So, after a year, I could do a 300 song repertoire... whoop te do!

Trouble is, I got a 300 song repertoire I need to do on the day I buy the bloody thing, not a year down the pike. And, for Pete's sake! Of COURSE I don't want styles that are identical to the ROM styles. I already GOT an arranger with those. If I bought an MS, I would want styles of the same QUALITY as the ROM ones I already have. Which, so far, I have heard very few that match them.

Look, I've been saying for a while now that yes, there ARE a few players that design all their own styles, don't expect much in the way of quality style backing, and have a strong desire to be creative and original. If you are one of that 2%, more strength to you. Of course, curiously, that 2% are the ones who virtually NEVER demonstrate these capabilities, but hey! Who am I to doubt it?

But for the other 98% of arranger users, don't you think including a batch of 'closed' arranger beating styles would go a long way to bolster the MS claim of actually BEING better than a 'closed' arranger? You know, as an arranger, and all that...

Sadly, I think it is YOU, not me that is in the minority when it comes to how they use an arranger. Sales definitely bear me out, user posted music definitely bears me out (when am I ever going to hear this stripped down, original music?), plain day to day common experience bears me out.

Look, there's a LOT about your post I actually agree with. I don't tend to use full styles myself. In fact, probably 25% of what I do is drums only. Yes, I work primarily with at LEAST one other player, sometimes up to four or five. The reason I use a Roland is because I have no great need for killer guitar parts in the styles, always picking a guitarist first! And no, I don't want to sound just like the record (and couldn't with my voice!).

But when I DO want quality backing, be it guitar picking and strumming, drums and percussion, synth lines, great bass lines, whatever I don't have enough hands for (which, when you are stuck HAVING to input chords because your stupid arranger has dropped the feature that allowed you to play with BOTH hands is most of the time ) I want them to be as good as they can be. No, I don't want the record line, but I want something AS GOOD as the record line. In the 'style' that I chose to perform the song in.

I also have a big problem with song specific styles. I NEVER use them. If I want to sound like the record (rare) I will use an SMF and Markers. We have a lot more in common than you think, genesys. I also work on a lot of original stuff for others. But there, most of the time, I use the arranger only for sounds, and use my K2500, Triton, or a slew of VSTi's, along with whoever is booked for the session as live players.

Part of the 'original music' thing is that you DON'T use styles for that much (except maybe to make the demo) because you want each piece to be unique, original, etc.. Why bother making a style to do that, when sequencing and WS workflow does the job better, and doesn't need a whole bunch of compromise (don't get me started about basslines!)..?

A 'style' kind of implies you are going to do multiple songs with it. That's not what studio work and songwriting (except the demo, maybe - lots of Nashville writers got an arranger to bang out a quick demo) is about. Everything is supposed to be different ESPECIALLY the bass and drums!

Anyway, let's agree to disagree without the usual 'you don't get it' bull. I happen to think that, at what the MS DOES do well, it is an exceptional piece of gear. I simply wish that, in addition to what it already does well, having a boatload of styles at LEAST as good as a T3 or PA2 would help it dominate the market, and be all things to everyone, rather than the small minority it now appeals to.

If it simply a matter of having a library of style made for it that sound better than a T3, it seems such a small thing to do to turn the product from a niche market into what Dom has said it is since he first made it...

The best arranger in the world...