I agree with Scott's sentiment.

IMO, the recent trend will intensify over the next few years. I see nothing changing the current landscape whereas technology enables many under-talented users to appear impressively skilled.

My belief, is that those players who DO have actual skill and technique will outshine the others in some very limited environments. The two groups will seem as one to the masses.

I must recognise the natural change in popular music that we've seen in the last 20 years. Punk & New wave was the popular style back then...its life cycle took it into the late 80's early 90's when more earthy sounding bands like REM, Nirvana, etc. then took center stage. Could we suggest that there is a higher degree of musicianship to be found in REM than Flock of Seagulls? I'd like to think that at least, given my appreciation for REM.

The only thing constant in music is change. Gershwin was too modern for many, as was Elvis, Jerry Lee Lewis, the Beatles, the Who, Elvis Costello, Prince, REM, Nirvana, the Goo-Goo Dolls, etc...

As arranger players, we have the unique opportunity/challenge to be able to interpret a variety of music for OUR audiences. We play a different role than the "big names" do in music. I honestly think that a trained, skilled, creative arranger user will be able to play well above a level of a untrained user who has plenty of money to toss around.

...and if we don't...then shame on us "trained" performers. Perhaps the accessability of this technology may serve to keep the rest of us honest. Add songs to our play list that don't necessarily fit in easily-but rather, with our skills and an openess for new interpretations and creativity, we can add our own mark on unexpected songs.

Bill in Dayton