imitating the COVER version when I perform, but opt to use (often very differnt) styles than expected. I suppose it has a lot to do with the venue and specific audience you play for which determines what's expected and what's acceptable. - Scott

Well I don't think anyone on this thread has advocated that. Fran is using SMFs as a backing to play his parts over the top.

Arranger keyboard players are not different other than they need to keep one hand busy triggering MIDI loops while the other hand plays over the top. Gee it is hard to really see much difference between the 2 approaches. Sure arrangers are more flexible but then using SMF allows both hand free to perform with. It's simply a matter of choice. Nothing to argue about here. I think both approaches are valid and if I was playing a OMB gig like Scott says I'd use both where they are appropriate.

Hmmm call me arrogant if you want but I think we are all done here .... That's All Folks


[This message has been edited by Nigel (edited 11-19-2005).]