When most people talk about sounding like a band, it is generally accepted that you would hear a drum, a bass, some type of a chord or comping instrument and different solo instruments.

You see the issue is that the technology is at a crossroad where needs, functions and markets are changing. It seems like we want to define an instrument by the specific features it has and not by its general operations and functions.

Yamaha does not call the Motif xs an arranger. But in fact, we really don’t know what it is. To me, it seems as if Yamaha is hiding the arranger capability probably because of the stigma of arranger to synth players. However, I am sure a skill Yamaha rep who knows about arrangers could operate the xs as an arranger. I am sure as time goes on and as people play with the xs they will find a way to where it can do fills intros and variation. Now it may not be the same as how we are accustom to have been using arrangers for the past 14 years, but the end is the same.

I don’t think because a keyboard does not have a subset of a feature we should say that it is not one or the other.

A keyboard with out the ability to generate a backing track by chord recognition I would agree is not an arranger. However, if it has that feature but it doesn’t have endings or intros (in the most direct way of pushing a button), I don’t think it should not be called an arranger.

Likewise, if a keyboard does not have a sequencer and sound editing it is probably not a workstation. However, if it has those features but does not have at least 16 tracks on the sequencer and only gives the user the choice to override and existing sound with a user sound, I don’t think it should not be called a workstation.

Those keyboards should still have their labels, it just that the features and price would be different from a full featured arranger or workstation (a Korg tr is still a workstation so is the Korg Triton extreme).
BTW, the Genesys is truly a workstation and arranger as it has styles, a sequencer and sound editing and storage. It may not be the best arranger or workstation but it is both.

If a manufacturer labels a keyboard a workstation or arranger, it is for the consumer to find out whether or not the features on that particular board meets his or her needs.

Regarding the Prince, The Prince ar would cost more than the other three because that would be the only one that would enable you to play styles. Those who want an arranger would by the Prince ar even if it cost more money. People pay more for a G70 than a Fantom x7.

Of course Roland would make the G70 styles playable and sound good on the Prince ar (hay they are going to be charging you all for them so they better). Other third party styles and converted styles that may be free, Roland would provide make up tools on the Prince ar for the user to make the style sound good. Now I know arranger players would be able to do at least that.

This way, you only get the styles you want. You don’t have to worry whether you play hip-hop, jazz or slow ballads. After all, you really only need 15-25 styles for a gig.

The only thing I would say about the mediastation is that instead of upgrading two hardwares (a workstation and arranger) you would only have to upgrade the software. And if you do have to upgrade the hardware it is one not two. Not to mention you can integrate the workstation and arranger in one board rather than having to jump from one to the other.

-------
MUSIC IS ONLY AS GOOD AS YOU MAKE IT